Skip to main content

Uploaded from the Photobucket iPhone App

Senator Gillibrand speaks, flanked on left by AG Schneiderman, and Jackie Hilly of New Yorkers
Against Gun Violence,
and Michael Wolkowitz of Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence on right.

New York State's Attorney General Eric Schneiderman joined junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand at a press conference on Sunday to announce Gillibrand's pending reintroduction of the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2011.

In my opinion, solutions to the problem of interstate gun trafficking can be addressed via a mutually respectful decision by states to agree to disagree on what are appropriate, reasonable fire arms policy within their own state borders. And when there is problems, it's entirely within the Federal government's interest to assist states with enforcement. 

Regional attitudes vary greatly, I get it. I grew up in Michigan, where guns are seen among my then-neighbors as a part of the culture. The Michigan legislature recently took two weeks off to go deer hunting. This legislation has no reason to concern the majority of law abiding gun owners and dealers.

Now, I've lived in New York City for going on 19 years, and the urban reality is considerably different than in the state where I grew up. The violence is real and pervasive and all too common.

There was the time two year-old David Pacheco was randomly shot dead in his car seat on Easter Sunday, caught in a Bronx crossfire. Or the time 92-year-old Sadie Mitchell of the Bronx was shot as she watched television in her living room. 

Or just last Friday, a clearly mentally disturbed man, with a criminal record abruptly started shooting on a Queens public bus, killing one person and injuring others.

The paranoid ex-con who fatally shot his girlfriend's teenage son, then killed one person and injured another on a Q111 NYC Transit bus in Queens was allegedly hoping for a bloodbath. Damel Burton, 34, told cops the bus shooting occurred because he believed the commuters were plotting against him. And prosecutors say he had been planning to shoot even more people: "The defendant stated that he would have shot more people but the gun jammed," prosecutor Suzanne O'Hare said at Burton's arraignment, according to the News.
AG Schneiderman said, "There's no way in the world this guy should have had a gun." 

No. Not anymore than Jared Loughner should have been able to break out shooting at Gabrielle Gifford's event last year. 

And to be clear, we don't know how this man on parole from prison got a gun. But without responsible gun sales, there is no foundation for responsible gun ownership. And responsibility is sadly lacking in the gun sales industry.

Uploaded from the Photobucket iPhone AppSchneiderman's attendance was coordinated to highlight the results of a truly disheartening undercover investigation he recently concluded and announced to the press. 

From Wednesday's New York Times Union:

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman just finished his press conference on a statewide investigation in which investigators visited gun shows where undercover investigators found dealers selling a variety of hunting and assault-style rifles to people without performing the required federal background checks.

“I’m very sorry to report that at every gun show they visited, undercover investigators who explicitly stated that they could not pass background checks were able to obtain firearms,” Schneiderman said, pointing to an array of rifles laid out on the table beside him.

“This is clearly pointing to a flaw in our laws,” he said.

Investigators specifically mentioned they had outstanding issues, like a domestic violence assault conviction that would have precluded them from passing a Federally required background check. Ten dealers—all of the ones approached—sold them a gun anyway.

Think about that. Would your want your sister or girlfriend's violent ex-boyfriend to have such easy, unfettered access to a gun, acquired in blatant defiance of Federal law?

It really shouldn't be easier for a violent, convicted felon to buy a gun than it is for a teenager to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels, but it is.

Ten gun dealers from six New York county gun shows were stung by this investigation and face charges. 

“The worst-kept secret in America is that guns are available to all at gun shows,” Schneiderman said, adding he wants tougher laws and penalties regarding such illicit sales and the imposition of potential liability on gun show operators who don’t properly oversee the sellers who participate in these events.
This is called this the "iron pipeline," the manner in which guns from states with considerable more liberal gun laws flow across state lines into the hands of criminals in other states. Schneiderman says nearly 90 percent of the firearms used in gun crimes in New York City come from out of state. There are currently no Federal laws that address illegal gun trafficking.

At Sunday's press conference, Schneiderman makes the point that in the current, functionally, near-lawless environment actually places the majority of law-abiding gun dealers in a marketplace disadvantage. Qualified or not, why bother purchasing from a dealer who conducts a background check, when there are ample dealers who will not inconvenience your time?

Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for holding gun show operators accountable. Schneiderman says:

The gun show accountability gap puts communities in New York and across the country at risk, and it must be addressed. I support Senator Gillibrand's proposal to stiffen penalties against those who ignore the law, and to protect our communities and provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to bring criminals to justice.

Gillibrand says:

“The Attorney General’s critical investigation shows just how easy it is for guns to end up in the hands of dangerous people. By cracking down on gun dealers who blatantly disobey the law as well as illegal gun traffickers and their vast criminal networks, we can reduce gun violence and keep our families and neighborhoods safe. We must give law enforcement the tools they need to eliminate illegal guns from the street."

It would currently take the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms seven to ten years to properly inspect every licensed gun dealer in the country. This bill would empower the ATF to hire more personal to reduce the time between inspections to three years. Expanding the circle of accountability is also a good way to motivate the gun sales industry to better police itself, an area where they are clearly failing. 

A question surfaced regarding Senator Thune's bill requiring states to honor one another's conceal-carrying permits, a version of which has passed the House. Senator Gillibrand was diplomatic in expressing her disagreement with her colleague's bill, and was confident the Senate would "hold the line" where the House had failed. Thune's bill narrowly failed to overcome a filibuster in 2009 with 58 votes.

AG Schneiderman was far less measured in his critique of the bill, saying it was going in the wrong direction and calling it "anti-law enforcement." He also pointed out there is no national database which local authorities could verify the authenticity of a out-of-state concealed carry permit, essentially opening the floodgates for anyone to conceal-carry anywhere.

In my opinion, Thune's bill is a misguided attempt to impose Federal sovereignty over individual state's own right to determine what is appropriate time and place for carrying firearms. It would invalidate applicable state laws via the footprint of big government mandate.

The issue of guns is clearly a very touchy subject, many have called it a third rail. Certainly even in the wake of the horrific Gabrielle Gifford's shooting, functionally, most of DC has behaved as though even the most reasonable changes dare not be discussed. 

The right's paranoia on this topic is thoroughly disconnected from reality unfortunately. Recently, National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre made the case that Obama Administration's decision not to pursue a single piece of gun control legislation was proof-positive of a nefarious plan by the administration to take away everyone's guns.

“But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.”

Daily Kos' own Tom Tomorrow posted a sad parody of the absurd beltway dynamic that delivers only paralysis on the subject of firearms:

tomtomorrow2

Faced with such entrenched views, when doing absolutely nothing can lead the NRA to such demonizing, it's easy to feel despondent at any possibility of change, and throw your hands up in despair, even when the current system lends itself so readily to anarchy and pointless, potentially avoidable tragedy.

Given this environment, I applaud Senator's Gillibrand's "courage" (and yes, I'm using a little irony there) to push forward with a bill to protect families, reinforce rule of law, represent the best interests her state. The bill present no danger at all to the majority of law-abiding gun owners and dealers in New York, or any other state.

Carry on, Senator! I'm glad you're young, I'm sure you have a long road ahead. But, like AG Schneiderman said in the press conference, we appreciate your "relentless" nature!


Senator Gillibrand's description of the bill, via press release:

The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act will:

Focus on Entire Criminal Network


First, the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act makes it illegal to traffic or assist in the trafficking of a firearm, making it unlawful to deliver or receive two or more firearms where the individual knows or has reason to believe that the firearms are being, or will be, used in a felony. By going after straw-purchasers who buy a gun for someone else to help them evade required recordkeeping and background checks, corrupt gun dealers who sell firearms to traffickers, and persons who conspire with and organize gun trafficking rings, this legislation addresses firearms trafficking at every point of the chain.

Tough Penalties for Criminals


Second, the legislation establishes stiff penalties that are a much-needed deterrent to gun trafficking. Under this bill, traffickers could face up to twenty years in prison and be fined a significant sum of money. It also provides greater penalties for kingpins who organize gun trafficking rings, subjecting them to an additional sentence of potentially five consecutive years in prison. Penalties could increase depending on the number of guns trafficked.

 The bill also treats individuals engaged in a conspiracy to traffic guns the same as those who actually traffic a gun. Individuals who engage in the conspiracy are subject to the same punishment as those who physically sell and receive the illegal guns.

By creating more options and providing flexibility for prosecutors and judges, we increase the tools that are available for prosecutors in the federal criminal justice system to appropriately crack down on individuals who are engaged in every aspect of gun trafficking.

Crackdown on Corrupt Gun Dealers


Third, the Attorney General of the United States and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are empowered to impose heightened restrictions, levy tough financial penalties, and suspend or revoke the license of any corrupt gun dealer. Corrupt gun dealers will be subject to a license suspension of up to six months and a fine of up to $2,500 per violation. This is the first time that the levying of civil penalties will be widely available as a deterrent for corrupt gun dealers.

The Attorney General is given the authority to identify and impose special restrictions on high-risk gun dealers, which could include dealers who have been unable to trace guns as required by federal law or who report significant or frequent inventory losses or thefts, among other criteria.

To prevent these high-risk dealers from supplying guns to traffickers, federal law enforcement would be able to impose conditions on them such as increased inspections, inventory checks and reconciliation, training dealers and employees in how to avoid illegal sales, and requiring that the dealer not complete firearm sales until the national instant background check system informs the dealer that they may proceed with the sale.

The overwhelming majority of licensed gun dealers are responsible and law abiding. This bill goes after the very small minority of dealers who are contributing to the cycle of violence that puts our children and families at risk.

For those dealers that are suspected of corrupt practices, the legislation protects the right of due process before their licenses are revoked by the Attorney General, and also allows for gun dealers whose licenses have been revoked to seek judicial review. By putting reasonable punishments in place, this legislation would put corrupt gun dealers out of business, create deterrents to engaging in these behaviors and keep our neighborhoods safe from gun violence.

Resources for ATF


The fourth part of the bill provides ATF with the resources that it desperately needs to inspect all federally licensed gun dealers and further investigate high-risk gun dealers. Federal law currently allows ATF to conduct annual inspections of all federally licensed dealers, but with the current lack of resources and funding it would take the bureau between seven and ten years to properly inspect every licensed dealer in the country. This allows corrupt dealers to go for many years without being suspected or caught. To address this problem, the bill would authorize the Director of ATF to hire additional personnel to reduce the average inspection rate of gun dealers to three years.

Protections for Responsible, Law-Abiding Gun Owners


Finally, the legislation upholds the Constitution and protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Specifically, the bill provides a defense for an individual seller who obtains a background check on the person to whom he or she is selling prior to the sale. This serves to protect individual gun owners who make a good faith effort to ensure that they are not selling their firearm to a person who is prohibited from possessing those guns. This bill does not provide any new regulations on individuals who wish to sell or give their firearms as a gift to law-abiding family members, friends, or neighbors. It creates an incentive to conduct a background check before the gun is exchanged. It also exempts executors from prosecution under this legislation if they are carrying out the provisions of a will.

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

  •  Tip Jar (27+ / 0-)

    0: Number of Wall Street bankers arrested over crash of 2008. 4784: Number of Americans arrested protesting Wall Street's fraudulent practices 11/29/2011

    by Scott Wooledge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 07:58:32 AM PST

  •  She must not ever sleep. (10+ / 0-)

    It's amazing what this woman is able to do in as much time as we all have. Seriously, men of D.C., you should try to live up.

  •  I'm not a big fan of gun control. (12+ / 0-)

    Demand creates its own supply. If people want guns, they will find a way to get them. I don't see how closing loopholes will keep the "wrong" people from getting guns.

    •  I'm not a big fan of tax laws (9+ / 0-)

      People who want to cheat and avoid paying them will continue to find ways to do it.

      See how ridiculous that sounds when used in another context?

      GOP 2012 -- Austerity is just around the corner!

      by ontheleftcoast on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:14:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It isn't gun control. (14+ / 0-)

      It's "illegal gun sales" control.

      People legally buying guns and legally selling guns will be unaffected.

      Discussing whether there should be any laws restricting the purchase and sales of guns is another conversation.

      0: Number of Wall Street bankers arrested over crash of 2008. 4784: Number of Americans arrested protesting Wall Street's fraudulent practices 11/29/2011

      by Scott Wooledge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:20:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As long as the laws on the books (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clarknt67

        remain a dead letter, we've already answered the conversation in the negative, as our NRA friends make their positions clear.

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 09:16:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Its a cultural issue... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, Robobagpiper, 43north

          Same reason that prohibition failed.  The culture of non urbanite America sees guns as more than a symbol.  Its symbolic reassurance.  

          If I wanted to pass this thing, I would include national concealed carry reciprocity and weaken the 89 import ban (no material affect on guns sold in America as you can modify a foreign produced weapon to be complaint with American laws).  That would put gun owners on the other side of the table than gun dealers and they can have their little civil war over it.  Right now it puts both gun owners, gun deals/importers and manufacturers all on the same side of the table.  

          However until it included provisions to mandate that states promptly send the list of disqualified persons (spouse abusers, felons, people involuntary confined for psychiatric treatment, etc).  All other changes as I understand it are cosmetic and therefore annoying.  

          Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

          by DavidMS on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 09:35:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes.... meaning they're already..... (6+ / 0-)

        ....illegal.  So.... we pass another law to make them super duper illegal?  

      •  So, we take things that are already illegal... (5+ / 0-)

        and make them...

        wait for it...

        More illegal.

        Yeah, that'll fix it.

    •  Following that premise to its logical conclusion (9+ / 0-)

      would mean giving up any attempt by the government (at any level) to ban or to regulate anything. It's not a tenable position.

      •  You're assuming that all laws and regulations (13+ / 0-)

        are equally ineffective. I don't.

        If you are going to place a restriction on someone's constitutional right, I think you should show a) that it will actually work (not just make "common sense") and b) that this restriction and only this restriction can solve this problem.

        My biggest problem with gun control is the civil liberties issue, though I'm sick of the government coming up with new ways to poke holes in the constitution. My biggest issue is that it can gives us a false sense of security that we are "safer" because we have made it harder for the "wrong" people to get guns. Actually get at the issue of why people commit crimes.  

        •  There's a substantial amount of evidence (5+ / 0-)

          in favor of the proposition that making anything illegal does little to prevent it. At best, we hope to make the disincentive sufficiently large that most people considering engaging in the prohibited behavior will find it not worth the risk.

          Nor do I accept the interpretation of the Second Amendment preferred by the NRA (and many of the RKBA folks here), whereby anyone is legally entitled to just about any piece of ordnance her little heart desires. There's that pesky bit in there about a well-regulated militia, which such types conveniently ignore. That topic, however, really isn't on point for this diary, so that's all I intend to say on the matter.

        •  In the case of Loughner and the Queens shooter, (6+ / 0-)

          they committed crimes precisely because they had guns.  Well, I suppose a knife could do in a pinch to act out deranged paranoid fantasies, but it would probably not be as effective.  Britain has a very high rate of knife crime, muggings, property damage, and other serious issues, but with fewer homicides.  It's not because British people want less to kill each other, it's they lack the opportunity to commit the specific crimes of homicide or manslaughter quite so efficiently.  They also remain something of a democracy.  

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 09:19:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The malevolent spirit contained in the guns (6+ / 0-)

            possessed them and forced them to commit crimes?

            Hurray for animism!

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:08:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  pure physics (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, ehrenfeucht games

              bullets don't travel quite so fast if thrown.

              which makes more sense, fixing human nature or limiting the opportunity to commit crimes of violence.

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:32:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fixing human nature. (7+ / 0-)

                There will always be ways to commit violence.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:36:20 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate . . . (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musing85, ehrenfeucht games

                  the instrumentalities by which such violence is committed.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:54:48 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Did I advocate for no gun control? (8+ / 0-)

                    We currently have a LOT of firearm laws on the books. Most of which I agree with by the way.

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:57:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  They're already swimming in vast numbers of (7+ / 0-)

                    regulations. The burden is on those who demand more to show that the particular regulations they propose - instead of more active enforcement of extant ones - would make a significant difference.

                    There's also the matter of impact - a law is a bad one if the people it impacts most are those not participating in the social harm the law intends to regulate.

                    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                    by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:57:58 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You define the "impact" too narrowly: (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ehrenfeucht games, musing85, 43north
                      There's also the matter of impact - a law is a bad one if the people it impacts most are those not participating in the social harm the law intends to regulate.

                      What the law intends to regulate is the intentional or accidental misuse of guns.  They're a dangerous instrumentality.  So even lawful ownership can have harmful impacts.  A lawfully owned gun may be stolen and used for criminal purposes.  Or it may fall into the hands of a child who may harm himself with it.  Or it may be accidentally fired and hurt or kill someone.  

                      Besides, by your logic, one could argue that all laws are overbroad.  Laws usually apply to everyone, but most people to whom they apply aren't engaged in the prohibited or regulated conduct, nor do they have any intention of doing so.  But that doesn't make the law bad.

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 02:07:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  In the real world, the largest risk factor (7+ / 0-)

                        for being shot with a gun is participation in criminal enterprise, or socializing with those that do.

                        A swimming pool is more likely to kill a child than an unsecured gun; but you don't see the constant drumbeat to demonize people who own pools. That's because it's not about actual risk, but ideology.

                        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                        by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 03:59:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I see (0+ / 0-)

                          So we shouldn't regulate something dangerous because (you claim) something else is more dangerous?  That's a rather odd position to take.

                          Of course, there's probably no campaign to "demonize" people who own pools because pools aren't built for the purpose of killing people.  

                          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                          by FogCityJohn on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:43:34 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  We don't regulate it because armament is essential (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, KVoimakas, gerrilea

                            to personal and collective liberty - a truth our founders understood, but cushy urban living (and a common but gross misunderstanding of the non-violence resistance movements of the 20th century) have undermined that understanding.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:17:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Laws do not "regulate" anything. (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gerrilea, oldpunk, theatre goon, KVoimakas

                        They merely set up conditions and limitations for punishment.

              •  If you're a conservative, yes, you go after the (6+ / 0-)

                sin object, since people are wicked, sinful monsters that have to be constrained by force. Your argument is essentially the same as that of the social conservative who wants to prevent the damaging side effects of sexuality by criminalizing its expression.

                If you're a liberal, as many of us pretend to be, you go after the systemic problems that damage our inhibitions and turn us anti-social - such as repairing the social and mental health safety nets; by remediating chemicals that cause brain damage in infants known to relate to the formation of healthy inhibition, and so on.

                So, yes, I'd say fixing the small portion of humans who are broken makes a shitload more sense - as a liberal - than going after the sin-objects that the overwhelming majority use responsibly.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:38:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  as not a conservative, (3+ / 0-)

                  i don't see sexuality as a thing needing to be regulated.  as to the latter points, by the time someone in need of mental health treatment commits a crime (or commits suicide), the damage has been done.  There's no need to exclude one versus the other.  

                  Your argument might apply equally well against financial regulation -- if only people weren't so greedy.  Not regulation just in the form of prohibiting certain acts, but the second tier of taking steps to make sure there are fewer opportunities to do harm and that such harm is contained.

                  "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                  by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:40:55 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So your reflexive social conservative impulse (6+ / 0-)

                    is confined to one topic, and not the other.

                    You still operate from the same false social conservative premise that people - as individuals - are inherently mainly wicked and their liberties as individuals need to be preemptively restricted, because - given a permissive environment - they will act on those wicked impulses.

                    Financial regulation is a non-sequitur here - economic regulation seeks to alter how humans act collectively, not as individuals. It's well-known that people act differently in groups - from a reflexive obedience to authority, to altering their own norms to meet the group norms, to an ease rationalizing destructive behavior when substantially distant from any need to experience the impact - than they would act as individuals.

                    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                    by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:02:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  And yet... (5+ / 0-)

                ...that has no bearing whatsoever on the actual point being made -- that guns don't cause people to engage in criminal behavior.

                But, I guess that doesn't fit into your argument.

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:30:16 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  you're playing games with the notion (3+ / 0-)

                  of "cause."

                  Is a gun a sine qua non of a mass shooting?  Indeedeedo. It's not the "efficient cause" of a shooting, that being the shooter, but shooting is the Aristotelian "final cause" of a gun.

                  "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                  by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:36:08 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, I'm not. (6+ / 0-)

                    I'm pointing out that guns don't cause crime -- people committing crimes do.

                    It's really very simple.

                    Firearms are inanimate objects -- they can do nothing whatsoever without someone to use them.

                    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                    by theatre goon on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:39:14 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  that could almost fit on the back (3+ / 0-)

                      of a bumper sticker.  (as on the front of the bumpersticker it would just make you look like a gun nut.)  

                      Of course people commit crimes.  But the ready access of guns informs which ones they commit.  Let's also legalize weaponized plutonium.  Potentialities -- you really should read some Aristotle.

                      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                      by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:53:43 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No matter where it fits... (7+ / 0-)

                        ...it is still a fact.  

                        No matter how hard you try to go around it, it's still just how things are.

                        Aristotle was a big supporter of facts, as I understand it -- trying to use his words to avoid them seems somewhat insulting, to me.

                        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                        by theatre goon on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:58:03 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  and you haven't dealt with the substance (3+ / 0-)

                          of the argument, which concedes that fact but disputes its relevance.

                          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                          by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:58:55 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The substance being you want to limit firearm (5+ / 0-)

                            access, correct?

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:00:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i have made no effort to hide (3+ / 0-)

                            that this is my position.  As opposed to the arguments that we should have lots of background checks, just not for large swaths of gun sales, that we should enforce the laws on the books, while recognizing that based on the laws we have, they're quite unenforceable.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:21:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  See, I'd rather not limit (further) (8+ / 0-)

                            a civil right based on the evil a small portion of people do with the freedoms it affords.

                            We don't limit speech because of Illinois Nazis.
                            We don't limit religion (though it's far more damaging than firearms) based on the Westboro Baptist Church.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:32:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i'd rather worry about those civil rights (3+ / 0-)

                            that actually enhance participation in the democracy than imaginary ones.  Rights do not need to be enumerated in the bill of rights to be important (privacy rights) and some that are (right to a well-organized state militia, certain interpretations of the 7th and 10th amendments) are utterly antiquated.  As I don't see an individual right, here, citing the first amendment (on which I'm in complete agreement) just comes off as bootstrapping.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:35:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not my fault you don't see an individual right (8+ / 0-)

                            to keep and bear arms when there is one.

                            Also, you might want to check on your reading of the second. The prefatory is not binding. It is explanatory.

                            Also, even if it was binding, most adult males in the country are a part of the unorganized militia.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:39:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've never been a part of any militia. (0+ / 0-)
                            Also, even if it was binding, most adult males in the country are a part of the unorganized militia.

                            And I know quite a few folks who also have not.

                            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                            by ehrenfeucht games on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 04:09:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Only if they... (5+ / 0-)

                            ...choose to ignore the law -- as you have apparently chosen to do.

                            But, this has been pointed out to you many times.

                            According to the law, you (depending on age and citizenship), are, in fact, part of the unorganized militia -- whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.  Just as you are, for instance, required to pay taxes -- it's all part of being an American citizen.

                            Of course, some people are only interested in the privileges of citizenship, while choosing to ignore the attendant responsibilities.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 04:38:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The ad-homs really aren't necessary. (0+ / 0-)
                            Of course, some people are only interested in the privileges of citizenship, while choosing to ignore the attendant responsibilities.

                            You are talking about a make-believe militia with a make-believe membership role listing make-believe members who have never actually joined the make-believe militia organization.

                            I checked my wallet. I found no militia membership card.

                            Here in the real world, it appears that I am indeed not a member of any militia.

                            The only arguement that I have heard otherwise seems to be based solely on me having a penis.

                            That sort of arguement seems just a little weird to me.

                            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                            by ehrenfeucht games on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 07:03:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are incorrect. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, PavePusher, gerrilea
                            You are talking about a make-believe militia with a make-believe membership role listing make-believe members who have never actually joined the make-believe militia organization.

                            This is false.  I am talking about the unorganized militia, which exists due to and is defined by federal law.

                            The fact that you continue to insist otherwise has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the matter.  It is no different than those who insist that they don't have to pay federal income tax because... well... because they just don't have to.

                            And, of course, there was no ad hominem attack in my post whatsoever -- so that claim is false as well.

                            Fail.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 10:02:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You may be in some exclusive all-male club, ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...but I am not.

                            This is 2011.

                            In this day and age, not joining some silly exclusive all-male club does not mean that others are somehow ignoring their "responsibilities".

                            I get the feeling that some folks here would have been happier had they been born a couple of centuries earlier, when the values that they try to impose on others were more in vouge.

                            I have no responsibility whatsoever to join any exclusive all-male club, any more than I have a responsibility to join an exclusive all-white club.

                            Again, this is 2011. You do realize that, don't you?

                            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                            by ehrenfeucht games on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 10:22:47 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And yet... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, PavePusher, gerrilea

                            ...none of what you say here has any more bearing on the facts of the matter than the other times you have insisted that the law does not apply to you.

                            Further, you are now intentionally twisting what I posted into things that I definitely did not post -- dishonest at best.

                            Nothing more than we have come to expect from you.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 10:26:01 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You replied to a post of mine denying... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...membership in an exclusive all-male club.

                            You replied with an adhom implying that I was somehow ignoring my responsibilities, simply for refusing membership in this exclusive all-male club.

                            Again, do I really need to remind you that this is 2011.

                            Just because I have a penis does not mean that I have to join your club.

                            Not all males are militia types. That's just a centuries old stereotype. Some of us are actually opposed to militias.

                            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                            by ehrenfeucht games on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 10:38:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, incorrect. (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, PavePusher, gerrilea, rockhound

                            I pointed out that you are (depending on age, sex and citizenship) a member of the unorganized militia -- according to federal law.  This is a fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

                            I also pointed out that there are some people who are only interested in the privileges of citizenship while choosing to ignore the responsibilities.

                            If you are one of those people who choose to ignore laws that you don't happen to like -- and by your own statements, you are exactly that -- then the description applies to you.  It is not an ad-hom when it happens to be an accurate description.

                            What year it happens to be is irrelevant, and your false description of what a militia actually is is also irrelevant.  I said absolutely nothing about you joining any club -- insistence otherwise is simply dishonest.

                            In fact, your entire contribution to this particular sub-thread is willfully dishonest, as I happen to know these facts have been pointed out to you numerous times.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 11:48:01 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You rec'd a comment treatening execution for... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...the crime of having a penis below.

                            I also pointed out that there are some people who are only interested in the privileges of citizenship while choosing to ignore the responsibilities.

                            If you are one of those people who choose to ignore laws that you don't happen to like -- and by your own statements, you are exactly that -- then the description applies to you.  It is not an ad-hom when it happens to be an accurate description.

                            What sort of extreme measures do I have to go through in order to avoid execution under RKBA penis militia idiology?

                            In what way does having a penis make it my "responsibility" to join your silly little penis militia?

                            Why do you think I should be murdered by the state so long as I have a penis?

                            This isn't Iran. I shoudn't have to submit to life changing surgery simply to avoid being murdered by the state.

                            This is the USA in 2011. And the RKBA penis militia idiology is an anthema to modern enlightened thought and culture.

                            It's a throwback.

                            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                            by ehrenfeucht games on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 04:12:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are lying. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, KVoimakas, oldpunk

                            I recced a comment pointing out facts that you apparently don't like.

                            Your dishonesty is getting even more blatant than usual.  Must be getting close to time to creating yet another log-in, at this rate.

                            This:

                            You rec'd a comment treatening execution for ... the crime of having a penis below.

                            ...would look downright delusional to anyone not already acquainted with your blatant dishonesty on this issue.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 04:30:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This looks like your name. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm sure that you've rec'd lots and lots of comments, and perhaps you rec'd this one by mistake.

                            We all make mistakes. I've certainly rec'd things by mistake before.

                            There's still time to unrec it.

                            The part you're not getting, (3+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:theatre goon, PavePusher, gerrilea

                            and you're not getting it so strongly as to make one think that you actually do get it, but don't like it's consequences, is this:

                            You don't have a choice.

                            Every single male citizen of the United States between the ages of 18 and 45 is, by Federal statute, a member of the Unorganized Militia.

                            You don't have to join.

                            You don't get a card.

                            You can't opt out.

                            And, if the Unorganized Militia were ever called into service, say, in the event of an invasion, and you said that you hadn't joined and didn't show up, you could be executed for desertion in time of war.

                            Your opinions and feelings on this issue are not relevant. If you don't like it, work to get the law changed. But until that happens, it applies to you whether you like it or not. Whether you acknowledge it or not.

                            --Shannon
                            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                            by Leftie Gunner on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 06:52:55 PM CST

                            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                            by ehrenfeucht games on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 05:00:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No mistake at all. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, rockhound, oldpunk

                            As I pointed out, that comment simply points out the facts.  That you don't like those facts is irrelevant.

                            That being the case, you are still dishonestly representing what is actually in the comment.  Really, you should try something different.  This just doesn't work that well for you.

                            Boldface, italicize, do whatever you like -- it does not change the facts.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 05:12:21 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Militia Code (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, KVoimakas

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

                            § 311. Militia: composition and classes
                            How Current is This?
                            (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
                            (b) The classes of the militia are—
                            (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
                            (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

                            If you fit the above you are legally in the militia.  Nobody but you cares how much you protest that you aren't.  Your ignorance of or disagreement with doesn't change the law.

                          •  You do realize (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, gerrilea

                            that your intentional obtuseness makes you look like a moron, don't you?

                            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                            by happy camper on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 10:30:47 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The part you're not getting, (5+ / 0-)

                            and you're not getting it so strongly as to make one think that you actually do get it, but don't like it's consequences, is this:

                            You don't have a choice.

                            Every single male citizen of the United States between the ages of 18 and 45 is, by Federal statute, a member of the Unorganized Militia.

                            You don't have to join.

                            You don't get a card.

                            You can't opt out.

                            And, if the Unorganized Militia were ever called into service, say, in the event of an invasion, and you said that you hadn't joined and didn't show up, you could be executed for desertion in time of war.

                            Your opinions and feelings on this issue are not relevant. If you don't like it, work to get the law changed. But until that happens, it applies to you whether you like it or not. Whether you acknowledge it or not.

                            --Shannon

                            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                            by Leftie Gunner on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:52:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm going to be executed for not joining your... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...silly little penis militia???

                            Seriously???

                            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                            by ehrenfeucht games on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 02:35:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes. Seriously. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            Desertion in wartime is a capital crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which you would be subject as a member of the militia, once the militia was called into service by Congress.

                            --Shannon

                            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                            by Leftie Gunner on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 04:23:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Firearms DO "enhance democracy". (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, oldpunk, theatre goon, KVoimakas

                            As long as I have them, you must negotiate with me, you can not force me to your will.  (Well, you can, but you're going to find it considerably more risky and difficult.)

                          •  How does it enhance democracy for you... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...to be armed while the two of us negociate something?

                            As long as I have them, you must negotiate with me, you can not force me to your will.

                            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                            by ehrenfeucht games on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 08:18:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sigh... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            Obtusness, of the intentional variety, is not attractive.  Most especially not in someone who claims to be involved in higher education.

                          •  Yeah, ricky needs a new outrage. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, KVoimakas

                            This one is just kinda... sad.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 04:37:44 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have, actually. (5+ / 0-)

                            I have pointed out -- a couple of times, now -- that your assertions are not based in reality, and basically have nothing to do with the actual discussion.

                            Guns do not cause crime.  People do.

                            That being the case, your earlier assertion:

                            ...they committed crimes precisely because they had guns.

                            ...is simply false.  They committed crimes because they chose to do so.

                            The tool used has no bearing on the crime itself (except, of course, in a strictly semantic sense -- something becomes a "gun crime" only because a gun is used, it would still be a crime if any other tool were used).  If there were no human agents involved, the gun(s) in question would not have committed any crime.  Nor did the guns compel the criminals to commit any crime -- that would be in the realm of magic and not really suitable for any discussion based in reality.

                            Further, apart from your empty assertion otherwise, there is no reason to believe that these criminals would not have committed a similar if not identical crime (apart from the tool used, of course) if guns did not exist at all.

                            Pretty straightforward stuff, really.

                            All this being the case, the only person making irrelevant statements is you.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:07:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  not all "tools" are created equal (3+ / 0-)

                            as is evident from the lack of knife fetishism.  Without the practical ability to kill lots of strangers at once, the will to do so does not matter all that much.  One is the efficient cause, the other is a but-for cause.  

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:20:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fetishism? (7+ / 0-)

                            Really?  The best you can do is to attempt to link those who disagree with you to sexual practices which are sometimes considered taboo...?

                            Pretty weak tea.

                            Or are you going for the more archaic use of fetishism, and going back to trying to say that some evil spirit in an inanimate object causes people to commit crimes?

                            Either way, you are simply trying to dodge facts that show your assertions to be empty.

                            Additionally, of course, you are ignoring tools that can, and have, caused more deaths and injuries than firearms ever have (such as explosives) in your attempt to register blame on an inanimate object that you happen to not approve of.

                            We do now, though, see just how empty your arguments have been thus far.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:25:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yes, really (3+ / 0-)

                            if guns don't really do anything, why are we having this discussion?  Why not recognize they're articles of commerce like any other, and that the second amendment protects state militias.  I don't think all fetishes are necessarily sexual, but whatever you're doing with your gun, try to be safe.

                            Repeating that i've dodged facts I've addressed square-on is not quite accurate.  Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.  People with iron maces kills people, as well, but not as many and not so far away.  

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:44:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Because the second amendment protects an (7+ / 0-)

                            individual right to keep and bear arms, not state militias.

                            Gun-wielding people can kill. The lethality of the firearm is entirely the point. That's why the right to keep and bear is protected.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:48:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  At least this is relatively honest. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ehrenfeucht games, musing85
                            Gun-wielding people can kill. The lethality of the firearm is entirely the point.

                            So what we're dealing with here is your desire to be able to own something you can use to kill another human being.  

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 02:16:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When did I say... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, oldpunk, gerrilea

                            ...that guns don't do anything at all?

                            Oh, right.  I didn't.

                            I said that they don't cause people to commit crimes.

                            I guess that's another little fact that you "addressed square-on." even though... well... you didn't.  Like the others I've pointed out.

                            And as for your attempt to insinuate that I might have some sexual deviancy... well... you've shown that you can't actually support your arguments with facts.  Go with what works for you, I guess.

                            Making your facts up as you go along... really... what would Aristotle think?

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:51:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you introduced sexual content (3+ / 0-)

                            anyway, what fact have i made up?  you've attempted to characterize my view as believing that guns have animistic properties, all the while strawmanning in saying I believe that guns "cause" crimes in the sense of they make someone pull the trigger.  I did not say that and do not believe that.  But guns may be a but-for cause, a sine qua non, of certain crimes, like mass murder.  They may not be the efficient cause but the possession of them is unmistakeably part of the causal chain leading from idea to action.
                             

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 01:09:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Um, no... not quite. (5+ / 0-)

                            You were the one trying to apply the term "fetish" where it did not apply -- and, as I am quite sure you are well aware, in common usage it does refer to a sexual connotation.  That being the case, I did not introduce sexual content into the discussion.

                            Another usage, although somewhat archaic, is in giving objects animistic properties -- I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, as you could have  been using it either way.  Neither one would be accurate, of course, as I have pointed out -- but you seemed to stand by it.

                            And, as for making up facts, here's a doozy:

                            ...but the possession of them is unmistakeably part of the causal chain leading from idea to action.

                            Just because you assert it as a fact, does not make it one.

                            That should serve as an example, I believe -- your side of this "discussion" has been peppered with such empty assertions.

                            And, as you seem to be unable to engage in discussion without resorting to such, as well as personal insult, I will leave it at that.  

                            I should really stay completely out of such discussions as soon as I see people behaving in the manner you have done so here -- but I always hope that it's an outlier, rather than the entirety of the anti-rights position.

                            My bad -- I'll leave you to your fantasies.

                            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                            by theatre goon on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 01:18:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  two points (3+ / 0-)

                            first, i used fetish in the sense of ascribing inordinate significance to an inanimate object, which you are doing.  (def. 2: any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion  . . .)

                            second, part of the specific act of shooting someone involves having the idea to do it, pulling the trigger, firing the bullet, and so forth.  unless you don't understand what "fact" means, or the notion of "causal chain," it's a bit unclear.

                            I'm not anti-right, I'm anti-gun.  I'll note as well that people on your side more or less took over a diary dealing with a very narrow piece of legislation to argue, utterly disingenuously, that a law to add teeth to existing regulations wasn't necessary because we can just enforce the unenforceable laws on the books.  It's a way of opposing all gun control while still trying to appear reasonable, and it's bullshit.  In contrast, I've described the Gillibrand proposal fairly and argued why I think the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right and why it's bad public policy to act as though it does.  

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 01:34:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In this antiquated sense, it is you who has (5+ / 0-)

                            made the gun into the fetish, in that you believe possession of it causes people to be driven to commit crimes with them.

                            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                            by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 04:02:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The existing laws have plenty of teeth. (4+ / 0-)

                            All you have to do is close the jaws.

                            Adding more "teeth" to a full jaw will not do what you claim.

                            http://www.emailvirals.com/...

                          •  There does appear to be some knife fetishism. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, theatre goon, gerrilea

                            http://www.youtube.com/...

                            Apparently by authoritarian, control-freak, lying assholes.

                            Animism, it's one of a ban-ers favorite tools.

                  •  "mass shooting" is your only concern? (5+ / 0-)

                    Try "mass homicide" and you'll find other means far more effective and readily employed than firearms.  Far greater ease, far lower cost, far less paperwork.

                    A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

                    by 43north on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 05:38:15 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Loughner and Cho would have been prohibited (9+ / 0-)

            from purchase through the means they employed if-only the authorities acted in a manner prescribed by law.

            The fellow in Queens?  Yeah, with his record - no gun.

            As to jealous paranoid deranged homicidal acts?  
            Look up the Happy Land Social Club fire... $2 worth of gasoline did the trick.  No gun, no bullets, no form 4473 required.

            A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

            by 43north on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:01:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  If you make it harder to get a gun (9+ / 0-)

      then it stands to reason that some people who shouldn't be possessing guns (not everyone, of course) will be deterred from going to the effort of getting one.

      It's an incremental effort, not an on or off switch.

    •  I'm not a fan of health codes. If people want (0+ / 0-)

      to serve contaminated food in restaurants, they will find a way to do it.  How do these codes keep the "wrong" people from spreading germs?

      Ridiculous, eh?

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 09:31:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good (10+ / 0-)

    Given that the other news I've heard on guns today wasn't very good: Forbidding campuses to ban guns. Having lived through one campus shooting, that's entirely too many. Anyone who says s/he needs a gun on campus probably shouldn't be there in the first place. Colleges and universities are places for learning, not target practice.

  •  I believe the stat is 40% (8+ / 0-)

    of those who own guns illegally received them from a friend or relative.

    Just because a law won't stop every illegal gun, doesn't mean we should not try to stem the tide.

    Help me kick some Republican butt in Schodack, New York!

    by Linda Underwood on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:23:45 AM PST

  •  Funny about Gillibrand. (12+ / 0-)

    She was largely perceived, even attacked for being proRKBA as a Dem. Hmm. Must be getting blown around by the same wind that blows Mitt Romney.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:29:02 AM PST

  •  Fine, as long as the gun market takes a back seat (4+ / 0-)

    ...to financial market investigations in Schneiderman's office.

    Frankly, I realize that there are cities like NYC and DC where easily accessed guns presents a daily local hazard so I'd support the legislation. But they should just do it and not let it slow down the snails pace of prosecutions for the national and global crimes emanating from lower Manhattan. Sorry, if that seems OT but there are limited resources and higher priorities IMHO. Plus, these are a few of the very people we can hope to get results from & who deserve as much pressure as possible at every chance.  

    Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

    by kck on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:38:26 AM PST

  •  The effort is laudable (6+ / 0-)

    But where is the joint effort to hold the financial criminals who destroyed the economy accountable?

    The way the banksters have run roughshod over the global (not to mention just our national) economy, they might as well be killing people with guns the way they are putting people out of work, out of their homes, and into the streets.

    Combating illegal firearms is something I can always support. But I am cynical, because the way I see it, this is not as pressing an issue as getting those damn financial terrorists under control.

    Call me when that joint effort starts, and I'll clap as loud as you want.

  •  Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's investigators (8+ / 0-)

    are liars, and possibly criminals.

    It's against federal law to misrepresent oneself in a gun purchase from a FFL - and there's no indication they're doing it in a jurisdiction where they have authority to do a sting. And if they're buying guns while claiming not to be able to pass a background check, they're not buying from licensed dealers in the first place, but private individuals (or are failing to report serious felonies).

    Gun shows are a favorite boogeyman of anti-gun forces, which is why they often misrepresent what goes on there.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 09:35:34 AM PST

    •  That, or they're buying guns from FFL dealers, (8+ / 0-)

      claiming they can't pass a background check, and then actually passed one, making their claims of being unable to pass irrelevant.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 09:40:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I see upon rereading that some of the dealers (7+ / 0-)

      are actually facing charges and jail time. So... why again do we need new laws, when actual enforcement of the ones we have would do the trick?

      See, that's the problem with the gun debate (and many others): laws are passed, then left unenforced. The problem the law was meant to deal with never improves, so a more draconian law is passed - and still is unenforced. Repeat until the law is sufficiently draconian so as to catch mainly people not related to the problem the endless lawmaking was intended to address.

      Why the fuck would we want to go there, when we could, oh, say put resources into existing law?

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:04:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Send a note to Eric Holder (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85

      I am sure he'll only be too happy to open an investigation into AG Scneiderman's tactics.

      0: Number of Wall Street bankers arrested over crash of 2008. 4784: Number of Americans arrested protesting Wall Street's fraudulent practices 11/29/2011

      by Scott Wooledge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:09:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The use of pretexting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn

      when a someone holds oneself out to the public as a vendor, by law enforcement or private attorneys, is not a violation of any law or canon of ethics.  You note gun purchase.  Who said they completed the purchase of the guns? What is more, it seems that they didn't misrepresent themselves in the relevant way -- the investigators were able to pass background checks, being LEO, but instead posed as people not able to.  They therefore wouldn't have misrepresented having committed any felonies, themselves.

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:48:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, but filling out an FFL form fraudulently (7+ / 0-)

        is a crime - if you're not an LEO operating within your jurisdiction. NYC, for example, has a long history of its officers conducting "publicity stings" where officers perjure themselves on FFL forms upstate and in New Jersey.

        If they posed as believing themselves as unable to pass a check with an FFL and then passed them anyway, their statements pretending to presume their own ineligibility are irrelevant. They passed the legal requirements.

        If they posed as believing themselves as unable to pass a check to a non-FFL private seller, and were sold anyway, but are liars for calling non-FFL private sellers "dealers", which they are not; and furthermore, non-FFL private sellers aren't able to run background checks.

        If they posed as believing themselves as unable to pass a check, and an FFL dealer sold them anyway, the FFL dealer committed a crime, and would be fully prosecutable under current law - as a number apparently were.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 12:17:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm in Virginia. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clarknt67, ehrenfeucht games

    People around here will vote against their own interests to cling to their wretched guns.

    Ask the homophobes against marriage equality this: "Would you rather see two gay men marry each other or one closet case marry your daughter?"

    by spacecadet1 on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 09:46:18 AM PST

  •  "gun sales industry to better police itself" (7+ / 0-)

    I'd be nice if some of these new laws applied to the ATF's prolific gun smuggling into Mexico !
    The american gun dealers, middlemen, tried turning in the cartel smugglers & the ATF told them to shut up, keep selling, everythings under control....

    Woody Guthrie's guitar was inscribed, "This machine kills fascists"

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:03:03 AM PST

  •  Clark, while I agree something needs to be done, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, oldpunk, gerrilea

    I'm not sure any measures will really work.

    There is nothing to prevent me (except time, money and scruples) from buying guns in this state, filing off serial numbers or other identifying marks, and then traveling to somewhere with more restrictive gun laws and selling them there to acquaintances in a small private sale: you give me cash, I give you the hardware. I don't believe, although I may be wrong, that any gun makers are into things like microtagging etc. that would uniquely identify every single piece.

    Given that, there doesn't really seem to be anything that can be done to stop couriers.

    "But there's one thing that gives every Marine the willies, and anyone saying otherwise is a liar. Drop pods. That shit is terrifying, son."

    by Shaviv on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:07:43 AM PST

  •  This law doesn't look bad (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, PavePusher, gerrilea

    but it just appears to make things that are illegal already slightly more illegal.

    •  Which won't do a lick of good if the new law is (8+ / 0-)

      enforced as poorly as the current ones are.

      Dealers who break the law don't do so out of passion - they do so out of a risk/benefit analysis that shows that the chance of profiting is sufficiently greater than being punished that it's worth it to do so. These people are susceptible to deterrence.

      Putting new laws on the books doesn't change their risk/benefit analysis. More actual stings under existing law (as opposed to stings conducted for the purpose of publicity and political advocacy, as New York's often are) would do far more to curb this than more words on paper.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 10:52:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, when I got my 03 (Curio and Relic) FFL, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, oldpunk, theatre goon, KVoimakas

        I had to authorize the ATF to search my house and personal effects, and inspect my Bound Book, anytime they wanted.

        That permission is still in effect, even though I've let the license lapse. I still have the book, too, as well as every firearm that the book says I have.

        I don't fuck with the ATF. And I'm just a collector. The conditions on an 01 license are... ummm... a bit more stringent.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:31:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  You say (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, KVoimakas, PavePusher, 43north
    The Michigan legislature recently took two weeks off to go deer hunting.

    I'd think the NY legislature might be well served by doing the same, deer pretty thin upstate I've heard, if they did something to alleviate what is obviously a pressing issue I'd think all NYers would benefit. Maybe habitat enhancement or just ship them in from Jersey.

    "Slip now and you'll fall the rest of your life" Derek Hersey 1957-1993

    by ban nock on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 04:12:54 PM PST

  •  This is blatantly untrue: (6+ / 0-)
    There are currently no Federal laws that address illegal gun trafficking.

    And has been for over 40 years.

    The Gun Control Act of 1968 establishes the following rules:

    1. All interstate transfers (defined as any transfer of ownership in which the parties are residents of different States) of handguns must go through a Federally Firearms Licensee (FFL), otherwise known as a "licensed gun dealer".

    2. Interstate transfers of long guns need not go through an FFL, if, and only if, the transfer complies with State law in the States in which both parties reside. If the transfer is illegal in either state, it's illegal under Federal law.

    3. Intrastate transfers need not go through an FFL, but the transfer must comply with all other provisions of Federal law, to include "straw purchases", transfers to prohibited persons, etc, etc.

    Violations of the GCA are already Federal crimes.

    In other words, the proposed legislation would accomplish nothing, because the things it aims to prevent are already illegal.

    And, in a larger sense, if restricting the ability of non-criminals to legally purchase firearms reduced rates of violent crime, New York, Washington DC, and Chicago would have been the three safest cities in the country for the last 30 years.

    The bare fact is that supply-side gun control doesn't work. Even the CDC, who you'd think would have the strongest incentives in favor of the proposition, (given the fact that public health is perhaps the social science with the largest collective bias in favor of gun control, and that, as an agency of the Federal government, institutional biases in favor of government action would tend to be strong,) could not find any evidence whatsoever that any gun control law they looked at reduced violent crime.

    We've run the experiment.

    The hypothesis is not supported by the facts.

    --Shannon

    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:16:06 PM PST

    •  Oh please, spare us this canard: (0+ / 0-)
      And, in a larger sense, if restricting the ability of non-criminals to legally purchase firearms reduced rates of violent crime, New York, Washington DC, and Chicago would have been the three safest cities in the country for the last 30 years.

      This bit of NRA propaganda is too easily refuted to be taken seriously.  I spent 25 years of my life in DC.  The reason DC had a gun problem was because you could drive across the Potomac to Arlington or Alexandria and pick up guns with very little oversight.  In fact, New York City ended up suing Virginia because it identified that state as the source of a large percentage of the guns used in crimes in NYC.  DC's problem wasn't its own gun control laws, it was Virginia's lack of them.

      Gun control will only be effective if it's national.  It has to be done at the federal level.  If one can just drive across a bridge and buy a gun and then transport it to another jurisdiction, then yeah, gun control laws will be easily evaded.  But this is basically just an argument for broader, nationwide gun control.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 08:55:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  DC, NYC, et al could have stopped the flow of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, theatre goon, KVoimakas

        those illegal guns by stopping every car coming and or going into their locales....right? They could assume guilt just like the TSA does today...

        Their failure to act to protect their own residents is now the whole countries problem?

        And I'd ask these questions: What is actually perpetuating the violence? What makes a person believe the only option they have to settle their differences is through violence? Isn't this an indictment against the whole of society?

        Why haven't our children been given the tools necessary for success in these United States? Is there an educational system that teaches critical analysis? Is there a job available for every person that wants and/or needs one? Are there jobs that pay a living wage?

        Is it possible the faux "drug war" has done as it was intended to do? Criminalize everyone and everything...Is it possible that if the profit motive was removed from drugs, the majority of those "troubled cities" would find that people would not be killing each other so much? Is it possible if every American was armed, those drug dealers that terrorize and destroy our inner cities would be all but non-existent?

        Think about this for a moment, really...

        The police are not constitutionally bound to protect the individual and those cities have all but banned private gun ownership, leaving the residents helpless victims with no real defensive capabilities...review the crime stats in Australia for references here, before and after their gun banning...

        The Australian gov't made it's citizens into perfect prey...just like they are in Mexico and the cities you mention...perfect prey with no means of escape...no jobs, no opportunities, no chances....

        This is who's fault again? The drug dealer? The parent? The citizen? Or is is government policies that has created these problems? NOW you suggest the creator of these problems is the only one that can fix them by taking everyone's unalienable rights away?

        this is basically just an argument for broader, nationwide gun control.

        PROBLEM, REACTION, & PRE-DETERMINED SOLUTION.

        UGH!!!!

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Mon Dec 05, 2011 at 11:07:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, have you heard of the Constitution? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ehrenfeucht games
          DC, NYC, et al could have stopped the flow of those illegal guns by stopping every car coming and or going into their locales....right?

          The answer to this question is no.  They couldn't do that.  Even if such stops were constitutional, no jurisdiction has the resources to perform that many searches.  Do you have any idea how many people communte into DC from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs every day?  New York City would have an even bigger problem.

          As for one of your other points, that America is a violent society simply demonstrates the need to keep highly dangerous weapons out of people's hands.  

          What I'd really like to see from the pro-gun side is a simple acceptance of the moral consequences of your position.  You all disclaim any responsibility when there's a mass shooting, like Columbine or the Giffords assassination attempt.  But these things are the natural and probable consequences of the free availability of guns.  The ease with which guns can be acquired in this country makes it extremely likely they will fall into the hands of dangerous people.  And those people will use them (as they have time and again) to kill others.  Those are the consequences of your position.  Just admit that you prioritize gun rights over the lives of the victims of gun violence.  They are the inevitable "collateral damage" that results from the lax gun laws you favor.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 09:31:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Such stops are constitutional. (3+ / 0-)

            Many states utilize drunk-driving checkpoints.

            Crime has been falling for years. The murder rate is half what it used to be, yet guns are more available now than ever before, with 49 states now even allowing anyone who has no criminal record to carry a concealed weapon.

            There seems to be little correlation between gun availability and gun deaths.

            The Columbine shooters got their weapons through a straw purchaser. Loughner's mental issues, which would have disqualified him, were never brought to the attention of authorities. I am all for improved reporting and more punishment for people, such as straw purchasers, who break the law.

            The truth is, there are hundreds of millions of guns in the US, and no law will change that. Thousands of new ones are sold every day, in spite of the fact that guns generally don't wear out. Even if all firearms were outlawed today, those guns would still be there. You think setting up a checkpoint to search cars for guns would be hard? Try confiscating every gun in the US.

            What I'd really like to see from the pro-gun side is a simple acceptance of the moral consequences of your position.
            What will that accomplish? Will it save any lives? Will it make you feel superior to the gun nuts?

            I'm going to assume you support the ability of Americans to travel, of businesses to ship their products, etc. Do you feel a moral responsibility for the innocents who die on the highways each year?

            I don't. Nor do I feel responsible for the actions of any other people I don't know, law abiding or criminal. Your attempt to shame people into accepting your viewpoint is ridiculous.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 10:28:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Um, yes...it's clear you will only accept those (3+ / 0-)

            parts of the Bill of Rights that you agree with or chose to ignore...

            TSA checks millions of travelers on a daily basis, do they not? Clearly what they are doing is accepted, but is it constitutional? I'd say it isn't without probable cause...but you want to catch those "terrorists" right? You willingly accept these things, so what's so hard expanding such a wonderfully successful program???? After all, we must protect everyone from any and all dangers of life, right?

            Come now, you can't argue from both sides here...Either the constitution is the supreme law of the land or it's just a god damn piece of paper...with suggestions and/or recommendations our government can adhere to if they so desire...

            As for this:

            As for one of your other points, that America is a violent society simply demonstrates the need to keep highly dangerous weapons out of people's hands.

            Dishonest discussion here, failure to address the points made...

            Society is violent because of government actions...so maybe we should change it...maybe it should develop policies that will create the conditions whereby every person whom wants & needs a job that pays a living wage can obtain one...maybe it should stop trying to create more and more criminals...first suggestion, repeal all drug laws...second suggestion, dismantle the police state they've built...third suggestion, promote and protect the exercise of our unalienable rights...(IMO that IS the reason we created our government).  How about our government teaches our children what they actually are and their responsibility when exercising those rights...teach our children to become true adults in a free society...

            Wait, what a concept...free adults acting in a mature manner that have been taught how to settle their differences without violence???

            That leads me to this false point you make:

            What I'd really like to see from the pro-gun side is a simple acceptance of the moral consequences of your position.

            Morally, I accept that we are free.  As I've stated previously...Freedom is ugly and vile but it's the greatest gift you can give yourself...no one else can do it...Either we are free or we are not...

            We are responsible for our own actions. You cannot blame me for the actions of someone else.  I resoundingly reject your relativistic "morality".

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 12:01:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You sound just like a Republican. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ehrenfeucht games

              You don't have to take any responsibility for the natural consequences of your policy positions.  So, for example, if you advocated the elimination of Social Security, you wouldn't be responsible for the resulting impoverishment of elderly Americans.  After all, we're all free, right?  

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:54:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pathetic. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea, KVoimakas, ER Doc, oldpunk

                Your arguments are soundly trounced, and all you can respond with is "you sound just like a Republican."

                When your arguments fail, resort to personal insults.

                Now that is a Republican tactic!

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 06:20:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  False equivalencies won't work... (4+ / 0-)

                Being free has nothing to do with helping your neighbor or using the levers of our government to facilitate such.  Something I never advocated against...

                The "natural consequences" of our current policies of unfunded & unconstitutional wars of aggression, the unconstitutional "war on drugs" whereby our troops are used to "protect" the Afghani "way of life" has done more damage to our social safety and our progressive social programs than all the gun crimes throughout our entire history.

                You false choices and false equivalencies are meaningless when viewed from the proper context...

                Imagine what $3 trillion could pay for today? Imagine a world where there was a mere 10% of heroin available, recall the evil Taliban reduced the poppy fields to less than 10%, the heroin trade was collapsing...people were becoming clean and sober throughout the entire world...such evil they spread...

                Imagine having an extra $100 billion a year to pay teachers?

                Imagine having a extra $100 billion a year to create social programs that actually prevent people from using drugs?

                Imagine freeing up our limited resources instead of prosecuting and incarcerating 1.6 million ppl a year that lines the pockets of the prison industrial complex?  

                Now imagine that $200 billion a year that's been wasted over the past 30 yrs totaling $6 trillion being used to build free energy efficient homes for every homeless person in the country today? After that we'd have $5 trillion left over to maintain our crumbling infrastructure.

                Imagine that with me, will you?

                Or will you continue to create strawmen arguments that attempts to shutdown constructive discussions that could move us forward and beyond teh evil gun campaigns that do nothing but create more criminals, while allowing our society to implode...

                Now get back to me again about this:

                You don't have to take any responsibility for the natural consequences of your policy positions

                Who's zooming whom here? Keep arguing that guns are evil incarnate while ignoring the true consequences of our governments current policies...keep trying to convince people that banning guns will solve all their problems or will make their lives a little "safer" while ignoring how their lives ACTUALLY got the way they are...

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 07:12:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So many words, yet no response. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ehrenfeucht games

                  Not sure what all of the other ills of the world have to do with what I wrote in the prior comment.  I simply noted that "gun rights" types refuse to accept responsibility for the natural and probable consequences of their position.  Nothing in the long, rambing post you've written comes remotely close to responding to that point.  Which suggests, of course, that you really have very little to say.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 11:05:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hon, I did respond to your posting, you accused (5+ / 0-)

                    me of being a republican in your feeble attempts to obfuscate and create strawmen arguments never presented by myself...

                    My reply is now "rambling"...clearly you either don't have the ability to think critically or you really don't have any other position than "guns are evil" and "gun rights" advocates are guilty for the actions of others whom want to dismantle our social safety nets.

                    My reply points out exactly what the problem is and how it should be corrected.  I guess you have reading comprehension issues, as well...

                    Clearly it's you whom will not, what did you say?

                    Oh, that's right:

                    You don't have to take any responsibility for the natural consequences of your policy positions

                    Want to have an honest discussion yet? Or are you so one dimensional that you can't fathom any other reality that will not deny Americans having the unalienable right to keep and bear arms?

                    Can't face the reality of our government's current policies so you create more demons that must be slayed? Take responsibility for your relativistic morality.

                    If and when you actually address the real causes of the violence in our society maybe then we can move forward together finding legitimate solutions.

                    Until that time, any further manipulations by you will not be addressed by me.

                    Have fun...

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 12:02:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  So to you Republicans are the party that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas, theatre goon

                makes logically consistent, and coherent arguments backed up by data?

      •  Claiming that a statement has been refuted... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        ...is not the same as actually refuting it.

        You are quite far from actually proving that your statements are correct.  An assertion of opinion, such as:

        This bit of NRA propaganda is too easily refuted to be taken seriously.

        ...and...
        Gun control will only be effective if it's national.

        ...does not make that opinion into fact.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 03:48:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I can agree with this: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ehrenfeucht games
          Claiming that a statement has been refuted... is not the same as actually refuting it.

          So when you get around to refuting what I wrote, you can get back to me.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 09:32:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No need to. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, Otteray Scribe

            Why would I bother refuting your claims when you haven't supported them in the first place?

            It would be like me insisting that you prove Santa Claus doesn't exist.

            The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim.  In this instance, you have not provided any proof of your claims.  Until that happens, there is no need to refute your unsupported assertions.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 09:58:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, the fact that (8+ / 0-)

        the cities where all of these illegal guns are supposedly "pouring in" from lower crime rates that the cities they they are supposedly supplying with guns doesn't indicate anything at all about the effectiveness of your preferred policy, now does it?

        If making it difficult to legally purchase, own, and carry firearms reduced violent crime, you would expect the opposite to be true, and cities like Chicago and DC to have lower (but non-zero) rates than the cities which are supposedly supplying their criminals with guns. If the existence of "lax" gun laws in other places reduces the difficulty of acquiring guns in places with "strict" laws, it must still be more difficult to get one in a "strict" place than in a "lax" place... even if the added difficulty is only some larger number of dollars and a longer drive.

        The fact that not only is this not the case, but that it has never been the case, suggest strongly that the proposed solution has not worked, is not working, and cannot work.

        Supply-side gun control has not, in any instance where it has been tried, led to a reduction in crime and violence. At best, it's a null factor... it does not help. At worst, you can make a fairly strong argument that it is actively harmful, although I don't need that to make the case against gun control. All I have to do is show that these laws have not, in fact, accomplished what they were putatively intended to accomplish. And in that regard, the record is very clear, and utterly one-sided.

        Making it harder to own firearms legally does not decrease violent crime, and making it easier does not increase it.

        It's been four decades... you need a new argument.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Tue Dec 06, 2011 at 04:33:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site