Skip to main content

It was suggested that I present some thoughts on the whole gun debate and to build that bridge over the rivers & streams that divide us.

Where we seem not to agree must be pointed out before I order the building materials, hire the architects and get the permits required.  

I promise I won't outsource project.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  Framing the issue as a moral imperative that must be dealt with now and setting up a false dichotomy in a zero-sum game theory.  As in Win-Win versus Win-Lose and the morality of only those two finites.

2.  Labeling anyone whom doesn't agree with you as a “Gun Nut”, “Gun Absolutist”, “Baby Killer”, “NRA Shill”, “Red Stater”, “A Concern Troll” or a "Terrorist".

3. Solutions that include banning & restricting unalienable rights by the Federal Government.  Creating publicly accessible registration lists, mandatory training, taxing ammo, etc, etc.

There seem to be other nuanced disagreements but these seem to be the biggest I've noticed so far.

Framing the issue as a moral one is noble: How many must die for X, Y and Z?

Sadly, we are not anywhere even close to being a moral nation. We never were. Many have delusions we are. We should mention our morality to the Natives we slaughtered once we got here.

Morality has always been relative. No two people agree 100%. This is reflected in our Racist Drug Laws, in our Economic "System" AND more glaringly in our Foreign Policy.

To answer the moral question:

I do not want anyone to die because of X, Y or Z.

We are finally facing the demon in plain sight are we not? Our relativistic morality is offended when we kill our own children but not when we kill millions worldwide?

Why is that?

Can there be a legitimate discussion of morality when it is relative to whomever has access to the microphone?

When we label one another in a derogatory fashion it usually arises from the emotional/moral framing that occurred previously. More often than not it's use evolves into a manipulative tactic to keep us from coming together and working out our differences.  "How dare those people sit at the counter/table with us!" The proverbial "Pearl Clutchers" comes to mind.

I'd rather find solutions we can agree upon instead of making it personal.

Finally we come to the "solutions" part. I must ask for clarification first:

What is freedom? What does it entail?

What limited power did we grant our created government? It seems the answer was articulated by Adam B.

Funny thing, as one of those "gun nuts" referenced, current Constitutional barriers would not be breached if the regulations are uniform AND not intended to ban the exercise of said unalienable right.

There are many false analogies presented, such as, being "means" tested for a job and driving a car. The reasonable conditions placed upon an applicant for voluntary employment and a privilege conditionally granted does not equal the status of our unalienable rights.

I do not own a firearm and never have. I do demand our created government ensure our equity under law, nothing more or less.

Something that clearly has yet to occur for the majority of us.

Could those same "regulations" be placed upon free speech, free press, free religion and/or petitioning for redress?

Have they already?

Should we generate lists of anyone and everyone that exercises any right?

Would the Anti-Federalist or Federalists papers be allowed to be published by an anonymous person today?

Would the Civil Rights Movement have ever happened if everyone had to be pre-approved, registered and documented to freely assemble?  We've witnessed firsthand what little OWS has accomplished, correct?

Why's that again?

Should there be lists of every congregation and their members too? Should these lists be publicly accessible?  With names, numbers and addresses?

Owning an object is not terrorism. Or is it?

What is always the historical end result?

Will we continue to be reactionary impulsive authoritarians that the war on terror has created?

Can we sit down and actually address these issues that are redefining this nation?

Or will we be forever lost to the dictates of our corporate overlords and their emotional manipulations that keep us from realizing we never needed a bridge to be built in the first place?

I leave it up to you to decide our path forward.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.  
As always, if you're interested in joining RKBA, message KVoimakas.
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

  •  I would definitely like to see more 'solutions' (18+ / 0-)

    put forth in diaries and comment threads have a justification attached to them...even if they're not agreed with, at least there's a reason.

    "We should register all guns; that'd be a good first step."

    "Gun owners should all be registered."

    "It's morally/ethically fine to publish a list in a newspaper of people in X town who have a gun permit."

    OK.....why? To what end? What are you accomplishing? What negative consequences have you considered?

    The Mayans knew about Chained CPI!!!!

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:52:39 AM PST

    •  An important component to the conversation. /nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, RonV, GoGoGoEverton

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:04:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Troublesome (27+ / 0-)

      I saw the title about building bridges, but then everything else talked about only one side.

      I saw "framing" mentioned as an issue, but only to complain about the framing on the other side.

      I saw complaints about labels, but the only labels mentioned were on one side, as if everybody on the pro gun side was always the victim, and nobody on the pro gun side ever labeled anybody.

      I saw "solutions" mentioned, but only to complain about solutions proposed by the other side, not to suggest anything that will really meet the concerns of the other side.

      It seems to me that you don't build bridges with a catalog of everything the other side is wrong about.  If you want to build bridges then you have to include things you are willing to give on to satisfy the concerns of the other side, and you have to include acknowledgements that the other side isn't always wrong and you aren't always right.

      I'm afraid I didn't see much of that.

    •  We see a new side effect of registration (15+ / 0-)

      Privacy violations, as is happening when a NY newspaper is publishing, county by county, the names and addresses of lawful holders of handgun permits.

      And too many gun control advocates are perfectly okay with this (ignoring the cognitive dissonance of how they tend to respond when it's abortion providers so listed).

      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 Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:33:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're fine with it because of who it's happening (8+ / 0-)

        too....forgetting the ape-shit so many people went when JR published a diary about the FBI having access to government records on people that already existed.

        The Mayans knew about Chained CPI!!!!

        by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:44:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course, (10+ / 0-)

          there isn't much history of people being assassinated because they own guns, like there is with abortion providers.

          That said, I'm opposed, but I'm a lot more opposed to listing the abortion providers, since they are really being put in danger. Not just sort of maybe theoretically.

          The Empire never ended.

          by thejeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:53:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  GoGoGoEverton: that boggles my mind. It's like (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas, oldpunk, gerrilea

          they're Reagan and we're the new HIV, or they're the college of Cardinals and we're not just protestants but agnostics, or something -- something subhuman, now .... creatures beneath their consideration, that don't deserve respect.
          We shouldn't have rights.
           Even to claim the Constitution covers the existence of private property -- including firearms -- specifically intended to protect the ordinary American's possession of tools designed to increase their ability to hunt and protect or defend themselves, their homes and/or their neighbors (militia, remember?) makes us pariahs and our concerns anathema.

          And now they're telling me my .22 is an assault weapon....WTF,0??

          Carries more than 10 rounds in the magazine.

          One bullet down range every time I pull the trigger.

          Bolt-action autoloading rifle.

          My .22LR Remington 550 is, I admit, every bit as deadly, in either the right hands or the absolute wrong ones,  as a .22LR MP4 by S&W or Walther Colt, and I'm a heck of a lot more comfortable with it than I would be one of those cobbled-up ill-fitting alternatives -- it doesn't look like something it's not.

          It doesn't ape an M-16.

          It's a varmint rifle -- small game, target shooting, cheap ammunition, easy to clean, didn't cost a fortune to buy, won't cost one to keep up.
          Plus, it fits me.

          But should that .22LR Smith & Wesson MP4 or that Walther-buillt Colt .22LR M4 variant be considered an assault weapon? They're different from mine essentially because they're blacktical-tactical; I could probably "sporterize" one ...  and make it look as innocent as mine ... altho for the money I'd rather buy a Henry .22LR lever-action....or better yet a Winchester 1894 in .22LR.

          Except, oh, wait -- those would be assault weapons too, right? High-capacity magazines? Or does actually having to cock a lever between trigger pulls (remember the Chuck Connors TV show opening credits) slow down the action enough?

          No. I'm not being facetious.

          That's part of the thing with having the background I had in firearms.
          Little bullets going fast are very dangerous too -- sometimes to what's behind what you thought you'd be shooting at. For that reason I'm a proponent of hollow-points instead of FMJs...and for short-range work, rat-shot or bird-shot.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:13:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm generally in favor of drama for humorous (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco, FloraLine

            purposes, but I think you are laying it on rather thick.

            Reagan and HIV? Please, that comparison is insulting to the victims in Connecticut and elsewhere.

            I think there is one question to be answered before any further meaningful discussion is possible:

            Do RKBAers and their sympathizers think the current gun situation in this country is acceptable?

            It they do, that's that.

            If they don't where are their suggestions for improvement?

            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

            by glorificus on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:39:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no, it's not. I'm a firearms owner. I've responded (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, gerrilea

              in this very thread to people who've said they won't let their families visit homes listed in the newspaper's CCL-outing, out of fear of what might happen from association with putative gun owners.

              I suppose they're afraid, the way people were of that kid who had haemophilia during the Reagan years, that contact with firearms owners = death. Even after we found out HIV doesn't travel by hug.

              I have noticed that learning about firearms tends to lessen the "omigod it's a gun ! run away! Run!" panic effect.

              My solutions? I've referenced Noddy's excellent diary "Three Sizes" several times, so i'll not repeat that link in this comment. Upthread I suggested licensing users. Not a single person responded to that.

              What more am I to do?

              Oh, wait.

              Give up my gun and fight to take the guns away from everyone else. That's the "solution" that would be acceptable, right? The ONLY solution that would be acceptable.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:05:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Don't put words in my mouth or pretend to read (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cany

                my mind.

                gerrilea's diary was a first pebble thrown. There will need to be a lot more dialogue before ANY SORT of concensus arrises, if there ever is any.

                I think licensing is a good idea.

                **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                by glorificus on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:59:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  how about answering my questions: (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk, gerrilea

                  why not put the onus on the operator, as we now do with so many other potentially lethal technologies?

                  Forex, because it's something most people have at least seen, the privately-owned motorcycle.

                  You need not own one to have an endorsement on your license to operate one on the public highways and streets, but you do have to pass written and practical tests. For certain roads and streets the 'cycle in question (which may be gas-powered or electric) needs to meet a minimum engine size (I think it's 125cc, but that may be old data; I know that in El Paso, as an example, you can't ride or drive an animal-drawn vehicle, a horse / donkey / ox, a bicycle, or a motor-assisted bicycle or scooter with a top speed of <55 mph on controlled-access highways) to be legal.

                  I'm kind of fond of the notion that you ought to have to pass the practical test with every firearm you're licensed for, just like with every vehicle (it's a different ballgame riding a 400 twin than flying a plane or handling a 120K-pound tractor-trailer rig on the interstate, for example, and none of those things is exactly like driving the family Dodge to the grocery store or church ...) but I still think you ought to be looking at the OPERATOR, not the object.

                  What about people like my ex-FIL, who had a collection of military weapons over his fireplace as mementoes? He'd served in Korea and Vietnam, and he had firearms he'd inherited from his grandfather, who served in the Spanish-American War over that mantel ...  why shouldn't his sons be able to inherit those family heirlooms, and pass them down in turn?

                  What I'm trying to say is we need to remember the laws of unintended consequences and the part "one size fits all" leaves out.
                  "One size fits all" badly.

                  LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                  by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:40:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's early days. The following is a partial list (0+ / 0-)

                    if what I'd like.

                    I'd be in favor of registration, licensing, training and a limited number of KINDS of guns allowed for private use in certain areas.

                    No private gun ownership in municipalities with a police force. And pay enough taxes for a decent force that has a significant community policing aspect. For less populated areas that are served by a county sherriff, possibly different rules.

                    You want to use an AK-47 for fun, go to a shooting range and rent a gun that doesn't leave the premises.

                    For deer hunting, rent one for two weeks.

                    Farms, ranches, any livestock owner (zoos) can have some firearm because vets are usually not on the premises when a cow or horse breaks a leg. Or a tiger gets out.

                    Or a badger, feral dog or other threat appears.

                    All "collector" guns must be disabled, similar to how the UK does it (I think).

                    I'm not a RKBAer, I've got the tread marks to prove it. I also grew up on a farm where Dad had his long guns which he used when he needed.

                    I don't mind people having guns if I don't know about it.

                    I DO MIND massacres.

                    **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                    by glorificus on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:10:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "I don't mind people having guns if I don't know (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      high uintas, oldpunk, gerrilea

                      about it."

                      That's ... very strange, to me. Is the personal affront to you that they own the firearms, or that you find out about it?

                      I'm having a difficulty understanding this.

                      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                      by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:52:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't mind if they have colostomies, either, it (0+ / 0-)

                        is just not something I'm interested in.

                        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                        by glorificus on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:15:15 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          high uintas, gerrilea

                          It's the guns in the news that are the problem.

                          Ok.

                          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                          by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:18:57 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It's the guns that kill people who haven't done (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Oh Mary Oh

                            anything wrong that are the problem.

                            Actually, it's more the mostly white men who feel it's their right to kill anyone they want that is the REAL problem.

                            So I mentioned licensing, training, demographic considerations and you just pick some irrelevant nonsense?

                            Well, I know not to waste time you going forward.

                            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                            by glorificus on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:26:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "waste time on YOU going forward" (0+ / 0-)

                            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                            by glorificus on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:26:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you never answered my suggestion (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            or my questions. So ... you know. The regard or lack thereof is somewhat mutual.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:25:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Much of this makes perfect sense to me. (0+ / 0-)

                    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                    by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:39:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Why is that a violation? (7+ / 0-)

        Privacy has its limits. OK, the fellow living at a certain address has a concealed carry or pistol permit (not easy to get) in NY.  Let's assume he has kids or grandkids there and they are friends with my kids.  I didn't know that before the publishing (the guy never mentioned it to me) so now I know my kids will not play unsupervised or not at that house.  You see I know the numbers that a gun at home is 29 times more likely to kill or injure a member of the household than it is to take out an intruder.

        There was a diary elsewhere today (I believe by cleveland attorney on the Second Amendment that mentioned 85 times more likely), but anyway, I applaud the publicizing, now my family won't go there. I am assuming an accidental death is much more likely , not a deliberate homicide-kids being kids.

        •  Here's the slippery slope for you. (8+ / 0-)

          I want to know if you are on anti-psychotic drugs or any drugs that will compromise your mental functions.

          Are you currently under the care of a psychiatrist, a therapist?

          Did you go "doctor shopping" to get your prescriptions for painkillers filled???

          How many prescription drugs are you on?  What are the very real consequences to me because I don't know that you're "having a bad day" because your doc didn't fill your prescription?

          Privacy has its limits, right?

          See how this works???

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

          by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:33:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Being sick and choosing to own a firearm (11+ / 0-)

            are two completely different things.  People don't choose to be mentally ill and require treatment.  But people do choose to own guns.

            Your arguments need some work, seriously.

            •  What difference does 'choice' make in the decision (5+ / 0-)

              of publishing lists in the name of 'public safety'?

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:16:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's the difference: One is legal to get info on (0+ / 0-)

                and the other isn't.

                There ya go.

                202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                by cany on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:10:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are we not talking about what laws to change? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BlackSheep1, gerrilea

                  What rights to infringe on?

                  So, lets make it perfectly legal to publish that mental health information.
                  If not, why not?

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:26:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You may be. I'm talking about regulation. (0+ / 0-)

                    If you believe that publishing medical information (which, right now, would be a violation of rights, then okay...).

                    Rights and regulations. Two different things.

                    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                    by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:05:40 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You are talking 'regulations' which infringe on (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea

                      Rights.

                      So would you support a 'regulation' that provides a list of those with mental health issues?
                      It is for public safety, after all.....

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:17:50 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And where is the proof of that? And what (0+ / 0-)

                        regulations did I propose, exactly, that would fit that?

                        The supremes did not say we cannot regulate. Period.

                        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                        by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:33:11 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Exactly. Thus let us 'regulate' public disclosure (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea

                          of mental illness.

                          It is for 'public safety', after all.

                          Surely, you wouldn't  be opposed to some 'common sense' measures for 'reasonable' public disclosure.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:42:57 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  I thought you wanted to reduce the victims in (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  43north

                  this nation?

                  When that list was published, you know what, all the criminals in said areas will know who to rob, kill, rape, etc...because they now know who's armed and who isn't.

                  They may also target those with weapons to try and steal them.

                  It may also lead people to then obtain guns without registering them...Then where you gonna be?

                  It's pure insanity and the editors should be arrested and prosecuted for endangering so many people's lives out of some zealous desire "to get the guns".

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

                  by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:37:16 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh please. It's public information. If that needs (0+ / 0-)

                    changing, then change it. But really... arrest????

                    Geez. The drama!

                    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                    by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:03:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How many other (5+ / 0-)

                      states have allowed this information out?  Even Illinois had a major fight between the State's Attourney and the head of the Illinois State Troopers.

                      Oregon and Washington has that issue blocked from FOIA by law.

                      Honestly, the actions of Gannett Press has opened them up for lawsuits if anyone on that list has a crime committed against them.

                      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 Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:13:32 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What part of publicly available are you not (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Oh Mary Oh

                        understanding? The fact is, any criminal could go get the information themselves, quite legally.

                        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                        by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:34:54 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  same can be said about the fellow who published (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        oldpunk, gerrilea

                        the names and addresses of the Gannett staffers involved in the "outing" of pistol permit records.

                        If one of them is a victim of violence or other calamity, it will lay at the feet of gunowners:

                        Robbed? Gun owner.
                        Raped? Gun owner.
                        Car ransacked?  Gun owner.
                        Car stolen?  Gun owner.
                        Anti-Semitic or other graffiti of a racial nature?  Gun owner.
                        Kid harassed in school?  Gun owner's kids.
                        Kid failed a class in school?  Gun-owning teacher.
                        Kid suspended from school?  Gun-owning administrator.
                        Realtor can't sell your house for the 2006 purchase price plus a reasonable 12% per year appreciation?  God DAMN gun owners, driving down the value of real property.  
                        Plain and simple fact.

                        Anyone else saying anything to the contrary?
                        Gun-owning Teabagger, Republican shills, with no business being on this website.
                        Word.

                  •  You know what? (3+ / 0-)

                    If someone wants to rob me that bad, let them.  I have insurance for that.  I also have a couple dogs trained for protection, and most people trying to rob places don't like to deal with dogs (which is not to say they won't shoot them).  But I can't protect myself against everything in this world.  You want to rob me at gunpoint because I don't have a gun?  Take my shit.  I'll call my insurance company and get it replaced.

                    And honestly, how many people break into random strangers houses' to rape or kill them?  Very, very few.  Most perpetrators of crimes know their victims, or are targeting that person for a particular reason.  Sure, I guess I have to fear the chance that some random person is gonna want to break into my house to rape and kill me.  I also take the chance of dying every day by getting in my car and driving to work on the interstate.  I could let these irrational fears rule my life, but I don't let them, because I can't control what other people do.  And if someone wants me dead that bad, a list of gun owners with my name on it isn't gonna stop them.

                    •  Thank you, now take this well articulated (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rockhound, 43north, oldpunk

                      response and apply it directly to this topic we are discussing.

                      I can't protect myself against everything in the world.

                      Most perpetrators of crimes know their victims.

                      I also take the chance of dying every day by getting in my car and driving to work on the interstate.  I could let these irrational fears rule my life, but I don't let them, because I can't control what other people do.

                      http://www.constitution.org/...

                      But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.

                      I guess it all depends on your perspective, doesn't it?

                      I thought your goal was for less people to be victimized?
                      Your relativistic morality is showing through your impeccable authoritarianism and hypocrisy.

                      Were you just playing devil's advocate yesterday???

                      I'm going to print your posting here for future references.  It really shows an understanding that the supporters of the RKBA have tried to point out time and again.  You do understand.

                      The only thing missing here that you didn't say, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

                      What I've always stood for, as a non-gun owner, is the right of Americans to utilize the tool they feel most comfortable with for their own protection.  The instinctual human right to self-defense is non-negotiable, in my book.

                      As you pointed out, your choice is your dogs. There has been a push recently in this "progressive" community to get Pit Bulls and any dog de jour they don't like, banned, right?

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

                      by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:32:21 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I wasn't playing devil's advocate. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bhut jolokia, cany, Oh Mary Oh

                        I think that carelessly letting people have access to guns, which are so easy to kill people with, is asinine.  I think we need checks and balances on who can have what types of weapons so we can mitigate people killing each other.  Because it's so much easier to kill someone with one gunshot than it is one stab wound, or one swing of a baseball bat, or one dog bite.  So you're right when you say "guns don't kill people, people kill people."  People kill people using guns.  Because guns are so fucking easy to use to kill people, because that's what they were designed to do.  And guns are very effective at killing people.

                        But the argument that we are all safe when we're all armed seems equally asinine to me.

                        And if you want to tell me I'm a hypocrite for my relativistic morality, go for it.  I don't care, because there is no way to achieve an absolute morality in this existence.  Doesn't mean I think any morality is bad, actually I think it would be horrible to throw away morality in totality.  Because I think murdering someone is morally wrong.

                        And ultimately, no, I can't control what other people do.  But I think it's wrong to let people have weapons to murder with that they have clearly demonstrated time and time again that they are not equipped to use properly.  I leave my safety to the cops that we train to handle these situations, not some idiot on the street who thinks he is policing his neighborhood by shooting a teenager dead.

                        •  I think people whom exercise free speech, free (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          oldpunk, high uintas

                          religion and their right to protest (or a combination of all three) torture and kill more people than any gun and is asinine.

                          I think we need checks on who can access a pen and piece of paper, who can exercise a faith that teaches intolerance and hatred and of course checks on what that "free press" is putting out there.

                          BECAUSE:

                          I don't care,
                          Sadly, I never said "guns don't kill people....etc etc" I said it was the only thing you missed in your eloquent statement.

                          I never suggested we throw away morality, what I said was don't use it in the gun debate because it is pure hypocrisy and not productive to workable solutions. Its use is meant to badger and belittle those that don't hold your same point of view on this topic.  IN other words, a dishonest debating technique.

                          A firearm is a tool that can be welded for good or bad.  I know from personal experience, please read my posting here from last week, it's a condensed version of events that many people here have known about for years.

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

                          I also believe murdering someone is wrong, that's why I do not own a firearm and never have.

                          AS FOR THIS TIDBIT:

                          I leave my safety to the cops that we train to handle these situations
                          You haven't been paying attention then:

                          The police have no duty to protect the individual, period.

                          http://www.nytimes.com/...

                          WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

                          If the police don't have to protect me or you, then whom does this responsibility fall on to?

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

                          by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:25:02 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I think you need to find the libertarian page. (0+ / 0-)

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:39:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, no answers just insults, sweeet! n/t (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, high uintas, 43north

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

                            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:26:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wasn't an insult. Just an observation. (0+ / 0-)

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:34:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  An irrelevant "observation" made to belittle (0+ / 0-)

                            me personally to avoid addressing the points actually made...

                            I'm just loving this "conversation"!

                            NOT!

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

                            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:38:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, I had little to say about your diary, so (0+ / 0-)

                            consider that a personal gift.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:47:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cany, your name wouldn't be Richard now would it? (0+ / 0-)

                            Most Richards I know go by Rich, Ricky or Dick.  Cheney for example.

                          •  No is yours rich, ricky or dick? (0+ / 0-)

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:12:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you gonna say the same thing to (4+ / 0-)

                            MB who pretty much agrees with the diarist and owns a gun? Srsly?

                            gerrilea is as much on page with DK as anyone here. She believes in the rights of other people, she is respectful and she supports the ideals of a true liberal. Unlike a lot of people who are commenting from other parts of their body than their brain.

                            Crystal Ball today asked the rhetorical question today "What if a paper had published the names and addresses of active Muslims in NY right after 9-11? Just for information's sake?"

                            The emotions are high right now and this is a published list of people who obeyed the law and as far as I know have no criminal record. They have done nothing wrong, but must wear a scarlet G?

                            gerrilea is defending one of our rights as laid out in the Bill of Rights, a right that she doesn't take advantage of, like myself, but feels that she should stand up for the sake of those who do.

                            And you suggest she leave? ugh

                            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                            by high uintas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:06:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, I would hu. I don't agree with her on much (0+ / 0-)

                            of anything and yes she sounds like a libertarian to me.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:13:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I would LOVE it if they would publish that in my (0+ / 0-)

                            area. Wish they would. I'd know who to avoid.

                            It has been reported that the app specifically SAYS that the information is not private but public. ANYONE could have gotten the information if the media got it through a FOIA. And once they give it to anyone, it's everyone's.

                            So those folks signed that app having been informed that the information was public. Now they complain.

                            And, BTW, the list didn't cover long guns, obviously, so no one knows who has what. Or not.

                            If guns are so damned safe then why is everyone so worried about secrecy all the time especially given the most hard core folks believe EVERYONE EVERYWHERE should be able to open carry ANY weapon. But God forbid we register guns!

                            It's the most nonsensical pile of poo out there.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:19:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not worried about secrecy (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound

                            in the way that some are. I support a back ground check and would support a registry for some weapons. I object to that list because it feels like a public shaming of people who have done nothing wrong.

                            Cany, we all fall into different places on the Political Compass. I don't know if you've taken it, but it's instructive, it was to me. A lot of people have no idea how much small l libertarian they are. gerrilea if very liberal on 99% of issues and I argue that holding on to individual rights is a liberal issue.

                            It's clear that you hate guns. I get that and have no beef with your opinion, I really like most of everything I know of you and we can disagree on one thing. But, when you want to get rid of someone because you disagree with them, someone who has never caused you harm, it bothers me.

                            I wouldn't tell you to leave because we disagree, to do so is the act of an authoritarian. It's counter to what being liberal stands for, IMO. Again I ask, would you attack MB this way?

                            I'm a rural woman, guns don't frighten me, most people I know own them and have never done anything that would make you fear them, they never would.

                            That's the thing, millions of people live their lives without causing a problem, or making the news, and yet are judged by the acts of crazy people who do.

                            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                            by high uintas on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:59:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have no desire to get rid of "someone". But I (0+ / 0-)

                            do NOT find much attractive in libertarianism to tell the truth. The notion that one will because one can is often downright antithetical to the larger good and I believe guns are a perfect example of this.

                            As for judging crazy people and putting all gun owners under that mantle, no that is not right. However I want to point something out which remains the problem.

                            While many of these mass shooters might not have had their problems addressed, that is also true with people who aren't on the fringe but will snap. As I continue to believe, I don't know who is and isn't a "responsible" gun owner. Even assuming everyone is (and that's a stupid assumption as we see daily) we don't know when they go off the edge with a killing machine in their hands and people in the way. Maybe they are quite normal and had too much to drink. Snap. Maybe they got in a fight with their wife. Snap. Maybe they didn't see what they thought they saw and shot. Snap.

                            If we just work with the law of averages, we know that some people definitely shouldn't have a weapon and others probably shouldn't. Fact is, though, they do in many cases.

                            We regulate all the time because one of many screw up. The grader who didn't properly compact the soil and the foundation begins to crack. Cars that explode or are not otherwise safe. Industry of all kinds. Yet somehow the gun industry and guns, themselves, and those who own them are sacrosanct?

                            Have a gun in your home for self defense. Fine. I just don't want them anywhere near me because when they go off, my opinions don't matter.

                            This whole notion that the second amendment is the biggest and best is obnoxious. It was an afterthought, for God's sake.

                            When we wanted to change 3/5 of a man to a whole man and later cover these same people under the mantle of school/social integration/voting rights etc., we passed LAWS. The social work, as we continue to witness, takes decades and decades. But if anyone thinks that starting to change our attitude towards violence beings with a chorus of Kumbaya, well I couldn't disagree more. It will start with laws and work upward.

                            We don't save old growth forests with Kumbaya either because most people don't even understand the issue. We didn't start air quality improvement that way, either.

                            Guns are a commodity. Their use for self defense is protected. But everything else is fair game until the courts say they aren't. So let's regulate the crap out of them and see where it goes.

                            There are probably lots of guns out there people don't even want given the Los Angeles buy back that just ended the day after Christmas. 2K+ guns were turned in for grocery cards. That's 2K+ guns that won't get into the "bad guys" hands through private sales. I like that.

                            Hundreds lined up in cars to get Ralphs gift cards in exchange for different types of guns. Villaraigosa said the LAPD collected 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons. The weapons will be melted down.
                            I have every right to demand a safe society to live in and that includes being free from guns around me. How we balance MY right with self defense will take decades to sort out.

                            Now is the time to start.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:46:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You know I just re-read your posting and (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north

                            it occurs to me that you really don't like facts do you?

                            What do the facts that I've presented have anything to do with "libertarianism"?

                            You don't want people to know the police have no constitutional duty to protect them after years of paying taxes just for that protection????

                            Or is it you don't want them to know you're creating a society of victims by your incessant whining demanding guns be banned?

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

                            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:07:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'd love to see them banned. But I am a pragmatist (0+ / 0-)

                            and that isn't going to happen.

                            So I go from there.

                            And speaking of whining, you are stiff competition:)

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:14:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  *sigh* Okay... (0+ / 0-)

                            First,

                            Sadly, I never said "guns don't kill people....etc etc" I said it was the only thing you missed in your eloquent statement.
                            Please point out to me where I said that you said "guns don't kill people."  I understood that you were telling me I had said everything BUT that, so I went ahead and SAID THAT to make my point.

                            Good god if you are going to type out things that I clearly didn't say, then we can't even have a conversation.

                            And I'm not sure what point you're making about religion and free press killing people.  If you are against these things, is there a reason?  Is there a reason you are personally against them but do not rail against them?  I don't get it.

                            Actually, you know what, YOU WIN, YOU HAVE TOTALLY CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT EVERYTHING, please RKBA let me bow down before you, you have indoctrinated another poor lost soul.  Clearly my plebian mind just can't comprehend this subject matter because of my stupid human attachment to relativistic morality!

                            If it isn't clear at this point, that last bit was snark.  Because you're not going to make me change some of my deeply held moral convictions regarding this issue, nor are you going to goad me into dropping them because they're hypocritical.  I'm human.  I'm a mass of cells and eletrical impulses and I do/think/say/believe things that are contrary to other things I do/think/say/believe.  Because I'm not perfect.  And the way you try to point out morality's hypocrisy in this argument makes it seem like an attack on all morality, whether you mean it that way or not, and I'm hardly the only person who feels this way.  Just an FYI that maybe it's not an effective tactic in your arsenal for trying to accomplish... whatever you're trying to accomplish (I guess that's the status quo where kids get murdered in schools?).

                          •  Excuses and rationalizations to obfuscate your (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north

                            unwillingness to exchange ideas in an honest manner.

                            Stop using emotional manipulations, it won't work with.

                            Stop using moral manipulations, it doesn't work either.

                            The facts are I was comparing separate unalienable rights, the First Amendment kills more people than the 2nd could ever dream of.

                            The 1st A use by the Bush Crime Syndicate has killed millions in the Middle East.

                            The 1st a exercise of a free press gave Bush's lies credibility to the American people.

                            The 1st A exercise of free speech also tortures and bullies our children into suicides.

                            The 1st A exercise of religion kills millions worldwide to this day.

                            Yet it's all about the evil scary guns!

                            I have now come to the conclusion that you have been irreparably conditioned into accepting whatever your corporate overlords demand of you, their manufactured consent.  

                            It was something I was hoping to break you free of, sadly I failed.

                            Blessings and Peace,

                            ~Gerrilea

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

                            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:36:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Progressives outlaw dogs? Who knew! (0+ / 0-)

                        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                        by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:47:49 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  How much prison time do you think the editors... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Silvia Nightshade

                    ...should be sentenced to serve, if they are found guilty of publishing the list?

                    the editors should be arrested and prosecuted
                    •  Since "justice" is relative, the right to privacy (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      43north, oldpunk

                      has been violated.   When anyone on that list is targeted and killed, they should tried for conspiracy and depraved indifference and as an accomplice to said...

                      Let a jury decide their fate.

                      I said the same thing with O'Reilly when he called for the killing of doctors and the lists started popping up AND when doctors started getting killed.

                      If lists started getting published of all Black Churches and their parishioners AND they started getting targeted and killed, it would be EXACTLY the same thing.

                      These rights we have, when exercised must be protected by our created government.

                      How about we publish the names of every CEO and Board Of Directors AND their home addresses and private phone numbers of every News Organization that perpetuated and supported the lies leading up to the Iraqi Invasion and the slaughter of millions there?

                      After all, they are incorporated through the Government, right? It is a matter of "public record", right?

                      Let's do the same for animal researchers, correction, torturers, too!

                      Oh, wait the Animal Enterprises Act protects those elites, I keep forgetting.

                      See how this works??? Its all relative to the manufactured consent the masses are spoon fed by our corporate overlords.

                      Points I was hoping we could break through with this diary.

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

                      by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:23:45 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You said that the editors should be arrested... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Silvia Nightshade

                        ...and prosecuted.

                        I'm positing a situation in which they have not ony been arrested and prosecuted, as you advocated above, but in which the editors have also been convicted, having been found guilty by a jury of their peers of having published the list.

                        Let a jury decide their fate.
                        The jury had already done its job, and rendered a guilty verdict.

                        Now, it's time to sentence the newspaper editors for their crime.

                        How much prison time do you think that the editors should be sentenced to serve by the judge? (Juries render verdicts. They don't determine prison sentences.)

                        That's the question that I asked, and which you have yet to answer.

                        •  Theoreticals here I did answer you question (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          oldpunk

                          you just didn't like the answer.

                          Since I'm not a judge or juror in this case, I cannot answer your question the way you want it to be.

                          What is the average prison time for a convicted murdered or accomplice, if you are a black person in this nation? What 30 yrs to life???

                          That would be sufficient.  Let them live and be prosecuted & sentenced by the same standards the rest of us are.

                          Equity under law is my standard here.

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

                          by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:43:10 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  There's no right to privacy breech (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        cany, Oh Mary Oh

                        if the list consists of items that are already on public record.  Just putting it together as a list doesn't make it illegal, no matter how nefarious the intentions of creating that list may be.

                        See how this works??? Its all relative to the manufactured consent the masses are spoon fed by our corporate overlords.
                        The gun manufacturers want us all to have guns because... oh that's right, profits.  Another case of manufactured consent that we, the masses are spoon fed by our corporate overlords.

                        But you're just arguing rights, silly me for getting my topics mixed up.  Carry on.

                        •  Do they really "want us all to have guns"??? (0+ / 0-)

                          And this is a problem how again???

                          Microsoft wants everyone using their software.

                          Pfizer wants us all taking their drugs.

                          Isn't it manufactured consent with these things too?  I'd say it is when it comes to the drug companies and their "testing of every child" in America.

                          http://www.chaada.org/...

                          Hell, I'd go even one step further and say that the ACA wasn't about "helping Americans" but convincing them that they needed to buy a private product from a for profit private company to instantly increase their bottom line....  They succeeded, didn't they?

                          Your "quick wit and sarcasm is wasted on me because that IS our "Capitalist System" I referenced in my diary.

                          I guess you really didn't read it.

                          ;)

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

                          by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:55:32 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  it's publicly available info. anyone can have it, (0+ / 0-)

                        print it, even map it out. I'm not suggesting this should be done, but your harping on this is like me harping on hand guns because I hate the fucking things. Court said they are legal. I have to live with that. Can you regulate? Yes. Should we? Yes.

                        So instead of the incessant whining, try changing the law on the publicly available information.

                        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                        by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:41:02 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Choice makes a difference. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandy on Signal, Lilith

                When I choose to register to vote, I understand and acknowledge that my voter registration becomes public record.  It should be no different than if I were to get a gun.

                However, I don't choose to be mentally ill.  So my diagnosis should not be made public over something that happened to me, not something that I outwardly chose to do KNOWING it would be made public record.

                That is the difference.  And we already protect people from discrimination based upon medical diagnosis, not to mention everything that comes from HIPAA and protecting patient rights.  If you want to undo that, go for it... but I think you'll have a really hard time getting people on board for that.

            •  choosing to abuse prescription drugs (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, gerrilea

              is choice.  You might call it being a victim of addiction, rendering "choice" an inappropriate term.

              I call mentally orbiting Jupiter while being "the adult" minding "our children" a serious problem.

              "Mommy's laying down... you kids go play."
              I dove for the body of the second child, the first managed to cling to the ice until we arrived.  

              I'd love to tell you that was a really-really rare circumstance, but I don't fly due to ear damage supposedly self-inflicted by repeated body recovery ice-dives in the years prior to readily affordable scuba dry-suits.

          •  medical info is, legally, private. these gun (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Oh Mary Oh

            permits weren't. I feel the same way as the above poster; gun in the house? My kids wouldn't go there. Nor would they go to a person's home that had commented a violent crime etc.

            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

            by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:43:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  committed not commented (0+ / 0-)

              202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

              by cany on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:19:50 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  The number 29 would not apply to your children (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Agathena

          but you are correct regardless of the numbers.

          Guns for Safety? Dream On, Scalia.

          More than 20 years ago, I conducted a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in Seattle and surrounding King County, Washington. Over the study's seven-year interval, more than half of all fatal shootings in the county took place in the home where the firearm involved was kept. Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides. A subsequent study conducted in three U.S. cities found that guns kept in the home were 12 times more likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the killing or wounding of a bad guy in self-defense.

          Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

          That's 12 fatal accidents and 9 cases of legitimate protection, for a ratio of 1.33 to 1. I am supposing that visiting children were not victims of homicide or suicide. If any were, that makes the numbers a bit worse, but as I said to begin with, the exact numbers are not the issue.

          PS I used to own a .22 target rifle.

          America—We built that!

          by Mokurai on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:44:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If you were so concerned, ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1, gerrilea

          you always had the right to discover the information yourself through public records.  The fact that you evidently did not says something in and of itself, but the larger point is that, now, every "bad guy" who can read will know it'd be smarter for them to burglarize your home than your neighbor's, attempt to abduct your children, and commit a host of other evil deeds.  Before, the bad guys would have assumed there was a chance you were armed, now they know for sure you are not.  How safe do you feel now?

          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

          by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:16:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Neuroptimalian: obviously safer (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, gerrilea

            for knowing that it's public knowledge they have a "gun free zone" at home. That way they and their children are at least as safe as they'd be at school.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:22:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  See, johnxbrown -- that's just one example. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          43north, oldpunk, gerrilea
          OK, the fellow living at a certain address has a concealed carry or pistol permit (not easy to get) in NY.  Let's assume he has kids or grandkids there and they are friends with my kids.  I didn't know that before the publishing (the guy never mentioned it to me) so now I know my kids will not play unsupervised or not at that house.  You see I know the numbers that a gun at home is 29 times more likely to kill or injure a member of the household than it is to take out an intruder.

          There was a diary elsewhere today (I believe by cleveland attorney on the Second Amendment that mentioned 85 times more likely), but anyway, I applaud the publicizing, now my family won't go there.

          Ok, so ... how is that different from forbidding your kids to play at a house where there are people of a different race, or a different faith, or GLBTQ people? You're hypothesizing a danger to your kids because somebody who lives at that house has a CCL?

          What if they drive for Loomis or have the night bag from the 7-Eleven to drop off at the bank, and that is why they've got a CCL, and they don't have a firearm at home, but have one at work?

           You're assuming facts not in evidence -- i.e. that having the license = having the firearm, and having the firearm = having it at home, and having it at home = danger.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:18:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Black Sheep, it is different. And you know it. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Oh Mary Oh

            Come on, the accident and inappropriate use of a weapon in the home is a major contributor to injury/deaths. The stats are lower in homes with no guns. You just can't argue those facts. They are what they are and every gun owner has to accept that. I don't.

            I am not, given Heller, headed towards taking anything away. I AM headed towards extremely strict controls and most certainly not "shall permit" when it comes to carry.

            And one thing that eternally puzzles me is why anyone needs a mini-arsenal for self protection. Are they expecting Godzilla?

            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

            by cany on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:57:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  In NYS (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Agathena

        pistol permits are issued by a county court judge after an applicant passes a background investigation conducted by the police department or sheriff's office.

        As such, they are as much a public document as any other court record, available to anybody who wants to go to the county clerk and search the records. The law has been the same for decades and, at least when I was conducting background investigations, this fact was disclosed in the instructions for completing the application form.

        The only thing the newspaper did was save folks a trip to the clerk's office to search the record themselves.

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

        by Wayward Wind on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:34:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And set up a database specifically for the (3+ / 0-)

          harrassment, or worse, criminal attacks on these individuals.

          Why don't you post the addresses of a bunch of people on DKos you disagree with and see how kindly the admins take it.

          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 Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:09:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The craziest part about that map (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robobagpiper, 43north

            is that it was created in literally the most Jewish county in the United States by a conservative group.

            I can't help but feel like that's a piece of the puzzle there. And not one that anyone has discussed.

            It's not that only Jewish people are on "the list." But why did they pick literally the most Jewish county to make "that list"?

            It has Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods where people don't drive cars on Fridays. Parts of it are like Amish country in Pennsylvania.

            Does anyone else find that weird or off?

            Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:12:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  makahali overdrive: maybe that's (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              43north, mahakali overdrive, gerrilea

              coincidence, maybe it isn't ... there's a faction in this country who, for reasons political, financial, religious, or just out of general cussedness, might want to know exactly what you're noticing.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:26:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Can't quite understand the second part (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlackSheep1, gerrilea

                of your question, but as for the first that it could be coincidental, for me, as a former resident of both of these counties, it's as noticeable that they're heavily Jewish (particularly Rockland) as it would be noticeable that parts of Pennsylvania are heavily Amish. There are entire towns here on these maps where you have mainly just orthodox populations, such as parts of Monsey or other parts of Ramapo. You cannot miss this! These folks don't drive, they wear distinctive, traditional clothing, beards and so forth, and are Hassidic Jews. The publisher of the paper is over in White Plains. That's a twenty minute drive at best. They know what the demographics of Rockland County look like. Not to mention that overall, the demographic of Jewish persons in general is 30% there, including non-Orthodox. In Westchester, it's about 15%, but there's a huge division between Jews and non-Jews that I've never seen in other parts of the U.S.

                Additionally, you have more synagogues, more Yiddish spoken in homes, etc.

                That's heavier in some parts of these counties, but it seems weird that of all the counties in the United States where a conservative group would start listing people, they picked the most Jewish county? That isn't even a county with a heavy gun ownership per capita. So why did they select it?

                A lot of people are saying that these conservatives who published this map are trying to act like "liberals" (read: Jews, other than Orthodox) wanted this map. In turn, the conservatives in area (read: white people with money) are now outraged at "liberals" and blaming them for this map. But again, the map was published by conservative gun owners. And yet the backlash is aimed squarely at "residents of Rockland and Westchester" and particularly "liberals." The liberals skew Jewish there. People in general do. Your conservatives are more white and upper class with a smattering of working class Italians thrown in, more or less.

                So that's the dynamic I question. Personally, I think it's worth an exploratory diary because it's so weird. I feel like conservatives have succeeded in scapegoating a group of people with that line from Gannett about "the neighbors wanted to know who the gun owners were!" when in fact, bullshit, this isn't true per se in this area. And again, who published the list? A bunch of conservatives flipping around screaming, "We're being victimized" with the subtext here being "by these fucking liberal Democratic Jews!" Plain as day to my ear from having again lived in both areas and having a lot of continued contact here. Do they even have Tea Partiers in either county? Probably not that many. Just plain old monied conservatives I'd guess, other than maybe up near the mountains (which I'm not as familiar with).

                The area's rich. Westchester is almost as wealthy as Beverly Hills, particularly closer in toward the city. Likewise, parts of Rockland are also extremely affluent. But again, both counties are distinctly segregated ethnically, racially, and socioeconomically.

                Curious choice.

                Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                by mahakali overdrive on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:02:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  figured there was more to it than I'd guessed from (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mahakali overdrive, gerrilea, cany

                  your initial comment.
                  Pure cussedness indeed: it's a gaslighting incident, innit?

                  LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                  by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:08:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not a bad term for it (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BlackSheep1, gerrilea, Oh Mary Oh

                    It's a kind of gas lighting I suppose. I see it as a kind of extreme scapegoating which one group may not even realize they are participating in, playing off of pre-existing xenophobic fears and ethnic tensions in the area. It struck me as propagandistic and very calculated in some way at any rate. The comments -- and there were thousands and thousands last I checked -- on CNN International were totally fucked up, and likewise, on LoHud's FB page from all these angry conservatives railing and rattling. Since the people who made the map are gun owning conservatives, well... they had something in mind when they said, "Oh, we just thought the neighbors said they wanted to know who all the gun owners were!"

                    Obviously that pissed the gun owners off. And the target of their ire strangely is partially the paper but partially these illusory neighbors who NEVER asked for this information to be published. At all. So what's the form of racial scapegoating and propagandizing to further your cause? And yes, gaslighting is involved because people aren't seeing that their emotions are being played like fiddles by these yellow journalists.

                    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                    by mahakali overdrive on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:34:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Pistol permit applicants (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus, PsychoSavannah, cany, Agathena

            are advised in writing at the very start of the process as to how it will proceed - that their family members, neighbors will be interviewed, that a range of records will be checked, and including the fact that a permit once issued is a public document.

            They make the decision to proceed - no one else.

            What would or would not work here is irrelevant - this is a private site with rules regarding outing, whether the information is from a public document or elsewhere.

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

            by Wayward Wind on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:31:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You don't get it because you don't want to. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound, Neuroptimalian

              People who disagree with you politically are evil, and need to be exposed. This is the thinking behind this list and anyone who supports it.

              Gun controllers made a lot of enemies with this sort of disgusting overreach.

              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 Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:37:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poco, glorificus, PsychoSavannah, Agathena

                What I am pointing out is this is the way the law has been in NY for decades, that people are fully advised of that fact before they even apply, and that they - no one else - makes the decision to proceed.

                You want to point out where I said something different? Particularly the part about what I think of people I disagree with being evil?

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

                by Wayward Wind on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:43:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I seriously doubt the gun owners ... (0+ / 0-)

                  are NEARLY as upset about the list being made public as the NON-owners are, the latter of whom have now been publicly outed as being unprotected.  The gun owners will sleep just fine; the others, not so much.

                  "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                  by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:21:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Wayward Wind: public record vs. publication of (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea

                  records in the newspaper.
                  Does that paper print divorces granted, and give the newly divorced persons' addresses???

                  LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                  by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:27:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Some do in NY (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cany

                    There are many newspapers which list all court dockets and proceedings, property transactions, judgments and bankruptcy proceedings, etc., with a readership of mostly lawyers but available to anyone.

                    Hate to be a broken record, but everybody on that list was advised that their application would be a matter of public record by law, and it was their choice to go ahead or not.

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

                    by Wayward Wind on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:41:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I still think the paper sensationalized this issue (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea

                      unduly.

                      Put it in the agate with the divorces. Don't headline it somewhere prominent. You're creating a target list for robbers.

                      Not too long ago a spate of break-ins during funerals led one of the local papers to change its policy of including addresses in bereavement notices.

                      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                      by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:07:32 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  birth, death, marriage, divorce, all public record (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk, gerrilea

                  However, if it was made know that in getting a divorce, you will have the reason published, and made accessible by an online-link*?  
                  I believe the readily-accessible is the issue.
                  Until this, you'd have to appear (or hire an investigator to appear) at the County Clerk's office, and either be given access to the stacks of documents, microfiche, or sit at a terminal.
                  Date:  12/27/12  Judge: Jones  Dispositions: Pistol Permits.
                  Result:  None.  
                  Judge Jones isn't on pistol permit rotation, so you start again... or work backwards from a known applicant.

                  Name:  Wind, Wayward  Records:  "All"  Date Range: 1/1/71 to 12/27/12
                  Result:  8 records. Each listed by date, and a letter code for purpose of record.

                  Needless to say, it's not like being given a .csv file and off to Google Maps ya go.

                  *(For those of you on a dating service, fist-pumping while saying:  "Oh Hell Yeah... why doesn't Match.com do just that?" - Don't answer.)

        •  NPR said the information was gotten through a (0+ / 0-)

          AOIA filing.

          **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

          by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:48:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  FOIA filing (0+ / 0-)

            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

            by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:49:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  May well have been (4+ / 0-)

              but the fact remains that anyone can go to the county clerk and check on the filings, just as they can for virtually any other court document.  Some of the counties now have records accessible on line, but to what extent would depend on the particular county.

              By filing an FOIA request, the burden for conducting the research and compiling the results would shift to the clerk, rather than the applicant, so that may have played a part in their reasoning.

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

              by Wayward Wind on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 05:11:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  yeah, but ... NPR. Plus also too, you can get that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            info for going down (in Texas at least) to the County Clerk's office and asking.

            They do expect you to have a name to start with though.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:28:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm gonna say, here, that a good place to start (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, gerrilea

      is with at least some of what Noddy suggested in her diary, "Three Sizes."

      I don't see a thing there that actively spits in the eye of the Constitution.

      Another thing we need to remember is that the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, does not limit its scope to firearms, nor to citizens.

      That's an important consideration. In feudal states in Europe one's class defined what weapons were allowed one (this is to a big degree still true in the UK, often held up here as a paradigm of "gun control") -- the 2nd Amendment simply says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

      Doesn't specify firearms, or citizens. COULD easily have named forbidden things and named persons forbidden to own such arms. Didn't. That means a lot.

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:48:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Implement the same gun regs as Israel. If it works (5+ / 0-)

    for them it should work for us.

    RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

    by hideinplainsight on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:59:02 AM PST

      •  Why does it work, or why implement it? /nt (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leu2500, gerrilea, hideinplainsight

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:05:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why do you think it'd work? (12+ / 0-)

          This isn't just a simple DO X and Y HAPPENS.

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

          by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:06:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This looks like an official RKBA column. I can (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hideinplainsight, peterfallow

            tell because it says so so plainly that no one could mistake it.

            I'm just saying.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:20:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's a sane, balanced approach. Register guns (11+ / 0-)

            every 3 years with a new background check. Must have a reason to get a gun - hunting, sport, self defense.

            Limit on amount and type of ammo.

            Just a few, but at least it's formulated with rational balance of public safety vs individual need.

            RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

            by hideinplainsight on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:24:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why do you have to register guns? (0+ / 0-)

              What is the point of it, besides knowing where to go find guns that are being kept where they're supposed to be?

              The Mayans knew about Chained CPI!!!!

              by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:51:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Same reason you register cars. (4+ / 0-)

                RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

                by hideinplainsight on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:05:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So the state gets money? nt (3+ / 0-)

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

                  by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:12:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  To make sure you're licensed and insured and that (8+ / 0-)

                    the car meets safety and other requirements.

                    RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

                    by hideinplainsight on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:55:36 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Really? (4+ / 0-)

                      That doesn't sound like Michigan at all. You can buy a car without registering it and there's no safety inspection. Or license requirement. Or insurance requirement (unless you're driving it on public roads).

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

                      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:29:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  the car was built under volumes of (5+ / 0-)

                        design safety requirements. The need for public safety policy to be attributed to guns or other implements, for instance power saws, does not beg for identical regulations for disparate uses and designs. A car is also not a sewing machine.

                        If your idea is that the efficacy of gun registration/and or insurance, as a public safety device is inviolate of the rights of man, exclusively at the moment the gun is fired, visa vis, the way a car must be registered and insured only at the moment of it's use as a vehicle; Then there is zero reason for a gun to be fireable, with out said regulations pre complied with. And the fact that the gun shouldn't have a seat belt has nothing to do with a reasonable specified control mechanism on it's use, that is item specific and not universal to all regulated implements for purchase by the public.

                        A reasonable argument would consider the ease and enforceability of regulations on the use of potentially dangerous  property items and their different designs and how that design impacts public or private safety. Just as regulations on myriad substances, machines, tools and manufactured implements are treated specifically regardless of blanket rights to property and ownership of various items of infinite uses.

                        One can't very well effectively conceal the driving of their car in public, as one can the use of a gun in public or private.

                        The moment a gun is fired, it's too late to enforce it's use. The potential threat of it's use to society is expended. Not so with an automobile, in which our roads are constantly patrolled by law enforcement to intervene between the moment of it's use and it's potential danger.

                        I am often left with disdain at many of the facile, clever arguments draped over the profound inherent human right claimed by so many gun culture advocates. Not only often, but it seems an inseparable characteristic of the arguments as soon as one attempts to transcend the appeal to authority that is a historically very politically and industrially conservative interpretation and implementation of our constitution.

                        And I find that infectious, insidious and puerile narrative, not the laws, as the root and branch of our nations problems with gun violence, gun culture, and gun obsession, and the cultural humiliation our relationship with guns represents in the world.

                        •  Your argument makes no sense, it would be a crime (0+ / 0-)

                          not to register the gun, otherwise how will we know where to go to take them  from you. Without guns you'd be just like everyone else.

                          RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

                          by hideinplainsight on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:03:04 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well that is my argument, so apparently (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            hideinplainsight, Agathena

                            it did make sense.

                            Take them away, oooh, that is such a scaaaaary, frame.

                            There is a lot of things that could be done. Like a fine for not having registering your firearm or showing proof of sale.
                            No body seems to argue about needing a new hunting license each year, but if your gun is for the sole purpose of possibly killing a human being some day, holy hell.

                            Does the 2nd amendment also provide a guarantee to gun and ammo ownership secrecy. The right to keep and bear arms "secretly", let alone privately, doesn't show up in the text.

                            What is the fucking scare about?

                            But really my comment being a response to another. My point was that any action taken to create greater accountability for the use of guns, should by any stretch of reason, specifically address the nature and design of guns and their potential for misuse, and not be confined to the methods of accountability for the proper use of completely incomparable implements common in our society, that have completely incomparable externalities by their use.

                            Private transportation, the auto mobile, has contributed to the largest and most rapid economic expansion the world has ever seen, making a huge contribution to the status of our nation in the world and our ability to actually safeguard and spread our ideals.
                            The contribution private gun ownership plays in our culture and society has been the death and maiming and destruction of a lot of innocent peoples lives and some movie bucks.

                            The idea that somehow the risk factors of car use and private gun use should be treated on par in determining regulatory policy is senseless.

                          •  Got it, I misunderstood you. I apologize. Guns are (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fisheye

                            a blight upon our society, our future and our children.

                            RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

                            by hideinplainsight on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:25:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  fisheye: Texas sells lifetime fishing & hunting (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, fisheye, gerrilea

                            licenses. I don't have to own a fishing rod or a bow or a firearm to buy either / all of these licenses, and they're good as long as I'm alive.

                            Just sayin' ...

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:32:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The stars at night...; nice tag. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1, cany

                            I'm quite sure the State of Texas would keep that license valid even in your grave. God bless em.

                            lifetime, annual, biannual, whatever. I'm sure licensing helps manage the game reserve, hunting safety, land management etc.

                            What's the big deal to do something along the same lines for non hunting use of firearms.

                            I imagine the narrative and lore of gun possession in Texas is vastly different than that of Baltimore or Detroit etc.

                            I honestly think the story we tell about guns makes all the difference and a little financial and accountability responsibility assumed by gun owners would go a long way to do them the favor of changing the ugly national dialogue and reputation that, I think, is the biggest contributor to their destructive use.

                            Do we take pride in safety, responsibility, the lore of manifest destiny, or do we take pride in an appetite for destruction, violent statements and vigilantism?

                            Freedom comes with personal responsibility, the narrative, here as well as from more extreme gun advocacy groups seems to often pretend it doesn't.

                          •  we agree on the responsibility part (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fisheye, gerrilea

                            and I actually learned to handle, store and maintain firearms in the Air Force -- in San Antonio, Texas, when I was a teen-ager, in the late '70s.

                            Prior to that I'd had my own archery gear (some homebuilt, some commercial) and a couple air rifles -- my parents kept the household shotguns and varmint rifles stored behind a locked closet door; they were used but rarely, mostly to defend the farmstead's poultry and livestock against marauding stray dogs or the occasional coyote; but once, I saw my dad put down a rabid dog -- my dog, as it happened -- in the front yard.

                            In point of fact the license expires -- it's not part of the estate.
                            They were $600 back in '98...and I was annoyed because the Parks Pass wasn't available on the same payment plan. My kids have grown and gone, so I'm in the state parks fewer times a year, but we still keep a Parks Pass.

                            You are correct. I believe the way Texas -- well, until the last 30 years or so, I have to say now, because we no longer see them racked across the back windows of pickups parked at high schools since Columbine -- treats firearms is different than the way Detroit or Baltimore does. I suspect the traditions of life in general are different in the two places.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:54:44 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My dad was stationed for a while in the Air Force (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1, Oh Mary Oh

                            in San Antonio. Helicopter pilot. I think I had my second and third birthdays there in 72' 73'. Still have some very faint memories of home there. Small world. Then he retired and moved back to Michigan where I've lived since.

                            Had a couple siblings born at a San Angelo AF base in the sixties too.  

                            Anyway, the gun violence in Detroit is just a nightmare, part of a greater social distortion, that leads me to tell a different kind of story about the role guns play in our society, and the responsibility I expect our broader society to assume to deal with it.

                            I wish some of the more rural and hunter type folks realized the desire for some checks and controls on gun proliferation by urban parents has nothing to do with wanting to go out in the woods to take their guns away.

                            Nice to meet you BlackSheep1

                          •  Pleasure meeting you. I wish I could say (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fisheye, gerrilea

                            I'd never lived in an urban environment....there've been four murders within a square mile of my house this year. Only one involved a shooting, but two involved arsons.

                            I wish you had a better environment where you are.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:01:33 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Same in Texas, though you can't drive it away (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas, gerrilea

                        you can drive it up on a flatbed or onto a dolly for transport.

                        Need not be a brand-new car to do this. You can make arrangements to buy them secondhand, through dealers -- or the want-ads, even online ones.

                        No proof of insurance needed until you go to get the tags so you can drive it on the public highways / streets. If it's going to the farm / ranch and that's the only place you'll drive it, no tags needed. Also zip for stickers for safety / annual inspections AS LONG AS you don't put it on the public highways.

                        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                        by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:31:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Since you're not required to be licensed or (0+ / 0-)

                      insured (permit if you have a CCW in some states), how would registration help?

                      The Mayans knew about Chained CPI!!!!

                      by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:00:25 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  To ensure the owner wasn't crazed, a felon, or (0+ / 0-)

                        both. To regulate illegal weapon.

                        RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

                        by hideinplainsight on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:59:40 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That's what background checks are for. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          BlackSheep1, gerrilea

                          "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                          by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:26:33 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And background checks are what private sales at (0+ / 0-)

                            gun shows sidestep...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:32:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is no sidestepping here, its the law. (0+ / 0-)

                            As I've come to understand this, the government has no authority over the exercise of an unalienable right when done in private.  

                            I don't need permission to exercise my right to free speech in my own home or on my own property.  I don't need permission to give personal property to someone else.

                            There is a very clear line there, lawfully and constitutionally.

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

                            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:44:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But giving a toaster away doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                            have such potentially deadly consequences. Death by toaster? Possible. Probably doesn't happen very much.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:06:38 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And I don't know if a law can speak to the (0+ / 0-)

                            object (car, table, gun, drinking fountain) and thereby get around that issue or not. We regulate all kinds of items in commerce and clearly the court doesn't see that as illegal, even with guns. We CAN (and do) regulate guns. I think the question lies in what the court will accept as regulation (and why) and that seems like it's going to take years to sort out.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:26:44 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks, that's what we've been saying all along (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Oh Mary Oh

                            and why waste political capital on that when we can do something right now to make everyone's lives better and in fact hopefully stop these violent outburst.  Such as fully funded mental health services, eduction, ending drug war, etc, etc.

                            We can do those things now, why does it have to be a solution that will lose us everything we've been working for?

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

                            by gerrilea on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:09:56 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't disagree with part of this, but it is (0+ / 0-)

                            not MY major focus as I DO want something done immediately, even if it is just a start.

                            I have major philosophical differences with those that believe the entire gun issue is just about freedom! tyranny!  blah blah blah. It is a social issue as well.  

                            I firmly believe that some day, guns will be rare and folks will look back and ask, what the hell did they think they were doing?

                            If fighting fire with fire worked, Gandhi would never have been successful.

                            I do not agree at all, however, with the notion we must be holistic in our approach and apply gun bans to LEOs/military. That to me is nonsense. What we do domestically may require entirely different strategies than what we do in war. In fact, I believe it does. The discussion on war should usually begin with, should we even do that?

                            And while I clearly do not agree with the last decades and would prefer to see the US work on stopping massacre and certainly not participating in it, there will be times when war may not be avoidable. I won't be here long enough to see what happens. I hope it's good.

                            And while I agree with this:

                            fully funded mental health services, eduction, ending drug war, etc, etc.
                            That isn't the whole answer. In fact, it is a small portion of the answer. There are too many fucking guns and I despise the attitude of people that is "I can, so I will" in their regard.

                            There is a bigger world out there than the selfish person that stands on their absolute right to the detriment of society whining about not being able to carry a freakin AR-15 or other sidearm everywhere they go because... something bad might happen [cue scary noises]. I see this kind of person as nutty. Fearful. Most people in the US don't feel the need to carry a gun let alone play the 'role' some play.

                            I don't want to be around those kinds of people, therefore I don't like carry of ANY kind. One minute they are so-called "responsible" gun owners and the next minute they aren't. We need a blinking beacon to note the second they change so everyone and everything around them can get the hell out of their way.

                            I don't like hunting, but I don't care about shooting/hunting or protecting livestock or having a gun to protect them in their homes.

                            But we both know that there are PLENTY of people who deal in arms for a living (private sales) who can buy 25 A4-15s and sell them privately with absolutely NO checks. And to think someone could actually believe that this isn't the way the bad guys get guns? Oh please. the undercover vids pretty much demolish that meme.

                            And those with their own personal arsenal that aren't antique collectors or something? I constantly ask WHY does someone need 50 or 100 weapons? Expecting Godzilla to break down your door? Or are we actually back to a commie under every rock or tyranny!  Tyranny!

                            I didn't see hoards of gun owners in the streets screaming about either the Patriot Act or limitations on assembly or free speech. Funny thing, that. Apparently, they'd fight for their right to own a killing machine but not the right to say so.

                            So there really aren't many points of agreement here and not much of a bridge to walk because I see reform/regulation as being the most necessary NOW because social change (as we saw and see as it pertains to civil rights) takes decades and we don't have that kind of time.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:08:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cany, we already have the foundation built we've (0+ / 0-)

                            been misdirected and emotionally manipulated into faux opposing sides.

                            I'm sure you agree with Equity Under Law, right?

                            I'm sure you agree with the Rule Of Law, right?

                            I'm sure you agree that we are a Nation Of Laws, right?

                            That law defines our society, right?

                            I could care less how many firearms anyone has. Why? Because I know that under our system of law they can and most likely will be held accountable for violations of our agreed upon rules of conduct within said society.

                            That was the nemesis of the Trayvon movement, he was denied life and justice in death by a system that does not want us to be equal.  They falsely claimed a statute denied them the power to prosecute.  Funny, how'd the Feds do it months later then? That's because they actually presented evidence to a grand jury. The story became "bigger than life" and ignited racial hatreds and bigotry across the spectrum, white v black, black v hispanic, anti-gun v gun...etc, etc...

                            Corrupt governmental siccophants want us divided and hating each other. Had they prosecuted Zimmerman immediately we probably wouldn't have even known Trayvon's name.

                            Equity under law is my guiding principle.  No one is above the law, if there are special classes created, then the law is illegitimate.  Those special classes/exceptions the masses have agreed to in the majority of our United States denies me the right to the same benefits they enjoy because I'm transgendered. I cannot marry the person I love, but they can.

                            I know you said you want different rules for different segments of our society, ie military and police, right?  How does treating them better or exempt from the law help any of us?  It can't.  We don't need to wage war anywhere.  If and when our country is attacked, go after the bastards then, with everything we've got.  We'd still have all our missiles, all our drones, all our high-tech gadgets to whip their asses, if need be.

                            All this comes to a very revealing point you made, one I truly hope happens:

                            I firmly believe that some day, guns will be rare and folks will look back and ask, what the hell did they think they were doing?
                            You see, I've seen and experienced nothing even remotely close to that in our society.  I've had total strangers spit on me, threaten me, beat me and rob me.

                            Each and every time I questioned my own resolve in never owning a firearm.  They're gonna kill me someday, and I know this. I also know that this is my life and my choice, being free means making a choice and living with the consequences.  I chose not to become a killer.  I will most likely die at the hands of those that have been conditioned to hate me.  A gun isn't going to change this world for the better.  Me killing them only makes me the killer then.  Society and humanity cannot evolve that way.

                            I decided a long time ago that if I don't evolve, than neither will anyone else.  I started observing and watching and taking mental notes and repeating the process, then I came to my analysis/understanding of the problem, we are taught hatred and violence.

                            I could not be free and safe in a world where these things are not only reinforced but defines our very own "humanity".

                            "All is fair in love and war"
                            "To the victor goes the spoils"
                            "Might makes right"
                            "Survival of the fittest"

                            You can ban everything and anything man can use to harm his fellow man, but the problem will still be there: We teach ourselves to hate and to use violence as a means of survival.  

                            When will we say: Enough is Enough?  When will we teach ourselves and our children that these things will no longer define who we are as a species?  When?

                            The banning of a gun isn't going to do this.  Banning stuff won't make me safe.  It won't even remotely start us down that path of evolution.  Because man will still be taught to hate and to use violence as a means to an end.

                            When will I be free and safe from my fellow man?

                            Our mutual safety isn't going to come from an authoritarian overreaction to an emotional crisis of consciousnesses.  It will come when we care for one another. It will come when we teach and live peace, not before.

                            Maybe we can find that way together before we're divided again.

                            ~Gerri

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

                            by gerrilea on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 04:44:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Here they are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      varii

      RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

      by hideinplainsight on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:19:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That would be universal conscription, to start, (0+ / 0-)

      including women, but excluding some on religious and health grounds. Not gonna happen.

      America—We built that!

      by Mokurai on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:48:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mokurai: as a female vet, I kinda think we should (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, gerrilea

        make sure women are trained equally as men when it comes to firearms.

        Or first aid.
        Or checkbook balances.
        Or knowing when you need a hearing aid. (Hint: if the neighbors three houses down can hear your TV and you can't, check with your doctor.)
        Or changing a flat tire -- on your bicycle or your car.
        Or doing laundry.
        Or washing dishes.
        Or cooking meals.
        Or recognizing a good price on the household staples you need.
        Or keeping a bugout-bag handy in case of a tornado that strands you or cuts your power, water, access to help, etc.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:36:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have a solution, but you're not going to like it (23+ / 0-)

    It doesn't fall under compromise, so it's probably not worth trolling this diary with it. (Repeal or Amend so Scalia can't read whatever "Original" bullsh*t into it he wants -- actually repealing HIM would be nice.)

    /end snide comment, start actual discussion:

    --------------------

    But since there are +100M guns out there, a real solution will require an actual plan and means to get there.

    1) Registration is vital to any solution.  Think about the implications if that isn't done.
    2) Licensing is a reasonable requirement.  Can we talk about that?
    3) Closing the gun show loophole.  Is anyone going to defend keeping it open?
    4) A serious gun buy-back program (a-la-Australia).
    5) Personally, I want to put multiple RFID chip in all new guns, but that may be a non-starter in some circles.
    6) Sufficient guarantees that no "slippery slope" arguments can be made as an excuse to do nothing.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:03:42 AM PST

    •  7) Do something about SYG laws. (15+ / 0-)

      Right now they seem like "If you are still alive, you win."

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:06:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You may want to research what they actually (7+ / 0-)

        allow. Because your description could not be further off.

        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 Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:34:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Repeat after me: Zimmerman. /nt (4+ / 0-)

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          —Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:38:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Zimmerman wasn't covered by SYG. nt (6+ / 0-)

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

            by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:45:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Zimmerman is facing charges. (9+ / 0-)

            I would say that's fair evidence that SYG laws don't allow what he did.

            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 Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:48:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Depends (9+ / 0-)

              Zimmerman is using SYG as s defense.  If he gets off then it means that SYG does allow what he did.

              One of the many problems with SYG laws is that the shooter always gets to make up the facts to justify himself, while his victim can't say that the shooter is lying.

              •  If Zimmerman gets off... (10+ / 0-)

                ...it's because the police intentionally LET him off. Legally and morally, he was not standing his ground; he was deliberately invading Trayvon Martin's ground.

                The SYG laws specifically exclude provoking and escalating a confrontation.

                What Zimmerman did was (at least second degree) murder. I hope he dies in prison.

                Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

                by Tom Seaview on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:13:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  No, it would mean the jury misapplied it, or that (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas, gerrilea

                the public reporting of the facts of the case was completely at variance with what was presented in court.

                "SYG" means only one thing: it's a type of self-defense law where proving retreat is not one of the requirements to establish a claim of self-defense. It's generally limited to people acting lawfully who are not the aggressor.

                Zimmerman would have to prove to a jury that he was acting lawfully, was in a place had the right to be, and was the victim of an attack wherein he had reasonable fear of serious bodily harm, or that deadly force was necessary to prevent a forcible felony. All SYG means is that proving retreat would not be a requirement. If he can not convince the jury that he was the victim of an unprovoked attack, then he was the aggressor, and retreat remains a requirement for the aggressor, SYG notwithstanding.

                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 Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:25:05 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  SYG is the Tool (5+ / 0-)

                  The jury has to have something they can misapply.  There seems to be a lot of concern that other laws can be misapplied or misused.  Why is there no such concern that this law can be misapplied or misused?

                  •  Juries don't need a tool to "find reasonable (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rockhound, a2nite, KVoimakas

                    doubt". Prosecutors don't need a tool to "find insufficient evidence to prosecute". Police don't need a tool to "find insufficient cause to arrest or investigate". They have all the discretion they need to acquit, fail to prosecute, or fail to arrest.

                    People were being no-billed for race-based crimes by sympathetic officials and juries decades before the requirement to retreat was removed from self-defense laws (which, again, is all SYG is, despite how it's been made into a scare-word).

                    Abolishing SYG, though, removes a tool from the defendant who legitimately used force in self-defense to avoid being punished for being a victim of an attack.

                    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 Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:42:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  SYG Makes it Easier to Kill (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      a2nite, marina

                      The point of SYG is to give permission for people to kill other people even when they don't have to.  Under prior self defense law if you had no real choice but to shoot or be injured yourself then that was a good defense.  The point of SYG is that you can shoot even if you don't have to because there were other reasonable options available to keep you safe.

                      If I get to choose between gun owners suffering low self-esteem because they had to leave the room rather than shoot somebody and teenagers getting shot by lunkheads who think that SYG gives them license to pretend they are Charles Bronson you know which side is going to lose that debate.

                      If we were going to have a SYG law at all, I would make it strict liability.  Forget about saying that you thought you were in danger when in fact the kid was just buying an ice tea.  If you can prove that in fact the guy you shot was a drug addict who was about to hit you over the head to take your wallet then you're off the hook.  If you were wrong and you shot an innocent kid who was just out buying ice tea then away you go, no matter what your subjective fears or fantasies might have been.  If you want to carry a gun around then you should accept the obligation to never be wrong and never shoot the wrong person.  When the kid you shoot is less dead because you made a mistake then you can get credit from the legal system for making a mistake.  The consequences to you for being wrong with your gun are still not as severe as the consequences to the kid you shot.

                      •  SYG does no such thing. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas, rockhound, gerrilea

                        A Justifiable Use of Force Law sets out a list of criteria that have to be met for force to be justified. To claim a use of force was justified, a defendant must make an affirmative defense - and because he's claiming it, he has the burden to prove he met its conditions.

                        The only difference between a SYG self-defense claim, and the traditional claim, is that in the former, proof that one tried to retreat and failed, or was prevented, is no longer required to claim the defense - though such a demonstration would certainly make such a claim more credible.

                        And "thought you were in danger" is not one of the standards used in a self-defense claim, SYG or not. What is on the list is a reasonable belief (that is, a reasonable person in your position would believe) in imminent grave bodily harm, or that use of force was necessary to prevent a forcible felony (things like aggravated assault or rape). But that's not all that's on the list. One also has to be, among other things, acting lawfully in a place one has the right to be, and not the aggressor (aggressors fall under a different provision of the law where SYG does not apply).

                        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 Dec 27, 2012 at 07:07:12 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Then What's the Difference????? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          poco

                          You make it sound like SYG is just the same as the self defense laws that have been around for a couple hundred years.  If that's the case then why did anybody need the new SYG laws at all?

                          You've got to pick one story or the other.  Either SYG laws are completely unnecessary because they only apply if the shooter had no real choice but to shoot just like good old fashioned self-defense law, or SYG laws have a reason to exist because they changed the long-established self defense laws which said you could only shoot when you have to.  You can't have it both ways.

                          It's really simple.  SYG laws let you shoot other people when you don't have to, but you want to anyway.  Either that or they don't have any effect at all.

                          •  SYG is exactly the same as the older self-defende (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, gerrilea

                            laws in all areas but one.

                            It removes the need to prove an attempt to retreat from the list of requirements that must be met before a self-defense claim can be made.

                            How many times does this need to be said before it sinks in?

                            It did so because some people (myself included) consider the affirmative burden to prove retreat to be too high; and that it essentially presumes guilt, under the assumption that if you can't prove you tried to run away, or couldn't, you were part of a mutual escalation, rather than actually defending yourself. In the absence of SYG, if you legitimately defend yourself, and you can't prove you tried to retreat but were unsuccessful or prevented, you go to jail for the crime of protecting your own life. That is unacceptable. Some of us still believe in Blackstone's formulation.

                            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 Dec 27, 2012 at 10:06:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How Many People...... (0+ / 0-)

                            How many people are in prison because they couldn't satisfy the "retreat" standard under traditional self-defense law when they really were at risk?  How many of those people in prison because they didn't retreat shot innocent victims out buying ice tea rather than criminals who were really trying to mug them?

                            How many people are dead because people shot them under SYG laws when they could have retreated?  How many of those dead people were out buying ice tea rather than trying to mug the shooter?

                            I suspect the math would not work out in your favor.

                            I've said before that I would prefer a strict liability test.  If you shoot someone because you thought that diet Coke in his hand was a gun you go to prison, no matter how much the diet Coke looked like a gun.  If you choose to take someone else's life then you should accept the responsibility to never be wrong.

                          •  ACtually, there is at least five who are in jail (0+ / 0-)

                            despite fitting SYG in Georgia due to being black on white 'crimes'.

                            If someone breaks into my house and fails to leave after taking my Diet Coke and being warned by my voice that I have a firearm, I will assume he or she intends on assaulting me and will act accordingly.  I'm too young to die yet too old to take a beating.

                            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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:25:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Do you people realize that this is a decision for (0+ / 0-)

                      the judge, not jury?  The idea of the hearing is for the shooter to gain an early dismissal.

                      Just sayin'.

                      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

                      by auron renouille on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:12:45 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  From the FL Justifiable Use of Force statute, (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas, rockhound, gerrilea

                        it appears to my non-lawyer eyes that the judge's discretion is most important not under the SYG provision (which once again, merely removes the duty to retreat from the list of things the defendant must prove to claim the defense), but in the limited immunity provision.

                        If a person claims that their use of force was justifiable, the prosecutor needs to show probable cause that the accused acted unlawfully to prosecute; and that the police need to show probable cause of the same to arrest (no bar is set for an investigation; they just can't throw you in irons and take you down to the station for an interrogation without probable cause). Should they fail to demonstrate probable cause, a judge can dismiss the case and order damages.

                        But really, how high a bar is probable cause anyway? It's what ostensibly has to be met to obtain a search warrant. If a prosecutor can't show probable cause to prosecute, should a prosecution go forward?

                        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 Dec 27, 2012 at 06:56:11 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

    •  8) What bounds upon ownership are reasonable? (9+ / 0-)

      Bushmaster?
      Clip size?
      Caliber?
      Firing rate?
      Rifling? (heh -- you can own a breach-loading musket)
      Storage requirements?
      Practical test as well as written?
      etc.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:11:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound

        a lack of having done something that would separate them from their right to have access to firearms?  Those are already lined out pretty clearly.  

        This is actually something that I agree with AG Holder on.  More information from the states needs to be shared with the feds to make the NICS check as thorough as possible without being invasive.

        If someone in your household is not able to be around firearms then you have to choose between them and your firearms.  My son has been through the 'Eddie Eagle' child safety course and also knows the four rules of safe firearms handling for when either I or my wife is around.  

        US v. Miller (1939) is a court decision that stated that Mr Miller's sawed off shotgun is not a military weapon so therefore is not covered.  This would suggest strongly that military grade weapons - of which the AR platform is one - are fully covered by the Second Amendment.  As far as I know, no Supreme Court decision has overturned this and I have no idea why the '94 AWB wasn't declared Unconstitutional on those grounds.

         

        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 Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:31:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  283+ million guns according to Brady. (8+ / 0-)

      Though I think there are a lot more out there in civilian hands than there were two weeks ago. Every gun shop or gun selling FFL I've been to is bare.

      1. What do you propose to accomplish with registration, how do you propose to enforce it and do you think we'd go the same way as Canada (too expensive for too little use and too little compliance)?

      2. I'm all for mandatory firearm safety courses in primary and secondary ed. Your GED or high school diploma is your license.

      3. Quite frankly, the gun show loophole isn't a loophole. Private sales can occur without a background check regardless of location. FFL sales need a background check regardless of location.

      4. Details?

      5. I agree, it'd definitely be a non-starter.

      6. Could you explain these sufficient guarantees?

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

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:20:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm listing components of a solution, not (8+ / 0-)

        the meat of the solution.

        When negotiations happen between countries, whether friendly with each other or not, you start with a list of areas that require discussion.  There are certain areas that must be discussed to find out what is fundamentally unchangeable, what could contain compromise, and what someone is freely willing to offer up.

        First thing is to count noses and see what the topics are that should be discussed.

        Holy Cr*p, 283M guns?

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:24:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's according to Brady's numbers, which are (8+ / 0-)

          old.

          But I have a question for you then: what's your compromise? What are you willing to give RKBA proponents that we don't have right now? Compromise, the art of making no one person happy, amiright?

          But on a serious note: if the NRA, GOA, DK RKBA, LGC, Blue Steel Dems, and others on the pro-RKBA side of things were to agree with NICS checks on ALL sales (private sales as well), then what would we get in return that we currently don't enjoy?

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

          by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:27:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't start with what that compromise should be (11+ / 0-)

            the point of having the discussion is to plumb the depths.

            If this were left to me, as I alluded to above, you wouldn't like the solution.  Yes, compromise makes nobody happy, but if the number of children massacred each year drops to Australia's levels (per capita), I think people on both sides of the discussion might go along.

            Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
            I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
            —Spike Milligan

            by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:30:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  KV is playing the role of obstruction. I see no (8+ / 0-)

              suggestions for a solution, just reasons why not or asking you to defend your position.

              Like the House RePugs.  NO.

              So much for that bridge...

              The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

              by JVolvo on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:22:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then you didn't read all of my comments. nt (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                deedogg, Otteray Scribe

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

                by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:25:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So you guys want to keep the ability to (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  alain2112, Smoh, JVolvo

                  massacre children unless you get something?

                  What could possibly be equivalent to that?

                  I doubt a pony will satisfy you. I left this diaries ago because of what I consider your offensive and nasty comment.

                  I find it more offensive now.

                  **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                  by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:38:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's not inflammatory at all. nt (7+ / 0-)

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

                    by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:39:43 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  glorificus, what I object to is you assuming I'm (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas, gerrilea

                    going to massacre children.

                    Do you see the problem here?

                    If you don't there's no basis for discussion.

                    Yes. I own a firearm.  I've never gone into a mall armed and shot the place up, or a school, or a workplace.

                    But you say I want to keep the ability to massacre children.

                    So you assume that the firearm I own would massacre children, how,
                    exactly?

                     

                    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                    by BlackSheep1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:43:31 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You? Who said that? Kids (and firefighters and (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      polecat

                      bystanders and family members and) HAVE BEEN KILLED.  OVER AND OVER AND OVER.  FACT.  

                      We want that to stop.  Semi-auto weapons and larger clips are THE ONE CONSISTENT FACTOR in most, if not all, of the massacres.

                      Derp.

                      The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

                      by JVolvo on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:14:41 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  And again, rhetorical questions and putting the (0+ / 0-)

                      onus on us.  Again ZERO suggestions on ending the semi-auto killings.  Strange...

                      Not.

                      We've got your playbook and tactics figured out.  Got anything new?  Any suggestions to a solution?

                      If you don't, you are part of the problem.  Deal.

                      The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

                      by JVolvo on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:17:28 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Ok. So I'm part of the problem because I do not (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas, gerrilea

                        see your solution -- which is to pre-emptively treat me, and literally millions of Americans like me as dangerous criminals with no proof that I am either dangerous or a criminal -- as a SOLUTION.

                        It's a talking point.
                        It makes you feel better about something.
                        You're demonizing people you've never met -- and never intend to meet.
                        That's exactly what the right wing does on issues dear to its heart, like prayer in schools and marriage equality and trashing the environment with no regulation.

                        NOW do you see the problem?

                        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                        by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:45:04 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Kids Are Dead. Firefighters Are Dead. Police Are (0+ / 0-)

                          Dead.  Movie-goers Are Dead.  Church-goers Are Dead.  Hair salon-goers Are Dead.

                          Semi-autos and extended clips/mags/speedloaders are the 1 common theme in all these murders.

                          This Is Not About YOU.  I Don't Give A Fuck About YOUR Feelings.  Cry and cuddle with your precious weapons all you like.  

                          I Care about the Dead People I'll never meet.  And the victims of the next mass shooting.  And the one after that.  And the one after that.

                          You?  Besides the "We're the victims here!!11" crap I don't know or care what you're about.  Because you and your fellow reccers (hollow point stud club) here are not part of the solution - you are part of the problem.  

                          The great news is now the rest of us here see it.

                          The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

                          by JVolvo on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:07:51 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

          •  What we would all get in return (14+ / 0-)

            would be the knowledge that it is going to be a little harder for the domestic abuser or paroled felon around the corner to buy a gun. That's a positive for everybody, unless you believe they should have access to guns now.

          •  A longer life - you're 5 times more likely to get (0+ / 0-)

            if you're packin than if you're not.
            A pocketful of false courage is a dangerous thing.

            RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

            by hideinplainsight on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:31:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You would "get" the same thing many responsible (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus

            gun owners and non-gun-owners reportedly agree that they would like to help foster and move toward  -- a more peaceful and safer civil society.

            Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

            by bkamr on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:53:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You get a slightly better and safer country. Is (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus, Mokurai, poco

            that not sufficient?

            “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

            by jeff in nyc on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:22:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You are not owed. (0+ / 0-)
            •  Neither are you. nt (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

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

              by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:44:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh yes I am. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                Defining liberty within the limits of gun ownership is a grotesque distortion of the social contract.

                •  I define liberty with the addition of RKBA, (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fisheye, FrankRose, BlackSheep1

                  that not being the one defining charateristic.

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

                  by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:10:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I rec. that comment (0+ / 0-)

                    And still wonder why your comment above demanded a give for a take, regardless of the status quo.

                    The same argument is being applied to our current national fiscal state of affairs for which the momentum for far too long has been lopsided.

                    Considering that incidents such as the Sandy Hook massacre, lead to instant and invariable runs on gun and ammo suppliers; is that the level balanced response we desire as a society or you desire as an individual? Is that our starting point of negotiated discussion?

                    Into who's hands are these arsenals flying off the shelves and why?

                    Pillars of our Constitution and our democratic process are protections from tyranny, of both government and the masses.

                    Your "side of the fence" is resembles more and more each day, in my perspective, an armed mob, motivated by fear, more than rights.

                •  Constitutional Rights are Liberties. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BlackSheep1, fisheye

                  "NOUN:
                      1)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                      2)Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                      3)A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. "

                  You can't hijack the definition of the word 'liberty' simply because standing opposed to it makes you uncomfortable.

                  You want to sacrifice liberty for perceived security.....I already have heard this argument from the right-wing pushing for warrantless wiretaps, torture & Gitmo.
                  I rejected that argument then, and I reject it now.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:50:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  yada yada yada, reductio ad absurdum (0+ / 0-)

                    Those rights are not just from intrusion by the government, but by the mob and other individuals.

                    I'm sure you've also heard "your liberty ends where my nose begins".

                    The development of "rights" has a historical process as an affront to notion of absolutist governance. They are in reality a compromise among humans, both limiting and protecting each other's liberty along very illusive lines. That's why we have indefinite courts and juries to determine jurisprudence and not cliches.

                    •  As persuasive as your 'yadda yadda' point is.... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BlackSheep1, KVoimakas, fisheye

                      There are some important things you neglected to mention.
                      Namely, that the word 'liberties' does have a meaning, the Bill of Rights protect them, and that you want to infringe upon them for your perceived security.

                      "your liberty ends where my nose begins"
                      And my, along with hundreds of millions of American's, rights have not touched your nose.

                      "both limiting [each other's liberty]"
                      That's you.

                      "and protecting [each other's liberty]"
                      That's me.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:40:10 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Wow, yes, I was mocking the cliches, quick draw. (0+ / 0-)
                        •  And offering nothing of substance. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          fisheye, gerrilea

                          I foresee nothing different out of you.

                          However, you do realize that the word 'cliche' has a meaning.
                          Please, do point out aforementioned 'cliches'. Let us see if your grasp of the definition of 'cliche' matches your grasp on the definition of 'liberty'.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:17:46 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Apparently, you have the skills to (0+ / 0-)

                            google it.

                            But your painfully distorted and mislead misquote of Benjamin Franklin leads me to think you already have a good start.

                            Talk about a hijack, Franklin had the good sense to qualify his statement so not to appear an advocate of anarchy.

                            Just for fun

                            Most phrases now considered clichéd were originally regarded as striking, but lost their force through overuse.[3] In this connection, David Mason and John Frederick Nims cite a particularly harsh judgement by Salvador Dalí: "The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot."[4] Ironically, in making this statement, Dalí was appropriating the words of French poet Gérard de Nerval: "The first man who compared woman to a rose was a poet, the second, an imbecile."[5]
                            There are 6.26 billion google hits for "rights". Almost one for each breathing human. Fancy that.

                            You actually posted a three line definition of liberty and accused me of highjacking it's definition because I suggested that our social contract is not confined to the limits of gun ownership. Where did you find that anyway?

                          •  'Google hits' are not 'definitions'. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fisheye, gerrilea

                            I am flabbergasted that you think 'google hits' are the same as 'definitions'.
                            There are millions of 'google hits' for "President Obama", do you think that there are millions of individual 'President Obamas' as well?

                            "Painfully distorted and mislead quote of Benjamin Franklin"
                            It is an accurate and widely accepted paraphrase...which is why you knew it originated with Ben Franklin.

                            "Where did you find [the definition of liberty] anyway?"
                            Dictionary.  

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:26:05 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's a cliche, having lost it's significance (0+ / 0-)

                            through overuse and misuse. That's why you think it's accurate when it's not, even if it's common.

                            Did you really take that comment about right's literally? Flabbergasted indeed.  Suffice it to say, the conceptualization of human rights is voluminous.

                            I am flabbergasted that you seem to think liberty and security are mutually exclusive and not inextricably dependent on each other in the context of our constitution and social contract.

                            This also comes from a dictionary.

                            1. the quality or state of being free:
                            a : the power to do as one pleases
                            run with it
                          •  "Its a cliche" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fisheye, gerrilea

                            By that measure, you tag line is a cliche as well, smart-guy.
                            You may want to check the definition of 'hypocrite', so long as you have your dictionary out.

                            "Run with it"
                            I already educated you on the definition of the word 'liberty'...I don't need to 'run with it'. I finished that particular race a couple of posts ago.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:32:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let's go back to your original reply (0+ / 0-)

                            Telling me I want to sacrifice liberty for security. I assume you don't disagree that there is some price for liberty. It's not free, right. I mean, that's the whole point of having a right to bear arms in the first place.

                            Liberty comes with a cost. A responsibility. Sometimes even compulsory military service, and the employment of the arms you have the right to bear.

                            At at some point our 'liberties' (I love that plural use) and our rights cost something, at some time, some where. Do you agree?

                            Including the risk factors right? The freedom to bear arms comes with the risk that your neighbor might just shoot you. That's another sort of cost for liberty and rights, right?

                            The freedom of speech means also having to hear some jackass like me disagree with you. There's a cost you can understand.

                            Or, are liberty and the rights of man just completely unburdened by any responsibility for their enjoyment? Is that reality? No. It isn't.

                            That is why, I believe, Franklin modified liberty with "essential" and safety with "a little temporary". Because in general, safety and liberty go hand in hand, are dependent on one another, or must be balanced on a scale, in other words.

                            So there is a certain line we must strive for to balance a reasonable price, burden, responsibility, what have you, for the maintenance and enjoyment of our rights and liberty. Taxes for instance.

                            You think marginally increased responsibility taken by gun owners to attempt to achieve a safer society to is akin to torture and spying by the government.

                            I disagree.

                            Also, completely aside from legislation, or forced control,  as a measure of security, are people who have faith that guns provide them safety, sacrificing their liberty from guns for that safety?

                            I mean, I'm liberated from the need or desire to own a gun, as is my right, and I'm quite sure in provable fact, that owning or bearing a gun will do almost nothing to improve my chances of security. Statistically you and your family are in far more danger of suffering gun violence having a gun in your house or possession than not.

                            But a good dose of unreasonable fear, based on myth and snake oil, just might make me a slave to one.

                          •  "there is a certain line we must strive for" (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound

                            And I think that line should be where it is now.
                            You, on the other hand want to move that line away from Constitutional Liberty and toward perceived safety.

                            "marginally increased responsibility"
                            This is the most transparently dishonest euphemism for infringing on American's rights I have ever heard.

                            "akin to torture and spying by the government."
                            Yes. Strangely, I see many equivalences between infringing on Constitutional Rights, and.........infringing on Constitutional Rights. Imagine that.

                            "I'm liberated from the need or desire to own a gun"
                            Super! But why stop there? You can 'liberate' yourself from reasonable search and seizure. You can be 'liberated' from habeas corpus. You can have the 'liberty' to be tortured!......Or you can just use words as they are intended to be used.

                            "good dose of unreasonable fear"
                            ......would cause you & others to sacrifice liberty for security.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:52:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure, a licensing requirement is like torture (0+ / 0-)

                            and suspension of Habeus Corpus. It must be war.

                            You are starting to sound a little goofy.

                            1) Registration is vital to any solution.  Think about the implications if that isn't done.
                            2) Licensing is a reasonable requirement.  Can we talk about that?
                            3) Closing the gun show loophole.  Is anyone going to defend keeping it open?
                            4) A serious gun buy-back program (a-la-Australia).
                            5) Personally, I want to put multiple RFID chip in all new guns, but that may be a non-starter in some circles.
                            6) Sufficient guarantees that no "slippery slope" arguments can be made as an excuse to do nothing.
                            Torture.
                            And I think that line should be where it is now.
                            Or it's torture? We've reached perfection on the second amendment. Let's celebrate.

                            But at least the RKBA group recognizes you as the extremist you are. So I'll let them take it from here.

                            Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms)
                          •  Again, I find that infringments on Constitutional (0+ / 0-)

                            liberties are, indeed, like .......infringments on Constitutional liberties, particularly when the motive behind the infringments are the same (perception of safety).

                            "extremist you are"
                            Again, it is difficult to call maintaining 236 yr old Constitutional rights as 'extremist'.
                            However, trying to take 236 yr old Constitutional rights can easily be catagorized as 'extremist'

                            "Torture...or it's torture"
                            I have no idea what it is you are trying to convey here. Try using your words....preferably in the manner the words are designed to be used.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:44:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This discussion has (0+ / 0-)

                            devolved into whether or not you have the proprietary knowledge of the meaning and intent of the words right and liberty (ies).

                            Forget John Locke, Rousseau, the UN convention on human rights, the endless war and volumes of academic and political, discourse on the meaning, integrity and purpose of liberalism and rights, perpetual Supreme Court deliberations, because Frank Rose has it covered.

                            The consideration that these terms are not static and absolute as they exist in your mind at the moment seems an impossible imposition on you. That any deviation from the status quo, you liken to torture, and taking away your rights.

                            That is extremism.

                             And you seem to cling to what you believe are 236 year old notions of the meaning of rights. As if the use of the terms in the Constitution wasn't a progressive advancement from previous meanings, and written with the express intent that future progressive applications would be made to perpetually make more perfect our use of them.

                            The expansion and equal distribution of liberty has always been an infringement on what some people considered their rights, constitutionally enshrined or not.

                          •  Yeah.... (0+ / 0-)

                            take it up with the American Heritage dictionary, or Miriam-Webster, or any other English dictionary.

                            "cling to 236 yr old notions"
                            Actually 'protections' is the proper word to use. And, yes, I do.
                            But thanks for off-handedly insulting the idea of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Reasonable Search and Seizure, and the rest of the Bill of Rights.
                            It puts your current push to restrict liberty into context.

                            "expansion and equal distribution of liberty...."
                            What you are suggesting is not an expansion of liberty...not by ANY definition of the word. Not one. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Not at any time, by any definition, by any stretch would taking a Right away from innocent Americans be considered 'expanding liberty'.
                            Words have meanings. I suggest you learn them.

                            You are frightened and you want others to give up Rights--rights which you don't utilize, to soothe your fears and make you feel more secure.
                            It is exactly what the right-wing did when they pushed for warrantless wiretaps. Of course, that would have infringed on something you use, so it was unacceptable to you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 01:21:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What am I suggesting FrankRose? (0+ / 0-)

                            ...taking a right away? Do tell.

                          •  Yes. You are suggesting taking liberties away. (0+ / 0-)

                            You are suggesting infringing on an Amendment Right.

                            Can't see how there is any disagreement on this.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 05:18:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No I think there is a purpose to our rights (0+ / 0-)

                            in the constitution beyond the individuals choice to do as he pleases, that entails responsibility. Responsibilities that are often legislated by a Congress we have for that purpose. I don't consider that responsibility an infringement, but a necessity in order to maintain, preserve and protect those same rights to all people.

                            Sometimes I agree with the legislation, sometimes I don't.

                            Would you argue that a religious right to deny a child medical care if that child was dying,  should be protected, just because you personally wouldn't do it? Because it's not a religious liberty you would partake in? Would you consider that an "infringement" on religious rights? Or an expansion of rights to the child? Or both?

                            I know there is no enumerated right to life in the Constitution. But the child can't very well speak freely or keep arms if he's dead right? Dead by religion or dead by a gun.

                            Fear not. I do not want to take away your rights. Just because I currently choose not to keep a gun, is not the reason I think people should take responsibility for that right. It's my right too.

                          •  You aren't talking 'responsibility' (0+ / 0-)

                            You are are talking 'restriction through legislation'.
                            You are taking liberties away from responsible gun owners.

                            The only person you are talking to is me. Quit trying to be a politician by stretching (or ignoring) the definitions of words.

                            "deny a child medical care"
                            No. The law often steps in for the care of minors. I can't even fathom how you think this is a point.

                            "dead by a gun"
                            Called murder. Already illegal.

                            "I do not want to take away your rights"
                            Yes, you do. You want something that a person can do today, and make it illegal.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:35:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  full stop (0+ / 0-)
          •  The question KV's comment raises is whether (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            ZhenRen, KVoimakas
            Hidden by:
            FrankRose

            [Repost, with hide-rated comment removed]

            we have to satisfy some personal, selfish desire of gun owners, or whether public safety counts with them at all. I count KV as one of the utterly selfish, totally bloody-minded deadenders, based solely on his comments in various RKBA diaries. I would be pleased and delighted if KV could prove that this is not so.

            I will have this conversation with NRA members who approve of reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, and leave the others to their maunderings.

            Yes, KV, I currently consider you not worth talking to.

            Now, where were we? Something about a bridge, wasn't it? Some Bridge to Nowhere that gerrilea wanted to sell us?

            OK, if we want to discuss a real bridge to somewhere, I have some materials here for general consideration.

            • Measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, those with records of domestic abuse, and terrorists. The vast majority of NRA members agree. [gerrilea says no.]
            • Registration laws that treat guns with the respect we give cars. The vast majority of NRA members agree. [gerrilea says no.]
            • Bans on the biggest, nastiest weapons, and on large-capacity magazines and drums. The vast majority of NRA members agree. [gerrilea says no.]
            • Allowing the CDC and NIH to conduct research on gun safety, including domestic violence, accidents, and especially suicide. [Tiahrt Amendment] The NRA has not been polled on this, to my knowledge. No claim can be made that this would violate the Second Amendment.
            • Allowing pediatricians in Florida to inquire about the presence of guns and about gun safety in patient's homes. No polls of NRA member that I know of. No claim can be made that this would violate the Second Amendment.
            • Fixing health care so that everybody who needs mental health care gets it. That includes removing the stigma about seeking help. No polls of NRA members that I know of. No claim can be made that this would violate the Second Amendment. [gerrilea says yes.]

            The Second Amendment confers no absolute rights to all. Even Scalia agreed, in holding that there is a right to own guns for self-defense while striking down a DC handgun law, that we can regulate guns and gun ownership. Thus DC had to issue Heller (but not, say, a convicted felon) a gun license valid in the home, but could require licensing, and place restrictions on use of guns outside the home.

            I believe that we are nearing a tipping point on gun issues, because the number of gun owners (and also Republicans) in the US has been in decline for many years, while a significant minority among owners build up arsenals of more and bigger guns of larger capacity with more powerful and nastier ammunition. Responsible hunters are stuck in the middle.

            I am reminded of the Schaefer brewery, which targeted literal six-pack drinkers in my youth with the jingle, "Schaefer is the one beer to have when you're having more than one." Schaefer was for more than a century the largest-selling brand in the US. They are now a small part of Pabst.

            America—We built that!

            by Mokurai on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:07:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well done n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PinHole

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:29:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  HR'd (0+ / 0-)

              Insult.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:13:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Stop being a dick in my diary. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, KVoimakas

              Write your own diary and have all the fun you want in it.

              As for these continued lies and fabrications I will go through them one by one with you:

              I HAVE NEVER BEEN AN NRA MEMBER AND WHAT THEY THINK ON ANY SUBJECT IS MEANINGLESS TO ME.

              Measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, those with records of domestic abuse, and terrorists. The vast majority of NRA members agree. [gerrilea says no.]
              Where have I ever said I don't want measures to keep people whom have been legally adjudicated from firearms ownership?

              Oh, wait, I never did.

              Registration laws that treat guns with the respect we give cars. The vast majority of NRA members agree. [gerrilea says no.]
              Cars and driving are a privilege conditionally granted, not an unalienable right that pre-exists our written constitution. Again, what the NRA cares about is meaningless to me.

              You cannot convert an unalienable right into a privilege. No matter how many times you repeat it, not unless you change the constitution and the common law system we have into a Napoleonic Code type of authoritarian government where we are granted privileges by our divine potentates.

              Bans on the biggest, nastiest weapons, and on large-capacity magazines and drums. The vast majority of NRA members agree. [gerrilea says no.]
              I could care less what weapons or magazines you ban, I don't own any firearms, I don't have an opinion on this EXCEPT if you do ban x, y or z it is done uniformly and universally throughout the US, police and military included. No special exceptions or special classes.

              Equity under law is the only standard I will accept as legitimate here.  Deal with it hon.

              Fixing health care so that everybody who needs mental health care gets it. That includes removing the stigma about seeking help. No polls of NRA members that I know of. No claim can be made that this would violate the Second Amendment. [gerrilea says yes.]
              Clarification needed here.  I've always supported fully funded public mental health services.  It has nothing to do with the 2nd A at all.

              That I've somewhere, somehow claimed I believe free mental health care would violate the 2nd A?

              If so, then you are lying about me and my position.

              As for you re-interpretations of the 2nd A, meaningless.  The constitution does not confer rights to anyone, it protects ones we already possess.

              I believe that we are nearing a tipping point on gun issues, because the number of gun owners (and also Republicans) in the US has been in decline for many years, while a significant minority among owners build up arsenals of more and bigger guns of larger capacity with more powerful and nastier ammunition. Responsible hunters are stuck in the middle.
              Where are you getting these "facts" from? Gun Shops across this nation have all but sold out of firearms and ammo...who you kidding here?

              What "yes man bubble" do you exist in that makes you believe such falsities? Do you have any links proving your positions here?

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

              by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:37:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Fewer corpses (0+ / 0-)

            "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

            by TheFern on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 08:11:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  So for 3. (10+ / 0-)

        Require background checks for all gun sales, private or FFL.  You have to change the registration on your car when you sell it. This is no more onerous than that. Or for more frequent buyers, at least require that one has been performed on the person buying within the last 30 days. Check it online, get a checksum based code and use it to register that the background check was performed.

        We get what we want - or what we fail to refuse. - Muhammad Yunus

        by nightsweat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:27:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  re: #6 guarantees. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, glorificus

        If you can remove the slippery slope argument somehow, then regulation can be more palatable.  The lead on that would have to come from the Federal level, or maybe a commission between the Senate and the Supreme Court.

        Brown vs. Board of Education was unanimous.  That is the ultimate example of a consensus that will not be overturned.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:28:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And I would oppose mandatory gun education in (16+ / 0-)

        schools, every bit as much as I would oppose mandatory religious instruction. Gun ownership is (currently) a right, not an obligation, and I want to retain the control as a parent about what my child learns about guns.

        The atheists around here think religion kills? Guns really kill. I would vehemently oppose mandatory gun education in public schools, even more so if it is seen as a way to avoid individual gun licenses.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:11:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What about for those who would own a weapon- (8+ / 0-)

          should a required written and practical test be a requirement?

          i.e. Automobile licensure?

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          —Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:25:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Certainly. We currently require people to be (12+ / 0-)

            resident in the jurisdiction in which they vote, because that is pertinent to exercising the right to vote in a meaningful and responsible way. Written and practical tests for gun licenses do not seem onerous to me for the exercise of that right.



            Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

            by Wee Mama on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:32:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wouldn't (4+ / 0-)

              the gun equivalent to the residency requirement be the background check?  Considering the horrible history of testing requirements for voting, why would we add a test for another right?

              •  We have tests before people use cars, which are (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, sviscusi, cany

                large dangerous objects. It doesn't seem onerous to me that people should prove themselves competent before exercising their rights to use guns, which are small dangerous objects.



                Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                by Wee Mama on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:05:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  But isn't (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas, gerrilea

                  a background check just that?  

                  Without pulling out the old slippery slope canard, testing for gun rights is an extremely troublsome thing to do.

                  You mentioned "Written and practical tests".  Without trying to read your mind I'm hard pressed to think of anything but specific situations to which that would apply.  

                  Take a mental health check for example.  I don't know where that line could be drawn.  Do we say "those with an anxiety disorder can get guns, those with schizophrenia can't" etc.  I think that would end up stigmatizing mental health even more and lead to people rejecting treatment or unwilling to use something off label for one thing because it's commonly used for something that may get you on the banned list.

                  •  The written test for a driver's license includes (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cany, PsychoSavannah

                    information about how to handle a car safely and what the laws are that control using a car. Those would seem pertinent to me for guns, also. The practical exam demonstrates a basic level of competence at using the tool. I am not a gun owner but I would imagine a practical exam could include a test of accuracy, of cleaning the gun, of how to store it and so on.

                    Cars are big and dangerous, and people are not allowed to use them in public without a modicum of competence. I don't see why guns which are more dangerous if smaller should have the same.



                    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

                    by Wee Mama on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:04:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Even a crane operator has to have a certification (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wee Mama

                  202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                  by cany on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:45:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Tipped because I didn't think about (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sviscusi, KVoimakas, gerrilea, Wee Mama

                the fact that there could be a race-based abuse of this, which was, I think, part of Malcolm X's point? I wish I had a better grip on this. But that does seem to be important as a factor in the discussion. Then again, the highest rate of gun-related homicides are also young black men. Then again, I don't know if these are largely due to legally owned guns since many involve drug-related crimes due to socioeconomic disadvantages which promote little alternatives for upward economic mobility.

                There's a lot to unpack here.

                Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:07:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  This brings up a need (3+ / 0-)

                  for a very nuanced gun control policy.  When you're talking about inner city gun crime, that's driven by poverty, the rash of mass shootings have other sources, suicides and domestic disputes each have their own.

                  If the person committing the crime was already banned from having a firearm then more strenuous gun registration and background checks wouldn't do much.

                  •  Yes, I keep trying to juggle all of this nuance (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea, Wee Mama

                    Exactly right. There are several different types of gun violence that people here are discussing, each with different reasons attached to them: I think we need to be thorough in how we explore solutions for them. Why? Not because of some bullshit NRA-talking-point about deflecting blame, ugh. At every twist and turn, we need to think about gun laws in addition to various reasons, specific reasons that we can identify, for why we have gun violence at all. And these are myriad. And we need to think about who could be hurt by proposed reforms as well. The whole thing requires caution, critical analysis, and a spectrum of thought which is thorough above all else. I do think some change to our gun laws would be helpful, no doubt about it.

                    Rambling some due to a headache (too much afternoon mulled wine), but basically in agreement with your point here. Wishing more understood there's no one-sized fits all fix -- on either side of the pro/anti stance. None. Zip. Zilch. It's less of a national dialogue than a localized series of comprehensive conversations in my view.

                    Plus, whatever happens has to get through the SCOTUS or Congress, although I also wonder about executive orders too.

                    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                    by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:41:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Goodness gracious, this is what I had hoped (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas, mahakali overdrive

                      today, real conversation...

                      Thank you, thank you, thank you.

                      We really need to explore the various crimes and if the "one size fits all" thinking that is being presented will make any differences at all.

                      "The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

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

                      by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:47:25 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  How about an opt-out ability? /nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          figbash

          Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
          I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
          —Spike Milligan

          by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:25:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No. (13+ / 0-)

            They are cutting art and music and PE right and left. Not to mention, even drawing pictures of guns has basically been outlawed in schools. The last thing we need is to reduce more instructional time to spend time on guns in school.

            •  Agreed (5+ / 0-)

              The reason that there are so many gun related homicides in America is NOT because the users didn't know how to operate the fire arm.

              We don't need to spend our limited education resources to address the poor gun safety practices of gun owners.  Gun owners, individually and collectively, should be paying for that themselves in a forum outside of our public education system.

              We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

              by theotherside on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:14:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You don't think there is a problem when drawing (0+ / 0-)

              something becomes illegal???

              The unintended consequences of over zealous desires that have led to the formation of our public policies.

              Let's try to avoid these things, please.

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

              by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:07:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wee Mama, poco, glorificus, cany

                two boys who are in 3rd and 7th grade. I am quite familiar with what is going on in schools these days with respect to this issue. It is a lot more complicated than your comment would suggest. It does not promote a positive classroom environment when, for example, a child is drawing a picture of themselves shooting a classmate, and the classmate's head being blown open. The way it may be done can be very nonthreatening or it can be done in a very threatening way. Sometimes it is a lot easier to just encourage kids to draw pictures that don't involve weapons and violence, and really, they are free to draw those pictures at home if that is what they want to do.

                How I feel about it was not the point anyway. The point of that part of the comment was that the environment in schools is not one that is going to be favorable to this idea.

                •  Okay, where are these kids getting these images (0+ / 0-)

                  they are drawing from?

                  If not from movies, video games etc?

                  The worst thing I ever drew was a house with curtains, a hill and some trees and birds flying over head.

                  What is: "being done in a threatening way"?  How??? I don't get this.

                  Drawing a picture in a threatening way? Are you telling me that you've become mind readers? That there is some measurable difference from one drawing of "a kid shooting someone's head off" and  "a kid shooting someone's head off?"

                  This is truly bizarre.  "They can do it at home"???  Don't we want to help the child before they harm someone?  Is it a crime to draw? That still hasn't been answered yet.

                  I'm really finding this "morality" truly distasteful and very distressing.

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

                  by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:58:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's not morality (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wee Mama

                    Why are you so stuck on the morality thing? It's about managing an environment of 30 kids.

                    I'm guessing you don't have school age kids. This post is going to be like Kids 101.

                    A big concern in elementary school is keeping things calm and civil so the classroom can function. Kids are energetic, and there are 30 or so of them all stuck in a little room together for 6 or 7 hours. They need to behave so they can all pay attention and do their work.

                    Kids get in conflicts at times, and sometimes they will act out by hitting or kicking or whatever. They are also working developmentally on dealing constructively with negative emotions. One way they deal with their aggression is drawing. Boys do draw a lot of pictures of people shooting. I have two boys and I know a lot of boys and I have seen a lot of violent pictures in my life. I doubt it is just video games and movies, I saw a bunch of similar pictures my uncle drew when he was a kid in the 40s. When I said it could be threatening I meant the image. It could be a picture of a soldier shooting an alien in a spaceship. Or it could be threatening to a classmate like the one I mentioned above.

                    In a classroom, again, you want to maintain a smoothly functioning environment and minimize conflict. When one kid is doing something that upsets others that interferes. The teacher surely has enough to do without adjudicating every drawing to say this one's ok, that one crosses a line. The same applies to play, it's not just drawing. It can be a way of scaring your classmate if you start picking on them saying you are going to shoot them and then pretend to do so. Nobody wants a classmate doing that to them all recess. So they tell them not to do it and again, they can do it at home.

                    If a child is seriously troubled, the classroom is not the place to deal with that. Yes they are working on general emotional control as one aspect of daily life but major issues are for the school counselor or outside help. Maybe she lets them draw or act out in whatever way but within a classroom you can't have stuff going on that may bother other students.

                    •  Should add (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Wee Mama

                      There are kids who will be upset by a threatening picture. The teacher will have to end up dealing with Jenny crying because Sammy drew a picture of him shooting her (or pretended to shoot her at recess). It interferes with what is supposed to be happening - the learning. Getting rid of it is a way of minimizing interruptions to what is supposed to be happening in the classroom.

                      •  Wow, thanks but it's clear you are then (0+ / 0-)

                        trying to equate "drawing a gun" as a negative emotion that you wish to eradicate, right? Because, someone might be offended, right?

                        It's all about controlling that "resource", ie human resource, right?  Molding it into what you deem appropriate.  I find this unacceptable.

                        School isn't meant to mold negative behaviors out of our children, it's goal is to teach them.  Leave the "molding" to the parents please.  Didn't that get pointed out by someone above?

                        This "politically correct" mentality has led to the drugging of our children in numbers never before seen in human history.

                        So much so, that there are petitions people have started to stop these crimes.

                        We used to play cowboys and indians and pretended we were shooting one another with toy guns and arrows with suction cups on them.  I guess that's not allowed anymore, right?

                        While I do not think children should be encouraged or taught violence, this drawing thingy is crossing the line.

                        As for your Uncle, what was going on in the world at that point?  WWII.  Children reflect what they see and experience, this is a known psychological aspect of developing brains.

                        Remember the young child whom body-slammed their baby sibling and killed them?

                        http://www.nytimes.com/...

                        Then they child was prosecuted as an adult!

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

                        by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:45:14 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sure you may have (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          poco, Wee Mama

                          played cowboys and Indians, but that doesn't mean you did it in your school classroom. The issue here is the school environment, which is supposed to promote learning and reduce situations that could interfere with that. Nobody is saying kids can't do those things on their own time. You are right: the school's goal is to teach kids, and shooting, swordfighting, etc gets in the way of that. It has a tendency to wind kids up in one way or another when they start thinking about these things. If you don't spend any time around kids that may not be very obvious to you.

                          The schools know what they are doing when they tell kids not to do these things. They aren't doing it to be 'politically correct', they are doing it because they cannot get kids to calm down and pay attention if they are busy acting out their aggressions.

                          I'm against prosecuting kids as adults, but actually that article is a great example of what I am talking about. Some kids really get into stuff and get very affected by what they are thinking about. My older one has this tendency - for example if he watched Star Wars at age 9 he would start pretending to be a Jedi and want to have a swordfight with a light saber - so I can see how it happens. This boy, it sounds like, was imagining himself as a pro wrestler and went way overboard. The same kind of thing can happen in a classroom, and that isn't going to work during reading group.

                          You aren't reading what I am writing I don't think, when you keep implying that I am saying kids playing shooting games should be banned. I am not saying that even a little bit. I am saying it doesn't work in a classroom environment. There is a big difference between what should happen in a school and what can happen in the world in general. You might enjoy paintball on the weekend but you aren't going to bring your paintball gun in to work and shoot your co-workers. This is the same type of thing.

                          •  And I was saying we did it in school all the time (0+ / 0-)

                            We threw spit balls, rubber bands, etc.  DURING class and even during recess.

                            And we even had archery classes we could join up for. Hell we could take fencing lessons if your parents would pay for it.

                            I'm still not seeing how your "it winds kids" up part works out here. Unless you're now implying that physical exercise is now also bad too. (Wait you did say that because I may not have children I wouldn't understand...really??? Weren't we all kids once?)

                            We went back to our classes and actually learned stuff.  Kids today can't? Is that what you're saying? If so, why? What has changed in 30 yrs?  

                            Sadly, I know the answer, it's revealed in your final paragraph.

                            There is a big difference between what should happen in a school and what can happen in the world in general. You might enjoy paintball on the weekend but you aren't going to bring your paintball gun in to work and shoot your co-workers. This is the same type of thing.
                            Outcome Based Education model of behavioral modification of our children to make them into the "workers of tomorrow".

                            Did it every occur to anyone that the reason we are having so many problems is that maybe our children don't want to be "good little workers"?

                            Maybe your son pretending he's a Jedi Knight is more appealing than the voluntary servitude you are consigning him to?


                            You are saying that you don't want those things in school, yes I read what you said and understood it.

                            You've also made clear that if a child "acts out in such a way" they will be castigated for it and most likely punished or disciplined. There are examples of Child Protective Services swopping in and taking children from parents because they drew pictures of guns, while in school...

                            In my book, that's called Pavlovian dog training, not educating our children to become more than we are today.

                            A static status quo modeling for the society of tomorrow.

                            Ugh.

                            I must end this now and go throw up.  It sickens me beyond compare.

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

                            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:03:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't get it (0+ / 0-)

                            Wrong again. This isn't about me or about what I personally want. It's about reality in 2012. I don't make the rules in schools. I'm not a teacher or a principal. I'm merely explaining why things work the way they do since what I said clearly freaked you out and you are obviously unfamiliar with what it takes to manage 30 kids. What happened 30-40 years ago (corporal punishment, shaming, etc) isn't done today, the academic demands are higher than they were then, and classrooms are a lot more diverse and serve a wider range of needs. What worked from a 10 year old's point of view then (probably not the other 10 year old who got hit in the eye with your spitball, but never mind) is not what is acceptable today. For example, schools care about bullying and kids being mean to each other nowadays. You evidently don't agree with that, but I expect you could start a charter school and get funded on your traditional model.

                            Whatever. Your personalization of this with respect to my child and my opinions is not congruent with your earlier comments how we should be able to have a peaceful conversation. You are so eager to put me in some weird box of your own imagination. "I must think guns are immoral! I don't want my child to pretend to be a Jedi knight! I hate kids drawing shooting pictures!" None of this is true, you've imagined all of it. I'm just another one in a long list of bad guy fever dreams for the gun fans.

                            That's it for me.

                          •  If you don't agree with this then why are you (0+ / 0-)

                            allowing this to be done to your children? You've always had the power here, above and beyond any school administrator or "teacher".  Think dammit!

                            We both were children in school once.  And since you are not in the classroom today, my opinion no less valid than yours.

                            As for your accusation that I was doing the "spitting" maybe I didn't clarify. I was the victim of those things.  I grew up and lived through it.  The schools don't care about "bullying" not until they are sued and held accountable.  The same impulsive reactionary authoritarianism that we are now discussing today.

                            And the "standards are higher"? That is pure propaganda.  I've had to hire these "graduates" they can't add or even tell me who the Secretary of State is.  They have no ethics or morality, working for them is showing up, "We I'm here right? "That's not enough?"  This is an exact quote of an employee I fired when they didn't do the job they were hired for.

                            We were taught responsibility and actual facts.  We were made to understand those facts, children may know meaningless drivel, but can they tell you what it means? I was rarely surprised only once.

                            As for me starting a charter school, nope I'm an educated historian that intended on becoming a teacher.  I couldn't because I will not accept the "no child left behind" scam that doesn't teach our children anything but how to be good carbon copies of what the government dictates through their "testing" systems.

                            Sorry, I could not participate in the intentional destruction of our society and nation.  The children are the future, I will not destroy that for a paycheck.

                            Why are kids today so much more mean towards one another?  Or is it the same stuff we experienced just it's now being propagandized more?

                            If they are being more sadistic, then what's the cause? TV, movies, video games? What?

                            Maybe you'll find a legitimate answer to the questions I've posed and maybe you'll realize, I'm not the enemy here, really.

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

                            by gerrilea on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:05:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Allowing what (0+ / 0-)

                            to be done to my children? To be educated in a place where they know no one is going to shoot them with a rubber band? I have a lot of objections to things in the school system but that isn't one of them. I'm not crazy about the testing either, but I live in a place where the choices are either public or Catholic school. I'm an atheist and besides the Catholic school is too strict. My kids are in the public alternatives rather than traditional.

                            Weren't you saying above we should "teach children peace"? How do you think that happens in reality? It doesn't involve turning classrooms into a place where kids are free to frighten and harass their classmates. I'm surprised you are advocating for that if you were one of the victims (despite saying "we" did that above). You can encourage creativity and educate the whole child while still having rules about being kind to each other.

                          •  To be turned into unwitting "workers of tomorrow" (0+ / 0-)

                            That alone is the genesis of the violence we are witnessing today in this retro-grade society.  Children are being conditioned like Pavlov's dogs into carbon copies.  They are rebelling against this, whether realized or not.  Filling them with despair that their life will be nothing more than a burger-flipper at McDonald's.

                            Seriously, I've been witnessing this despair in my younger co-workers, they care about nothing, can't make decisions at 25, 28, and 30 yrs of age, they refuse to, sadly.  99% of all my co-workers 30 yrs and younger still haven't decided what they want to be when they "grow up", Oh my god!  They all live at home and are doing menial jobs while they all walk around playing on their phones.

                            Teaching children peace means making them understand the reason peace is always better than war, always.  

                            A kid throwing a spitball or a rubber band is not anything more than kids being playful...unless it's being done as a sadistic act of aggression against another.

                            Is this the case you believe is happening now? Sadistic acts of meaningless violence?

                            Being a kid is not a crime.  

                            It is your duty as the parent, not the school's to instill your morality in them.  If you believe throwing rubber bands is wrong, teach them that. Let them understand the benefits of peaceful co-existence.  Then let them decide their own fate and live with the consequences of their actions once you've done the best you can.  Have faith they will do the right thing.  Children are taught to be evil. They are taught violence as the first and only way to solve problems. It's reinforced in TV shows, movies and video games.  

                            I was watching The Big Bang Theory the other day and  they glamorize the exact things you don't want happening to your children while in school.  There is no humor in the intentional infliction of pain in others.  I turned the show off at that point. They are making it socially acceptable to pick on other people.

                            I would love to continue this conversation but I must get ready for work...

                            Take care.

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

                            by gerrilea on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:41:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  I don't want my children to learn about (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sviscusi, FrankRose

          contraceptives either.

          Or evolution.

          Or _______.

          As for your claim that religion doesn't kill, I beg to differ:

          http://www.nydailynews.com/...

          http://www.wgrz.com/...

          http://ireport.cnn.com/...

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

          by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:05:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Our kids are already indoctrinated (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, rockhound

          My daughter in kindergarten came to me one day after her class had been talked to about how bad drugs are.  I was drinking a root beer of all things, and she came to me and told me how root beer is a drug and how bad it is.  After being put on the spot, I suddenly had to explain that there are some things that are ok for kids, some that are only for adults, and some things that are not ok for anyone but people who are sick sometimes use.  I don't appreciate how the school treated "root beer", much less the real alcohol that I drink as if it's some horrible thing.  This was just a few weeks into Kindergarten and they are already indoctrinating my kids about drugs in a nonsensical way.  Just wait until they teach history and several other subjects.  With that being said, I don't see the harm in firearm safety, if handled correctly (which may not be possible.)

      •  many people.... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama, PsychoSavannah

        would not want to pay their tax money to manditorily train adolescents how to shoot in school.  Maybe that comment was a joke?  Or just an effort to get people's goat with a silly suggestion?  I can tell my child not to touch a gun and leave the home of a person with a gun without needing a firearms safety course.  

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

        by murrayewv on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:58:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  One retailer recently reported ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        that, in the past week, they've sold the same number of guns that would normally take them three and one-half YEARS to sell.  I'm assuming the pace hasn't abated, either.  Wal-Mart has also reportedly SOLD OUT of all its guns.  There are probably now about 350 million guns in the hands of citizens.  Clearly, banning gun sales from this point forward would have no impact whatsoever.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:32:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I will be interested in seeing how the comments (18+ / 0-)

    develop. I'm skeptical of the diarist's framing.

    Also, I was very pleased recently to see a RKBA admin, kestrel9000, actually mention a couple of actual steps that could be taken, as I remember it.

    Having the diarist - whom I've seen in RKBA discussions but not as a primary driver - write this seems like a tactical maneuver. Has RKBA crafted a strategy to make their aims seem reasonable? Put a non-gunowning woman out front in a peace-making gesture?

    Talk about "freedom" instead of "dead kids"?

    I see a giant has been awakened on the GOS. The outrage over Connecticut and the targeting of the firefighters (and so many others) has pushed the line over the cliff.

    RKBA knows it is being targeted.

    As I said, we'll see.

    **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

    by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:07:38 AM PST

    •  Getting in front of the problem is important. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Debby

      And "more of the same" isn't doing the NRA a whole lot of good.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:08:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nope, no tactical moves here, I posted this (6+ / 0-)

      comment:

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

      And was asked to expand it.

      We need to find solutions we all can agree with.

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

      by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:24:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is clearly impossible (5+ / 0-)
        We need to find solutions we all can agree with.
        The prevailing view on "your side", as expressed in this very diary and comments, is that the status quo on gun regulation is just fine, and the only way things should change is if you're "given" something in return for any "compromise" effort.

        That is patently ridiculous, and reveals that there is no such mutually acceptable "solution", because you guys don't even see a problem needing to be solved.

        What needs to happen is for the government, under the lead of Democrats, with widespread support from a growing segment of the population, to create new, effective, strong restrictions on weapons access.  Several well-publicized ideas are on the table, including the Assault Weapons ban, limiting clips, etc.  You guys will not "agree" to those.  Too bad.  There's no "compensation" that need be offered.

        Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

        by dnta on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:07:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You will, with the stroke of a pen make millions (0+ / 0-)

          of Americans into criminals.

          Hope you'll volunteer to collect the firearms.

          You'll find out that the undercurrent in this nation does not support your point of view, sadly.

          I want no part in your destruction of this nation.

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

          by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:56:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Perfect Settlement (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Silvia Nightshade, ConfusedSkyes

        The definition of a perfect settlement is not one where each side gets everything he or she wants.

        The definition of a perfect settlement is one where each side is equally unhappy.

        That sounds cynical, but it has a point.  Any real solution is going to require that each side "agrees with" things they really, really, don't like.  If you start with the assumption that everything you don't like is off the table, and the other side starts with the same assumption, then there won't be any bridge building going on.

      •  No, not by a long shot (5+ / 0-)

        There is not a single solution that everyone agrees with or we would have implemented it.  But there are a handful of solutions out there that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor.  Implement those and do it soon.

        Yes, that means that you and the RKBA groups will be outvoted and not get your way but we don't need the relatively small minority to get on board with reasonable reforms.  We just need the voice of the vast majority of Americans to be heard and acted upon.

        We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

        by theotherside on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:20:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow, but we've been repeatedly told it's all the (0+ / 0-)

          NRA's fault.

          Those evil bastards!  They lied to us????

          we don't need the relatively small minority to get on board
          You are truly in a bubble of "yes men".

          And your shock doctrine will not fly here today.

          Implement those and do it soon.

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

          by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:52:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I feel like (21+ / 0-)

    this diary isn't trying to be constructive, but rather obfuscate.  Of course nobody will 100% agree on morality.  I don't think it means we should abandon it.  Building consensus so that out of many, we have one--that's what democracy is.

    I'm just not sure what this diary is trying to do.

    •  A "framing" argument is about marketing. (6+ / 0-)

      Whether that's obfuscation or education is certainly open to debate.

      But if we can agree upon the terms that we'll use for the discussion (so as to not hurt someone's feelings?), then it may be possible to actually HAVE the discussion.

      So the framing can't be like "Right To Work" or "Clean Air Act."  Where the meaning is basically the polar opposite of the term.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:14:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Additionally, (13+ / 0-)
      Should we generate lists of anyone and everyone that exercises any right?
      We already do this.  Voter records are public information and can ge Googled in moments.  You can't see who I voted for, but you can get my address and my precicnt.
    •  If this diary was making a sincere effort to (16+ / 0-)

      build bridges, it would not be directed in its entirety to castigating those on the debate who are not already part of RKBA. Moreover, I think an appeal on the basis of comparing the 2nd Amendment to the 1st and 4th comes off rather tone-deaf right now; they don't have the same emotional resonance with most people, particularly not in the current climate. Yes, legally it has similar force to any other amendment; but that's merely a distraction from the entire discussion of whether it should be morally or philosophically given the same weight.

      When you get down to it, the restrictions of any amendment as determined by the judiciary tend to be based on the philosophical interpretation - how advisable it really is. There are court decisions on other amendments that many of us agree with that don't necessarily seem to follow on any basis but philosophy, rather than legal reasoning.

      •  Then you missed my point, sadly. (7+ / 0-)

        There cannot be a moral discussion in this nation today.

        It's been highjacked by emotions that run to the extremes.

        Basing solutions on emotions is what got us The Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Act, The Animal Enterprises Act, etc, etc.

        Whose morality is superior? Mine or yours?  I believe that if we are to find a solution it must be done for everyone.  Police, Military and citizens alike, no exceptions.

        That's equity under law. No special classes of "citizen".  Well, the police need X, Y and Z, no they don't, not if we truly want real solutions.

        You want to ban assault rifles, ban their manufacturing.

        We can do this right now, constitutionally.

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

        by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:18:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ad Hominum Attack (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          murrayewv, glorificus

          No question that emotions have led people to make bad decisions.  Cold logic has led people to make bad decisions too.  Mindless resort to a higher power, be it the Bible or the Constitution, has led to bad decisions too.

          That's not to say you can tell the other side to disregard any of those when they happen to work against you.  "Ignore all the little kids getting buried" is about as persuasive as "ignore that man behind the curtain" in the Wizard of Oz.

          •  Could you explain to me a bit further where I (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, FrankRose, annieli, rockhound

            attacked the person?

            I don't think we can go further until I understand your claims against me.

            There has been no logic in the policies coming out of Washington for a very long time.  They've always been reactionary, impulsive and authoritarian.  

            No reason required.  No debate needed.  Just do it.

            And that isn't an attack on the person but the relativistic moral and emotional position presented.  I don't know them personally to make assumptions or claims otherwise. I can attack their position, which I believe I did.

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

            by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:56:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not Attacking a Person (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cany

              In this case, the argument was that any emotion by definition must be bad and lead to bad decisions, since there were occasions in the past where appeals to emotion led to bad decisions.  It was dismissing all reference to emotion because it was misused in the past that was the overbroad attack, not attacking a person per se.

              In essence the argument was "it comes from emotion, and emotion was wrong before, so it must be wrong" instead of "it comes from Joe, and Joe was wrong before, so it must be wrong".

              •  Again and again, I see the logic v. emotion (0+ / 0-)

                arguments in gun forums.

                202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                by cany on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:57:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, an esoteric argument that I cannot point to (0+ / 0-)

                historical evidence as the basis of my position that "yes, decisions made out of emotions/morality are bad"...this is absolutely true when it occurs in Washington.  See Patriot Act, See Animal Enterprises Act, See NDAA, See Warrantless Wiretapping, etc, etc.

                Now conversely, I do agree that some decisions made out of love, let's say, can have positive outcomes.

                But when you try to use the institutional force of the State to impart your morality upon me, If I don't share it, then there is a problem.

                That's the issue here today.

                I do not share your morality on this topic. In fact, there is no true morality in this nation, to craft laws claiming such is pure hypocrisy, from where I'm sitting.

                Our actions kill millions of children worldwide but when we kill our own, it's horrible?

                I don't buy into said framing, I cannot be emotionally/morally manipulated in this discussion. That was my point today.

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

                by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:57:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No Logic There (0+ / 0-)

                  So, murder should be legal because the USA participated in WW2?

                  That's your argument - we have killed people in other situations so therefore there is no moral basis to block killing ever.  That doesn't fly under any version of logic, morality or any other standard.  It's just a far fetched effort to justify a preordained conclusion.

                  The fact that other people have died in other circumstances when they shouldn't have doesn't make any other deaths OK.  That's just a crummy argument.  The fact that kids died in Afghanistan doesn't make the deaths of kids in Newton acceptable, moral, or anything else.  Your effort to recast the discussion by "but look at the dead kids in Afghanistan" is just an appeal to emotion and no better than anything you are complaining about.

      •  Yep ^^^THIS^^^ (0+ / 0-)

        The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

        by JVolvo on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:29:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry you feel that way, I actually don't think (6+ / 0-)

      we are far from legitimate solutions.  We've always had the power to do it ourselves instead of having our thoughts and opinions given to us by the MSM.

      The issue isn't one of morality it's one of legalities and historical outcomes, really.

      When you try to badger and beat your neighbors because they don't share your beliefs, we all lose and nothing ever gets solved or done.  

      If we are to craft solutions today what will be the consequences tomorrow?  Is there really a problem that needs to be fixed with draconian measures? Remember we are still losing our rights because of 911.

      Will the solutions put forth be used as a framework to creep ever so closer to that Turnkey Totalitarian Police State we've been warned about?

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

       

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

      by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:54:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm with you, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, Debby, Sandino, PsychoSavannah

        when we create new legislation we always need to think forward into what impacts it will have now, in the near future, and in the distant future (though we can't see far enough to make sure it doesn't ever create an issue again).  

        However, you lose me when you say

        If we are to craft solutions today what will be the consequences tomorrow?  Is there really a problem that needs to be fixed with draconian measures? Remember we are still losing our rights because of 911.

        Will the solutions put forth be used as a framework to creep ever so closer to that Turnkey Totalitarian Police State we've been warned about?

        Is this a classic slippery slope argument or what?  A few more restrictions are akin to a police state, the PATRIOT act, and are "draconian?"  Come on.  You want to build bridges, and you immediately turn the argument into those terms?  I think you have demonstrated that you are clearly not here to "build bridges", though I already suspected as much.  Look at all of my comments thus far in this diary.  I've been willing to talk to folks on the other side, to have that discourse, to build consensus (which I think is better than building bridges, personally) and given this diary the benefit of the doubt.

        I'll take my leave now, because if this is where the argument devolves in one response from the diarist to one comment on the diary, then you guys, RKBA, have a problem.

        •  Wow, did you read the last few sentences of my (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Seaview

          diary?

          Can we sit down and actually address these issues that are redefining this nation?

          Or will we be forever lost to the dictates of our corporate overlords and their emotional manipulations that keep us from realizing we never needed a bridge to be built in the first place?

          I leave it up to you to decide our path forward.

          I'll ask you this, before you go, what is your definition of freedom?  What does the term unalienable right mean to you?

          If we don't agree on these things first, I many never agree to your solutions.

          The only solution I will back today, is a total ban on the manufacture, import, export, trading and selling of an item.  Whatever the item is an if it is done so that no one has access to said.  Police, military, etc included.

          That is Equity Under Law, something our constitution is supposed to ensure.

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

          by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:06:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then no. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus

            We can't sit down and discuss this issue, because you have nothing to say to the rest of us.

            Seriously, "I want to build bridges"-> "This is the only solution I will back"

            What is there to talk about?

            The Empire never ended.

            by thejeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:13:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then you didn't read my diary, thanks for letting (0+ / 0-)

              me know.

              We truly have nothing to discuss then...

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

              by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:11:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, I read it. (5+ / 0-)

                It was pretty incoherent. If you were trying to "build that bridge over the rivers & streams that divide us", I'd say it was a total failure.

                You dismissed any appeal to morality because we're not moral. You attacked "labelers". And you went off on a bunch of irrelevant analogies to restrictions on other rights.  And you proposed, though less clearly than in the comments, your solution of allowing civilians access to all military arms.

                BTW, does that only include "small arms"? Or is any military hardware covered? How about equal, no restrictions access to full auto weapons?

                The Empire never ended.

                by thejeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:32:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You really didn't read my diary or the last (0+ / 0-)

                  few lines.  

                  Had you read the links provided throughout, you'd have come to understand that we never needed a bridge built, as I stated at the very end!

                  We've always had the choice to find the solutions together. You cannot badger me into your "appeal to morality." That's pure hypocrisy from where I'm sitting. And I reject it. We are not a moral nation, don't try to pretend we are...I present valid evidence.

                  Don't tell me "it's about the children" when clearly it's not.

                  Don't tell me you want to save as many people as you can because clearly you do not.

                  Don't tell me its anything but what it is: reactive totalitarianism.

                  Don't make false analogies claiming "we do it for cars", because driving is a privilege, not a right.

                  I DID say if we are to find solutions then the guide MUST be Equity Under Law.  If you are to ban something, then no one gets it, period.

                  And there IS a difference between arms and ordinance.

                  Stop dividing this nation to suit your own pet peeves.

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

                  by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:45:30 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, your ultimatum exposes your whole piece (0+ / 0-)

            as nonsense. Regarding 'Equit Under Law' ever checked out marijuana possession laws in multiple states? Constitution seems to be disregarded there.

            Maybe RKBA will trot out meagert next.

            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

            by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:20:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, notice the labels/framing is one sided... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Silvia Nightshade

      What about "UN thugs taking away our guns11!!"

      Is that in play?

      Or "tree-hugging gun haters"?

      Sigh.

      The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

      by JVolvo on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:28:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I haven't seen anything said like that on Dkos (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound

        care to link?

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:55:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right. Not familiar with the ardent RKBA warriors (0+ / 0-)

          here?  Must have all been written before you were here...which isn't that hard.

          Didn't you get any helpful info from your "gun fetishist" diary?

          The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

          by JVolvo on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:26:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then link an example. (0+ / 0-)

            And I did get some info from that diary. Namely, that there seems to be multiple differing 'definitions'....which is another way of saying, it has no meaning at all.
            But let's keep in mind that we shouldn't bring old shit into new threads.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:37:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Zing! Then Don't ASK for "proof" of this (0+ / 0-)

              mysterious (to you only) theme.

              In light of all the macho hysterical reactions from gun owners here over the multiple recent slaughters your sigline is painfully ironic.

              You might want to rethink that...

              The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

              by JVolvo on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:28:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And...... (0+ / 0-)

                Still no link......nor, apparently, an understanding of the word 'ironic'

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:43:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm honoring your lace doily request to not (0+ / 0-)

                  "drag old relevant stuff" into new diaries.  IF you truly don't know the RKBA stance, I'm not the one to educate you.  

                  Lock and Load, baby!

                  The GOP says you have to have an ID to vote, but $ Millionaire donors should remain anonymous?

                  by JVolvo on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:24:07 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Do you actually read what you write, (0+ / 0-)

                    or do you find that you fade in and out?

                    You claimed RKBA members said 2 specific things, namely "Tree-hugging gun haters" and "UN thugs taking away our guns".
                    I asked for a link.
                    Instead of providing a link you dove headfirst into a vat of irrelevant utterances, the likes of which I have never seen.
                    Do you have a link to verify your original accusation, or not?

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:48:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  frankly, I think it's entirely doable (17+ / 0-)


    to reform our gun laws without infringing on the 2nd amendment.  AFter all, 30-round magazines are not in the 2nd amendment, and neither are semi-automatics.  The gun show loophole, and standardization of gun registration with mandatory background checks for criminal history, etc, do not infringe on the 2nd amendment.

    There are areas in which we can agree - which is on capacities and availabilites, without getting into the outrage dynamics that so often follow tragic events like Newtown and now Brewster.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:16:04 AM PST

    •  Not with Scalia on the bench. /nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:19:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, any new law would have to get to the USSC (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Debby, yuriwho, polecat, cany

        before it can be declared unconstitutional. Scalia's position broke stare decisis - perhaps new laws going up would be decided under the very large body of previous decisions.



        Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

        by Wee Mama on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:21:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  He's One of Nine (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus

        There are nine Justices on the court, but most if the time it's really a court of 2 or 3 because the other votes are predictable.  

      •  Scalia is on record approving a raft of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cany

        gun regulations, in the very opinion striking down the DC handgun ban. It is true that we cannot tell in advance which those will be. %-[

        Anyway, let us put through everything that the NRA membership approves while the NRA leadership screams and tears its hair and threatens to hold its breath until it turns blue in the face over. I provided a list of such measures above, but nobody has discussed any of them yet.

        America—We built that!

        by Mokurai on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:09:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well said (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1, gerrilea

      There are areas like this where the vast majority of Americans agree - and that would be a big step in the direction of preventing future tragedies without infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

      We can get this done, but only if the gun-industry funded NRA is ignored.

      Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

      by bear83 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:21:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Using your standard (9+ / 0-)

      the internet is not in the 1st amendment and neither is Mormonism (after the fact religion).

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

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:22:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not finding your contributions here helpful. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, a2nite, Debby, dnta, JVolvo

        You've said you don't care what I think, but being obstructive is not improving RKBA's image.

        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

        by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:36:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't know we were here to improve our (4+ / 0-)

          image but to discuss real solutions.

          That's why I wrote the diary.

          You have been the proverbial thorn in our sides for a very long time.  We've debated, argued and gotten angry with each other....this solves our problems how???

          I want to stop the arguing.  We have the abilities legally and constitutionally to present real options, we've always had.

          To keep the conversation from spiraling into oblivion, we need to publicly discuss the ramifications of every solution presented.

          Let's at least try.

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

          by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:23:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wasn't talking to you. Is it that hard for you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RainyDay, cany

            to understand how comments stack?

            I haven't been on dKos for that long, were other people just too intimidated by RKBA bully tactics to speak up?

            And your ultimatum about removing an item from the face of the Earth being the only 'Equity Under Law' position seems farcical at best.

            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

            by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:24:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then you really don't want to stop the violence in (0+ / 0-)

              our society.

              And hon, this is my diary,I will comment where ever and when ever I chose, if I chose.

              I did make those points in my diary above, wait you didn't read it.

              If you cannot understand the concept of Equity Under Law, you need to get a refund on your education.

              It is the founding ideal of this nation that paved the way for the abolishment of slavery, women voting and the Civil Rights Act.  It is what we progressives claim is our goal, equity for everyone UNDER law.

              I guess you missed the memo.

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

              by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:11:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  that really does not follow (9+ / 0-)


        there is no right to wield intercontinental ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons either; due to the fact that they are weapons of mass destruction and are very much restricted in their use.  And many states already do have bans on high capacity magazines as well as very comprehensive registration.  The 2nd amendment was not suspended in these cases.  In the city I am sitting in right now, Washington DC, magazines of no more than 10 rounds are allowed to be in an individual's possession at any time, regardless of whether or not the owner is bearing a weapon or has one nearby.

        "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

        by louisev on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:54:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Are those hollow tip bullets on your logo? (14+ / 0-)

    Replacing those provocative bullets would be a good place to start.  What is the reasonable justification associating yourself with hollow tip bullets?  For someone sickened by the recent carnage of bullet on the human tissue of children, they are a red flag for me.

    A hollow-point bullet is an expanding bullet that has a pit or hollowed out shape in its tip, often intended to cause the bullet to expand upon entering a target in order to decrease penetration and disrupt more tissue as it travels through the target.t

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:23:55 AM PST

    •  They are a safer round than full metal jacket (8+ / 0-)

      with regards to self defense shootings.

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

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:28:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  [f'ing inflammatory comment deleted] /nt (8+ / 0-)

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:35:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  FMJ means the round passes through rather than (4+ / 0-)

          stays in the tissue, collateral damage being important perhaps. The actual solution is not heavy hollow-points but lighter weight frangible rounds, although surgeries will be more complicated

          yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

          by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:38:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Incorrect to some degree depending on speed of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus

            the round

            Sorry, physics argument here. Even if a FMJ round fully penetrates the body, the speed at which the round leaves the flesh can often cause much more damage through an effect called hydrostatic shock.

            even to the point where brain damage can occur from shots to the chest and abdomen.

            A really great study was done on bullet effects and damages from wounds in Iraq recently.

            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

            by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:20:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  of course, it's just the Hague Convention (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, mahakali overdrive, cany
              FMJ ammunition was introduced for ostensibly humanitarian reasons, as the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibits the use of expanding or fragmenting bullets in warfare. (It is commonly but incorrectly stated that this prohibition is in the Geneva Conventions.)

              They have the advantage in warfare that they often injure their target rather than kill outright, creating a casualty that needs to be cared for, rather than a corpse. In this way, FMJ bullets can be more effective at consuming an enemy's resources than fragmenting bullets, yet the outcome of the victim is usually the same, death (or at least long-term removal from the field of battle, which is close to equivalent in military terms). Furthermore, because the bullet does not expand, FMJ bullets are much more effective at armor-piercing than hollow point bullets."

              yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

              by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:27:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am aware of the Hague Convention (0+ / 0-)

                But this recent study has more or less proven this theory to be worthless.

                I'll see if I can dig it up, kinda busy today between family updates and work.

                --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:30:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  nice try, good luck finding a new Convention /nt (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea

                  yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

                  by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:32:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It was a study done on bullet damage effects (0+ / 0-)

                    and they used the numerous injuries during the Iraq War, and in conclusion they found that even if a bullet fully penetrated that because of the speed of the round it often did as much damage as a round that might have fragmented.

                    It's pretty simple physics, Sorry you want to argue with science for some reason

                    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                    by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:36:39 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •   nice try, good luck finding a new Convention /nt (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea

                      yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

                      by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:41:31 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I think there have been advances in science (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        poco

                        since 1899.

                        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                        by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:26:15 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  not the relevant point here, sorry. (0+ / 0-)

                          it's no different than the US not signing treaties on landmines

                          In 1907 the US did sign on to the Hague Convention IV of 1907. Article 23(e) states that it is forbidden to use arms and munitions that are calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. In 1985 the JAG determined it was OK to use expanding ammo on terrorists for snipers because the ammo was open tipped to increase accuracy not to cause suffering.
                          The US DID NOT sign on to the 1977 Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Convention that states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons and projectiles that cause superfluous injury and unnecessary injury"

                          yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

                          by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:44:39 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Pistol ammunition is subsonic; so hydrostatic (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annieli, rockhound, Tom Seaview, gerrilea

              shock is irrelevant (except in some cases for +P rounds).

              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 Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:39:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  The value of symbolism (12+ / 0-)

        RKBA has stood by this logo despite continuous and often criticism - for no REAL purpose

        If You aren't willing to just symbolically alter the logo - which has NO effect on the group but at least is an indicator of willingness to embrace concerns - where is the 'common ground' expected to come from

        "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

        by josephk on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:36:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (6+ / 0-)

          Hollow point bullets make a powerful statement.  This seems like a invitation with claws.

          If cats could blog, they wouldn't

          by crystal eyes on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:41:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  get past the superficialities otherwise you make (6+ / 0-)

          a mockery of the discourse. actual NRA apologists who wouldn't even waste time on this site would use this fussing about digital images of unfired rounds as "typical Liberal PC" reactions

          yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

          by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:46:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The "superficial" discource of the leathality (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Debby, Sandino, ExStr8, glorificus, RainyDay

            and quantity of the ammo in weapon  exactly the discussion I want to have.

            I suspect that some guns rights folks actually enjoy the macho sport of arguing provocatively with sensitive souls to evoke" typical liberal PC reactions".

            They play with us, I  play with them.  

            If cats could blog, they wouldn't

            by crystal eyes on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:24:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  lethality is never superficial, ignorance is, and (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea

              one shouldn't wase discourse time with uninformed reactionaries whose sensitivities are driven not by rational inquiry but irrational fear

              yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

              by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:31:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  You are kinda making my point (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            peterfallow, richardak, glorificus

            I already admitted that the discussion on the logo was purely symbolic - something that Your 'retort' re-emphasizes

            Since You agree that it is symbolic - why not just change it - so that we can 'get past the superficialities'

            Apparently though - the symbolism of keeping the logo is more important to You than this so called constructive 'discourse' that You claim is just on the other side of talking about the logo

            In a week, maybe a month - RKBA will return to RKBA members talking amongst yourselves with the occasional interloper that You all jump on to discredit and bolster Your own positions - and You can all feel secure that, like ANY gun debate in this country, NOTHING WILL HAVE CHANGED - good for You!

            "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

            by josephk on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:37:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  it's not my symbol, I don't mind it because unlike (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea

              some low-info folks, signifieds don't kill people, signifiers do.

              yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

              by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:40:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  recced for the T shirt. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annieli

            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

            by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:28:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The debate about guns (23+ / 0-)

    isn't all that structurally dissimilar from the debate about slavery in the 19th century. People used to think they had a right to own slaves, too, and until the terms of the debate changed, they were able to.

    It could be that the debate about assault weapons and other instruments of mass killing is now at an inflection point, comparable to the fury over Dred Scott.

    What that case did, historically, is expand the impact of slavery into the free states. What we're seeing today is that gun owners insist on their rights to such ownership, and damn the impact thereof on the rest of society.

    They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

    by MBNYC on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:26:17 AM PST

    •  That's really how any debate about rights (5+ / 0-)

      is.  What you're doing is just rephrasing a tautological statement: when we have a right to X, we can engage in X until such time that X is no longer a right.

      So to the extent you're just reiterating the definition of "right," it's not dissimilar to any discourse of rights, whether that be slavery, abortion, speech, et&.

      Unless, of course, the point was to create an effect: "slavery! guns! boo!"

      •  No, not at all. (6+ / 0-)

        I'm re-reading Team of Rivals, and it's striking how similar the logical structures of the arguments are.

        I'm not by any means comparing gun ownership with holding slaves; they're in separate moral universes, I think. The point is that both were definitional to large segments of society with all the attendant strong emotional responses.

        They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

        by MBNYC on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:39:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting point, but I'm uncomfortable (0+ / 0-)

          with equating Bushmasters and Dred Scott.

          **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

          by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:29:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "not equating" I believe you mean. (0+ / 0-)

          You are certainly comparing them. Can we try this?

          Unrestricted gun ownership is to slavery

          as

          regulated gun ownership is to labor law.

          Yes, I know that this will inflame some opinion.

          There is no Second Amendment argument here. The Assault Weapons Ban passed constitutional muster, and many other common-sense regulations have, too. I mean the ones aimed at keeping criminals and other dangerous persons from buying weapons, and the safety regulations aimed at keeping children from accidentally killing themselves with their parent's guns. Trigger locks, locked gun cabinets, etc.

          Apparently we can't discuss gun suicides yet, given Scalia's insistence on an absolute right to guns in the home.

          America—We built that!

          by Mokurai on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:25:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I almost posted a comment but (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, Wee Mama, gerrilea, figbash

    then decided I'm not up to the flame wars this diary will produce. Therefore, I hereby request this comment be ignored.

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:26:25 AM PST

  •  As to "framing," (13+ / 0-)
    2.  Labeling anyone whom doesn't agree with you as a “Gun Nut”, “Gun Absolutist”, “Baby Killer”, “NRA Shill”, “Red Stater”, “A Concern Troll” or a "Terrorist".

    3. Solutions that include banning & restricting unalienable rights by the Federal Government.  Creating publicly accessible registration lists, mandatory training, taxing ammo, etc, etc.

    it's pretty clear that THIS frame is biased.
    •  All frames are biased. (4+ / 0-)

      No matter how hard we try.

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

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:30:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  oops. continued: (5+ / 0-)

      Though trying to be as unbiased as we can will help in the conversation (from both sides).

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

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:32:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  the use of the term "framing" is to identify bias (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      wherever it appears and of whatever type, unfortunately framing requires a sense of how "triggers" (sic) operate and so many parties here cling to their stereotypes as those a self-reference to "sensitive" implicitly implies that the recipient of the message is "insensitive". I would wager that RS doesn't engage in even that degree of critical self-reflection but we are rapidly approaching it.

      The use of Gun Control as a term is not unlike the problem of Pro-Life: it's a message crafted to provoke even violent confrontation. Until folks get past this and understand that some people who may(sic) have legitimate points, there are some here who get off on the conflict.

      I am not interested  in conflict on this issue, noting that there are constitutional issues worth discussing,and policy solutions to discuss reasonably but a significant amount of commentary comes from folks who have openly indicated their desire to scapegoat and marginalize other otherwise reasonable community members (which does seem to be a rule violation) and they do this without the benefit of understanding but simply rely on their visceral reactions no differently than the 'baggers we mock enthusiastically.

      yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

      by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:07:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The 2nd Amendement is NOT an "unalienable right." (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah... seems biased.

      This better be good. Because it is not going away.

      by DerAmi on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:13:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really? Who did that? (0+ / 0-)

      Oh, wait, I get it. You're the labeler.

      America—We built that!

      by Mokurai on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:27:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You pose a lot of topics but no solutions (10+ / 0-)

    It is an interesting diary for the breadth of topics raised, but a shitty diary for lack of analysis on any topic.

    Listen to Netroots Radio or to our pods on Stitcher. "We are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place" <- Me

    by yuriwho on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:32:24 AM PST

  •  I've been having a hard time even talking to (9+ / 0-)

    people who are pro gun restriction, as I can't seem to get a clear indication of what they want. Also having trouble with definitions and vocabulary. I don't mean magazine versus clip but firearm homicide versus firearm "violence" or "multi clip cartridges" or that what they want gone is the AR 15 and anything that looks like it or maybe an end to mass murder by the mentally unstable or all firearm murders to end, or gosh knows what.

    All that seems clear to me is that some hate all guns and want them all gone.

    I pretty much stay away from any thread that could be labeled "gun". Until antis coalesce around some sort of idea it's hard to figure out what the heck they want.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:36:57 AM PST

    •  No semi-auto's, no auto's and no cartridge ammo (6+ / 0-)

      I'm probably not using the right terminology since I am not a fan of guns. But I see no reason for pistols, semi-auto's with big clips and full auto's (assault rifles) for use by anyone except our well regulated militias such as the police, the national guard and the army.

      Listen to Netroots Radio or to our pods on Stitcher. "We are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place" <- Me

      by yuriwho on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:42:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You see, I had this exact debate at work the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yuriwho, ban nock, figbash

        other day.  

        I will not live in a Police State.  

        When the police are they only ones with weapons, they will use them against us.  We saw their tactics during OWS.

        If we are to have equity under law, then ban the manufacture, selling, trading & ownership of these things for everyone, no exceptions.

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

        by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:35:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is a policy I can agree with n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, figbash

          Listen to Netroots Radio or to our pods on Stitcher. "We are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place" <- Me

          by yuriwho on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:40:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh Bollocks (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, glorificus, Demeter Rising
          When the police are they only ones with weapons, they will use them against us.
          You see that happening in France, Germany, Italy, or is it just a product of your overstretched imagination?
          •  Then I suggest you start reading some of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annieli

            JP Massars' diaries:

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

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

            by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:26:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I read jpmassars' writings, and am glad I'm not (0+ / 0-)

              there. Yes, the police are out of control, but Capone ruled Chicago for a while, too.

              Things change IF WE CHANGE THEM.

              Those cops who killed that mentally ill man went to jail, probably not for long enough, but they are gone.

              I do think justice takes too long in this country, but it often works.

              And JPM is still writing.

              **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

              by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:38:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Conspiracy Theories are the most firmly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cany

          outlawed postings on dKos.

          America—We built that!

          by Mokurai on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:45:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Glad we agree on one point, but I have not (0+ / 0-)

            presented anything that cannot be proven historically and through current events.

            That makes my remarks a point of fact, not anything more or less.

            http://www.hawaii.edu/...

                1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]

            I BACKGROUND

                2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
                3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide

            II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

                4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
                5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
                6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
                7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

            And might I suggest you review the multitude of links in the diary above for further historical evidence.

            See the multiple diarists reporting here on DK about the crimes and extremes of our De Facto Police State and how it is being wielded against OWS.

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

            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:16:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So basically, you're concerned that our gov (0+ / 0-)

              will go south and the country will turn into the very thing the right is constantly fretting over, thus buying evermore weapons?

              Really?

              202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

              by cany on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:49:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  That's because (7+ / 0-)

      there's a bunch of us with differing opinions on things.  Which is why conversations like these have to happen, so that people on both sides can build consensus as to what they want.  

    •  No ability to magnify the killing potential of a (6+ / 0-)

      madman.  Historically, firearms have magnified the killing potential of their bearer.  The faster they fire, the more accurate they are, the number of times they CAN fire before reloading all contribute to that.

      In the 18th century, at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it took you (if you were trained, mind you) ~20 seconds to fire and reload a musket.  Rifles took a LOT longer.

      Show me how that has any relationship at all to a 30-round or 100-round Bushmaster or Glock.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:09:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Both are military arms of the times. (6+ / 0-)

        Well, kinda. The citizen back then was armed with the most high-tech firearm of the day that the military also used.

        Not so much today.

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

        by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:13:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo, lets cut that original intent crap out (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Silvia Nightshade, polecat, yuriwho

        The founders had no idea of the potential weapons of death that would be created and perfected over the many years of war this planet has seen.

        --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

        by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:16:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well this one (6+ / 0-)
        No ability to magnify the killing potential of a madman.
        Is impossible. A rock magnifies the potential of a madman. How about if we pust the caveat on any restriction that it has to work? Or at least have the potential to work, and be workable.

        Bushmaster was a firearm in reaction to the last "ban". Glock is the handgun carried by many policemen in the US. Both Bushmasters and Glocks are owned by millions, would you like to have  a buyback program?

        I really don't see much that can be done about madmen killing lots of people except identifying and getting medical care for those having issues.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:39:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I like the idea of a buyback program (0+ / 0-)

          it would reduce the potential for mass murder and harm just about no one. Some people could even buy food instead of ammo and weapons.

          Listen to Netroots Radio or to our pods on Stitcher. "We are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place" <- Me

          by yuriwho on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:43:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I wouldn't think it would be feasible (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, FrankRose, gerrilea, annieli

            wouldn't be passed, couldn't be enforced, don't think it would reduce mass murder, and people already have money for food.

            I just haven't heard any ideas that I can picture happening.

            Maybe background for all purchases.

            How big is your personal carbon footprint?

            by ban nock on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:04:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "couldn't be enforced" (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco, ban nock, glorificus, Kamakhya

              I'm not sure what you mean in the context of  a buyback program. What's there to enforce?

              Assuming the sale of new "assault weapons" is banned, a buyback program reduces the number available. It's not confiscation with compensation, it just provides a buyer for those who want to sell legally.

              Where does enforcement come in to it?

              The Empire never ended.

              by thejeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:17:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, a new definition of assault weapon (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                annieli, ban nock, gerrilea, rockhound

                just gives firearms manufacturers new loops to jump through, like the 94 one did. Unless you're going to be overly broad with your definition, which has it's own problems.

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

                by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:20:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Assault weapon (0+ / 0-)

                  Yeah, I meant to add a note to that, but it has nothing to do with enforcing a buyback program.

                  That aside though, I think we can all agree that the 1994 law defined assault weapons poorly and that was part of the reason for it not being too successful.

                  So, I ask you this, assuming some such ban was inevitable, how would you define the banned types of weapons so as to both accomplish the broad aim, but also minimize both the impact on legitimate users and the ability of manufacturers to find loopholes?
                  I know you don't want such a ban, but I'm speaking hypothetically.

                  It seems to me that the key features are the "semi-automatic" and "capable of using a large capacity magazine" ones. The others in the 1994 ban were largely cosmetic and seemed to have the main purpose of being omitted to allow manufacturers to keep selling weapons.

                  The Empire never ended.

                  by thejeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:35:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't know how to answer. nt (0+ / 0-)

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

                    by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 11:37:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You don't know how to answer it without (0+ / 0-)

                      obfuscating, because you are not interested in having an effect AWB.

                      **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                      by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:41:20 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't believe there's such a thing, for one. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        rockhound, FrankRose

                        I also think that any ban that encompasses semi-auto is way too broad. Semi autos have been around for over 100 years.

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

                        by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:48:33 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Who cares how long they've been around? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          poco

                          Fully automatic weapons have been around for over 100 years. Obviously they can't be banned.

                          That said, the standard suggestion isn't banning all semi-autos, but the combination of semi-auto and large magazines.

                          The Empire never ended.

                          by thejeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:57:11 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  why is how long they've been around important? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                          Javelin, Jockey details, all posts, discontinue

                          by jam on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:48:33 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  *sigh* (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound

                            Well, let's list the reasons:

                            One: the longer something's been around, the more it's been produced.

                            II: if people could make semi-autos from an industrial level back when, why do you think they couldn't replicate that now? (Especially with 3d printers looking more and more promising.)

                            C. Inertia. The longer something's been legal and people are used to having it, the harder it will be to make illegal.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:54:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  None of those reasons are even remotely valid (0+ / 0-)

                            try again?

                            Javelin, Jockey details, all posts, discontinue

                            by jam on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:06:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nah if you won't accept those, you won't accept (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            any.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:13:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are probably right (0+ / 0-)

                            I doubt that you could make an argument that I would accept for the age of something being justification for keeping it legal. Just sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

                            {A} must be kept legal because there are a lot of them, they are easy to make, and people like them.

                            Javelin, Jockey details, all posts, discontinue

                            by jam on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:18:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you reject reasoned responses (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            without presenting us with evidence or proof to the contrary?

                            This is legitimate discussion?

                            From where I'm sitting, KV expressed not only a valid argument, he gave you 3 of them.

                            You claiming it's invalid is lazy rhetorical games, maybe you should find another diary to play in?

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

                            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:26:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and just to be clear (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm not advocating the proposition (banning semi-automatics), I just think your argument as to why not, at least as espoused in the comment above, is entirely specious.

                            Javelin, Jockey details, all posts, discontinue

                            by jam on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:09:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Counters (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kamakhya, jam

                            1) True. There being more of them around, it'll take longer to get them out of the system by attrition. It still would make it harder for a potential mass shooter to get them when he decidess to kill people.

                            2) I think your definition of easy to make is different than mine. Sure they could make them 100 years ago, that doesn't mean anyone could turn out a functioning semi-auto rifle in their basement workshop over the weekend. Dynamite's been in use for a long time and is "easy" to make, but we still don't sell it in the local hardware store. They also made machine guns 100 years ago, but the ban on them has been largely effective. Not much harder to make.
                            3D printers could change everything, but if so, they'll change a lot more than gun laws and (not) legislating based on possible future innovations is silly.

                            3) Again true, but that's a question of whether we can pass a law, not whether it would be a good idea or whether it would work.

                            Still, as everyone has said, no one is seriously proposing banning all semi-autos. Just that particular combination of rapid rate of fire and large capacity.

                            The Empire never ended.

                            by thejeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:50:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for taking the time n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Javelin, Jockey details, all posts, discontinue

                            by jam on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:47:38 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  semi auto couldn't be banned (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    rockhound, FrankRose

                    that would eliminate guns from back in Custer's day and probably half the guns out there.

                    I really don't see any bans on firearms types being feasible.

                    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                    by ban nock on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:10:47 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "And" (4+ / 0-)

                      It's semi-auto and large capacity.

                      And who cares if it goes back to Custer's day? If it makes sense to ban it, it makes sense however long it's been legal.

                      Fully auto weapons were legal at one point. Now they're not. Or at least severely restricted.

                      That's a feasible ban on a firearm type. We know it's feasible because it exists.

                      The Empire never ended.

                      by thejeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:16:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I can't think of a problem with this personally (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Mokurai, cany

                        I think semiautomatics are obviously the most fun, they're great for sport shooting, but they don't have a lot of other function other than for military or LE, so why can't we draw the line here? I tend to support sensible gun regulations and am very middle of the road when it comes to gun restrictions: I don't see any reason why high-capacity magazines with semi-automatics wouldn't be a good start considering they're of the least use for self-protection outside of a combat zone, a zombie apocalypse, or plain old fun (and yes, they are fun! Don't discount it -- and so is ayuahasca, but I avoid it on school nights). But they've also been the weapon of choice for the most recent mass murderers, so it seems like a sensible middle-ground to me. Not sure what I'm missing, but I could live without these and would be willing to concede them, and I do think it might help with the particularly vicious mass murders BUT recalling them is going to be nasty since even after the ten year AWB, we still had Columbine. So there needs to be more thought put into it all. Still, I will go on record stating that I don't oppose rethinking support for this combination.  

                        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                        by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:57:39 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Let me add that no way do I believe (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KVoimakas, rockhound, ban nock

                          it will solve our problems!

                          That HAS to happen through mental health reform and an end to our drug policy as well. 50% of the recent mass murders had histories of mental health problems. The guy who just shot two firefighters was already known to the system, and not for his gun use, but for his hammer use. Also, his goal was mass arson. So we're not even discussing that. Why not?

                          And 50% of US gun homicides are drug related, which begs the question of policy reform.

                          So these need to all be discussed at the same time or they will lead us back to the glory days of blind granny being murdered by hammer, the neighborhood being set on fire, or Lizzy Borden armed only with an axe, and these really aren't such glorious times, so the solution IS complicated, but every facet of it SHOULD be examined and addressed. I've only touched on two that I find also relevant, statistically.

                          Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                          by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:01:59 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  High-capacity semi-automatics (3+ / 0-)

                          I've never seen the need or desire for guns, but some gun enthusiasts seem to really enjoy shooting these things for sport.  I'm ok with that, just like I'm ok with race cars.  They just don't belong in public.  Therefore, I would argue that it should be feasible to make either the weapons themselves or the high-capacity clips they use only available at licensed shooting ranges.

                          I know the RKBA folk like to use the term "ban" an awful lot, but I think most folk recognize that isn't going to happen and makes about as much sense as a free-for-all where all weapons are available to all people, all of the time.

                          Will some basic common sense limitations on gun ownership eliminate all gun deaths?  No.  Of course not, anymore than simple rules and regulations concerning the operation of motor vehicles has eradicated all motor vehicle deaths.  Nevertheless, we must still try.

                      •  Lead was in gasoline and point for a long time, (0+ / 0-)

                        but it's pretty much gone now.

                        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                        by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 06:37:28 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  I see, (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas, annieli, rockhound

                I thought you meant a "must sell" type of buy back.

                I'm afraid any "assault weapon" ban would be just like the last. I can't think of any way to word it such that it would make sense.

                How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                by ban nock on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:12:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  forget (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  glorificus, mahakali overdrive

                  It's a buzz word that scares people and doesn't have a consistent definition.

                  What about a ban on large capacity magazines? Can that be passed in a way that makes sense?
                  Sure there will still be existing ones out there, so it will take time to have the full effect, but it will help.

                  The Empire never ended.

                  by thejeff on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:24:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  ban nock, you are only one person. And I don't (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PsychoSavannah, yuriwho, poco

                  think a buyback would be 100% effective, but if 5 kids had been killed in Connecticut instead of 20, would we even be having this discussion?

                  I don't think so.

                  If there is sufficient will, a useful AWB could be constructed. And if certain guns are made illegal, people would keep them locked up if they didn't want to turn them in.

                  And it they were used in a crime, add 20 years to the sentence.

                  **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                  by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:44:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  ban nock Los Angeles held, from May to the day (0+ / 0-)

              after Christmas, a buyback program. In fact, they did buy them back with grocery cards. 20K of them. So, it does work.

              That much we know.

              202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

              by cany on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:51:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I mean 20K guns. Dunno yet what it cost them. (0+ / 0-)

                202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                by cany on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:23:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  And there are a dozen companies making (5+ / 0-)

          AR clones; Bushmaster merely being one of them. It's simply become the scare-word of the month.

          My AR is a Bushmaster; when I bought it (during the AWB, I should add), they had a reputation for some of the highest quality machining.

          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 Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:44:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You are asking for what never was nor ever can be (0+ / 0-)

      Pretending that we can't have a discussion until all the rest of us agree is simply a counsel of despair.

      People have different notions about gun regulation. So the question is not how to determine what the complete program should be before we start, but which components we (including large majorities of NRA members) can agree on, preferably based on evidence. Then we pass what we can.

      Feinstein is bringing back the original Assault Weapens Ban, updated. You can look it up. We are talking about preventing purchases by the dangerous, and about gun safety in the home. You can look that up, too. Pretending that you can't find out what is proposed, and by whom, is simply denialism.

      America—We built that!

      by Mokurai on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 03:44:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hon, if we don't agree on the terms, then no (0+ / 0-)

        deals could ever be brokered.  You do know that.

        This is the opening ceremonies, where we agree to talk about this BUT not that...and if we do talk about that, then only in such and such a context will negotiations be allowed.

        What is your obsession with the NRA, are you stalking them? Did they deny you membership or something?
        You see, around these parts, the NRA doesn't hold any sway.

        I got it you're using DK to rehearse and hash out a speech or proposal you are about to make to some wealthy investors, got it.

        Wink, wink!

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

        by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:34:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  If Aussies can do it, then why cannot we? (13+ / 0-)

    Ohh yeah, I remember because we have lobby groups who lobby for manufactures not actual gun owners.

    Every single lawful owner of a weapon should have come out shrill in voice at the NRA's 'press conference' last week. They should have tore their membership cards up, and immediately sent a letter asking to be removed from the rolls.

    There are so many simple things we could do to fix this problem of guns in our nation.

    1. Nationalized and standardized gun laws across ALL 50 states

    2. HHS will withhold medicare and medicaid funding to states unless they mandate liability insurance for weapon owners. We did it for vehicles and alcohol, we can damn well do it for weapons.

    3. Close the gun show loop hole. There is no reason ANYONE needs to purchase 30 weapons...EVER.

    4. Embrace technology, move towards RFID and biometrics. No exceptions for police or military either.

    5. MASSIVE buyback program, I am talking on a scale of epic proportions. Federally funded and with incentives for states, meaning those who get more weapons back get more funding for health and safety services.

    6. No military weapons, period. Limit clip capacity, period.

    Those things...those simple things which in no way limit your ability to own and operate a gun, would do MASSIVE changes in this nation.

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:38:43 AM PST

    •  Huh. (6+ / 0-)

      1. I agree. Shall we use Blue Vermont's gun laws as the example?
      2. There's liability insurance for booze? There's also no liability insurance for vehicles that aren't driven on public roads.
      3. I have around 30 firearms right now. This has nothing to do with the private sales done at gun shows. Do you think there's a link there?
      4. And the 283 million firearms out there?
      5. I'll let you look up buyback failures on your own.
      6. The AR15 isn't a military weapon, it just looks like one (M4 or M16, depending on version). Though if you look at it, the Mosin Nagant bolt action rifles I own are all ex-military. So are my 1911s (even though the design is 100 years old). Did you mean something else by military weapon?

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

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:44:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, come to the table with something (6+ / 0-)

        What would you have us do to reduce gun violence in our nation?

        This argument for gun advocates, is literally the same stance the GOP is taking in fiscal negotiating right now. You crap on every idea proposed and offer none of your own.

        So you want to build some bridges, start by offering some damn ideas already.

        --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

        by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:52:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Solutions: (7+ / 0-)

          Single payer health care (cover mental health)
          Jobs
          Education
          Marijuana legalization
          Better social safety nets

          With regards to marijuana legalization:

          In that one-year period, the number of arrests for violent crimes dropped by 16 percent, homicide went down by 26 percent and drug arrests decreased by nearly 50 percent.

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

          by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:57:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Coming to the table leading with ignorance (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, rockhound

          and then demanding that others join you  (in ignorance?) is not helpful.  I own guns, and favor gun control.  KVoimakas (with whom I often disagree) and I can at least talk about the issues.  I see no opening to talk with you . . . you have not bothered even to learn or use correct terminology.

          Your #6 is particularly problematic . . . my M1 Garand is ex-military (late model, 7.62 NATO) and clip loaded (it simply cannot load anything other than its regular 8 round clip).  My Mini-14 is not military, but can just as easily fit a 20 or 30 round magazine as the 5 round magazine it comes with.  Both are "semi-automatic", have walnut stocks and look like "hunting rifles" (not "assault rifles") on the gun rack.  Should either be "banned"?

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:53:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If the issue is education then lets correct that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            murrayewv, a2nite

            Correct the terminology then. I'm open to teach myself something new, perhaps I have a concern where in the issue may be real but a proposed solution is unworkable because of that incorrect terminology.

            Where in we might then come to consensus on change we can agree on and move forward.

            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

            by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:17:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually they'd rather argue the minutiae than (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              idbecrazyif, a2nite

              the reality of dead and injured people.

              The willingness to lessen gun deaths has to be present before any useful conversation about hardware can happen.

              **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

              by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:49:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Only a response (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annieli, glorificus

        to a few of these because I'm not educated enough in some areas to make a statement of any value.

        2.  I don't know about alcohol, but vehicles that aren't even in driving condition are technically required to have currently plates/licensing and insurance.  It's just not enforce often, or enforced selectively, depending on where you live (and what the laws are in your state).  

        3.  There is a difference between acquiring 30 weapons over the years (and sounds like you're more of a collector) than purchasing 30 in one day/weekend at a gun show.

        4.  This suggestion is talking about moving forward, and your question is answered by the next regarding buyback.  YES we have to do something about the guns already floating around out there, and retrofitting them with biometrics isn't necessarily feasible.  But just because they're there, doesn't mean going forward we can't require biometrics on new guns that are manufactured.  We go through this all the time with cars, and new standards for safety/fuel efficiency/technology, etc.

        6.  This is where those of us who don't know enough about guns need help.  We have to figure out how to define weapons that are of no use to anyone except to kill, and kill as many as possible.  Assault rifles aren't great for hunting, or so my friends and neighbors who are avid hunters tell me.  I also don't think a blanket ban on anything "military" is a good idea, because it hurts people who collect weapons (which I have no problem with, as long as we're not talking about collecting canons and missiles and other ridiculousness).

        •  Let Me Approach #6 (5+ / 0-)

          There is a VAST variety of firearms that can be roughly categorized as "assault rifles", and many of them ARE great for hunting, assembled at considerable expense and work to enhance their accuracy and commonly chambered for calibers much more suited to big game (which in this country is generally anything the size of deer or larger). The problem non-gun folks run into head first is they tend to react based on how a firearm looks rather than what it does or what it is intended for.

          There is no easy answer. The AWB will NOT significantly affect ANYTHING except the internals of the firearms marketplace. EVERY capability available before and after the term of the AWB was available while it was in effect, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, the only thing that changed was the cost.

          Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

          by The Baculum King on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:32:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Wtf (7+ / 0-)

        Please go back through these comments and reread all of yours.

        Every single comment is a negative.  Every one.  Every suggestion proposed, by several posters, has been shot down by you as not workable.  Every one.

        You've proposed nothing that affects gun owners at all.  You apparently are not willing to give up a thing, or compromise even the slightest.

        So why should we talk to you again?  I'll be perfectly honest - I want guns severely restricted in this country.  Moreso than Australia, Canada, etc.  

        In case you haven't noticed, people get sick of abuses eventually.  The majority of Americans do not own guns.  Yet we are victimized by those who do.  The day will come where the majority will say enough and the politicians will follow through.  It may not be today, but it will come.  Sad that it will probably take a tragedy even more horrific than Newtown but the day will come.

        If you don't want to see the end of your beloved 2nd Amendment, this would be the time for you to work to pass restrictions that would appease the masses without impacting you too greatly.  But it's obvious the big picture eludes you.

        Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. John Prine -8.00,-5.79

        by Miss Blue on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:59:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Regarding your #6 (5+ / 0-)

      I have a Kentucky pistol.  It is identical to the one my ggg-grandfather carried at Kings Mountain and Yorktown.  It was a military weapon.    

      A 30-06 Springfield is a fine hunting rifle, but was standard issue for the US military when it first came out in 1906.  How do you plan to fine tune item #6?

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:47:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There would obviously have to be some grandfather (4+ / 0-)

        rules in effect. its the same reason why antique dealers don't deal in weapons after a certain date, as they would require a fire arms license.

        But as I pointed out to another commenter, lets start the discussion somewhere. many gun advocates, and I'm not singling you out for doing this, often spit on every idea proposed and yet offer none of their own.

        If this diary wants to build bridges, then it needs to start by offering some ideas on what we can do to get a handle on the issue.

        --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

        by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:54:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In fairness, the diarist invited discussion... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          ...of that very point.  A discussion that is taking place at this very moment.

          •  I see some discussion and to be fair (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dave in Northridge

            there are many on the anti gun side, who are also rabid about the issue.

            Door swings both ways and all that

            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

            by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:12:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  False moral equivalence (0+ / 0-)

              I know only one rabid anti-Second-Amendment Loony Lefter, and I have called him out on it. I did see somebody here with that opinion. We can tell him it's nonsense, or ignore him. What you cannot do is to claim that all those favoring gun regulation want to repeal the Second Amendment, or even that the tiny minority that does matters, either in real politics or in this discussion.

              America—We built that!

              by Mokurai on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 05:41:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  This poster made clear to me that they didn't read (0+ / 0-)

            my diary.

            So there is no point for discussion with them.

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

            by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:30:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  No, the diarist offered measures that are (0+ / 0-)

            actually of great value, that we all agree on, but explicitly excluded gun regulation of any kind. Nothing has changed at any point in this discussion. In fact, we are not having a discussion. The Second Amendment purists among the gun owners here are pissing on every regulation suggested, including all of those that large majorities of NRA members support, and have nothing but denial to offer. Just like Global Warming denial, AIDS denial, evolution denial, torture denial (denial that it is torture, and insisting that it works reliably for anything but extracting false confessions), economic and financial denial, and all the rest.

            I repeat my prior verdict.

            Not even wrong.

            America—We built that!

            by Mokurai on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:04:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Did you read my last lines? (4+ / 0-)
          Or will we be forever lost to the dictates of our corporate overlords and their emotional manipulations that keep us from realizing we never needed a bridge to be built in the first place?

          I leave it up to you to decide our path forward.

          I guess not, sadly.

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

          by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:38:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry no, I see no attempt at building anything (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus, PsychoSavannah

            Especially when you bring no solutions to the table or even remotely begin to address the concerns of those in favor of more stringent regulation.

            You want to build bridges, then start by addressing OUR concerns not by attempting to paint yourself as the vilified poor gun owners under attack.

            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

            by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:11:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You clearly didn't read my diary. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annieli
              I do not own a firearm and never have. I do demand our created government ensure our equity under law, nothing more or less.
              I will state for the record, the only acceptable solution is a total ban on the manufacture, selling, trading, owning, using of whatever item it is we all agree upon...

              NO exceptions for the police, the military, the secret service, etc.

              That is equity under law.

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

              by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:23:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Funny how your point about labeling doesn't (12+ / 0-)

    refer to the names that many who are pro gun control get called when they suggest even the most minimal control. Wonder why that is.

    "I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth." --- Bill Hicks

    by voroki on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:43:11 AM PST

  •  I Am Not RKBA (9+ / 0-)

    So maybe everyone gets this but me... if this is an RKBA diary about building bridges, why are all the references in point #2 above names other people call you?

    Which isn't to say people don't call you those things, or that it is constructive when they do, but I don't see how any internal undertaking of the RKBA group can change that.

    Too Folk For You. - Schmidting in the Punch Bowl - verb - Committing an unexpected and underhanded political act intended to "spoil the party."

    by TooFolkGR on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:43:57 AM PST

  •  Nice try on this... (5+ / 0-)

    But it already looks like too many people are not willing to engage in this discussion on a realistic level, yet.

    But a little food for thought... New York already has as strong gun control as will ever come out of this congress.  And still we saw the incident near Rochester a few days ago.

    "I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control, I didn't even know there was a war." -9.75, -8.41

    by RonV on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:44:44 AM PST

  •  So, it sounds like a straight jacket is required.. (13+ / 0-)

    ...before the conversation even starts.

    Which doesn't seem like a 'conversation' to me.

    I'm referring to metaphorical restraints on those who might have substantially different views than the diarist and other gun...enthusiasts.

    I am entirely unable to get my head around the notion that people have such strong feelings about possessing and using devices whose sole purpose is to inflict damage, even death, upon any living thing at which they are pointed.

    I feel passionate about some issues, but I just don't get how severely some people feel and react on this one.

    And that's what I see and hear - feelings and reactions.

    I'm not much of a negotiator, and even less of a debater. Those just aren't my skills.

    Too much of my professional, and related, life has been spent trying to patch people up, or help them and their families achieve a peaceful death - physically, emotionally, spiritually, and otherwise.

    So, no tips, no reccs (except for the upthread comment about slavery, which I think is apt), no further comments.

    I have no stomach or patience for the topic, and for those who worship (or at least sit in the back row for parts of the service) at the church of guns.

    "FK the deficit. People got no jobs. People got no money." Charlie Pierce

    by RubDMC on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:48:19 AM PST

    •  Probably the best (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, RubDMC

      comment I've yet seen on this subject.

    •  Preach it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RubDMC

      --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

      by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:14:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you truly "feel this way", why did you come (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      into the diary?

      To add to the emotional labeling and castigation of anyone that doesn't live in your world?

      We will never find solutions if we call each other names, if we can't find common ground and if it can't be done in a mature way.

      I accept that we are human, we will get hot under the skin, we will react negatively at times.

      You've just shut down any chance of discussion because of your life choices.

      Were will we be 10 yrs from now?  

      The status quo has to come to an end here.

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

      by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:36:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  how would you take these handguns away (5+ / 0-)

    data is only for Westchester County NY

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:51:56 AM PST

    •  Make it a punishable offence to own a weapon (3+ / 0-)

      that is not a valid hunting weapon. Pass a bill that re-numerates people that turn in their illegal weapons to law enforcement. Mandatory jail time for offenders after the 1st year of the phase-in period for the new law.

      Listen to Netroots Radio or to our pods on Stitcher. "We are but temporary visitors on this planet. The microbes own this place" <- Me

      by yuriwho on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:55:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And those data are in an area with the most (7+ / 0-)

      restrictive firearms laws in the nation.

      In our part of the country, I do not know a single person who does not own at least one firearm.  Literally.  That includes the parish priest, the school superintendent, all the teachers, the checkout clerk at the supermarket and the soccer moms.  School closes for a week during deer season, because both kids and teachers are out hunting.  It would even be hard to find lunchroom staff and janitors during deer season.  

      I do not know the exact numbers, but based on the people i know personally, an educated guess on firearm ownership is about 2 1/2 guns per man woman and child.  The only ones I know for sure that are registered are those owned by people with carry permits.  Two of the shotguns I own are over a hundred years old, so I am pretty sure there are no records anywhere regarding them.

      And oh yes.  I am a pretty good amateur metalsmith & woodworker and have made both revolvers and muzzle loading firearms.  I have not yet tackled a semi-auto.  Can't buy a gun in a store?  Just make one.  It is not that hard.

      If somebody came around from the government to tell country folk in the hills and hollers of the Appalachians they were coming for their guns, I hope said agent has his or her affairs in order.  Given all the caves, streams and wildlife around here, the body would never be found.  Hell, they cannot even stamp out moonshiners around here.  Not to mention meth labs.

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:12:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  By that argument, the 3D printer is going to (5+ / 0-)

        open the floodgates and nothing will be able to stop it.

        (w.r.t gun manufacture)

        Scary thought.

        Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
        I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
        —Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:15:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  OS, I wish people would consider this when (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annieli, Otteray Scribe, ban nock

        they make their grand solutions.

        I was a work the other day, here in Buffalo, the bastion of the Liberal doctrines we all share...AND every person said they would not allow anyone to take their firearms from them, period.  EVEN THE NON-GUN OWNERS SAID IT, self included...

        The absolute anger many people displayed simply scared the bejeezus out of me.

        This isn't some esoteric debate, it was that specific act of the British coming to confiscate our arms that started the 1st Revolution.

        You are not going to get any poll to tell you that truth, either!

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

        by gerrilea on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:45:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gerrilea - centuries have passed. If you are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite

          still stuck in the Colonial Era, gun control is the least of your problems.

          **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

          by glorificus on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:03:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  WE stil operate our government under the (0+ / 0-)

            rules created centuries ago.

            Maybe you missed that WHOLE part, it's called the constitution.  And it's as valid today as it was then.

            Don't like it, change it.

            I won't help you however start the next American revolution.

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

            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:09:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I've said about the same (7+ / 0-)

        I'm going to guess where I live that at least 75% or more of the population owns guns (if you live in town, probably lower, but if you live on a ranch, probably everyone owns a firearm).

        I believe a lot of people discussing this don't live in rural areas or else are naive about gun ownership. It's a daily part of many peoples' lives. There is no national version of it. It changes quite a bit from one region to the next.

        I'm not sure prohibition would work here. Up in Alaska, I feel that it could result in increased human deaths due to wildlife (so I've heard from some gun owners there). Here, it could have economically poor consequences since most ranchers own guns specifically to ward off predators from their livestock which are their income source, period.

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:47:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  In many areas of the country (6+ / 0-)

          going into wilderness areas unarmed would be taking your life in your hands.  There have been black bears found in people's back yards in our town.  A few months ago, I was coming down one of our six thousand foot mountains, when a cat crossed the road just ahead of my car.  It took a moment for it to register that the pretty pootie was about seven feet from nose to tail.  

          My younger son lived in Alaska.  He would have no sooner left home to go salmon fishing without a rifle than he would have left his shoes at home.  

          The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

          by Otteray Scribe on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:09:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's precisely why we cannot have (8+ / 0-)

            a national conversation on gun ownership; the terrain of this conversation is regional because of the reasons for shifting gun ownership. I mentioned the situation up in Svalbard, Norway once, where if you leave town, you can't without a gun due to the polar bears. Well. Hi. There are polar bears up there.

            I've seen two mountain lions here in California while hiking the hills myself. I'm prey-sized, so, this was disconcerting. I had a german shepherd with me the second time; he was scared shitless. Poor dog.

            So one thing I would really like to ask those discussing this to consider is the regional differences in gun ownership. Without that, we can't talk about any kind of reasonable measures to take, IMHO. So I feel like people talk past one another, and again and again, I want to interject with "You don't live where xyz person lives" or "clearly, you're from another world as xyz." The conversation needs this kind of nuance or it's just a polemic shouting match.

            Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 02:45:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I notice another dichotomy... (7+ / 0-)

          The good gun owner vs. the bad gun owner.  

          The "good" gun owner is a hunter who takes a deer to feed his family.

          The "bad" gun owner thinks he saw a UN-black helicopter last night and just told his drinking buddies other members of his private army.

          This gun owner is a target shooter who lives outside of Washington DC and goes to DFH shabbat services.  

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

          by DavidMS on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:11:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That map comes really close to Newtown, CT (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Otteray Scribe

      no less. It's up by Danbury, FWIW. I notice that they stop short of actually including it. Fucking Gannett. This is one of the wealthiest and whitest counties in the U.S. which is also a blue district, by and large. There are a higher proportion of Jewish people here, and also in Rockland, which they also published. It's a suburban district, although a somewhat rural one in parts. The Clintons either lived or still live there, in Chappaqua. There are a few areas which are more segregated and predominately black, such as White Plains.

      There's nothing much to hunt here. There are a few deer. Maybe a few turkeys? But it's not a hunter's paradise. There are black bears that occasionally come down from the Bear Mountain area here and again. I would guess the majority of gun owners in this wealthy district own guns for self-protection and/or sport shooting. I would guess probably more for the latter since most houses here are likely protected by large security systems; having lived in this area for some years, I don't recall many without alarm systems and dogs, and many houses are also gated.

      I think that the paper could wind up being sued for this. It's unclear to me that this was legal. I've read some about it. There are some legal questions about whether it's legal to have republished this information. In the same way, one could FOIA car registration information, but one could not republish it, at least in California State, where you can only access that information by submitting a "reason you need to know" request to the DMV which notifies the person you're asking about. And that is just car registration info.

      This is like a mass dox. Doxes are legal BUT if someone is injured due to a dox, the person who doxed them could be liable.

      Also, to do this to Rockland, which probably has the highest number of Jews in the country per capita, is literally sick. That hasn't even been touched. But it's disgusting.

      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

      by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 12:44:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  true, the Rockland map is actually more dense (2+ / 0-)

        and has fewer outliers, that is on that map are addresses for guns or owners that are physically not in Westchester either because of second homes, workplaces etc.

        yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

        by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:19:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Westchester is much more full of second homes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, Otteray Scribe

          than Rockland.

          See my comment just below for more of what I see as deeply problematic in this all. Maybe it takes a former area resident who has been through anti-semitic targeting to catch onto some of the politics here? Just my take. This is an odd choice of areas to select. Why do the neighbors in Rockland want to know who owns guns, as per Gannett's own statement? Rockland neighborhoods are of two sorts: giant houses on big pieces of property usually surrounded by woodlands, much like the house that people saw on the news of the Lanza home -- often with these homes, you won't know your neighbors well since you're on four acres and can't see their house, necessarily OR the houses are stacked up in town, in which case you know your neighbors really freaking well already and probably share a wire-fenced back yard with them and borrow each others' pool cleaning stuff or whatever.

          Here and there, you'll find some lovely and enormous Victorian mansion.

          There are a few other types of housing, but this is the major bulk of it. Obviously, there are class issues at play here. In general, I think the non-Jews tend to be wealthier (although the Italians are less wealthy, and there is a small African-American presence there as well as a small Latino one as well -- sorry to say, but a lot are maids or that sort of thing); the wealthiest tend to be conservative White Anglo-Saxon Protestant types.

          So what's with this list again? Creepy.

          Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

          by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:33:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  grandstanding by that local paper /nt (2+ / 0-)

            yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

            by annieli on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:43:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Scared me, as a Jewish person -- (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annieli, Otteray Scribe

              I didn't like it and took strong offense to it for that reason alone.

              The area has some issues with antisemitism. I had to change schools due to it, and I can easily pass for white. It read as really weird to me. Outside of the entire gun owner/non gun owner issue, there's another whole valence to the issue that's a dog whistle in there.

              Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

              by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:47:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  The idea of Jews on a list just freaks me out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Otteray Scribe

        sorry. Even anti-gun folks can guess why, right?

        I can't believe that fact hasn't been discussed as part of this entire conversation. The symbolism was... odd.

        Rockland County is 31% Jewish. About 1/3rd.

        Westchester County is a bit lower, but still at 14%, or roughly 1/6th.

        The United States is, on average, 2% Jewish.

        No one finds this list a little strange in that context?

        Especially given that Gannett owns the Journal which published the list?

        A bit about Gannett: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        Sorry if it strikes me as odd, but it does.

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:25:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  How About Changing Your Mission Statement To (17+ / 0-)

    reflect reality - that could be a good place to start.

    RKBA's attempt to link the 1994 RepubliKlan tsunami to the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban is specious at best.

    First - Not one Democratic member of the Congressional Black Caucus lost their seat to a RepubliKlan in the 1994 mid-terms, and these Democrats were some of the strongest supporters of the FAWB. The NRA didn't even target any of the CBC members in 1994, and never does, even though most members of the CBC have the lowest ratings from the NRA.

    Second - Health Care was a far more prominent issue in the 1994 elections than "gun control", and opposition to Clinton's attempt to bring America into sync with the rest of the civilized world was meet with as much opposition from the RepubliKlans as Obama's (successful) attempt in 2010.

    Which Brings us to

    Three - We had a repeat of the 1994 RepubliKlan tsunami in the 2010 Great White Anti-Obama Backlash mid-terms, and, as in 1994, Health Care was a far more prominent issue than "gun control". I will concede that the paranoia of the Black guy coming to take their guns away was an issue for some, although no such mentally afflicted person would have ever voted for the nigger! Kenyan-muslim-socialist-fascist-commie occupying their White House.

    In 1994 and 2010, attempts to modernize America's Health Care system by Democratic administrations helped fuel RepubliKlan tsunamis. The question is, would DailyKos allow a group to have a mission statement which proclaimed that Health Care Loses Elections?

    Something tells me no, DailyKos would not.

    So a good start, RKBA, would be to change your mission statement to reflect this reality.

    I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

    by OnlyWords on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 08:54:18 AM PST

    •  Great comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus

      If anything, the politics are clearly moving in the opposite direction right now, just as on some other issues.  Our purpose, as a progressive Democratic blog, should be to help push public opinion in those favorable directions, not cower in fear on issues where political support doesn't fully equate to ideological or policy imperatives.

      The simple problem for RKBA here is that they are fundamentally out of step with the vast majority of progressives and Kossacks on this issue.  They are almost perfectly aligned with the NRA and Republican Party.  But if the politics are indeed changing, such that supporting new gun restrictions is now a PLUS for Democrats' political fortunes, the RKBA types will not shift their absolutist views.  They care about guns first, electoral prospects second.

      Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

      by dnta on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 10:32:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ah (6+ / 0-)
    2.  Labeling anyone whom doesn't agree with you as a “Gun Nut”, “Gun Absolutist”, “Baby Killer”, “NRA Shill”, “Red Stater”, “A Concern Troll” or a "Terrorist".
    Bring on the victimhood.
  •  "Unalienable" is Unconscionable (8+ / 0-)

    Alienating the mentally ill and violent from the means with which to inflict bodily harm on others is both reasonable and responsible.

    Your notion that gun "rights" are somehow sacrosanct predicates of natural rights is partisan nonsense.

  •  I'm supposed to be polite (5+ / 0-)

    to people who endanger my kids?

    No.

    "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

    by nosleep4u on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:05:24 AM PST

  •  Actually (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, polecat, Sandino, Glen The Plumber

    I don't have to negotiate with you about anything.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:08:58 AM PST

    •  See, and my initial response was 'ditto' (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, gerrilea, rockhound

      but that's kinda dickish, so I figured I'd ask this question instead:

      What kind of position do you think you're working from?

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

      by KVoimakas on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:20:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  True. None of us has to negotiate. But if WE (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, glorificus

      don't do it and come up with something, someone else will -- possibly far off in the future and possibly a lot uglier than anything we can comprehend.

      There is an incentive to do it now, here, with us.  It may require walking away frequently so as to prevent flaming the H*ll out of the person on the other side.

      I've reached my weekly limit and will be stepping out.

      I note that we belong to the same dKos groups.

      Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
      I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
      —Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:35:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am RKBA but I don't think it is appropriate (22+ / 0-)

    for the civilian population to own military grade weaponry.

    I hate to call it an assault weapons ban, but that is the closest recognized equivalent.  Semi-Automatics should be restricted in the size of the magazine so that it is not possible to fire for an extended period ot time without reloading.

    I am for gun registration and beefing up the background checks.  Too many felons are not included in the database.

    I am for closing the gun show loophole

    I am for mandatory training (and not as part of highschool, hell they don't even do driver training in our highschools here anymore).

    "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

    by Sychotic1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 09:13:43 AM PST