I'm starting to believe that much of the gun debate is about something else than guns.

[redgreenandblue]

The level of irrationality displayed on all sides of this issue is astonishing. It has come almost to the point were facts don't matter any more. Everything is reduced to slogans like "Gun culture kill people, gun owners have blood on their hands" or "Guns don't kill people, people do" that do little justice to the complexities of gun ownership and the dynamics of an armed society.

Likely the truth lies somewhere in the middle: In some regions, under some circumstances, gun ownership probably is correlated with larger homicide rates. Under some circumstances, in some regions, with lower ones. Sometimes guns are used for self-defense, sometimes for murder. There is a possibility that various restrictions on gun ownership might bring down homicide rates. There is likely a limit to what such policies can achieve. There are definitely a large number of people who should never own a gun. And there is likely a large segment of the population who is capable of responsibly handling one.

The tone of the discourse puts me in mind of the abortion debate and leads me to believe that it is more about a culture war than anything else. Some people here on DU have openly proclaimed that they would support a verifiably ineffective restrictive policy simply to "stick it to the gun cultists and deprive them of their fetishes" to paraphrase. Others romanticize gun possession based on some sentimental idea about "the founding fathers", or peddle crazy fantasies such that "armed citizens would have stopped Hitler".

I think the whole debate is out of its mind. I think the only way forward is to toss all emotions and look at the situations objectively, without references to ideology and "culture", but that is just my personal bias showing...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. Do you have links for your statement "Others romanticize gun possession based on some sentimental

idea about 'the founding fathers', or peddle crazy fantasies such that 'armed citizens would have stopped Hitler'.

Have "Others" really said that? It's important if true.

[redgreenandblue]

2. Maybe they were right-wing trolls.

I have seen explicitly such posts on DU once or twice. Some are less pronounced but strike a similar tone, via the insistance that the 2nd ammendment is an absolute or the claim that gun ownership is an "essential freedom".

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. So 1) you can't support your claim about DU posts with links, 2) you speculate that the post that

you now allege seeing "once or twice" may have been posted by "right-wing trolls," 3) you equate your unsupported statement (i.e., "Others romanticize gun possession based on some sentimental idea about 'the founding fathers', or peddle crazy fantasies such that 'armed citizens would have stopped Hitler'.&quot with a slightly different claim that there are DU posters who have filed posts with "a similar tone."

That "similar tone," you now say, is either (a) "the insistance that the 2nd ammendment is an absolute" or (b) the claim that gun ownership is an 'essential freedom'."

Since you don't have any links to support your original statement but now say that there are DU posters who have filed posts with "a similar tone," and have, as one example, "insisted that the 2nd ammendment is an absolute," do you have any links to support that statement? Somehow, I seemed to have missed such posts with such insistence.

Or is this another case of seeing "such posts on DU once or twice"? Or could this be another instance where different posts were filed that were "less pronounced but strike a similar tone"?

I'm not sure what good it does to refer to any DU posters as "right-wing trolls." When posting an OP to elicit comments, why not just post supporting links to supporting statements?

[JohnRebel]

8. Right wing trolls?

I assume you want an echo chamber not a debate

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. My words speak for themselves.

As do the words in the OP and at post #2 where the author of the OP used the phrase "right-wing trolls" for the first time.

There is no factual basis for you to assume that I "want an echo chamber." You do not have to assume that. Since my words can be read, anyone can read them and understand that I simply asked the author of the OP to provide links for his statements which are outside of my experience.

There is also no reason for you to assume that I want or do not want "a debate." My posts did not ask for a debate. They clearly asked for links to supporting statements, if any.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. You should very, very carefully read one post up-thread of the person you responded to.

Because you didn't.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

20. And another one scurries in.

[Robb]

39. And out, notably.

[redgreenandblue]

9. I am not going to browse through DU to pick out the instances I have noticed.

Yes, that an armed citizenry is an obstacle to tyranny is a meme that has been pushed here. And there is already one instance of it in this thread.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. We now seem to be dealing with moving goal posts.

You've made several controversial statements in the OP and at #2. Your assertions are outside of my experience at DU, and I merely asked for links to support your statements.

Now you seemed to have changed the subject once again. It's true that a post on this thread subsequently made by a person with an exceptionally low post count supports your statement that "an armed citizenry is an obstacle to tyranny" (#7), but that post is not representative of DUers in general or those who post in the Gungeon.

That particular post is also different and irrelevant to the unsupported claims made in the OP and at #2.

If the claims made in the OP and at #2 are supportable, why not just post some links to support the claims?

[redgreenandblue]

15. ...

Explicitly or implicitly tying gun control to nazis or other forms of oppression:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x124795

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=148921

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x436560

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117256019

Granted, one post was deleted by a jury.

[King_Klonopin]

26. How many times must we be put through this absurd dance with you ??

BOY -- you truly fancy yourself the gadfly and self-elected hector of logic at DU.

Most non-concrete folks don't keep compilations of past articles or quotes
which they may have read stored in their hard drives or in their brains.

We are subjected to this tired act on a regular basis. It's just smug, lecturing
bullshit disguised as intellectual empiricism. It clutters up the blogosphere and
wastes a lot of people's time.

BTW -- I posted a reply to a gun violence thread in which I wrote that I
thought that "our country has a romance with guns and violence." I'm shocked
that my words of wisdom weren't permanently etched into everyone's memories!

The OP was merely offering an observation -- one with merit.
Lot's of other social variables contribute to this debate besides safety and
the 2nd ammendment:

Northern culture vs Southern culture.
Blue State vs Red State.
Urban vs Rural.
White race vs Minority race
Violent vs Non-violent.
To name just a few.

AND maybe, like the endless abortion debate, the two sides benefit from a
lack of resolution.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. "How many times must we ..." None. None at all.

No, the OP was NOT "merely offering an observation."

The author of the OP was holding himself out as a middle-of-the-road type and attributing certain statements to some other DUers.

Specifically, the author of the OP said:
And no, you did not "see EXACTLY what the OP mentions here," without support:

"Others romanticize gun possession based on some sentimental idea about 'the founding fathers',
or peddle crazy fantasies such that 'armed citizens would have stopped Hitler'."

And insisted "that the 2nd ammendment is an absolute".

My words speak for themselves. The author of the OP can choose to temper what he is attributing to others, or not. Except for you to express your animosity, there is no need for you to re-interpret my words and claim that I have said something which I obviously did not.

If you want to spend your time falsly claiming that those with whom you disagree have said certain things which they did not, you are going to be very busy.

[blueamy66]

82. Geeezzzz...give it up already!!

nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

91. If you support falsely attributing statments to others, that's your choice. It's not mine.

[blueamy66]

93. Who is "you"?

Not everyone has the time or the desire to search discussion boards or to save posts for future use. You seem to have a lot of free time....maybe you could go find the info yourself or read the numerous responses in this thread with the appropriate links provided.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

96. If any of those links referred to text supported the quoted statements, the text would

have been pointed out by those posting the links.

I always have time for the truth.

Saying "maybe you could go find the info yourself or read the numerous responses in this thread with the appropriate links provided" does not establish that the responses and links support the quoted (but apparently immaginary) statements:

"Others romanticize gun possession based on some sentimental idea about 'the founding fathers', or peddle crazy fantasies such that 'armed citizens would have stopped Hitler'."

And that there are DUers who have had an "insistance that the 2nd ammendment is an absolute"

You indicate that the text found with links provided elsewhere on this thread support those quoted statements. If true, show where they are at.

[samsingh]

45. you're absolutely right - i've seen them all the time

this discussion always starts the same way:

- OP that wants to reduce gun violence and offers suggestions
- gun lovers pick through the post and identify places they can ask for more information, why offering platidudes of how there is no evidence that gun control reduces gun violence (with no evidence ironically, or selected evidence)
- personal attacks - e.g. you don't understand history, i'm a historian see, so anything i say is right
- logic similar to 'there is no proof that human activities contribute to climate change' are offered
- eventually the discussion goes to the 2nd amendment gives me the right to arms 'not infringed' ignroing the 'well-regulated militia' clause

You're right, anyone in these threads have or should have seen the comments. You shouldn't need to spend your time finding and restating what's already been said in order to express an opinion.

[Buzz Clik]

69. Nor do you have to search all of DU to support your claim.

Several of us reading your OP agree and have seen such things.

What we see here is a transparent attempt to derail your argument by a weak bit of bullying.

I suggest you ignore your assailant and move on.

[Buzz Clik]

68. Do you think you are clever with this?

Do you make a record of every eyebrow raising post you read at DU? Does the lack of a record of these posts mean they never existed?

It's a bullshit argument on your part.

Yes, the OP would be stronger with links, but the lack of links hardly proves him a liar or delusional or whatever.

I've read EXACTLY what the OP mentions here and elsewhere, and, no, I do not have links.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

78. No. Notwithstanding your animosity, I don't think that I'm clever. I think that I'm persistent.

You say, "the lack of links hardly proves him a liar or delusional or whatever." If YOU want to prove "him a liar or delusional or whatever," then you should post what you want to do so. I have no interest in doing so.

What I do see is anti-gun advocates who make up false statements and attribute them to DUers who do not agree with their positions. What I would like to see, if the author of the OP is sincere about representing himself as a middle-of-the-road type, is for the author of the OP to temper his words so that they more accurately represent reality.

When I looked at his post, I saw that he was holding himself out as a middle-of-the-road type but did not use vitriol or vulgarities.

Good for him. For others that want to use vitriol and vulgarities, I think that is a waste of time.

And no, you did not "see EXACTLY what the OP mentions here," without support:

"Others romanticize gun possession based on some sentimental idea about 'the founding fathers', or peddle crazy fantasies such that 'armed citizens would have stopped Hitler'."

Also you did not otherwise "see EXACTLY what" was mentioned elsewhere at #2 that

(a) "the insistance that the 2nd ammendment is an absolute".

That's never been the claim of DUers, except in someone's imagination. No DUer has ever claimed that the Second Amendment cannot be amended. I've read a great many DU posts over the years. I've never seen anyone claim that "the 2nd ammendment is an absolute" and that the ownership and possession of firearms cannot be subject to reasonable regulation. Maybe some right-wing troll will get around to that someday, but I've never seen that at DU. And you haven't either.

[Buzz Clik]

95. Oh, good god.

What I do see is anti-gun advocates who make up false statements

That is known in the trade as "calling him a liar," yet, there are a number of us on this thread who have observed the same thing. So, I guess, you are accusing all of us of lying.

Pretty shitty move on your part.

That's never been the claim of DUers, except in someone's imagination.

No. You are totally wrong here.

Have the last word. You'll probably be wrong in that, too.

And -- I am not anti-gun. I own two firearms.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

98. You are wrong. I have never accused all observers "of lying." In actual fact, I haven't called

anyone a liar.

In actuality, I have questioned whether certain quoted statement are actually true or merely the product of someone's imagination. If the quoted statements are merely imaginary ones, it's appropriate for someone to say that. If the quoted statements merely reflect someone's opinion, that's appropriate as well.

At most, in response to another poster who quoted one of two question from a two-question poll and said that the first question represented the poll-posting DUer's belief, I pointed out that the poll-posting DUer posted two questions. And I pointed out my belief that the posting of the two-question poll did not accurately reflect what was being represented.

[StrictlyRockers]

112. Yikes, like a dog with a bone. He just won't let go.

Scary.

[King_Klonopin]

114. From now on, I suggest that ...

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 07:32 AM - Edit history (1)

in order to satisfy this "posting policeman" with the appear ant
paranoid thought disorder (irrational preoccupation with the
semantics of others) who gets satisfaction by repeatedly accusing,
shaming, and lecturing all other DUers about how they are making
straw-man arguments with unsubstantiated assertions, that no one
here submit any more posts unless they are footnoted in the proper
APA format.

The pompous ass can't (or won't) see the forrest through the trees.
"Straining out the gnat while swallowing the camel" comes to mind.

It seems clear to me that he enjoys getting under the skin others
(i.e. the gadfly.)

So, whenever he goes on one of these screeds, we should
simply placate him with the responses that he really desires:

"You are the MOST BRILLIANT DUer, and our meager intellect pales
in comparison to yours, O great master of logical argument. You are
RIGHT. We are WRONG."

Until then, we still have the scroll-down function.

In Sympathy,

KK

[sulphurdunn]

88. I encounter

these and similar remarks every time I have a discussion about gun rights, especially those in which there has been a disagreement. I have never bothered to document or to cite them for the next time an argument arises as I am not doing research and know clearly know the difference between statements of fact and opinion, between recall and research. This is a discussion forum, not a peer review. Cut the poster some slack.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

94. I understand what you are saying. There is a difference between statements of fact and opinion.

I have no objections to anyone having opinions. Even nutty ones.

However, I am somewhat of a literalist.

When a I'm-a-middle-of-the-road-type-guy uses quotation marks to attribute statements which don't seem to have been actually made by those who whom the statements are attributed, I tend to believe that the dicotomy of (a) statements of fact versus (b) opinion should be clarified.

It's more likely than not that the author of the OP was expressing his opinion and his interpretation of a broad range of posts while using quotation marks.

Regards,

[sulphurdunn]

100. Indeed,

failing to distinguish one's opinion from fact or to assume one's opinion is facts has become a noticeable problem in public discourse.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

22. Of course they've said that as you very well know.

rDigital said guns would have stopped the Holocaust. And no, I'm not providing you with a link. I have no desire to play gun games with you.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. What I know is that (1) what has been claimed is not supported by the actual words used

by rDigital and (2) the actual words by rDigitial do not support an inference that rDigital or any other DUers

"peddle crazy fantasies such that "armed citizens would have stopped Hitler".

The actual words used in his poll (and in which he never claimed that "guns would have stopped the Holocaust&quot can be found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156

As pointed out at #85, the poster asked two questions in a poll in which other DUers could make a choice

(1) Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers, and
(2) Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers

By offering a choice in poll, the author of that OP neither unqualifiedly said that "guns would have stopped the Holocaust" (your words) nor that "armed citizens would have stopped Hitler" (the words of the author of the OP above).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156

You say that "I have no desire to play ... games with you." Actually you do. You falsely state that I know something that I do not. At a time when anyone can look at the actual words used by rDigital, you falsely state that "rDigital said guns would have stopped the Holocaust." And a fair reading of your post show that you state by implication that rDigital was a person who peddled "crazy fantasies such that 'armed citizens would have stopped Hitler'."

[John_UAC]

34. Hitler was elected

People have made that statement, (armed citizens would have stopped Hitler) but the truth is; the citizen's of Germany elected Hitler's party, knowing that he would be the Head of State and after having read Mein Kampf (My struggle).

A lot of people on the Far-right are afraid of losing their guns because they think it will mean losing the ability to force their will on other people and not having the ability to fight the federal government if it makes them stop forcing their will on other people. These are people who think that what they don't like to see should simply be banned by law, or somehow, other people don't have the same inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that they have.

They need their guns to force their will.

John

[Warren Stupidity]

35. In the last relatively open election

the nazi party received far less than a majority of the votes, and fared worse than they had in the previous election.

[NutmegYankee]

40. He actually wasn't elected and his party had lost seats when he was appointed.

He gained the chancellorship through intimidation. His party never had mire than 40% of the Reichstag.

[John_UAC]

59. Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team)

[NutmegYankee]

62. Hitler was never in an election for Chancellor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power

[DanTex]

38. Here's a link. 12 pro-gunners voted "yes" to "Anti-gunners are holocaust enablers".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=84828

Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers
12 (50%)
rDigital, holdencaufield, Decoy of Fenris, discntnt_irny_srcsm, slackmaster, Tuesday Afternoon, jbgood1977, DonP, Hangingon, Clames, darkangel218, PavePusher

At one point, there were even more "yes" votes, but after rDigital got banned, some of the gun fanatics decided to un-vote because the realized they were pushing the boundaries of permissible right-wing rhetoric on DU.

[samsingh]

47. very revolting point of view

hardly respectful of gun control people

[AnotherMcIntosh]

85. Actually, anyone can go to the origional text and verify that at no time did the poster claim, as

the author of the OP said at #2, that

"armed citizens would have stopped Hitler."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156

At that link, but not at the one that you provided which you reinterpreted what the poster said, that poster asked two questions in a poll in which other DUers could make a choice

(1) Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers, and
(2) Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers

By offering a choice in poll, the author of that OP did not unqualifiedly say, as you say that he did here and elsewhere, that

Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers

Anyone can verify that by looking at the origional text.

He certainly did not say or peddle crazy fantasies that

"armed citizens would have stopped Hitler."

I know of no DUer who peddled a crazy frantasy that armed citizens would have stopped Hitler. Saying that a DUer who posted a poll with words that did not say or imply that (regardless of whether that poster has since been banned) is not supported by the actual words.

It is my position that animosity towards other positons or other DUers does not justify falsely attributing words to other DUers.

[DanTex]

87. Hmm... So you think that "Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers" is a reasonable point of view?

Are there any other fringe right-wing talking points you'd enjoy seeing expressed on DU?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

89. No. And I particularly think that anyone who falsely attributes a statement that

"Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers" is NOT a reasonable point of view.

Saying that statements should not be falsely attributed to others is not a "fringe right-wing" talking point.

Anyone can go to the link and see that rDigitial actually asked two questions in a poll, one of them being "Anti Gunners are not Holocaust Enablers."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156

At no time did he unqualifiedly say, as you represent that he did, that "Anti Gunners are Holocaust Enablers".

[DanTex]

92. He, and 11 others, voted "yes" in that poll. I don't understand why you are trying to deny this.

Since then, a lot of them have un-voted, which is why I copied and pasted the "yes" votes at that time in my post.

Anti-Gunners are Holocaust Enablers

I believe the situation in Europe in the 1940s would have been much different if the "undesirables" had the individual RKBA that we enjoy here in the USA.

I believe that further restrictions on the individual RKBA will only lead us down a road that makes the next Holocaust that much easier.

An armed man is a citizen, a disarmed man is a subject.
Subject to the whims of whoever is in power.

When I am armed you cannot use force against me, you MUST reason with me. You have to convince me to come around to your world views, you cannot force them in me at the edge of a sword. This is the core of our civil liberties as Americans.

We must do everything we can to keep firearms available, legal and safe for law abiding the citizens. The criminals and the rest will always get theirs somehow.

These are the words of a nutjob. And 11 other DUers (at least) voted to agree with it. It is unfortunate that so many of the pro-gunners are absolutist nutjobs and/or rightwing trolls.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

97. The two-question poll that I looked at does not show that:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284156

While certain text that you quoted expressly refers to "the next Holocaust," a fair reading of the post does not support the statement in the above OP that rDigital or anyone else

peddle(d) crazy fantasies such that 'armed citizens would have stopped Hitler'.

[DanTex]

101. Are you joking? Try clicking on "show post" and then get back to me...

rDigital's OP was hidden by a jury. Please tell me you didn't really think that rDigital made an OP called "Message hidden by jury decision".

The post, which 11 other DUers voted to agree with, explicitly referenced the Holocaust:

I believe the situation in Europe in the 1940s would have been much different if the "undesirables" had the individual RKBA that we enjoy here in the USA.

[KittyWampus]

90. You are kidding, aren't you? You haven't seen quite a few long time DU'ers using that language?

Where have you been the last several weeks?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

99. Here's the quoted language:

"Others ... peddle crazy fantasies such that 'armed citizens would have stopped Hitler'.

No, I haven't seen that.

Nor have I seen any DUer post

an "insistance that the 2nd ammendment is an absolute"

At some point, a right-wing troll may post that "the 2nd ammendment is an absolute," but so far I haven't seen anyone post that.

[JDPriestly]

3. I agree. A lot of people are looking to express emotions rather than to find thoughtful solutions.

In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, that is understandable. People are very, very upset and shocked and also very defensive and afraid to face the truth.

That said, we do have a problem with excessive gun violence and gun accidents. That said, the answers have to come from gun-owners as well as those of us who don't own guns. I don't think that people who don't own guns can successfully impose a solution on those who do own them.

I think that the real solutions have to come from those who own guns. Their own lives are most often in danger from guns.

[samsingh]

48. gun ownership is emotional

gun control is objective

[ProgressiveProfessor]

72. Both are equally emotional

[samsingh]

77. if saving lives is emotional - okay

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. Considering the totally emotional content posted here for days

[samsingh]

81. okay

[99Forever]

74. Yes and no.

I agree with you in theory, but the reality is that we have had every attempt to bring some sanity into our society in regard to private weapons ownership and use thwarted by the very people you now insist have "the real solutions." It seems quite clear by now, that they will NEVER do a damn thing unless it is forced upon them, EVER.

Since they won't, we will. Simple as that.

[JDPriestly]

111. It may come down to forced solutions or no solutions at all.

I would rather that the gun-owners help solve the problem.

I think we would be leaving a bad legacy if gun-owners are not part of the solution.

[Downtown Hound]

107. It's not just the aftermath of Sandy hook

it's the aftermath of Columbine, Virginia Tech, the Aurora theater, and Jesus, I don't even know how many other massacres in the country.

Emotional? FUCK YEAH I'M EMOTIONAL! Anybody that isn't emotional after all this shit needs help.

[rightsideout]

4. The US has an obesity problem with guns.

Consider that we are 5 percent of the world's population but own half the world's gun. Put it simply, we're fat with guns.

We are a gun culture. No doubt about it. Look at all the gun shows and the mass hysteria to register guns since Sandy Hook. 2.7 million. WTF? There's also been over 400 gun deaths since Sandy Hook.

So think of it this way. The US has an obesity problem with guns. With obesity comes many physical problems. Some are not fatal but others are. We need to trim down and change our behavior.

Trimming down does work. It's a proven fact. In the DC area gun homicides have gone down in 2012 due to a number of factors including the confiscation of thousands of guns in addition to curbing gang violence.

Along with the trimming down goes behavior changes. It takes both to reduce the weight of gun deaths.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. General over-consumption problem?

Interesting idea. One could leverage that into describing even our energy policies.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

5. What's the FEE for spreading F.E.

?

[JohnRebel]

7. That's a fact

Assault weapons are already illegal. By definition an assault weapon is full automatic. What they want to ban is scarry looking guns.

What it is about is the desire of those who want big government wanting a disarmed population, while those who don't want big government want to keep their second amendment ability to revolt.

[defacto7]

11. ability to revolt?

Now that's a laugh. Revolt with weapons in this country is called mass murder. If you even broach that point in that way, it shows the kind of mentality that gives us a reason to at least properly interpret the second amendment or change it or eliminate it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. Excuse me for noticing, but I think that the poster who is complaining about "big government"

and expressing a belief in a fantasy of revolting against the United States is a right-wing troll.

[defacto7]

14. Yup!

[Warren DeMontague]

16. No, see, that's just complete and utter paranoid bullshit blather.

News flash: No one gives a shit about your "ability to revolt"; certainly not the Government, because no matter how big and scary your gun is or looks, the government's going to have a bigger and scarier one. Fantasizing about playing Red Dawn in your basement is one thing, but the New World Order and teh dread UN Black Helicopter people -if they actually existed- wouldn't be any more or less afraid of you no matter whether or not you had an AR-15, or not.

No fucking difference.

There isn't going to be a "revolt", Yosemite Sam.

What this is about is regulating weapons that can kill large numbers of people in a short span of time - like kids-, without reloading.

And no one "needs" them.

If they really think they "need" them to "REVOLT AGAINST TEH BIG GOVERNMENT" they ought to consider going on anti-psychotics.

[ReRe]

25. Hear! Hear! n/t

[smirkymonkey]

28. Thank YOU!

[JustAnotherGen]

67. Thanks you!

Funny - my husband and I walked ou of Les Mis last weekend and he starts giggling.

I ask him - why the snickering?

He says - I wish all of these American "revolters" could see what happens when you come up against a well armed, fit, and trained military.

My husband was an Italian Marine, classified as an expert marksman and trained as a sniper. He hunts boar when he is in his home country - and a bunny and deer hunter here in the US.

He has no problem with having it known he owns guns in the US. He has to get his guns in Italy from the authorities. He also is held accountable for hs possession and use there. It's not a perfect solution there - but it could be a good start here.

And we are of the mindset that it's about the bullets - not the guns. But no one wants to have that discussion.

I lost my cousin in 1991 to ONE bullet. It takes just one bullet.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Wrong, and wrong. Wrong on all counts.

Assault Rifles are fully automatic. The 1994 Comprehensive Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban a single select-fire (burst or full auto) weapon.

Not one.

Moreso, Assault Rifles that were produced and registered prior to 1986 are legal for ownership with a 200$ tax stamp, full background check, and registration (and periodic inspection to make sure you still possess it) (and assuming your state laws permit it, mine do not).

Better if you not state XYZ as fact if you have no background in this material.

[Fumesucker]

23. Don't worry, you still haven't lost the ability to revolt

Indeed, it's working now.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. The Gun Nuts Are Revolting!

The Gun Nuts Are Revolting!

[etherealtruth]

65. That was my first thought

The ability to revolt is well practiced!

[samsingh]

49. that's not true

the assualt gun ban expired during the bush years.

[Demo_Chris]

19. Well, it was a nice try anyway :)

[exboyfil]

24. It is like a fever at my work

You would be shocked that in my particular group how many gun enthusiasts that I have. This goes beyond having a single gun for home defense. This is a hobby for several - a serious hobby for some (at least 4 out of 12 individuals in my group own over six firearms). Even one who has not expressed an interest in guns before is going to gun shows and planning to purchase another gun in addition to his current .22. Don't even think about bringing up limiting the size of magazines.

They are all Fox right wingers as well. I just keep my head down and avoid discussing politics (my boss is probably one of the most libertarian of the bunch).

[samsingh]

50. they would have to be fox viewers

[BeyondGeography]

57. Compulsive shoppers

Yes, it's guns, but a lot of these stockpilers sound like people who wind up with too many hummel figurines on their shelves.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

103. Thanks for the laugh.

[ReRe]

29. You say...

.... you believe "the gun debate is about something else than guns." I read your entire post twice and I don't see an explanation of what that something else is. Instead of pussy-footing around, why don't you just come out and explain what you think the gun debate is about? Thanks.

[redgreenandblue]

33. Something along the lines of what post #26 says.

People feeling like their "way of life" is threatened.

[ReRe]

109. BS

There's only two "variables" in this gun debate. 20 dead babies and their 6 teachers on a Friday morning in Dec at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT., and militarized assault weapons with humongous ammunition magazines and other assorted firepower.

[Fumesucker]

30. Since I'm of the mind that gun control will go nowhere I feel no need to be moderate in what I say

So I push my anti-gun arguments as hard and as far as I can.

It would be sweet, sweet irony if the gun nuts would get a nice taste of the crap pot smokers have had to endure for the last seventy years over nothing more than a common weed.

The gun cultists I know cheer the drug war, cheered Dubya's excellent misadventure in Iraq and are generally in favor of some of the most authoritarian policies I can think of except for the one object of their obsession where they despise any attempt at regulation.

One way to end the debate quickly would be for young black males to start open carrying guns, effective gun control would get put on the front burner and the heat would be dialed to eleventy brazilian in less time than it takes to reload a 30 round magazine.

[peacebird]

61. "One way to end the debate quickly would be for young black males to start open carrying guns"

Brilliant!

And sad to say, but probably true.....

[AnotherMcIntosh]

104. I, too, feel that "gun control will go nowhere." But I see an unnecessary risk of repeating the

events leading to the loss of the Congressional seats in 1994.

You have not, but others have referred to firearm-owning Democrats and Independents as "gun nuts." Somehow, I think that the virulent postings is unproductive to the goal of electing more Democrats.

[sunwyn]

31. My favorite of late was posted on a website that said

"All gun owners should be rounded up and shot." Unbelievable....

[aandegoons]

32. The truth does not lay in the middle.

Sorry but it just doesn't. But you did add three more to my ignore list.

[DanTex]

36. More "both sides" BS?

The truth does not lie "somewhere in the middle". The truth is that increased gun availability results in higher amounts of both homicide and suicide. And this is not my opinion. This based on statistical evidence. For example, the Harvard School of Public Health has a lot of useful links to peer reviewed studies.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/

Calling out "both sides" on the gun debate is no more appropriate than calling out "both sides" of the abortion debate, or "both sides" of the debate on gay rights, or "both sides" of the debate on global warming. Yeah, I'm sure some environmentalists use heated and hyperbolic rhetoric, but to use that as an excuse to ignore the scientific reality that man-made carbon emissions are causing temperatures to rise.

In the same way, I'm sure that some anti-gun people use over-the-top rhetoric, but that doesn't change the fact that the lack of sufficient gun control laws is responsible for thousands of needless deaths every year.

[jpak]

37. Gun CULTure sucks and lots of guns means lots of murders

the end

yup

[Robb]

41. There is high emotion on both sides.

One side is highly emotional because a bunch of children were cut down, and more continue to be.

The other is emotional about losing access to the devices that kill kids.

One side is sociopathic. The sooner we get over this enormous blind spot, the sooner we can address the issue realistically.

[no_hypocrisy]

42. Could the gun debate be part of a larger American identity problem?

I'm talking about a certain mindset where nobody (esp. the government) tells an American citizen:

1) if s/he can own and/or possess a weapon,
2) how many weapons s/he can own and/or possess,
3) what s/he can eat (even if it kills them),
4) how to raise his/her/their child(ren),
5) what to drive with respect to gas consumption,
6) how to treat people who are "different" from him/her/them
7) to accept diversity, tolerance, and acceptance of people they wish would just go away (see #6).

In short, I'm trying to describe a certain demographic that has a fixed idea of how American was and should be without exception. It could be the mythological American from the Fifties, the Civil War (particularly the Southern States), or maybe bringing Texan attitude to all fifty states.

In short, it isn't the guns so much as trying to preserve one's personal identity.

[sendero]

43. You are right...

... and I refuse to buy into every "platform angle" of a particular ideology, that would make me as stupid as a right winger.

People who think you can't be progressive and for gun rights are incapable of much thinking to being with, so I don't worry about them.

[samsingh]

53. it's quite a leap to say that

[sendero]

55. Really...

... so to be progressive I have to buy into every single thing you think? Not on your life.

There might be some core issues that define a progressive, but if something like gun rights is one of them count me out.

[samsingh]

56. actually, no. that's not the definition of progressive

when people are slaughtered with guns, some of us want to find a way to reduce future occurrences. This means looking past the stupid nra type arguments that more guns would make us safer. It means looking at all reasonable options that could save lives.

[sendero]

58. So if I disagree with you..

.. I'm not a progressive?

First off, I'm not an NRA type I cannot stand their brand of extremism. I have no problem with sensible gun ownership reforms that I have laid out here several times. What I am not on board with are the numerous idiotic ideas about collecting all guns, etc - that is not going to happen and it is the mark of a deludinoid to even talk about it.

[samsingh]

60. it seems like you want the absolute agreement, not me

a person can be progressive in a lot of things, but not all.

I'm a firm believer in capital punishment where guilt is absolute and the crime extremely violent. That is not a progressive stance for many people.

[bowens43]

44. No, it's guns.

You really believe that a total ban on the manufacture, possession and sale of ammunition would be ineffective?


ALL gun owners are a danger to themselves, their families and their communities .

There is no such thing as a responsible gun owner. The only purpose for owning a hand gun, a semi automatic weapon or an assault rifle is to murder human beings. When you purchase one of these you indicate to the rest of us that you intend to kill humans.How can someone who intends to murder human beings be considered responsible?

[redgreenandblue]

46. A total ban on the manufacture, possession and sale of ammunition ....

... would work to reduce the number of shootings to zero, IF you also were able to magically make the millions of fire-arms already in circulation disappear.

However, neither of the two things is anywhere near the realm of reality in the US. Nor is such a policy in place anywhere else in the world as far as I know.

[samsingh]

52. i'm glad to hear acceptable of your first statement

so millions of guns are the problem as was the pro-gun argument that more guns would make us all safer.

[graham4anything]

54. there are ways to keep them off the streets, without banning any individual from owning them

so therefore the conversation does need to shift from total ban/confiscation(which nobody is saying)

to total getting guns by a private citizen off the streets altogether

that is the crux

you can keep your gun in your home
so if you want to shoot yourself in your privates, you can still do that
you can collect
you can go to shooting galleries
you can do in your private home whatever you choose

as long as you don't take your private gun outside of your home

and then we can deal with the getting all guns off the street, which at thtat point would be easy

(and don't reply with the usual replies sidestepping this).

[DanTex]

64. Such a policy is in place in Japan.

A total ban on guns would drastically reduce homicide and suicide in the US. Yes, there would still be existing guns, so the full effect of the policy wouldn't be immediate, but it still make a huge difference.

Also, a total ban is not necessary. There are a lot of measures short of a total ban that would help a lot. For example, simply requiring a license and registration for all handguns and semi-automatics would go a long way.

It is true that most of the things that would make a big difference are not politically feasible, at least not at the moment. So? Limits on carbon emissions are not feasible. Single payer healthcare is not feasible. Even stopping warrantless wiretapping is not politically feasible.

Since when are we only supposed to discuss policies that are approved of by John Boehner?

[samsingh]

51. you are right

[Lizzie Poppet]

63. Utterly ineffective.

Except in hastening the breakup of the currently-constituted Union, of course.

The rest of your inane sweeping generalizations and exercises in bullshit amateur psychoanalysis are too pungently stupid to do anything other than laugh at.

[Warren Stupidity]

84. Right. You and your militias will surrender shortly after the first drone strike.

The successionist bullshit worked out well the last time.

[bubbayugga]

115. yeah, that's right. We'll drone strike you fucking teabaggers like an Afghani wedding reception.

See how you like that you hate mongering death cultists.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. I was not the one suggesting civil war if there is gun control.

I merely pointed out how such a situation would play out.

[Buzz Clik]

66. Don't try to judge something by the reactions here at DU.

Maybe you have not been here long enough that discussions of hot button issues are representative of NOTHING.

[jmg257]

70. You'll never remove emotions from a debate where fear and selfishness,

are so dominant. Even worse when you cross those with selective ignorance and willfull misunderstanding.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. Those qualties are found on the fringe of both sides of the debates

[kydo]

71. its fear

And its not just on DU or any other social media outlet online in every political affiliation. Its also in every day people you see outside of your house and in some cases people in your house.

But it is fear. Fear of different things and for different reasons. But fear non the less.

Its the fear people have and how people that have power use fear to benefit themselves.

Some of the fear is for personal protection. Some is fear that they are being diminished as Americans as their freedoms are being taken away. Some fear change. Some fear not making money maybe they are in the gun biz and bans on somethings might hurt their income.

Lots of fear by lots of folks.

Personally, I don't care if someone owns a gun. There is nothing wrong with owning a hand gun/pistol type gun or shot gun/rifles for hunting and sport. But assault military style automatic semi-automatic gun rifle killing machine and their ammo with huge ability to dispense over 30 rounds at a time. Those things have no business any where other then with the military. I do not own a gun. I have never owned a gun and I have known maybe 5 people in my entire life that own a gun.

But the under lying problem is fear.

[cantbeserious]

73. Fact - Guns Have One Purpose - To Destroy What Is In Front Of The Barrel

Fact - Given the history of gun use and gun culture in America, it is impossible to guarantee that any particular gun will never be directed at someone or something that should not be destroyed.

Fact - Given that the previous guarantee cannot be made, there is only one approach that will guarantee that no gun will ever be used to destroy someone or something that should not be destroyed.

That approach is the systematic elimination of all guns in America.

[99Forever]

75. Not "about the guns?"

Hmmm, okay.

It's about the body count and rising frequency of mass shootings, done with what then?

[Warpy]

102. No, it's mostly about emasculation

Same thing all the circumcision threads are about.

[TheBlackAdder]

105. Most male Asperger patients have an attraction to Planes, Trains, Space or Guns.

Many times, this attraction is formed early on. Whether it be the first toy the child gets, the train under the Christmas Tree, their parents attraction to flying or science, or their families possession and use of firearms. Since there are more houses with train sets and guns, it would not surprise me to see most Asperger kids obsessed with trains and guns over planes and space.

Asperger kids are generally from higher than average intelligence households. I wonder if people of low-function or limited intelligence households also have similar types of associations? This could explain why so many backwoods or redneck types are so obsessed with firearms - beyond norms.

[Downtown Hound]

106. Bullshit

I hate the whole, "the truth must lie somewhere in the middle," crap. It is entirely possible for one side to be completely right and another to be completely wrong. Only idiots that lack real critical thinking take the whole, "Hmmm, so much extremism, which means, both sides must be only be partially right and the truth must be in the middle."

I remember people saying that about the Iraq War too in the early days. Well, guess what? The anti-war people were right. There were no WMD in Iraq, it WAS about oil, and it was a needless waste. The truth didn't lie somewhere in the middle. The anti-war people were right and the pro-war people were wrong. It's as simple as that.

As to gun control, people that have fiercely opposed any gun control DO HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. America has more guns than just about every other nation on the planet. And we have way more gun violence than any other nation on the planet. It's not rocket science. More guns=more death. The gun lobby has been trying to spin this into something it's not for decades now, spitting out more and more desperate bullshit as time has gone by. And in the meantime, thousands of people have died because of their lies, selfishness, and stupidity.

Enough is enough.

[tabasco]

108. Many racist survivalist idiots

need their guns because they live in fear of minorities.

They think society is going to break down and the minorities from the cities are going to come and get them.

Idiots living in fear.

[coeur_de_lion]

110. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but the gun HELPS doesn't it?

[StrictlyRockers]

113. LOL!

Perfect