Skip to main content

Oh wait, they DO.  In a poll run by Frank Luntz, himself an NRA supporter, at the behest of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  As E. J. Dionne writes in Beyond the NRA's absolutism in today's, Washington Post:  

In his survey of 832 gun owners, including 401 NRA members, Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Sixty-nine percent favored "requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns," and 78 percent backed "requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen." Among gun owners who did not belong to the NRA, the numbers were even higher.

They may oppose a national gun registry (59%), and think Obama

"will attempt to ban the sales of guns in the United States at some point while he is president." Asked about this, 44 percent of NRA members said Obama "definitely" would and 35 percent said he "probably" would.

.  Yet when offer this statement, "We can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them" 86% agreed with it.

Even the "amendments" passed by Congress at the behest of Rep. Todd Tiahrt of KS, rules that

rules prevent law enforcement officials from having full access to gun trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and require the FBI to destroy certain background-check records after just 24 hours

are not necessary to assuage the concerns of gun owners:  

The mayors' poll offered respondents this statement, antithetical to the Tiahrt rules: "The federal government should not restrict the police's ability to access, use, and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws." Among NRA members, 69 percent agreed.

I know in posting this I will be flamed and attacked by some here.  It happens any time anyone raises the issue of gun control and gun violence.  

Yet there are some issues that we need to be able to discuss.  One can make the argument on the basis of the number of American deaths due to guns each hear, a number that still dwarfs our deaths in our two ongoing wars.  

Some will offer slippery slope arguments, that we cannot take the first such step.  Others will argue for an absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, despite the fact that until the Heller case the Supreme Court had never recognized an individual right to own firearms in the 2nd Amendment.  

Before people explode, let me note this:  I have never found such an individual right in the 2nd Amendment, but have always believed one could derive it in the 9th Amendment, but more conservative gun advocates tend to reject the 9th Amendment because of its use to justify Roe v Wade.  

The poll was done by Frank Luntz.  Thus it is worth noting the following from the Dionne piece:  

"I support the NRA," Luntz insists. What he doesn't go for is the "slippery slope argument" that casts any new gun law as the first step toward confiscation. "When the choice is between national security and terrorism versus no limits on owning guns," Luntz says, "I'm on the side of national security and fighting terrorism."

Most NRA members seem to agree.

I have never argued that Congress should legislate solely on the basis of public opinion polls, which can be volatile.  Still, Congress is supposed to be representative of the American people.  It might be worthwhile to remember that the next time we debate issues of gun control and gun safety.

There are clear lines which gun owners, including NRA members, are not willing to approach.   This poll makes it obvious that both groups are willing to see significantly more control than currently exists.  

Perhaps Congress should consider all dimensions of the safety of the American people and take the information of this poll as indicative that there is further action that can - and should - be taken.

Peace.

Originally posted to teacherken on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:19 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  in transit to school (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      will catch up with any additional comments upon arrival.

      peace

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:11:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  In regards to your question, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      my answer would be "I would down at Clark & Addison Streets, getting to the front of the line for Cubs world Series tickets!

    •  Intriguing.... (0+ / 0-)

      Gosh, maybe even the NRA has discovered political correctness.  After reading your piece, I felt the Earth move.

      As you know, I live in Texas.  Try passing this around down here and you'll get shouted down tut suite.  

      Read my two diaries about guns and guns on campus.  It's too bad all the comments are now gone, but I received the most action from any diary I wrote on this blog.  Most of it was about gun owner rights and defense against the bad guys, etc.  Most of it was strongly negative toward the kinds of controls you included in this diary.  

      There are still way too many people who want to go everywhere packing heat.  What a country.  Remember those old wild west movies we watched as kids?  Nothing has changed except the calibers are bigger and the powder is more explosive.

      "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

      by dolfin66 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:10:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And you know, gun laws have become MORE (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dolfin66, theatre goon

        permissive in some areas. The Wild West comparison is a fallacy.

        We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:56:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The hell it is. (0+ / 0-)

          Tell that to the goobers who want college kids packing heat in class "just in case."  Oh.  And those kids get to take their guns back to the dorms...unloaded of course.  Right.

          "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

          by dolfin66 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 02:22:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The hell it isn't. (0+ / 0-)

            Those Wild West Sheriffs and Deputies who would confiscate ANY weapon upon your arrival in town = more restrictive gun control than there is today.

            Second of all: college kids? I don't think so. Let me use Michigan as an example. Let's say they pass a law allowing concealed carry on campus. You still need to get a concealed carry permit.

            Which you can't get until you're 21.

            We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:17:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  NRA has changed (12+ / 0-)

    From an organization of conservative hunters to a wholely owned subsidiary of the gun industry. Virtually anything that doesn't sell more guns isn't in their program. The very idea that Ashcroft would not allow the lists of known terrorists and illegal immigrants to be cross-referenced to those who want gun permits says it all.

    There's also the issue of selling names. Join the NRA, and you begin to get mail from lots and lots of fringe right wing groups. A few years ago I tried to research how much they made from selling their lists. It was a dead end, but the significant six figure salary they offered to a potential new hire to coordinate the selling of those lists told me that it was pretty important to them.

    I've had the misfortune of having to sit through two full days of NRA "gun safety" courses. We were subjected to right wing political propeganda all day, and the manual they hand out is blatently racist and paranoid (nice white folks being attacked in their homes by people with darker skins.)

    So it's impossible to survey people who think they are average members without taking into account the puppet-masters.

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    by MrMichaelMT on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:27:45 AM PST

    •  Gosh! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      Are you suggesting that the NRA and their right-wing sponsors are hypocrites?  OMG.  How dare you.  Next thing you know, the black helicopters will be landing in your yard and shooting your dog.  

      "Have a beginner's mind at all times, for a beginner knows nothing and learns all while a sophisticate knows all and learns nothing." - Suzuki

      by dolfin66 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 08:11:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      by Richard Feldman, great read- his main thesis is the NRA would rather fight than win...

      even the Devil slaves for the fortunate

      by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:03:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gun control will happen (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radarlady, NCrissieB, FrankKnarf

    when pigs grow a spine and fly.  Great points, but this is change, so it aint happening. Thanks
    tk.

  •  What I don't understand about 2nd amendment, (7+ / 0-)

    Would a Bill Gates be able to buy a nuclear submarine? Or a M1-Abrams Tank?

    How is "arms" defined in this age?

    •  There have been many arguments put forth as to (7+ / 0-)

      what arms refers to. Some refer to the term arms as "small arms" which would include things like rifles, shotguns, pistols, and even automatic weapons but would not include artillery, tanks, nukes, grenades, and other explosive devices.

      Then there are those that say arms is all inclusive when it comes to weapons of any sort.

      We had a diary discussing that here.

      We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

      by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:34:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Arms" are defined (5+ / 0-)

      as whatever makes otherwise unhappy, insecure men feel like they have their families cowering in a corner every time they breathe.

      Sorry, a bit of my childhood just slipped out.

      Honestly, I don't have a problem with people who hunt -- legally, that is -- but, who needs an AK-47 to take out a deer? If one's aim is so poor, perhaps that individual really needs the NRA's gun classes.

      Radarlady

      •  Since AK47s have been highly regulated (15+ / 0-)

        since before they were even manufacturer for the first time, that straw man gets kinda old.

        There are more reasons to own a firearm than hunting. I own quite a few and don't hunt at all.

        I'd like to think that I'm happy with my overday life and my family doesn't cower from me ever.

        We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:40:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please see my comment just below yours (6+ / 0-)

          responding to the same thing.

          Perhaps it was foolish, but I did hope we might be able to focus on the issues raised by the results of the poll, and not to engage in ad hominems or rehash old grievances.

          Also note -  in saying what I just did I am not criticizing your comment, which given the possible provocation was a quite tempered and reasonable response.

          Peace.

          do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

          by teacherken on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:48:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've given forth my ideas on gun control (7+ / 0-)

            and I've put forth a problem with the terrorist list being used to deny arms to people.

            I have a few questions for ya.

            Do you think that poll is a fair sampling of NRA members and gun owners?

            Do you think the questions were worded fairly? For example:

            Sixty-nine percent favored "requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns,"

            Which doesn't take into account gun sales that take place elsewhere that are private transfers.

            We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:52:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  this has always been a criticism (4+ / 0-)

              of the gun show issue, that someone could simply step outside the venue.  

              Realistically there is no way to control the private transfer absent a national registry.  The argument for it would be having an ability to trace.  The argument against is the fear of many that it would be used to confiscate.

              There are possible alternatives.  One would be to have a ballistics registry of all firearms, including serial numbers.  It is already, I believe, illegal to destroy or deface the serial number, so someone caught with such a weapon is already in violation of the law.

              There could also be a requirement that private transfers require the seller to obtain and maintain name and address of person to whom the weapon was transferred for some period - say 1-3 years - but that information would only be accessible to law enforcement on the basis of a ballistics match used to obtain a warrant for that information.

              I am aware that one can get around such ballistics information by replacing the barrel and maintaining the rest of the weapon.  I am not a gun expert, merely floating some ideas of how we can balance individual rights and concerns against communal concerns of safety and legitimate needs of law enforcement.

              I am not in this diary attempting to pound those who disagree with me, but like my diary on draft and national service, start a discussion.

              Peace.

              do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

              by teacherken on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:58:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There are technical issues with the ballistic (6+ / 0-)

                registry. It would take me about 3 seconds to change mine on my handgun. Serial numbers work, but it's only the receiver of the firearm that has a serial number and is registered with the manufacturer (or government, depending on the weapon.) This would require some serious reworking of new firearms and would be pretty much impossible on anything manufactured previously.

                There could also be a requirement that private transfers require the seller to obtain and maintain name and address of person to whom the weapon was transferred for some period - say 1-3 years - but that information would only be accessible to law enforcement on the basis of a ballistics match used to obtain a warrant for that information.

                I can see some potential for abuse here unless there was also a law stating that the information must be kept confidential to EVERYONE (excluding the parties involved) unless there is a warrant. Other than that, I don't see an issue with this. This is what I currently do for any of my pistols.

                We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

                by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:03:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  good for you - (5+ / 0-)

                  and I think any exploration of new aspects of gun control should involve the active participation of gun owners, just as I think explorations of educational policy should include active participation of teachers.

                  do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

                  by teacherken on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:10:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Ammo identification, period. It is entirely (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  radarlady

                  feasible- think about it, they can and do imprint diamonds for later identification, a lead or copper bullet is a hell of a lot easier to imprint ID upon. But oh yes, the NRA opposes this also, can't upset possible campaign contributors.
                    So why should any info be kept confidential regarding guns period? In every gun thread you'll see gun owners squawking about their guns openly to strangers, myself included- but then comes that "I don't want people knowing I own guns" bullshit. Well if you want that info and all other info about your gun ownership kept confidential I would suggest staying out of public forums discussing your personal possession of guns.
                     About 8 years ago a person I know of had a gun stolen from him. It can happen to anyone, it can happen to me. 3 days later that gun was used in a capital murder/ robbery case. This year he appears to have had yet another gun stolen that was used in a home invasion/ double homicide.
                     Question for all of you 2nd Ammedment and NRA supporters- being that this person did not take seriously the first theft enough to secure his weapons against future theft, and that a second theft did indeed occur due directly to his negligence that led to the death of two more people-what should be his punishment, what would be the appropriate sentence or fine for any dumbass gun owner whose guns "disappear" and are later used ti kill? Or should we keep using the lame ass meme that "guns don't kill, people kill" that the NRA appologists spew in every 2nd ammandment discussion? No liabilty, no penalty, no appology, nothing- that may suit the NRA fucks just fine but hey, it wasn't their kid who was killed, so why does it matter, right?
                     Well, some assholes gun was taken that was used in a robbery of a bookstore of $20, the owner of said store was gunned down  for $20. The owner of said gun? No repercussion whatsoever. Same owner, another of his guns "disappears", it was used to murder my daughter and her friend who tried to protect her. So this particular gun owner should get a free pass, right? After all, he didn't kill anyone, right?
                     As for the "protection" guns offer? Go all super hero, say this would never happen to you because you are smarter, faster, more well trained with guns, God himself, I really don't care- regardless of whatever your claim may be as to why this would never happen to you, it did happen-  the man who was killed with my daughter was armed, the gun in arms reach- some good it did. He is dead.
                     Oddly enough, I am not against guns. Although I legally cannot own them, just like any other convicted felon I have a wife who can buy as many as I want and that, my friend, makes it all legal. Don't like it you say? That I am admitting to having some serious firepower as a convicted felon? How nice. Tough shit. The NRA loves it and will defend my right to own cannons if I so desire, God bless' em...  But hey, keep up your support and keep on preaching that good old 2nd ammendment bullshit and remember that as you do so you are helping the NRA defend convicted felons like myself who have guns through "straw purchases", ect. we all have the right to bear arms- hell, just ask them!

                  "It's a dog eat dog world out there, and I am wearing Milkbone underwear." Norm Peterson

                  by playtonjr on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:21:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Responses (7+ / 0-)

                    Ammo identification, period. It is entirely (0+ / 0-)
                    feasible- think about it, they can and do imprint diamonds for later identification, a lead or copper bullet is a hell of a lot easier to imprint ID upon

                    I can cast my own bullets. How does this prevent me from shooting anyone with one and preventing identification through that? It just makes it more expensive for the law abiding citizen. Also, identification of ammo doesn't work like diamonds. Diamonds don't deform like bullets do.

                    So why should any info be kept confidential regarding guns period? In every gun thread you'll see gun owners squawking about their guns openly to strangers, myself included- but then comes that "I don't want people knowing I own guns" bullshit. Well if you want that info and all other info about your gun ownership kept confidential I would suggest staying out of public forums discussing your personal possession of guns.

                    Do you know who I am? The internet is anonymous unless you pick otherwise.

                    Question for all of you 2nd Ammedment and NRA supporters- being that this person did not take seriously the first theft enough to secure his weapons against future theft, and that a second theft did indeed occur due directly to his negligence that led to the death of two more people-what should be his punishment, what would be the appropriate sentence or fine for any dumbass gun owner whose guns "disappear" and are later used ti kill? Or should we keep using the lame ass meme that "guns don't kill, people kill" that the NRA appologists spew in every 2nd ammandment discussion? No liabilty, no penalty, no appology, nothing- that may suit the NRA fucks just fine but hey, it wasn't their kid who was killed, so why does it matter, right?

                    There should be a punishment. Negligence should be a felony. Now, if the guns were stolen from a safe or from a locked gun room, that'd be different than if they were sitting on the guy's dresser.

                    As for the "protection" guns offer? Go all super hero, say this would never happen to you because you are smarter, faster, more well trained with guns, God himself, I really don't care- regardless of whatever your claim may be as to why this would never happen to you, it did happen-  the man who was killed with my daughter was armed, the gun in arms reach- some good it did. He is dead.

                    We know nothing of his competence. We know nothing of who he was. Also, I'd rather be armed and have a chance than be unarmed and not have any chance to respond. It didn't work for that guy this time. It has helped others in different situations.

                    Oddly enough, I am not against guns. Although I legally cannot own them, just like any other convicted felon I have a wife who can buy as many as I want and that, my friend, makes it all legal. Don't like it you say? That I am admitting to having some serious firepower as a convicted felon? How nice. Tough shit. The NRA loves it and will defend my right to own cannons if I so desire, God bless' em...  But hey, keep up your support and keep on preaching that good old 2nd ammendment bullshit and remember that as you do so you are helping the NRA defend convicted felons like myself who have guns through "straw purchases", ect. we all have the right to bear arms- hell, just ask them!

                    And if you (and your wife) were caught doing this, I'm all for sending you both to jail barring reform of the felony statues. I think that if you're a felon, there should be some way to obtain your rights depending on what kinda crime you committed. Violent crime: those rights are gone forever.

                    Also, I'd like to point one thing out. The NRA, as much as I don't care for them, doesn't support the right of the criminals to have firearms or for people to make straw purchases.

                    We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

                    by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:39:45 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If I was a felon whose wife had a gun... (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      radarlady, Iranaqamuk, ER Doc, KVoimakas

                      I would DEFINITELY  not brag about it on the internet or anywhere else,I'd sure as hell keep quiet about it. You bet you can be identified from the internet, just ask all these child porn perverts they catch.

                      Happy just to be alive

                      by exlrrp on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:58:58 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  you entirely missed the point, I stated that fact (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        radarlady

                        to point out that there is a way around any law regarding gun ownership. We have guns in this household, yes, are any "owned" by me? Hell no, of course not. Will I pick one up? I don't care about that part of the law, no, I have a right to defend myself just as much as you do. If there "happens" to be one of the wifes guns handy to use to do so, great. According to the law I guess I'd have to go find and awaken the wife and let her handle someone the situation. Well, you be all the legal you want to be, as for me, well, I value my family and my life and I will break the law and bust a cap in a mofo if necessary- I'll take the legal ramifications for it. I won't take being killed because some lame ass law says I cannot defend myself due to a felony conviction.
                           Oh, I hate to tell you this but there's really no such thing as being anonymous on these here internets anymore. Besides, what have I done wrong to even worry about it? The law is the law, the law says the wife can have all the guns she desires, my legal situation has nothing to do with hers.

                        "It's a dog eat dog world out there, and I am wearing Milkbone underwear." Norm Peterson

                        by playtonjr on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:17:17 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  I am sure you are, that pot I bought off of a (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      radarlady

                      cop 20 odd years ago should've gotten me executed according to some folks, so?
                       Secondly, since when is it or should it ever be illegal for a spouse of a convicted felon to own guns? My wife is an ex cop, what, she less qualified than you for gun ownership? As I stated, she makes it legal foe any gun to be in this house, I pointed all of that and my felon status as an example of just how lame and ineffectual current gun laws are. Change them if you don't like it but don't blame me for them being what they are.
                        Secondly, I am no different from you, I would rather have one and never need it that wish I did when I needed one most. But according to what I am to do as a "law abiding" citizen, because of my conviction I should just lay the fuck down and be a victim, right? Remember, I have no rights according to the law.
                        Know what? Fuck that and fuck the law and fuck anyone who doesn't like my defending home or family, I really don't care what anyone thinks about it, including you. I understand you feel "some" felons should have their right to bear arms restored and that is appauded but I doubt that'll ever happen and regardless of whether or not it ever does- I have a right to defend myself, my family and my property and quite frankly I don't see where whether a person has a felony conviction nixes that right. Some things are as simple as self preservation, good luck regulating that.
                       

                      "It's a dog eat dog world out there, and I am wearing Milkbone underwear." Norm Peterson

                      by playtonjr on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:01:53 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Responses: (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        radarlady, ER Doc, theatre goon

                        Secondly, since when is it or should it ever be illegal for a spouse of a convicted felon to own guns? My wife is an ex cop, what, she less qualified than you for gun ownership? As I stated, she makes it legal foe any gun to be in this house, I pointed all of that and my felon status as an example of just how lame and ineffectual current gun laws are. Change them if you don't like it but don't blame me for them being what they are.

                        When it comes to state laws, that would be illegal in some states. Making a firearm available to a felon = felony itself.

                        Secondly, I am no different from you, I would rather have one and never need it that wish I did when I needed one most. But according to what I am to do as a "law abiding" citizen, because of my conviction I should just lay the fuck down and be a victim, right? Remember, I have no rights according to the law.

                        I think that law should be changed and non-violent felonies should be expunged (with full rights restored) after a certain time and review process.

                        Know what? Fuck that and fuck the law and fuck anyone who doesn't like my defending home or family, I really don't care what anyone thinks about it, including you. I understand you feel "some" felons should have their right to bear arms restored and that is appauded but I doubt that'll ever happen and regardless of whether or not it ever does- I have a right to defend myself, my family and my property and quite frankly I don't see where whether a person has a felony conviction nixes that right. Some things are as simple as self preservation, good luck regulating that.

                        I don't think you'll find me arguing this point. I clarified what I meant about 'some' earlier.

                        We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

                        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:19:16 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  You mistake my point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Purple Priestess, KVoimakas

          I did couch it in too personal (for me) a scenario, but, that was what it was.

          My use of an AK-47 was as an example, which you rightly point out is tightly regulated. So, if it's okay to regulate some guns, what is the proper line to be drawn? If even NRA members think some guns are off-limits, then perhaps we need to look at the hidden argument that's really being played out. The NRA promotes a lifestyle, not gun ownership, and that thought isn't original with me (or is even my uncomfortable childhood).

          Now, back to the idea of individual rights to bear arms. I didn't realize this until I did a bit of reading on the Glorious Revolution in England. The well-armed militia idea goes back to the 14th Century there, but, the individual ownership concept was part and parcel of the Bill of Rights developed (but never completely implemented) when William and Mary took the throne. The Founders tried to put these two, originally unrelated, concepts together when they wrote our Bill of Rights. It's been lying there like a time bomb ever since, and, with the recent Court ruling, we'll be hashing this out legally for decades.

          Radarlady

        •  the AK 47 has only been regulated for the short (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          radarlady

          duration that "banned" assault rifles- they are and have never been "highly regulated". When I lived in Phoenix in '90-'92 there were actually billboards advertising AK 47's for $69.99- and no, I am not kidding. The reality is no one has an excuse to own one, and no, hunting with one is out. I owned an AK years ago and I can tell you why so many punk ass mofos want them- they are cheaply made pieces of crap and very, very low tech. Because they are so low tech anyone with even half a dozen working brain cells can easily convert one to shoot full auto in just a few minutes using common tools, unlike the Mini 14's and AR 15's which are much more modern, high tech and very expensive to go hacking on and risking screwing up. Make no mistake about it though, as cheap as they are they are deadly accurate and extremely powerful weapons.
             But hey, the NRA wants every asshole in this country to own at least a few, just for "hunting" and "protection", so go get a bunch for Christmas- don't forget, ammo not included, so be sure to grab a few boxes- the kids will just love you for it....
             The NRA can blow me, fuck the NRA and every single one of its lame ass lemming ass supporters. I have guns but none of those bastards represent me, them, my rights, nor my country- FUCK THE NRA!  

          "It's a dog eat dog world out there, and I am wearing Milkbone underwear." Norm Peterson

          by playtonjr on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:33:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bull. (7+ / 0-)

            The AK's been regulated since the 30s. Which, if I remember correctly, was before it was even first manufactured.

            Unless you're talking about a civilian legal version, which is not an AK47 at all.

            I agree with ya on the NRA.

            We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:36:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am referring to AK's that were bought and sold (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radarlady

              here in the U.S. as AK's, what is regulated about them? I saw one for sale in the classified section of yesterdays local paper, $350. Some regulation ya got there, any fool can pick up a phone and buy one the same way. I recall trading a jacuzzi pump for the first AK I owned on a jobsite. Surely the ATF has records of that transaction somewhere...  As I said, AK's are loved by idiots because of their simplicity, you know they are serious pieces of crap but my my, how easily they are to play with and convert to firing full auto- hell, there used to even be Youtube videos on how to do it for those needing instruction.
                I say we start giving guns out at birth, every kid gets a few, start 'em out young. Give them away for door prizes. Party favors. Buy one get one free. Buy Previcid and get a coupon for a free AK, just ask your doctor. Give them away for trick or treat. Make center pieces out of them to celebrate Christmas, after all, god must love guns, they are so plentiful.
                Just seems to me that the above, as idiotic as it may sound, has become the NRA rant, all guns, all the time, for eveyone. Period. Fuck that. Tell me why I should have one, let alone over a dozen...

              "It's a dog eat dog world out there, and I am wearing Milkbone underwear." Norm Peterson

              by playtonjr on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:38:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Except, of course... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shadan7, radarlady, KVoimakas

                ...that the NRA, nor any other similar group, has ever endorsed anything even close to what you are claiming.

                But, why let facts stand in the way of a good rant...?

                If you dig zombies, and get the chance, go here and vote for Video#10. Thanks.

                by theatre goon on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:41:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  You shouldn't. Not from the sounds of things. (5+ / 0-)

                Guns aren't for everyone.

                What is regulated by the US government when it comes to those items marketed as AKs?

                Well, here's a few off the top of my head.

                If you buy one from an FFL, you need to pass a NCIS check. If you're a felon, you can't own one. You can't order a gun and have it shipped to your house. You can't sell a pistol across state lines without shipping between FFLs. If you sell one to someone who you don't think can own one (and you are correct), you can get in trouble. There are more, but those are the ones I know off the top of my head, which doesn't include state laws.

                We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

                by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:42:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just as an aside... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas

                  ...and rather nitpickery, and even a bit OT, but, unless you're in the Navy, you don't have to worry about NCIS checking up on your gun purchases.

                  NICS, on the other hand...

                  ;-)

                  I know it's a typo and you know the difference, but the irony is I happen to be watching a rerun of NCIS while re-reading this thread, and it made me chuckle.

                  If you dig zombies, and get the chance, go here and vote for Video#10. Thanks.

                  by theatre goon on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 10:26:14 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Let me know what store... (0+ / 0-)

            is advertising them for $70.  I'll be driving through on my way to/from family over Christmas and need to add to my collection.

      •  we don't need to go down this rabbit hole (8+ / 0-)

        I am not belittling those who own guns.  Again note, while I do not agree with the Court's interpretation in Heller, I have always been willing to find an individual right to own guns in the 9th.  No rights - even those of 1st Amendment - are considered absolute.  To restrict protected rights the government has to demonstrate a compelling state interest according to the strict scrutiny standard.  That has been done in the past, which is why you need a license to own a fully automatic long gun.

        The purpose of my posting this diary is not for a pro- or anti-gun argument, but to point out what the survey seems to demonstrate -  that the majority of NRA members are far more reasonable than their leadership in willingness to consider some further degree of gun control than we currently have.

        do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

        by teacherken on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:46:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  To be fair, violent (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maxomai, radarlady, ER Doc, KVoimakas

        men can cause their families to cower in fear without small arms. An axe suffices.

        I'll be the first to say that some reasons for owning firearms are irrational, but others are not. And I say that as someone who considers firearms dishonourable.

        Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

        by Dauphin on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:49:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Mountain Bike and Baseball Bat... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        radarlady, KVoimakas

        ....that would make hunting a sport, nowadays it's more of a pass-time, except perhaps for those who hunt meat, for them, it's more like shopping :-P

        (-9,-9) pragmatic incrementalist :-P

        by Enterik on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:51:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have a problem with target shooting? (4+ / 0-)

        I always find this "hunter" thing kind of weird.  I mean, there are a lot of gunowners in America who don't hunt, but who do shoot targets.  Do they fall within the scope of gunowners whom you don't mind, or do you have a problem with them?

        I really am asking this seriously, because I've never understood how people make this distinction.

        I don't want the liberal elite communists socializing my Nazism.

        by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:22:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  What is wrong with hunting with an AK-47... (0+ / 0-)

        clone, civilian (semi-auto) version?  Works just like any other semi-auto hunting rifle, and is less powerful than most (equivalent to 100+ year old 30.30 rifle).  You'd have to use a magazine with a capacity that matches local laws (generally 5 rounds).  So what's the beef?

    •  Presumably small arms. (0+ / 0-)

      At the time of the amendments creation muskets and rifle were ok but cannons and howitzers not so much.

  •  I've put forth my own thoughts on gun control (10+ / 0-)

    from what I would think is a RKBA-ers perspective.

    I have issues with the terrorist watch list being used to discriminate against gun owners. I'm sure there are people on it who ARE terrorists, but there are also people on it who aren't. Wasn't Ted Kennedy on it at one point? Who do you appeal to so your name can be removed?

    Also, the 'destroy background checks data' thing would, if not enforced, lead to national gun registration. I'm not arguing for or against it here, just pointing it out.

    I don't believe President Obama's going to ban any firearms and I don't think he's coming for our guns.

    We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

    by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:38:55 AM PST

    •  thanks for this comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rockhound

      which demonstrates what the survey does -  that there are many gun owners who are willing to at least engage in discussions about the issue on a reasonable basis.

      I suspect that we would not agree on all dimensions of the issue.  But good public policy can not be made without a willingness to discuss, to consider the implications of policy.

      I would argue that maintaining information is not necessarily a slippery slope.

      And I would argue that if there are problems with the terrorist watch list we need to address those, and not use that as an excuse to avoid taking reasonable actions that might increase our safety.

      One last point - I am unaware that Kennedy - or David Nelson - was ever on the terrorist watch list.  Their names came up on the no-fly list, which is not the same thing.

      do we still have a Republic and a Constitution if our elected officials will not stand up for them on our behalf?

      by teacherken on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 03:51:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And what's wrong with national gun registration? (0+ / 0-)

      Oh, wait, I understand.  If there is some form of national gun registration, when "they take over our nation," "they" will be able to use the national gun registry to seize all our guns.

      Right.

    •  The devil is in the details (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      Obama/Holder

      "will attempt to ban the sales of *guns in the United States at some point while he is president." Asked about this, 44 percent of NRA members said Obama "definitely" would and 35 percent said he "probably" would.

      * insert "some"(as in AWB)
      This is where/why the confusion/distraction lies(sp)

      even the Devil slaves for the fortunate

      by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 11:21:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  gun control and clean coal (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxomai, kestrel9000, KVoimakas

    neither has a "solve"
    we just have to decide we don't need them any more.

    Fox - Crapture from Farmageddon

    by 88kathy on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:08:35 AM PST

  •  I was once an NRA member (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Purple Priestess, KVoimakas

    but about ten or fifteen years ago, there was a gun made plastic that could pass through screening - of course, there was an effort to ban this weapon, but the NRA fought the ban.  I had enough - while I understand their mentality that if you give the opposition an inch, they will take a mile (compare and contrast this to Choice v Anti-Abortion).  I just could not, as a reasponsible gun owner, agree with that and would no longer pay my membership so they could use that money for such purposes.

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:46:40 AM PST

  •  It's a pretty common misconception... (4+ / 0-)

    ...that all NRA members are against all gun-control laws whatsoever, and it's even claimed pretty commonly that the NRA and the like want everyone to be required to own a gun, no matter what.

    It is simply untrue, as these polls show, but I doubt it will make people stop making the blanket statements about "gun nuts" when referring to those who support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    If you dig zombies, and get the chance, go here and vote for Video#10. Thanks.

    by theatre goon on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 04:59:38 AM PST

    •  The problem, in politics and in life... (4+ / 0-)

      ... is that when the loonies at the fringe are on your team, you get painted with the same brush they do.   This happens in all political groups---  Social liberals have to put up with the Hollywood crazies, economic liberals get lumped in with the marxist-socialist-whateverist crowd.  Social conservatives are all Jesus freaks, even when they're not Christian, and economic conservatives are all like the heartless, greedy executives who bilk us at every turn.  

      This of course happens with smaller, more focused groups, like guns, or abortion, or the environment.   It is part of human nature to associate people through flimsy logic, especially when it helps you characterize them in a negative light.   Nothing will stop people from doing this.

  •  As a gun owner & carrier... (9+ / 0-)

    ...I strongly oppose Tiahart, I favor requiring background checks for ALL sales including private exchanges at gun shows, and I could support blocking purchases by those on the "watch list..."
    ...but I have a very common name: it comes up on Do Not Fly until I show my passport at the ticket counter, and half my gun purchases have been held a day or three for further checks. I have legitimate concerns --as should we all -- about punishing people never charged with a crime.

    "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 documentary Canadian Bacon

    by Tom Seaview on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:13:09 AM PST

    •  There are a lot of things... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shadan7, KVoimakas, Tom Seaview

      ...including this one, that is problematic about those terrorist watch lists and such, people suspected -- often for no concrete reason -- are treated as if they have been convicted of a crime.

      If you dig zombies, and get the chance, go here and vote for Video#10. Thanks.

      by theatre goon on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:21:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Purple Priestess

      is that 1-3 day wait particularly onerous to you?  Just curious.  For myself, I can't imagine why it would be terribly bothersome.  Heck, I just bought a couch that will be delivered in 18 weeks.  And it ain't anything special.  I'm not denigrating the hassle that you have to endure by having a common name that comes up on Do Not Fly list.  I would surmise that it is supremely annoying.  I was just wondering if there was a general waiting period for anyone purchasing a weapon - say a week or something, would that really be problematic in your opinion?

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:47:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It would be problematic in certain cases. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shadan7, newfie, theatre goon, Tom Seaview

        Say, if I went to the lower peninsula to buy a firearm. I'm not driving back down in 4 days or a week to go pick it up. Also, what does a waiting period actually do for me? If I'm going to commit a crime, why would I go buy a new gun when I have over 10 in my house?

        We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:48:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure what a waiting period does. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          Not sure that my waiting 18 weeks for a couch does me any good - although it is hardly a direct comparison.  I was wondering more about the objection I have seen to some background checks and waiting periods and was more curious what harm there is in that.

          If the weapon was so important or unique or what have you to drive 4 hours in the first place do you think you wouldn't be willing to go back a week later.  I know plenty of items folks go a distance to purchase and return that distance to pick up.  If it was any old weapon then you would have had to go so far - I would think.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:06:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not that I made a trip FOR the gun. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            newfie

            Let me give you an example. I went downstate to visit a friend of mine from college. I ended up buying an on-sale revolver and my concealed carry permit meant I didn't have to get a pistol purchasing license from my local PD (which was 8-9 hours away.) Now, add a waiting period to that. I wouldn't drive 8-9 hours back down there to purchase the gun. The seller would've lost out on the sale and I would've lost out on some money I could've used for something else.

            We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:12:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's not problematic to me... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shadan7, newfie, KVoimakas, Tom Seaview

        ...but, it might be to, say, a woman who is trying to leave an abusive relationship -- who needs to be able to protect herself right now, not in three days.

        Now, that's just one, very specific, narrow example, but still a valid one, I think, and there are many others that are somewhat similar.  Self defense is often an immediate concern, not one for a few days away.

        If you dig zombies, and get the chance, go here and vote for Video#10. Thanks.

        by theatre goon on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:49:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  forgot: (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shadan7, newfie, theatre goon, Tom Seaview

        that wouldn't impact private sales either. I could sell you a rifle and give it to you immediately. how would the government know?

        We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 05:49:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  it's stupid and expensive (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shadan7, newfie, KVoimakas, theatre goon

        I have concealed carry permits, so there is no doubt -- as far as the state is concerned -- that I can buy a firearm: I am not even subjected to a state background check.
        The Feds, however, are unable to tell my common name from thousands of other folks named 'Tom Seaview' ...but the info on my passport will get me onto a plane, and I provide that same info on the Form 4473.

        It costs me time & money. I am self-employed, and the "opportunity cost" of a second trip to the gun shop is $1.50 per minute. I am also subjected to more extensive checking than others just because of my name, which is an unwarranted invasion of my privacy.

        Finally, it protects nobody. The real criminal "Tom Seaview" knows he can't buy a gun at a gun shop, so he'll pick up a stolen firearm on the streets of Camden or Wilmington.

        "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 documentary Canadian Bacon

        by Tom Seaview on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:02:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right for the conceal and carry (0+ / 0-)

          requires background checks etc.  

          I wouldn't go so far as saying it doesn't protect anyone.  It doesn't prevent certain crimes but it might protect some folks.  I'm not saying it has to be a week or even that there has to be a wait time.  But only if a thorough background check would take a few days I'm not sure I have a huge problem with that.

          You make a decent point why one may not like it - with the expense part.  Just not sure that means it is or isn't a good thing just that someone like you would not like it for financial reasons.

          For the same reason, buying a piece of furniture or setting up any home service is equally as costly if not more.  You aorder it which takes a good chunk of time but then when you get the 10 hour delivery window where you need to be there when they show or you get to waste a whole lot more time etc...

          Thanks for answering - not I did not ask if there was any value to wait periods.  I was more interested in the objection to any wait period.  Whether a waiting period has any value is another question.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 09:55:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Your concern about these lists is important (3+ / 0-)

      ... but not everything is a punishment or a reward.  Punishment and reward have strong intent.  It has to be meant as a punishment or a reward, and the no-fly lis t is neither.  

      Using these words to describe positive or negative outcomes as if they were planned that way is falling into a right-wing framing trap.  Right-wingers often use these terms as a framing device to describe any negative or positive outcome.   For instance, they'll say that taxes "punish" people for making money.  Of course, the logic is ridiculous--- if we follow it, then tithing must be punishment from God for believing in Him.   Here in Massachusetts, gasoline pumps have no locks--- you have to hold the pump for it to work.  So when it's 10 below zero, it sucks to get gas.  According to this logic, this regulation punishes people who put gas in their car.  What for, God only knows.  But the regulation is meant to ensure safety:  When your car catches fire, you'll let go of the pump and the flow of new gas will stop.  

      People deliberately misuse the words "reward" and "punishment" because it works as a framing device--- you punish people for doing something they shouldn't.  So if, say, Democrats punish money-making, then they must think that making money is wrong.   Most of us would recoil at that idea.  Also, if taxes are punishment, and you pay taxes, then you must be doing something wrong.  Most people will do anything to avoid feeling like they're doing something wrong.  So they will fight the taxes.

      (btw, I am not saying you are deliberately trying to manipulate us.  )  

      •  you make a lot of sense... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, theatre goon

        ...but it does punish me to delay a gun purchase.

        My state is a "may-issue" state, not "shall-issue:" the Superior Court gets to decide yay or nay on every concealed carry permit application, and the process is grueling (no, that is not a complaint). I've been through background check so stringent that they scanned my entire hands at high resolution and shopped them around every state, federal & international database on God's gray Earth. My name, SSN and and date of birth establish that I have never even been suspected of a crime...

        ...and yet I can't pick up the Glock for which my wife gave me a gift certificate: because the senior screeners are on vacation at Christmastime, I got the gun after New Year's. I am denied the right to buy, keep & bear arms that is offered to someone named Tom Kaziniewski... just because of my Anglo-Saxon name. If this happened because of an Arabic name, most of us agree that it was profiling.
        Not to mention the anxiety of approaching the ticket counter (I am denied curbside & online check-in), wondering if I will be allowed on the plane. I have learned to drive anywhere within 1500 miles.

        "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 documentary Canadian Bacon

        by Tom Seaview on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:24:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  using the right terminology is key (0+ / 0-)

          I don't mean to deny or belittle the hardship of having a watchlisted name, or debate the merits of these profiling lists.  All I'm saying is that it's not punishment, because this list is not trying to right any wrong you did.  In fact, you've done nothing wrong.  You're not being punished; you've got shit luck.  

          Being on a watchlist doesn't even punish people who are supposed to be there.  It's a preventive measure.  Like a condom.  So the guy with your name isn't on the no-fly list because of what he HAS done.  It's because he MIGHT do something else if we let him on a plane.  

          As for waiting to buy your Christmas gift... having to wait to exercise a right is not the same as being denied that right... otherwise it would be unconstitutional to wait in line to vote.  Having to stand there for hours does not deny me the right to vote, it merely delays my exercise of that right.  

          Let's return to the topic with a hypothetical... if the gun shop is closed at 2am because the town requires all businesses to close by then, you have to wait until the next day to buy your weapon.   Does that violate your right to buy arms?    How is that different from a waiting period?

  •  You can eliminate the gun.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shadan7, KVoimakas, Tom Seaview

    ....from the hands of the gun owner, but you can't eliminate the gun from the hands of the criminal

    •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shadan7, KVoimakas, theatre goon

      If you were somehow able to make 99.9% of the privately-owned firearms in the USA magically disappear, we would be left with hundreds of thousands of criminals facing no armed opposition.

      "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 documentary Canadian Bacon

      by Tom Seaview on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:04:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except, of course (0+ / 0-)

        for police forces, the FBI, ATF, the Secret Service, the military - as Crispin Glover would say "...you get the point."

        Takes more than combat gear to make a man. Takes more than a license for a gun.

        by toby esterhase on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:35:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't carry a cop around with me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon

          Police aren't there to protect, they're there to pick up the pieces with their plastic gloves.

          They don't even have a DUTY to protect via some SCOTUS case I don't have off the top of my head (but someone here will.)

          When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

          We need another Huey P. Long and federal funding for abortion. -9.00, -4.05

          by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 06:37:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ok....think about this scenario.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, theatre goon

          ....you and your loved one are home alone....an armed intruder breaks in and demands you both remove all your clothes....somehow, you break free and run into your bedroom, leaving your loved one behind with the armed intruder....you lock the bedroom door behind you....and you call the police....now your loved one is left alone with the intruder and you're hiding in the bedroom....how long will it take for the police to arrive and save both of you?....one-thousand-one....one-thousand-two....one-thousand-three....

  •  It's a real myth... (4+ / 0-)

    that most gunowners don't support any gun control.  Sure, there are some, but I think that most gun owners actually do support certain restrictions.

    The fact that the NRA's lobbying arm fights against any restrictions is not a fair representation of all gunowners in America.  And while I have issues with how the NRA is run (quite badly, in my opinion), I don't really blame it for fighting against all restrictions.  It is an advocacy group; that's the point.  Advocacy groups usually take the more extreme position, knowing they won't always prevail, but if they don't fight the fight, who will?

    I'm a very strong supporter of the Second Amendment.  I do not shoot.  I do support certain restrictions, but I find that most restrictions proposed by gun control advocates are totally senseless and not in any way likely to lead to a reduction in violent crime.

    An interesting diary.  I hope that it provokes real conversation, rather than the typical "guns are bad" "no they aren't" arguments.

    I don't want the liberal elite communists socializing my Nazism.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 07:26:15 AM PST

    •  The problem is often... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angry Mouse, KVoimakas

      The fact that I might not support the same gun controls that someone else does, then they go on to claim that I'm against all laws concerning gun control (and I'm using the generic "I" and "someone else" here, not pointing fingers at anyone).

      Not at all true, but an all-too-common rhetoric to be seen.

      If you dig zombies, and get the chance, go here and vote for Video#10. Thanks.

      by theatre goon on Thu Dec 10, 2009 at 09:09:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site