My answer to Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association:

[amb123]

HEY HEY NRA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY NRA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY NRA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY NRA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY NRA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY NRA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY NRA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY NRA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY NRA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY NRA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!

I hope they hear that good and loud at their press conference on the 21st.

My Answer to Larry Pratt and the Gun Owners of America:

HEY HEY GOA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY GOA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY GOA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY GOA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY GOA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY GOA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY GOA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY GOA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY GOA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!
HEY HEY GOA, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?!

I hope that it will, at least, discourage so-called "Gun Advocates" from using America in the titles of their organizations in the future. THese groups are ANTI-AMERICAN!

[Indydem]

1. I didn't kill any kids today. Or yesterday. Or ever.

But thanks for your anti-gun anti constitutional ignorance.

[leftyohiolib]

4. anti-constitution? i cant believe after all this discussion people stupidly think the constitution

gives local citizenry any right to guns

[Indydem]

6. It does.

Your interpretation of the constitution is at odds with all professional legal interpretations and the SCOTUS.

[leftyohiolib]

7. mine is not an interpretation the constitution doesnt give local citizenry a right to any guns

the supreme court did and once it changes to dem majority that could change, but you are free to tell me where in the 2nd amendment it says any yahoo can own a gun. and no fair hiding behind the republican scotus
the language in the 2a is pretty clear - those "professional legal interpretations", which ill take your word for their existence, and scotus are bought and paid for cause the language is clear.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Even Heller gives the government authority to regulate

Yes, even Heller.

They only make that argument that mi,itia don't apply to gun in home.

Polly want a cracker?

[Indydem]

9. Who said anything about being anti regulation?

These folks want a gun ban, not regulation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. And you want things to remain the way they are.

I want the same regulations that apply to a tommy to apply to an infantry battle riffle. Horse, barn and all that.

I also want all extended clips to be made illegal...buy back programs to current owners with a deadline, after that point make them illegal to own. I am sure you won't like that.

I want concealed carry to be licensed with cause, not just the I am afraid of shadows or nebolous self defense, to be renewed every three years.

I want to close the gun show loophole.

But I guess I am a gun grabber.

[Indydem]

14. I disagree with you for good reason.

1. When the Thompson was made restricted in the 30's there were actually very few of them in circulation. There are tens of millions of AR style weapons in circulation now. You can't put the cat back in the bag. You can't outlaw a gun that was legal to buy when it was purchased. So what have you accomplished - you've made existing AR weapons extremely expensive and you haven't made one person safer.

2. Again, this is against the constitution. You can't make something retroactively illegal. The idea that you will ever be able to accomplish this is crazy town. Even if you stop sales of new extended magazines, there are still hundreds of millions of them in circulation. The idea of a buyback is ok, but most are not going to sell them back.

3. Why is concealed carry a problem? I am unaware of any gun massacres committed with by a person with CCW. How will this make a single person more safe by making it harder to legally carry a firearm?

4. I want to open NICS to all people. This will effectively close the gun show loophole.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. I was right...

Quelle surprise.

Oh and son, yes, they can do that...they can forbid extended mags, it's actually in the often cited Heller decision.

Have a good day.

You repeat NRA talking points all the time. That ground you are standing on...is really shifting.

When I actually toy with the idea of buying an armored backpack, that is a problem. When parents are buying those for kids...that is a problem.

Your right to own whatever do not supersede my right to life, you got it?

I really do not want to continue to have to look for cover everywhere I go.

Oh and I own guns.

[Indydem]

22. Do you know what Ex Post Facto is?

You can't make them illegal after the fact.

You can make them illegal moving forward. You can not do so retroactively.

The constitution is very clear on this matter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. The sands are shifting

So go get as many guns as you can. Your logic is that of the Tom tomorrow cartoon.

You even said the occasional civilian massacre is the price the rest of us have to pay for your freedom.

Internal tranquility, and well regulated militia. They are both in the founding documents.

My right to life can't be squared with your right to a battle riffle, unless you are part of a well regulated militia.

You ARE that delicate flower in that cartoon.

[Indydem]

26. It isn't "MY" freedom.

It is the freedom of All Americans.

The fact that you feel restricting freedoms is awesome* is disturbing.

* As long as it's a freedom you don't like.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I am sorry

But even Hamilton, ignorant boob that he was, spoke of militias, not individual rights, when selling the Second in Federalist 29. What would he know of original intent, after all he was there!

It is far from disturbing to say that you have a right to an infantry riffle as long as you are part of the militia. So, my other solution is...you want an AR, universal conscription into the National Guard, or state militia purposely created for this by your governor...and you will report for drill once a month.

That alone will reduce ownership, we know how allergic people are to actually serving

I am not the only one to consider the ...right to keep and bear arms wrong headed, without the other two clauses it is dependent on. These include in order, to ensure the security of a free state and a well regulated militia

Look, reality is the AWB in some form is coming back, so are limits on magazines, and at the very least universal background checks. The sands are shifting and the power of the NRA, I sure hope, over the political class IS OVER.

Oh and due to the second amendment, all of it, we need a national registry. If we ever mobilized I really need to know what the hell you pack for logistics reasons.

[Indydem]

42. The AWB is dead.

It had no effect on violent crime and the congress will never vote for it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Lovely NRA talking point you got right there

After 20 six and seven year olds were gunned down at a school, I would not bet on it.

[ellisonz]

50. I'm sure the people of Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown are comforted by your single-minded conclusions.

[Indydem]

54. What poor deductions.

Tuscon was conducted with a handgun -not covered under the AWB. No effect.

Aurora was, ironically enough, made less terrible by NOT having an AWB, as the killer tried to use a drum mag and it jammed, stopping his rampage.

Newtown details are still unknown. I'll wait for more details. I can tell you this; if he was well acquainted with his gun, he could have changed 10 round mags out and killed just as many people.

A new AWB isn't the answer. But even if, by miracles upon miracles, it is passed, it will not stop one person from being killed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. I also want to fund the CDC. It was defunded

In 1997 for any study on gun violence by a fellow traveller of yours.

[PA Democrat]

110. For people who love to talk about their "freedoms"

they are certainly afraid of the truth about the impact of gun violence. I think people should be free to make INFORMED decisions about gun laws. The NRA disagrees.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. Absolutely.

Problem is a shift at a local trauma center would only harden their desire to 'ave more, 'cause more guns are the solution.

[ellisonz]

61. Dude

The sale of new high capacity magazines were banned by the AWB - those were used in all of those shootings - thus the weapons used were covered! They appealed to those shooters, your counter-factual of they were so skilled argument not withstanding. Your toys are killing the rest of us. Why won't you reach deep into your soul and pull out those shreds of humanity that I know you have, that conclude this is not a zero-sum race to the bottom? Grow up, well the gun jammed, is not a convincing argument.

Newtown details are still unknown. I'll wait for more details.

Here are your details:

- Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female

And if you need 6 more......

- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Lauren Rousseau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
- Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female

[Indydem]

71. Nice.

Exploiting the terrible deaths of children to further your political agenda.

You must be so proud.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. NRA talking point.

[Indydem]

78. NO! NOT A TALKING POINT!

Why don't you gun grabbers ever propose these new laws any other time?

It is only after a tragedy that you become bold enough to propose these grabs.

Seize upon the emotions! Show grieving families! Do it NOW!

Pathetic and disgusting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. It is a talking point

Meant to defuse and batter people into submission.

And I am a real funny gun grabber, given I own guns. Not a gun, guns.

But I am also rational and realize that an infantry battle riffle was not meant by the founders, yup, going back to that ignorant fool, outside a well regulated militia.

[Indydem]

82. I do not, for one second, believe you.

The idea that someone so anti-freedom and pro restriction as yourself owning a firearm is disturbing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Ah, another talking point.

I love you dude...yiu are now gone down to personal attacks, another tool of we should issue Glock 9mm to everybody on their 18 bday crowd. If we ever get to that point, I prefer a .40.

I do not think I gotta explain that to such an expert as yourself as to the reason.

[Indydem]

89. More stopping power.

Less likely to exit the body and do unnecessary damage.

Maybe you do own a gun.

But still have no respect for the rights of others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. I have respect

You really do not need a battle riffle with 30 round magazines to drop a deer. And it is a lousy round to drop deer, and quite frankly overpowered for varmints.

If you do, you are a damn bad shot.

[Indydem]

94. It IS a lousy round for dear.

But it is perfect for varmints. Raccoon especially. They are so fat and their head is so small.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. And a .22 long stopped working all of a sudden.

See, here is the problem... You worship your toys.

We the people will require, demand...rational limits. None of us is coming to grab your guns.

First, it would be highly impractical.

But we have a right to regulate ownership, for our collective safety, internal tranquility and peace of mind. You can still hunt, you can target shoot. So I will have to reload my magazine more often at the range, big fracking deal.

[Indydem]

103. Do you honestly think that a .22LR is, in reality, any less lethal than a .223??

Because a 10/22 is semi-auto. You can get 30 round mags, and hollow point bullets.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Hollow points have no need in civilian hands either

And we should not allow 30 round mags out there. You are still having a problem getting this...change is coming.

I will be sending the editorial I wrote for the local paper to my state and federal delegation and the White House.

[Indydem]

113. I'm sure they can't wait to hear from you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. Actually it's not just me demanding

Not asking, demanding change.

And I got it from my current Congress Critter, that they need to hear from us.

The regulations will not go as far as they did in Australia, but they are coming for similar reasons.

The laws to increase the safety of the rest of us ARE COMING. You'd better get used to it.

This was one mass shooting too many.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

98. You're the merchant of murder here

You're the maladjusted person wanting guns, guns, guns as far as the eye can see. Give me one good reason we should accept the pile of shit you're trying to sell. Take your fear and feelings of inadequacy somewhere else.

[Indydem]

101. What is it with you people?

That you think I live in fear? Or that I have an arsenal. Or that I want people to have an arsenal.

I want people to be free to do what they want, in accordance with the law.

How, pray tell, am I maladjusted?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

121. You people. You're probably too young to remember much about Ross Perot.

You're spending a lot of cycles talking guns, defending guns, glorifying guns, and talking about how gun control can never work. You're living a fear-based life. I know you don't like hearing that from me, but you asked, and that's my opinion, and will remain so.

[laundry_queen]

124. I'll have to disagree with you...

on one thing - I don't know that THAT one has any shred of humanity left.

[ellisonz]

136. lol

I try to remain optimistic.

[beevul]

144. Do you care what they think?

Or do you only care what they think when they agree with you?

Maybe you shouldn't so quick to presume what other people think.

[ellisonz]

146. Way to exploit a devastated father...

[ellisonz]

147. Also: His wife was on CNN tonight - she wants the AWB and gun show loophole closed.

[X_Digger]

63. FP 29 was a treatise on how best to maintain the militia.. so?

It says nothing about the scope of the right protected by the second amendment.

Hamilton wanted strong federal control over the militia, as opposed to the anti-federalists who preferred a decentralized approach. The compromise between these two viewpoints was eventually written into the constitution's militia language- federal control, but officers from the states.

You keep repeating "FP29!" as though it says something else.

Please be quoting me the relevant section, yes?

[PA Democrat]

84. No.

One example is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban.

<snip>

Another example is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses and on subjects of restraining orders (which do not require criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to ten years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether the weapon was legally possessed when the law was passed.[15] Among those whom the law is claimed to have affected is a father who was convicted of a misdemeanor of child abuse in connection with a spanking of his child, because anyone convicted of child abuse now faces a lifetime firearms prohibition. The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive; it is a status offense.[16]^ United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

[Indydem]

87. Fail

You can't impose ex post facto restrictions on citizens who haven't committed a crime.

The issue you are trying to use requires a criminal conviction or restraining order. You going to get 100 million restraining orders?

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Damn you know in California

That restraining order means cancellation of a ccw right?

[Indydem]

96. If you have good reason to believe that someone is a threat

Which is what is required for a restraining order.

BY ALL MEANS - take their guns. Impound them for 30 days.

Make them take a psychological exam.

But to restrict the rest of us for the actions a few is not right. You have to know that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. California also has a provable need for that ccw

And mandatory training at the range...

Oh wait, we have less gun deaths than oh Florida, where all I need is to be afraid of shadows.

[PA Democrat]

106. Did you read what I posted or are you incapable

of doing anything but spouting NRA talking points?

You stated, "You can't impose ex post facto restrictions on citizens who haven't committed a crime." And that is incorrect.

The law applies to people under a RESTRAINING ORDER and people convicted of MISDEMEANOR domestic violence offenses.

[Indydem]

112. DID YOU READ MY POST?

I mention the restraining order in then next sentence.

And a misdemeanor is still a crime, you know that, right?

[PA Democrat]

132. I am very much aware of the difference.

Commit a felony and you lose your right to vote in some states forever. But your good buddies at the NRA have been gotten legislation passed in many states that makes it much easier to reinstate the right to gun ownership to former felons.

The NRA is about PROFITS for the gun manufacturers. How do you feel about your dues putting guns back in the hands of convicted felons?

[spanone]

29. they want certain guns banned. you own a machine gun?

no cause they are essentially banned.

[Indydem]

32. But I can own a machine gun.

The process is expensive and complicated, but I can own one.

There is a clear reason WHY an automatic weapon is restricted, and simple numerical reasons why they are expensive.

That is not what gun grabbers are suggesting.

[spanone]

36. semi automatics should be just as hard to get...in fact NO ONE needs these weapons.

[Indydem]

38. That is your opinion.

It is wrong, but you are entitled to it.

[spanone]

40. what earthly need do you have for a semi or automatic weapon?

[bongbong]

44. Same as all the rest

He's a Delicate Flower, and very scared.

[spanone]

51. guess that was the end of his 'discussion'.

[Indydem]

59. Not scared at all.

Got busy on other discussions.

Doesn't a guy get 10 minutes to respond?

[bongbong]

73. ....

You're not scared because you didn't respond.

You're scared because you think your popgun will save you and/or make you a Might Rambo Warrior and/or fight off the US Army.

[Indydem]

80. Only an idiot thinks they can fight off the US Army.

Trying to tie that idea to those of us who own firearms is pathetic.

[bongbong]

93. LOL

> to tie that idea to those of us who own firearms is pathetic.

Tell that to all your fellow NRA-bots who say just that.

[Indydem]

62. I have no use for an automatic weapon.

I have plenty of use for a semi-automatic weapon.

What I use it for doesn't particularly matter. It is legal and I have the right to own it.

It is none of your business what I use it for as long as it is used in accordance with the law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. What I am suggesting is exactly

The 1934 statues to apply to battle rifles, let's call them what they are and share the rate of fire is that tommy.

You can still own it, but it will be a pita to do such.

[beevul]

134. Semi-auto civilian look alikes are not "Battle rifles".

Though it is rather comical you refer to them as such.

[nadinbrzezinski]

137. Sorry, The round does not care

So they don't have a military select switch and a flash suppressor. Whatever dude.

[beevul]

138. Yes, the round does not care.

You, however, are referring to the rifle, not the round, when you say "battle rifle".

Besides, by that logic, a mini 14 ranch rifle is a "battle rifle".

Reality says different.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Sorry, I am talking of the round and the firing mechanism

And all that. So this is a military weapon. By the way if you are shot,your body does not care it it came from the AR, or the M-16...or an SKS or an Ak

Some of us are done with this minutiae.

Time to deal with it, period. Enough already. The place this belongs is in the barracks. They don't belong in your home.

You can't bring a deer down otherwise, I feel sorry.

[beevul]

140. So your problem is JUST with the 7.62 by 39mm and the .223 rounds?

So your problem is JUST with the 7.62 by 39 and the .223 rounds? Why didn't you just say that you're ok with ar/ak pattern rifles but just not in those calibers?

"So this is a military weapon." "The place this belongs is in the barracks."

Except the military does not use the civilian legal semi auto ar-15 or the ak/sks pattern rifles. But you know that, dont you.

"You can't bring a deer down otherwise, I feel sorry."

The debate has nothign what so ever to do with hunting. That much, I know you know.

FWIW, the largest caliber functional rifle (I have antique .22s but theyre not functional) I own is .17 caliber rimfire, and I don't own any centerfire rifles at all - nor do I desire to.

On edit: The ar-15 and AK pattern civilian legal semi-auto rifles use a VASTLY different firing mechanism than their true military relatives.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. I suspect you are going to see a ban

And we will be applauding.

We are done, seriously.

The solution is not more guns.

My personal solution, the gun control act of 1934. You have a bolt action, you are fine.

This whole class, no.


It did pass muster, and owning a tommy is a pita...fine by me.

[beevul]

142. We shall see.

I doubt it though. Start talking about banning a whole class of firearms - not just a "cosmetic ban" like the original AWB, but a REAL ban on all semi-automatic rifles capable of using detatchable mags...not here on DU, but on the national stage...and its liable to put the anyone that proposes it, anyone that supports it, and the party they belong to, into minority status for a very very long time.

I don't think that you and others like you that want such a ban, have taken the time to really and truly and seriously consider the unintended ramifications of doing such a thing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. Have you noticed recent polls?

No, people will not go for the 1934 act, though they should. But 100% background checks, even the majority of NRA members want that...limit on magazine size...again, even the majority of NRA members want them. I forgot, people want the gun show loophole closed as well.

The reality is...sandy hook elementary has shifted the debate.

We have had gun control going back to colonial times. We have found that balance. It is crazy to think that a minority, and a political interest group, that goes against it's members, has been able to sell this tripe that we are gonna take your guns away. None is going, but you know what? The chips will fall where they may...but we are really done.

On average, 34 people dying a day, and 34,000 a year is a crazy statistic. Slightly more than half from suicide. But really, that Tom tomorrow cartoon...we are truly seeing a seismic shift. We really are.

[wilt the stilt]

86. SCOTUS also

thought that African Americans were 3/5 of a person and separate but equal was the law.

[BainsBane]

148. The right to bear arms des not include any weapon

And courts have ruled that the govt can regulate guns. What makes you think the 2nd amendment means more than the rest of the constitution? No right is absolute, even for self- entitled gun owners. Rights exist in tension with each other and balancing those rights is the function of govt. How is it that you think the children in Newtown didn't have the right to life? What makes you think your rights are more important than everyone else's? You actually think your right to stockpile WMD is more important than the rest of our rights to life and equal protection?

So why are you in the NRA if you aren't Republican? They are a rightwing organization aligned with the GOP. LaPierre lied about the President at CPAc. What kind of Democrat aligns themselves with a GOP organization?

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. That's precisely what it does.

Yes, I can prove it.

[Aristus]

5. Please post the contact information for the well-regulated militia to which you belong.

And 'Billy-Bob's Pendleton Avenue Patriots and Beer-Belly Bellyflop Enthusiasts' doesn't count.

Read the Constitution for a change...

[yewberry]

11. There are no constitutional provisions relative to questioning or criticizing the NRA.

Interesting interpretation, though.

[ThatPoetGuy]

12. So you ARE the NRA? That's what you're saying. You are answering as the NRA.

You didn't kill any kids, but your ideas made it possible.

And you spread the ideas that made it easier for those kids to get killed.

And you spread the ideas that made it more likely for those kids to get killed.

And you help prevent the dialogue that would make it harder for those kids to get killed.

And you help prevent the dialogue that would make it less likely for those kids to get killed.

Kids getting murdered is a side effect of the gun-"freedom" you promote.

It's what we have to live with -- or die with -- if we accept your definitions of freedom.

If we permit fast food, we as a society have to live with obesity that could have been prevented. (There is obesity that can't be prevented as well.) This is a consequence of a certain kind of freedom.

Dead children is the consequence of a different kind of freedom. It's the kind of freedom you advocate for.

[Indydem]

16. Precisely!

I have made no secret of the fact that I am a member of the NRA.

With that said, yes, dead children are a statistic improbably, yet entirely likely situation that will occur because of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. It is a terrible truth. But no one has proposed a single realistic solution that will prevent these tragedies. But we have a lot of tragedies in this country.

We allow unhealthy food, therefore we will have fat, sick, diabetic people who will cost us money and die sad deaths.

We allow cigarettes, therefore we will have people who have COPD, lung cancer, and will cost us money and die.

We allow automobiles, therefore we will have accidents, and people of all races and creeds will die.

We allow pools, rivers, lakes and bathtubs. Therefore, children and adults will drown.

Being free has terrible consequences. Sorry if you can't understand that. But your only solution is to make us less free, and that isn't a real solution at all.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Franklin

[hrmjustin]

19. The NRA works against the democratic party for the most part. Why would you join them for?

I assume you are a democrat.

[Indydem]

20. Please point me in the direction of the progressive organization that:

- Supports and defends the 2A
- Provides youth shooting programs
- Offers safety classes and programs
- Keeps their members apprised in regards to firearm maintenance and issues.

If you know of one I'll join it today.

[hrmjustin]

21. They also support republicans and do their best to hurt democrats. Are you comfortable with that?

[Indydem]

23. Democrats with good 2A records regularly receive money from the NRA.

Including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

It is overwhelmingly supportive of republicans. I wish there were more Democrats who supported 2a rights. As it stands it's one of the things I have to swallow about the Democratic party because of my other beliefs.

I always hope that I can convince a few of my fellow Democrats of the folly of gun control.

[hrmjustin]

27. Every democrat and republican is going to have to vote on gun control issue next year.

I hope they stand with the president and not with this Wayne LAwhatever his name NRA person.
I think we need to stand with our president.

[Indydem]

30. If the President proposes common sense legislation

That doesn't infringe upon the second amendment or the rights of the people to bear arms, I will support him whole heatedly.

If he does otherwise, I will have to disagree with him.

[hrmjustin]

33. How about banning assault weapons? Increasing the waiting period? Ending gun-show loopholes?

[Indydem]

37. No. Yes. Yes.

In short and simple answers.

None of those things would have stopped Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, Virginia Tech, or Wisconsin.

[hrmjustin]

39. Why not on the assault weapons?

[Indydem]

41. Define for me an assault weapon.

The definitions given in the AWB are ridiculous and are some of the dumbest fucking restrictions in history. A bayonet lug? Really?

[hrmjustin]

43. I am not an expert on guns so I would not be able to give you a good definition. But I would say

a gun that could shoot scores of bullets in a few seconds might be considered an assault weapon. Again I have no expertise in guns.

[Indydem]

47. All guns can shoot scores of bullets in seconds.

Unless we are going to go to bolt operated rifles and revolvers, a shooter well oriented with their gun can change mags, reload, and continue killing.

3 10 round magazines can kill just as many people as one 30 round and they only take seconds to change.

The term is a mis-nomer and a bad one at that. A 10/22 plinking gun could kill a lot of people if used properly.

[hrmjustin]

49. Ok thanks for your opinion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Nice talking point

Three seconds are time for people to find cover, or as happened in Tucson for an unarmed civilian to engage and subdue.

[Indydem]

69. 3 seconds?

A skilled handler can change them a heck of a lot faster than that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. That is the average dude.

Nice talking point you got right there.

Admit it, the only change you would accept is none, or no regulations whatsoever.

That is your preference, and your fellow travelers in the NRA.

[RC]

118. Try this definition for an assault weapon:

Any semi-automatic weapon that is a military knock-off. Any civilian weapon that looks similar to the Rambo inducing fantasy, killing machine in the graphic below.

All that is necessary to turn those weapons into fully automatic weapons, for all intents and purposes, is a bump stock. Then add a one-hundred round drum. And they are perfectly legal. Rabbit hunting anyone? How can you miss?
Why would any sane civilian need one or more of these? They were designed to kill human beings and they do that with high efficiency.

Forget folding and adjustable stocks and bayonet lugs. Those are just detractions from the real problem. The problem is the Rambo and Dirty Harry mentality that populate places likes of the gungeon. Or worse yet, the public streets, with one of their sweet, semi-auto babies^*, under their arm-pit. Ready to stop the next Sandy Point.

^*Hand gun

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. You know let's stay away from the looks

If internal firing mechanisms are changed to make them effective as fast as a bolt action, with ten round detachable magazines...that horse is out of the barn...fine.

They want to look macho sure. That also means that stock gotta go.

For the ones already out there...1934 statue, let's treat them the same way.

You gotta own them? Sure...it's a real pain in the ass. In parallel of course, buy back programs.

[RC]

123. The looks are part of the problem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. The problem is that going after how they look

Leads to bad laws. And battle riffles, aesthetically, will change.

So I say, go after how they work, not how they look.

[laundry_queen]

127. I just thought of a really good law

All guns in America must be painted a bright pink. Problem solved. All those sorry excuses for men that think a Rambo gun gives them their man card because it 'looks macho' will probably not feel so macho with a nice pepto-bismol pink gun.

[RC]

133. I thought of that also.

But some of then might be smart enough to get theirs spray painted black.

[hrmjustin]

122. Thank you for posting this.

[LanternWaste]

68. I do my best to rationalize belonging to a right-wing political action committee too...

I do my best to rationalize belonging to a right-wing political action committee that actively works against Democrats and progressives too... if I were in one, that is.

[Indydem]

70. Do you have the name of that organization or NOT?

Put up or shut up.

I believe in something that you don't.

Accept it or put me on ignore.

[LanternWaste]

83. Odd what you inferred...

I simply said I'd rationalize belonging to a right-wing political action committee too if I were a member of one...

If you inferred that I am aware of "that organization or NOT?" that logical fallacy is wholly on you. Bless your little heart

[PA Democrat]

25. People can CHOOSE to smoke, to eat unhealthily, to go swimming.

Those dead children had no choice about allowing that deadly weapon to get into the hands of Adam Lanza.

Cars serve a purpose other than slaughtering innocent people. That Bushmaster with a high capacity magazine had NO functional purpose other than to slaughter people.

Your "logic" would be laughable if the consequences of accepting such drivel weren't so deadly.

[Indydem]

28. What fallacious logic.

"That Bushmaster with a high capacity magazine had NO functional purpose other than to slaughter people."

That is a common belief that you gun grabbers just love to fall back on. That there could never possibly be any reason to own such a gun EXCEPT to kill people.

Right.

X Self defense
X Hunting
X Collecting
X Sport shooting
X Just to own it because it's their right
MURDERING PEOPLE

[PA Democrat]

88. Many rational gun owners would disagree.

You don't need an assault type weapon with a high capacity magazine to do ANY of those things. I want reasonale restrictions.

[Indydem]

91. What is an "Assault type weapon"

A semi-automatic weapon?

Well then hand guns, plinking rifles, and pellet guns all fall under those rules.

Maybe you mean the Ar-15 style weapons which seems to be the soup de hate this week - even under the 1994 AWB AR-15s were still legal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. Why I am being very specific

Infantry battle riffles sold in the civilian market, even with a much smaller selector switch than their friends in the barracks. Oh this covers the sks and the rest of them too.

[Logical]

31. Why are you a member of the NRA?? Nugent?

[Indydem]

34. See reply #20

[Logical]

45. What a stupid excuse.....

The NRA is a wing of the GOP! Their board of directors has Ted Nugent as a member! No real liberal can support the NRA. They lied about Obama in 2008 and 2012! Their membership is 85% right wing nuts! Read more fucking quotes from Wayne. Really stupid!

[Indydem]

52. And the other 15%??

This is one of the few issues I break with the Democratic party on.

I'm sorry that you don't like it. That doesn't make me any less of a Democrat. Period.

If the Democratic party would stop making a play against the 2a,the NRA would become useless.

[Logical]

55. Any idiot who would support a organization that CONTINUES to allow Ted Nugent...

Remain on their board is NOT a democrat! Simple as that! Imagine the Red Cross or Planned Parenthood allowing a board member who trashed the president monthly!

You must be clueless if you missed about 100 statements from the NRA about Obama this last election cycle! Not counting them spending millions to defeat GREAT progressives!

Wow, how you can not get kicked off here amazes me!

[Indydem]

58. Thanks for your opinion.

I'll file it under "I don't care."

[Logical]

60. I will file you under either a GOP troll or a really clueless democrat! And...

Someone who finances GOP candidates!

[ThatPoetGuy]

66. Being free has terrible consequences, IndyDem.

Sorry if you can't understand that. But your only solution is to make us less free, and that isn't a real solution at all.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Franklin

When someone walks around carrying a gun, it makes us all less free.

The NRA has confused the issue. It has fooled gullible people into believing that Freedom equals, Freedom From Government.

But Freedom equals, Freedom From Oppression.

And guns create oppression.

"An armed society is a polite society," say the pro-gun madmen. Which means: an armed society is a society in which people cannot exercise their freedom of speech, for fear of oppressors with guns.

If you argue in favor of carrying guns for self-defense, that is a security argument. It is an argument saying, "everyone needs to sacrifice liberty for my security."

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither," you quoted from Franklin.

Please stop with the projection. You are the one who wants to sacrifice liberty for security.

Except that security has consequences. Dead children. Massacres. Innocents caught in the crossfire of criminals. All of this is ok with you, by your own admission.

If you support people carrying guns, you are opposed to liberty.

An armed society is a society where no one is free.

[Indydem]

67. Spoken like a true anti-gun gun grabber.

"I don't like guns so no one should have one. They scare me!"

[ThatPoetGuy]

77. Spoken like someone who hates freedom.

Those of us who believe in liberty will continue to look down on those of you who quake in terror, supporting oppression, and silencing dissent with your guns.

By the way, do you think Black communities, Hasidic communities, Quaker communities, and Amish communities should have the right to set their own standards within their communities?

Or are you a racist too?

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Tell me, you think Somalis are truly free?

That is a heavily armed society...where people open carry.

Tell me, you are ok living in a society where people need to buy bullet resistant backpacks for their kids, and where we could fit them with level III-A body armor? It's true. That's your concept of freedom?

The preamble.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Tell me, how are more guns ensuring domestic tranquility?

[laundry_queen]

129. Fucking rights they scare me! with good fucking reason!

Or have you been in a coma the last week?

FFS

[laundry_queen]

130. Excellent post.

I've always said that this 2nd amendment crap was a smokescreen put out by the gov't to make the wingnuts believe they are FREE....while the gov't is taking away their real freedoms behind their backs. They don't see it, all they see is guns=freedom. They've been duped.

[yewberry]

74. This may be the most vile thing I've seen in the wake of the shootings.

You have just stated that the inevitable and acceptable cost of your "freedom" is this kind of tragedy. Your "freedom," Indydem, is a fucking hobby, and your defense of the violent deaths of children as an acceptable result of your hobby is abhorrent.

Unbelievable.

[Indydem]

76. Let's get some perspective then, shall we:

Swimming pools are a hobby- More children drown every year in swimming pools than are killed by guns. Swimming pools serve no other purpose than recreational activity. BAN THEM.

ATV's and Snowmobiles are hobbies - Dozens of children die every year in accidents related to their use. BAN THEM

TOYS are a hobby. A dozen kids die from toys EVERY YEAR. BAN THEM.

Cigarettes are a hobby - how many children will end up developing cancer from 2nd hand smoke?? BAN THEM

Alcohol is a hobby - Children die in drunk driving accidents every year - BAN IT.

You see owning a gun as a hobby with no regards to its practical uses. Yet all of these other things that literally have no practical use whatsoever are widely accepted.

Your perspective is the problem.

[ThatPoetGuy]

97. When kids die from toys, the toys ARE banned.

Children die in drunk driving accidents, drunk driving IS banned.

Since you said you ARE the NRA -- not a member, but THE NRA -- I know you like to trick people into thinking that banning is the only proposed solution.

I think cigarettes are the solution. What happened to them, anyway.

Smokers are rare now. Because smoking is no longer considered cool. It took both government and private citizens to stigmatize smoking.

I know you're stricken with fear at the "gun-grabbers" you've been flaming throughout this thread. I don't want to grab guns. I just think guns should be registered, tracked, and stigmatized, and I want people and communities to have the FREEDOM to disagree with the NRA.

Yes, the enemies of freedom want to make it impossible for people and communities to disagree with them. They want to make sure colleges, schools, and businesses can't set their own standards.

But you, the NRA, are a devoted enemy of a free society. You want to end free speech -- where people carry guns, there is no freedom of speech -- and you want to strip every community, group, individual, and location of determining its own standards.

[yewberry]

108. You just defended the murder of children as an acceptable result of your "freedom."

Tell me again how my perspective is the problem?

[Indydem]

111. Who said it was acceptable?

I never said it was acceptable.

No one thinks these things are "ok". The fantasy that you anti-gun folks have woven around us is deplorable. As if we would trade these kids lives for a Bushmaster 500 in a heartbeat.

These things are not acceptable. But they are inevitable.

Terrible things will happen. That is a part of life. Living in a fantasy world where everything will always be sunshine and rainbows is lunacy.

[yewberry]

115. Nice backpedaling.

"With that said, yes, dead children are a statistic improbably, yet entirely likely situation that will occur because of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. It is a terrible truth."

"Being free has terrible consequences. Sorry if you can't understand that."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2031721

[laundry_queen]

131. Accepting the slaughter of innocents as the price for your toys is lunacy. nt

[ellisonz]

18. Speaking of "anti-constitutional ignorance"

[amb123]

56. But your stand aids and abets the SLAUGHTER of innocent children.

And I must tell people like you, one more time:

I SUPPORT THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS, NOT THE ELIMINATION OF FIREARMS!!!

[Indydem]

65. What regulations do you support?

Eliminating the sale of one of the most popular firearms in the country is not a reasonable course of action.

[malaise]

2. Mine is even simpler

[Care Acutely]

64. PERFECT!

FUCK the NRA and their enablers. ESPECIALLY fuck their direct supporters. Why are they allowed here? I guess we should politely put up with people who light up with happiness when their copy of the Heritage Foundation newsletter arrives too?

[Erose999]

3. Here's my answer to them, performed by Wesley Willis...

[libdem4life]

99. The Constitution does not deny the government requiring EVERY weapon to be registered,

to my knowledge. I deserve to know if my next door neighbor has an arsenal...legal or not. Or that it is not properly secured, or that kids get drunk and party while parents are gone, etc. My dog or cat might get out and they mistake it for a burgler...blam blam. Or neighborhood kids be wandering around...that happens quite a bit.

No, I would definitely not feel safe if I knew every single one of my neighbors and their young adult kids...boys or girls...had one or more weapons intended to kill. And imagine Black Friday ... armed and dangerous. But it is American...we go to other countries and kill to make peace. Go figure.

People scoff, but it could be done in stages, and mean time halt new sales.

And as for the schools, you're going to find a very short line of qualified and talented teachers ... male or female ... lining up for their state-issued/required handgun and the classes and shooting practice and all it would require. And the school robbery attempts and other riff raff that guns automatically bring, would cost even more money and problems.

Last of all...never heard this mentioned... but the school district will likely not even be able to liability insurance, let alone afford it.

Register and tax them and monitor them and re-register every year or two...require a license be carried at all times...

...just follow the rules for the privilege and enforcement of driving an automobile on a public road. Then, I'd be OK with Open Carry...but not concealed. It helps us non-gun people to know who to steer clear of.

[beevul]

135. No, but federal law does. N/T

[libdem4life]

145. Well, that's a lot easier to change. The times are changing.

[2ndAmForComputers]

107. What the hell does one thing have to do with the other?

[hrmjustin]

109. That one was sent to the land of PPR.

[Dems to Win]

114. Repeal the blood-soaked Second Amendment NOW

[Dawson Leery]

126. kick

[MotherPetrie]

128. K&R