Skip to main content

I've been busy away from the DK for a while now.

Time to bring folks up to speed on what ArmedLiberalinMO has been up to.

(more below the sexually active squids)

First off, I've been building an AR pistol.  Yep, a Modern Musket sans stock and vertical grip so it fits the goofy NFA rules outlined by the BATFE to distinguish a Pistol from a Short Barreled Rifle.  The stock and vertical grip will go on after I finish setting up my NFA Gun Trust (making the Trust the owner of any future firearms so that when I shuffle off this mortal coil my firearms won't have any trouble finding new homes) and then have the Trust apply for the $200 stamps to keep this legal.

Also, I've been chosen as the Director of Merchandising at www.theliberalgunclub.org so that we can offer clothing and bumper stickers as well as other gear with the club logo on it that is made here in the USA.  If you look at most NRA swag, it's made OUTSIDE the US.  

The thing that has taken up most of my time as of late is the Democratic Gun Owner's of Missouri.  I am the interim chairperson but am gathering folks here in Missouri that are registered voters and tend to vote Democrat who also are enthusiasts of the shooting sports.  Once I get 'blessed' by the Missouri Democratic Party, I can add the word 'Caucus' to more than just our Facebook page.

Also, I have been 'tossing starfish' on Facebook, which today netted me this response from Real Guns:

It seems that I, someone critical of the POTUS' actions on several occasions am an 'operator' who is infiltrating firearms fora for the sole purpose of creating confusion amongst the True Believers that somehow Liberals can somehow like guns.

The NRA-ILA loves keeping the RKBA issue as a political wedge that they can exploit and anyone that disagrees with them on this is The Enemy.

I don't know which group has been harder to reach on the concept and reality of Liberal Gun Ownership, Conservatives or my fellow Liberals...

Originally posted to Armed and Liberal in Missouri on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 03:12 AM PDT.

Also republished by Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

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 (32+ / 0-)

    Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered." Member of the Liberal Gun Club

    by ErikO on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 03:12:21 AM PDT

  •  F the NRA (16+ / 0-)

    in its neck with an ice auger.
    A coworker always leaves me American Rifleman. I call it Playboy In Reverse: I only look at it for the pictures. :) It's the ARTICLES that get my heart pumping, but not in a good way.

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

    by kestrel9000 on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 03:47:37 AM PDT

  •  Heh, don't know wtf starfish are (18+ / 0-)

    but you put a bee in their undies somehow.

    Looks like they are on to you..this might be the insect in question:

    Ok, platform modifications can happen? Let's see some change under the Civil Rights : Firearms area to remove the political speak and remove the foot of the NRA-ILA from the necks of Democrats.
    As a lifelong shooter and gun owner from a family of hunters, shooters, and  union organizers  I say screw the NRA-ILA.

      Oh Noes: Unionists, ...with guns!!!! eeek!!!

    Keep it up Erik.....:>

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 03:52:32 AM PDT

  •  you had me with the mention of the Liberal Gun (20+ / 0-)

    Club as this caught my attention.  While I am not building any firearms and surrendered both my FFL and explosives permit years ago, I still pick up a few guns and such on auctions from time to time.
    How do you join this club?

  •  You'll never reach me by posting about your guns (4+ / 0-)
    "I don't know which group has been harder to reach on the concept and reality of Liberal Gun Ownership, Conservatives or my fellow Liberals..."
    I hate guns. I hate people's fascination with them. I hate that there are so many of them in this country. I hate that our murder rate is insanely high because guns are easily obtained.

    The more gun lovers post about their right to keep and bear arms, the more I want to regulate guns.

    BTW, ErikO, just for kicks, how many guns do you own and why do you need a gun in the first place? Also, how can you be sure that the gun you're making now will never be used for nefarious purposes in the future?

    •  This is probably the flip side of the Log Cabin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ban nock

      Republicans . . . .  although I'm not sure they're QUITE as into proselytizing at the "liberal" RBKA'ers are!

      •  question is... who's moving away? (10+ / 0-)
        The group has been criticized for failing to promote Republican principles. Homosexual-oriented topics at their national symposium such as "Corporate Diversity", "Family Fairness" and "Sexual Orientation a Choice?" caused the Washington Post to observe "the Log Cabin Republicans are looking less and less Republican."
        Are the Log Cabin Republicans moving out the door to the "left" or has the Republican Tent gotten smaller?  We know the answer to that.

        Of the thousand or so self-identified "Democrats" I know, about 1/3 of them African-American, or live in inner-city neighborhoods.

        One quarter of all are adamantly anti-gun.  They most often quote party leaders, Brady numbers and refuse to engage in conversation.
        "Surrender your guns to the police, and we can begin to have a conversation."

        One quarter believe "gun control" necessary.  When asked why, they quote party leaders, Brady numbers, and MAIG talking-points.  When asked to defend the statements, numbers and Bloomberg's heavy hand on OWS?
        They're frustrated into citing legislative tradition, chaos factor, and other grasping-at-straws.

        "While I don't like Bloomberg's tactics against OWS... he's right.  What would have happened if those people (OWS) could just have guns anytime they want them?
        How can you turn your back on all of Ted Kennedy's efforts to stem gun violence?  What about the years of Court decisions - which while perhaps laced with politics, should be respected?"

        I dunno... a respectful airing of their grievances, instead of being herded, beaten and gassed?  Courts were wrong before, specifically if you were Black, Japanese, or Native American.

        That leaves the 500 or so, who endorse gun-ownership.
        They're Black, Asian, Gay, Straight, Jewish, male, female, part Native-American, Lesbian, Veteran, sexual abuse survivors, Quaker, Catholic, Wiccan, Agnostic, Atheistic, born-again Baptist, Yoga and meditation, gym rat, couch potatoes.
        More like a Benjamin Moore color fan, than a box of chocolates.

        Shared view:  Firearms in civilian hands are ok, both morally and Constitutionally.

        Some believe there should be no handguns in Average Joe's possession.  Often these are older people, for whom a handgun was a robber's weapon - while a shotgun was a storekeeper or homeowners weapon.
        Exceptions would be made for Jewelers, Pharmacists and Bank Managers... "as they've reason".

        Some don't believe in hunting, nor the guns to hunt with.
        "Rifles are too powerful for civilian possession, and shotguns are just plain cruel.  If you want or need a gun for protection, put a handgun on your nightstand.  I'm less likely to be shot a 1/4 mile away by your .38 caliber revolver, than from your .30 caliber rifle."

        Some are Veterans - and don't believe in other-than-issued.
        Hollowpoints?  No way.  
        "Army don't use them, you don't need them either.  Get a .45 and you won't need hollowpoint or any other gimmick bullets."

        Half of those Veterans are for civilian possession of military-style firearms (M1 Garand for example) - half are against it:  
        "Put down my rifle in 1953, and I've no interest in ever seeing one again.  Done with killing."

        A few, paid the big money and own NFA-style weapons.
        That's "machine guns" in plain speaking.
        Two have full-auto M-16s, the rest are more into antique weapons (WWI-WWII era).
        Having paid big money, and having been highly investigated, they share a unique point-of-view.  
        Not only do they feel full-auto is just fine... but they believe ONLY those persons with the money and resume to own full-auto weapons under the NFA should have access to ANY gun.
        Go through what I went through, pay what I paid, and have any gun or weapon you want.

        By "weapon" they mean "destructive device" - grenades, cannon, rockets, sawed-off shotguns - whatever.

        Thus, it's not a cohesive group of pro-gun or anti-gun Democrats.  Therefore legislation is like an omelette - you have to break a few eggs to get it done.

        I'm willing to bet the Log Cabin Republicans would, as they're socially liberal - endorse an Assault Weapon Ban. Particularly if it came attached to a national Gay Rights bill, citing specific protections under the 14th Amendment.
        Change that to Assault Weapon Ban with confiscation?  
        That's where the Republican part of Log Cabin Republican might be interesting viewing.

        •  You read just a tad too much into my comparison (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, FG, PavePusher

          of "liberal" RKBA'ers and the LCR's.

          e.g., this wasn't really what I was getting at:

          I'm willing to bet the Log Cabin Republicans would, as they're socially liberal - endorse an Assault Weapon Ban.
          IOW, I have no idea what position LCR's take on gun control, that wasn't the point. If I had to guess, however, I'd be inclined to think that they might be some of the biggest gun nuts out there . . . .

          In any event, my original point was that they seem to have the mindset of "oh gee, I just happen to represent something that really, really irks a group of people - so let's go join them and let the hilarity begin!!"

    •  huh. (16+ / 0-)

      I hate theism. I hate people's obsession with it. I hate that there are so many different flavours of it in this country. I hate that the different faiths in this country inhibit science and reasoning.

      That works too right?

      And theism is a lot like Republicans: caused a lot more damage than guns do.

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

      by KVoimakas on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 05:53:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The difference is... (8+ / 0-)

        ...that you don't, as far as I know, advocate to take away others rights to practice theism -- some people want to "regulate" the rights of others that they choose not to exercise.

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

        by theatre goon on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:56:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good for you. You have a right to your opinions. (0+ / 0-)

        I hate theism too. But as long as it doesn't hurt me or infringe on my rights, who am I to attempt to regulate whether someone else can believe in god?

        However, the purpose of guns is to kill. Since many intended victims and innocent bystanders, who are unable to defend themselves against bullets, are killed or wounded by gunshots; and because many gun owners are irresponsible or worse; I think it's time to clarify just what the second amendment means.

        It reads:

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
        If "arms" means any weapons, then in theory people shouldn't be prohibited from owning nuclear weapons. However, arms are not defined in the second amendment. There's no provision for using weapons for fun or recreation. It doesn't say that people have the right to bear arms for hunting. It doesn't even directly say that people have a right to use weapons in self defense.

        Of course it's reasonable to regulate who can possess nukes. It's also reasonable to regulate who can possess other weapons and also to prevent private citizens from owning more weapons than they can demonstrate a need for.

        Let people say what they want to say, believe what they want to believe, but don't let people bear arms without good reason.

        You may fear the government taking your guns, but I fear you using your guns inappropriately.

        BTW,

        And theism is a lot like Republicans: caused a lot more damage than guns do.
        Numbers? Links? Please document this statement.
        •  Rights aren't based on needs. (10+ / 0-)

          We already regulate who can possess firearms by the way. After exercising judicial process.

          I fear the government taking away my firearms?

          Guns have been around for what, a few hundred years? Theism's been around a LOT longer.

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

          by KVoimakas on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 09:24:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh really? (11+ / 0-)
          But as long as it doesn't hurt me or infringe on my rights, who am I to attempt to regulate whether someone else can believe in god?
          My guns have never hurt you or infringed on your rights.  Now what?
          However, the purpose of guns is to kill.
          Mine must be defective.  All they've ever done is put holes in paper, cardboard and plywood.
          Since many intended victims and innocent bystanders, who are unable to defend themselves against bullets, are killed or wounded by gunshots;
          We all agree that there is a murder problem in the U.S.  Attacking the lawful uses of firearms will do nothing about that.  
          and because many gun owners are irresponsible or worse;
          Explain that, please.  Quantify "many", and expound on "worse".
          I think it's time to clarify just what the second amendment means.
          "Clarify" how?  It's a very simple sentence.  It's meaning is quite clear.  What do you think it means and what should it mean?  (P.S.  There is a difference between commas and semi-colons.  I urge you to look it up.  It's actually germaine to this subject.)  
          However, arms are not defined in the second amendment.
          The Constitution includes no definitions in its body.  The definition of "arms", both then and now, is readily available.  I'll leave the search as an exercise for the student (you) and caution you to not attempt such disingenuousness again; it will count against you.
          There's no provision for using weapons for fun or recreation. It doesn't say that people have the right to bear arms for hunting. It doesn't even directly say that people have a right to use weapons in self defense.
          The Constitution does NOT give or bestow Rights, it lays out clear limitations on government interference with previously existing Rights.  It lists and enumerates several specifically.  As for the rest, generally, I invite your close attention to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
          Of course it's reasonable to regulate who can possess nukes.
          Certainly it is.  As long as you've done your research assignment above, r.e. "arms".
          It's also reasonable to regulate who can possess other weapons and also to prevent private citizens from owning more weapons than they can demonstrate a need for.
          Please cite to this "need" restriction anywhere in the Constitution, or our legal structure.  Take water, it's going to be a dry hole.
          Let people say what they want to say, believe what they want to believe, but don't let people bear arms without good reason.
          "I want to" is all the "reason" I need for any of my Rights.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is a Facist Asshat suffering from terminal Cranial-Rectal Inversion Syndrome.
          You may fear the government taking your guns, but I fear you using your guns inappropriately.
          If you fear the overwhelmingly lawful, there is something gravely wrong with you.  And your unfounded fear is not justification to attack my Rights when I have done nothing wrong.  If you were a Republican, I'd tell you to attempt aerial fornication with a rotationally transiting toroidal pastry.  
    •  Oh, I'm not Erik but I'll also answer your (20+ / 0-)

      questions.

      I have over 20 firearms (and am picking up three more today).

      Rights aren't based on need. My right to keep and bear arms is not need based. Just like I don't need freedom of speech or freedom of religion but those are still my rights.

      I've built an AR15 (not a pistol though): as long as everything you do is perfectly legal, why is it my fault somewhere down the line if it's used incorrectly? I sell a firearm to someone legally and they sell it to someone illegally. Am I responsible for that? If I sell gas to someone who decides to mix it with oatmeal and make a molotov cocktail, am I responsible for that? If a car I sold 6 years ago was used to mow down multiple people at a rally of some sort, am I responsible for that?

      No.

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

      by KVoimakas on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 05:56:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oatmeal? Fascinating. nt (8+ / 0-)

        Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

        by Smoh on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 07:32:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Wow! A self-righteous kossack with 23 guns! (0+ / 0-)
        I've built an AR15 (not a pistol though): as long as everything you do is perfectly legal, why is it my fault somewhere down the line if it's used incorrectly? I sell a firearm to someone legally and they sell it to someone illegally. Am I responsible for that? If I sell gas to someone who decides to mix it with oatmeal and make a molotov cocktail, am I responsible for that? If a car I sold 6 years ago was used to mow down multiple people at a rally of some sort, am I responsible for that?
        The problem is that the law doesn't hold you accountable for the actions of the person you sell a weapon to. Using your example, I think if you sell your AR15 to somebody who then sells it to somebody who uses it to kill, then as the manufacturer of the gun, you should be partially responsible for the actions of everybody who kills with it in the future.

        I think both the manufacturer and the sellers should be held responsible for what happens with guns they make and/or sell. It's a great American cop-out that one can sell a gun "legally" and not be held responsible if it's used to kill someone. It's time to change what constitutes "legal" gun sales, because what we do now leaves a whole bunch of people dead in the streets every day.

        Your other examples don't work, because guns are meant to kill people, but gasoline and oatmeal are not, so it's reasonable to assume that someone purchasing gas isn't buying it to mix with oatmeal in order to make molotov cocktails; and cars are meant for transportation, so it's reasonable to assume that someone purchasing a car is not buying it in order to mow people down. There are all sorts of things which can be used as weapons but which were designed with a different purpose in mind. Comparing them to things that are designed to be used as weapons just doesn't work.

        However, to go further with the car thing, if a manufacturer makes a car which malfunctions, causing injury and/or death, our courts generally find that the manufacturer should be held responsible.

        Why shouldn't a gun manufacturer be held responsible when one of its properly or improperly functioning products causes injury and/or death, especially when the victim has no say in the contract between the seller and purchaser?

        Why shouldn't a gun seller be held responsible for selling a gun to someone who then uses it to commit murder?

        Why shouldn't a gun owner who's gun is stolen and then used to commit a crime not be held responsible for allowing the gun to be stolen in the first place?

        Why should people be able to buy and sell guns to people they don't even know?

        Why are gun owners so concerned about gun regulation?

        If a manufacturer makes a baby carriage which causes injuries, sometimes its only option is to recall the product before it can hurt more babies and expose the manufacturer to civil and/or criminal charges and litigation. It boggles my mind that gun manufacturers can make products which are designed expressly to kill, yet have no liability for the injury and death their products cause. If liability couldn't be shed via a bill of sale, I doubt many manufacturers would making guns, and those that do would be extremely careful about who they sell them to.

        So good luck with your self-manufactured AR15. I hope it never kills anybody.

        •  So my question for you: (6+ / 0-)

          violent crime is dropping while firearm laws are liberalizing. I'm not saying more guns = less crime. But more guns quite obviously do not equal more crime.

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

          by KVoimakas on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 09:31:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gah, posted too fast. The question: (6+ / 0-)

          why are you for more restrictions on a civil right (the right to keep and bear arms) when less restrictions doesn't mean more crime?

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

          by KVoimakas on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 09:32:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If you sell a car to someone... (6+ / 0-)

          who then uses it during a hit-and-run, the law doesn't hold you, or GM/Ford/Toyota/etc. accountable for that.

          We should probably fix that, eh?

          (45K-odd people are killed via motor vehicles every year.  Some portion of that number are murders.)

          Gasoline mixed with oatmeal is very much intended to kill people.  Look it up.

          Gun manufacturers are very much liable for defective products.  They are not liable for third-party intentional criminal or negligent misuse of their legally sold products, exactly like every other manufactured item.

          products which are designed expressly to kill
          You keep saying that.  Cite to evidence, please.
          •  That's not what I meant and you know it. (0+ / 0-)
            Gasoline mixed with oatmeal is very much intended to kill people.
            Separately, they are not intended to kill people, which is obviously what I was referring to -- check the context. Ammonium nitrate can be also used to kill people, but its intended use is to fertilize crops. With one notable exception, it's always been used for its intended purpose.

            Guns on the other hand are intended to kill people. Guns can also be used to coerce people into behaving in ways they don't want to, but that's because they're designed to kill people.

            Why can't you gun nuts participate in a real discussion about this without hurling straw man arguments and insults? The more you guys angrily rant about your "constitutional right" to keep and bear killing devices, the more I'm convinced that you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near them.

               

            products which are designed expressly to kill
            You keep saying that. Cite to evidence, please.
            Seriously? Look at what they've been used for throughout history! They're clearly designed to kill, and they've gotten more technologically efficient at killing over the years. Just ask james holmes and jared loughner if guns are designed for killing.

            Perhaps you think hollow point bullets are also not designed to kill? Just askin'.

            (45K-odd people are killed via motor vehicles every year.  Some portion of that number are murders.)
            Which portion is that? I bet it's far less than 1%.

            Guns are for killing, cars are for transportation. Everybody knows that. When you challenge me to cite evidence of that you just belittle your cause.

        •  So we should be able to (8+ / 0-)

          sue car manufacturers when someone buys one of their cars, has a road rage issue and damages my property?

          Really?

          Why not try holding the individual that used the tool responsible for breaking society's rules?

          Or does that not make more sense to you?

          Hold Gillette liable if someone stashes their wrists with a disposable razor they made?

          Guns have had recalls as have some lots of ammo.

          Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
          Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
          Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

          by ErikO on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 10:15:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Guns are (15+ / 0-)

      already regulated in many ways. What do you have in mind? I'm open to anything that will prevent criminals from possessing or  using firearms, while not making it prohibitively expensive or extremely difficult for the average citizen to obtain guns and ammo, or to use them for lawful purposes.

      A law that fits these parameters is much more likely to pass in the first place, as well as pass constitutional muster.

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

      by happy camper on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 06:09:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're never going to be reached; stop lying. nt (6+ / 0-)
    •  I thought fear-mongering was a Repub tactic. (9+ / 0-)
      Also, how can you be sure that the gun you're making now will never be used for nefarious purposes in the future?
    •  Guns are sort of like abortions. (16+ / 0-)

      Don't like them?  Don't have one.  That's pretty much where your input ends.  It's like that with all Constitutional rights.


      Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

      by IndieGuy on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 07:18:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Joe: the murder rate's insanely high... (9+ / 0-)

      anywhere there's a Drug War or War on Drugs feeding the troll.

      We can legislate all we want.  We can duplicate the "win" in the 1930s when the Government put the law on Tommyguns (and a lot of other weapons) via the National Firearms Act of '34 - and we can point to the ending of the tommygun gangster era.  Yay us... gangsters turned in their guns!

      We can duplicate this with a comprehensive Assault Weapon Ban and confiscation, enacted and scheduled to be enforced in May of 2014.  The Administration and Congress can end the War on Drugs, and legalize - yet regulate via Tax Stamp, the sale of Marijuana and certain other low-impact narcotics.
      That should take effect in December of 2013, and we can revisit this, here on DKos, in December of 2015 and point to how effective the Assault Weapon Ban is:

      Yay us!  Drug gang violence ENDED after the Assault Weapon Ban of 2014 was enacted.  Plain and simple TRUTH that can't be debated.
      Ending Prohibition prevented another St. Valentines Day massacre - not the passage and enactment of the NFA '34.
      Nothing to sell, nothing to smuggle, nothing to protect, no reason to gun down your rivals.

      That's the lesson of 1933-34, and we're ignoring history only to re-visit the exact same course of events - as it makes certain people happy.  
      It's the "Yay us!" moment that's missing... if we only end the War on Drugs, and bring some sanity to the DEA regarding marijuana use.

    •  Ok, let's start at the top (9+ / 0-)

      with the murder rate.  

      FBI UCR numbers state clearly that violent crime is ~9% of all reported crimes.  Violent crimes that utilize firearms as part of the crime are ~24% of violent crimes.  This number is smaller than 2009, which was lower than 2008, etc.  ~76% of violent crimes used something other than a firearm, shouldn't that be more worrisome?

      Personally, I don't see how many firearms I own has anything to do with my support of our right to keep and bear them.  I'm tracking the build of my AR pistol since I am showing that someone with no armorer or gunsmith training can assemble one.

      I'm reasonably sure that my firearms will not be used for 'nefarious' uses for a couple of reasons.  First, I do not personally know anyone who has used a firearm to commit a crime.  Second, I am a responsable gun owner so I limit the access to my firearms from those who I do not feel are able to be responsable with them.  Third, not every icepick gets planted into the neck of a person and most guns don't hurt anyone.

      Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
      Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
      Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

      by ErikO on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 12:21:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So ~24% is a low enough number for you? (0+ / 0-)
        FBI UCR numbers state clearly that violent crime is ~9% of all reported crimes.  Violent crimes that utilize firearms as part of the crime are ~24% of violent crimes.  This number is smaller than 2009, which was lower than 2008, etc.  ~76% of violent crimes used something other than a firearm, shouldn't that be more worrisome?
        Because firearms are only used in one out of four violent crimes, we should be more concerned about other weapons? Don't you think violent crimes would decrease if people didn't have easy access to push-button killing machines which require no physical interaction with an intended victim because they can be used from a comfortably safe distance?
        Personally, I don't see how many firearms I own has anything to do with my support of our right to keep and bear them.
        I am just curious about how many guns you own, but I'm more curious about why you even need one gun, a question you didn't answer.
        I'm reasonably sure that my firearms will not be used for 'nefarious' uses for a couple of reasons.  First, I do not personally know anyone who has used a firearm to commit a crime.  Second, I am a responsable gun owner so I limit the access to my firearms from those who I do not feel are able to be responsable with them.  Third, not every icepick gets planted into the neck of a person and most guns don't hurt anyone.
        First, how does not knowing anyone who has used a firearm to commit a crime make you reasonably sure that your firearms won't be used for nefarious purposes?

        Second, what if your guns were stolen by someone who isn't responsible with guns?

        Third, that's is a ridiculous point! Not every car goes plowing into a farmers market, does that mean we shouldn't regulate driving? Ice picks are made for ice, guns are made for killing. Many people use many guns to hurt many people, period.

        Why shouldn't we regulate guns in a way which would prevent gun violence? Why are gun owners so unwilling to entertain such a discussion?

        Unless you prevent your guns from falling into the wrong hands and destroy your guns before you die, you can't guarantee they won't be used to kill someone. Your guns will exist and be capable of killing people multiple times until they're destroyed. How would you feel if the gun you're making was eventually used to kill somebody? There are many guns in this country already. Is it really necessary to add another just because you can?

        "Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
        Why do you use this quote as your signature?
        •  Ok, I'll be more clear. (8+ / 0-)

          Self defense is the reason I have a right to bear arms.  Not hunting, not sport.  Self defense.  The State made it clear in the court case in my signature that we are on our own when it comes to defense of hearth and home.  

          The only killing that the gun I am making is probably going to be paper and once I have a larger caliber hen it should be able to take a deer or two per season.  I can be sure that it won't end up in the wrong hands since I keep my car locked, will store the gun in a safe and do not advertise that I have any firearms that might not be concealable.  In fact, I will probably be transporting it in a tennis racket bag so nobody would even suspect I had a firearm on me.

          I would have zero issues initially with using any firearm in defense of myself or my family.  I am well versed in our self-defense laws here in MO and have no need to murder anyone.

          Violent crime rates have been dropping with a plateau from '94 to '04 and then it dropped again.  While I won't say that increased firearms ownership causes a drop in crime, increased gun restrictions did seem to not drop the crime rate.

          Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
          Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
          Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

          by ErikO on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 04:26:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Ahhhh, hate , insinuation and intolerance..... (6+ / 0-)

      An excellent foundation for a political movement, don't you think?

  •  Having reciently (14+ / 0-)

    purchased a new Pistol to use for target shooting, I have rejoined the ranks of Liberal Gun Owners.

    I went to a shooting range last week with a friend, and we had a very nice time poking holes in paper targets with metal objects sent at high speed toward a target.

    Many years ago I sold all my guns at a gun store as I had small children that I didn't have the time to teach proper gun safety to.  Now I have found that after they have grown into adults, they want to go target shooting as well.

    I look forward to many hours of enjoyment with them at a local shooting range.

    The man who knows and knows he knows not is a wise man

    by OpherGopher on Tue Sep 11, 2012 at 07:06:05 AM PDT

  •  I need some RKBA help. (16+ / 0-)

    I recently got to canvass for Obama in rural Pennsylvania.

    Many people I spoke to believed that Obama was anti-gun.

    I pointed out that Obama

    1) Promised no gun control
    2) Has blocked all gun control measures
    3) Has increased gun rights by allowing people to carry in parks.

    But I am not a gun owner, so I didn't have the talking points "written on my heart". Did I miss anything?

    Is there anything on Romney that shows him as anti-gun? He was Governor of MA, there must be something, right?

    What is a good list of, "Obama's not gonna take your gun" talking points?

  •  "Sexually Active Squids" (11+ / 0-)

    Oh wonderful, now I can't unsee it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site