Skip to main content

Let's imagine a scenario.  You are at home, enjoying a quiet afternoon.  Looking out your window, you see two people, maybe black, fiddling around with the door of the house next door.  As a long-time NRA member, you have been trained in the proper use of firearms and understand the importance of protecting yourself and your neighbors.  So you call your teen-aged son, grab your Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, load in a clip, and head outside.  Turning off the safety, you approach the intruders.  You raise your weapon and call out for the two strangers to drop what they are doing and raise their hands.  You confront a middle-aged couple, he's black and she's white.  You're not taking any chances, so you keep your gun trained on the two, telling them not to move while you call the cops.  Though cowed by the sight of your firearm and your apparent readiness to use it, they have some sort of story  they are eager to tell you.  You tell them to shut up; you've just caught two home-invaders red-handed, and you're not interested in their bs story.  After many tense minutes go by, the cops arrive.  They arrest the intruders and take them away.  You return to your home, saying a quick prayer that no one got shot, and thanking your lucky stars that you live in America with its guarantee that all citizens can own firearms to protect themselves.

This scenario actually played out last week when Robert Canoles and his son Brandon used their AR-15 assault rifles to threaten and detain Jean-Joseph Kalonji and his wife Angelina, when the couple were attempting to change the locks on their recently purchased house in Newton County, Georgia.  The Canoles father and son team saw the mixed race couple (he grew up in Zaire, she in Romania), and assumed they were breaking into the house next door.  The Canoles held Jean-Joseph and Angelina at gun-point for 10-15 minutes, and refused to hear when Jean-Joseph and Angelina explained they were the rightful owners of the house in question.  The police arrived, and promptly arrested Jean-Joseph and Angelina on suspicion of burglary.

Gun advocates tell us they are fighting for the civil rights of all citizens.  They tell us that in fighting for greater gun availability and liberalized gun laws, they are protecting our civil rights.  However, Jean-Joseph and Angelina Kalonji actually experienced a loss of their civil rights at the hands of gun enthusiasts Robert and Brandon Canoles.  The Kalonji were not allowed to enter their own home, and were subsequently detained and spent two days in jail.  In this case, guns were used to restrict the civil rights of the Kalonjis to enter and enjoy their own home, to peaceably go about their business in their own neighborhood, and to be free of imprisonment by government authorities.  Robert Canoles is unapologetic: “This is my second amendment right” he told the local newspaper.  For some gun enthusiasts, their second amendment rights include threatening their neighbors and telling them what to do on their own land.

Gun advocates like to tell us we live in a dangerous crime-ridden society, in which guns are necessary to protect life and property.  Of course, one of the things that makes this a dangerous society is the free availability of guns.  Hardly a week seems to pass without another story of a deranged gun-owner engaged in a public mass shooting.  The answer, say gun enthusiasts, is for more Americans to arm themselves.  If everyone had a gun, say gun advocates, then any public shooting would be quickly halted by the armed citizenry themselves.  And because this is a crime-ridden society, gun enthusiasts have been lobbying for reduced restrictions on their use of guns.  Hence, “stand your ground” laws have been passed in numerous states.  The laws provide legal defense and/or immunity to gun-owners who use deadly force in self defense.  Roughly half the states in the US have adopted the “Castle Doctrine”, stating that a person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked.  Use your gun to protect yourself in your home, and you will not be charged with a crime.  “Stand your ground” laws provide similar protections to gun-owners outside their homes, allowing the use of deadly force for self-defense in public spaces, without the obligation to retreat.  Gun enthusiasts like to claim that the greater availability of guns and “stand your ground” laws have a deterrent effect on criminals and result in safer communities.

But what might have happened if Jean-Jospeh Kalonji himself was such a gun enthusiast?  Let's imagine a second scenario.

You and the misses are going to stop by your newly-purchased home and change the locks before you begin moving your stuff in.  You have a conceal-carry permit that you have keep for a number of years; having grown up in Zaire, you have seen how quickly violence destroys the lives of the weak.  You thank your lucky stars you now live in America with its guarantee that all citizens can own firearms to protect themselves.  This particular trip involves your wife and a ride out into the countryside, so you are not taking any chances today; your Glock 32 .327 handgun with 10 round clip goes right where it should be in your Galco In The Pants holster.  You arrive at your property and proudly lead your wife as the two of you walk around the yard of your new house; this is a dream you have worked years to see fulfilled.  It is at this moment that you see the two men step into your yard, both carrying rifles pointed at you.  This is your own home, your own land, and those coming towards you are not the Welcome Wagon.  Your reaction is instinctual, the result of all those training classes in self defense you took at the gun club.  You give your wife a healthy shove to the side, draw your piece, wrap both hands around the grip and drop into a crouch.  The shooting starts almost immediately, and seems surprisingly loud.

Gun enthusiast love their guns as long as they are the only ones holding them.  They love the power and authority that pointing a gun gives them.  This is actually a rather cowardly view, because the feeling that comes when someone else is holding the gun is much more uncomfortable.  Ask Ted Nugent, who will proudly tell you how much he loves hunting and shooting with his guns, but went to great lengths to avoid hunting and shooting in the military where he might have faced the prospect of being hunted and shot at by others.  The perfect spokesman for the NRA.  But the trouble with advocating for more and more guns is that sooner or later you will find yourself looking into a muzzle instead of looking down the sights.  Gun advocates say that if that unhappy moment comes, you want to be sure you are armed.  And if you are, who then wins?

The gun industry itself doesn't care who wins.  Every guns and bullet sold is a profit for the gun industry.  And every law that makes it easier to buy guns and ammo, and every law that provides protections to those who use their guns, means greater profits for the gun industry.  The gun industry uses those profits to lobby state and federal legislators for fewer restrictions on guns and ammo sales, thereby ensuring their increased profits for years to come.  Regardless of whether the bullets end up in the home-defender or the home-invader or the 5-year kid living across the street, the gun industry makes a profit.

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 (8+ / 0-)

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:17:23 AM PDT

  •  A lot of "ifs" here. (29+ / 0-)

    But you know what that highly trained person/s did wrong?

    They didn't call the cops first.
    They didn't stay in their own FSM damn house.
    They went out and pursued a confrontation.

    And that's not even mentioning the shit that the local LEOs did erroneously.

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

    by KVoimakas on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:28:03 AM PDT

    •  But-but-but (13+ / 0-)

      GUNS!!!

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

      by happy camper on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:39:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It could happen where I live (4+ / 0-)

      If I saw some strangers---their color wouldn't matter-- trying to get into one of my neighbors houses, I'd go see what they were up to. And I might have a gun in my back pocket when I did it.
      Thats the way people are in rural Oregon. I feel I owe it to my neighbors and they'd do the same for me, some of them. Call 911 at the wrong time and you get a machine, not fooling.

      Happy just to be alive

      by exlrrp on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:51:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The house was vacant, bank owned foreclosure. (0+ / 0-)

        The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

        by SoCalSal on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:26:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •   I'd still be curious (5+ / 0-)

          but I'd just watch them for a while untill it became obvious wha they were up to.  I believe in concealed carry.  This is the boonies,  people walk around armed here all the time. The people I know here with CCW permits are mostly women, some of who would walk up and talk to strangers trying to get into a strange house or confront other situations they thought were odd. These are some mean old grannies.

          Happy just to be alive

          by exlrrp on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:37:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nothing wrong with being watchful to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn

            protect the neighborhood. I'm a mean old granny who lives in a city. I'd walk over, unarmed, to the neighbor's house to see what was going on -- OR if the situation appeared threatening (the middle-aged Kalonjis sure don't appear threatening to me), I'd call 911.

            I do not support concealed carry. At.all. When I lived in a beach area last year, I had nothing more than a dish towel in my hand when I calmly broke up a fight between two angry young men, and nothing in my hand when I stopped a young man from beating his girlfriend and trashing their apartment. Could be that my best weapon is my white-haired, grandmotherly appearance. ;)

            The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

            by SoCalSal on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:11:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's no reason not to go trespass upon it for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SoCalSal

          the purpose of rousting potential undesirables. Everybody has a duty to be a vigilante, crime or no crime, lest somebody somewhere sometime gets away with a crime against somebody's property, even it it isn't yours and you have no clue to whom it belongs.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:17:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or you could call it living in a community (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            where people watch out for each other, as opposed to running and hiding over any threat at all, while calling 18hr day/6 dayweek law enforcement

            Happy just to be alive

            by exlrrp on Thu May 03, 2012 at 05:57:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Some never leaned to MYOFB, snoops and (0+ / 0-)

              vigilantes, who pretend to be all about community. Guess what, community means not spying upon your neighbors and not worrying that your neighbors are spying on you. Beyond that, since it is a vacant parcel under discussion, there are no neighbors to pretend to be concerned about, simply the drive to demand that the "other" kow-tow to, obey and cower before their self appointed masters.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:58:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Because everybody in the universe is (0+ / 0-)

        answerable to your ass, right? Everybody has to stop on your command and give a full accounting of themselves, or else what? Or else you pull your gun to back up your non-existent right to be gestapo of the week?  Who deputized you to butt into anybody's life but your own?

        And if somebody outdrew you and shot your ass while you were reaching for your piece you'd feel aggrieved, too, right?

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:57:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It must be awful in your closed little world (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          Youre the one who lives in fear

          Happy just to be alive

          by exlrrp on Thu May 03, 2012 at 07:04:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope, I live in a nice happy little community (0+ / 0-)

            where people have rights and freedom to go about their business without being harassed by authoritarian TV cop wannabees. Anybody coming around pulling that stop and explain yourself around here would be instantly reported to the police many times over, and everybody would take notes to refer to when testifying at the eventual wrongful arrest, misprison terroristic threats and assault trial.

            Some people still value freedom and civil liberties.

            That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

            by enhydra lutris on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:54:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  rural + unreliable 911 service = (4+ / 0-)

        ... a radically different situation to urban/suburban + reliable 911 service.

        If your local 911 dispatch center doesn't have live personnel on duty 24/7/365, they may be in violation of federal regulations.

        In many areas, local is backed up with county, but apparently that's not working reliably either.    

        What times of day is this known to occur in your area?

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:23:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oregon sheriff 18/6 in about half the counties (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          Have to laugh at "being in violation of federal regulation." The feds pulling the timber payments is whats causing this in the first place. Don't like 18 hr/day law enforcement in Oregon? write your congressmand and demand they pass Defazio's timber plan.
          This is just in the news today:

          The sheriff of Josephine County has some straight talk for voters: No new taxes means he will be the only county lawman left available around the clock.
          less you think its only really rural Oregon counties, her's the future for Lane County, the one Eugene is in, the next county to me.
          Now, facing what may be the end of the federal subsidies,it’s (Lane County)planning a budget that cuts more than 200 workers, eliminates the county morgue, cuts patrol deputies by three-quarters, reduces jail beds for local offenders by more than half, cuts parole and probation so people convicted of domestic violence will be on their own, cuts criminal prosecutions by nearly a third, and stops maintenance of rural roads....."
          they'll be cutting patrol deputies in cars from 24 to---wait for it---6.

          Oregon is one of the least policed states in the country. one of the things Ive always liked about it. In many places here its do it yourself justice  or not at all.
           be sure and write and tell the feds about it!

          Happy just to be alive

          by exlrrp on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:15:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Canoles father and son (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalSal

      I don't know if the Robert and Brandon Canoles had a lot of firearm training or not, and I don't know if they called the cops before holding the Kalonjis at gunpoint.

      Clearly, they had no business assaulting the Kalonjis on the Kalonjis property.

      It looks like the police may also made some unforced errors.

      I assume the vast majority of gun-owners act reasonably and responsibly.  Unfortunately, the result of a gun-shot can be lasting injury.  And it only takes one person not acting reasonably and responsibly to inflict such a lasting injury on an innocent somebody.  For this reason, I advocate for restrictions on gun ownership.  This to me is just simply common sense.

      Let me also point out that the vast majority of blacks, homeless, immigrants, and poor people and others who gun-owners fear might be a threat are also reasonable and responsible people.  The gun indsutry plays to those fears in order to increase their profits, not because of concerns for your personal safety.  

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:55:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would pay good money that if you chatted (9+ / 0-)

        with their neighbors and acquaintances and looked at police reports, you'd find numerous past instances of the Canoles threatening or using small acts of violence against others.

        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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:01:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not sure what you mean n/t (0+ / 0-)

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:12:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He means that (7+ / 0-)

            people who act the way these two did nearly always have a history of threatening others, getting into spats with neighbors, and the like, if not actual criminal acts.

            Your laid back Uncle Fred will not turn into a vigilante just because the state gives him a CCL, or he buys a gun. Past performance is the best predictor of future behavior.

            Crafting broad-based restrictions to deal with a small minority is bad policy, no matter the subject.

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

            by happy camper on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:45:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ranger995, SoCalSal

              This is a rather strange argument:

              Crafting broad-based restrictions to deal with a small minority is bad policy, no matter the subject.
              The overwhelming majority of the citizenry is law abiding.  They would never, for example, commit murder.  Yet we "craft broad-based restrictions to deal with a small minority" of our citizens who do commit murder.  The problem laws against murder adress is not the number of actual or potential murderers.  It's the severity of the consequences of the crime.

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

              by FogCityJohn on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:12:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But there is a significant difference in (4+ / 0-)

                the activities being engaged in. Murder is not a constitutionally protected right so the legislative branch has greater authority to craft laws to aid in reducing it, regardless of the frequency in which it occurs. Whereas firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right and therefore the legislative branch is limited in its authority to enact laws restricting it.

                Here is the disconnect, the difference between laws that target criminals which are intended reduce violent crime and laws that target the rights of law abiding gun owners which do little if anything to reduce crime. In my opinion laws that specifically focus on restricting rights are not enacted with a view to reducing crime but rather with a view to restrict an activity that some people don't approve of.

                By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

                by oldpunk on Thu May 03, 2012 at 03:56:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  The same can be said about the need for guns (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SoCalSal

              I agree with you about dealing with small minorities.

              So let's say you read about a home invasion or about a robbery.  Just because some small minority engages in criminal behavior, that doesn't mean everyone does.  So those who want to arm themselves for protection really have no need, because we are only talking about a small minority of assailants.  And there is no need for greater gun availability countrywide.

              After all, anyone who would go into your home or attack you on the streets is way outside the mainstream.  There is no need to set our national gun policy because of the small minority who might commit such acts.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:15:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The opposite is true as well (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happy camper, Robobagpiper

              Uncle Fred with a history of anger management and violence issues will not be magically reformed into a responsible guy when he buys a firearm or obtains a CCW permit.

              All the more reason for requiring a comprehensive background investigation on prospective owners of firearms, particularly CCW applicants.

              I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

              by Wayward Wind on Thu May 03, 2012 at 03:20:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have no (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon, Robobagpiper

                problem with that.

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

                by happy camper on Thu May 03, 2012 at 05:05:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Except that you are going about it... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon, Robobagpiper

                entirely ass-backwards.

                Rights are the default position in this country, at least in principal.

                We don't, generally, make an individual prove that are responsible.  The obligation is for the government to prove that the individual is not responsible.

                •  That is precisely what (0+ / 0-)

                  a background investigation does: examines the history of the individual to determine whether that history shows a pattern of responsibility or demonstrates irresponsibility to such a degree that the individual should not be allowed to carry a firearm in public, or, in some cases, to even own a weapon.

                  The burden is on the issuing authority to provide a sufficient basis for declining issuance of a CCW permit and be able to justify their decision in court if challenged.

                  I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

                  by Wayward Wind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:40:25 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  This is wrong: (16+ / 0-)
    Of course, one of the things that makes this a dangerous society is the free availability of guns.
    Gun laws liberalized (past 25 years), violent crime dropping.

    So more guns != more crime.

    (I'm not saying more guns = less crime.)

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

    by KVoimakas on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:29:41 AM PDT

    •  The diarist's claim is predicated on the (12+ / 0-)

      dubious assumption that people are latent murderers, just waiting for the right trigger to snap.

      Hating and fearing one's fellow citizens is a common thread among authoritarians, but doesn't speak to reality. Mentally healthy people have a very powerful inhibition against killing, one that takes extensive conditioning (as is done in post-WWII militaries) or extreme duress to break.  On the other hand, perpetrators of homicide invariably have a long history of escalating acts of violence.

      What makes our society dangerous is that the small fraction of people whose inhibitions against violence are poorly developed or otherwise damaged is too large. But that's not a problem that's solved by blaming inanimate objects. It's a problem that's solved doing the hard work of fixing the root causes of what makes peoples natural, healthy inhibitions go awry.

      Root causes like poverty, environmental neurotoxins, poor mental health safety net, and all those other things liberals are supposed to be prioritizing.

      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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:58:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You appear to share this assumption: (0+ / 0-)
        The diarist's claim is predicated on the dubious assumption that people are latent murderers, just waiting for the right trigger to snap.
        Indeed, isn't this precisely the justification for individual firearm ownership?  You need to own a gun to protect yourself from all those "latent murderers, [who are] just waiting for the right trigger to snap."

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

        by FogCityJohn on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:14:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Quite the contrary; I recognize, as studies (8+ / 0-)

          of criminals have shown, that there is a small subset of the population prone, for any number of reasons, to repeated violent acts. By the time these people escalate to homicide, they typically have rap sheets of low-level violent acts as long as your arm.

          Those not in this subset of the population, those who have normal inhibitions against the use of force against others, are generally of minimal threat to anyone except when put under the most extreme duress.

          I, for one, trust the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens to do the right thing. This is what makes me a liberal. I also recognize that there are a handful of sociopaths out there that are responsible for most of the violence, and it's not unreasonable to have the means to defend myself against that small subset.

          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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:30:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No one has right to bear arms in Mexico (12+ / 0-)

      Yet, tens of thousands are dying each year.

      My travels throughout Latin America have convinced me that everyone should have the right to bear arms.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

      by PatriciaVa on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:00:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You repeat this so often (4+ / 0-)

      Have you ever wondered if the rate of deadly crime would have dropped even more, were guns less prevalent?

      In other words, have you considered that the rate of decrease in murders has been retarded by the widespread availability of firearms in the USA?

      If Wikipedia's statistics on intentional homicide rates per 100,000 people can be trusted, it seems so.

      2004 intentional homicide rate, Europe = 5.4

      2010 intentional homicide rate, Europe = 3.5

      Decrease in rate, Europe = 35.2 percent

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      2004 intentional homicide rate, North America = 6.5

      2010 intentional homicide rate, North America = 4.7

      Decrease in rate, North America = 27.7 percent

      Using those statistics, the intentional homicide rate in Europe dropped 27 percent faster than in North America over the period 2004-2010.

      It turns out North American's rates are a bit skewed by our murder-plagued neighbor to the south. Let's look at just two nations: UK and USA:

      2000 intentional homicide rate, UK= 1.71

      2009 intentional homicide rate, UK= 1.17

      Decrease in rate, UK = 31.6 percent

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      2000 intentional homicide rate, USA = 5.5

      2009 intentional homicide rate, USA = 5.0

      Decrease in rate, USA = 9.1 percent

      In other words, one might reasonably conclude that the widespread availability of firearms causes the homicide rate in the USA to stay high, much higher than other so-called "first world" nations. Over the period 2000 to 2009, the rate in the UK, for example, decreased 258 percent more than in the USA.

      The UK is not unusual. Germany (31.2 percent) and France (37.4 percent) showed similar decreases to the UK (31.6 percent) over the same period.

      I don't think it's too much of a stretch to conclude that our precious 2nd amendment  means there are plenty more dead Americans and human suffering than there otherwise would be, if we had more rational gun laws.

      •  Don't forget that with Stand Your Ground, killings (4+ / 0-)

        that used to be considered manslaughter and homicide are now

        "Justified" and therefore are no longer in those statistics.

        Florida's number of justified killings has more than doubled since the Stand Your Ground laws have been enacted.

        If you read many of the specific cases, it seems that many of those people's deaths should not be considered justified.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:26:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Statistics for North America also include (0+ / 0-)

        Canada, with a much lower homicide rate than the USA. Not the most useful stats.

        Here's a study of gun death rates among states, which could be more useful.

        The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

        by SoCalSal on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:47:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Firearms are not the cause of anything. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, theatre goon, PavePusher

        They do not cause crime. They do not force their owners to do anything. Firearms are inanimate and cannot produce an impact without first being acted upon by an outside force. So one might reasonably conclude that the homicide rate in America has more to do with the people committing the homicides rather than the availability of the tools used to commit homicide.

        By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

        by oldpunk on Thu May 03, 2012 at 04:46:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not logical (0+ / 0-)

          Today in America, 2/3's of all murders are committed using a gun (FBI statistic).  

          Why is the gun the favorite tool of murderers?  Because the gun is reliably lethal, lethal at a distance, kills quickly, cheap and easy to use, small and easy to carry.

          Anyone can murder using a gun: a child can kill anyone using a gun.  The same cannot be said of knives, stones, fists, baseball bats, motor vehicles, IEDs, sash cords, garottes, opiates, or pushing someone off a cliff.

          A lot of murders are spontaneous.  Without the quick and easy lethality of a gun, many murders would never occur.  Lots of murders don't want to get up close and personal with their victims.  If all murders had to use a bludgeon, many murders would never occur.

          I'm guessing that if we could magically eliminate guns, we would see the murder rate drop by half.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 05:21:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not logical? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon

            That would depend on the premise on which the logic is based. My premise is that guns, being inanimate objects, simply cannot be the cause of criminal activity. Nevertheless to address your points,

            Today in America, 2/3's of all murders are committed using a gun (FBI statistic).  
            And the vast majority of these murders are probably committed by...a person with a history of violent crime. The gun didn't do anything on its own.
            Why is the gun the favorite tool of murderers?  Because the gun is reliably lethal, lethal at a distance, kills quickly, cheap and easy to use, small and easy to carry.
            The same can be said about a gun being a favourite tool of those interested in protecting themselves. But again this is contingent upon a person making a choice.
            Anyone can murder using a gun: a child can kill anyone using a gun.  The same cannot be said of knives, stones, fists, baseball bats, motor vehicles, IEDs, sash cords, garottes, opiates, or pushing someone off a cliff.
            Actually any adult can commit murder (save those with physical or mental deficiencies that preclude them from being capable) and they can do so using a variety of means, all of which can result in death. A child can be involved in a negligent discharge (which isn’t necessarily a criminal act but can result in criminal charges against the parent or responsible person) of a firearm that results in an unintentional homicide but the number of such incidents is incredibly low, 121 in 2007 for the age group 1 – 17, 501 for the age group 18 and older. Whereas the number of homicides with a gun for the age group 18 and older were 11,585 and 1,023 for the age group 1 – 17 for the same year.

            The biggest problem I see here is that it is hardly valid to compare murder (a criminal act) with killing (not necessarily a criminal act).

            A lot of murders are spontaneous.  Without the quick and easy lethality of a gun, many murders would never occur.
            Murder cannot be spontaneous. Murder is roughly defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought, and comes in four types  (1) intentional murder; (2) a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness; and (4) murder committed by an Accomplice during the commission of, attempt of, or flight from certain felonies. There isn’t much room for spontaneity in the definition of murder or types of murder except for number 4 so I don’t believe it can be said with much certainty that without the lethality of a gun or its ease of use many murders would never occur.  
            Lots of murders don't want to get up close and personal with their victims.
            I will go out on a limb here a say that lots potential victims don’t want to get up close and personal with their attackers. I therefore side with potential victims of violent crime and place their desire for a firearm as having greater value than the consequences of criminal use.
            If all murders had to use a bludgeon, many murders would never occur.
            If there were no murderers no murders would occur.
            I'm guessing that if we could magically eliminate guns, we would see the murder rate drop by half.
            I’m guessing that if we could magically eliminate freedom of speech we would see the spread of racist and bigoted ideas significantly reduced.

            By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

            by oldpunk on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:40:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

          Let me get your point right: a weapon designed expressly to kill is just an innocent little object.  It means no harm.

          Why can't we all just get along?

          What's next?  Are you going to pull out a guitar, or a Glock, and play kumbaya for us all?

          Poor little guns.  So misunderstood!  If only people could see that they are just innocent little harmless firearms.  Then, perhaps,  they wouldn't conclude that guns are associated with so many murders and crimes.  Funny how all the murders and suicides one reads about in the news for some reason seem to include morons and their guns.  People who don't have guns around?  Not so much.

          Do you have any idea how ridiculous the bullshit the pro-gun morons feed you sounds?  And how ridiculous it makes you look to repeat it?

          Sadly, I suspect the answer to those questions is "no."

          •  And...just to be clear (0+ / 0-)

            By writing "all the murders and suicides" I am in no way implying that each and every murder and suicide involves firearms.  That would be ridiculous.

            I mean all the ones that involve guns.  And...there are plenty.

            Sadly for the victims involved.  

          •  I stand corrected then. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas

            Firearms are the cause of most murders and suicides. Firearms cause crime. They force their owners to do things they wouldn't normally do. Firearms are animate and can produce an impact without first being acted upon by an outside force. Therefore the homicide rate in America has more to do with the availability of tools used to commit homicide and not the people who actually commit the homicides.

            In summation violent crime is caused by guns. It's the guns fault and not the fault of the person who takes the deliberate action of loading the gun, pointing it at someone, taking aim and pulling the trigger. Gotcha.

            By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

            by oldpunk on Mon May 07, 2012 at 05:49:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So -- in your mind (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk

              "associated with" = "cause"

              ??

              Nice li'l strawman you've built there.

              Or is it that you're lying by claiming I wrote something that I didn't?

              It's almost as if the smoke and fumes from combusted gunpowder must cloud people's reasoning or something.

              •  You responded "Bullshit" to this comment I made. (0+ / 0-)
                Firearms are not the cause of anything. They do not cause crime. They do not force their owners to do anything. Firearms are inanimate and cannot produce an impact without first being acted upon by an outside force. So one might reasonably conclude that the homicide rate in America has more to do with the people committing the homicides rather than the availability of the tools used to commit homicide.
                The premise for this this comment is that a firearm is an inanimate object, it therefore cannot be the cause of crime much less anything else and that homicides can be directly attributed to the acts of people (people with a long criminal history I might add) and not the acts of inanimate objects. The way I see it, your response of "bullshit" can only mean that you reject this premise and believe the opposite. I simply edited my statement to align with what you appear to believe.  

                By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

                by oldpunk on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:16:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I responded "bullshit" (0+ / 0-)

                  Because of the all-too-predictable "inanimate object" excuse you excreted onto your comment.

                  As if there is not a sliver of difference between a sheet of paper and a loaded gun.

                  As if a seatbelt is the same thing, the absolutely same thing, as a loaded gun.

                  As if a bicycle helmet is the same thing as a gun.

                  It's a bullshit argument, and if you had an ounce of honesty, you would agree.

                  Before you brush away my examples, examine the statements made by the RKBA morons in other diaries.  

                  "Oh yes! Packing a pistol is just like wearing my leathers when I ride my motorcycle."

                  As I said.  Morons.

                  •  Inanimate objects simply cannot be the cause (0+ / 0-)

                    of something happening, regardless of what the inanimate object is.  Paper in and of itself has potential but cannot become a novel until acted upon. A seat belt has the potential to save a life but cannot do so until a person buckles up. A bike helmet has the potential to prevent a head injury but not until it is donned. In all of these examples, each object must be, under specific circumstances, acted upon by an outside force. But of course this is so obvious it's almost not worth mentioning.

                    As for these arguments;

                    As if there is not a sliver of difference between a sheet of paper and a loaded gun.

                    As if a seatbelt is the same thing, the absolutely same thing, as a loaded gun.

                    As if a bicycle helmet is the same thing as a gun.

                    I don't recall seeing a member of the RKBA group make them. I know KV has mentioned that for him carrying a concealed weapon isn't much different than all the other bits of just in case kit he carries or wears. Nevertheless since you made the claim I will allow you to provide the supporting evidence in the form of links to such arguments made by RKBA group members.

                    Of course there are differences between a firearm and a piece of paper, a seat belt and a bike helmet. While they are all inanimate objects they all have different uses and therefore different potentials.

                    Something I have stated in more than one of my diaries / comments is that firearms are without a doubt a hazard (a hazard is anything that has the  potential to cause harm). I have also stated that firearms increase a persons exposure to risk (risk is a factor of the likelihood of an incident taking place and the potential severity of the consequences of the incident). The thing is that while a firearm has the potential to cause greater harm than a piece of paper and the risk that firearms expose us to is greater than a seat belt it still takes an outside force to act on the firearm before any harm can be done. And, if I recall correctly, in the cases of gun related crime the outside force is a person with a long and well documented history of criminal activity.

                    And on that note Mr. Ernest T Bass I bid you adieu. Thanks for the chat. Cheers.

                    By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

                    by oldpunk on Sat May 12, 2012 at 11:11:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually one can argue that demographics (5+ / 0-)

      are the single biggest predictor of violent crime.

      When the baby boomers were young 10-34 the crime rate was high.  As they got older the crime rate dropped.  However, if you look at the neighborhoods that skew younger and poorer (and the young usually are poorer that older demographic groups) you will see a pattern of higher crime rates than in older (demographically) neighborhoods.

      Lots of studies have made this connection.  I don't think increased liberalization of gun laws matters that much.  In NY crime rates dropped yet our laws are more strict than most states.

      "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

      by Steven D on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:25:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And then you have Seven Leavitt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah

        who asserts that neither demographics nor liberalized gun laws resulted in the decrease in crime rates:

        http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/...

        His four factors:

        More police

        Greater incarceration rates (though I would say that plays into the demographic argument a bit since more young people were being incarcerated).

        The end of the crack epidemic (not one I necessarily buy but he does make a good argument)

        The legalization of abortion (I'll let you read his explanation for that one yourself if you are interested).

        In any event, it's an oversimplification to claim that more guns available more easily was the primary cause for the decrease in violent crime rates.  Like as not those laws had little if anything to do with the causes behind the actual reduction in crime rates.

        Then again, the increase in white collar crime by the 1% doesn't seem to have been effected by any factors other than the elimination of the New Deal financial regulatory schemes.  Too bad.  One would wish liberalized gun laws could have decreased those crimes, arguably the most destructive to our nation over the last 30 years.

        "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

        by Steven D on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:47:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Crime has also decreased in other nations, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah

      where gun laws are more restrictive. There is no proof, therefore, that liberalized gun laws have contributed to lower crime rates. The USA still has a higher murder rate per capita than other developed countries.

      The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

      by SoCalSal on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:30:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  KVoimakas is not claiming that (9+ / 0-)

        He is pointing out that the standard prediction of gun control advocates, specifically that liberalized gun laws lead to bloodbaths, has repeatedly proven false.

        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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:46:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yet, just a few comments above yours (0+ / 0-)

          I cite statistics suggesting it's far from false.  As in, it's likely true.

          •  UK rate (4+ / 0-)

            dropped by .54 percentage points. The US drop was .50 percentage points.

            Not much difference...

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

            by happy camper on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:02:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I'm certain you're aware (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn

              That is a hugely misleading way to present the statistics, given that the UK rate is a small fraction of the U.S. rate.

              Regardless, one should find it quite astounding that, even starting with such a minuscule rate, the UK still had a larger drop than the U.S.

          •  Yes, how much effort did you put into (4+ / 0-)

            picking the start dates so that they fit your foregone conclusion? The decline in violent crime in the US is a decade older than the start dates you cite.

            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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:04:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Practically none (0+ / 0-)

              I simply selected the most readily-available comparative statistics, spaced as far apart as possible to encompass as long a duration as I could easily find.

              Feel free to provide contradictory statistics.  

              •  And yet you draw some very broad conclusions from (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon, oldpunk, PavePusher

                it.

                Leaving aside causality (which you merely leap to from rates without discussing massive demographic differences), you don't even establish that the net declines from the peak rates are constant across the whole period.

                For example, country A could have a greater decline in violent crime between 1990 and 2000, followed by lower one from 2000 to 2009; and still have a net decline greater than country B. The interpretation of these results would be totally different examining the whole trend period, as with selecting a subset of that data.

                And this is just one flaw with your reasoning.

                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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:13:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  And -- to be clear (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SoCalSal

              I didn't have a "forgone conclusion."  I had a suspicion that the frequent citation of crime declines by gun enthusiasts, absent any comparative context whatsoever, was misleading at best and an outright lie at its worst.

              So I developed a hypothesis that decreases in crime in peer nations (i.e., large, generally wealthy and stable nations) was the more likely than not the rule rather than the exception, and that it's possible nations with stricter gun control laws than we have may have observed an even greater decline than we have observed in the USA.

              So I took a moment to look up statistics, and lo and behold, my hypothesis appears to be supported by data.

        •  Depends on your definition of bloodbath, (0+ / 0-)

          I guess. I'd describe the significantly increased murder rates in New Orleans, Newark and St. Louis as bloodbaths. I'd describe the ongoing high incidences of gun violence as bloodbaths, the evidence in news reports every single day.

          What can't be denied: States with Strong Gun Laws and Low Rates of Gun Ownership Have Lowest Firearm Death Rates

          Significantly lower death rates per 100,000.

          The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

          by SoCalSal on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:05:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Glock 32 is .357 Sig. nt (9+ / 0-)

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

    by KVoimakas on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:30:41 AM PDT

    •  Sorry, my bad (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ranger995, KVoimakas

      You are correct: the Glock 32 is .357 caliber, not .327 as written in the article.

      Also:

      You have a conceal-carry permit that you have keep for a number of years;....
      should be "kept", not "keep".

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:40:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dude, don't bother. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FogCityJohn

        Your never going to convince a bunch of people who are stockpiling assault weapons and preparing for the armed revolution.

        Militia Fantasies

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:49:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ranger, who should have a right to bear arms? (13+ / 0-)

          Should the bodyguard for the mayor or the governor have the right to bear arms?

          Should the elderly couple living in a crime-ridden area of a city have the right to bear arms?

          Are some animals more equal than others?

          My take?

          Everyone should have a right to bear arms, and everyone should have a right to conceal/carry.

          Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

          by PatriciaVa on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:02:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This isn't about the right to bear arms, it is (0+ / 0-)

            about the Stand Your Ground laws. It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

            It is about using those arms to kill people.

            "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

            by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:05:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Except it's not about the SYG laws either (11+ / 0-)

              As nothing that was done by these two falls under the protection of SYG laws.

              Starting with: they were not acting lawfully (aggravated assault is a disqualifying crime from justifiable use of force laws), and they were not in a place they had a right to be (the victims' property). These two are typical preconditions for a lawful SYG claim.

              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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:08:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why did Joe Horn get off then? (0+ / 0-)

                You all are constantly claiming to be experts on these laws, yet Joe Horn gets to kill two people by shooting them in the back. He clearly states that the reason he is killing those men is because of the Stand Your Ground law, and he gets off.

                Based on the court cases I posted below, I just don't believe your interpretation. Judges seem to disagree with you.

                Stand Your Ground

                If what you suggest was actually playing out in the courts that would be a different story. Maybe you don't want to shoot people in the back, but you empower people who do by pushing for these laws.

                That is all I will have to say on this, because there is no point to arguing with you all, and you will probably continue to push for more liberal interpretations of self-defense.

                "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:13:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Perhaps you should look at the court documents (7+ / 0-)

                  and transcripts that specify the details of the case.

                  What I'm telling you is what the law states, very explicitly, in FL - whose SYG law is typical.

                  If indeed the case fell outside the narrow confines of SYG, and a judge or jury nonetheless used SYG to dismiss charges or acquit, that is on the judge and/or jury.

                  The laws themselves do not permit that which you attribute to 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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:31:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  And if Mr Kalonji had a conceal carry permit (0+ / 0-)

            And what if Mr Kalonji had a conceal-carry permit and was armed on the day he and his wife went to change the locks on his new home?

            What then?

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:35:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Since he was in his own home, he wouldn't (6+ / 0-)

              have needed a permit of any sort.

              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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:45:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Permit or no - the result? (0+ / 0-)

                And what if Mr Kalonji had a conceal-carry permit and was armed on the day he and his wife went to change the locks on his new home?

                What then?

                Regardless of whether he had a permit or not, had Mr Kalonji been armed the day he went to change the locks on his new house, someone would have gotten shot.

                I'm of the opinion that someone getting shot is a bad thing.  I have that liberal and silly notion.

                Or maybe it's because I don't own a gun manufacturer plant or business.  Because if I did, I would have a much more positive view of someone getting shot.  For the gun industry, every time someone gets shot, that's a profit being made.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:04:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The result - a homeowner has the opportunity (6+ / 0-)

                  to protect himself and his family from armed intruders with established violent intent.

                  The vast majority of defensive gun uses occur without a shot fired.

                  But then, I'm a real liberal - not a left authoritarian - and I trust my fellow citizens to do the right thing and exercise their rights responsibly, until adjudicated in a due process court to be unfit.

                  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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:10:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No gaurantees when the shooting starts (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FogCityJohn

                    I point out that had he been armed, Mr. Kalonji would have been facing TWO men both armed with semi-automatic weapons.  Do you think the Canoles would have lowered their weapons when drawn apon by a black man they assume is an intruder?  Or do you think the Canoles would have opened fire?

                    Even though he is the rightful home-owner, there is no gaurantees that Mr. Kalonji would walk away from such an encounter.

                    This is not the case of a law enforcement officer drawing his weapon on a fleeing unarmed suspect (the majority of documented defensive uses of a weapon).

                    And this is not the case where more weapons means greater safety or protection.  Indeed, more weapons in this case probably means someone gets shot.

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:35:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  You seem to be claiming only a single possible.... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  scenario.  Which is utterly impossible to prove.

                  Or is your precognition better than mine?

        •  Close to an HR (13+ / 0-)

          For insinuating the progressive, 2nd Amendment supporting Democrats on this site are preparing for an armed revolution.

          Really?

          It'd be easier if you just said I was compensating for my uh, lack of manhood.

          Power-Worshipping Fascist

          by campionrules on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:02:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I posted the link, where they certainly (0+ / 0-)

            are planning for such an event, "should it ever happen."

            I said nothing about your manhood, I don't give a shit about your manhood.

            Read the link and tell me it isn't about an armed revolution.

            "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

            by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:07:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Apparently your reading comprehension (9+ / 0-)

              has failed once again.

              That diary was a hypothetical discussion about where armed resistance by the American populace would be possible and presented the reasons that it would or it wouldn't.

              It wasn't advocation for a revolution or call to stockpile arms.


              Your never going to convince a bunch of people who are stockpiling assault weapons and preparing for the armed revolution.

              That's your comment: It's a false an inaccurate smear against a group of progressives on this site.

              Power-Worshipping Fascist

              by campionrules on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:14:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, all kinds of reasons to sit around and plan (0+ / 0-)

                out the armed revolution. To think about strategies and such.

                To directly talk about the weapons and the tactics that would make it successful.

                It's just hypothetical, not really advocating for it.

                Yeah.Right.

                "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:22:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps you should (8+ / 0-)

              take your own advice. From the diary:

              EDIT- Since some with poor reading comprehension skills are commenting that this is advocating a revolution I'd encourage new readers to try to find where in the body of text it is occurring since after re-re-re-reading it I still cannot find anything that would be taken as advocacy.   Thank you.
              Can you enlighten us? Where is the advocacy you speak of?

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

              by happy camper on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:38:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You wanna talk about reading comprehension? (0+ / 0-)

                First, I did not say you were advocating it, but I have said that you all are fantasizing about it and planning it.

                Surely, you can't deny that the diary is all about a plan to defeat the U.S. government in an armed revolution. It specifically talks about strategies and tactics. In effect it is a plan to overthrow the government. Hell the title say Armed Revolution Today, as in how it would be possible now in our current times.

                Now, I can't directly accuse you all of "advocating" it, because the diarist said he didn't. However, I can wonder why in the world he would have thought it through so thoroughly and why you all were so supportive of it.

                You certainly cannot deny that you all were planning it, the linked diary is clearly a plan.

                "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:59:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  More falsehoods and insults. (4+ / 0-)

                  I think this provides more than enough evidence that this particular user has no interest in actually discussing the subject in an honest and meaningful way.

                  I suggest ignoring from this point forward -- there is no point in trying to have an honest debate with someone who refuses to respond in a like manner.

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

                  by theatre goon on Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:47:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There is not a single insult or falsehood (0+ / 0-)

                    in that comment.

                    However, it is probably better off that you and I don't respond to one another from now on.

                    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                    by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 02:34:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

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

            When one doesn't have facts on their side, they often will resort to unsupported accusations, trying to make those who disagree with them look bad.

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

            by theatre goon on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:54:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think there was any insinuation re: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            progressive gun owners.  We are talking about the far right wing, white nationalist, sovereign nation militias who are stockpiling weapons.

            I don't see them as an imminent threat, but if the economy and the political climate significantly worsens (think Weimar Republic Germany conditions).  At present we are not there yet, not at that level of chaos, but the potential exists for such a drastic turn, especially if republicans win Congress and the Presidency in 2012 or 2016 and make all of America like Florida, Texas, Wisconsin and Michigan.  Under those circumstances the ranks of such militias would increase dramatically at a time when government would be losing the ability to govern effectively because of the draconian Republican pro 1% agenda and austerity measures.  Combine that with food shortages, real or manipulated, and one could see such militias becoming a very dangerous player in our nation's politics and culture.

            "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

            by Steven D on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:58:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No insinuation? (8+ / 0-)

              This comment:

              Your never going to convince a bunch of people who are stockpiling assault weapons and preparing for the armed revolution.
              Was directed squarely at the DKos RKBA group, as is shown by providing a link to one of our past diaries -- even though the diary does not actually condone armed revolution.

              How is that not directed at Progressive gun owners in general and those of us at DKos in particular?

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

              by theatre goon on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:51:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It is not directly at the RKBA group, just a few (0+ / 0-)

                members of it.

                Stop posting militia fantasy diaries and I will stop accusing you of militia fantasies

                Hey, let's just get rid the professional army and replace it with the militia.

                Militia for Everyone

                Here's a diary that says "I'm not advocating for the armed overthrow of the United States, but I have spent a lot of time thinking about it and here's exactly how we can do it"

                Militia Revolt

                "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:18:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ah, so it's an insult... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk, PavePusher

                  ...based on a false representation of a previous diary -- but only aimed at some members of a DKos group, rather than all members of that group.

                  And that makes it ever-so-much better.

                  Still, a personal insult based on falsehoods.

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

                  by theatre goon on Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:42:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No falsehoods at all. The first diary posted (0+ / 0-)

                    is clearly advocating the replacement of the professional military with a militia. It's the whole point of the diary. It is pro-militia/anti-military. There is no other way to view it.

                    The second is quite clearly discussing how to successfully mount an armed revolution against the United States government. There is detailed discussion of tactics and strategy. There is no mincing of words.

                    Those are facts.

                    You know the U.S. Military plans for the invasion of China. Fine, I don't suggest they are advocating such a thing, but I do understand why they do it. The defense of this country is their job, so they plan for all possible scenarios.

                    On the other hand, I don't understand why a bunch of civilians would take time out to discuss at length how to overthrow the government in an armed revolution. Especially on a political blog. Unless, perhaps, they see it as their job, which is why I equate it with the militia fantasy. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am not lying. Certainly militia groups view it as their duty to stand up to the federal government.

                    Now, do I think you and others are members of a militia? I don't know, and to say so could be construed as a false accusation. I certainly have no proof, and so I have not directly accused anyone of it. I do say that you all have posted or supported diaries here advocating militia concepts or fantasies.

                    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

                    by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 02:10:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Wait, so no imperialist wars is a bad thing? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher, theatre goon

                  I wrote the diary.

                  There's nothing wrong with a citizen militia. We're not talking about right wing nut job militias.

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

                  by KVoimakas on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:41:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Do you (7+ / 0-)

          really think anyone in this thread is doing that? Or are you just trying to derail the discussion by pissing people off?

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

          by happy camper on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:30:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            Actually, I do think, based on diaries and comments on this site, that some people here are militia advocates, have planned for an armed revolution--or at least thought enough about it to decide exactly how they would do it, and stock pile weapons.

            Here's a diary advocating that we get rid of the professional military and replace it with militias

            Militia for Everyone

            Here's a diary that says "I'm not advocating for the armed overthrow of the United States, but I have spent a lot of time thinking about it and here's exactly how we can do it"

            Militia Revolt

            Of course, you probably recc'd both of those, but I am entitled to my opinion about it, and I think it is worthless trying to convince people who think it is ok to spend a lot of time thinking about how they would defeat the US government in an armed conflict that Stand Your Ground laws are not so good.

            You can try to paint me as breaking the rules so that your friends can HR me all you want, I am cool with that.

            I am just trying to provide a counter to the sadistic point of view.

            "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

            by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:16:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  The only 327 (5+ / 0-)

      I can think of is a Chevy motor from back in the day.

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

      by happy camper on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:40:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sigh (17+ / 0-)

    Somewhat decent discussion of civil rights once again derailed by idiotic statements about gun owners.

    Glad to know that I'm a coward for being a gun enthusiast.

    However, that being said, supporting my constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment doesn't give me the right to infringe on the rights of others.

    There is no 2nd Amendment defense for what that idiot did. He may think so, but there isn't. And I would think that the vast majority of gun owners would agree that there isn't.  Our justice system certainly does not.

    People think up weird applications of constitutional rights all the time. In a lot of cases, they are simply mistaken.

    That idiot is just as wrong about the 2nd Amendment as the people on this site that believe the 1st Amendment allows them to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

    Power-Worshipping Fascist

    by campionrules on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:38:07 AM PDT

  •  You forgot to mention, (11+ / 0-)

    we're insecure about the size of our genitalia, too.  As long as you're using tired old cliches like the following, you might as well throw that one in the mix as well.

    Gun enthusiast love their guns as long as they are the only ones holding them.  They love the power and authority that pointing a gun gives them.
    •  I'm sorry about your genitalia, but that is not (0+ / 0-)

      I'm sorry about your feelings towards your genitalia, but actually my post had nothing to do with that.

      The article is about the fears that gun-owners have: that someone else might have a gun and might want to use it so that means I gotta have a gun.  And why are there so many people out there with guns?  Because the gun industry pushes gun sales fast and furious, just like the hamburger business sells hamburgers.  Except that no one worries about their safety when they see someone walking down the street holding a hamburger.

      We can not buy our way to safety with more guns.  Any more than we can eliminate drunk-driving with more alcohol sales.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:10:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excuse me, but... (7+ / 0-)
        The article is about the fears that gun-owners have
        If you're not a gun owner, you don't know what's in our heads.
        If you are a gun owner, you're still wrong about what motivates us.

        This diary is full or FAIL, and you're not helping with your defense of it.

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

        by Tom Seaview on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:17:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Again, you speak (9+ / 0-)

        in tired stereotypes:

        The article is about the fears that gun-owners have: that someone else might have a gun and might want to use it so that means I gotta have a gun.
        I am a gun owner.  I do not have these fears, and these fears have never been a motivating factor in the purchase of a firearm for me.

        Nor has the desire to artificially inflate my sense of power ever done so, nor have any of the other really stupid stereotypes that are commonly bandied about been motivating factors.

        So, when you lump responsible gun owners (who make up the vast majority of gun owners in this country) in with the imaginary fetishists/insurrectionists/what have you that are continually referenced in these types of diaries, it is grossly insulting, and probably about the worst possible way to draw responsible gun owners to your point of view.

        •  Methinks thou doth protest too much!!! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn

          Sorry.  Did I hit a nerve?

          OK, I'm making fun of you and the other gun enthusiasts who say they are not fearful and just like to have working guns around because they are lovely forms a American folk art.  Never mind all that conceal-carry stuff, and stand your ground when I feel threatened stuff that SO MANY gun owners go on about, and actually lobby their law-makers about because they are not scared or anything.

          So even tho' I am making fun of you, try on these questions:
          Are guns are specifically designed and made to be lethal?
          Does the gun industry makes a mighty profit off every gun and bullet they sell?  
          Does the gun industry uses crime statistics to sell their deadly products?
          Does the US have more guns per capita than any other country in the world?
          Does the US have the highest rate of gunshot injuries of any industrialized developed nation?

          And can you deny that had Mr. Kalonji been armed like gun enthusiasts say is a good idea for most Americans in these not scary or dangerous times, can you deny that a fire-fight would have broken out at his house?  And do you deny that a fire-fight in suburbia is a bad thing?

          You are right that I do not know what is in your head, personally.  But I do know the facts of gun sales and use in America.  That is damning enough.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:57:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, (6+ / 0-)

            you did hit a nerve; was there really any question about that?  Of course it's offensive to link the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners to the very small minority of gun owners who are engaged in criminal or near-criminal activities.  Yet, to you, all of us, including the law abiding, are simply members of the same group, with your projected group-think ideas as to why we need guns.  It doesn't work like that.

            The answer to your first five questions is yes; the answer to the sixth is unknown, and the answer to the seventh is no.

            The main argument that I have with you is that your solutions to the existing problems are unworkable, and in the end they boil down to stripping a great number of law-abiding citizens of one of our enumerated rights.

            •  Here are some other things that were unworkable (0+ / 0-)

              The history of America is the history of achieving what is unworkable and impossible.  There is a long list of things that were unorkable, until we started working on them.

              It was unworkable that the American colonies would exist as a country independent of Britain.  It was unworkable for a rabble of farmers to defeat the professional British army.  It was unworkable that blacks could live and work as free citizens.  It was unworkable that black and white children would attend the same schools and colleges.  It was unworkable that women could choose and vote for their own government representatives.  It was unworkable for women to control their reproductive biology.  It was unworkable that laborer could have a safe workplace.  It was unworkable that workers could have a 40 hour work week.

              Granted, the problem of gun violence in America is a large problem and will not be solved easily.  But to not try is to sit by and watch as every year 30,000+ American suffer a fatal gunshot injury.  We only lost 3000 Americans dead on 9/11 and cut back severely on all kinds of civil rights because of that relatively small problem.  

              30,000 Americans dead.  Every year.  For gun industry profits.  How many times has the TSA squeezed your balls this year?

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:46:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Including suicides? Why? (5+ / 0-)

                And what happens when you take the criminal-on-criminal firearm related deaths out of there?

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

                by KVoimakas on Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:11:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  All of the things (5+ / 0-)

                that you listed as unworkable are things that, when changed, resulted in greater rights and greater freedoms for American citizens, which is why these efforts succeeded.

                The change that you seek here would result in greater restrictions on freedoms and impositions on constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why it is doomed to fail.

                However, by all means, if you'd like to see the second amendment repealed, you have the right to work toward it.  I won't wish you luck, and I think that your efforts will be fruitless.

                •  30,000 Americans would like to enjoy their freedom (0+ / 0-)

                  This year, as with lasy year and most likely next year as well, there are 30,000+ American who would like to enjoy their rights and freedoms but cannot because they are dead of a gunshot injury.

                  And a repeal of the 2nd amendment is not necessary to stem this awesome casuality toll.  Removing handguns from the market will go a long way to making us all safer and will not mean a repeal of the 2nd amendment.  

                  Unfortunately, because the gun industry is allowed to buy and sell the legislators and the laws they want to sell their lethal products to any and all takers, I too see this as unlikely.

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 02:26:05 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How about you work on addressing the (4+ / 0-)

                    root causes of suicide and violent crime then? But that doesn't fit in with the anti-firearm agenda which shows me there really isn't any interest in reducing violent crime, only an interest in restricting a right you don't approve of.

                    By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

                    by oldpunk on Thu May 03, 2012 at 04:21:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The removal of handguns, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas, PavePusher, theatre goon

                    even if it were possible, which it is not, would do little, if anything, to reduce the 30K casualty figure that you cite (which, as KV notes, includes a great number of suicides and criminal-on-criminal statistics; these figures will remain almost constant, in my estimation).

                    It would penalize the law-abiding gun owners, and do little else.

                    It is not only the gun manufacturers who will oppose you on this.  It is also the law-abiding gun owners in this country, including those of us on the left, who will work hard to retain our rights.

                    Focus, instead, upon things that might actually reduce the number of criminal use of firearms incidents, and you will have my support.

                    Until then, I will oppose your efforts at every turn.

                  •  And more than half of those freely chose... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon

                    their actions.

  •  There will be a lot of people here who try (0+ / 0-)

    to tell you that all killings by legal gun owners are justified and righteous. They will explain that the people who were killed were bigger and tougher, so they had to be shot dead.

    I have had this conversation over and over with people. Quite frankly I am a little tired of it.

    The Stand Your Ground laws are just the beginning. These people are cowards and they want to be able to shoot people if they feel threatened or intimidated, which is often.

    They don't want to walk a different way or avoid a fight with someone who could kick their ass. They want the equalizer to allow them the courage to confront the things that scare them head on. Why should they avoid a potentially dangerous situation when they can just shoot someone and eliminate their boogeymen.  

    That is what is happening with the Stand Your Ground laws, people are using them as an excuse to kill other people.

    Here is a story about ten cases where weapons (mostly guns) were used to kill people unnecessarily and the defense used was Stand Your Ground.

    Stand Your Ground

    Probably the most egregious is the case of Joe Horn who clearly couldn't wait to kill the men he shot in the back. Of course, he was cleared. Because we live in a society that wants to shoot and kill the "bad people" out there.

    Just being allowed to bear arms was not enough for these people, because they weren't as free to shoot people. That's why they pushed for Stand Your Ground, so that they have expanded what we consider self-defense. I mean why carry a gun if you never get to shoot somebody?

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:43:39 AM PDT

    •  I have a solution, possibly (0+ / 0-)

      Real simple, lets repeal the 2nd Amendment. Or at least try to. It never ceases to amaze me that some people think owning a firearm is the most important civil right. But our political rights are what made this country a democracy.

      The Supreme Court misread the 2nd amendment. We can not do much about that. But a movement to repeal the 2nd Amend. makes this a political rather than a legal discussion. And it means we take back this issue from the courts and make our own decision.

      I think this applies to other issues as well. The right wing took a long view of history back in the 60s and were very successful. We need to also take a long view and understand that making the country better and defeating the right wing will also require a long view,

      •  Setting aside the logistical difficulty (10+ / 0-)

        of repealing(actually, in this case adding an amendment that repealed the 2nd) any constitutional amendment.

        It is simply not a political winner - any attempt by the Democratic party to push this forward would be met with widespread, bi-partisan resistance.

        You would likely be ushering in a decade of Republican control.

        It would be equivalent to the mainstream Dem platform throwing itself onto a grenade.

        Power-Worshipping Fascist

        by campionrules on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:10:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because of lobbying by the gun industry (0+ / 0-)

          Any attempt to restrict gun availability now is bound to fail not because it is unpopular, but because of lobbying of the gun industry.

          I'm guessing you do not like the lobbying the pharma industry does in Washington to win patent protections, price gaurantees, and government contracts for their greater profitability.

          The gun industry does the same thing with regards to gun laws.  Absent that kind of protection of its own profits, the public's voice on the issue can not be heard.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:52:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's not about the 2nd amendment, it's about (0+ / 0-)

        Stand Your Ground, which I think should be repealed.

        Fine you get to carry your gun, but you should be held to really high standards if you use it to kill someone. Especially outside of your home.

        Joe Horn should be in jail.

        "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

        by ranger995 on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:16:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I like your idea, but first remove corporate (0+ / 0-)

        I like your idea, but before we try it, we have to remove the corporate influence on our law-makers.

        Clearly, we need to protect our law-makers from the inherently corrupting influence of receiving donations from corporations and wealthy donors.  Law-makers need to draft legislation, debate, and vote without being bought and sold.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:29:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good luck with that. (11+ / 0-)

        Just don't try to claim it's a position held by most Democrats. We'd like to win an election or two in this decade, and backing the repeal of the 2nd Amendment will prevent that from happening.

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

        by happy camper on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:33:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Very unlikely to happen. (6+ / 0-)

        Not even a large majority of Democrats support such a repeal, much less Independents and Republicans.

        With that fact in mind, how do you intend to actually get it done?

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

        by theatre goon on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:53:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is important to begin a new discussion (0+ / 0-)

          It is important that we re frame our political discussions into what is possible and start working towards what we believe in. The right wing has been fighting a 40 year battle to eliminate abortion. And they have been successful in making their position the official position of the Republican party. They are profoundly wrong on this issue and the constitution is not on their side but they have been very successful at reaching their goal.

          We need to realize that the battle to bring true progressive  and liberal policies and values back to our country will take as long if not longer. Our party has been taken over by corporate loving neoliberal DLC types since 1988. Our president does not believe in New Deal solutions. It is not that Democrats have been thwarted at every turn every time by Republicans, Much of the credit or blame for our current situation lies in the fact that most of our Democratic leaders are not willing to fight for things like Glass-Steagal.

          I use gun control as a metaphor, and as an example to describe how I would change the political debate. Challenge everything. Occupy everything. Do not settle for half a loaf unless you have fought, really fought for what you believe in.

          •  But there's your problem... (0+ / 0-)
            We need to realize that the battle to bring true progressive  and liberal policies and values back to our country will take as long if not longer.
            As you can see from this discussion, repealing the 2nd Amendment is not the "true progressive and liberal" position.

            Not even all Progressives, Liberals, or Democrats agree with you, nor does a sizeable majority.

            That being the case, what you're wanting to challenge isn't even something all of your own side agrees on.

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

            by theatre goon on Sat May 05, 2012 at 07:03:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  True Belivers (0+ / 0-)

              I am not talking about "true Progressive" values as if I were the only one able to determine what they are. I am talking about a discussion. And I am talking about the democratic process. Throw these issues into the marketplace of ideas.

              Instead of talking about politics like it is gossip like the mainstream media does, lets try to focus the discussion on issues. Now please understand Dailykos is in no way a gossip site. But most of the news media is driven by confrontation and gossip. And the only way to get the news media to pay attention is to frame it as a confrontation. I use the 2nd amendment as an example only,

  •  i have to wonder if (4+ / 0-)

    Jean-Joseph Kalonji and his wife Angelina spoke any english cause it sounds like it took the police 3-4+ days to figure everything out

    Our president has his failings, but compared to Mitt Romney he is a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought.

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu May 03, 2012 at 09:47:37 AM PDT

  •  This is irrelevant (10+ / 0-)

    to the question of gun rights.

    In this case, guns were used to restrict the civil rights of the Kalonjis to enter and enjoy their own home, to peaceably go about their business in their own neighborhood, and to be free of imprisonment by government authorities.  
    In this case, guns were used to commit a crime. The stupidity of these cops is another matter entirely.
    Robert Canoles is unapologetic: “This is my second amendment right” he told the local newspaper.  
    He can say what he wants, it doesn't make it true. It should also be noted that he spoke these words before police informed him of the charges against him.
    For some gun enthusiasts, their second amendment rights include threatening their neighbors and telling them what to do on their own land.
    Hyperbole much?
    I doubt he actually believes that. Had he known they were the owners, he'd cretainly never have confronted them. That of course doesn't excuse his stupidity in not calling the cops instead of going next door. Nor does it excuse the cops for not calling the Kalonji's son, who could have cleared this matter up immediately.

    Instead, the cops and the neighbors are facing the wrath of a celebrity attorney who is working for them pro bono because the Kalonji's son is his kid's soccer coach. Oops.

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

    by happy camper on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:01:23 AM PDT

    •  It is because of stupid people that gun control is (0+ / 0-)

      It is because of stupid people that gun control laws are necessary and should be enforced.  And there are a lot of stupid people out there (by definition HALF of the the US population has below-average IQ).

      Why is it that the same argument should not be made AGAINST gun ownership?  Say, just because some stupid and unreasonable person invaded a home and threatened the owners doesn't mean that everyone will invade homes and threaten the owners.  Ergo, your desire to arm yourself is moot.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:19:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And here's where the authoritarian mentality (7+ / 0-)

        comes out.

        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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:36:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, because there's nothing authoritarian . . . (0+ / 0-)

          about getting your way through force of arms.

          LOL!

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

          by FogCityJohn on Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:00:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And you'll find that the term RKBA advocates (6+ / 0-)

            use for people who use force to get their way is: felons.

            This has nothing whatsoever to do with law-abiding citizens who maintain defensive arms, as protected under the US Constitution.

            Authoritarians believe the average person has the mental state of a child, monster, or lunatic, and must be kept under a tight rein by the state for his and others' protection. This has nothing to with the liberal tradition - indeed, this belief system hates the common man, rather than venerates him.

            The diarist showed his hatred of his fellow citizen with the IQ comment.

            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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:30:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Authoritarians believe lots of things. (0+ / 0-)

              Like this, for example:

              枪杆子里面出政权
              Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

              [Mao Zedong, The Little Red Book, Chapter 5 (1964)]

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

              by FogCityJohn on Thu May 03, 2012 at 03:06:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Interesting choice of heroes there (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon, KVoimakas

                See, I could counter with several dozen quotes from the civil libertarians who framed our Constitution and Bill of Rights about the importance of an armed citizenry to liberty.

                And there lies the difference - authoritarians, including gun-control advocates, see the gun not only as a means for concentrating power, but they demand that they be restricted to agents of the state or party. The notion of armed citizens not under the strict hierarchy of state or party is an anathema to authoritarians of any country or era.

                The civil libertarians that founded this country recognized the need to disperse power; and the 2nd was written, in no small part, to keep armaments from being exclusively the purview of the parentalist state.

                But ignorant of our tradition of liberty, and operating from a position of fear and contempt of the citizenry (half of them have a below average IQ!) gun-control authoritarians throw their lot in with Mao and want to concentrate that power in the agents of the state, who have shown a penchant for using them for adventurism and atrocities abroad, and police terror at home.

                Congratulations - your choice of quotes made my point quite excellently.

                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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 05:52:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're funny. (0+ / 0-)

                  See, I'm not the one who feels the need to own a gun.  You are.  So it's kind of strange that you'd put me in Mao's camp, because if I agreed with him, it would stand to reason that I'd be rushing out to buy the thing he says is the source of power.  

                  As for the supposed history of the Second Amendment, it was exhaustively chronicled in Justice Stevens' dissent in the Heller case.  When one looks at it honestly (i.e., in a manner unlike that of the Heller majority), one sees that it has to do with the concern that the federal government might dominate the states.  The idea that it has something to do with some kind of individual right of self-defense is entirely unsupported by that history.  Of course, one can always claim one is construing a living constitution, but that's not the claim you're making.

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

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu May 03, 2012 at 06:51:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Half of EVERYWHERE has below average IQ! (7+ / 0-)
        by definition HALF of the the US population has below-average IQ
        ROTFLMAO   Give it a rest!

        Happy just to be alive

        by exlrrp on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:41:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. (8+ / 0-)

        Half the population has below median IQ. Which still tells you very little about where most people actually fall on the scale.

        If Albert Einstein walks into a bar, the average IQ just went up...

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

        by happy camper on Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:48:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Careful (0+ / 0-)

          Median is the "middle value" of a range of numbers.

          Mean is the sum of a range of numbers divided by the N (number of numbers).

          By definition, the "average" (i.e. mean) IQ is set at 100 with a standard deviation of 15.  So it is corect to say that "half of the US population has below-average IQ".

          It is not correct to say half the population has a below-median IQ, because to determine the median, we have to know both the highest and lowest IQ scores.  The lowest IQ is theoretically zero, while there is no limit to the highest score.  In reality, the highest and lowest IQ scores can not be determined.  

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 12:21:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  So half of people are below average IQ (7+ / 0-)

        Would you then apply literacy tests before allowing people to vote?

        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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:49:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, we need to control all those people. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        The 50%ers.

        Holy.  Fucking.  Shit.

  •  Sad but true. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ranger995
  •  Two minor points. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, PavePusher

    An AR-15 does not have a clip.  If you don't get your nomenclature correct, some might assume that your "facts" lack a certain authority.

    Stupidity is genetic and not restricted to a single political party.

  •  Maybe it's worth distinguishing among (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    Hunters ... who shoot animals, mainly with long guns

    Shooters -- who make little holes in pieces of paper, often from great distances.

    Gun Fanciers/Fetishists -- who are just plain in love with the devices themselves -- the height of 19th century industrial design.

    And then there's the New Breed:

    Ever WATCH American Guns or Sons of Guns on cable? Even their DAUGHTERS are badass (but not actually 'butch')  these are steely eyed ruggedly individualistic Patriots.  And THESE are the 100% well-intentioned and law-abiding ones who don't go in for Resistance Militia meetings, or join the SPCC in the hopes of being called on to kick down some lower-class doors in a good cause.

    They like the Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle, near as I can tell, because it is "So Baddass."  They also like (and seem able to afford and get permits for) anything large caliber and full-auto, up to and including 40mm anti aircraft guns.  

    They fetishize the AR 15 "ugly gun" precisely BECAUSE it frightens and offends urban liberals.  The arm themselves in "self defense" because Guvmnt can't do anything right -- police protection included.

    And what this all has to do with anti-Obama Republican politics ...  "search me."

    And the part I can't quite get my mind around, is why there aren't

    •  I'm an urban liberal, have been one my whole life, (10+ / 0-)

      and I'm so terrified of the AR-15 that I own one.

      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 Thu May 03, 2012 at 10:50:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the AR15 DIDN'T frighten and offend (0+ / 0-)

        urban liberals ... who was to blame for the Ugly Gun Law ?

        Femmy-nazis?

        One thing  I've noticed about Gunners that's similar to Christianists ... is how quick the  law abiding, civil, harmless ones are  to put themselves between criticism and the truly dangerous ones.

      •  I think you just proved my point (0+ / 0-)

        The AR-15 is a great gun, so long as I own one and you don't.

        How do you reconcile owning an AR-15 with your feelings about one being pointed at you?

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:12:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Isn't that part of the point of owning one? nt (3+ / 0-)

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

          by KVoimakas on Thu May 03, 2012 at 01:13:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And if everyone owns one? (0+ / 0-)

            So if I own an AR-15 and no one else does, I feel safe.

            But if everyone owns an AR-15 (which is what gun lobbyists and gun enthusiasts say is a good thing, and of course, what Colt hopes will happen because of the tremendous profits for them), then, I am in danger.

            See, if you follow the thinking of the gun advocates to its logical conclusion, you arrive at where we are today, where everyone has guns but no one feels safe.

            So, how do YOU reconcile your desire for an AR-15 with your feelings about one being pointed at you?  It's OK so long as no one points an AR-15 at you, right?  But you are exactly right: the point of owning an AR-15 is that you get to point one at someone.  And if everyone has an AR-15, eventually you'll find yourself on the receiving end of one.  Oops.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 02:40:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The AR-15 is a semi-automatic M-16 assault rifle (0+ / 0-)

          well, "basically".

          The only devices I know with as  many after-market attachments and modifications as the AR-15 are the Nikon F camera and the Ford Mustang pony car.  

          This makes it  very very popular long gun ... which is sometimes a carbine and sometimes a pistol and sometimes gets modified back to its "select fire' (ie: full-auto) configuration.

          But I don't see how desire to own and operate one of these things, even tricked out to be more Star Wars than Ramo Redux , has much to do with the desire to point one at another person.

          I always thought the "Ugly Gun Law" (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,) was more than a little silly.  Yes, there had been a  California bank robberyin which the bad guys had full-auto capability and body armor and the police did not ... but even then, the problem was NOT that the AR-15 could be fitted with a bayonet or had a folding stock.  As it happened their weapons had neither though the robbers DID have body armor and an enormous quantity of ammunition.

          While I, personally, don't want a plinking/target/varmint rifle that reminiscent of the Vietnam War --  I don't see why anyone else shouldn't have one.   That the AR-15 may have held some special appeal for the Canoles fils et pere
          is arguable ... but lacking AR-15s and/or AK=47s ... they could have worked up the same foolhardy faux courage using short-barreled shotguns -- or spiked baseball bats, for that matter.

          What DOES bother me is how in a few short years, the discovery of INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms has developed into a belief "out there" that this right includes a Right to self-deputize and venture forth looking for Bad Guys to thwart.

          I could feel sorry for the Canoles if it  weren't for the strong possibility they will get the benefit of Jury Nullification if not Prosecutorial Discretion

          protecting them from their understanding of  the Second Amendment and the SYG which manages to be tortuous AND ignorant all at the same time.

          Combine that with "a heart inclined to violence " ...

          Well ... the good news is "nobody got shot."

          •  The reason no one got shot (0+ / 0-)

            It is my firm belief that the reason no one got shot in the Canoles v. Kalonji confrontation is that the Kalonjis had the good sense to ignore the exhortations of the gun industry and gun enthusiasts and NOT ARM THEMSELVES.  

            But, had the Kalonjis been armed, as I wrote about in scenario 2 (above), the Kalonjis could have well opened fire as home-owners exercising their perogative under the "Castle doctrine", and the Canoles might just as well opened fire after being drawn down on someone they thought was a nigger criminal in their neighborhood.  It this case and in almost ALL cases, more guns does not equal greater safety, but instead results in a bloody mess.

            The dichotomy about loving to own an AR-15 but hating having one pointed at you is to bring out the chickeshit "Ted Nugent" approach to gun ownership: i.e. gun ownership is great so long as I own a gun but you do not.  Face it, if a bunch of blacks and mexicans appear on your street carrying AR-15s, you are not going to be all happy thinking the NRA is on parade.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 03, 2012 at 03:18:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't feel sorry for the Canoles. They were (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon

            aggressive thugs who couldn't be bothered to mind their own business.

            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 Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:34:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I've seen that Sons of Guns show! (0+ / 0-)

      The "macho men" down here LOVE it.

      David Koch is fucking Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

      by PsychoSavannah on Thu May 03, 2012 at 11:27:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How is it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, KVoimakas, PavePusher

    that you get all the names of people and holsters right but still call a magazine a 'clip'? Oh, and while there IS such a thing as a .327, it's in no way related to a Glock 32. That would be a .357. Minor point, but there it is for you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site