NRA Agenda Of Open Carry Any Weapon Is Beyond Insane

[TheMastersNemesis]

As I read between the lines it looks like the NRA is determined to move the US to an "open carry" society. They have a "no limits" and "no restrictions" of any kind anywhere. And I guess that includes any weapon you desire. Automatic weapons will probably not be enough.

The 2nd amendment argument seems to be slipping to the idea that we have to return to the old west or the Middle East where just about anyone can be openly armed. Somehow seeing a rocket propelled grenade slung over someone's shoulder could be common place someday. Maybe a hand grenade hung on one's belt might be on the open carry menu.

We are crazy if we accept this no restrictions of any kind NRA stance.

What is so terribly frightening is that so many people are determined to have a society where everyone can be openly and mightily armed.

When you see to legislators recalled over gun safety legislation it is absolutely criminal. I see the mental disposition of fanatical gun owners and 2nd amendment super zealots no better than a parent leaving their children with a convicted pedophile.

[Deep13]

1. As opposed to the rest of their agenda? nt

[wild bird]

2. It's a tragedy that these 2 Dems. were recalled,

but it wasn't criminal.
If the Dems in their district had gotten off their collective asses and went to the polls to vote, then this would not have happened.
If you want to blame anyone for the loss of these Dems., blame the CO. Democratic Party for not motivating their base to go vote.

[madinmaryland]

6. Hmm. Blame the victim. Don't you belong in the gungeon.

[wild bird]

8. Hmmmm, maybe you should read my posts,

then you wouldn't look so foolish.
I have consistently supported stronger gun control laws here and I rarely post in the RKBA group.

Statistics and Information
Account status: Active
Member since: Wed Aug 21, 2013, 09:05 AM
Number of posts, all time: 390
Number of posts, last 90 days: 390
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 234 posts in the last 90 days (60% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control Reform Activism, 40 posts in the last 90 days (10% of total posts)
Last post: Fri Sep 13, 2013, 10:08 PM

Do you deny that turnout was low? Do you deny that the Dems didn't come out and vote?

[madinmaryland]

10. So you are going to repeat NRA talking points??

Why was the election held on an off week?

Why were there no mail-in ballots provided, which are used by a large proportion of CO voters?

It was typical Repub/NRA voter obstruction.

[wild bird]

17. Oh horseshit, this isn't an NRA talking point.

As far as the mail in ballots.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251323353#post16

The Constitution states that a candidate has up to 15 days to submit signatures so that their name appears on the ballot. Giving candidates 15 days did not leave enough time to print and distribute mail-in ballots.

The voting law conflicted with the state Constitution - the judge said the Constitution takes precedence.

http://www.fortmorgantimes.com/fort-morgan-news/ci_23852132/denver-judge-sides-libertarians-recall-lawsuit

This is the law in question - passed this year by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Democratic Governor

Lawmakers passed HB1303 during the 2013 legislative session in an effort to improve voter participation. It required mail ballots be sent to every voter and that instead of precincts, voter service centers would be open where people could register to vote or change their address through election day. Previously, voters had a 29-day window to register before elections, among the longest blackout periods in the nation.

The new law is getting its first trial run during the recall elections in Pueblo and El Paso counties. Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, and Sen. Angela Giron, D-Pueblo, are facing recall elections where voters will decide whether to keep them in office or oust them over gun laws they supported last session.

http://gazette.com/county-clerk-discounts-voter-fraud-allegations-in-colorado-recall/article/1505965

The Dem govenor set the date for the election which did not leave enough time to print and mail ballots.

Gov. John Hickenlooper set the recall election date on July 18 for Morse and Giron. Both state senators face recalls for their support of tougher gun laws passed by the Democratic-controlled state legislature this year.

And the repukes joined the Dems in opposing the lawsuit.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, Republicans and Democrats appeared unified in court, saying the 10-day window should have been upheld. With a recall election that voters have to attend in person, lower turnout is likely, which is not beneficial to the Democratic incumbents. And with a third-party candidate now likely to appear on the ballot, Republicans fear a split vote.

http://www.fortmorgantimes.com/fort-morgan-news/ci_23852132/denver-judge-sides-libertarians-recall-lawsuit

You really should educate yourself before spouting off.

[Eleanors38]

24. Watch out. You'll be declared an Apostate.

[wild bird]

25. What is it with this magic talisman saying "NRA talking point"?

What's ironic is that I'm more in tune with gun control, but I'm not a lemming that will follow people over the cliff.

[Eleanors38]

42. It's the equivalent of the "241 foot Penis of Doom Rising Above St Petersburg."

[derby378]

61. You had my curiosity, but now you have my attention

What the heck is the 241 foot Penis of Doom Rising Above St Petersburg, pray tell me?

[Eleanors38]

77. An OP about it appeared in the Mens' Group, complete with pics.

[MicaelS]

86. Russian Grafitti

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11149546

See what you miss when you don't visit the Men's Group once in a while?

[derby378]

97. Oh, Lordy...

I needed that laugh right now. Thanks for providing it.

[billh58]

98. "You really should educate yourself before spouting off."

So says a PPR'd NRA troll. Karma's a bitch ain't it?

[etherealtruth]

45. I didn't read the post as actually being progun

?

[wild bird]

52. Thank you.

It wasn't pro gun, it was a condemnation of those that were opposed to the recall didn't see fit to go to the polls and defeat the recall.
I'm strong gun control, I don't like guns, although I do keep a shotgun in the house in a safe for home defense.

I don't know where that person got the idea that I belong in the RKBA.

[etherealtruth]

64. I understood your post that way

I think many of us that are strongly for gun control are disgusted with the few that are gun crazed (read: free and unfettered access to guns and more guns) and are are sensitive to those for which the purpose of posting here is is to parrot gun (NRA) propaganda.

Sadly, I did the same thing the poster that had responded to you did and posted a rather unfriendly response to a post that I read as gun nuttery (but really wasn't).

I guess I was trying to "atone for my sins."

[NickB79]

76. Obama carried one of those districts by 20 points

And, Bloomberg's gun control group outspent the NRA 6-to-1 in the state.

The NRA had the odds heavily stacked against them in a predominantly blue area, yet still won. There have been no credible accusations of vote rigging or tampering anywhere, or voter disenfranchisement.

The only possible explanation is that the voters didn't care enough about gun control to get off their butts and vote.

[TheMastersNemesis]

9. You Are Wrong On This - Many Members Of the Legislature And Volunteers Have Been

waling precincts for weeks. For one the mail in ballot was knocked out because the Libertarians were late filing and a Judge ruled in their favor. Plus local RW radio and newspapers down there were blasting the Dems for months. Loss of the mail in ballot subdued turn out considerably.

[wild bird]

20. The bottom line is that those opposed to the recall didn't go and vote?

Isn't that what I said? The pro recall sure didn't have any problems going to the polls and voting, why could the opposition do the same thing?

[Skittles]

3. they represent bullies and cowards

f*** them

[jaysunb]

4. What you DON'T see is

enough concerned Americans getting to the polls to stop the crazies among us.

[etherealtruth]

47. Unfortunately true

The lunatics are easily rallied by appealing to the basest of human emotions (the NRA is master of this).

This is a lesson we have been very slow to learn ... zealots and crazies will vote (in large numbers) whenever their crazed ideals are challenged ... we (used collectively, not necessarily the "we" at DU) need to to stop sitting back, thinking 'no one will vote for this idiocy'

[Gravitycollapse]

5. Even the NRA has its limits. I highly doubt it would ever advocate for RPGs or hand grenades.

Know your enemy. We don't need to exaggerate their position to make them look insane.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. Not hand grenades, but...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/omg-silencers-the-nra-likes-them-omg/

Salon’s Alexander Zaitchik has just uncovered the latest NRA infamnia: promotion of the silencer business. Seriously! “Under the trade banner of the American Silencer Association, manufacturers have come together with the support of the NRA to rebrand the silencer as a safety device belonging in every all-American gun closet.”

[Gravitycollapse]

12. Obsession with silencers has been around for decades. It's nothing new...

And it is certainly not equivalent to hand grenades and RPGs.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. But a coordinated movement to legalize them seems to be, and...

while the destructive impact of a grenade is great, it is limited to that one grenade. There aren't any transportable automatic grenade shooters I'm aware of, so the chances of subduing the malefactor between tosses or while reloading his RPG at least exists.

Also, with a silencer said malefactor could be shooting for quite a while before anyone not a target notices, leaving a far higher body count.

There is, it may be noted, no conceivable hunting or self-defense use for a silencer.

[Gravitycollapse]

22. There is clearly a place for silencers in hunting...

Hunting just might be the most obvious. If you can place a round downrange without the crack of the shot, you stand a lower chance of spooking the game in the event that another shot is required or if you are attempting to hit multiple targets.

Silencers are also useful at the shooting range as they significantly reduce the crack and flash. Giving better sound and sight protection to the shooters.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. You can buy ear protection without a $200 permit, and...

where is the empiric evidence that game isn't spooked, or your success in kills increased, with a suppressor?

[Gravitycollapse]

27. Are you attempting to demand that I present some sort of peer reviewed study?

Then, might I ask, where is yours?

A silencer paired with ear protection can essentially eliminate the sound produced from firing a gun.

[TreasonousBastard]

28. No, but at least some evidence demonstrating that...

a suppressor helps in hunting.

Anybody you know actually using one? Does it work?

[spin]

40. Silencers are widely used in foreign nations while target shooting and hunting. ...

THE BENEFITS OF USING A SILENCER
Posted on April 18, 2011 by GunWorld
By Jim Dickson

***snip***

Typically, silencers have little or no regulation hindering their purchase and use abroad, but in this country, they are classed with machineguns and other National Federation Act-restricted weapons, which constitutes an effective prohibition for the general public. In England and the rest of Europe, it is very common to find permission to hunt on a man’s property linked to the provision that you use a silencer so that you don’t disturb the peace. Classically attired proper English gentlemen hunting with silencers on their rifles and shotguns are a common sight on the British hunting fields. Demand is so great that The Saddlery & Gunroom in Kent, England make an integral silencer for an over-and-under 20-gauge shotgun called the Hushpower purely for sporting use. The same is true on the Continent where dapper European gentry pursue game with the modest decorum of silenced weapons.

In South Africa, there are a number of game ranches that will not allow you to hunt unless you have a silencer on your rifle. This prevents the other game from getting spooked and also doesn’t upset the non-hunting tourists that are often nearby.

***snip***

MAJOR BENEFITS OF SILENCERS

Silencers perform three major benefits for the shooter: They increase accuracy; allow the use of more powerful, effective calibers when hunting; and they suppress noise/protect hearing.

 Increased Accuracy

Silencers reduce sound and recoil while increasing accuracy by favorably changing the harmonic vibration of the barrel as the shot is fired. I have never seen a case where accuracy was not improved by the addition of a suppressor. We could easily set some new target shooting records just by the simple addition of silencers to our weapons. Recoil is reduced because the silencer is an enclosed muzzle brake.

......
http://www.gunworld.com/buyers-guides/accessories/the-benefits-of-using-a-silencer/

[X_Digger]

46. So many people get their ideas from Hollywood

They think that suppressors turn an ear-damaging sound into a near silent 'phut'.

[TreasonousBastard]

84. I already posted several European countries that limit silencer use...

and the while the South African game ranches are private property and subject to their own rules, how are silencers dealt with elsewhere in the country-- seems they were at some point looking to regulate them.

As far as accuracy goes, there seems to be some controversy amongst those who actually use them:

http://www.gunsite.co.za/forums/showthread.php?4266-Silencers-and-accuracy

[spin]

96. I could also point out that 39 U.S. states allow the use of silencers while hunting. ...

Wyoming latest state to allow silencers for hunting

Wyoming governor Matt Mead has signed legislation allowing the state’s hunters to use suppressors for hunting.

According to the American Silencer Association, 39 states now allow the tools for hunting.

Wyoming governor Matt Mead has signed legislation allowing the state’s hunters to use suppressors for hunting.
According to the American Silencer Association, 39 states now allow the tools for hunting.
Virginia is one of them.
This is a sensible law.
What is a big thing we always hear when the Sunday hunting debate comes up? “Gun shots are disturbing!”

Well, anybody who has shot a suppressed deer rifle knows that it’s not silent. Heck, even a suppressed .22 (my buddy has an awesome squirrel-hunting rig) makes a little noise.

But suppressors do reduce the report. Not enough to avoid spooking game (as some opponents say), but enough to reduce the amount of noise your neighbors will hear (Perfectly illustrated in this image by photographer and blogger Oleg Volk) and enough to reduce potential damage to ear drums for those who shot a lot.

- See more at: http://blogs.roanoke.com/wildlife/2013/02/wyoming-latest-state-to-allow-silencers-for-hunting/#sthash.v97A3Ysv.dpuf

Where can I hunt with Suppressors (Silencers):
Updated List:May 29, 2013

By David M. Goldman on May 29, 2013 4:35 PM

While in some states, it is illegal to hunt with a Silencer, in the following states it is legal to hunt with a suppressor (often referred to as a "silencer&quot .

In states where hunting with suppressors have been legalized, we have seen substantial increases in the sales of suppressors and the wait times for approval from the ATF has also increased. Many states that have legalized suppressors still have CLEOs who refuse to sign for individuals to purchase them. A NFA Trust or a more flexible Gun trust can not only avoid the CLEO signature requirement in most states but can also provide many benefits to firearms owners and their families. To learn about the benefits please fill out the contact us form at the top of this page and request information on what a gun trust is and how they may benefit you.

Remember these laws change frequently, so please verify this with your state prior to hunting with a suppressor.

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina as of 10/1/2013
North Dakota
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming (as of 7/1/2013)
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2013/05/while-in-most-states-it.html

I noticed my home state of Florida was not in the list of states above but I found conflicting information that said silencers are indeed legal to own and use for hunting and target shooting in Florida.

Florida Gun Silencer Laws
By Maria Lassen, eHow Contributor

Possession and Lawful Purposes of Firearms and Gun Silencers
In Florida, it is lawful to own or possess and use a firearm, including a gun silencer. Under section 790.25 you may use a gun silencer with your weapon for the purpose of target practice and marksmanship on target practice ranges or other lawful places, such as your own property depending on your county and the acreage of your land; and for lawful hunting. It is also lawful to use a firearm and silencer in the defense of your home and your property.

Gun Silencers
While it is legal in Florida to own a gun silencer and a hand gun for target practice at practice ranges and legal hunting, the law does not allow a person to conceal and carry on their person a handgun with a silencer. Although in Florida it is legal to carry a concealed weapon if you have a license, a person may not carry a concealed weapon with a silencer.

By definition a concealed firearm only includes "a handgun, electronic weapon or device, tear gas gun, knife, or billie..." Silencers are not included within this definition.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6785787_florida-gun-silencer-laws.html

[Warren Stupidity]

37. they are particularly useful for hunting herds of people

and as people can be very dangerous, for not drawing undo attention to the hunter.

This subthread is a prime example of why rightwing gun nuttery should simply be banned here.

[Eleanors38]

43. Yeah! I saw that in the movies, too! A whole HERD!

[Hoyt]

30. How many gun cultists really hunt?

[Gravitycollapse]

31. Probably not many.

[wild bird]

33. I guess it depends on what they're hunting.

All kidding aside, I know several dedicated gun owners/culturists who are avid hunters, and I don't mean trophy hunters, they're subsistence hunters, they hunt to put meat on the table, and considering the chemicals they pump into farm animals, can't says I blame them.

[spin]

48. I could be described as a "gun cultists" and I have never tried hunting as a sport. However ...

I would say a fair percentage of regular target shooters and gun owners do hunt.

Much depends on where you live. When I lived in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida hunting usually involved some travel. In the area of North Florida where I currently live, deer and hog are plentiful and consequently almost everybody hunts. That includes not only the guys but the women and children too.

I remember talking to a grandmother in her 70s who was bragging about the first deer that year that she shot during the black powder season and to a 13 year old girl who had just shot her first deer ever. I also know several women who hunt with firearms but also with a bow during the archery season. Most people in this area try to stock their freezers with deer meat during the season and enjoy eating it throughout the year.

College football and deer hunting are very popular in this area of Florida. When I first moved to this area I would stop at a barber shop and those two subjects were the only things I heard discussed. I finally got so bored that I decided to shave my head and avoid barber shops in the future.

[Hoyt]

49. Zimmerman was not a hunter, of animals anyway. I would not say "almost everyone hunts."

[spin]

56. You might say, "almost everyone hunts" if you lived here. ...

and of course I am talking about hunting deer or hog, not people.

The deer population in this area is so high that you have to be damn careful when driving at twilight or night time or there's a excellent chance you will hit one that runs out in front of you. Even though Florida deer are not as large as deer in the northern states, an accident involving a deer can cause a lot of damage to your vehicle.

[Hoyt]

59. You just spend too much time around folks with guns. Tell me about deer on the road.

Stay safe.

[spin]

63. My son in law hit one a couple of years ago. ...

nearby in South Georgia. However he drives an 18 wheeler for a living.

My daughter hit one two years ago and a neighbor down the street totaled her car out when she nailed one.

I almost ran into a herd at 2am that was crossing the road in front of me on the outskirts of a small local town about a year ago. They came out of nowhere. Fortunately I had dropped my speed to 35 mph to follow the posted speed limit in the town.

I swear that deer breed like rabbits around here.

[rl6214]

68. Seeing as I've never seen or heard of a "gun cultist"

I would say not many hunt.

[TreasonousBastard]

83. "might" is the operative word...

since most prey has really good hearing, is there any evidence that it actually works?

[rl6214]

67. Contrary to popular belief, the use of a silencer does not make a firearm whisper quiet

It just reduces the loud crack sound a firearm makes which may make it easier to locate a gunshot since it won't echo all over.

[Eleanors38]

16. Noise Suppressors (the more accurate term) are required

for hunting in a number of European countries. No device "silences" a firing weapon, but less noise means less disruption to wildlife, which is the chief reason for requiring them in some nations.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Requiring? They don't seem to be to popular in Europe...

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

[Warren Stupidity]

38. yeah 'cause "silencers", which is the common term, has "bad press".

[Eleanors38]

41. Actually, it's because they don't "silence" anything,

They only reduce noise somewhat. Licensing, the cost of the product & and smith fees price me out of the market, so I'll just have to add to the ringing in my ears when deer hunting.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. In some European countries silencers are required.

People who are against silencers have been believing Hollywood. They don't make a gun go pfffft. They change a ear-shattering bang to a loud bang. They reduce the level of noise pollution around firing ranges.

[TheMastersNemesis]

13. I Do Not Agree. They Want NO Restrictions On Guns.

They won't agree on any restrictions on assault weapons. And assault weapons include a lot of other weapons that are no just guns.

When the 2nd Amendment was passed a gun was generally a single shot musket.

[Gravitycollapse]

15. Actually, an assault weapon is by definition a specific type of rifle.

Usually a semi-automatic chambered in an intermediate cartridge with a pistol grip, composite stock, removable magazine, and mounts for various forms of sights and scopes.

It is most commonly embodied in the AR and AK variants.

[Eleanors38]

19. When the First Amendment was passed, print was by "press"...

Want to go back to just that? If so, then the devices we are using are not protected.

[Hoyt]

32. It would create jobs, and we could use it to shoot down

that bull as a reason to expand gunz.

[wild bird]

34. Not really create jobs.

Those presses back then were a one person operation.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. And the 1st Amendment only covers the human unaided voice and writing with a quill pen. N/T

[derby378]

62. As soon as you can define what an "assault weapon" is, come back and let us know

It's critical that you ground your messaging around gun violence prevention by making that emotional connection. Don't skip past emotional arguments and lapse into a passionless public policy voice. And don’t make the gun violence debate seem as if it is a political "food fight" between two interest groups.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf

[rl6214]

70. And when the 1sr Amendment was passed the quill and ink and

Old fashioned printing press were used.

Times change, technology evolves.

[Deep13]

35. The day is young. nt

[Katashi_itto]

36. Don't be to sure of that: Scalia Suggests ‘Hand-Held Rocket Launchers’ Are Protected Under 2nd Amend

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/29/1114806/-Scalia-Suggests-Hand-Held-Rocket-Launchers-Are-Protected-Under-Second-Amendment#
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Justice Antonin Scalia reiterated just how extremely his Constitutional originalism can be applied. Referring to the recent shooting in Aurora, CO, host Chris Wallace asked the Supreme Court Justice about gun control, and whether the Second Amendment allows for any limitations to gun rights. Scalia admitted there could be, such as “frighting” (carrying a big ax just to scare people), but they would still have to be determined with an 18th-Century perspective in mind. According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o “bear arms”:

WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully

So by Scalia's logic I hear nerve gas is pretty easy to "bear" too! So are Nuclear Hand Grenades...

[GreenStormCloud]

60. Actually, rocket launchers are completely legal to own, no permits needed.

A rocket launcher is nothing but an empty tube. You can go to any hardware store and buy a piece of plastic pipe. For some types of rockets all you need for a launcher is a rope stretched between two trees.

What IS controlled is the rocket itself. Those are very tightly regulated if they have an explosive warhead.

[2ndAmForComputers]

85. To be frank, I doubt that.

The only reason they don't campaign for that is that it isn't the NEXT outrageous thing they want to make law. There's a bunch of other abominations -- slightly less abominable ones -- they need to ram down our throats first.

And there will be even worse things down the line once they achieve that. Congratulations, America. You are commiting Suicide By Right-Wingness.

[RKP5637]

7. What a bunch of fearful little children! n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

14. Hand grenades you say...

Products Endorsed by the NRA Part 2: Home Defense Hand Grenades!

Is your home adequately protected? Are you secure when you sleep at night? Remember, anyone can fall victim to the millions of home invaders in the United States. They’re everywhere and YOU could be next! Get the latest in domestic protection with the NRA-Endorsed Home Defense Hand Grenades!

Remember, security cameras and alarms won't protect you from a determined invasion, and especially not from ninjas or aliens. Security cameras don’t kill people— PEOPLE WITH FIREPOWER DO!


These easy-to-handle, ergonomically molded grenades feature an E-Z Pull Timing Pin and monogrammed casing straight from God via the United States military. Guaranteed stopping power for any home invader under 900 pounds!

http://afewminorscrapes.blogspot.com/2011/01/products-endorsed-by-nra-part-2-home.html

[Eleanors38]

21. I prefer chlorine gas, though mustard has a better flavor

...and sarcasm gas, too.

[msongs]

29. odd how all the people killed BY guns are killed by people WITH guns nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

39. Bottom line, it's all about MWD's

Men without dicks.

The NRA is a bunch of losers.

[Eleanors38]

44. ...What she said about my SCUD.

[rl6214]

71. The most grown up, responsible post in this entire thread.

[TheCowsCameHome]

72. On top of that, it's the most accurate.

[rl6214]

73. Doubling down

[Stupefacto]

50. agree nt

[Bennyboy]

51. A rocket in my pocket!

[billh58]

53. You are, of course,

spot on about the NRA and its insidious hold on American politics, and they have tentacles in every corner of our socio-economic and political institutions. In fact, they infiltrate Internet discussion boards such as DU, and there is at least one of them posting in this thread.

[BainsBane]

79. One of them has left the building

Thanks to your keen powers of observation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=307025&sub=trans

[krispos42]

54. *yawn*

More empty rhetoric.

Of course, tens of millions of Americans live in open-carry states, and yet, what you describe doesn't happen.

Must suck for you and your preconceived notions.

[BainsBane]

55. We have a higher homicide rate than the West Bank

So keep being bored. It's only human lives, nothing important to worry yourself about.

[krispos42]

65. Well, then, since you're so concerned, it's refreshing to see you attacking the root of the problem

[DisgustipatedinCA]

66. The root of the problem is dangerous psychos walking the streets with guns

Maybe something should be done about this clear and present danger. The world would be a safer place without these maladjusted fucks.

[krispos42]

69. Except those dangerous psychos aren't the idiots the OP is talking about

The dangerous, armed people are the violent criminals with illegally-obtained, illegally-carried handguns.

Not a bunch of political idiots with clean criminal records openly carrying rifles in order to incite reaction.


Not that you've asked my opinion, but I'll share it with you anyway. Here it goes:

If a state readily issues concealed-carry permits, then open-carry should not be allowed by people not wearing a uniform. I think it's inflammatory and not conductive to public order.

Exceptions, of course, for hunting and other related activities.

I don't care if people carry in public, but keep it concealed.

[BainsBane]

74. The root of the problem is guns

While you treat the highest homicide rate in the first world as a joke.

[krispos42]

75. And the least-effective way to treat the problem...

...of a high homicide rate is to go after 300 million individual items of a durable, easily concealable nature.

There are about 950 or so guns per 1,000 people in the US. How low would that number have to drop before the homicide rate fell soley because of a disavailablity of guns? And how many decades would we have to wait?

[BainsBane]

78. the homicide rate fell because of the proportion of young men in the population

but data makes clear that the key variable distinguishing the US from other wealthy nations is guns. You can pretend that isn't the case, but it doesn't make it so.

Shall I take it you oppose reductions in nuclear weapons and bans on chemical and biological weapons since they have nothing to do with the deaths they bring about. The cause isn't the weapon but malice in people's hearts, right?

[krispos42]

81. Particularly young men born in situations where they are likely to become violent criminals

The end of the Baby Boom was about 1960-ish, so that population bulge of young people (particularly young males) as a percentage of the population began declining about 25 years after that, putting it in the mid-to-late 1980's.

Coincidentally, in 1973 abortion was legalized, and this allowed women who did not wish to have babies to terminate the pregnancies. As it relates to our discussion of crime, this allowed women who were in social and/or economic situations where the odds of their children becoming adult violent criminals to instead terminate the pregnancy and choose to have children after the women's situations improved.

Also coincidentally, at about the same time as Roe v. Wade, we removed lead from our gasoline supply. The supplies of lead gasoline were quickly used up, and as consumption of leaded gasoline dropped like a rock, the concentration of lead in our air also fell very quickly as unleaded gasoline was burned instead. Since the highest concentrations of airborne lead would, obviously, be in areas of highest vehicular traffic (i.e., urban areas), this to a dramatic increase in the mental health of people, particularly children, living in the area. Lead poisoning retards mental development on a variety of levels and increases anti-social behavior.


Now, the effects of these changes (reduced youth population percentage and removal of lead from the air) would have begun being statistically a generation later, or about the mid-to-late 1980s. And lo and behold, the crime rate plunged dramatically starting in 1991.


Bill Clinton and Rudy NineEleven both claimed, and received, credit for reducing crime sharply when they were both just in the right place at the right time. Maybe some of their policies had some minor or modest effect, but the bulk of it was the result of massive changes made a generation ago.




Now, having gotten that out of the way, how about you answer my question about gun-ownership rates?

Because here's YOUR problem in a nutshell. Your side, it seems to me, is eternally waiting for The American People to rise up as one and spontaneously reject private gun ownership. That there is some sudden shift about to happen where the gun-ownership rate will drop by an order of magnitude in the span of a year or two.

You seem to keep expecting it to happen every time there's a mass shooting, which are invariably done by either a terrorist or a severely mentally ill person, and then you are routinely disappointed when the other 99.999% of gun owners don't have a "come to Jesus" moment on private gun ownership.

Now, there are long-term demographic changes that could easily reduce the number of gun owners as a percentage, and that could reduce the number of guns per capita, but you and I both know that, without a very severe and sustained regulatory and enforcement environment, the numbers are not going to drop anywhere near enough to make it hard for criminals to acquire guns. Reducing gun ownership to 20% of households and 200 guns per 1,000 people will not affect the ability of criminals to get guns. Nor will it affect the frequency of violent, emotional situations that lead to murder and violence.

So, you can address the root causes of the violent and emotional situations that are associated with murder and assault, or you can continue to treat it as a hardware problem. And guess what? As Colorado provides anecdotal evidence of, your attempts to control hardware results in political backlash that both undermines your hardware-control efforts AND prevents root-cause treatment through social and economic reforms.


Regarding the NBC arsenal of the US: I am completely in favor of removing all chemical and biological weapons. I am in favor of removing the strategic bomber force as a nuclear deterrent, going to an all missile force that is sea-based and land-based, and reducing the strategic bomber force to focus on conventional munitions.


Unlike explosives and bullets, NBC weapons have effects that actively linger for hours, day, weeks, months, and years. The area of application and the area of affect can vary widely, as they spread through the environment and spread through people and animals. This is in contrast to a bomb filled with a chemical explosive like TNT or a bullet discharged from a gun. A bomb's detonation exists for a few milliseconds in a sphere with a lethal radius of a few dozen or a few hundred yards. A bullet's flight time exists for a only two or three seconds along a thin line a few hundred yards long.

Unlike bombs or guns, the person deploying NBC weapons can render dangerous millions of cubic yards of air and/or water, and hundreds of acres of land, for a period of time extending for months.

[BainsBane]

82. If the problem is malice in one's heart

rather than weapons, what difference does it make what arsenals countries have? Your point is entirely hypocritical.

I don't expect the country to rise up. I know full well corporate profits outweigh everything in this country. It's as true for guns vs. human life as banking and other corporate profits vs. fair wages. People will continue to be killed at the highest levels in the industrialized world because gun killing yields profits, and that is what matters in America. You choose to align yourself with a mutli-billion dollar corporate lobby. That is your choice, and I have every right to call it out.

As for evidence about gun ownership, funny you should ask: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661481

[krispos42]

100. I just carefully explained to you the difference between conventional and NBC weapons.

This is on the level of national governments.


For small arms owned by civilians, being used for self-defense and sporting uses, the basic needs of public safety eliminate explosives and all forms of NBC weapons for those uses.


And why do you continue to spread falsehoods?

You know (or should know) that the non-gun homicide rate is as high or higher than the total homicide rate of comparable western European countries. That means that, without addressing the root causes of violence and conflict, even if you lowered the gun-ownership rates to UK levels... you'd still have a much higher US homicide rate.

One-third, about, of our homicides are done with "other", while two-thirds of them are done with guns. Now, unless you're going to tell me that, absent guns, EVERY SINGLE person that would been killed with a gun would alive... unless you're going to tell me that not a single person that would have been killed with a gun would have been killed by "other", you are FORCED to acknowledge that our homicide rate would still be significantly higher than the countries you look to for inspiration.

So, again, I know it's comforting to sprout such nonsense that, absent guns, America's homicide rate would be comparable to western Europe, but really, we both know the facts here.

You can squirm all you want, but the fact remains that the fastest way to deal with gun violence is to deal with the social and economic roots of violence... drugs laws, failing schools, private prisons, universal health insurance, chronic poverty, environmental poisoning, economic disenfranchisement, political domination of the government by the top 1%.

So, even if your plans for gun-control go through, and even if they measurably save lives at some point in the future, I regret to inform you that your plan has not measurably improved the standard of living of the 310 million Americans.

Doing things the way I think they should be done would not only save just as many lives, but would make Americans smarter, better educated, more successful, healthier, and in more control of the government and the economy.

[hack89]

87. Wouldn't you expect the West Bank to have an extremely low murder rate?

the Israeli military keeps a tight lid on criminal gangs in the occupied territories.

[BainsBane]

88. No, I wouldn't

It's a war zone.

[hack89]

89. Not really. Israel has a very low crime rate

and the security services have a good grip on potential threats. Why do you think there have been no successful bombing in Israel for a very long time?

Gaza on the other hand ....

[BainsBane]

90. So you are counting the West Bank as part of Israel?

You better cue the UN onto that one.

[hack89]

91. Who is responsible for security and policing?

That is what we are talking about. The West Bank is not a violent place.

[BainsBane]

92. so the only lives that count are Jewish ones?

Is that your contention? You aren't even going to count the deaths of Arabs? Are Arabs suddenly like suicides, not worth even counting as far as you are concerned?

[hack89]

93. No - everyone in the WB benefits from a low crime rate.

you implied that the WB has a high murder rate. It does not - and it applies to all the inhabitants, Israel and Arab.

Relax - you are trying too hard to be outraged.

And stop lying about my position on gun suicides. They count. I just feel that they are a mental health issue addressed by single payer health care with full mental health coverage. Laws aimed to reduce criminal gun violence are irrelevant to suicides.

[BainsBane]

94. It isn't a low homicide rate

It's well above most nations, including Pakistan, and at least double any where else in the Middle East.
It's well above everywhere in Europe, obviously. It is below the Congo and Honduras, so there's that. It's also below the US, the only wealthy nation with a high homicide rate because that is exactly how the gun cabal wants it. We're only talking about human life. As usual, you trivialize their loss.

[hack89]

95. The last official UN murder rate for the state of Palestine was 4.1 in 2005

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

But that also includes Gaza which is does not have Israeli security services involved.

Can you provide the link to your numbers?

[gopiscrap]

80. Fucking NRA gun nut ignorant asswipes!

[aikoaiko]

99. Open carry is not a particular NRA agenda item.

It seems to be a more radical grassroots thing.

I've never seen any NRA literature pushing it.