Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:40 AM Sep 2013

What gun fundamentalists are saying about you this very moment

I also find it repulsive that ....

many anti's refuse to spend a moments thought about the victims, and instead seek to exploit tragedies to promote reactionary restrictions on firearm ownership that would have done little or nothing to prevent such tragedies from happening in the first place.


Because they [gun control supporters] only scream about gun deaths, and not all murders and suicides. Even then, only if it is affluent white people. Because they can't come up with a logical argument but instead uses various logical fallacies and propaganda techniques to push their point. Most of it is emotional rhetoric and name calling, propaganda. Why? The gun prohibitionist lobby are elitists funded by a few billionaires. There is no evidence of gun laws saving lives anywhere in the world, at least peer reviewed studies done by legitimate researchers.


First, I wish to draw your attention to a recent study that shows a clear link between numbers of guns and homicide within the US. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/


Now, they say we are "elites" bought and paid for by billionaires. People have been working for gun control for decades, but they are furious that Michael Bloomberg has recently started trying to counter the BILLIONS from the domestic military industrial complex that seeks to put more guns in the hands of more people. Bloomberg has contributed to campaigns for just a few years, and his money pales in comparison to the corporate murder industry that gun evangelists stump for. They insist the gun lobby's billions amounts to "grassroots" organization, but Bloomberg's money is illegitimate. They spew NRA talking points, while claiming we--you, me, and everyone who doesn't think more guns are the answer--are bought and paid for. The very fact that you think the continuous loss of life from gun violence means something is wrong with gun policy in this nation makes you illegitimate and elitist. The majority of Americans are hateful because we don't prioritize their guns above our own children. They insist "their rights trump our dead." Truly, that phrase is from a pro-2a speech they lauded as the best in history. Dead children should not be discussed. They don't matter. If we talk about victims of gun violence we are "using them" for political purposes. Then they turn around and accuse us of not caring about gun shot victims, while they can't let a thread go by without defending a shooter or saying the death really isn't important.

People in poor urban neighborhoods work for gun control, while the gun fundies sit on their rural spreads filled with guns and cars and accuse us of being "elites." I guess having my car shot up and hearing gun shot fire outside the window of my rented apt. every couple of months makes me an elite compared to someone who owns extensive property in two or more states. (I'm guessing this is the GOP definition of elite--if you read a book or value education, you're an elite. That has nothing to do with privilege or income).

These same people work relentlessly to shut down threads about victims of gun violence they insist we don't care about. They send an SOP alert on every thread because they don't want you to know that guns kill people, including children, each and every day. In fact, more Americans have died from gun violence since 1968 than in ALL OF THE WARS in US history. They insist the numbers are not important. Suicide victims don't account (apparently they deserve to die from mental illness). Somewhere in the world, there exist a few countries with higher homicide rates than the US. The fact that more people die in the Congo and Honduras, they insist, means gun violence isn't a problem in the US. Our homicide rate is higher than any other major industrialized nation. Researchers have proven time and time again (see the CSPAN podcast of the recent conference on gun violence at Stanford University) that the key variable distinguishing other nations of comparable wealth is the high level of gun ownership, and that is what counts for our disproportionately high homicide rate. Research does in fact exist, though gun fundies refuse to read it. When they do look at the data, they distort it by claiming it says the very opposite of what it really does. They pretend to sound authoritative, so the uninformed might be tempted to think they know what they are talking about. If you examine their claims and numbers, however, you will find they are often distorted. They participate in a nation-wide propaganda campaign to deceive the American public. I'm not sure how many of them know they are promoting false information, if they lack the capacity to examine evidence, or if their need for self deception is so great they block out everything that doesn't fit their clearly absurd contention that gun proliferation has absolutely nothing to do with homicide. Regardless, take great care before deciding to believe them.

The NRA is currently working to give teenagers access to guns. They want anyone to have access to a gun without identification or training. They recall Democratic politicians, and they lie to the public by claiming the government is trying to take away their guns. Their lackeys on the internet spread their propaganda day after day. They distort data and research, and just plain lie--all in support of the corporate gun lobby. These are largely people who live in rural areas and small towns who work to promote gun proliferation in urban areas like Chicago, hundreds of miles away from them. These are the interests that brought about the end of gun control in DC and imposed concealed carry on Chicago. We are living in the America the gun cabal made. Every blood-drenched corpse is a notch in the belt of the domestic murder industry.

What the gun cabal despises most is democracy. They depend on the domestic murder industry to buy off and pressure politicians to promote their agenda, and the fact someone like Bloomberg tries to counter a fraction of what the NRA and Koch Brothers funnel to Republican politicians enrages them. They can't stand the fact that the American people want background checks, limits on mass murder magazines, or limitations on the kinds of weapons individuals can own. They ignore polling data (except for GOP fav Gallop on gun ownership, which they insist is more reliable than Nate Silver because it tells them what they want to hear.) They refuse to acknowledge the Daily Kos SEIU polling that has consistently shown overwhelming support for expanded background checks (over 90%), limits on magazine sizes, and assault weapons. If it doesn't tell them what they want to hear, they ignore it or insist it isn't valid. Ask yourself what kind of people want to make sure criminals have unrestricted access to guns? Who would want to make sure any and everyone can buy guns online without screening for felony convictions? Why would a law-abiding gun owner avoid background checks? Why would some claim to support background checks yet oppose the actual legislation--a separate amendment dedicated ONLY to background checks that failed early this year? Does that make sense on any level? If you want to know what lurks with your midst on this site, look in on the appropriate groups to see what they are saying about you. You should know exactly what you are dealing with.

Now the truth is these people are not nearly as important as the victims of today's massacre. The problem, however, is it is they and people like them who work tirelessly to make sure NO reforms can be enacted. They are already spreading their talking points in the Gungeon and will soon spread it throughout DU and the rest of the internet. They will do everything they can to misinform you. They stand in the way of the most modest measures designed to save human lives. Remember their core ideology expressed in a speech heralded in the Gungeon: Their rights--their guns--trump our dead. Your children are meaningless.
49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What gun fundamentalists are saying about you this very moment (Original Post) BainsBane Sep 2013 OP
I would be interested in your input... sarisataka Sep 2013 #1
It looks good, but I have a question BainsBane Sep 2013 #2
There was concern... sarisataka Sep 2013 #3
Well, it should not include a commercial loan BainsBane Sep 2013 #4
I see your point sarisataka Sep 2013 #6
Did Rep. King from NY have one? BainsBane Sep 2013 #10
Found it sarisataka Sep 2013 #14
The important thing is that the loan provision not become a loophole BainsBane Sep 2013 #17
Two big loopholes I see sarisataka Sep 2013 #19
Please pop into MIRT BainsBane Sep 2013 #5
Done nt sarisataka Sep 2013 #7
I'm sorry I lashed out at you in the Gungeon today BainsBane Sep 2013 #13
Everyone is on edge sarisataka Sep 2013 #15
Oh dear. I hope she heals soon. BainsBane Sep 2013 #16
Who cares? They won LittleBlue Sep 2013 #8
I know, it's only human life BainsBane Sep 2013 #9
I'll see you here next month LittleBlue Sep 2013 #11
You obviously don't know me BainsBane Sep 2013 #12
There is not much space between the gungeon and FreeRepublic. DanTex Sep 2013 #18
I don't listen to or engage with gun nut shitheads...their demented opinions aren't worth 2 seconds alcibiades_mystery Sep 2013 #20
The problem is their opinion is essentially national policy BainsBane Sep 2013 #22
no debate equals no change... Bay Boy Sep 2013 #29
K&R G_j Sep 2013 #21
The gun enthusiasts didn't give a shit about the victims in Sandy Hook. Tommy_Carcetti Sep 2013 #23
Or any victim, from what I can tell BainsBane Sep 2013 #24
There is only one forum where free speech is censored Bay Boy Sep 2013 #31
Really? BainsBane Sep 2013 #34
You know I'm talking about... Bay Boy Sep 2013 #36
I know you are, but it's bullshit BainsBane Sep 2013 #41
agree marions ghost Sep 2013 #46
The problem is that every debate is poisoned almost from the start. Glassunion Sep 2013 #25
The problem is it's not an equal fight BainsBane Sep 2013 #26
I get that. But, what I'm saying is that you are asking for an honest debate. Glassunion Sep 2013 #27
You make a very good point BainsBane Sep 2013 #33
It's not that simple. Glassunion Sep 2013 #44
What's the scoop about the NRA and allowing teenagers... Bay Boy Sep 2013 #28
No, SCOTUS has set the age to buy guns at 21 BainsBane Sep 2013 #30
Pretty sure in Michigan Bay Boy Sep 2013 #32
Hand guns not all guns maddezmom Sep 2013 #35
Huh? Bay Boy Sep 2013 #37
Thanks, edited. maddezmom Sep 2013 #39
Well, we have our friends in the NRA to thank BainsBane Sep 2013 #38
I think it's a little more complicated than that: petronius Sep 2013 #40
Yes, it's handguns BainsBane Sep 2013 #42
Note also that federal law makes a distinction between licensed dealers and private petronius Sep 2013 #43
Is that not the case for all background checks? BainsBane Sep 2013 #45
Yes, but I thought we were talking about the sale itself, not whether or not petronius Sep 2013 #48
Yes, that is what we were talking about BainsBane Sep 2013 #49
This truth marions ghost Sep 2013 #47

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
2. It looks good, but I have a question
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:49 AM
Sep 2013

what do you mean here?
-Loans do not need to go through a check

sarisataka

(18,654 posts)
3. There was concern...
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:54 AM
Sep 2013

that under the proposed legislation, letting a hunting partner used your gun would be a felony. I do not know if this was true or fear mongering.

I think that by defining a loan of a firearm, and who is responsible for any misuse during the duration of the loan it would help close fears that average hunters would become law breakers by doing something not at all uncommon. yet if someone gives a person a gun who then commits a crime with it there will be accountability.

Also have a set duration to prevent people from 'loaning' for years at a time.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
4. Well, it should not include a commercial loan
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 02:56 AM
Sep 2013

That should be made clear because I read it as someone purchasing a gun on finance. You should specify a short term loan while you are in their presence or something.

sarisataka

(18,654 posts)
6. I see your point
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 03:00 AM
Sep 2013

I was using the term colloquially. Actual legislation would have to be more clear on definitions.

I am merely trying to brainstorm any chance a bottom up approach to gun control since top down is seemingly in a perpetual loop. I do not know if any of the proposals are even feasible, referendums, petitions etc. but maybe something from group think will inspire someone smarter than me to make effective legislation.

sarisataka

(18,654 posts)
14. Found it
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 03:24 AM
Sep 2013

Appears it was fear mongering

SEC. 209. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title, or an amendment made by this title, shall be construed--

(1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; or

(2) to extend background check requirements to temporary transfers for purposes including lawful hunting or sporting or to temporary possession of a firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee.

Emphasis added. Short term transfers were indeed excepted specifically.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
17. The important thing is that the loan provision not become a loophole
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 06:03 AM
Sep 2013

Where people can absolve themselves of responsibility for passing on hang guns and assault rifles to others. So the loan provision should only be for hunting and sporting guns, and for very short-term, friendly loans. I wouldn't absolve the gun owner of all responsibility because that makes it too easy to pass on weapons to criminals.

sarisataka

(18,654 posts)
19. Two big loopholes I see
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 10:55 AM
Sep 2013

are guns that are "loaned" or even more prevalent "lost/stolen". They are issues that should have been addressed decades ago but get lost in the shadow of broader legislation.

sarisataka

(18,654 posts)
15. Everyone is on edge
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 03:26 AM
Sep 2013

and I have thick skin. No harm no foul

Now to bed with me. My daughter broke her arm last week riding her brother's bike without a helmet. If I wasn't so upset about the arm I would have killed her. She needs to go in before school to make up tests she missed.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
8. Who cares? They won
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 03:08 AM
Sep 2013

This is a contest that already ended years ago. A good portion of DU is against gun restrictions, we just lost two state legislators in heavy Obama districts to gun legislation.

It's like debating tactics on a war against another army when our army is fighting itself. We'll huff and puff for a week or two, then business as normal, guaranteed.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
11. I'll see you here next month
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 03:12 AM
Sep 2013

when absolutely nothing will have happened, and we'll be talking about something else.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
18. There is not much space between the gungeon and FreeRepublic.
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 06:20 AM
Sep 2013

I don't think there's any doubt that the gun fundamentalists have little or no regard for science and reason, or for human life, for that matter. The thing is, there are always going to be ignorant people posting hateful things on the internet.

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
20. I don't listen to or engage with gun nut shitheads...their demented opinions aren't worth 2 seconds
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 11:03 AM
Sep 2013

The debate is over. They're assholes.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
22. The problem is their opinion is essentially national policy
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 05:22 PM
Sep 2013

They support the status quo, the very situation that leads to 32,000 deaths a year from guns and mass shootings like yesterday's.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,182 posts)
23. The gun enthusiasts didn't give a shit about the victims in Sandy Hook.
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 05:27 PM
Sep 2013

They were too busy at the gun shows or in line at the gun store.

Because they were scared to death that a couple months down the line, they wouldn't be able to buy yet another AR-15 for themselves. Even though most of them already had one. Or multiple ones.

That's irrational, sick thinking to the max.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
24. Or any victim, from what I can tell
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:10 PM
Sep 2013

Why else would they so relentlessly seek to trivialize and discount their deaths? Why else would they seek to censor all discussion of gun violence in GD? They have a clear agenda, and it's to keep people misinformed and uninformed in order to advance their agenda.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
34. Really?
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:46 PM
Sep 2013

You haven't been paying attention at all. Have a look at the SOP alerts on any given day. You'll see an orchestrated efforts by gunners to lock threads about gun violence. Skinner recently clarified guidelines for the hosts, but you will see gunners continue to complain that such threads are allowed in GD.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
41. I know you are, but it's bullshit
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:06 PM
Sep 2013

All groups have SOPs that limit who can participate. The vegan group doesn't allow meat eaters, HOF and the other feminist groups don't allow misogynists, and the Gun control doesn't allow those who oppose more gun control. Deal with it. I'm sick to death of you people bellyaching. All the gunners want to do is disrupt and impede efforts on gun control. So there is one tiny section of the internet where they can't cause trouble. The idea that there is anything they want and can't have is completely foreign to them, so they bellyache constantly.

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
25. The problem is that every debate is poisoned almost from the start.
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:19 PM
Sep 2013

Each side frames the argument before the discussion even begins. It's doomed to fail no matter what at that point.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
26. The problem is it's not an equal fight
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:21 PM
Sep 2013

The extreme pro-gun forces are backed by a multi-billion dollar industry that corrupts the entire process by buying off politicians and spreading false propaganda to terrify gun owners.

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
27. I get that. But, what I'm saying is that you are asking for an honest debate.
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:38 PM
Sep 2013

That cannot happen.

When folks on one side of the fence come out swinging with - "many anti's refuse to spend a moments thought about the victims, and instead seek to exploit tragedies to promote reactionary restrictions on firearm ownership that would have done little or nothing to prevent such tragedies from happening in the first place." - Let's see, I can identify one baseless claim, two insults, and two instances of a false projection.

Then you have your reaction in your OP where you made projections, and the same claim that they do not care about the victims.

Both you and the person you quoted have framed the debate. At this point the discussion will ultimately end in failure.

You bring up some wonderful points that should be discussed, but the insults from both sides of the argument will always completely block the way of any progress.

I gave up on trying here at DU a while back as I'm just as guilty of these same things.

The Cooking and Baking group is way more my speed now.

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
33. You make a very good point
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:45 PM
Sep 2013

I myself have been worn down trying to discuss issues with most (but not all) of the pro-gun members. What I find most frustrating is the refusal to consider evidence even when it is presented. They look at a document that says the sky is blue and insist it says red. How do you deal with that?

Glassunion

(10,201 posts)
44. It's not that simple.
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:31 PM
Sep 2013

But in a discussion forum it is impossible.

If the rules for debate were followed, then any stumbling block can be overcome. But, the first rule of online forums is to throw out the rules of debate and make it personal.

When you accept the fact that when you post a topic for debate online, it will end in a giant heap of doodoo. You will then begin to realize that you don't have to deal with anything. Since there is nothing to deal with, that will alleviate your frustration.

Bay Boy

(1,689 posts)
28. What's the scoop about the NRA and allowing teenagers...
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:40 PM
Sep 2013

...to have guns? I thought 18 year olds already could buy guns.

Bay Boy

(1,689 posts)
32. Pretty sure in Michigan
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:45 PM
Sep 2013

you can buy a rifle at age 18. Now I'm off to read the link you posted.

Read link and it refers to handguns, which is what I thought was the case in MI
18 for rifles
21 for handguns

Bay Boy

(1,689 posts)
37. Huh?
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:52 PM
Sep 2013

was that in error? an assault rifle is a long gun (and even at that you meant to say assault weapon, slight difference)

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
38. Well, we have our friends in the NRA to thank
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 07:53 PM
Sep 2013

for insisting assault weapons be widely available to the general public. And of course they were supported by the vast majority of pro-gun posters on this site, so much so that they insist the very fact people proposed restricting assault rifles justified the defeat of background checks. To this day, they will insist that is what caused the defeat of the background check amendment, even though they were distinct amendments and everyone knew for months before the vote that Feinstein's assault weapon ban amendment had no chance of passing.

Thanks for the clarification about bans on 18-20 yr olds.

petronius

(26,602 posts)
40. I think it's a little more complicated than that:
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:03 PM
Sep 2013

Licensed dealers can't transfer handguns to persons under 21, and can't transfer long guns to persons under 18. {18 USC 922(b)1}

Private sellers can't transfer handguns to persons under 18, and persons under 18 generally can't possess handguns {18 USC 922(x)}

Individual states can set higher age limits, which licensed dealers must follow.

As far as I can tell, there's no federal age limit on possessing long guns...

petronius

(26,602 posts)
43. Note also that federal law makes a distinction between licensed dealers and private
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 08:14 PM
Sep 2013

sellers: the 21-year-old restriction only applies to FFLs. Although some states (like CA) have raised it to 21 for all transfers...

BainsBane

(53,032 posts)
45. Is that not the case for all background checks?
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:28 PM
Sep 2013

Only licensed dealers are required to conduct them?

petronius

(26,602 posts)
48. Yes, but I thought we were talking about the sale itself, not whether or not
Tue Sep 17, 2013, 09:53 PM
Sep 2013

the sale required a BGC. Just referring to transfers, federal law prohibits licensed dealers from selling a handgun to anyone under 21. However, the minimum age for private sellers to transfer a handgun is 18. So, federal law allows private dealers - but not licensed dealers - to sell handguns to buyers in that 18-20 range. State law can be stricter. Federal law also puts the floor for handgun ownership generally at 18.

BGCs are a separate issue, but you're correct: federal law requires licensed dealers to conduct checks on all* sales, wherever they occur. Private sellers are not required under federal law to conduct BGCs; but again, state law can be stricter.


(* There are some exceptions - e.g. antique firearms, or replicas thereof.)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What gun fundamentalists ...