Skip to main content

Being here for a little while and reading all the posts on this site I find myself agreeing with some things I am finding, but on gun control I remain firm...

Being here for a little while and reading all the posts on this site I find myself agreeing with some things I am finding, but on gun control I remain firm...

When I was in school there was one topic I studied with great enthusiasm and that was History.  I particularly enjoyed American History and Military History.  I take exception with any infringement of the constitution, but worse than an overstep is an ignorance.  An overstep of boundaries is easy to see but an ignorance regarding meaning and intent leads to a perversion of the concept.  Many here will disagree but I will lay out a case that can not be argued.  If you come here to sing with the choir stop reading now.  If you come here to see other points of view and have yours challenged then please read on.  

Since gun control seems to be the flavor of the month let's focus on the second amendment.  Many people who argue the second amendment know nothing about it and they try to twist the meaning to suit their personal taste.  To begin I would open with some words set fourth by a founding father.  

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

   The second amendment reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

So we can debate what this means or we can dig a little deeper and as Thomas Jefferson said conform to the probable meaning in which it was passed.  So what was the meaning of the 2nd Amendment when it was passed?  For this we can study what the framers of the constitution had to say about it.  Since posting a book here would be counter productive I will post a few quotes.  

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
-Tench Coxe Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress

I will hold here on the quotes.  I could go on, but at this point I think I have offered a sample from several different sources.  Who is the militia?  The whole people except for a few politicians.  Some would say that you do not need a 30 round magazine to hunt.  As we can read above, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.  Some would say that our founding fathers could have never anticipated personal weapons of such destructive power.  To this I would point out that the constitution is timeless.  The idea was that whatever a government had access to, so should it's people to be able to resist should the government become one of tyranny.  

The thing about the constitution is it is indeed timeless.  It doesn't lay in safeguards for the problems of it's day; rather it lays in safeguards got the problem with human nature.  If we look at some of the amendments...  

1st -   Protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press as well as the right to assemble.

2nd - Protects an individual's right to bear arms.

3rd - Prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime

4th - Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures

5th - Sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy

6th - Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and retain counsel

7th - Provides for the right to trial by jury

8th - Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, not going into further detail here, it becomes clear that these rights are what separate us from the rest of the world.  The Constitution does not grant us these rights, these rights are given to us by our creator.  Rather this document provides us with a shield.  It is a line that the government can not cross.  As it turns out, many of these lines have been crossed.  For example president Bush in his patriot act has given authority to monitor communications which we are supposed to be secure in.  A patriot is not Democrat or Republican or Progressive.  A patriot is pro American and that means guarding liberty.  Liberty is defined by our constitution.  

Since the 2nd amendment now becomes clear in its meaning, some will say we should do away with it.  First of all, it wont happen, study what is required to change the constitution and you will understand.  Secondly, even if you could, you would be destroying part of what insures our nations freedom and greatness.  America has suffered hard times, but I can tell you for a fact that the poorest person in America is more wealthy than the middle class in most countries.  America has prospered more than any nation in history.  Almost every horrible abuse of people comes from the government.  Some will say 'it can't happen here'.  I would say you are correct, but that is because we have the constitution to shield us and the second amendment to stop it if anyone tries.  We have made our compromise on the 2nd amendment.  We do not have access to every terrible implement of the soldier.  

This brings me to my final point.  If people don't back down on gun control there will be a terrible price.  1,500,000 background checks done in November for weapon purchases.  For those who do not know how a background check works, each weapon does not need a background check, each buyer does.  I purchased two new pistols this week, that's one background check.  1,900,000 in December.  That means that in the last two months alone there are 3.5 million new weapons out there at a minimum.  AR-15 semi-automatic rifles are on a 15 month back order.  30 round magazines are on a 12 month backorder.  Ammunition for these rifles can not be found, I for example have begun crafting my own ammunition so I can go out to the range this spring and enjoy some rifles and BBQ with my friends.  The point is this, people are anticipating an assault weapons ban and gun grab.  If you knew cars were going to be banned in a month would you drop the money to go out and buy one?  The folks grabbing these weapons have NO intention on turning them over.  How are you going to disarm millions of people who refuse to turn over the weapons?  Simple answer, you will not disarm them.  You may start a war, but you will not disarm them.  Many people have made public knowledge where they stand if so much as a magazine ban passes.  I for one am not interested in a fight, but be warned, there are those that are.  Also be warned, that many members of the military and law enforcement community which some hope would do the disarming are going to refuse those orders.  Turns out their parents and siblings are some of the folks who refuse to turn over the weapons and they aren't very willing to shoot or detain them.  This is not a threat, these are not my words, but also be aware that many of these people have vowed not to go after those collecting their weapons, but to go after those who pushed to start the fight.  One statement I have come across warns that if their families are harmed they are coming after the families of those who started the fight.  This type of fight is a lose / lose.  It will crush our economy and put everyone in danger.  The patriots are prepared to lose their property, loved ones, and even their lives for what they believe in.  Anyone who would push for a gun grab or any type of ban, I ask are you prepared to give up the same.  If a fight breaks out it wont happen in a land far far away, it will be raging down your streets.  Again, I must emphasize, this is not a threat of any kind, this is simply what the response will be.  I remind you, 3.5 million weapons were not purchased by people these last two months just so they could turn them in.  There are many out there honing their skills and stock piling ammunition.  No law abiding patriot would ever fire the first shot.  No law abiding patriot will abide a law that desecrates their liberties either.  We must find a way to deal with the criminal element with weapons and only the criminal element without dragging law abiding constitutional patriots into it.  

I implore everyone who reads this to back off the idea of weapon bans, constitutional infringement, and any more gun control.  I do not want to ever see a fight between Americans, but I can assure you, that is what will be on our doorstep if we can't find a better way.  

I pray that we can all stand down on the topic of gun control at this time.  We have a country with so many other problems.  Some of the solutions to these other problems I actually agree with members of this site on.  I hope I was able to express another side of the debate here.  I encourage people who doubt what I say to look into http://iiipercent.blogspot.com/  This is the site for the Three Percenters.  Also look into the oath keepers.  I truly hope that we can all learn to respect and accept each other as law abiding American citizens despite our different views.  As I said, there are so many other huge problems that we could work together on rather than dividing on every little thing.  I no doubt will receive some blow back from this diary and I am sure there will be jaunting and poking and maybe even some laughing.  I would normally say 'remember that when all hell breaks loose and you realize I was right'.  Frankly I wont say it here because I am terrified of being correct on this one.  Please, everyone, cool off and take a step back to look at things with a level head.  Promote peace in what you say, you never know who you are inspiring.  Respect the right for others to have different views and recognize that their views are as valid to them as yours are to you.  There are no monsters on either side of a debate regardless of what propaganda ones political party spouts.  There are only people, most of which follow the law and have families and jobs and people who love them.    

God bless, and everyone have a happy and safe new year

- A Patriot  

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

  •  We have country with many (26+ / 0-)

    Problems and one of those problems is the slaughter of its citizens by guns.

    Next it has long been settled law that the government has the right to regulate and ban certain weapons.

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:54:20 PM PST

    •  Doesnt make it right (5+ / 1-)

      But wouldnt you concede that it goes against the constitution and the intent with which the constitution was written?  Just like indefinite detention without trial (NDAA) or warrantless tapping of phones (Patriot Act).  Just because it has been done and is being done doesn't make it right.  

      •  No I would not concede that point. (24+ / 0-)

        And even the Supreme Court has decided the the government is within it's Constitutional powers to regulate and  ban certain weapons.  

        Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

        by jsfox on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:48:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  All of our Rights have limits. You can't yell fire (10+ / 0-)

        in a crowded theatre and you shouldn't be able to carry an assault rifle with a 30 shot clip in one either.

        Twenty 6 year olds, six brave teachers, and a Mother is the bottom of the score card for most of us. Military style weapons and mega clips should not be obtainable legally in a civilized country.

        We want and need to be free of you, the nra, and the mentally ill armed like SWAT teams because of the ease of acquiring these people killing machines.

      •  nope (16+ / 0-)

        Rights are meaningless without responsible and judicious exercise.  

        See the problem here is that for many of us, the nearest neighbor is just 10 feet and a couple of inches of drywall away.  If Mr Fearful Gun Owner's 8 year-old wants to play with daddy's bushmaster, it's going to be a terrible inconvenience to us at best.  

        Expecting gun owners to bear the societal cost of their hobby should be the minimum requirement.  I say hobby, because credible research shows that owning a firearm offers no protection from harm.

        Rather, owning a firearm increases a person's likelihood of being injured or killed by a firearm by more than 4 times over not owning a firearm.  Women in households where guns are owned are more likely to be killed by their partner and more likely to commit suicide.  In one recent year, 43 percent of teen suicides were committed by use of a firearm.  There were around 24 nonfatal firearms injuries per 100,000 in 2011, according to the Center for Disease Control.  States with stronger gun control laws have lower rates of death or injury from firearms.

        Yes, I know, none of this applies to Mr. Fearful Gun Owner, he's a sane responsible, well-meaning hobbyist without any grudges who locks his gun safe.  So too, were all the wife killers, suicides, New Year's partiers, angry unemployed, etc. etc. etc., until they weren't.

        •  I decided to add to all my leases for property (12+ / 0-)

          that guns and ammunition are not allowed in my apartments.  I haven't worked out the wording yet  but I know what I'm after.  Frankly, I would not allow my children to visit houses or apartments where people keep semi automatic and automatic weapons.   My intention for my apartments is to make them child friendly, not weapons friendly.  I already disallow  materials that are serious threats to the well being of neighbors, but it never occurred to me to specify arms.

          I don't want to live next to people who keep semi automatic and automatic weapons if I can help it.  We have the right to shun those who keep killing toys at the expense of the rest of us.

          An this is not about your basic hunter.  I know them and they are in an entirely different category.  

          Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

          by tikkun on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:52:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You ready to be held liable for their safety? (0+ / 0-)

            It's not a big leap to say if you prohibit your tenants the ability to protect themselves from rape, and you prohibit your tenants from increasing the security on the apartments (such as sturdier door locks etc), then you are creating an un-secured environment and are therefore liable to some extent for certain types of incidents that may transpire within that un-secured area.

            Shorter version: You make it unsecure, and you prohibit people from making it secure, then you can be liable for creating the conditions for a violent crime.

            You kosher with that?

            It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

            by JayFromPA on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:54:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are reasoning from a fallacy (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eyesbright, Shotput8

              Or at least you are reasoning from an assumption that may not be true.  Hard evidence that gun ownership makes one safer doesn't exist. And it does seem that people who own or have ready access to firearms are more likely to be injured or killed by firearms than those who do not have guns.

              This article about a study of the subject for example.

              •  Studies won't matter. (0+ / 0-)

                If you get served with papers, and in court you are accused of creating a vulnerable situation, I doubt
                "Well the odds say it shouldn't have happened like this. The studies say... "

                will get the judge to look at the victimized plaintiff and say

                "Byzantium is right, it's just your bad luck that being forbidden from putting more locks on the doors meant the attacker could get in easily. And more of your bad luck that the phone was in the other room so you had to try and hold the door closed rather than pick up a self defense weapon. And MORE of your bad luck that after the guy forced his way into the bedroom you got raped and stabbed and scarred for life. Tough luck girly. At least you lived, though it will take a dozen more plastic surgeries before the scars are just pale lines..."

                You really think citing statistics is going to shield you from the consequences should the security hazard you created result in actual bloody victims?

                Also, how are you going to enforce your rule? It's their home, and scotus ruled that people have a right to keep and bear.

                It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

                by JayFromPA on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:24:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  We are not talking about locks. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tytalus

                  We are talking about weapons, and you are trying to cite an imaginary rape scenario to support a position about public policy.  Are you afraid of the facts?  Do you not understand how probabilities give us insights that fantasies do not?

                  If you are going illustrate your position with a made up story, it's a good idea to make the story conform to what we know about the subject:  In fact, it's highly likely that the rapist will be known to the victim. She may not even know the intentions of her attacker until it is already too late to prevent it.  At what point do you shoot your friend who had a little too much to drink and starts by making suggestive comments?  That's a hard call.

                  In close quarters, a rape victim is safer not picking up a gun.  Heartbreaking to say that.  Frightening to contemplate situations in which we are effectively powerless.  But that's far closer to the reality of rape than your scenario.  

                  That said, there are resources from social service organizations, and from law enforcement, for learning how to prevent rape.  I came across a commonsense article that cited 24 strategies.  Only one of them mentioned a weapon.  The main points of that paragraph were: be aware that the weapon may be turned against you; and get training.

                  Congress, and for that matter, the states, already have gun laws on the books.  The laws can be better.  The enforcement of the laws can be better.  A national standard would be better. Public Safety is a legitimate reason to have better, and better-enforced, laws regulating dangerous devices that are designed only to injure others.  

                  •  You want real stories? (0+ / 0-)

                    Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

                    It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

                    by JayFromPA on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:58:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I see what you are doing there. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      tytalus, tikkun

                      Anecdotes are powerful things. We respond viscerally to stories.  That's why they are an effective propaganda strategy.  I myself have a half dozen stories I could relate that helped form my opinions about guns and gun owners.  But stories, true or not, do not give us the depth of understanding we need to fairly and effectively control gun violence.  And, like it or not, the thing that to you consider protection, is really a means of intimidation or injury or death that is incompatible with modern urban life.

                      At this point, I always find myself wondering why you are so fearful.  

                      As I said in my earlier post:

                      Congress, and for that matter, the states, already have gun laws on the books.  The laws can be better.  The enforcement of the laws can be better.  A national standard would be better. Public Safety is a legitimate reason to have better, and better-enforced, laws regulating dangerous devices that are designed only to injure others.  
                      We need to understand the patterns of gun misuse and respond to them with effective laws.  Because, plain and simple, laws still work.  

                      So I'm going to keep advocating better gun laws and better enforcement, because I know it's more likely that a gun owner will injure or kill himself or a family member or a neighbor than it is for a random stranger to come barging in.  And should the stranger appear, it is far more likely that he will have the advantage of surprise.

                •  Jay, I'm betting I'll Have the Courts On My Side (0+ / 0-)

                  if I refuse to rent to someone who keeps weapons or, if it's in the lease, if I eject someone who purchases them after signing the lease.  As far as managing my property, In all the states I've lived in, the landlord has the right to inspect their property, something I do as a matter of habit.  I don't do it often but it do it regularly.  Anyone who doesn't like my lease is more than welcome to refuse to move into one of my properties.  The kind of tenants my properties attract would NOT want their children living in a place where someone keeps an arsenal and they especially would not appreciate living next to someone with cowboy/girl fantasies about the use of their weapons.

                  Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

                  by tikkun on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:20:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  You cant mass punish people for what they "may' do (0+ / 0-)

          So because of what someone might do, in your belief, there should be across the board control?  Out of over 600 people that are on a firearm forum that I belong to, 0 have gone on a rampaging shooting spree.  The problem with gun control is it goes after a tool that the VAST majority of people use responsibly.  And if I am cleaning my weapon and it discharges and damages your home I do bear a societal cost.  The cost is determined in a court when you sue me.  For the record, I have never had a negligent discharge.  Your assumption is that someday I will go nuts and kill my wife or my employer so to stop that from happening you should take my weapons.  Follow that logic through to a reasonable concllusion and it is lunacy.  To stop you from doing something that statisically you will likely never do we are going to punish you and regulate you now.  

          •  I have a car that tops out at 168 mph , (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco, Eyesbright

            I have never run into anybody , never crashed it .
            How fast may I drive it down your street ?

            "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

            by indycam on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:31:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You backed yourself into a corner there =) (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, fuzzyguy

              Because your car is capable of doing 168 does not mean we should ban the car, just set limits on how you can use it.

              Because my rifle is capable of causing harm does not mean we should ban the rifle, but set limits on how we can use it.  

              It is not legal to brandish my rifle in public, therefore it is being controlled where I can use my rifle.  

              •  How fast should I be allowed to drive down your (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poco

                street ? By your logic , seeing as I have never hurt anybody , never crashed , why should rules be made for me because other have crashed and hurt people ?

                but set limits on how we can use it.
                I want to drive my tank on the road ,
                I want to drive it up and down your street .
                You got a problem with that ?
                does not mean we should ban the car, just set limits on how you can use it.
                It is banned from the public roadways now . Its not legal .

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 10:04:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'd like to see your tank on my road. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'll take lots of pics to show my nephews.

                  Can I get the neighbors to snap pics of me as I pose on top?

                  You may or may not be aware that there ARE regulations for driving tanks on roads. It's been a while since I've read them, they had something to do with being on the way to/from a place of display or such.

                  So.... Provided that you are on your way to the local park to display your tank, can you drive down my road so I can take pics? Or even better, give me advance warning so I can just bring my nephews to see the show!

                  Looking forward to you and your tank...
                  -Jay. From PA. ;-)

                  It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

                  by JayFromPA on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:00:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Cars or Tanks??? (0+ / 0-)

                  We were talking about your car not a tank.  Being in the army and having seen what happens when a tank drives down a road I can assure you that it is not a good idea in any circumstance to drive a tank on any paved road.  The tracks destroy the pavement.  I am not saying this because it is a tank, but because it is a heavy tracked vehicle.  Every time a rifle comes out of its case on the other hand it does not start destroying things.  For example, I took my rifle out of its case this morning and just like the other several thousand times it has been taken out of its case, no damage was done to anything and no one died.  

                  So lets continue your origninal analogy.  Your car is capable of doing 168 down a residential road.  My rifle is capable of inflicting damage and causing panic.  So resonable restrictions are in place.  Legally you can not drive your car over 30 mph in a residential area (Depending on state, my background in law enforcement is for Illinois) unless posted otherwise.  Legally I cannot carry my rifle down the street.  The point is, your car should not be banned because it is capable of going over 30 mph just as my rifle should not be banned because it is capable of being used unlawfully.  Responsibility pertains to people, not to inatimate objects or things.  FBI report released this year says the number one cause of death in homicides in America is blunt force trauma.  Therefore a hammer, perhaps, is the biggest winnner in taking lives this year in America.  The hammer, because it is capable of taking a life or being used in an unlawfull manner should not itself be restricted or banned, the context in which we use the hammer, the key point being WE USE, needs to be restricted or banned.  Just as your drivnig 168 through a residential would land you in alot of trouble.  The car is not the issue, it is how YOU used the vehicle.  YOU are responsible for the infraction, not your car.  The issue with making a blanket statement such as "Any car capable of going of 30 mph should be banned because it could speed in a residential area" would punish the masses and strip them of their freedom to drive what vehicle they would like because a few people can not play by the rules.  And yes, it is a very good analogy because irresponsible drivers have claimed more lives this year than irresponsible firearm owners.  The point is that the problem is with a very small minority of people, and that the masses should not be regulated or punished for the indescresion of a few.  

                  I am enjoying this car analogy, in working through this I find it to be an excellent analogy.  I have been able to use it several times now outside of this site and it has been a very usefull instrument in making a great comparision, thankyou for the idea =)  

                  •  ... (0+ / 0-)
                    The point is that the problem is with a very small minority of people, and that the masses should not be regulated or punished for the indescresion of a few.  
                    Cool , then I should be able to drive any speed I like . I have not crashed , I have not hurt anybody .
                    I can assure you that it is not a good idea in any circumstance to drive a tank on any paved road.
                    The tracks destroy the pavement.
                    My tank has been retrofitted with rubber lined tracks .
                    http://www.ecvv.com/...

                    Do you still have a problem with me driving up and down your street in my tank ?

                    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                    by indycam on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:14:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  anecdotes are not data (0+ / 0-)

            Nowhere in my post did I say that your property will be taken away from you.  My point is that gun owners as a group are unable to control the misuse of their belongings without the help of society at large.

            The public cost of that misuse is far greater than the private benefit of proper use. It is in the interest of all of us, including gun owners, that we ensure that the people who wish to acquire, and presumably use, these dangerous machines, have training, a re-licensing requirement, accountability as to the location and security of their weapons.  And of course we want to be sure that people with violent mental illness, criminal records, histories of domestic discord, or dependence on drugs or alcohol have a hard time acquiring weapons.

            The fact is, guns are designed to injure flesh.  So it's not a stretch to think that gun owners intend to do so, or imagine that they may wish to do so in the future, or enjoy fantasizing about doing so, or like to practice the skills related to doing so, or wish to appear to intend to do so.

            //

            A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm. Over 79% of the respondents with firearms at home said the firearms made them feel less safe. In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill her
            smartgunlaws.org
      •  You are a liar, so n/t (0+ / 0-)

        “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 Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:15:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I am in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment (26+ / 0-)

    That amendment was a mistake that could not have been foreseen by the founders. We need to repeal it, and then regulate as the majority sees fit.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:55:41 PM PST

  •  Oh my! (35+ / 0-)

    Trigger556's Profile

    My name is Jack. I live in the Chicago area and run what most people would call a militia. I hope my unique perspective can stir healthy discussion and debate.

    "Hate speech is a form of vandalism. It defaces the environment, and like a broken window, if left untended, signals to other hoodlums that the coast is clear to do more damage." -- Gregory Rodriguez

    by Naniboujou on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:58:37 PM PST

    •  Keep eye contact and back away slowly. n/t (18+ / 0-)

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:11:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  he (21+ / 0-)

      is a four-star, glow-in-the-dark wingnut. He wants us to "look into the oath keepers," a motley, paranoid, dangerous crew of nascent traitors. He warns us that the bitter clingers will come to kill us and our families if we don't leave them be with their killing machines:

      Also be warned, that many members of the military and law enforcement community which some hope would do the disarming are going to refuse those orders.  Turns out their parents and siblings are some of the folks who refuse to turn over the weapons and they aren't very willing to shoot or detain them.  This is not a threat, these are not my words, but also be aware that many of these people have vowed not to go after those collecting their weapons, but to go after those who pushed to start the fight.  One statement I have come across warns that if their families are harmed they are coming after the families of those who started the fight.
      His mossbacked limpet-gripping to his own gnarled and crabbed interpretation of the "original intent" of the 2nd Amendment is quite reminiscent of those Southern gents who fiercely hugged to their bosoms the "original intent" of the Founders and their Constitution to permit slavery. But of course all the guns are going to go. Just like slavery did.
      •  You missed the point (0+ / 0-)

        You missed the point sir/ma'am.  Also I do have members of several racial backgrounds on the team and yes, that includes a man of African descent.  So please do not liken me to a slave owner.  I stand by the constitution, including the amendment that freed slaves.  Also, I was very clear to mention that this is not a threat from me.  Think what you will about the oath keepers, but they are simply re affirming their oath to defend the constitution and refuse any order they are given that would have them violate it.  If it is viewed as paranoid to stand by that oath I would question is there a plan to try to make us violate it?  

        •  If a ban passes constitutional muster with SCOTUS (17+ / 0-)

          you and the so-called "Oath Keepers" are duty bound to honor it... to do otherwise is treasonous... THAT'S the point...

          Baby, where I come from...

          by ThatSinger on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:53:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  the (13+ / 0-)

          "original intent" of the Constitution was to permit slavery, just as you claim the "original intent" of the Constitution was to allow you to run amok with killing machines all across the land.

          That's over. You're looking at an abolitionist: all the guns are going to go. Just like slavery did. So sorry, but that's the way it's going to be: already happened.

          Oath keepers are paranoid dim-bulb freakazoid nascent traitors; I see by this comment, and your employment in your last sentence of the term "us," that you now number yourself among them.

          Just as I see by this comment that you are completely unqualified to make any coherent or considered judgement whatsoever as to what any secular document, including the Constitution, means, much less whether or not you may or not be "re affirming [your] oath to defend the constitution and refuse any order [you] are given that would have [you] violate it."

          You are like something from a time machine: James Ussher come back to bumble and babble among us.

        •  facepalm. You've got the wrong place. (7+ / 0-)

          Save yourself a whole bunch of grief and head over to Redstate.

          Or would you rather speak of what a well regulated militia is?

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

          by polecat on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:17:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am here... (0+ / 0-)

            Because I do not like to sing with the choir.  Nothing is accomplished when we stand in our own camps and sing with the choir, accomplisment comes when one man has the guts and backbone to walk into the camp of those on the other side of the line and express himself and hear their responses.  I have heard responses, I have also taken my lashes.  I have exposed myself to some pretty good lashes here too and I'm okay with that.  I prefer intelligent debate and fruitfull discussion, but I am so sick of hearing one side of things.  We get our news from one side, we have our discussions from one side, and we plant ourselves in our own camp and gobble up the one sidded propoganda.  I have learned a TON coming here.  I have learned that there are valid points and arguments over here on this side that challenge my beliefs because I have come with an open mind.  I have learned to view the world from the eyes of progressives here and at least understand why they see things the way they do, even if I do not always agree.  The point is I have learned that your views are valid and warrant at least being heard and deeply considered from a nuetral standpoint, taking personal feelings out of the equation.  Sadly, I have also learned that some folks on this side are dangerous and violent with remarks like "Lets take the guns out of their cold, dead, selfish hands".  The point is there are monsters in both camps on both extremes.  But I have also learned that no side is as evil as the other side makes them out to be.  To me it has been a very valuable lesson and one I would encourage everyone to step across the line and go learn.  I can say with complete honesty that a number of people I have spoken with here, while disagreeing with some of my views, have been very supportive of my being here and educating myself.  They have offered me thought provoking and challenging insight and at the same time have accepted the same from me.  I am fairly certain that someone like me being here is a good first step in understanding each other for who we are, scaleing back the fear each side has of each other, and maybe finding common ground, or at least learning to respect one anothers views without such animosity.  

        •  "The Team" (6+ / 0-)

          Seriously, "The Team"???? WTF? What are you, a bunch of Army wannabees who go out and "barbecue" in the woods and shoot off your rods? Do you end the night with a campfire and circle jerk too?
          Dude, you wouldn't know the Constitution if someone threw a copy in your face.

          Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

          by MA Liberal on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:35:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I was in federal prison with real militia. Uh, (4+ / 0-)

          believe me, this ain't militia.

          More like a garden variety shit stirrer, I'm thinking.

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

          by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:48:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ouch... (0+ / 0-)

            Open invitation, if it wasn't a felony you went away for (Which would make it illegal for us to let you handle a firearm) you are welcome to come on out and see our 'garden' and train with us for a day.  It has a lovely 100 yard long 10 foot tall backstop, moving targets, and plenty of cover to learn to move and shoot around.  It is actually a lot of fun.  There is a lot of movement out there though.  Generally we have roughly 50 good men (Mostly your garden variety Marines, Soldiers, and some law enforcement fellas) that are actually very helpfull and would be happy to take you under their wing for a day.  This is a serious invitation to come see our world for a day.  Just to give you an idea of the types of things that occur at these events without putting too much out there, check this out.

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

            Come on out bro (No drugs or drinking before range time)  

        •  Well, but you have your facts wrong, either (0+ / 0-)

          intentionally or from ignorance. Go read up, or go away.

          “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 Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:52:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oh my indeed (0+ / 0-)

      Hi!!!  Hope that doesn't scare you too much.  I started reading blogs on this site some time ago.  While there is some degree of craziness on here in my eyes I have really learned a great deal and have actually come to agree with some progressive positions.  I came here to challenge my own views.  This view on gun control is not changed but I believe I have really grown and become a more well rounded person by understanding the views of others.  At the end of the day however I remain a patriot and stand by the constitution.  If it doesn't cross the constitution I am very open minded =)

      •  If SCOTUS says it doesn't cross the constitution (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tikkun, Sandino, Mathazar, S F Hippie, Sharoney

        honoring it would therefore be the "patriotic" thing to do...

        Baby, where I come from...

        by ThatSinger on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:54:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If the intent is to allow for rebellion, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, Mathazar

        then we're long since over the line where the weapons that might do the job have become illegal.

        •  Speaking academically... (0+ / 0-)

          We aren't over the line at all.

          Defense contractors do their best to make sure some small part of each large weapon system comes from as many congressional districts as possible.

          Remember that fighter plane that was so difficult to cut from the budget a few years ago? The one that actually had parts manufactured in EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT in the US? EGADS. The manufacture of that plane required functioning law and order in every tiny corner of america, just disrupting ONE would cause at least some small hiccups in the military's supply chain for that aircraft.

          Now, extrapolate that out through the rest of the defense budget, which is spread across every tiny corner of america specifically so that the pentagon can browbeat any member of congress with "YOU KILLED JOBS" if they want to trim back any small part of the military budget.

          What is on one hand a strength for the contractors to strongarm congress, becomes a weakness if the timely manufacture and transportation of those pieces is disrupted.

          The most reliable weapons factory is the one where all of the parts are created very close to the assembly point. The rest of the nation could fall to 28 days later zombies, and that factory would keep functioning because all the parts are made right there, they don't all have to travel from washington and california and georgia and texas and ohio and maine and idaho to an assembly plant in kansas.

          Hell, speaking academically, just the chemicals from the grocery store is enough to disrupt the transportation of materials, and if the air force doesn't have parts then the planes don't fly.

          Speaking academically.

          The projection of the arm of us military power works well far away from the base of support, just like your right arm gains strength from it's base of support in your right shoulder. But the strength doesn't apply well when it is doing a U turn and trying to assert force on it's own roots, just like your right arm can't really apply force to your own right shoulder.

          I'm speaking academically here, these are things that even the us military has already thought through. As I recall, one of their scenarios had to do with a region of north carolina turning anti-federal and holding their territory by force. It was an interesting read.

          It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

          by JayFromPA on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:40:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Constitution is what the Supreme Court (9+ / 0-)

        says it is. At the moment, they think that the right to keep and bear is an individual right. They did not always think so. They will be forced by events and public opinion to backtrack to more sane ground, and rather soon, I would think. And even in their most Insane decision in Heller, they, Scalia, admitted that the govmint has a right to regulate, just not within militia clause reasoning. This is as far as we will get to complete and blanket gun ownership without restrictions. The high tide has been reached, and we see the consequences. Enjoy the moment, but dont expect it to last.

        The Second Amendment can easily be read to mean that the right to keep and bear arms exists if and only if the individual is within a well-regulated militia. Not a saucepan wearing, camo tattood bunch of boys in the woods, but a well-regulated militia. We will get there, sooner than you may think.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:24:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  A man with a tiny dick and no life (3+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      jeff in nyc, Vote4Obamain2012, Swampfoot
      Hidden by:
      fuzzyguy

      who gets off dressing in camo and playing "army."
      The worst kind. I'll bet his vehicle had a really loud engine too.

      Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

      by MA Liberal on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:33:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chevy (0+ / 0-)

        It's a GMC 5 cylinder pickup truck, everything is stock on it except 2 light bulbs.  Actually a great engine, purrs like a kitten.  What were we betting?  Oh, I'm sorry, you weren't serious, you were just trying to pick a fight.  No fight here bro, sorry your so angry, try to smile more or your gonna wrinkle up and look like a troll =)

  •  So, essentially... (26+ / 0-)

    People will break the law if we make any, so therefore we shouldn't make any laws because people will break them.

    Got any other NRA talking points you want us to consider, or can we leave it with the ones you've already posted?

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:59:18 PM PST

    •  The boundary (0+ / 0-)

      The constitution is a boundary.  Any law that infringes on it would be in itself illegal.  So am I bound by illegal law?  A thought to consider to be sure.  As far as all other laws go, it is with great pride that I can say I have been in court twice.  Once for rolling a stop sign and once for going 8mph over the speed limit.  I am happy to admit that I have managed to follow the letter of the law and where I have transgressed I have openly admited guilt and paid my $50 ticket.  

      Certainly having law and order are good things, but the law must be just and in line with the constitution in my opinion.  

  •  interesting post for your first one. (21+ / 0-)

    you should realize this is a blog for people who are supportive of the Democratic party. I'm saying this not because of what you wrote but because it's  your first post, kind a controversial, and then there's that spinning whatchamacallit.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:59:24 PM PST

    •  I disagree with the politics of this diarist, (20+ / 0-)

      but as a lifelong student of human behavior, especially violent behavior, I think the diarist is right.  Especially the part about law enforcement refusing to go along.  I know a lot of officers in many different agencies.  Many of them are strong supporters of the Second Amendment arguments.  Many are firearms hobbyists.  You cannot go to any gun show without running into several off duty law enforcement officers shopping for new stuff.  

      Also, the diarist is right about the simple economics of recent days.  This is Psychology 101 stuff, it is not rocket science.  

      Someone made a comment a few days ago that resonates.  Given the different demographics of cities and rural areas, there will never be a rapprochement between the two sides of the argument.

      I expect the diarist to be attacked, but many attacks will be for the wrong reasons.

      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 Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:15:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He will be attacked for many of the right reasons (18+ / 0-)

        He is living a murderous fantasy. No doubt there are many on the rightwing side of things that believe this. They willed be squelched should they dare to fire upon American Citizens. The belief that they could do this is not Patriotism. It is treason.

        "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

        by meagert on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:22:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't read the entire post, but the first few (9+ / 0-)

        paragraphs made sense. I'd no idea background checks were so high these two months, I can't imagine what they've been like since Newtown. The one store I went in just after Christmas was a madhouse.

        I have to say also that though I am on the other side politically most gun folks I know just aren't political at all. Couldn't name their own senator.

        And then there are all those young guys that no one even talks about. Except Deoliver in her post last weekend. They are the vast preponderance of deaths from homicide. Making a country where the factors driving those high numbers of death are reduced would be a lot more expensive and hard work than a ban.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:26:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Congradulations, you found the point!!! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Otteray Scribe, ancblu, 43north

        I would never expect everyone to agree with my politics on this issue.  So far you are the only one to see the point.  The point wasn't to convert people.  The second point was the main point.  Believe what you will, this is my belief.  But the second point, there will be blowback from a gun grab.  I don't want to see any violence.  I think it is important that everyone understand how strongly a significant portion of the population feels.  Everyone is painting gun owners out to be dangerous, generally they are not.  In fact, I have made it 30 years without commiting a crime other than a rolling stop at a stop sign and an 8mph speeding violation.  The problem with passing a law that a significant portion of law enforcement would not enforce and indeed may side with the "criminals" would be unprecedented in America.  When people are prepared to die for a cause, it is a cause you must approach carefully.  Frankly, you hit it on the head.  If you view these patriots as the enemy, then certainly you should know and understand your enemy before you make your move.  Again, the result will be a lose / lose for everyone and for our nation.  I see you are a fan of Sun Tzu, good man.  You understand strategy, beauty about strategy is that it doesn't just apply to the battlefield.  Hope you don't mind if I follow your diaries, even though we may not agree on politics I see that there is uncommon wisdom here.  

        •  Eh ? (6+ / 0-)
          In fact, I have made it 30 years without commiting a crime other than a rolling stop at a stop sign and an 8mph speeding violation.
          Don't you mean the only two crimes you got caught doing in the last 30 years were speeding and red stop violations ? That all the other times you broke the law you were not caught ? Or are you really claiming that the one and only time you went over the speed limit you got caught ?

          "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

          by indycam on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:25:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

            Talk to my lady, she will tell you, I'm 5 mph under the speed limit everywhere I go.  I found it to be such a hassell to be pulled over for speeding then end up needing to show my weapons to the officer when they ask if I have any in the vehicle.  I have made a couple of great friendships that way though.  I have some nice stuff and I always offer the officer to come over and visit if he or she would like anything done with their weapons.  One officer I did put night sights on for.  Good guys, really pro second ammendment most of those cops.  When I was young I did take 75 cents from the family coin jar to buy sour bubble gum, technically that was stealing, I did tell my mom that evening that I took some change for gum.  But your correct, something like that is still stealing.  I fall short, but generally do try to hold myself to a higher standard than that of society, I do stumble sometimes, like anyone I am human.  While not illegal in our society, Gods law says don't lie, any man who has ever dated a woman knows you better lie when she asks certain questions about what we think of their attire (See, we aren't SO different).  As far as criminal laws go, I can honestly say im pretty clean.  I was given enough freedom as a kid to never really feel the need to step to far out of line.  Good parenting with healthy discipline, thanks Mom =)  

        •  Thank you for the kind words. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher, ancblu, 43north

          You may like the diaries I wrote about the battle at Culloden Moor and the massacre of Glencoe.  Also, Hector the Hero.  I try to tie history into current events.  

          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 Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:34:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think we should ban guns (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glorificus, Sue B, blueness

          I think you should have to pay out the ass for keeping toys that are designed to kill people, lots of people.  No one should be able to walk out of the gun show with a weapon or ammunition.  The dealers must be required to call the home owner and car insurance agents of the buyer so the insurance company can do the background check the same way we do in New York State when someone wants license plates for a car.  No proper insurance, no guns.  The Insurance company should be paid for every thing they are required to do in order to underwrite the decision to insure OR NOT.    Once you own a gun, you lose that gun in any way and you're still responsible for it.  

          That's all.  Just the social cost of keeping killing toys in the community.

          Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

          by tikkun on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:24:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting... (0+ / 0-)

            A fair post with something to consider, thankyou for sharing that thought.  Shooting sports have less injuries than golf so the insurance wouldn't be too bad and I do believe that firearms owners should be responsible for their weapons.  What if the weapon is stolen is my only concern.  I'm not saying that you can just say it was stolen, you better have a police report if you are claiming your weapon was stolen.  But if someone steels your car and runs down someone, the car owner should not be responsible.  In general, I think I agree with you... I can certainly see the logic of your point and it seems valid to me.  Now, pay out the ass is a little extreme.  Perhaps something fair.  Find the cost of a general civil suit for a homicide, take that cost and determine the frequency in which homicides occur with a firearm and find the fair price per gun owner.  But you can't include cost for criminal elements who own the weapon illegally (Including not having insurance) into the cost analysis and you also must take into account the number of homicides that are never solved where no one ever ends up paying.  The details would need to be hashed out, but again, if it were fair I don't really think it is a bad idea.  Have like safe owners discounts and such, like me, 12 years without a single injury or homicide.  Give discounts for taking safe weapons handling courses.  I could get on board with that.  Firgure its gotta be less than care insurance since statiscs show there is a car accident every 6 seconds in Chicago and there is not a gun accident nearly that often.  

    •  A repost of an earlier reply from me (0+ / 0-)

      I started reading blogs on this site some time ago.  While there is some degree of craziness on here in my eyes I have really learned a great deal and have actually come to agree with some progressive positions.  I came here to challenge my own views.  This view on gun control is not changed but I believe I have really grown and become a more well rounded person by understanding the views of others.  At the end of the day however I remain a patriot and stand by the constitution.  If it doesn't cross the constitution I am very open minded =)

  •  The problem is, this is not the 18th Century. (24+ / 0-)

    One either sees the Constitution as an evolving document, or one sees it as an ossified one. Very much like the Bible: you either see it as open to evolving interpretations, or one sees it as a literal truth, fully revealed, in Elizabethan English as we all know is the true language of the Bible, just as Georgian English is the true language of the Constitution.

    Or so some people think.

    Some people don't want to walk in that grey area in either the Constitution or the Bible (or Shakespeare, for that matter) called "context", especially cultural context.

    If you really think that any private armory you can amass will protect you from a government that wants to exterminate you, you should see the histories of revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries in Latin America. Frankly, I would suggest to you that you read history. In context.

    What is truth? -- Pontius Pilate

    by commonmass on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:03:29 PM PST

  •  the 2nd solves an obsolete problem, badly (16+ / 0-)

    It is not necessary for the security of a free state, as dozens of other nations have long demonstrated.

    Nor is it sufficient to protect Americans from some mythical government that would enslave them, unless you think your popguns would prevail against high-explosive GPS guided artillery shells fired from drones and tanks over the horizon, not to mention all the other accoutrements of a modern army.

    On the other hand, fundamentalists do use it to prevent sensible laws that would hold people responsible for the deaths that ensue when they make, distribute, sell and use guns.

    Overall it has caused vastly more real observable damage than any mythical benefits it might have bestowed in the figments of some imaginations.

    •  and this is the key issue you have touched on (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JMcDonald, Vote4Obamain2012, Sue B

      guns are totally insufficient in an age of not just tanks, etc., but nuclear weapons, sound weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, etc., etc.

      guns in the hands of patriots will not do a damn thing to preserve our 'freedoms.'

      this is a fantasy.  

      should  there be a shooting civil war again in this nation, the federal government could end it with the use of any combination of the above weapons of mass destruction.

      the framers intent was clear: to resist despotism.  they couldn't have imagined the sorts of weapons i list above and they make the general populace virtually powerless if our standing army should be turned against us.

      sound weapons alone make resistance impossible.  

      Donate to Occupy Wall Street here: http://nycga.cc/donate/

      by BlueDragon on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:30:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What a refreshing batch of reasonableness.n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JMcDonald

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

      by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:55:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We should knuckle under to the gun nuts? (16+ / 0-)

    Oh Noes! they'll buy guns and stuff before the ban takes effect.

    The only mistake was giving the assault weapons ban a sunset the first time.

    "Nothing happens unless first a dream. " ~ Carl Sandburg

    by davewill on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:04:13 PM PST

  •  I too am a patriot. You are also a tool of the gun (24+ / 0-)

    lobby.
    You are saying that we should cave in to the threats of unreasonable, homicidal maniacs who will murder innocent people if they are asked to accept smaller gun cartridges.
    We don't negotiate with terrorist. Sorry.

    Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

    by mungley on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:04:37 PM PST

  •  Sure sounds like one. (6+ / 0-)
    This is not a threat
  •  Germany , England , Australia , Israel . (16+ / 0-)

    You say it can't be done ?
    If they can do it , we can .

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

    First of all, I was raised a hard line conservative.
    Are you now a Democrat ?

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:09:31 PM PST

  •  Fuck You! (6+ / 0-)

    From an armed liberal.
     

    "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

    by meagert on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:09:50 PM PST

  •  You're threatening us with violence. (8+ / 0-)

    Banning is the least of what you deserve.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:13:24 PM PST

  •  It is a valid point of view (10+ / 0-)

    and well expressed. It isn't popular here, but should be heard.

    I will also suggest and alternate meaning for this

    That means that in the last two months alone there are 3.5 million new weapons out there at a minimum.
    Some significant percentage of those will also be votes lost to any politician espousing gun control.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:15:00 PM PST

  •  Highlights from the past . (21+ / 0-)

    You can't free the slaves , its in the constitution !
    Give women folk the vote , over my dead body !
    Man will never fly , mark my words !
    Separate but equal like god intended !
    Land a man on the moon , are you nuts ?
    A black man elected president , not in my lifetime !

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:20:16 PM PST

  •  So, (25+ / 0-)

    that's why Jordan Davis is dead, because "No law abiding patriot would ever fire the first shot " ?

    The person who murdered Jordan Davis was law-abiding, as far as we know, until he fired the first shot.

    The person who murdered 27 precious human beings was law-abiding, until he fired the first shot and murdered his mother.

                        Just my two overwhelmingly sad cents,
                                       Heather

    Torture is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who is inflicting it on whom.

    by Chacounne on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:23:54 PM PST

  •  If you really believe this applies today (13+ / 0-)

    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
    - George Washington

    Should we have local militias who can go toe-to-toe with the the State Police? The Navy Seals? How about the 82nd Airborne? An M1A1 Abrams tank in every driveway?

    This is not just lunacy, it is treason. You are advocating for weapons to support an armed uprising against American police and troops.

    You sir, are nuts.

    Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

    by bear83 on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:25:35 PM PST

  •  A Right to Bear Arms is Not Recognized By Civili- (20+ / 0-)

    zation. Societies that are safer than ours and that deliver more of the American dream to their people than we do to ours, don't recognize a right to bear arms.

    Not having a right is not the same thing as not having access to the object. The Constitution gives you no right to a car, to lodging, to food, or to rockets, but millions have all these things.

    An individual right to bear arms is proven worldwide to be unnecessary to either a well-regulated militia or to the security of a free state. Especially since we all now have well-regulated militia in the form of police, national guard, and the standing army that so worried the framers.

    Tell you what. You work on following the framers' preference for no standing army, and I'll reconsider the framers' intent about the right to bear arms.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:30:33 PM PST

    •  "are safer than ours", yes they are. And that's (0+ / 0-)

      not in spite of deescalating firearms involvement, but because.

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

      by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:16:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it has a lot to do with a decent civil (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        society, including universal heath care, education and transport. Not guns.

        With higher taxes, but you have a nicer life.

        Of course, we are huge in comparison to Europe, so we need to spend more attention on making mass transport affordable. What a potential gold mine for renewable energy research and development!!

        Also, our education is supposed to be much less expensive pre-college while our health care is getting some improvement through Obamacare.

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

        by glorificus on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:40:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course. On the other hand trying to get RKBA (0+ / 0-)

          types to agree that IF (and obviously a very big if) we had no guns here there would be no gun deaths is a near impossibility. Their brains just don't work that way, even for the lefties.

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

          by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:43:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If there was no crime, there would be no (0+ / 0-)

            homicides.

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

            by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:29:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think that one goes back to Cain and Abel. (0+ / 0-)

              Modern firearms are a much more recent invention. And one that, in many, many respects, has simply outlived its usefulness.

              Here's my last personal firearm experience (of many, my undergrad was wildlife/fisheries biology).

              1978, 79, something. Before heading out on a major smuggling situation, I thought that I'd hit the deer opener, so I hit the sporting goods store for a license and a Browning '06. One bullet through the barrel to see where it was shooting, and one bullet through the barrel for the buck that jumped. Worked alone for seven hours to get him off of the mountain, and then gave the deer and the browning to my father.

              Last sighting I know of for the Browning was when my nephew ate the barrel a couple of years ago.

              True story. One of too many millions.

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

              by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:51:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Interesting story. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy

                I don't know the background of what happened with your nephew but when my uncle had some mental issues, my family took his guns away.

                Which is how it should be.

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

                by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:05:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You know what, being a convicted person in Utah, (0+ / 0-)

                  I can't touch a gun, period. But, anyway, is being depressed about your hot wife screwing a rich dude, and packing to move the 4 kids to his place even mental illness?

                  I thought that mental illness might well have been that the mess being cleaned up had been from someone other than himself.

                  I thought that silently doing yourself only, instead of others also, might be some modern version of chivalry.

                  Stupid! Real stupid, but at least not evil.

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

                  by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:02:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm all for your right to kill yourself (as (0+ / 0-)

                    long as you're a legal adult). My example was not to suggest that your nephew was mentally ill; it was someone doing firearms away from someone who was suicidal.

                    Apologies. Rereading my comment...well, it was phrased poorly.

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

                    by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:36:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I'm sorry about your nephew. (0+ / 0-)

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

                by glorificus on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:03:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're so kind. Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  glorificus

                  In a way, I wish that we had been close, but my spending eight years in federal prison had an inevitable affect on family ties.

                  So goes The Drug War.

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

                  by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 06:15:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  First of all paragraph breaks are your friend. (6+ / 0-)

    Second your argument is just plain silly.  By your logic, we should not have any laws because they will be broken.  

    Speak softly and carry a big can of tuna.

    by Cat Whisperer on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:31:46 PM PST

  •  I couldn't afford this diary... (6+ / 0-)

    I want the time out of my life it took me to read it back...

    Baby, where I come from...

    by ThatSinger on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:41:41 PM PST

  •  The issue is not about you, it's about thousands (8+ / 0-)

    of needless deaths due to the proliferation of guns.

    ❧To thine ownself be true

    by Agathena on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:48:06 PM PST

  •  The founders (8+ / 0-)

    didn't live in a time where firing 30 rounds with one pull of the trigger seemed feasible. The constitution is a living, breathing document. All of the amendments evolve over time. There are limits to freedom of speech press and religion.

    We can limit a right without necessarily taking away said right. We can limit the amount of weapons specifically meant to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time as possible without violating the spirit of the second amendment. That is my belief.

    Civility, courtesy, kindness. The CK mantra.

    by rexymeteorite on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:49:21 PM PST

  •  some interesting content. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, polecat, OldSoldier99, 43north

    but for the wingnutty stuff about oath keepers and whatnot I'd t&r.

  •  Bottom line (7+ / 0-)

    you just don't want to have to give up your hobby.
    All the rest is just BS.

  •  after reading the rest of this post I have to say (9+ / 0-)

    I'm not into it.

    The threat is that if we continue to work for a gun ban (those of us who would like one I guess) there will be massive civil unrest and WWIII and all that.

    Frankly the threat of some crazed militia folks not liking something should be no reason to not make a law. Heck if anything I'd be inclined to gun restrictions knowing some militia types were going all nutty on us. Are there laws about sedition?

    556 or 223 it's all the same to me, red state that a way --->

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:54:45 PM PST

  •  Wow, I just love these arguments that run thusly: (13+ / 0-)

    "Please, citizens, back off this idea of gun control because people won't like it.  There will be a fight!"

    As if we have ever backed off an idea for such a silly reason?

    I agree with others here who see this diary for what it is: NRA propoganda.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 06:58:34 PM PST

  •  Well well, another civil war threat (14+ / 0-)

    It's good to have some examples of this kind of extremism, for when the other gun enthusiasts complain about it being mentioned.

    This diary claims the mantle of 'patriot,' and sullies it in the process.

    There is nothing so ridiculous that some philosopher has not said it. -- Cicero

    by tytalus on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:00:26 PM PST

  •  By your original intent definition, then an "arm" (4+ / 0-)

    could only fire every 20 seconds, under ideal circumstances, and was a breach-loader.

    Black powder MUSKET.  Not a Bushmaster.  Not accurate, not 30-100 rounds, not every 1/3 of a second, NOT A RIFLE.

    And I have a right to be safe out in public without a maniac with a semi-automatic spewing forth without thinking first.

    Shall we get into the definition of Militia, now?

    Oh and the HR is for "...Flavor of the Month..."

    *sshole.

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

    by polecat on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:01:19 PM PST

  •  Paranoid, foolish, cowardly fantasist (6+ / 0-)

    you are.

    Walter Mitty with a bad attitude, and more money than sense.

    You and your pop guns will mean less than nothing against the police, SWAT, national guard, ATF, army should your idiotic fantasies of government crackdown and martial law come to pass.

    The difference between the ordinance they have available and would bring to bear in the case of civil unrest and the weaponry you boast about you and your ilk possessing is on par with the difference between an ironside, steam-driven, cannon-carrying warship and a modern aircraft carrier.

    The only thing you have that is smaller than your mind is your shriveled, cowering excuse for cojones.

    The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

    by RedDan on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:03:23 PM PST

    •  I would add that (9+ / 0-)

      you should probably spend a good bit of time reading about revolutionary history of the last 250 years. You will find the following basic patterns repeated over and over:

      1) armed militias do not win revolutions, mass action of the majority of the populace in key sectors of the nation win revolutions by, first and foremost, suborning and converting the standing armed forces and security apparatus.

      2) revolutions are lost and devolve into bloody anarchy when vast numbers of people, untrained, uncoordinated, undisciplined and uncontrolled, take to the streets with armaments.

      3) the American "revolution" was actually a territorial fight over profits and the right to manufacture finished goods from local raw materials - it was a fight between progressive aristocracy and a decaying monarchy headed by a syphilitic moron.

      4) That "revolution" was not won by armed citizens in self-governing militia... it was won via the intervention of French forces and Germanic mercenaries on behalf of the American mercantilists. What battles were won by Americans were done so via the actions of British military units and commanders that turned coat for one reason or another.

      So shove that down your small bore and tamp it with some gun cotton.

      The only way to ensure a free press is to own one

      by RedDan on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:12:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mmmm... (15+ / 0-)

    Cheese sandwich

    Ingredients
    2 slices of bread
    1 slice of cheese
    Mayonnaise (optional)

    Directions

    1. Place slice of cheese on one slice of bread.
    2. Spread mayonnaise on second bread slice (optional)
    3. Place second slice of bread on top of cheese slice
    4. Nom

    "Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
    -- Dr. Peter Venkman


    Join me, Anne C. Savage & LOLGOP at Eclectablog.com.

    by Eclectablog on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:10:28 PM PST

  •  I did not HR this diary because it commented in it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jeff in nyc, tardis10

    but I would have, had I not been ready to try to engage. Apparently, our "militia" friends burn history books. So, no engagement, and, because I don't mind following rules, no HR.

    What is truth? -- Pontius Pilate

    by commonmass on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:11:42 PM PST

  •  Diarist appears to be the resurfacing of a prior (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Susan G in MN, Vote4Obamain2012

    dKos member.  Already is following an old-timer and has aeou following him.

    Not ready to say socket of puppiness, but I'm paying attention now.

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

    by polecat on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:13:14 PM PST

  •  We have nothing to fear but fear itself. And (3+ / 0-)

    innocent children blasted into oblivion.

    No political advantage is worth that price.  

  •  This bit is baloney: (13+ / 0-)
    The Constitution does not grant us these rights, these rights are given to us by our creator.  Rather this document provides us with a shield.  
    If there were any such thing as "God-given rights" then everyone on the planet would have them.   Rights are demanded and claimed and defended by people, not given by God.

    This .signature unintentionally left blank.

    by Avast Ye Swobbie on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:28:27 PM PST

  •  HR'd ... (5+ / 0-)

    both for apparently supporting the "oathkeepers" ... WTF?

    Your profile and this diary does not bode well for a long stay here.

     

    "If you are sure you understand everything that is going on around you, you are hopelessly confused." Walter Mondale

    by klompendanser on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:30:39 PM PST

  •  References for legal history buffs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theboz

    For people who like to challenge their beliefs, some references for the side of the argument that most here don't like:

    http://constitution.org/... a legal scholar's take on the worst drafted sentence in the Constitution.

    http://www.amazon.com/... , some history of where the 2d came from.

    There are plenty of arguments on the other side, of course, not to mention the more fundamental argument about whether the 2d is an anachronism.

  •  Really (3+ / 0-)

    You really think you and your milita will be able to fight the U.S. armed forces if they decide you have gone rogue.Can you fight against tanks,helicopters etc?

    •  Totally missed the point bro (0+ / 0-)

      That is not the point.  First of all the military can not be used against American citizens on American soil.  Second of all, most members of our team are the military.  You make it out like a patriot is some wierd alien from another planet.  We are your neighbors, your police officers, your sailors, marines, dentists, lawyers.  We are the guys that built your house, fixed your plumbing.  We are the people whos house your kids come into when they go to play with their friend from school, yep, chances are your kids friend may be the son or daughter of a patriot.  You missed the point.  Part of the point was that those you claim you would send against your fellow Americans are not going to follow those orders, you may be suprised how many.  We shoot with those police officers at the range in our free time on pistol leagues.  We have dinner with thier families, some of us are those police officers.  We don't have to fight these people, because we are these people.  Do you really think you can disarm 80 million of us is the better question.  I am saying, lets not find out, because as I mentioned earlier, it is a lose / lose  

  •  Gave a zero because of manufactured lies (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012, WakeUpNeo

    and other BS intended to derail an issue that needs attention from honest players.

    “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 Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:08:25 PM PST

  •  Thank you for posting this diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow

    There is quite a bit that I disagree with that you've posted.  It reminds me a lot of arguments I've had with relatives over politics and gun control in particular.  That being said, I think we should all recognize that you are attempting to start a dialog and you are trying to understand the beliefs and opinions of people you disagree with.  For that, I appreciate you putting yourself on the line despite knowing that you would be insulted and criticized, and hope that it doesn't run you off from reading the site.

    Perhaps later I'll write a longer response discussing why I disagree with you, but the main point is that I believe the Constitution to be a living document that needs to be updated rather than a scripture-like perfect document.  The Articles of Confederation was a failure, and the Constitution has been pretty good but it's not perfect.  It needs more refining, and the 2nd amendment is an area that we need to update as a nation.  For the record, I'm a gun owning liberal who does want to see some common sense gun control put in place.

    •  Thankyou.... (0+ / 0-)

      It is encouraging to see replys like this.  There have been several encouraging replies.  I am not angry, in fact I would consider myself very patient and level headed.  I posted this not to cause anger or hatred or animocity.  I posted this because it needed to be posted.  Both sides need to truly understand the other.  I believe meaningful gun reform does not always mean we get what we want.  There has been a great deal of give already.  We can not have automatic weapons, silencers, grenades, and all the other weapons our founders wanted us to have.  From a constitutional stand point I understand that it was intended that the public should have access to these.  This is where I will always have conflict.  As a patriot and follower of the constitution, even though in my heart I know we probably shouldnt have grenade launchers and rockets on the streets I am compelled to stick to the intent of the constitution.  I would very much like to hear your thoughts as it seems you are a level headed individual who can respectfully disagree.  

      •  Oh my ! (6+ / 0-)
        We can not have automatic weapons, silencers, grenades, and all the other weapons our founders wanted us to have.

        2nd Amendment December 15, 1791
        vs

        The world's first automatic rifle was the Mexican Mondragón rifle and was designed by General Manuel Mondragón. He began work in 1882 and patented the weapon in 1887.
        Early suppressors were created around the beginning of the 20th century by several inventors. American inventor Hiram Percy Maxim (not to be confused with Hiram Stevens Maxim, Hiram Percy's father, and the inventor of the Maxim Machine Gun), is credited with inventing and selling the first commercially successful models circa 1902 (patented 30 March 1909).[4] Maxim gave his device the trademarked name Maxim Silencer.
        So you think the founders wanted you to have what had not yet been invented ?

        "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

        by indycam on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:57:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The U.S. is not the same as it was back then (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not sure what the modern equivalent of owning a cannon is.  Weapons of mass destruction simply didn't exist back then.  As a result, I think we all agree that the general public shouldn't be able to own nuclear missiles, for example.  Where we all disagree is on what point below that we should draw the line.  I don't pretend to have the answer there.  My personal opinion is that due to the Posse Comitatus Act, as well as the fact that the military are made up from the general public and not really separated from us, it's ok for the military to have access to things we don't.  Our military would refuse to pick up arms against us, especially since their loyalty is to the Constitution and the American people much more than politicians or Washington D.C.

        Also, I do support some gun control.  It seems reasonable to me to require those of us that use guns to be trained, not be criminals, not suffer from strong mental illness, etc.  I don't think the 2nd Amendment means that the right to bear arms is without any limits.  I don't support a "ban cool looking guns" law like the one that expired last year.  As you know, it is nonsensical for the same gun to be ok with a wooden stock, but somehow an evil banned thing if you put a composite material stock on it.  I also don't think banning guns that can accept a bayonet on the front is useful either, as I've not heard of any instances of bayonets being used in massacres.

        The bottom line that I see as the underlying problem is that we are dealing with social issues here.  Bad economics, the diminishing of the social safety net, the collapse of our collective society in favor of too extreme individualism, and many other things are causing things like these gun massacres to happen.  I don't think it's coincidence that the vast majority of people who go on shooting rampages are middle class white boys and men.  How many African American or hispanic mass murderers have you heard about in the news?  Sure, you may hear about a robbery gone wrong or something like that, but the batshit crazy folks that make the national news tend to be white middle class and male.  Why is that?

      •  Only problem is you don't belong in this (0+ / 0-)

        community, so you won't and shouldn't last long, as much as I deplore some of the replies you've received here. I think I can say with confidence that you have no interest in electing leftist/progressive Democrats to local, state, and federal office; or in furthering leftist/progressive political causes.

        You signed on knowing you weren't a fit, so you should wo/man up and go voluntarily.

        YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

        by raincrow on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:14:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Tip Jar HRed for lies (debunked quotes from... (14+ / 0-)

    ...the Founding Fathers) and extremism:

    There are many out there honing their skills and stock piling ammunition.  No law abiding patriot would ever fire the first shot.  No law abiding patriot will abide a law that desecrates their liberties either.  
    The language here and the comments throughout the rest of the diary indicates that he is indeed one of these patriots. And while he says that "no law-abiding patriot" would fire the first shot, he also says none would give up their guns. So, if somebody says you have to give up your AR-15 and 30-round banana clips, and you are a "patriot" who won't do so, how do you NOT do so without resisting. The impression given is of bloody shoot-outs, not peaceful civil disobedience.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:12:30 PM PST

  •  Sorry dude... (8+ / 0-)

    you have a fetish about weapons meant only to kill. You love to go and "have BBQ and shoot guns". Wow. Makes you quite the man, eh?

    I have no problem with someone wanting to own a gun to hunt or, perhaps, to defend their home. I DO have a problem with gun fetishists like yourself who see nothing wrong with people amassing a store of weapons larger than some small countries; who think it's A-OK for anyone and everyone to have access to an UZI or an automatic rifle that can fire a 100-round banana clip. What the FUCK for??????

    I ask you...who the fuck are you so afraid of that you need such weapons? Do you really hate your fellow man so much that you feel the need to kill someone...just jonesin' for it? Do you stay up nights playing video games where the prime objective is to walk around a city shooting citizens for fun, watching their bodies rip apart in a haze of blood and bone, getting a hard-on from their screams?

    Sorry dude. You are one sick puppy.

    And, no, the Founding Fathers would NOT agree with you. back in their day they thought every house should have a musket for hunting and in case they needed one. But they also thought the local men (and men only, BTW) should get together on the village green to form a militia to protect the citizenry (probably from fascist assholes like you). They didn't envision a nation where any yahoo with enough money could go in and buy a semi-automatic that could pump a dozen bullets into a 2nd grader for fun.

    Fuck you and your gun fetish. Want to hunt? Fine. Hunters are, by and large, great people - conscious of the environment, using their kill, etc. I also have no problem with folks who want to protect their home with a handgun, given that they learn how to use it, are licensed and follow the rules.

    But yahoos like you? yahoos whose every waking moment is focused on his rod? Not so much.

    Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

    by MA Liberal on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:28:22 PM PST

  •  So - do you favor legal private ownership of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bhut jolokia, Vote4Obamain2012

    Rocket propelled grenades?
    Fully automatic weapons?
    Shoulder fired antiaircraft missiles?
    Operational tanks?
    Heavy Artillery?
    Sarin Gas?  

    If not, why not?  Those all would be consistent with this would they not?  

    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
    - George Washington

    If you don't support those please explain why.

  •  HR'd for RW talking points in the extreme (10+ / 0-)

    This is a troll diary, folks. I don't care if you support the 2nd Amendment or not. This diary came straight out of the NRA, RW-talking point playbook. It's frankly an embarrassment in more than one way to Democratic 2nd Amendment supporters. About the only RW talking point this diary didn't throw in was a mention of NASCAR and a cardboard beer girl.

    Y'all see it, right? Because I'm seeing a lot of uprates on what is literally a diary mocking Democratic gun owners and kind of pushing the envelope to see how far right this site will go. Plus, this diarist kind of has a history of doing this.

    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 Jan 03, 2013 at 10:55:10 PM PST

  •  Sorry, but no. (4+ / 0-)

    "I implore everyone who reads this to back off the idea of weapon bans, constitutional infringement, and any more gun control."

    You can pin that wish to your rear end and kiss it goodbye. I will not rest until guns are as socially and legally unacceptable as drugs.

    "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

    by Killer of Sacred Cows on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 11:42:48 PM PST

  •  The 2nd amendment isn't the issue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WakeUpNeo

    When people who are having a psychotic episode can easily get hold of a really high capacity weapon that allows them to kill dozens before anyone can possibly react, and then keep on shooting because of high capacity magazines, Houston, we have a problem.

    People who are philosophically opposed to being part of the social compact and who are rational enough to invest money in buying up weapons are not really the issue.

    In the Lanza case, interestingly, the mother was a paranoid who thought she needed guns basically for the same reason a lot of the people going out to stockpile them now seem to be.  

    It looks like her failure was in thinking that practice with guns was therapeutic for her son, who really needed serious help.  It seems that getting into the problem of schools, parents and early mental illness could have worked better.  She should have taken the guns to a bank and locked them in a safe deposit box for a while.  

    When you look at specific cases like that there are components.  

    The easiest ones to deal with are those that might have a chance of keeping the mass kill capacity out of the hands of a kid who was not acting from rational purpose.  

    We really need to study what is going on with these cases and work on the parts that can be handled better.  

    Hopefully the commission that Obama gave Biden to set up a group to look at this will come up with some ideas that can be turned into practical legislation.  

    No way is it going to come close to "rounding up all the guns."  I would think some restrictions for really high capacity weapons of mass destruction would be about the limit of political practicality.  

    I would hope that support for the mission that schools already have, utilizing training that teachers already have, perhaps with additional support for school psychologists, could be added to the toolkit.  We have been undercutting the mission schools are supposed to be fulfilling for decades.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:25:13 AM PST

  •  Yes. Step over the bodies, wipe blood off feet, (6+ / 0-)

    and by all means, let's not talk about any restriction on the availability of lethal military-grade weapons for any idiot with a grudge. No discussion permitted.

  •  fuck this noise (0+ / 0-)

    just shove it up your gun barrel.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 05:01:11 PM PST

  •  I disagree with you AND with the donut throwers (0+ / 0-)

    But you're a troll, and you admit it, so I guess in the end you should be removed from the site if you won't voluntarily GBCW.

    I agree that part of the reason for keeping firearms is the ability -- however rarely needed and however increasingly limited by superior military technology -- to mount a short-term insurrection should the need ever arise.

    But this is sadly the right opportunity to try to impose more commonsense rules on gun ownership, transfer, possession, and carry; it's the right time to press for repeal of Stand Your Ground laws; and it's the perfect time to roll back federal laws that obstruct data collection and research on gun crime. If we're serious about the lawful exercise of our RKBA, we should be equally serious about facing the consequences of that right and seeing all the dirty laundry -- including the FFLs and military armories that just * happen * to be leaking a lot of weapons into the wrong hands.

    I worry about the political fallout from federal attempts at gun control, except for restrictions on high-capacity magazine sales, manufacture, and importation; but states should proceed with all due haste to restrict private transfers of firearms (well designed for the inevitable trip to SCOTUS), and challenge the right of the dangerously mentally ill and households wracked by domestic disputes to keep firearms (again, well designed for the trip to SCOTUS). The latter is perhaps the most constitutionally dicey proposition of the lot to my eye.

    As for all those panic firearms sales, (a) a few million more guns in an ocean of 270 million+ is a drop in the bucket, and (b) a jim-dandy buyback program would suck a lot of them back up if the price is right.

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 07:07:37 PM PST

  •  Idea (0+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately, the argument that weapons are a constitutional right is somewhat of a moot point. The constitution is simply a document of ideals, which although good depend upon popular opinion in order to survive. The Weimar, Soviet, and U.S constitution prove that a piece of paper is of little hindrance for a politician and an ignorant public.  Instead, the argument should ask whether self defense ought to be a right. I can understand the desire to achieve a Utopian ideal where humans have risen above human nature and violence, but you must ask what cost you are willing to pay for a temporary society that suppresses all that is human. Always remember that Utopia exists on the same plane as genocide and is hence, "unattainable". It is my humble opinion that an “armed society is a polite society”.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site