Skip to main content

A young boy is comforted outside Sandy Hook Elementary School after a shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, December 14, 2012. A shooter opened fire at the elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, on Friday, killing several people including children, the Ha
The battle over doing anything at all continues:
Meanwhile, in an effort to publicly demonstrate his gun-rights chops, Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) drew applause from constituents at a local event when he pulled off his suit jacket to display an NRA T-shirt underneath.

“You know, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It’s about safety,” Thompson said, telling the crowd that he carries his concealed carry permit on him at all times. “If someone is coming into my house in the middle of the night to hurt my family, I want as many bullets as possible.”

“I do not want the Obama administration to have anything like a registry of guns,” Thompson added, on the subject of background checks.

1. There is a fairly old idea floating around that politicians should have to wear the logos of the corporations and lobbying groups they're beholden to. Was that where you got your idea from, Rep. Thompson?

2. What does a "registry of guns" have to do with your ability to pump many, many bullets into anyone who might enter your house in the middle of the night? Are the bullets only effective if they're secret? Would using registered guns detract from the sexual titillation of imagining yourself as the action-film hero of your family's imaginary firefight?

3. Why do you want "as many bullets as possible" for your imaginary firefight with (a) your cat, who has just knocked a lamp off the table or (b) your child, who had snuck out earlier and was trying to come back in unannounced or (c) the neighbor kid, coming to boost your HDTV or (d) Mexican drug cartels, who have decided to annex your hallway bathroom and turn it into their new cartel break room? Are you that bad a shot? Do you imagine that taking time to reload after pumping a single-digit number of bullets into your foe will allow them to regenerate?

4. How many mass murders do we need to allow, each year, in order for you to continue your little masturbatory fantasy about killing imaginary people who come into your home in the middle of the night? How many accidental shootings? How much gang violence? How many similarly high-powered guns going to the very people you're supposedly protecting yourself from? How many children finding their parents loaded arsenals under the bed, each year, the arsenals that couldn't be locked up or otherwise made inaccessible because then your little masturbatory fantasy about easily spraying your own home with gunfire in the middle of any random night would seem slightly less immediate? Name your price, Mr. Thompson. If the status quo is a fine and decent price to pay, what would constitute too much, and sway you to action?

5. Why should the rest of us put up with your little masturbatory fantasies at all, given the obvious toll they have been extracting?

Originally posted to Hunter on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:42 AM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Shut Down the NRA, and Daily Kos.

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

  •  Fantasy or paranoid delusion? (35+ / 0-)

    I can't tell which is more whack, this kind of home-defense fantasy or the "defending against tyranny" trope.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:51:42 AM PDT

  •  Another one bite the dust... (10+ / 0-)

    Boy, the GOP are the gift that keeps on giving.  More targets for re-election!

    Now regardless of rather Thompson's Congressional district is conservative or not, do we have a Democratic challenger to him yet?

  •  More Questions (15+ / 0-)

    It says he carries his "concealed carry permit on him at all times" Apparently even when he isn't carrying. Why? Is it like a religious thing when he feels empowered through written word? How many bullets does he stuff into the permit?

    Also, isn't having a concealed carry permit a bit like gun registry? So, why so proud of government regulation? Wouldn't he prefer goverment completely out, so everyone can carry freely without permit, regardless of concealment?

    Just some answers I would like to know, at risk of possibly lowering my own IQ.

    Talk to me, not at me.

    by sgt sarcasm on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:56:29 AM PDT

  •  How much blowback will he get (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, a2nite, caul, schnecke21

    from the NRA  crowd for this part ?

    “You know, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:04:56 PM PDT

  •  If you don't care about registries (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aunt Pat, FrankRose, noway2, Shamash

    then would you mind if we expunge them entirely?

    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

    by Patrick Costighan on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:29:25 PM PDT

    •  I'm surprised you didn't respond to this, Pat: (10+ / 0-)
      How many mass murders do we need to allow, each year, in order for you to continue your little masturbatory fantasy about killing imaginary people who come into your home in the middle of the night?
      Because as you and I know, Pat, having those 30-round magazines is essential to protecting one's home and family.

      Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

      by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:00:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  if no guns have ever been confiscated through (8+ / 0-)

      registries in the US, Pat, then what the hell are you so paranoid about?

      Is Australia gonna come and take your gunz? Certainly the US government never will--even if it had the physical means to do so.

      •  Don't worry about it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        If you don't care, why are you so adamant about registration?

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:29:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  nice evasion. I'll ask again: (5+ / 0-)

          If no guns have ever been confiscated through registries in the US, then what the hell are you so paranoid about?

          No need to answer, Pat.  The question itself makes my point nicely.

          Although your refusal to answer does reinforce it nicely, too. . . .

          •  And I'll tell you again, don't worry about it. (0+ / 0-)

            So can I take it that you're all right with eliminating registration?  Thank you.

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:33:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Because by your standard, the only way to prevent (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001

            an attempted confiscation is after said confiscation has occurred.

            NY and Cali have attempted confiscations (with one resulting in people having to flee with their object to keep it from being confiscated)
            Australia & GB, stated models for gun controllers, used registration for confiscation.
            It is beyond debate that registration has led to, at minimum, attempted confiscations.

            Do you support warrantless wiretaps by saying "what innocent person was convicted by warrantless wiretaps?"

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:53:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  flee..!!..for the love of gun... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, FogCityJohn, anana

              grab your babies and flee...the Australians are coming to take your guns...the dingo ate my baby gun..!!

              oh...wait...we have a thing called the 2nd amendment.

              do you cuddle at night with you Assault Weapon Baby..??..because everyday 80 real live people lose their right to cuddle...forever.


              We are not broke, we are being robbed.

              by Glen The Plumber on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:16:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uh.....'flee' is exactly what happened in NYC (0+ / 0-)

                I don't own an 'assault weapon', simply don't believe in infringing on any of the current liberties of innocent Americans out of distrust and fear.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:36:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  oh no...those poor innocent... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero

                  felons, domestic abusers and people ruled unsafe by a court.

                  are you afraid you can't pass a background check..??..or more concerned about the decreased sales the gun and ammo manufacturers will suffer..??


                  We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                  by Glen The Plumber on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:52:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Glen, what about the liberties of (2+ / 0-)

                    innocent gun and ammo manufacturers?

                    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                    by coquiero on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:54:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  "AWB". (0+ / 0-)

                    You better check with the President.

                    UBC would be a done deal if it wasn't introduced along with the AWB.
                    Strangely, it seems that people don't trust that the UBC won't be used for banning guns, when the UBC plan was introduced with a specific plan for banning guns.

                    Maybe you can convince them otherwise, Glen. You seem to be a stand-up guy.....Just don't forget to mention that you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment while you are at it.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:04:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  ah, and now the posse shows up . . . . . (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, Glen The Plumber

              Tell us how many guns have been confiscated in the US, Frank . . . .

              Then bleat to us about Australia or something.

              (snicker)  <---yes, Frank, I am laughing at you.

            •  a fluke (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, Glen The Plumber

              as you know, because you were in the thread where it was explained:

              Eight decades of no confiscations of... (2+ / 0-)

                  ...registered machine-guns. One screw-up in California but no confiscations of any of the other weapons designated assault weapons by the same law. One state rep tries to introduce an ungrandfathering of registered assault weapons and he can't even get a committee hearing in the most Democratic legislature in three decades in one of the nation's strictest gun-regulation states. One example of get your guns out of town in New York.

                  Sorry, I don't see any slipperiness to this imaginary slope you think we're on.

              once again, spamming debunked talking points.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:27:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey, I encourage Frank to continue (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Laurence Lewis, Glen The Plumber

                to butt heads with MB and spam debunked "studies".

                Please proceed, Frank...

                I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                by coquiero on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:36:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  1) old shit, new diary (0+ / 0-)

                  2) Try to make your own arguments. MB can handle his own.
                  3) They aren't 'debunked'. MB simply doesn't prefer them to polls that support his conclusion. Which is generally how debates work.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:42:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  no... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero
                    3) They aren't 'debunked'. MB simply doesn't prefer them to polls that support his conclusion.
                    you cherry picked from the poll you liked...and ignored the rest.

                    just like the poll you like to post that shows those against stricter gun laws holding steady since '94...even going up since 12/14...very good for you.

                    but you don't link the other tab from the same poll...which shows support of stricter guns laws varying wildly since '94...but always 15 points higher than against.


                    We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                    by Glen The Plumber on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:06:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hey, I just love seeing Frank called out on his (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber

                      BS spam behavior on this site.

                      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                      by coquiero on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:12:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Me and CBS. (0+ / 0-)

                      CBS.

                      When have you mentioned the CBS poll showing 'support for gun control' dropping 10%?
                      Where you have linked the CNN poll showing a drop of 9%?
                      Bill Clinton saying that gun control cost the Dems 20 house seats?
                      Support for gun control consistently dropping over a 20 year trend?
                      Support for gun rights consistently growing over a 20 year trend?
                      1994 having less support for gun control than today?
                      You aren't living up to your absurd standard.

                      Let's try doing it this way instead:
                      I will make my point & cite supporting evidence.
                      You make your point & cite supporting evidence.
                      That is generally the way debates work.

                      Let's make a bet on it......
                      The loser of the debate has to complain about the winner not citing the loser's supporting points.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:56:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You should post it again (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber, Laurence Lewis

                        I don't think we've see that link enough.

                        I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                        by coquiero on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:22:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  yet again (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                        with the zombie lie

                        And you continue STILL to OMIT... (55+ / 0-)

                        ...the specific questions that the Center for American Progress's analysis of this matter makes clear are the better informants as to what people's actual views are. You avoid taking note of the specific instead of generic questions from CBS and other polls that show how bogus your claim is of a plunge in support for actual proposals being considered to be bogus.  

                        I made clear in my diary that I was speaking about two polls ("based on two polls, most particularly a CBS News poll"). But the most relevant one is the CBS News Poll because it mentions specific proposals. Why do you keep avoiding discussing them?

                        Since you want to discuss the CNN/ORC poll, here's the question from THAT poll which puts the kibosh on your bogus claim:

                        Which of the following statements comes closest to your view:

                        March 15-17, 2013
                        There should be no restrictions on owning guns: 17%
                        There should be some restrictions on owning guns: 70%
                        All guns should be illegal for everyone
                        except police and authorized personnel: 12%

                        Dec. 17-18, 2012

                        No restrictions: 13%
                        Some restrictions: 71%
                        Illegal for everyone except cops: 15%

                        Keeping in mind that the margin of error is ±3, please show me the huge change from poll taken right after Newton until mid-March.

                        The distortion being injected into the discussion by your selective use of the CBS and CNN polls is the sign of the fabricator. It's just like several of your other transparent attempts to distort the facts in polling discussions with Greg Dworkin and in distorting the results of a poll in which you claim (falsely) that Obama was "trounced" on the trust issue around handling gun regulations by Congress.

                        You ignore evidence you don't like, and you cite selectively, even after being patiently shown how distorting this technique is. Lying by omission is a mild description of your actual game.

                        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                        by Laurence Lewis on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 08:55:02 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That doesn't 'put the cabash' on my claim. (0+ / 0-)

                          CBS, themselves, reported this as a result of their poll.
                          CNN had a similar poll, with similar results.

                          I have this strange idea that a poll about the public's attitude of 'gun control' should include a question about 'gun control'.
                          Simply because you prefer that 'gun control' isn't polled when polling for gun control, doesn't 'put the kabash' on anything.

                          You may well find polls that ask about specific measures to be more useful, but it neither 'puts the kabash on' nor is it a 'debunking'. It is a preference for a type of poll cited to measure the public's opinion on gun control.

                          These polls asked the exact same question 3 months ago & support for gun control in both polls has dropped 10% & 9%, why do you think that happened? Because people have increased support for gun control? (Hint:No)

                          As Obama is losing on the issue of trust on this issue to the least popular congress in history, 44%-42%, with 50%-33% of independents & 11% of Democrats, it looks to me that although people may want a UBC in theory, they don't trust the same person whom specifically introduced a gun ban, to not use said UBC to ban guns.

                          And with certain people making no secret of their desire to "Repeal the 2nd Amendment", the issue isn't the proposal but the application of gun control, itself.

                          AWB and magazine restriction has poisoned the waters. If not for those proposals I think UBC would have passed.
                          Now? Maybe....at best. And whether or not UBC is passed, it isn't UBC that Dems will have to run against. It will be AWB, registration, magazine limits......in short, 'gun control'.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:22:18 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  yet again (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                            ignoring what is stated directly to you. repeating lies right after they are refuted. it is all you do

                            You continue to ignore...

                            • the Center for American Progress's evaluation of the worth of responses to generic gun-regulation questions vs. specific questions.

                            • the fact that the Quinnipiac Poll taken the first week of April shows 53 percent in favor of stricter controls and 42 percent not in favor.

                            • the Marist Poll taken the last week of March showing 60 percent in favor of stricter laws vs. 38 percent wanting to keep them as is or less strict.

                            • the Washington Post poll taken the second week of March showing 52 percent vs. 45 percent. (A drop of just 2 percent in support since December, with a margin of error of 3.5 percent).

                            You cherry-pick polls. You ignore the fact that Americans still support specific new gun regulations with the exception, in some polls, of the assault weapons ban.

                            This creates a false picture of the real situation.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:37:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It isn't a 'lie' it is the results of the polls. (0+ / 0-)

                            I notice that you didn't cite the CNN or CBS poll....does that mean you 'lied'?
                            Or is the laughable requirement to include polls that support someone else's argument only reserved for me?

                            Tell you what:
                            You make an argument and then cite supporting evidence.
                            I will make an argument and then cite supporting evidence.
                            That is generally how a debate works.

                            And let's make it interesting:
                            Loser of the debate has to shamelessly whine about the winner not making the loser's argument for him.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 10:15:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  your lies are debunked (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                            right there in those two links. you spam lies. endlessly.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 10:17:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Quote my 'lie'. (0+ / 0-)

                            Don't worry Laurence, I have links.
                            I'll be happy to link them again for you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 10:22:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you mistake this (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                            for a debate. it is not. it is a debunking of zombie lies. the facts elucidated by meteor blades, and your continuing to spam your zombie lies despite those facts, speaks for itself.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 11:30:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Huh. No quote. (0+ / 0-)

                            Go figure.
                            Way to bring your A-game, big-guy.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:10:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  you're (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    you're the one making pro nra crap.

                •  did you check the parent comments..?? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero

                  he and Re: Patrick have a whole confiscation conspiracy theory  worked out...yikes...paranoid much..??

                  and should we explain to Patrick it is not the trolls that post recipes..??


                  We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                  by Glen The Plumber on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:44:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  "a fluke" (0+ / 0-)

                I wouldn't accept that answer for any infringement of any liberty.

                But good luck selling that one....don't forget to mention that you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment when you do.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:39:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  your concerns are noted (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero, Glen The Plumber

                  as always. nothing needs to be sold. the vast majority of americans supports obama's proposals. furthermore, as you also have been repeatedly called on, your definition of "liberty" is cherry-picked, unless you think people should be allowed to yell "fire" in crowded theaters, or drive indy cars on streets, or dump toxic wastes in rivers. same old spam talking points, over and over and over.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:44:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  LL (3+ / 0-)

                    You are clearly infringing on the liberties of innocent Americans with that comment.

                    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                    by coquiero on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:49:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  "cherry-picked [definition of liberty]" (0+ / 0-)

                    Let us just ask the dictionary, shall we?

                    "Liberty-NOUN:
                            1) a)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                                 b) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                            2) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                            3) A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. "--American Heritage Dictionary.

                    That is 3 definitions that specifically pertain to the situation of gun control.
                    In fact is specifically mentions 'control' three times as contrary to liberty.

                    I don't have my English-to-LaurenceLewisese dictionary handy.
                    Let us stick to the actual definitions of words, shall we?

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:00:02 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  how many times have you spammed that quote? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero, Glen The Plumber

                      i still see nothing about guns in it. or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. or driving indy cars on the streets. or dumping toxic wastes. you need an english to english dictionary.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:08:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You also see nothing about Freedom of speech, (0+ / 0-)

                        Freedom of assembly, Democratic  elections, or any other specific liberty.

                        Either you have just disproven the existence of every liberty, or you don't understand how definitions work.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:42:16 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  do you believe (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          coquiero

                          people should be able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? do you believe people should be able to assemble in groups larger than the physical space safely allows? do you believe laws against slander and libel are unconstitutional?

                          liberty, frank. you're with it or against it.

                          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                          by Laurence Lewis on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:03:54 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  I will respond for Pat. (3+ / 0-)
        It has happened in New York (city) and California!
        (Even though in NYC, a certain, specific type of weapon had to be moved outside of city limits and guns weren't confiscated -- though Pat would say even having to move one's guns to another place is "confiscation." And in California -- even though guns were not confiscated -- the state claimed they may confiscate them.)

        Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

        by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:32:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If who doesn't care about registries? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, Penny GC, coquiero

      "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

      by just another vet on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:36:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because we don't need to appease the fears of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero

      the black helicopter crowd who think that registries = confiscation.  That's crazy talk.

    •  you're a nut (0+ / 0-)

      you're just another gun nut. Remind me of bible thumper types.

  •  You're out of touch, Hunter. (15+ / 0-)
    3. Why do you want "as many bullets as possible" for your imaginary firefight with (a) your cat, who has just knocked a lamp off the table or (b) your child, who had snuck out earlier and was trying to come back in unannounced or (c) the neighbor kid, coming to boost your HDTV or (d) Mexican drug cartels, who have decided to annex your hallway bathroom and turn it into their new cartel break room? Are you that bad a shot? Do you imagine that taking time to reload after pumping a single-digit number of bullets into your foe will allow them to regenerate?
    What are you going to do if your home is suddenly overwhelmed by an armed gang?

    Huh?

    And you're sitting there without any 30-round magazines?

    As I noted in response to the comment cited, above:

    Agreed.
    You never want to have to reload during a gunfight, especially in the vast majority of them where you're alone.
    I know what you mean. In the 30 or so gunfights I've been in (I've lost track, frankly) where multiple marauders broke down my door and entered my home, I was happy to have the 30-round magazines handy. Of course, my front hall looked like the final scenes of Django Unchained at the end of a lot of these gun battles, but, hey, shattered, splintered wood and doors, damaged walls and broken windows can be replaced. My life can't.

    My god, where the fuck do you live? Somalia?

    Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

    by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:30:28 PM PDT

    •  Tell you what. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy

      When law enforcement decides its safe enough to go around with a single crippled magazine, so will I.  Ammunition ain't free, you know.

      When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

      by Patrick Costighan on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:05:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you afraid law enforcement is after you, Pat? (8+ / 0-)

        Are they coming to get you, too?

        Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

        by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:17:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Venison curry (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bob Johnson, just another vet

          Thai-Style Massaman Curry with Venison

          Serves 4.

          Prep Time: 10 minutes, more if you are making the homemade curry paste

          Cook Time: 35 minutes

          CURRY PASTE

          7-10 dried hot chiles, Thai or Tabasco or piquin
          6 cloves
          2-inch stick of cinnamon
          12 cardamom seeds, or 1/2 teaspoon
          1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
          4 bay leaves, crushed fine
          1 teaspoon salt
          8 garlic cloves, minced
          1/2 cup onion, minced
          1 tablespoon lard or vegetable oil
          1 tablespoon minced galangal, fresh or pickled
          2-inch piece of fresh turmeric, or 2 teaspoons powdered
          1 lemongrass stalk, minced
          CURRY

          1 tablespoon lard or vegetable oil
          1 large onion, sliced
          1 pound potatoes, peeled and cut into 2-inch chunks
          1 14-ounce can coconut milk
          3 tablespoon fish sauce or 2 tablespoons soy sauce
          A 2-inch piece of cinnamon
          4 tablespoons yellow curry paste (if not using the curry paste above)
          2 pounds venison, trimmed of fat and silverskin and cut into 1-inch cubes
          Chives or cilantro for garnish
          ____

          If you are making your own curry paste, heat the tablespoon of lard and saute the onion and garlic until soft and translucent. Let cool a bit and put into a bowl. While the onions are cooking, grind the chiles, cloves, cinnamon, cardamom, nutmeg, bay leaves and salt into a powder. Put the spice mix into the bowl with the onions and garlic. Add the galangal, turmeric and lemongrass and mix everything well. Pound everything into a rough paste and set aside.
          In a large saute pan or wok, heat the other tablespoon of lard or vegetable oil and sear the onions over high heat. Toss well to combine, then don’t move the onions for a minute or two — you want some char on them. Toss again and let sear one more time.
          Add the potatoes, coconut milk, fish sauce, cinnamon and enough water to just barely cover the potatoes. Mix in the curry paste one tablespoon at a time and stop when it is spicy enough for you. Cover and simmer until the potatoes are tender, about 30 minutes. When the potatoes are tender, mix in the venison and cook gently for 5 more minutes.
          Serve at once with chives or cilantro and a cold beer.

          When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

          by Patrick Costighan on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:24:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Nothing to do with his point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Patrick Costighan

          If one set of people sees a need for high-capacity defensive weapons, why should it be different for others simply because the others aren't government employees?

          There are lots of horror stories about police running out of ammunition while still under attack. OK, it's a fair question whether those stories are being pushed by shills for makers of high-capacity weapons. OK, absolutely, non-police have a lot more freedom to run away.

          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:32:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't bother (0+ / 0-)

            Not one you're going to get through to.

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:34:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Do you know why the police had to get... (5+ / 0-)

            ... high-capacity weapons?

            Because when the NRA switched from emphasizing hunting to emphasizing "self-defense" (at the behest of the organization's biggest backers, the gun manufacturers who needed a new reason to sell guns as hunting declined), the NRA convinced Congress to legalize high-capacity weapons for civilian use and law enforcement was outgunned.

            The NRA created an "arms race" because the gun manufacturers needed a new market as hunting declined.

            The police were outgunned for years during this period and many law enforcement officers paid for the NRA's cynical fear-mongering (under the guise of "self-defense") with their lives.

            Suggested liberal gun lovers' motto: "More liberal than the NRA on everything except guns."

            by Bob Johnson on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:54:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bob lives in an alternate reality (0+ / 0-)

              Apparently his internet connection links to Kos from a universe in which high-capacity semi-autos and "assault weapons" haven't been around and readily available to civilians since the 1920's, as they have been in ours. In his reality (wherever the hell that is) the NRA lobbied Congress to legalize such weapons several decades later.

              So, please don't think of him as an opinionated ignoramus. Just remind him occasionally that things are different over here in our universe.

      •  Were you planning on fighting the police? (7+ / 0-)

        You may have a promising career in gangster rap.

        If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

        by Major Kong on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:14:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Try reading the comment again. (0+ / 0-)

          Leave the strawman in the field.

          When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

          by Patrick Costighan on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:20:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A silly argument (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            Deserves a silly answer.

            Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.
            -Thomas Jefferson

            If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

            by Major Kong on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:45:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No. He wants the same protection they have. (0+ / 0-)

          If the police believe they need X to protect themselves against violent criminals, well, it's not like private citizens will never be attacked by the same criminals, so private citizens should have access to the same capabilities. That's the argument.

          It's a more plausible argument when you hear it from people who wear body armor everywhere like police do.

          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:39:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The police don't just protect themselves (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            They're supposed to protect everybody.

            They're also expected to go out and apprehend violent criminals, possibly in their own element.

            I can also remember back when the police carried 6-shot revolvers and yet somehow the laws were still enforced.

            If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

            by Major Kong on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:42:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  law enforcement also has armored cars. (6+ / 0-)

        Want one of those to feel safe, too?

        The paranoia, it hurts . . . . . .

      •  Can I ask you an honest question? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        This may sound like I am trying to play gothca here but I am not.  I legitimately want your opinion on this.

        Noone argues that people should not have nuclear weapons or chemical weapons or even devastating conventional weapons such as missiles and high explosives but we know our own government possesses those things and several terrorist groups have many of those.

        So if the purpose of having weapons is so if the government ever becomes so corrupt, we have the power to take it back, should we limit our citizens at all especially if we have foriegn and domestic enemies within this country who have similar capabilities?  

        If we agree that everybody should not have all of those weapons, who draws the line and where should it be drawn?  Fully automatic weapons?  Gernade launchers? mortar rounds? land mines?  Who should we entrust to make the decision as to how far we should allow our citizens to go to arm themselves?  Who decides what is considered to be common use weapons or what is uncommon?  

        I am not trying to be a jerk and catch you in some logic trap.  I believe that we should allow licenses for all weapons and let people have whatever they want (within reason) as long as they can demonstrate they have the proper training and with larger, more dangerous weapons, some sort of capability for keeping them safe out of the hands of criminals.  Violate the law and lose your license.

        The real question is, if you agree the government can identify some weapons to keep out of citizen's hands then do you not agree they are the ones who have to determine where that line is?  No matter where they draw the line, a large portion of the population will be upset.  Maybe you want the line set at explosives and Hunter wants the line set at single digit capacities and Billy Bob wants no guns at all but it is the government (that we elected)'s job to decide where that line is.

        "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

        by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:04:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem with this line of logic is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Buckeye Nut Schell

          If someone violates the law with, oh let's say a grenade launcher or an anti-tank missile, the amount of damage done is very great.

          Now you can actually own some of these weapons, but it requires a license and the requirements are very strict indeed. You'll have the Feds crawling waaaay further up your butt than you'd probably want.

          You also have to pay a large fee to register such a weapon, which tends to keep the casual thrill-seekers out of the game.

          If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

          by Major Kong on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:15:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's safe enough in every other western (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero

        democracy on the planet.  Where are such magazines that you wish to keep in place of actual, legitimate use?  War zones!  Duh.

      •  you're a loser (0+ / 0-)

        That's so clear. A paranoid gun nut loser.

  •  "the Second Amendment has nothing to do (10+ / 0-)

    with hunting"

    proving once and for all that hunters (not Hunter) have been played for fools all along...this is about suburban gamer boy fantasies, not any sort of rural tradition.

    •  Neither does the NRA (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, Glen The Plumber, coquiero
    •  Badly Need Supreme Court Guidance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Penny GC

      What we really need is for someone to take a case to the Supreme Court where he owns a machine gun and boldly displays it in his front window as a deterrent to criminals and the government.

      Then we need the Supreme Court to answer the question it chose to duck in the handgun cases - where exactly is the limit of the 2nd Amendment?  If the two reasons for having weapons are 1) self defense, and 2) protection from the federal government, then do I have an absolute right to have any sort of weapon I want?  May I possess a tank?  Bomb making equipment?  A nuclear arsenal?  is there any cutoff whatsoever.

      Scalia cleverly avoided that question by saying that handguns are "common" and a "preferred" method of self defense.  So what?  If I fear heavily armed criminals and the very heavily armed government, can't I make a proportional response?  If not, why not?  What we have absent USSCt guidance is people saying their right is absolute.

  •  Man, now I feel like robbing his house (0+ / 0-)

    just for spite.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:13:25 PM PDT

  •  As someone who actually HAS had their (12+ / 0-)

    house broken into while we were asleep, what they want is
    a. money
    b. money
    c. money
    d. more money
    and
    e. to get the hell out of dodge

    Especially if they know somebody is there, they want to grab the money and run.

    That's what they did - opened a window, took cash out of our wallets, and left through the door.

    There was a computer sitting out - untouched. Cell phones, iPods, credit cards, in the same wallets/purses they took the cash out of - untouched. TVs - left alone.

    Those things take time to grab, they're bulky, they might not be usable and credit cards can be traced. Money doesn't have those drawbacks.

    Now, if you live in the middle of nowhere, chances are somebody who breaks in will know you, because they're unlikely to just stumble onto your house. They're more likely to bring a truck and clear you out while you're gone.

    And yes, that's happened to people as well. In that case, having a gun isn't really much help because you're not there to use it, and if you do have one they're going to steal it along with everything else.

    •  yep. when someone breaks into your house (7+ / 0-)

      it's your TV they want, not your life. Only a tiny minority of all murders come from the "homicidal intruder" that the easily-scared pee their pants over.  The vast majority of murders happen from people you already know. But "shoot the intruding stranger !!!!" sounds better in a gun ad than "shoot your ex-boyfriend !!!" does.

      If someone breaks into my place, I'm very happy to help them carry my TV to their car.  I can replace it. But then, I don't have any superhero-ninja fantasies. (shrug)

      •  Ok, apparently you have never been victimized or (0+ / 0-)

        raped or assaulted or had an ex-husband who held a knife to your throat, or have children in that same home who might be harmed.

        If someone comes into my home uninvited, they will soon meet Jesus or whomever they pray to.

         I won't play 20 questions, or hope I got a "nice" robber or help them carry whatever they came for to their car or ask them if I can take a survey or even take whatever brutality they might have in store for me.....

        Nope, their crime days of victimizing people would come to a screeching halt the unlucky day they chose my house to rob.

        •  no, I haven't. indeed the odds are that I never (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn, coquiero

          will.

          Has it happened to YOU?

          Your crimefighter superhero fantasies are fun. But I prefer reality. And the reality is that the odds are tremendously in favor of your never being a victim of a violent crime, even if you throw your gun away and carry a teddy bear instead.  And indeed since the violent crime rate has been going down for decades now, the odds in your favor get better and better all the time.

          Some of us just aren't as paranoid as others.

          •  Yes I have and my gun most likely saved my life on (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee

            numerous occasions.  

            See, I had an ex husband who enjoyed terrorizing me. I left him and got a divorce but he couldn't accept that.  He stalked, he assaulted....the police were no help, restraining orders were no help...since his sentences for breaking it meant a night in jail and back again he came to do his will. He was going to kill me one day and I knew it and I finally decided I wasn't going to leave my children motherless. I had always had guns, I put myself through college with scholarships earned with them.  I grew up on a farm, I knew how to use them.  However, he always thought I wouldn't use them on him.

              Finally, I let him know that should I ever see him again, my little protection would take care of the issue. I would no longer simply have guns for my sport and hunting, they would be used to protect me. I told him, should I ever see his face again, he would suffer the consequences.  He knew I meant it and he hasn't decided to risk that ultimatum yet and I have now lived in peace for several years now.

            Don't  presume that others live in the same utopia you are so very fortunate and blessed to live in.  Be grateful as others might need to to have their 2A right for thier own safety, protection and pursuit of a happy life.

            •  then you best re-read my posts . . . (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, Hirodog, Miggles, mmacdDE

              paying special attention to the part that says (1) being killed by a homicidal STRANGER is a statistical non-entity, and (2) most people who are killed are killed by SOMEONE THEY KNOW.

              But of course that is not the superhero fantasy that the gun-carriers have----they are fantasizing about shooting total strangers, not their family or friends (which is who actually kills most people).

            •  ps--I'm a little curious----how exactly does one (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, Miggles, Major Kong

              use a gun to defend against another person with a gun if they already have the gun drawn on you . . . ?  

              Or do you just always make sure you draw first?

              •  You make sure you know how to use it and I do. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KenBee

                He knows I do and he knows I mean it.

                See, you are also not considering people who are not so fortunate to live in the world you apparently live in.  You must live in the kind of world that has no violence.  

                I have taught in Houston, New Orleans, Austin, Las Vegas and other states and urban districts.  When I taught elementary and high school...I taught in title 1 schools and worked within these communities and saw what life was like and apparently you have no clue about how life exists beyond you're own "fantasy land".

                  There are people who can't take groceries into their home and leave a car door open for more than a second without coming back out and it being gone. There are people who know better than to not have burglar bars on all windows and doors, even at the risk of burning alive in a fire, lest the lose whatever possessions and bill money they might have and been so fortunate to get. There are people who wouldn't dream of taking a night stroll on their own sidewalks for fear they may be attacked for their wallet, purse or person.

                This is the real world for a lot of people in this country.  Just because it obviously doesn't exist on your Main Street, doesn't mean people who live on the other side of the railroad tracks don't need their right to protect themselves.

                •  but I assume the crooks know how to use it as well (4+ / 0-)

                  and they have the drop on me. Unless I draw first on them. And sadly, I'm not a psychic, so I have no idea who I should draw on first before they draw on me. Can you give me some pointers for that?

                  See, you are also not considering people who are not so fortunate to live in the world you apparently live in.  You must live in the kind of world that has no violence.  
                  As I noted elsewhere, I live in center city downtown, and hear gunshots outside at least once a week. (shrug)

                  And I simply don't see how a gun will make me any safer when the bad guys will always get the drop on me.

                  Or do you think they will wait patiently while I reach in my pants and pull my pistol to shoot them.

                  •  Yes, I can give you advice. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KenBee
                    I assume the crooks know how to use it as well
                    and they have the drop on me. Unless I draw first on them. And sadly, I'm not a psychic, so I have no idea who I should draw on first before they draw on me. Can you give me some pointers for that?
                    Don't have a gun unless you know how to safely use it.  

                    Don't attempt to protect yourself with one, until you know how to use it.

                    Take an active role in educating yourself on it's use and storage and practice, practice, practice.  

                    Never allow another individual to touch your weapon, ever, unless you are confident they are as skilled as you are...unless you are supervising and teaching them how to use it.

                    If you are in a situation in which a robber has a gun and he/she is about to shoot you....you have a 50% chance of drawing first, if you have a gun for protection...but if you have no gun at all you have exactly 0% chance.  

                    I'll take my chances.

                    •  you still have not answered my question . . . (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero, Glen The Plumber, Miggles

                      So I'll ask again:

                      ahem

                      How do you use a gun in self-defense against someone who already has a gun drawn on you before you draw yours.

                      PS--no need to lecture me on gun safety. I own a gun currently, shoot rather often, and have been shooting guns since I was 12 years old back in 1973. I lived in rural Pennsylvania, and whether we had meat in the spaghetti sauce depended directly on how good a shot I was.

                      Now answer my question.

                    •  People who take their chances with your tactic (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero

                      usually end up listed in the GunFail diaries.  There are like a million other things to do first to secure the perimeter of your home prior to acquiring a weapon.  Lots of firepower does not imply lots of protection.  In fact public health statistics show that it is the opposite: lots of firepower corresponds to more danger.

                      •  That was my point about her children above (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        anana

                        I don't say it to be mean or flippant, but it seems very obvious to me that a household with kids (I don't know how old her kids are ) and a mother who shoots first and asks questions later are precisely the kind of tragedies you read about on Another Day in the (Gun Crazy) USA.

                        I once brought that up in another diary and was told that that never happens.

                        People really like in denial.  As the guy in the 60 Minutes interview said last night, you never think it will be you.  

                        I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                        by coquiero on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:54:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't think 50% is right. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero

                      And I think that's what everyone else is getting at here. A robber who's already got a gun drawn on you, well, he's got a 100% chance of outdrawing you. It's already done.

                      But even if you've got an opportunity to take your chances, have you considered whether it's only your chances you're taking?

                      Man fighting another man accidentally fires gun and fatally shoots his girlfriend in the face

            •  Bailey, I've seen you write about this (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              on several occasions.

              But my question to you is a sincere one.  Do you feel that someone is trying to take away your second amendment rights?  Because I don't see anyone trying to take away the right of anyone in this country to own a gun to protect themselves.

              Do you feel you need a larger magazine to defend yourself?  

              What in the current proposals for gun control to you object to?

              I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

              by coquiero on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:20:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I support UBC and I have never bought a gun (0+ / 0-)

                without being subject to one.  I don't mind and I will do it if it is passed universally.  I do not support registration. I will explain why.

                I know there are some who want to take all guns, even some here.  Repeal of the 2nd amendment is a goal of some, even politicians.....again, even some here.  As long as there is that goal in the minds of some...then there is always the possibility of that goal becoming a reality if those with that goal, and in the power to do so, become able to do so at some time in the future.  In any country in which guns were once legal and then taken away....registration was always the first step. Always.

                 Taking away my rights as a law abiding gun owner is extremely important to me.  The possibility may be small and it may even be almost nil today....but never the less the possibility is there and I consider my 2A rights to be important enough to oppose anything that could lead to that...even if it is the smallest of possibilities.

                If we want new laws and the new laws are not about taking guns away from law abiding citizens but rather it is about gun crime and criminals behavior....how about we target the criminal activity.  

                Enforce the ones we have now...make systems and fund those systems to actually prosecute those who break gun laws.  Create harsher sentences for those who commit gun crimes or are caught with a stolen weapon or a felon in possession. It's not about making no new laws, it's about targeting the true criminals and not the law abiding gun owner.

                Make stiff, mandatory sentences for any gun crimes, make stiff, mandatory sentences for felons in possession of a firearm, make all the laws currently on the books a first priority and add tough penalties to those who disobey them and do all of this before we go after law abiding citizens.

                  I agree with background checks across the board without a federal registration but I also support making criminals the top, number one priority before we further hinder, in any way, the constitutional rights for those who have committed no crimes.  

                •  You didn't address magazine sizes (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber

                  I recognize that you feel that some want to take guns so gun supporters can't make concessions, but can you see that the opposite is also true?

                  Some people have too easy access to guns that can kill dozens in seconds, and will misuse those weapons.

                  This will result in death, the ultimate infringement of rights.

                  I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                  by coquiero on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:07:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  but what criminal who is committed to mass murder (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KenBee

                    would care if there is a law against how many rounds he uses? It is only too easy to modify a gun, load as much as you want regardless of the law, have multiple weapons etc.  Do you really think a round limit will stop a mad man.

                    In regard to easy access, look at Columbine.  AWB in place, the guns used were all illegal weapons for the both boys....it took a couple of phone calls and a friend to by pass every law and restriction and they were able to commit the biggest school shooting to that date.  They were in a high school and not an elementary.  There were men faculty, larger boys everywhere, and police crawling the place within a few minutes....and they were able to reload and reload and reload again.  If someone is going to commit mass murder...those kinds of laws will do nothing.

                    Security will help...and I say that as a teacher. Stop open concept schools...(that's another diary, but they are worthless anyway), fund mental health and then fund it some more. Enforce every gun law on the books and make them harsher and mandatory sentences longer.  Fund the systems we have in place and actually prosecute those who attempt to buy a weapon and know they are banned.  Put them in jail.  Make straw purchases (the case in Columbine) a 20 year mandatory sentence or more if needed.  Do the same with those who are felons and get caught with a gun.  

                    These things might actually make a difference.  If you are really attempting to stop gun crime, quit focusing on those who are not criminals.  

                    •  Security didn't help Columbine (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mmacdDE

                      And I just don't get whole "don't penalize legal gun owners by limiting magazine capacity" argument.  It sounds totally hollow to me.

                      I hear a lot about how people need them to kill varmints, or critters, or whatever, and then about how it's just as easy to reload real fast.

                      It's a complete contradiction.  If it's so easy to reload super fast, then just do that and make the larger magazines illegal.  Along with making straw purchasing illegal.

                      And I'll state again for the record, those who are not criminals are not criminals, right up until the point that they are.

                      I'm just looking for a happy medium between honoring the 2nd amendment and scaling back the out of control gun culture the US seems to have become addicted to.

                      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                      by coquiero on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:35:10 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  So the answer is to have zero laws because (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero, schnecke21

                      there might be someone out there who might decide to ignore the law???  That's not how our system works.  And the places that do have better gun safety laws have fewer firearms fatalities.  No law will prevent every tragedy, but better gun safety laws will reduce gun deaths.

                      •  No, and that's not what I said. There are laws (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KenBee

                        that are unenforced that could be enforced. There are new laws that would have a much higher chance to reduce criminal behavior.  There are new funding that could be used to help mental health patients. There is a way to make funding available to actually prosecute those who fail a background check now.  

                        When we want to stop drunk driving, we don't ban all cars from sober people? No.  Do we make all people blow into a breathalyzer before they start a car?  No.  Do we stop driving all together? No.

                        What we do is target the drunk drivers. We make the penalty harsh and then harsher still and even harsher again until people realize that if they drink and drive and get caught, they are going to prison...so drunk driving decreases.  It decreases for two reason, the actual deterrent of an extremely harsh sentence and it decreases because those who insist on drinking and driving are behind bars.

                         We also fund educational programs to teach people why drunk driving is bad. We fund programs to enforce the laws.

                          Some will still drink and drive and some will still die because of it, even innocent people....but if you target the actual offenders, in time, it will make some real difference.

                        It's not an issue of no new laws, it is the issue of making laws that will focus on the goal at hand....stopping gun crimes.

                      •  Ask yourself this question: (0+ / 0-)

                        Would you support a law that required each American to put a Breathalyzer on their car, at their expense.....due to the amount of drunk driving deaths in America?    

                        There are more drunk driving fatalities in America every year than firearm deaths.

                        It might saved a life, but would you be on board with that? Or would you insist that those writing the laws punish the drunk drivers and not the single mom who needs to get to work.

              •  Relevant quote (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose
                Because I don't see anyone trying to take away the right of anyone in this country to own a gun to protect themselves.
                "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright [firearms] ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." - Senator Diane Feinstein, 60 minutes interview

                People in positions of power saying things like that are why gun owners are often leery of new regulations.

        •  Hope you never kill your kid trying to (0+ / 0-)

          sneak in at night.

          I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

          by coquiero on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:08:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I know someone who was robbed (5+ / 0-)

        Army vet, bought himself an M1 carbine rifle. Lucky for the people who robbed him, because otherwise all they would have gotten was a TV and a VCR. But instead, they got a TV, a VCR, and a rifle. He wasn't home at the time.

        (This was quite a few years back, now, which is why it was a VCR and not a DVD player.)

        It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. — Will Rogers

        by dconrad on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:46:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  indeed that is the real problem--EVERY illegal (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, Miggles, Major Kong

          gun begins life as a legal gun.  There are no factories anywhere that are making illegal guns for criminals.  They were ALL, without exception, legally purchased by someone--and then stolen or sold later.

          There is only one way to lower the number of illegal guns----lower the supply of legal guns that they come from. And be able to trace any illegal gun back to its last legal owner and ask them a few questions about how their gun got to a crime scene . . . .  (which is what registration is for).

          •  And the problem is that thanks to lack of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            national registries and lax laws in general, there is no way to make the original person who bought the weapon take responsibility for their negligence of losing it or letting it get stolen or selling it through a straw purchase.  This is why a national registry backed up with penalties for losing your gun could be a good thing.  People might actually consider better securing their firearms because they would know that the onus would be on them if the firearm every got out of their control and ended up being used in a crime.

    •  They have a choice about where to break in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul

      It's a fair guess that the ones who only want to steal will break into unoccupied houses and that those who take the risk of breaking in while people are at home may have worse motives.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:34:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the crime figures show otherwise (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, Miggles, snowwoman

        Murders by strangers who break in with the specific intention to kill you, are vanishingly rare.

        The vast majority of intentional murders are from people you know.

      •  They do (0+ / 0-)

        They look through a window and see a purse and a wallet, and assume they can get money. If a door or window is open, and they can get through it quietly (because, remember, they don't want you to wake up), they take what they can find fast and get out.

        It was a nice night, and we had the kitchen window open.

        Next day we got AC units for the windows, and the downstairs windows don't stay open anymore.

        BTW, the cops caught them down the street, trying to break into somebody else's house.

  •  Bravo Hunter: Air Supply for your pleasure. (0+ / 0-)

  •  sadly, there are plenty of people HERE with the (6+ / 0-)

    same paranoid delusions--"homicidal breakins !!!!" and "they'll take yer gunz !!!"

    (sigh)

    It's tinfoil-hat nuttery, no matter who says it.

    •  Also illogic.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, Glen The Plumber, Hirodog

      If you're arming yourself because the US gubmint wants to take you out, they won't need to worry about your gunz, no matter how heavily armed you are.  They (and by this we mean that Kenyan in the White House or those Commies at the UN, or fitb..) can just use the serious weaponry produced by the jillion-dollar MIC you are so eager to finance. Or they can put a quiet word to our heavily armed and militarized cops who will be glad to do their bidding (vide Occupy).  Or...drones....  

      It's an arms race, and you're going to need some serious weaponry if you're going to keep up.  Good news -- the NRA will be glad to see that you get whatever you need.  However, bring cash.

  •  I'm with the Dixie Chicks: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, Penny GC, Glen The Plumber, a2nite

    How incredibly embarrassing to be from the same state as that man.

    How incredibly embarrassing to be from the same human race as any GOPer.

    Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

    by Youffraita on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:28:06 PM PDT

  •  As a once proud Pennsylvanian, I am mortally (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, Glen The Plumber, Miggles, coquiero

    ashamed that this is the best "representation" we can elect.  Thankfully, he is NOT from my district, but I'm sure his views are, unfortunately not unique.

  •  the gun nuts are just plain friggin' paranoid... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, Glen The Plumber, Miggles, coquiero

    to the Nth degree. All they ever talk about are dark strangers stalking their houses, the need to defend themselves against armed intruders, etc. they imagine hoards of zombies attacking them in the middle of the night.
    My personal feeling is that it is the most vocal of the gun fanatics that are simply batshit crazy. THEY are the ones who shouldn't have guns - too trigger happy.

    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 Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:31:14 PM PDT

  •  He's right. The 2nd amendment not about hunting. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, madcitysailor, Penny GC, a2nite

    But it's not about safety either (which may explain Supreme Court indecisions).

    There are three important memes in the 2d amendment: regulated, militia, the 'right' to arms. They cannot, as the justices explicitly indicated in the Heller indecision, be separated. In other words, a real 2d amendment case hasn't yet been brought, not is it likely to be.

    The second amendment is about an individual mandate to buy a piece and be prepared to die in national defense. The framers' absurd expectation is that all states had militias as well structured, organized and supervised as the Massachusetts miltias (whose weapons were kept in armories and caches, such as at, ahem, Concord). All these assumptions are moot in the wake of the Civil War, which replaced state militias with a standing army.

    The closest thing we have to a well-regulated militia might be the Boy Scouts. But they have their own problems right now.

  •  Yep. That's my Congressman. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, Glen The Plumber, KenBee

    Ain't he a son of a bitch?  And he's invulnerable, because a majority of the district thinks just like he does.  A month after New Town, he and PA-03 Congressman Mike Kelly (R) held a joint rally at a gun shop near where I live to re-enforce their gun-right creds, and they got a huge crowd.  Dump on him all you want.  Sadly, he's going nowhere.

    -5.13,-5.64; If you gave [Jerry Falwell] an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox. -- Christopher Hitchens

    by gizmo59 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:32:39 PM PDT

  •  "... from my cold, sticky hands!" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, anana

    Rightously ranted.

  •  When can we get back to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minnesota Deb, a2nite

    the WELL REGULATED part? Why can't we have modern regulation for modern day guns? Yes Representative, your guns SHOULD be registered,you traitorous POS,  that is if we are going to follow the spirit of the constitution and all.

  •  Does anyone feel overly controlled... (7+ / 0-)

    Does anyone feel overly controlled by the government because we are required to have a driver's license?

    The ninth amendment states:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
    The right to freely travel around this country is one of the fundamental freedoms we have in this country whether it is specifically enumerated in the bill of rights or not.  It is becoming more and more improtant to have a car to be able to travel the roads of America because of the freeway systems and the inadaquacies of the infastructure to supprt travel by horse.  They didn't specifically say that people had the right to ride a horse because it was considered self evident.  Because there were so many freedoms such as this, the ninth amendment was required before several states would ratify them.

    Requiring a driver's license does not take away your freedom to drive any more or less than a license to own a gun will take away your freedom to own a gun.  

    Performing a background check to get a license will pre-qualify a person to purchase a gun and a simple phone hotline before the transaction could verify that the license is still vaild.  No wait and very little limitations for buying and selling.  We already require licenses to hunt or carry a concealed weapon and we are supposed to do a background check before legitimate sales.  This just makes it easier for all parties involved.

    "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

    by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:37:11 PM PDT

  •  Let's be real: we're not going to shame... (5+ / 0-)

    ...or embarrass them into "being reasonable and rational" about proper weapon safety regulation.

    I think we're looking at roughly the same timeline as between Brady being shot and passage of the Brady Bill: 5 years. Most of us will be disgusted with the tepidness of what gets passed this session and the Congress after that one, too.  That is NOT a reason to give up.

    Sadly, there will be more horrific incidents that will not "make this go away" in the fevered fantasies of the Gundamentalists. Too many lives will be lost and families left grieving before a critical mass of concerted effort finally bears fruit.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:41:57 PM PDT

  •  As many bullets as possible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    The effect of the 'NRA, stand your ground' fantasy is that more white males are getting killed doing it.  McClellan & Tekin (2012) examined US vital statistics and found that Stand your Ground laws have lead to an increase of 28-33 white male deaths a month in the USA and more emergency room visits. The NRA's marketing campaign is killing off their members at a rate of one a day.

  •  This guy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurel in CA, coquiero

    sounds like he's living in the Alamo in 1836.

    The most violent element in society is ignorance.

    by Mr MadAsHell on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:45:40 PM PDT

  •  It's apparent you have never lived in an isolated (0+ / 0-)

    area or a high crime urban area.  Try living in an area full of weed farms, or drug dealers, or white supremacist enclaves.  I have lived in several such areas.  My gun didn't make me feel safe.  It did make me safer, though.  

    It's easy for Mr. Suburbia to  denigrate someone's "little masturbatory fantasy about killing imaginary people who come into your home in the middle of the night" if you live in a safe place.  Silver spoon demagoguery does not become you.  I don't know where you live, but not everyone lives on a college campus, or in a high dollar suburb, Hunter.  

    That's why we have the Second Amendment.  If you really gave a rats ass about gun deaths, and "brown people", you would have been all over this years ago.  95% of gun crimes resulting in death are committed with pistols, and a good percentage of the people getting capped are brown.   Where's the outrage?  

    Passing feel good legislation limiting someone's ability to own a semi-automatic rifle with a decent sized magazine won't solve that problem. I'm all for a national gun registry, universal background checks, longer waiting periods, closing the gun show and private sale loopholes and mandatory insurance for firearms owners.  Let's start there.  

    When you finally realize you're not really in the game, democracy actually IS a spectator sport.

    by SpamNunn on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:53:01 PM PDT

    •  I've lived in Detroit (5+ / 0-)

      Not in the suburbs, in Detroit. Not a really bad neighborhood, but there was that one time when there was a triple homicide on my block (related to drug dealing, of course).

      I never owned a gun and never felt any need for one.

      Can you explain this statement?

      My gun didn't make me feel safe.  It did make me safer, though.
      How did it make you safer?

      It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. — Will Rogers

      by dconrad on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:51:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I lived in DC at the height of the crack epidemic. (5+ / 0-)

        My apartment was a couple blocks away from the city's largest heroin market.  I'd regularly ride my bike across 14th Street to studty at the house of one of my law school classmates.  Back then, 14th was nothing but prostitutes and drug dealers.

        Despite the fact that I walked and biked through this "dangerous" neighborhood unarmed, I was never attacked or hurt.  Was I just lucky?  Maybe.  But if so, it just goes to show that the odds of being a victim of a violent crime are perhaps not as high as the NRA would like us to believe.

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

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:21:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It gave me the ability to kill anyone who (0+ / 0-)

        threatened my life, even if there were more than one of them.  

        When you finally realize you're not really in the game, democracy actually IS a spectator sport.

        by SpamNunn on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:07:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I live in center city downtown, Spam (4+ / 0-)

      I can hear gunshots at least one night a week.

      And I've never felt any need to be armed. Nor would I actually be any safer if I were armed---unless I always draw first.

      •  Good for you. (0+ / 0-)

        I feel differently.

        When you finally realize you're not really in the game, democracy actually IS a spectator sport.

        by SpamNunn on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:07:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's fine. but . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          how exactly does carrying a gun protect you from a bad guy who has already drawn HIS gun and demanded your wallet.

          Is it your intention to ask him to hold on a second while you reach into your belt and draw your own gun to shoot him?

          Or are the robbers where you live considerate enough that they ask for your wallet first THEN draw their gun, giving you the chance to draw first.

          •  I don't carry. I keep guns in my house. (0+ / 0-)

            When you finally realize you're not really in the game, democracy actually IS a spectator sport.

            by SpamNunn on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 07:22:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  same question, then. (0+ / 0-)

              When the intruder breaks in while you are asleep at night and wakes you with a gun pointing in your face, how exactly do you plan to shoot him?

              PS---are you a responsible owner who keeps his gun locked and his ammunition separate (and plans to tell the intruder to wait a second while you go get your gun to shoot back)?  Or are you an irresponsible gun owner who keeps a loaded weapon lying around where anyone can get to it (so you can shoot somebody at a moment's notice--and vice versa)?

              •  In the chest, repeatedly, but with deep remorse. (0+ / 0-)

                I have a dog and an alarm system.   I also keep my screen door and my front door locked.  Both of them.  I keep my hand gun in a gun safe next to my bed. It's highly unlikely that anyone will get the drop on me in my own house.   Thus, I will be well armed by the time anyone gets to my second floor bedroom, assuming that my hellhound does not tear his or her throat out.  

                When you finally realize you're not really in the game, democracy actually IS a spectator sport.

                by SpamNunn on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:04:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  What you suggest has no connection to the (0+ / 0-)

      reality of living in a big city.  Aside from the Republican crazies who work in Congress, the last thing that we Washington, DC residents want to do is arm up -- not that being armed to the teeth would help anyways.

    •  I've lived everywhere from isolated rural areas (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero

      to inner cities with high crime (Medellín, L.A. Mexico City...) All without guns. Learned a long time ago that I feel safer ---saner too--- if I do not watch those violent movies with crazy gun battles and stalking scenarios.

      Oh, and get a good barky dog. That's the best home defense. They're very cheerful too.

  •  "masturbatory fantasy" hits the nail on the head. (6+ / 0-)

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:56:51 PM PDT

  •  Why is it I can always recognize a Hunter story? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, Glen The Plumber, Miggles

    I can't count the number of times I've read something here on DKos without glancing at who the writer is, found myself in furious agreement with it and tremendously impressed with how well the point is made, and then scrolled back up to see who wrote it and discovered it was Hunter.

    Another slam dunk.

    It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. — Will Rogers

    by dconrad on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:58:53 PM PDT

  •  someone on chris hays' show (tonite) just (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, Major Kong

    asked an interesting question: if congress critters like thompson think flooding the streets of america with weapons is such a good idea, why aren't guns allowed within the halls of congress? why does everyone who tries to enter the capitol building subjected to metal detector screenings?

  •  Sad to say that this pile of shit (0+ / 0-)

    is my representative and I hope he enjoyed the very nasty email I just send him. He is nothing more than a sniveling little coward who suffers from little dick syndrome. and I ask him just how many more kids had to die before he felt like a man and it when down hill from there. I hope he felt the love!!!!!!!!

  •  People from Sandy Hook (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    are on their way to DC today to speak with Senators about gun-control.

    I'll be making calls today--too.

    I don't give a shit what the Senate wants regarding gun-control---I care--only---about what I want regarding gun-control.

    And I have no intentions of asking---I'm demanding it.

    Respect is not a given---it is earned---and why should there be any respect for people who legislate their own personal agendas---and ignore the majority of the people in this country?

    Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

    by lyvwyr101 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 07:45:20 AM PDT

  •  I take issue with all of this, but this most: (0+ / 0-)

    "3. Why do you want "as many bullets as possible" for your imaginary firefight with (a) your cat, who has just knocked a lamp off the table or (b) your child, who had snuck out earlier and was trying to come back in unannounced or (c) the neighbor kid, coming to boost your HDTV or (d) Mexican drug cartels, who have decided to annex your hallway bathroom and turn it into their new cartel break room? Are you that bad a shot? Do you imagine that taking time to reload after pumping a single-digit number of bullets into your foe will allow them to regenerate?"

    First of all, reloading takes time and complex coordination. Both of these things are in very short supply in a situation where you need to use a firearm to defend yourself.

    Second, almost everyone is a bad shot when under extreme stress and fear. Police in New York City miss almost 90% of the time they fire their weapons in the line of duty. So yes, a single digit number of bullets may very well be insufficient. Even with the extensive training I've received, I will not carry anything with less than 12+1 (Glock 26), and prefer to carry 20+1 (Five7).
    The odds, statistically, that I will miss at least several times are very high, and more rounds increases the odds of putting at least some on target.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site