Skip to main content

Heidi Przybyla at Bloomberg has a nice wrap-up of how laws and policies lobbied into existence over the past 30-plus years by the National Rifle Association have hindered criminal investigations, including the Boston Marathon bombing. Close followers of the history of the lobbying efforts and their outcome won't find any surprises in her story. But given the victory celebrations at the NRA's annual convention in Houston over the weekend, it's good to remember some of their other victories.

One of those, as others and I have previously reported, was the NRA's efforts dating back to 1979 at keeping inert tracing identifiers called "taggants" out of gunpowder. The NRA successfully lobbied against President Clinton's push to add taggants to explosives after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. A National Research Council study in 1998 said not enough research had been done yet on the safety and efficacy of such taggants and more should be done. Since then, however, little research has been undertaken on the subject despite vast advances in other technology.

Taggants could have been used to trace the origin of the black powder that fueled the Boston Marathon bombs and the home-made "hand grenades" police said the Tsarnaev brothers threw at them during a shoot-out in which Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed:

In the April 15 Boston bombing, a manhunt for the killers that lasted days could have taken just hours if the explosives fragments littering the scene had contained taggants, law enforcement veterans say. Authorities may never be able to track the gun used to kill a transit police officer [MIT campus police officer Sean Collier] because its external identification number was worn down.

“Just imagine if, the day of the bombing, there were these taggants all over the scene and law enforcement could immediately trace it,” said David Chipman, who worked for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for 25 years and advocates for tougher laws. “Any of these things that allow law enforcement to trace these items have been thwarted.”

Law enforcement is being hamstrung in many instances because the gun lobby works behind the scenes to get "riders" attached to appropriations bills. Those riders often get little if any scrutiny. Please read below the fold to check out these hurdles to enforcing gun laws:

• The law requires that gun dealers keep records of sales for 20 years. When they go out of business, they must give their records to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. But ATF cannot digitize these records but must instead keep them on microfiche, which, at best, slows down efforts to trace guns used in crimes.

• Law enforcement against straw purchasers (who buy guns and transfer them to others barred from possessing firearms) is hampered by the requirement of the so-called Tiahrt Amendments of 2004, one of which, requires destruction of all background checks of gun buyers within 24 hours. This destruction makes it harder to recognize patterns that can be indicative of the activities of illegal straw purchasers. Before the NRA started pushing for the 24-hour destruction of records, they were kept by the FBI for 180 days, later reduced to 90 days.

• The Tiahrt Amendments also prevent the ATF from disclosing any trace data to the public, shield "trace data from subpoena in civil actions, and provided that these data are inadmissible in evidence." The author of the amendments, then-Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican, admitted at the time that “I wanted to make sure I was fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers.”

• In 2004, the NRA pushed another law barring the ATF mandating annual inventories. "In 2011," Przybyla writes, "the bureau found that almost 18,500 guns were unaccounted for during the course of 13,100 compliance inspections, according to the ATF."

• In 1996, then-Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, stuck a rider into a appropriations bill that barred the Centers for Disease Control from conducting research to “advocate or promote gun control.” The CDC's budget to prevent injuries from violence, including firearms, has since been cut by 96 percent and a chilling effect has settled over all CDC research related to gun violence.

As noted, none of what can be found in Przybyla's story is new. But in the wake of the Senate defeat of background checks and other reasonable legislation in April, it's valuable to be reminded of just how unreasonable the NRA, the other gun lobbies and their marionettes in Congress are.

The NRA, in particular, has made much of its supposed desire to see existing gun-related legislation enforced rather than passing new legislation. All in the name of protecting the legitimate rights of gun owners. In fact, the gun lobby has demonstrated a decades-long determination to undermine existing legislation and weaken its enforcement thus making it easier for criminals to acquire firearms and keep those acquisitions out of police view. That's a long, long way from promoting responsible gun ownership.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:59 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

  •  Amazing. Why don't they want taggants? (29+ / 0-)

    There is no reason for this other than to protect criminals.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:10:07 PM PDT

    •  Why does everyone know so little (8+ / 0-)

      About gunpowder?

      Allow me to explain how gunpowder works.  I'll keep it as simple as I can, and deal only with powder designed as propellants to be loaded into shell casings.

      There are dozens of powders with chemical compositions developed for specific combinations of shell casings and projectiles.  From a military perspective, powder developed for the 5.56mm is not the same as powder for the 50 cal machine gun, which is different from the powder for the 30mm cannon, which is different than for the 7.62mm machine gun. Powder for the 5.56mm 60 grain bullet will likely not be the same powder loaded for a different bullet weight, even if loaded into an identical 5.56mm casing.  Even something as simple as changing barrel length can result in the use of a different powder.  This is true across the spectrum of every caliber, bullet and firearm ever made.  The reason for this is that each powder is designed to burn at a specific rate, which produces a specific pressure when a very precise amount of powder is loaded in a cartridge.  Any change in powder type or amount will change burn rate which will change pressure which will effect accuracy, and even safety, with the possibility of producing pressures too high for the firearm to withstand.  Taggants create a problem for a couple of reasons.  Introducing a foreign substance to a precisely produced chemical, loaded precisely to produce a specific burn rate (pressure) alters the powder and charge to produce unpredictable results.  To complicate matters even more, unless the contaminate (taggant) is distributed perfectly evenly throughout the powder charge, there will be no way to ever determine precisely what pressure will be produced.

      Taggants are not practical additions to powder for a modern military cartridge, or any modern cartridge, for that matter.

      •  The Proposal In the 1990s Wasn't For Cartridges (0+ / 0-)

        It was for black powder bought in bulk so the rather hysterical rant above isn't really relevant to the actual proposal.  

        •  What??????? (5+ / 0-)

          Exactly what does your comment have to do with the conversation that is currently on-going, which is about adding taggants to smokeless powder used in rifle and pistol cartridges?  What hysterical rant are you speakiing of?  Please explain yourself.

          And, in case you did not know, smokeless powder is also sold in one pound cans in sporting goods stores throughout the west.  Smokeless powder has been used by the military since right after the Spanish American War and cartridges for civilian use were loaded with it at about the same time.  Black powder nearly went the way of the Dodo for firearms, but there has been a resurgance of use in the past few decades.

          •  Like What Was Linked to the Article (0+ / 0-)

            Do you read or just start ranting like an idiot?

            This everyone is stupid but us gun fetishists is really old.  You don't read, you don't know anything about the actual proposal and you act like everyone else is an idiot while not knowing the first thing about the actual proposal being discussed.  

            Under current law, people can buy up to 50 pounds of explosive "black powder" with no background check, and can buy unlimited amounts of other explosive powders, such as "black powder substitute" and "smokeless powder."

            Lautenberg's bill would require a background check for the purchase of any of these powders.

            Read more: http://thehill.com/...
            Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

            Now, if you want to whine I only called it black powder, good for you, but it misses the basic point the taggant issue was and is largely about bulk purchases of explosive powder including, yep, black powder.  
        •  rather than a "hysterical rant" reddog was simply (5+ / 0-)

          explaining why taggants might be problematic for the very precise use of smokeless powder that goes into making a rifle cartridge.

          Almost all (99% maybe) of the powder sold in stores is smokeless of the sort reddog described. If we are to claim to be the fact based community we should base our discussion on facts.

          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

          by ban nock on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:47:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So none of you can read? (0+ / 0-)

            None of you bothered to read the actual article linked.  Why not?  Is it just too much fun to spout ignorantly?

          •  Not really simply explaining... (0+ / 0-)

            Simple would have been,

             Taggants create a problem for a couple of reasons.  Introducing a foreign substance to a precisely produced chemical, loaded precisely to produce a specific burn rate (pressure) alters the powder and charge to produce unpredictable results.  To complicate matters even more, unless the contaminate (taggant) is distributed perfectly evenly throughout the powder charge, there will be no way to ever determine precisely what pressure will be produced.

            All which preceded these statements was condescending and yes, sounded like a rant to me as well.  I AM a hunter and a target shooter and don't need a sophomoric lecture that throws around various caliber numbers in order to sound authoritative.

            “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

            by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:09:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Which Ignores That Black Powder (0+ / 0-)

            Is the most commonly used in pipe bombs according to the ATF.  So, yes, facts matter and black powder is an important part of the issue.  

        •  Facts of the Boston case, point towards fireworks. (6+ / 0-)

          As we can't get the Chinese to abide by copyright and patent laws, how do you expect to compel micro-batch identification.

          IF all "black cat" firecrackers have the same taggant code, it's useless.  I'd need a batch code small enough to know:

          Made in China.
          Shipped to the US.
          Distributed to the Northeast.
          Case #6 of 1800 distributed.  Sold to a store in Seabrook, NH.  Then, you'd need a firecracker registry with photo copies of State ID retained to purchase.

          Contrary to what Bloomberg (now there's an impartial news source) cites, taggants have been incorporated in SOME explosives where it does not adversely impact the predictable performance of the product.  (reddog1's point)

          ArchPundit, you may say:  

          fuck 'em.  If that gun blows up in your face?  Awesome.  You didn't get to gun-down a school full of children.
          Tell me how you will keep military and police ammunition taggant-free and safe to use - while also keeping those batches of ammunition out of the general supply chain.

          The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

          by 43north on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:32:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nothing to do with Military or police ammunition (0+ / 0-)

            It has to do with bulk purchases of powder.  Read the goddamn article linked above.  

          •  Facts about bombings in the US. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ArchPundit

            The following is an excerpt from the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering concerning what type of powders are most commonly used in bombings.  
            http://www8.nationalacademies.org/...

            "Black and smokeless powders are widely used for sport and recreation throughout the United States. They are sold primarily for use in the reloading of ammunition and in muzzle-loading firearms. Large quantities of the powders are used for military purposes as well. But black and smokeless powders also are utilized to manufacture pipe bombs -- the type of illegal bomb most commonly used in the United States.

            Between 1992 and 1996, the number of reported actual and attempted bombings involving these types of powders averaged about 650 per year in the United States, the committee said. In these incidents, approximately 10 people were killed, 100 people were injured, and $1million in property damage was reported each year. A significant number of the deaths and injuries are suffered by the people who are constructing or transporting the bombs. Although these statistics may not warrant immediate restrictive policy changes, alternatives must be developed if the bombing threat increases."

            Bottom line: 650 pipe bombs a year, during the five year study, is a serious problem and has (had) nothing to do with fireworks.

            Further, to assert that nothing can now be done to address bombings because one set of bombers from Boston used  powder from Chinese fireworks is, at best, simplistic and at worst intentionally disingenuous.

            (BTW, Law Enforcement now believes that the bombs detonated and those remaining contain more powder than could have possible come from the fireworks)

             

            “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

            by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:59:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Taggants aren't practical? Says who? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ArchPundit

        According to my research, the reason taggants haven't been added already isn't that it won't work but that  some argue (NRA) that insufficient research has been done.

        Here's an excerpt  from a previous KOS post:

        Background check bill for buying explosive powders ought to make 'taggants' an issue. Meteor Blades

        Taggants in high explosives were used to track a bomber in 1979. But after the Office of Technology Assessment reported on taggants in 1980, Congress, under pressure from the NRA, ordered Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to stop looking for ways to trace gunpowder. Fifteen years later, after the Oklahoma City bombings, President Clinton proposed mixing taggants into explosives, including fertilizers like the one Tim McVeigh loaded into his rental truck and laced with diesel fuel to murder 168 people.

        The NRA again worked to block the move, saying that taggants would make gunpowder unstable and unsafe. In 1998, the National Research Council concluded that despite "putting additives into explosives to make them easier to detect or to help trace their origins after a bombing, concerns about cost, safety and effectiveness must be addressed before additives can be widely used."

        That was 15 years ago. Hard to believe that taggant technology, like everything else, hasn't advanced far enough to meet all the objections.

        I read some data from FBI/BATF earlier.  I'll try to recover it.

        BTW FBI articles have attributed several successful prosecutions to offenders using Alliant "dot" powders which can be chemically identified. De-facto taggants.

        “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

        by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:03:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Their reasoning is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ArchPundit

      the taggants will prevent complete ignition of the powder, possible causing a misfire.  Bogus.  As anyone know who has ever cleaned a rifle or shotgun, unburned powder is a normal occurrence.  

      Interesting factiod #1: The Swiss have required the use of taggants in all blasting powders sold there.  They do a lot of tunneling.  From all reports they have never had a misfire.

      #2.  One US manufacturer (Alliant) brands its powders "blue dot' "red dot", etc.  The powders are chemically distinguishable, one from another.  Once again, no problem.  Law enforcement has, in the past, been able to use even these imprecise characteristics to solve crimes.
      http://www.alliantpowder.com

      “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

      by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:47:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Next Up, NRA bans testing suspected shooters... (27+ / 0-)

    from any screening for gunpowder residue on their clothes/hands.

    Because... in their ideal world, everybody will ALWAYS have gunpowder residue on them.

    /Snark

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

    by detroitmechworks on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:15:07 PM PDT

  •  Preserving two markets. (22+ / 0-)

    The NRA is preserving two markets for the gun makers.

    1) Crooks are much more important in the gun-buying numbers than they are in the gun-owning numbers. Once a gun has been used in a crime and the cops have a bullet, it is a liability to the guy carrying it. He wants anotehr gun.

    2) with all the crooks carrying guns around, there is more motivation for the rest of us to get guns to protect us against the crooks.

  •  The NRA... (22+ / 0-)

    is soft on crime and terrorism.  That's the only conclusion a reasonable person could come to after reviewing NRA sponsored legislation.

  •  Jon Stewart had this back in January (18+ / 0-)


    i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

    by bobinson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:21:02 PM PDT

  •  What IS their agenda? (16+ / 0-)

    The NRA is a criminal organization IMO.

    Do they get together and brainstorm the final destination?

     

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:21:09 PM PDT

  •  Not surprising, however disgusting it may be. (6+ / 0-)

    One way or another, the NRA wants the means for armed rebellion at the hair-trigger-ready. The law abiding patriot stuff is just manure.

  •  It's all about liberty and freedom. (13+ / 0-)

    All you want is tyranny, MB. The blood of patriots is needed to water the tree of liberty from time to time.

    Or something.

    I'm also pretty sure that if the Dems keep pushing gun legislation, members of the U.S. military may rise in organized insurrection against the federal government.

    Because it might happen. Seriously. And members of Daily Kos actually recced the diary and/or tipped the diarist making such a claim.

    Go figure.

    This place can be as nuts as the NRA.

    Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

    by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:08:13 PM PDT

    •  Can you believe MB keeps pushing gun control? I (6+ / 0-)

      mean, we all know that he really just wants to confiscate every single gun in the World. He clearly does not love freedom like some among us!

      /snark - as if it was necessary to tag that!

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:53:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And in the long interregnum, while "patriots" (7+ / 0-)

      are scarce on the ground, the tree will be kept alive on the blood of children. Feed the tree, people.

      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

      by serendipityisabitch on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:58:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And they recc'd his apology for the Confederacy. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      It was a pretty disgraceful performance all around.  CT combined with trying to rewrite history so that the folks who joined the insurrection against the Union are called something other than traitors, which is exactly what they were.

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

      by FogCityJohn on Wed May 08, 2013 at 04:27:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, it's all about liberty, freedom, and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, DavidMS

      having Democrats actually win elections.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:01:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not everything is about guns, Frank. (7+ / 0-)

        By the way, your lunatic fringe friend from yesterday is now banned.

        Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

        by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:30:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No? Strange, you were singing a different tune (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DavidMS

          before the results.

          I take it that you aren't going to adjust your predictions in light of contrary evidence.
          ......how marvelous.

          Don't worry, Bob. Sanford was just caught ditching his state in order to bang his mistress, got arrested during the campaign, was abandoned by his own party, and was outspent 4 to 1 against a well known, well financed & intelligent candidate that was up by 9 pts 2 weeks before the election.
          I'm sure it'll get easier from here on out.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:53:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Frank, you agreed with me. (4+ / 0-)

            You said her lead was meaningless because Sanford was such a terrible candidate. You know what Sanford ran on? Nancy Pelosi. Not guns.

            Read up, Frank. You're clueless, as usual.

            And a reminder... The lunatic right wing gun nut you were defending yesterday is now banned. And you agreed with his lunatic fringe views. What does that make you?

            Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

            by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:58:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sanford made it a national election. (0+ / 0-)

              What debate is currently on the national stage?
              Particularly a contentious debate that is splitting the Democratic party, rallying the GOP & has a track record of electoral disaster?

              "What does that make you?"
              I don't know. Why don't you tell me?

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:04:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Frank, Sanford ran against Nacy Pelosi. (5+ / 0-)

                HIs most successful campaign stun -- widely mocked here -- was debating a cardboard cutout of Nancy Pelosi. His ads were all about his opponent being beholden to... Nancy Pelosi.

                I know you think guns are the be-all and end-all, Frank, but they just aren't.

                Your obsession is as wacky as the guy yesterday who suggested that active military may form an organized insurrection against the federal government over gun legislation.

                That's some nutty shit, Frank. And you were busy yesterday defending that nutty shit. The diarist is now banned.

                Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:08:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's not? (0+ / 0-)

                  "So all the namby-pamby, weak-kneed gun liars folks who claim that pushing gun legislation will hurt Dems in 2014, pay attention. Not only will Colbert win..."--Bob Johnson.
                  I took your advise, Bob. I paid attention.
                  It looks like you should start doing so yourself.

                  "defending that nutty shit"
                  Oh? Do quote me.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:13:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Heh. (5+ / 0-)

                    Yes, defending that nutty shit, Frank. You didn't think it was reason for banning. Right?

                    Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                    by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:28:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I notice it took you awhile. So I assumed you (0+ / 0-)

                      looked.
                      So where is the quote?

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:31:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Frank, you recycled that right wing conspiracy (4+ / 0-)

                        ... nonsense.. You and many of your RKBA brethren. In fact, the leader of the RKBA group was the first tip in the tip jar. You're not going to run back now and remove your recommendation of that diary, are you, Frank? That diary that was loaded with right wing, fearmongering paranoid nonsense about an active military insurrection against the federal government?

                        That diary that you recommended?

                        Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                        by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:45:06 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So no quote (0+ / 0-)

                          to support your false accusation of "defending that nutty shit".

                          You realize that you don't have a reputation of perfection to uphold.

                          A simple retraction would suffice.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:53:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Frank, here's who recycled that right wing lunacy: (8+ / 0-)
                            BlackSheep1, gerrilea, ichibon, oldpunk, sewaneepat, RenMin, bfitzinAR, bruddaone, ban nock, Mentatmark, Steve in the Library, MarEng, FrankRose, patbahn

                            Oh, look! Your name is in there!

                            Go figure! Was your account hacked, Frank?

                            Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                            by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:56:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Still no example of "defending that nutty shit"? (0+ / 0-)

                            As you aren't retracting, I assume that you have more searching for a quote to prove your false accusation.

                            Best search some more....or you can just retract your statement.

                            You don't have a reputation of perfection to uphold. It's OK to retract when you make a blatantly false statement.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:11:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Goodnight, Frank! Congrats on recommending (4+ / 0-)

                            .. that vile right wing lunatic fringe conspiracy garbage that got that diarist banned! Glad you agree with that now banned diarist and saw fit to recommend that garbage!

                            Watch out, Frank! The military is going to turn on the government! Which side will you be on, Frank? You and your guns?

                            Nighty.night, Frank!

                            Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                            by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:17:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh for god's sake. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your reputation of perfection remains untarnished.
                            Great job.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:25:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You recc'd the diary, Frank. (4+ / 0-)

                            And you recc'd a comment by the now-banned diarist in which he objected to calling the Confederates "traitors."  

                            So not only did you rec his nutty, CT diary, you recc'd his attempt at revisionist history of the Civil War.  

                            Do you not understand that all of this is visible to every TU on the site?

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:46:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Recommend" is not synonymous with "defend" (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you not understand that words have meanings?

                            Moving on, I recc'd because I found that diary to have created stimulating discussion & was an interesting read.

                            Which comment is it you are speaking of? I can assure you that I didn't rec that comment for the part about Confederates not being traitors.
                            I'm a hard-ass on the CSA.... They were war-losing traitors.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:13:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really, Frank? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, nosleep4u, Glen The Plumber

                            Well, here's the link for you:

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

                            But since you'll probably ignore it, I'll copy the comment and your rec here:

                            To answer your question: NO. (4+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:KVoimakas, just another vet, TheOrchid, FrankRose

                            That's the point. That's EXACTLY my point.

                            "If they actually allowed an armed insurrection fomented on the basis of the 2d Amendment alone, they're no better than the traitors that joined the South in 1861."

                            Change that sentence to, "If they actually allowed an armed insurrection fomented on the basis of the 2d Amendment alone, they're no different than the officers that joined the South in 1861."

                            And you are exactly correct.

                            by Very Long Range on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:36:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                            As you'll see (or at least every honest person will), the now banned conspiracy theorist "corrected" another user's characterization of the Confederates as "traitors."  Indeed, his disagreement with that characterization was the sole point of his comment.  Which is the comment that you recc'd, Frank.  

                            Yeah, you're a real hard-ass on the CSA, aren't you?

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:53:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I recced on the basis of the 1st part of the (0+ / 0-)

                            comment, where VLR said that the 2nd Amendment was held in particular passion with the military. Which was the basis of his diary.

                            But you are absolutely correct, I shouldn't have recced it.....I missed the part where VLR changed the word 'traitor' to 'officer', on my first reading.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:22:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You missed a word, Frank? (4+ / 0-)

                            You who are supposedly oh-so-scrupulous about the meaning of words?  Please, Frank, it was the only point of the entire comment.  

                            Or maybe you're telling the truth.  In your zeal to recommend the views of a now banned conspiracy theorist, you just happened to accidentally rec his racist revisionist history, too.  I'm sure it could happen to anyone.

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:27:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, I missed a word. (0+ / 0-)

                            If I didn't think the CSA were traitors, I would freely say so.
                            What motive would I have to do otherwise. Does my comment history somehow suggest that I am concerned with popularity?

                            You can dislike me for the viewpoints I freely support, I'm sure they differ enough from yours to keep you occupied.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:35:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No you wouldn't. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, Glen The Plumber

                            Because if you did say so, you'd get banned, and you know it.  And if you got banned, you couldn't hang around the site pushing your NRA talking points.

                            Go try and sell your bogus explanation to someone else.  The comment and your rec are there in pixels for all to see.  They show your views better than any post hoc rationalization you can dream up.

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:40:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, I would. (0+ / 0-)

                            You have far too high of an opinion of yourself to think that I would bother lying to impress you.

                            "You'd get banned"
                            As someone whom has a contrary opinion with the majority of the site & have no problems saying so, this has always been a distinct possibility.
                            Somehow I think I would find a way to carry on with my life.

                            "bogus explanation"
                            I guess you aren't too experienced with people telling you that 'you are correct'
                            Don't worry, I doubt it will happen again.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:56:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

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

                            Oh, Frank, I know you wouldn't bother lying to impress me, but I'm sure you put the site admins in a different category.

                            And do give up your little persecution complex.  It's so unbecoming.  You don't get banned here for disagreement, but you can get banned here for things like CT, racism, and advocating that people support the Republican Party.

                            I'm frankly not worried about whether you tell me I'm correct or not.  The facts are what they are, and the record is there for all to see.  People will be able to make their own judgments based on that.  

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:34:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Frank, why did you rec that diary? (3+ / 0-)

                            Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                            by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:58:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Frank, why are you lying? (3+ / 0-)

                            Why? You recommended that diary. That diary that was nothing but right wing paranoia. Why would you rec it?

                            Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

                            by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:59:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When did I 'lie'? Do quote me. (0+ / 0-)

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:13:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  For Fucks sake! (0+ / 0-)

                            “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

                            by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:20:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  It should get easier, Frank. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, Glen The Plumber

            Because if you were either smarter or less intellectually dishonest, you'd know that Sanford won in a district in South Fucking Carolina, a district in which Romney defeated Obama by 18 points.  

            Besides, I don't understand why you're acting chagrined at this loss.  The Republicans agree with you on guns.  So in what I am sure is simply a random but happy coincidence for you, the party with which you agree on the only issue you appear to care about has won this special election.

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

            by FogCityJohn on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:43:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Romney didn't lose the support of his own party, (0+ / 0-)

              nor did Obama outspend him by a 4 to 1 margin while being 9 points ahead two weeks prior to the election.

              "only issue you appear to care about"
              Hardly.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:16:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How many Democrats . . . (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, nosleep4u, Glen The Plumber

                do you figure are in that district, Frank?  Obama lost it by 18 points.  Colbert-Busch lost by half that.

                And you can cut the crap.  The only issue you care about is guns.  Remember that your comment history is visible.  I doubt you even vote Democratic.

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

                by FogCityJohn on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:56:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, a person whom bases his screen name on (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber

                  FDR could hardly be counted on to vote democratic.

                  Great detective work, gumshoe.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:09:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's not an answer. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero, nosleep4u, Glen The Plumber

                    Many of you RKBAers don't vote Democratic.  Indeed, the head of your little group doesn't.  You agree with the Republicans on guns, which is the only issue you care about, and your favorite Supreme Court justice is Antonin "Racial Entitlement" Scalia.  So no, you don't strike me as a loyal Democratic voter, Frank.

                    Oh, and FDR?  His name has two O's.

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

                    by FogCityJohn on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:31:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I have always voted strait D, except in 2000 when (0+ / 0-)

                      I voted for Nader.

                      But you are correct that I am not a 'loyal' Dem voter-I have voted for them, convinced others to vote for them & donated money to them because they represented my viewpoints sufficiently enough to earn it.
                      You can keep your creepy concept of 'party loyalty'.

                      "His name had two O's"
                      Yes. It also had a 'l','I','n', 'v', 'e', 'l' & 't'.
                      Glad we could establish this.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:47:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You are very close to an HR... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose, KVoimakas, OMwordTHRUdaFOG

                      I can't speak for what everyone else does in the voting booth but in every partisan election (some local races are non partisan), I have never voted for a Republican.  I voted for Nader in 2000 in Maryland where that was a protest vote because I knew that baring a dead girl/live boy scandal, Gore would carry the state.  

                      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                      by DavidMS on Thu May 09, 2013 at 06:12:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Um, you might want to check your facts. (0+ / 1-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hidden by:
                        Tom Seaview

                        There are a number of members of the DK RKBA group who admit they do not vote Democratic.  This includes the founder and administrator of the group.

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

                        by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:31:16 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You should check yours. (7+ / 0-)

                          But why argue?
                          Link.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 01:47:49 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No need to argue. (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            Tom Seaview

                            Just check this thread out:

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

                            Or you might want to peruse this diary and its comments section:

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

                            In it, you will find gems such as this comment:

                            In response to "Are you going to vote R if" (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:43north

                            a renewed AWB is passed?

                            I will answer this the same way that I answer these types of questions in gun forums, which are largely conservative.  My allegiance is not to a political party.  My willingness to vote for a party is limited to the extent that the party platform agrees with my ideals.  Generally speaking, I don't like being a single issue voter, but an AWB would be an affront and impact me personally.  Consequently, if my representative, regardless of party affiliation voted for an AWB I would actively vote and campaign against that candidate, even if it means voting for and supporting an R candidate.

                            by noway2 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:53:40 PM PST

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:49:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not KV. "The founder & administrator [of RKBA]" (5+ / 0-)

                            From your link "Of course I think that Republicans are a bad thing. That's why I'd never vote for them."

                            You are either incorrect or lying.
                            A retraction or the lack thereof will establish which.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:02:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not surprised by your HR. (0+ / 0-)

                            After all, you folks HR pretty much everything you don't agree with.  But I am rather mystified as to its basis.  Do you think that KV isn't the administrator of RKBA?  Because this is copied from his profile:

                            Founding member (and organizer) of the RKBA DKos group.
                            And if you look at the following page, you'll see he's listed as a "Blog Admin."

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

                            And if you had bothered to read the thread, you'd see that KV quite openly admitted that he can't support the Democratic Party because of its position on guns.  Perhaps you're simply confused.  My original comment doesn't say KV was supporting the Republican Party.  It said only -- and entirely accurately -- that he wasn't supporting the Democratic Party, a fact to which he himself has admitted.

                            So what, exactly, do you find inaccurate?  

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:28:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't HR you. So it must be a suprise. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, Otteray Scribe, 43north

                            And I did read the thread. Hence, my quote of KV from your link.

                            You are wrong.

                            Retracting & admitting a mistake is really not that bad. Unlike some, I won't hold it against you (honestly).
                            You do not have a reputation of perfection to uphold.
                            Do yourself a favor & simply retract it.....or just be a liar.
                            All the same to me.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:57:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry Frank. (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            Tom Seaview

                            I do owe you an apology.  I confused the HR on this comment with one of your other HRs.  

                            Even though I know you know this already, I'll just quote what I told another user:

                            My claim regarding KV was a this:
                            There are a number of members of the DK RKBA group who admit they do not vote Democratic.  This includes the founder and administrator of the group.
                            If you had bothered to read and comprehend the link I provided, you would see this is completely true and indeed nothing more than a statement of facts to which KV himself has admitted.

                            You appear unable to distinguish between the two following statements:

                            "KV doesn't vote Democratic."

                            and

                            "KV votes Republican."

                            I've never contended that the latter is true.  I've only said what KV himself has said -- that he doesn't support the Democratic Party.

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:03:52 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What HR? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, Otteray Scribe

                            Way to double down.

                            Keep your creepy ideal of party loyalty.
                            I won't support someone that doesn't earn  my vote...and I would hope everyone else does the same.

                            Kinda a fan of that whole 'critical thinking' 'voting is important' 'my vote matters' 'Democracy' thing.

                            Clearly not your style.
                            Good luck with that.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:10:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're right! (0+ / 0-)

                            The HRs were all from another user.  For that, I apologize.

                            I don't find my idea of party loyalty creepy at all.  It's an issue of solidarity.  Sometimes my personal interests have to take a back seat to other things.  Those of us who are members of disfavored minority groups understand this.  

                            Did I like what Bill Clinton did with DADT and DOMA?  No.  Did I protest it?  Yes.  Did I vote to re-elect Clinton in 1996?  You better believe I did.  Handing complete control of the federal government over to the Republicans would have been a disaster too awful to contemplate -- for the environment, for labor, for reproductive rights, and for countless other issues.

                            Consider yourself fortunate to have the luxury of standing aside and watching the Republicans get elected.  Black and brown people, women, and LGBTs aren't so lucky.  We can't afford to let the Republicans gain control.  We have way too much at stake.

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:18:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is too much at stake. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, Tom Seaview

                            So leave us the fuck alone.
                            How in the name of all things holy do you support telling the US people that a rifle has to be banned from them because of some sick fuck?

                            Did you support warrantless wiretapping in the wake of 9/11?
                            Gitmo?
                            Torture?

                            Individual liberty is something that continues to increase in support whether you are talking about same sex marriage, equality, acceptance of different cultures/ideals, or gun rights.....and may god help those that do, because I sure as hell will not.

                            I & hundreds of millions of your fellow citizens have done nothing wrong. I will not support infringing on the liberties of innocent Americans for the crimes of murderers or the crimes of terrorists or simply 'because they are others' in any case.

                            If you want more & better dems, you need to understand this.

                            You have a choice....Democratic party, social liberty & progressive ideals or AWB.
                            You can't get both.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:33:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)
                            Did you support warrantless wiretapping in the wake of 9/11?
                            Gitmo?
                            Torture?
                            Uh, no.  Why on earth would you think I had?

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:39:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Because they were infringements of liberties on (4+ / 0-)

                            hundreds of millions of innocent people in the wake of a tragedy.

                            The same mindset is the justification of AWB.

                            Shit man, all rifles combined are responsible for less than half the numbers of murders per year than bare hands are.

                            So whatthefuck with the AWB?

                            Honestly...you have no idea how fucking insulting, pointless & aggravating the AWB is.

                            It's like I am in Bizarro-world....same shit I said to GOPers, I am now saying to Dems (online, mostly).....but not to Democrats where I live (where we have gay marriage & we voted for Obama both in the primaries & in the general)

                            You have no fucking idea what this has done.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:48:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, but . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            holding a human being in captivity without access to family, legal assistance, or judicial process is not the same thing as the AWB.

                            Nor is the AWB in the same category of the intentional physical and psychological maltreatment of a powerless captive.

                            A limitation on particular kind of material possession (a limitation that does not currently exist) cannot be equated with Gitmo, Abu Grahib, or waterboarding.  Attempting to put them in the same category doesn't help your argument in the least, because it suggests an inability to appreciate the very real differences.  If the government came out and told me I couldn't own a computer, a phone, or a car, that would certainly be bad.  But I'd never claim it was anything nearly as serious as what the people in Guantanamo have suffered or that it was in the same ballpark as enduring torture.

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:19:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I find Constitutional liberties to be (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, theatre goon

                            the same thing as Constitutional liberties.

                            Would enduring torture be worse than enduring warrantless wiretaps or AWB?
                            Of course. However torture would also be worse to endure than losing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion.....or the freedom to marry whom you choose.
                            Does torture being worse than the loss of those liberties make concern for those liberties any less valid?

                            But have it your way......
                            You didn't mention warrantless wiretaps.
                            It would appear that we have found something equivalent.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:33:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  To answer this question: (0+ / 0-)
                            Does torture being worse than the loss of those liberties make concern for those liberties any less valid?
                            No.  But I'm of the view that one needs to keep some perspective.  I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about making sure that a person isn't tortured and abused in a prison in some God-forsaken corner of the world than I am, say, about whether I can marry the partner of my choice.  The latter is an injustice and a matter of de jure discrimination, but I'd never claim the inability to marry another man is even remotely as severe a deprivation of liberty as torture is.  To do so would be the height of self-absorption.  

                            These things are not equal in degree, even if you think they are of a kind.  It's a bit like Chief Justice Roberts claiming that considering a person's race in balancing a school's population is the same thing as Jim Crow.  Sure, race may be involved in both, but they are in no way comparable.

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:55:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then we are in agreement. (0+ / 0-)

                            Moving on......

                            With the issue of 'perspective' in mind:
                            Gun control will cost votes. How many is yet to be seen....but as elections are won on the margins......

                            Without discussing how many votes the will/won't lose, let us engage in a hypothetical:
                            Is gun control worth losing Democrats over? Is it worth losing the social liberalism they have in most other issues?
                            Is it worth losing the chance for progressive economics?

                            Quite frankly, how fucking important is the AWB to you?
                            Because it is really important to many....but they aren't the ones that are for it.

                            Is it worth it?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:02:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Goddamnit. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            "Individual liberty is something that continues to increase in support whether you are talking about same sex marriage, equality, acceptance of different cultures/ideals, or gun rights.....and may god help those that [don't support them], because I sure as hell will not"

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:13:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  John, the litmus test is down to this one issue: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk

                            Guns.

                            No TRUE Democrat would ever rest while guns remain in civilian hands.

                            So that leaves those who are, or are favorable towards black, brown, female, and/or LGBT people - but still want civilian gun possession - without a place in the Democratic Party.

                            You said as-much yourself:

                            I don't find my idea of party loyalty creepy at all.  It's an issue of solidarity.  Sometimes my personal interests have to take a back seat to other things.  Those of us who are members of disfavored minority groups understand this.  

                            Did I like what Bill Clinton did with DADT and DOMA?  No.  Did I protest it?  Yes.  Did I vote to re-elect Clinton in 1996?

                            In Europe, you'd have cast a no-confidence vote, and the PM would have been sacked.  There would have been no Clinton in '96, unless he tightened-up his act.

                            Your choice here in the US, and the one you offer, is:  
                            Right or wrong on an issue important to me, remember The Party knows better than you do.   On all issues.

                            We castigate Republicans when they say these things.
                            "Party Loyalty" = teabagger.

                            What happens when the best Democrat for the job, can't get elected AS a Democrat?

                            "The Party knows best" - sounds not-so-vaguely Soviet.
                            Sounds equally Republican.

                            I can think of a dozen elections where John or Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) would be the vastly more Liberal option to a sitting (D-__) politician.

                            If given a gay marriage-friendly (R) or a christian-conservative (D) on the November ballot?  I know where my ballot is being cast.
                            YMMV.

                            Oh, and thanks for the TJ HM in quoting NoWay in your above comments.

                            The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

                            by 43north on Sat May 11, 2013 at 06:18:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Uh. No. I've NEVER voted for anyone but a Democrat (9+ / 0-)

                          and I've said that if it was a choice between staying home and Republican, it'd be staying home.

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

                          by KVoimakas on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:28:49 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I've replied to Frank with links. (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            Tom Seaview

                            Suffice to say, the fact that you have voted Democratic in the past is different from voting for the Democratic Party in the present and the future.

                            Since in the thread to which I linked, you referred to Republicans as your political "bedfellows," people can make their own judgments about where your party loyalties stand.

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:51:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And with your inability to quote "the founder & (6+ / 0-)

                            administrator [of RKBA]" people can make their own judgements about your honesty.

                            But, don't you worry.....I will quote from your link:
                            "Of course I think that Republicans are a bad thing. That's why I'd never vote for them."--KVoimakas.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:06:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Um . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            Inability to quote?  Did you even read the link, Frank?  

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:42:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I did. Hell, I even quoted him. (3+ / 0-)

                            You, however, did not.

                            When I make a mistake I admit it.....as you well know.

                            Do you?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:51:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I would if I had. (0+ / 0-)

                            But you apparently can't.  Because there's no way you could read that link and claim what I said was inaccurate.

                            Oh wait, yes there is.  If you're completely intellectually dishonest, you could claim that.  

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:55:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Uh...yes I did quote him. Don't worry I can do it (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, Tom Seaview, theatre goon

                            again.
                            "Of course I think that Republicans are a bad thing. That's why I'd never vote for them."--KVoimakas.

                            Someone is being dishonest.....but not 'intellectually dishonest'.
                            There is nothing intellectual about your dishonesty.
                            'Blatant', 'obvious', 'embarrassing', 'childish', 'petulant', 'indefensible'.....'amusing'; Yes.

                            'Intellectual'? No.

                            You should really learn to just admit a fucking mistake.
                            You don't have a reputation of perfection.
                            Suck it up, admit it & move on.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:04:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Staying home = not voting Democratic. (0+ / 0-)

                            That should be obvious, but apparently it's not.

                            In the thread to which I linked, you plainly admitted you won't support the Democratic Party over the gun issue.  It's right there in pixels.

                            But now two days after the diary was posted, you've called out your posse to engage in an HR fest.  SOP.

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:52:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  1 HR isn't much of a 'fest'. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:38:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am in a concurrent conversation with (0+ / 0-)

                            Frank Rose.

                            Here

                            He screams

                            You think that every person in the USA should have their Second Amendment rights appealed
                            Then when I tell him that's not what I am thinking he retorts
                            Says a member of "Repeal or Amend the Second (0+ / 0-)

                            Amendment".

                            So it's OK for the RkBAers to accuse me of just wanting their guns because of a group listed on my page, but heaven forbid you find a link quoting Frank spouting GOP love.

                            It's OK for them to know what I am thinking but not OK for you to remember what they actually said.

                            Validate my parking Validate my parenting Validate my politics Validate my religion And I will be happy.

                            by 88kathy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:00:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  You certainly must have links to back this up (6+ / 0-)

                          please elucidate. We are still a reality based site last time I checked.

                          Trade always exists for the traders. Any time you hear businessmen debating "which policy is better for America," don’t bend over. -George Carlin-

                          by not4morewars on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:31:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  See my reply to Frank. nt (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            Tom Seaview

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:50:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  your link proves that your accusation is FALSE (5+ / 0-)
                            Of course I think that Republicans are a bad thing. That's why I'd never vote for them.

                            -KV, in your first link

                            So, your claim is not true... and you are smearing a loyal liberal, and doubling down on it.
                            I delivered an well-deserved HR to each comment in which you did so.
                            And I have one left, if you want to keep playing.

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

                            by Tom Seaview on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:14:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Remedial reading. (0+ / 0-)

                            Perhaps you could try it.

                            My claim regarding KV was a this:

                            There are a number of members of the DK RKBA group who admit they do not vote Democratic.  This includes the founder and administrator of the group.
                            If you had bothered to read and comprehend the link I provided, you would see this is completely true and indeed nothing more than a statement of facts to which KV himself has admitted.  

                            You appear unable to distinguish between the two following statements:

                            "KV doesn't vote Democratic."

                            and

                            "KV votes Republican."

                            I've never contended that the latter is true.  I've only said what KV himself has said -- that he doesn't support the Democratic Party.

                            I don't expect you'll remove your HR, even though I've demonstrated that it's based on your misunderstanding.  I am, however, going to let your HR and this explanation stand as yet another example of how some of you folks operate.

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

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:40:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  technically the founder didn't say that (8+ / 0-)

                          He said sitting out an election in the future is a possibility, not that he has ever done so yet. Maybe you should walk it back eh?

                          Further... Many RKBAers are very strong Dems and might take offense at being referred to that way. Just saying.

                          How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                          by ban nock on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:13:45 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Of course I've voted for Republicans. (6+ / 0-)

                          I used to be one.

                          I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this a few years ago, but I'm not going to try to look it up.

                          Regardless, it has little to do with how I vote now.  I vote on the issues, not simply straight party-tickets.  That would be irresponsible.  

                          And people should be held accountable for that.

                          Your hate-mail will be graded.

                          by PavePusher on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:47:04 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  I voted Republican exactly once (4+ / 0-)

                      It was 1994 and the Democrat in that race was a complete asshole named Pat Quinn. I don't regret my vote.

                      Other than that, I've voted reliably Democratic since I was of voting age.

                      That will change in 2014 when I decline to vote to re-elect my drooling idiot of a State Senator.

                      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                      My Blog
                      My wife's woodblock prints

                      by maxomai on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:34:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'll also admit to voting Republican. Once. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Otteray Scribe

                        For country Sheriff -- the Republican candidate happened to be a friend of the family (and also happened to have an extensive law-enforcement background), while the Democratic candidate had no such background or personal connection.

                        This was in the 1990's, though I don't recall the exact year now...

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

                        by theatre goon on Sat May 11, 2013 at 04:03:01 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Who is "many?" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon

                      I don't vote Republican. However, if the Democratic candidate is a total crook, dipstick, or incompetent I might stay home.  

                      Again, who is "many?" Got numbers?  

                      This is not my car at the link, but I have been thinking of getting this bumper sticker.

                      Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength. - Eric Hoffer

                      by Otteray Scribe on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:36:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Frank..!!..a Dem has not won that seat for over (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FogCityJohn

                30 years...must have been because of guns.


                We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                by Glen The Plumber on Thu May 09, 2013 at 07:03:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I really hope this canard is finally put to rest (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, Glen The Plumber

        in 2014.  People keep saying that we lost the House in 1994 because of the assault weapons ban.  Sure, you can point to a district here or there where that made a difference, but overall lots of other things put a lot more points on the board in terms of guaranteeing Democratic losses.  Furthermore, look at the most recent polling.  Senators who favor sane gun legislation (even in red states!) are being viewed more favorably by their voters now.  Senators who opposed such legislation (even in red states!) are seeing their poll numbers go down.  And finally, whatever effect guns might have had in 1994, who gives a shit?  That was 20 years ago.  The country has moved on.

  •  The gun industry profits off criminals... (13+ / 0-)

    We wouldn't want to put the brakes on that lucrative market, would we, NRA?

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by richardak on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:09:43 PM PDT

  •  great diary (8+ / 0-)

    These should be some of the low hanging fruit that we could begin to push forward.  

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:12:27 PM PDT

  •  Error? (9+ / 0-)
    Authorities may never be able to track the gun used to kill a transit police officer because its external identification number was worn down.
    The transit police officer, Richard Donohue, was not killed. He is still very much alive. The officer killed was the MIT campus police officer, Sean Collier.

    Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

    by Bob Johnson on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:23:03 PM PDT

  •  The thing is (5+ / 0-)

    IMO most of us hate the NRA, they are a vile lobbying organization that does harm to everyone, gun owners as well as those who don't. They paint an extremist face on everyone who comes in contact with them.

    But. How do we undo them? How do we diminish them? Just talking about how evil and or stupid their president is or how manipulative and also evil LaPierre is doesn't cut it. They are still doing their thing.

    Every person who rants about banning guns ends up feeding them. People who like to shoot get hinky and dig in their heels and the NRA are there to help them become more paranoid. Shit, I have two nephews who joined the NRA because of stuff they read on FaceBook.

    Maybe I'm just a little depressed right now. I see Susan G Koman going strong and pink ribbons all over the place. It seems that we are flush with outrage, but not so good at making it take. Rush is a highlight but we can't follow that template.

    My question, how do we end the NRA or better, turn it back to what it was originally?

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

    by high uintas on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:24:41 PM PDT

    •  We must turn helplessness into resolve... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, DefendOurConstitution

      We need to push for a federal gun license that is exactly like an automobile driver's license.  It can offer freedom to gun owners not wanting to wait for days to get a background check completed, it will allow people to carry a concealed weapon across state lines like the gun owners want and it will allow screening for the menatlly ill and the felons they always blame for gun crimes.

      In addition, it would ensure that gun owners are trained in handling and storage of their weapons, allow for precertification at gun shows and person to person sales (by simply calling a hotline established to ensure the license is still valid) and it would hold people accountable for their weapons when they store them irresponsibly.

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

      by Buckeye Nut Schell on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:40:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The key, imo as a gun owner, is that gun owners... (5+ / 0-)

      ...must help lead this charge. That means non-gun-owning gun-control advocates must be willing to them allies rather calling every gun owner a gun nut, or fetishist, or guy who's afraid his cock is too short. That kind of caricature does exactly nothing to build the alliance needed to break the NRA's stranglehold on state and federal legislation.

      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 May 09, 2013 at 03:32:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't suppose it's worth pointing out (5+ / 0-)

    that policies pushed by the ACLU "hamper criminal investigations" too? Remember all that controversy about Mirandizing the Marathon Bomber, for example?

    -7.25, -6.26

    We are men of action; lies do not become us.

    by ER Doc on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:26:14 PM PDT

    •  Non sequitur. (12+ / 0-)

      Mirandizing suspects makes certain everything is done by the book.  Making sure there is no evidence removes the book.

      I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

      by trumpeter on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:43:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are differences of opinion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon

        as to when and how "the book" should be changed. There is only one country that requires taggants now. Is the NRA responsible for preventing legislation in all other countries, too?

        -7.25, -6.26

        We are men of action; lies do not become us.

        by ER Doc on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:29:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As the US is the (3+ / 0-)

          armorer for much of the world, the NRA's influence is felt beyond our borders.

          I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

          by trumpeter on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:49:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's laughable. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, ER Doc, andalusi, FrankRose

            The only round that is pretty much only made here in the usa is the .40sw

            Everything else is also manufactured in dozens and dozens of other countries.

            There are ammo manufacturing plants in foreign countries spinning up increased output in order to feed the market here in america. The nra has no say in whether they dilute their powder recipe with chaff.

            Taggants.... The government alone is purchasing more than 1 billion rounds. There is no possible way to add taggants to be as useful as what the unthinking public has imagined. They aren't like serial numbers, where if you reach the upper limit on the stamper you can just add another digit. There's a finite amount of space inside the brass casing and so when you run through all the possible combinations you are forced to start repeating what you've already done. And since ammunition can sit around for more than fifty years without any loss of function, once you start repeating combinations you have destroyed the very trait that was the original intent.

            Really, people are still digging up sealed spam cans of ammo from ww2 and the rounds fire like they just came off the assembly line.

            •  Once again, the refrain: this won't apply... (6+ / 0-)

              ...to every case. People will find their way around it.

              You sound like that guy who won't put a burglar alarm in his house because the burglars will just find a way to cut off his power and break in anyway.

              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 May 09, 2013 at 03:35:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you want to go with a break-in metaphor... (0+ / 0-)

                Taggants in powder are like getting sticky strips of paper where the entire package has a pre-printed series of colors. You take the package and stick a strip to everything you own. If the cops come across a bunch of stolen stuff they look at the color code and track it back to you.

                The problem is, these strips of paper are sold nationwide and they are only so many millimeters in length, plus there is a limited color palette that is functionally fit to use in the color codes.

                All of which leads to the problems I already mentioned. Limited color palette means there will come a point where the number of unique color combinations has all been used up, but there are still more households untagged... So the maker will start doubling up on combinations, resulting in ROYGBIVROY being used by me in pa and who knows how many others in how many other places possibly far or right next door.

                Plus, taggants in powder will not necessarily remain at the scene in a manner that can be collected accurately enough for a correct identification. Sorta like the hypothetical color strips being exposed to the heat / cold / damp / dry / sun and degrading enough so that what was tagged with your strip is now pointing to a different person.

                Taggants are FUCKING STUPID. They are science FICTION, just like the ignorant way people have placed so much faith in ballistic fingerprinting when jamming a brass brush down the barrel for a minute scrapes away all those CSI special effects that made great entertainment but were almost as useful as directions on how to fly by flapping your arms.

                And you know what, MB? I wonder what the hell happened to you. You used to scrutinize things for feasibility and scalability. You should have noticed that the factors of limited materials plus powder batch size would reduce the number of unique 'tags' to an ineffective level, not to mention how cartridge longevity plus unreliable 'tag' collection at a scene would be plenty enough grounds for reasonable doubt and even mistaken identity to happen.

                How many more SWAT teams descending on the wrong house because the public swallowed some shiny special effect propaganda are you okay with?

                You should have thought this through, what has happened?

                •  You're dissing 20th Century technology ... (3+ / 0-)

                  ... No surprise there given how little attention has been paid to creating unique tags for explosives.

                  But isotopic tags avoid all the problems you raise because they don't depend on color combinations or 0.1mm taggants. See:

                  Development of a Dual-Isotope Procedure for the Tagging and Identification of Manufactured Products: Application to Explosives

                  These scientists don't think taggants are fucking stupid.

                  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 May 09, 2013 at 06:42:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Next You Know (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Glen The Plumber, FogCityJohn

                    We'll have handheld communicators like in Star Trek.  Ha--you and your science fiction.

                  •  Even if they get the technology to work safely (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    happy camper, PavePusher

                    What would it actually tell us?  I think that most powder loaded in the U.S. is from foreign countries.  Powder is made in huge batches, then separated into drums and sold worldwide, wherever ammunition is loaded.  The drums arrive in the U.S. and are distributed to several companies, who then separate the drums into smaller cans and put their own labels on the cans.  Some of those cans are separated into even smaller cans and distributed to stores all over the U.S. for sale to shooters that reload their own.  Other cans go to any one or several ammunition manufacturers who load it into their cartridges which they then distribute under their own and different brand names all over the U.S.  All of this has the same taggant signature from the manufacturer(??) and how do you know who bought what ammunition where or who bought what can of powder where.  Don't even try to tell me that they would attempt to add a different taggant to each one of tens of thousands of cans of powder because that wouldn't be practical.  

                    Gunpowder for fireworks is even more convoluted.  Foreign manufacturer of the powder and foreign manufacturer of the fireworks, which is then shipped to many hundreds (probably thousands) of outlets in dozens of countries.  

                    And then, there is potassium nitrate fertilizer.  Tag all of that?  Tens of thousands of pounds are manufactured in a batch, bagged and shipped to agricultural suppliers and garden stores all over the U.S. where it is ultimately sold to thousands of farmers by the truckload or by the pallet and tens of thousands of individuals by the bag.

                    Dynamite and high explosives are used by fewer companies and in lesser quantities, so that is probably doable, but explosives are rarely used in a criminal enterprise so taggants may not be worth the trouble.  When you get into the tens of thousands of users tracing becomes impossible, anyway.

                  •  Thanks for the cite, and lack of bile. (0+ / 0-)

                    I have been trying to wade through:

                    http://ota.fas.org/...

                    Really slow going.

                    “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

                    by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:35:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  The Proposal Was For Bulk Purchases of Powder (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              Not for tagging all black powder used in cartridges. So if bought black powder to load  you own ammo, that would contain taggants.  If  you bought cartridges at the store with powder in it, it wouldn't apply.

              I'm sure there have been proposals to include it in all black powder at some time in the fevered and hystrionic imaginations of gun fetishists, but the relevant issue here was for buying black powder in bulk.  

          •  I think the largest manufacturer (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ER Doc, theatre goon, FrankRose

            Of smokeless powder is ADI in Australia.

            There's a hell of a lot of it made in Finland as well.

            American reloading powder companies like Alliant and Hogdon don't actually make the powders they sell, they buy in bulk, blend, test and relabel product made by others.

            --Shannon

            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

            by Leftie Gunner on Wed May 08, 2013 at 04:17:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Read what I wrote about taggants above (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc, happy camper, PavePusher

          I don't see milspec ever approving the addition of taggants because of the reasons I gave.  

          •  Is it Mandatory (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            for gun fetishists to know nothing about policy debates in the past?  

            I'm always baffled by the absolute ignorance of people so irrationally obsessed with an issue.  

            As MB points out above the tech has changed so we could actually tag black powder fairly easily now, but it was only the black powder sold as black powder that was at issue in the 1990s.  

            •  It is NOT BLACK POWDER we're discussing (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ban nock, happy camper, PavePusher

              You are showing your ignorance.  Smokeless powder is a very different animal (nitro cellulose base).  It is a completely different chemical.  There are dozens (probably hundreds) of smokeless powders, each developed with different explosive properties for different applications--different cartridges, different bullet weights, etc.  Before you post you should do some research so that you understand the difference.

              •  I think we can now see... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ban nock, happy camper, PavePusher

                ...that facts are no longer important to the discussion at DailyKos -- at least, not if they don't fit the chosen narrative.

                Rather sad, in my opinion.

                Good on you for trying, though.

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

                by theatre goon on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:19:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You are correct (0+ / 0-)

                  Discussing the actual article and actual proposal is very problematic around here.  

                  It is within your power to fix that.

                  •  Sadly, I can't force others... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher

                    ...to embrace reality.

                    There is no requirement that the conversation must stay within the narrow confines which you declare are appropriate.

                    The facts are what they are -- you can ignore them all you like, but it won't change reality.

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

                    by theatre goon on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:38:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What Am I Ignoring (0+ / 0-)

                      The actual articles and proposals in those articles? I want to know what you think I'm ignoring?

                      The NRA opposed using taggants, saying they would contaminate some explosives used by gun hobbyists, like old-fashioned gunpowder called black powder and the newer smokeless powder. It said people who liked to fire antique rifles or who loaded their own ammunition would have to use less accurate gunpowder.
                      The 1990s proposal was about bulk powder and the Lautenberg proposal is about bulk powder.  Neither is about powder in cartridges.
                      •  It's pretty straightforward stuff. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PavePusher

                        The diary makes the claim that the NRA has lobbied for legislation that hampers criminal investigations -- specifically, the use of taggants in explosives specifically, and, from that, the discussion moved on to the use of taggants in ammunition -- as discussions often do, move on to a different but related subject.

                        Clearly, then, it is reasonable to discuss whether the addition of taggants to explosives and ammunition is feasible and/or useful to criminal investigations.  It is a part of the central claim of the diary itself, after all, and of the expansion of the discussion in the commentary.

                        I am unclear why you want to avoid that part of the discussion, but your own apparent personal dislike of that discussion in no way makes it irrelevant or out of place.

                        If you choose not to engage in that expanded discussion, that is your choice -- but your insistence that no one else may discuss it is rather out of place and, in and of itself, irrelevant.  One might reasonably wonder exactly why you want to avoid that particular discussion, of course, but it still has no bearing on the discussion itself.

                        As I said, it is rather straightforward.

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

                        by theatre goon on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:04:31 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm Not Avoiding Anything (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm talking about the actual bill the NRA stopped and the actual Lautenberg proposal.  Only gun fetishists came in waiving a 30 some year old study about outdated technology and insisting ammunition would be compromised--something also not consistent with the articles linked from the original post. It's entirely different technology now.

                          So if you want to talk about the actual post above, I've been addressing it.  If you want to talk about the possibility of tagging all ammunition which no one brought up until reddog and jayfrompa brought up, the discussion is avoiding basic points from the linked articles.

                          Either problem can be addressed by reading what is actually proposed and what the actual technology is long after a 1980 report that was done on a typewriter as the article points out.

                          Regardless of anything, read the damn post and articles and know what is actually being said instead of making up strawman arguments and declaring victory.  

                          •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            ...once you've devolved to name-calling, I can't see that you would have anything relevant to add to the discussion, so you have a lovely day.  

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

                            by theatre goon on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:41:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But Calling Everyone Stupid (0+ / 0-)

                            Despite not reading the actual article and controversies in the article while then trying to talk about taggants in ammunition is fine.  

                            Again, the article was about powder not ammunition.  There was no discussion of ammunition until reddog and jayfrompa decided that was what they wanted to argue about and started ranting about 1980 kinds of taggant technology.  This is all despite the actual linked articles also address that there is are entirely new technologies available.  

                            But your feelings were hurt because someone responded right back at you all pointing out the complete dishonesty of the talking points.  I'm so sorry.  

              •  Reading is Fundamental (0+ / 0-)

                I'd suggest reading the article this article is talking about here

                Under current law, people can buy up to 50 pounds of explosive "black powder" with no background check, and can buy unlimited amounts of other explosive powders, such as "black powder substitute" and "smokeless powder."

                Read more: http://thehill.com/...
                Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

            •  I'd be a little embarassed (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happy camper, PavePusher
              I'm always baffled by the absolute ignorance of people so irrationally obsessed with an issue.  

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:13:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Dog, by saying "I don't see..." means (0+ / 0-)

            you are expressing an opinion, not a fact.  Opinions are worthwhile but cannot automatically demand respect.

            Thats not gospel, its guessing.

            “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

            by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:41:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  dam skippy, excellent summary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, Calamity Jean, a2nite
    That's a long, long way from promoting responsible gun ownership.
    more texas style regulatin'

    and this:

    “I wanted to make sure I was fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers.”
    ugh.

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:57:26 PM PDT

  •  Know what else hampers investigations? The 4thA. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, theatre goon, FrankRose

    Warrants! Can you believe the nerve of that soft-on-crime ACLU wants the cops to get a warrant for each search?!?!

    Think of the children victimized by crime!

    NO MORE WARRANTS!
    DOWN WITH THAT 4TH AMENDMENT!
    UP WITH ANYTHING THE COPS WANT!
    (/snark)

    •  If you think I'm in any way in favor of... (5+ / 0-)

      ...everything the cops and D.A.s want, you really don't have a clue about me. But let's remember that the NRA's campaign contributions have gone in overwhelming percentrages to right-wing candidates and incumbents who aren't exactly in the ACLU camp except when the organization is doing specifically 2nd Amendment-related stuff. If the NRA had been spending its time for the past 30 years working on the 4th, it wouldn't be weakened the way it has been.

      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 May 09, 2013 at 03:40:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And their contributions are largely failures. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        andalusi

        Maddow did a segment on this a few months back.

        She showed how ?planned parenthood? had like a 98% success rate - like 98% of the candidates they contributed to ended up winning.
        While something like 5% of the candidates that the NRA contributed to ended up winning.

        So it's really not worthwhile to remember nra campaign contributions. Congress critters are not retiring from their elected office and taking lucrative lobbying positions from the nra. So the financial / funding side of the nra is really not worth of attention at all.

        Yet it remains. What you are doing is you are supporting a tracking method that is constrained by the laws of physics to be unable to provide an adequate number of unique identification mixtures and with enough of a mistake possibility in collecting samples so as to increase the chance of false identifications.

        What you are doing is claiming that obstruction of implementing such an inadequate and error-prone system is hampering investigations. You've shown me what you do.

        It looks to me like you believe that the inadequacy and errors are acceptable as long as the investigations continue.

        •  In 2012, the NRA overwhelmingly failed... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, FogCityJohn

          ...with the candidates it supported at the federal level. But that's not been true in previous elections. Moreover, it's not true for state elections, where just a little money from the NRA can make a much bigger difference than a lot of money for Congress. In Connecticut, the NRA has contributed $350,000 to state legislative candidates since 1996, according to the Sunlight Foundation. Fifteen sitting legislators have received funding from the NRA.

          This pattern can be seen across the country. As you are, I am sure, well aware, since 1986, the NRA has had tremendous success at getting state gun laws loosened coast to coast, although it's had big problems with New York and California. The hundreds of thousands spent on state contests (and on issue advertising) have been quite successful.

          Your cramped viewpoint on the efficacy of taggants is based on the application of much cruder technology than is now available even in the absence of concentrated research, which would hone what can be done effectively 15 years after the last federal study about taggants was completed. You wouldn't want to use today the mobile phone technology available in 1998, would you?

          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 May 09, 2013 at 09:50:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Taggants are self-defeating (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            Taggants can work if they are used in a very limited number of applications, in small amounts. Imagine the contamination if every major urban fireworks display spread taggants over an entire city (I believe the Boston bombs used powder taken from bulk fireworks). Imagine the difficulty of getting a taggant-based conviction if someone could sweep a handful of dust up from the floor of a firing range (or Civil War re-enactment) and collect hundreds or thousands of different taggant samples to contaminate a crime scene with.

            Putting taggants in everything defeats their usefulness.

            •  LIberally sprinkling taggants at a crime scene.. (0+ / 0-)

              will not confuse the cops. they don't use a dust pan to gather evidence.  They examine bomb parts that have taggants fused in the metal (or whatever).

              Same tired argument, "but what if.."

              “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

              by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:55:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's called a revolver. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shamash, PavePusher, andalusi

                It's also called "policing your brass".

                If either of these are done then all the cops have of the powder taggant is what was flung through the air and settled on the ground.

                MB used to think these things through. What happened to him?!?! Where has the rational thinker gone?

              •  Sigh (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher
                they don't use a dust pan to gather evidence
                Actually, they do. Microtaggants are designed with magnetic layers so you can sweep the crime scene with a magnet and pick them up.

                From a taggant study done by the explosive industry, who last I checked was not in the pocket of the NRA:

                Furthermore, if taggants were required in all explosives, future bombing crime scenes would be contaminated with countless different taggants. A taggant from a criminal bomb would not be distinguishable from those taggants at the scene resulting from the legitimate use of explosives to produce building materials such as concrete, mortar and stone and the construction of roads and highways. The finding of multiple taggants would seriously complicate the investigation and certainly any eventual prosecution, further eroding any value gained from a tagging program.
    •  Stomp your foot when you act that way. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      It's what my 5 year-olds do.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:11:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is outrageous (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WakeUpNeo, a2nite, Glen The Plumber
    One of those, as others and I have previously reported, was the NRA's efforts dating back to 1979 at keeping inert tracing identifiers called "taggants" out of gunpowder. The NRA successfully lobbied against President Clinton's push to add taggants to explosives after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. A National Research Council study in 1998 said not enough research had been done yet on the safety and efficacy of such taggants and more should be done. Since then, however, little research has been undertaken on the subject despite vast advances in other technology.
    especially given what we already know about lead. It's a national disgrace they way we have tolerated the marketing of child gun use despite knowing the dangers of childhood exposure to lead.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:21:46 PM PDT

  •  Hasn't the "cannot digitize" portion of these (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    laws been invalidated by later laws such as the E-Government Act of 2002?

  •  NRA = No Responsibility or Accountability (4+ / 0-)
    The NRA, in particular, has made much of its supposed desire to see existing gun-related legislation enforced rather than passing new legislation. All in the name of protecting the legitimate rights of gun owners. In fact, the gun lobby has demonstrated a decades-long determination to undermine existing legislation and weaken its enforcement thus making it easier for criminals to acquire firearms and keep those acquisitions out of police view. That's a long, long way from promoting responsible gun ownership.
    Thank you, Meteor Blades, for stating this truth so succinctly.
  •  Taggants in gunpowder? Next thing you know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    they government will start arresting murderous lunatics. How will they then be able to buy weapons to protect democracy?

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Thu May 09, 2013 at 04:35:58 PM PDT

  •  You don't say? Really? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    /s

  •  Hamperings (0+ / 0-)

    Law enforcement is also hampered, I guess, by the "fruit of the poisoned tree" exclusion of evidence from searches ruoed to violate, even inadvertently, the 4th amendment and the lack of required national ID cards with biometric data.

  •  Let's just say it... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    The NRA is a criminal protection organization.

    I listen to Lori Compas, not Pete Peterson!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Thu May 09, 2013 at 04:41:03 PM PDT

  •  I hope it's okay for me to ask about this... (3+ / 0-)

    but anyone hear about a proposed armed march on DC?
    On July 4th.
    :/

    Jonathan Capehart of WashPost:

    The 31-year-old former Marine and radio talk show host wants to lead armed demonstrators on a march across Memorial Bridge from Arlington National Cemetery around the Capitol, Supreme Court and the White House. Kokesh is calling on the thousands he hopes will join him (as of this writing, the count stands at 2,673) to march “with rifles loaded & slung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated & cower in submission to tyranny.”

    Kokesh plans this to be “an act of civil disobedience, not a permitted event.” Fine. Happens all the time. But there’s just one problem. Openly or concealed, it is illegal to carry a gun in the District of Columbia. But that’s no issue for Kokesh. “There will be coordination with DC law enforcement prior to the event,” he writes on his blog. “I will recommend that they do the best they can to honor their oaths and escort us on our route.” Translation: skirt the law.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
  •  :) (0+ / 0-)

    Should I wear my hat when visiting our gun-toting bar in NC.

    "It's a cowboy hat."

    "Lets show the rascals what Citizens United really means."

    by smiley7 on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:04:04 PM PDT

  •  OT, and downright impertinent. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    Every time I see that image I'm struck by how many historic firearms are pictured there. I see an FN-FAL, a Mosin-Nagant Model 91/30, and an SMLE. The revolver is an Enfield Mark Something top-break. I can't identify the automatic at the bottom, but it's probably collectable. I'm not sure about the modern automatic or the shotgun, but I think that's a Mini-14 with the scope.

    The free market is not the solution, the free market is the problem.

    by Azazello on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:11:41 PM PDT

  •  That's a feature, not a bug. (0+ / 0-)

    It's not a matter of privatizing security so much as of atomizing it. They are actively courting the war of all against all.

    The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

    by psnyder on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:39:28 PM PDT

  •  Black powder is extremely easy to make from (0+ / 0-)

    scratch.  All one needs is sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate.  All of these ingredients are easy to acquire.  Now, making smokeless power at home is an entirely different subject.  Smokeless power is basically nitrocellulose, which is made by treating cellulose with nitric acid and sulfuric acid.  Smokeless power is used in modern ammunition.

    I own firearms and support the second amendment, but I do not support concealed carry.  It is impossible to carry without violating private property rights, and I want to know when someone is packing heat on my property.

    With that said, I do believe that it should be legal to carry TASERs everywhere in all fifty states.  I work for a major educational institution in Baltimore, Maryland, and our campus is not a safe place to work (it's definitely not safe to be on campus after dark). I wish I could blame the problem on guns, but the criminals use knives and physical violence more often than guns to extract what they want from a victim.  Women are especially not safe on campus.  I would never let my daughters attend this school.

    Baltimore is an incredibly violent city.  Guns are only a symptom of the real problem; namely, Baltimore is the heroin capital of the United States.  There are just way too many untreated drug addicts in the city.  Many of these people do not want help.

  •  Good Guys With Guns (0+ / 0-)

    This is exactly right.  The NRA doesn't want to "enforce the laws we already have"-- it wants to neuter them.  It would rather let some "bad guys with guns" escape prosecution than interrupt the paranoid fantasies of "good guys with guns" who feel personally targeted by even the most benign government regulations. NRA: "We're Not Bitter -- Just Crazy"

  •  Naturally the NRA hampers criminal checks (0+ / 0-)

    because every NRAer is either an actual criminal or is yearning to become a criminal by vandalizing the Government which they stupidly call a tyranny.  

  •  Let me ask the NRA haters a question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    Some of the NRA hate here seems amazingly irrational in its reasoning. Answer these questions:

    How many new guns are sold each year in this country?
    How many guns are used in crimes each year in this country?

    I imagine that even if the NRA had no morals whatsoever and were merely spokesmen for the gun industry (which seems to be the majority opinion here), that they would side with whichever answer to the above questions was most profitable.

    So, are they making more money by selling to people who will never use a gun in a criminal fashion, or are they making more money by supporting criminal gun use (and if so, how do they make this money)?

    The every NRA member is "yearning to become a criminal" nonsense gives NRA critics about as much credibility as those claiming "big pharma" loves to make profits by murdering unborn children with the "morning after" pill.

    The NRA is deeply flawed enough that you can find plenty of valid criticisms of it without making yourself sound like a raving loon.

  •  Call me a bluff old traditionalist... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    ...but gun use is not a disease, unsafe taggants are unsafe, and government ought not be in the business of pre-investigating 'crimes' and collecting evidence before the fact.

    I thought we would have learned our lesson about the dilatory effects of forgoing logic in favor of fear-driven emotionality in the wake of 9/11.

    I guess hoplophobes in our party are simply borrowing a play book from the NeoCons and mixing it together with a little bit of TeaBagger.

  •  A nearly intractable problem. (0+ / 0-)

    The NRA rationale was summed up recently by the infamous James Jaeger (Im gonna start shoot somebody"). "Just because you are afraid doesn't  mean I have to lose my rights"  

    I think it IS a cultural thing.  The close relatives of the 2year-old shooting victim recently made news by saying "Its just a big mistake, nothing more."  

    I used to think minds would change it the violence touched the lives who resist changes.  Nope.

    It is going to take a Constitutional Amendment. I am not sanguine about the chances.

    “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.”

    by frenchy339 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:35:23 AM PDT

    •  I'll give you part of the solution..... (0+ / 0-)

      Negligence and accidents are not "violence".

      Stop the conflation and you'll make more progress.

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Fri May 10, 2013 at 02:50:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site