You are correct, gun legislation wont work...

[randys1]

I mean if we do background checks (obviously better than nothing) we will still have millions of guns sold every year, we will still have hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of almost everybody who wants one due to black market and so on.

Therefore, the only thing to do is to adhere to the 2nd Amendment and eliminate ALL guns outside of a well regulated, locked down, militia...

Eventually nobody would have a gun outside of the miliia, not overnight and it wouldnt be easy, but if you want to stop gun deaths this is the only way to do it.



Or something like they do in Denmark and Iceland, total ban of all handguns and rifles are closely regulated.

I wont even bother going into the mental state an alleged adult has to be in to think that guns are so important to their life, lets leave that out as hard as it is to do and just focus on solving the problem.

[hack89]

1. You can use the war on drugs as your model nt

[warrant46]

76. Ah yes Jimmy Carter's wonderful war on drugs

Expanded by Reagun and all of the successors.

That will work to eliminate 300 million guns (NOT)

another thought-- for the past year I have tried to buy some .22LR for a serious rat problem I have --- none to be found or any other ammo for that matter. Hoarding is at an all time high right now.

[Ghost in the Machine]

83. Don't you mean Richard Nixon??

War on Drugs is an American term commonly applied to a campaign of prohibition of drugs, military aid, and military intervention, with the stated aim being to define and reduce the illegal drug trade.[5][6] This initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of what participating governments and the UN define as illegal psychoactive drugs. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by United States President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one". That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the "prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted", but that part did not received the same public attention as the term "war on drugs".[7][8][9] The Drug Policy Alliance estimates that the United States spends $51 billion annually on the War on Drugs.

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

Maybe *that* will help clear things up for you... we know that right-wing revisionist history brainwashing works on some people... educate yourself and don't get caught up in the bullshit!

Peace,

Ghost

[warrant46]

92. Thanks for the proper education to clear up my ignorance

Your comment is noted---

"Maybe *that* will help clear things up for you... we know that right-wing revisionist history brainwashing works on some people... educate yourself and don't get caught up in the bullshit! "

Apparently there are a number of people here whose job is to be rude in the mode of the so called thought police similar to the Cuban experience of a neighborhood's Committee for the Defense of the Revolution or CDR.

Read this if you want my bibliography

http://www.druglibrary.org/special/anderson/highinamerica17.htm

Jimmy and Paraquat-----

Peace----

[CTyankee]

97. yes, guns are just like drugs...it's impossible, I tell you, impossible!

no, no, nothing can be done...move on. we're impotent to act, can't do anything...

now go back to sleep...

[hack89]

100. More police, more police powers, more police abuse - it definitely can be done

The war on guns is just what the police need to keep the federal funds and all the toys it buys flowing.

[CTyankee]

103. there you go again, hack. Maybe...just think outside the box of what we need here with this

problem...giving up and saying "oh, I dunno..." doesn't cut it..be part of the solution, not the problem.

BTW, what is YOUR solution?

[hack89]

106. There are many reasonable things we can do

The silly ass proposal in the OP is not one of them.

Remember, I support all proposed gun control laws with the exception of registration and an AWB.
You and I have more in common then you are willing to admit.

[CTyankee]

125. I know you don't support registration and an AWB. What DO you support?

You haven't enumerated one of them in your thread.

Also, if you support the proposed gun laws you say you do, what are you doing to get them passed into law?

[hack89]

127. UBCs, magazine size limits, gun owner licensing, storage laws - I support them all.

I support single payer health care with full mental health coverage. I support a means for identifying possibly violent people and temporarily taking away their guns by creating a place where mental health professionals can go when they have serious concerns.

[CTyankee]

134. excellent. what action are you taking to get these laws passed?

[hack89]

136. Voting for Dems. nt

[CTyankee]

138. glad you do at least that. I'm relieved.

However, perhaps you can address something about you and several other regular posters in the RKBA group that I have noticed. You and they are very seldom seen outside of this group. Most Dems here have more than a single issue. I know I have four subscriptions and have an interest in reproductive freedom, women's rights, Elizabeth Warren and Travel. In addition, I have a lot of interest in art and art history, in the issue of climate change, in poetry, the labor movement and the political economy. Many, but not all of these interests are covered in GD, which is where I hang out mostly.

I am in the gun reform issue for reasons regarding my family, so it is personal for me. It is also because I am a liberal, progressive Dem. I find it striking that other Dems like me almost invariably have numerous other areas of interest. So I find it odd that I practically never see the RKBA activists in too many other places (with the exception of the Men's Group, an interesting alignment given recent current events).

Since I assume you are a Dem because you are interested in the party's stand on a number of issues on my list, I find it curious that you and some other RKBA folks don't seem interested enough in the other political/economic/environmental/gender equality issues that swirl around our party all the time to bother participating in their discussion. Is there a reason for this that you can tell me?

[hack89]

139. I am not a "me too" poster

I am looking for spirited discussions on contentious issues. When I first came to DU, it was the 911 forum. Now the issue that generates the kind of discussions I like are gun threads.

I am a life long Dem. I support choice, marriage equality, unions and gender equality.

Pro-gun Dems exist. You just need to learn to let your prejudices go and stop judging people on a single issue.

[CTyankee]

140. please don't misunderstand and don't also be condescending to your fellow DUers who have

deeply felt positions on many issues outside of just guns. It is a bit arrogant to assume that you and only you are not a "me, too" poster and everybody else here is out of step but you. I'm sorry to tell you that it just looks odd, that's all. Typically, liberals are wide and broad thinkers, with rich intellectual lives that embrace the arts, economics, cultural exploration, as well as race/gender/marriage equality. It's just who we are, I have learned through a long life being around liberals. This is why we have so many other areas at DU where we can discuss and share these ideas/experiences/passions. There is obviously a demand for these types of discussion areas. You seem to feel that there is something wrong with that.

[hack89]

141. You were mentioning not being condescending?

has it ever occurred to you that DU is only a tiny sliver of my life and I have a rich intellectual life in the real world? But of course that can't be - I like to post about guns therefore I am intellectually stunted in your mind.

But that is fine - exchanges like this are the reason I come here. I certainly don't take them personally. Thanks.

[CTyankee]

142. oy, you interpret what i said as a condemnation ofyour liking to post gun threads. I said no such

thing. I said it is just the only thing you want do here. You are in a sea of liberals who are indicating their interest in lots of areas of discussion and it looks a bit odd that you and other RKBA (not all) seem to confine your discussion to just one issue. I was observing behavior, not passing judgment on your opinions, which you have a right to.

[hack89]

143. ok nt

[hack89]

2. Do you understand the Democratic party position on the 2A?

Last edited Tue May 27, 2014, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)

The party platform is pretty explicit in stating that the 2A protects an individual right. The president has publicly said the same.

[Hugabear]

4. Party positions are subject to change

The Democratic party position 5 years from now might be the same as it was 5 years ago. As a party, we need to be able to change and adapt to the times.

[Abq_Sarah]

6. if you want to eliminate firearms

You're going to have to amend the Constitution. Period.

Let me know how that works out for you.

[joeybee12]

7. Nope...read the constitution, read the militia acts of 1792...

Clearly it was a federal militia, believe all the propoganda you want, even from the 5 Sacks of shit on SCOTUS, but at least educate yourself.

[hack89]

9. I think I will read the party platform instead. Nt

[Abq_Sarah]

12. I have educated myself

The bill of rights protects individual rights from government interference. It grants us no rights, it protects those that were considered basic inherent rights. And no, the 2nd wasn't written to form a federal militia. The amendment clearly states the right of the people, not the right of the states or the right of the militia. "The People" as referenced in the 2nd, are the same people that are likewise referenced in the 4th amendment.

[Hugabear]

14. So the term "well regulated militia" has no meaning at all then?

I noticed how you left out the "well regulated" part, as do many gun-lovers.

[beevul]

23. Sure it has a meaning.

Just one that carries no legal force, or restriction on individuals.

The operative restriction is on government.

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943

The preamble to the bill of rights itself contains the same sentiments:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

A vast majority of Americans agree with that, where amendment 2 is concerned.

[valerief]

77. Nope, just enforce the Bill of Rights. nt

[derby378]

10. A party that changes with the times is a party not worth respecting

As a party, you figure out what you stand for and then you fight for it. You can evolve your convictions, but you can't sell out your convictions because of "the times."

Even a weeping willow has roots.

[Hugabear]

13. Who's talking about "selling out"

If our convictions evolve over time, shouldn't our positions on certain issues also evolve?

[Sissyk]

107. Besides 2A,

what other issues do you think should evolve over time? Say....in the next 10 years.

Thank you!

[Hugabear]

147. I think our positions on race and homosexuality have evolved

They've definitely evolved from what they were a long time ago.

I don't understand why evolving is such a bad notion.

[Sissyk]

149. I don't disagree that our positions on race and homosexuality

have evolved. Thank goodness! I am a huge supporter of our gay brothers and sisters and want them to have the exact same rights that we do.

But, with that said: The only way 2A is ever going to change is by constitutional amendment. What amendment was changed due to us evolving on homosexuality. Even though I think some have evolved; it's been a part of the democratic platform for a very long time.

If I don't reply and you continue to discuss this with me (and, thank you), I have to be away for awhile but I will get back to you.

[treestar]

69. True, funny how lockstep is now demanded

Usually one gets accused of demanding that for wanting Democrats supported.

[CTyankee]

101. Why? Our party nominated Clinton and Obama and we got them as Presidents...

So what if the party platform mouthed allegiance to the gun lobby.

What we got were Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagen to the Supreme Court and they voted AGAINST the Heller majority!

I say, let's keep that "party position" to make "some" people happy and then get ourselves a real Democrat in the White House in 2016...eyes on the prize, folks...

[CTyankee]

98. Yep, and that same president appointed TWO Supreme Court justices who are AGAINST

your interpretation of Heller.

So we have a "party position." Big deal. When push came to shove, guess what? We got Dem presidents whose SCOTUS nominees voted AGAINST your position on guns!

Well, well...

[hack89]

104. Do you understand that the 2A and Heller are not what is stopping gun control?

Everything you want short of an out right handgun ban is perfectly legal. Scalia specifically says in Heller that strict regulation of guns is perfectly legal.

Your problem is political and cultural - you don't have enough public support.

[CTyankee]

122. Public polling shows strong support for gun safety laws.

Maybe you are looking at "polling" done by the gun industry and the NRA (or is it one and the same?) but the polls I have seen show public support.

[hack89]

124. For some gun safety laws

UBCs are nearly universally supported for example.

But you cannot extrapolate that to universal support for all gun control laws. Gun bans and registration, for example, do not have widespread support.

And lets not forget the political aspect of it - the reason gun control failed post Sandy Hook is Senate Dems from pro-gun red states had no desire to commit political suicide. Just as important as how much public support there is for gun control is how that support is distributed. Which means that without compromise and a willingness to work with gun owners (and yes, the NRA), there will not be meaningful gun control legislation in the near future.

[CTyankee]

126. work with the NRA?

I must stop and giggle...

OK, just what does the gun owners/NRA support that is "meaningful gun control legislation." Please be specific about this.

[hack89]

128. The NRA worked with congress after the Va Tech shooting

to tighten background checks. There is precedence.

Not saying it is easy but what other choice do you have? I can understand your attempts to marginalize the NRA - that could work if you pitched a properly nuanced proposal directly to gun owners. But I fail to understand this reflective desire to insult and stereotype gun owners - surely even you can understand how counter productive that is?

[CTyankee]

135. I'm not insulting you and I hope we can find some common ground.

However, I will turn the question you posed around to you: if you don't strongly condemn the "spokespersons" from the pro-gun lobby such as Joe the Plumber, do you know how counter-productive that is?

Unfortunately, your 2ndA compatriots are often rude, crude, mean spirited, and often seem insane. Loony toons from the Tea Party did your side no favors (I know you are not a Tea Partier, but you know what I mean). Often pro-gun people are extremists who get their picture in the media doing ridiculous or downright scary things. You can't complain about getting a "bad press" when these folks are the face of your cause. I think they bear a strong guilt in bringing a lot of the "stereotyping" to which you refer upon the whole movement.

Sad, but true...start with your own brothers and sisters in your cause...

[badtoworse]

105. You have to pass the draconian gun laws before a future SCOTUS could uphold them.

How would that happen considering that even the watered down Manchin Toomey bill failed in the Senate, shortly after Newtown.

[CTyankee]

123. In a Senate where the definition of a majority of a 100 member body is 60 votes...

The amendment, which would have required background checks on all commercial sales of guns, got the support of 54 members and was opposed by 46. It needed 60 votes to move forward.

The bill, which was expected to come up short, lost the support of four Democrats on Wednesday: Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). All four but Heitkamp face difficult reelections in 2014, and all come from rural states with strong gun cultures. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) voted against the amendment for procedural reasons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/17/manchin-toomey-gun-amendment-fails/

The simpler, more reasonable math would put that as a win, with 54 votes. Funny how that works...

[PowerToThePeople]

130. The party should follow the members, not the other way around. n/t

[hack89]

131. How do you know that they didn't?

remember, DU does not reflect the average Democrat.

[PowerToThePeople]

133. it does not matter

I do not know that they did not. That does not change the fact that one should not follow any "rule" blindly. I am a just, honest, helpful, caring person before I am a Democratic party member. If the party stands for ideas that go against my core values, I will not support those ideas.

Majority opinion is not always correct and should not always be the rule. That is supposedly why our system was set up as a Republic.

[upaloopa]

3. We need to make pariahs out of gun owners.

When there is a shooting we morn they shout about 2nd amendment rights. We try to find ways to reduce gun violence they shout about 2nd amendment rights. Everyone of their gun and ammo purchases gives money to those who block legislation to protect the rest of us. There are no good guys with guns! Gun ownership is deminishing in numbers of persons. Let's keep that going.
They are not deserving of respect. They demonstrate a self centered callous uncaring of society. They live in fear and paranoia which is lethal to many innocent people daily.
We have 1st amendment rights. Let's use them. We need to make polititions fear us not the NRA.

[Jenoch]

8. You have a pretty big brush with which you are painting.

[upaloopa]

17. Yes it is the only way to get through to you

[NutmegYankee]

26. I think you'll have as much luck as Fred Phelps in getting your point across...

You are going to attack a lot of normal decent people. But don't let me discourage you. By all means, get loud.

[Hoyt]

51. Normal decent people don't accumulate a bunch of guns or walk among us with guns.

Poster above is right, we need to change how people look at gun fanciers in our society. Accumulating, promoting, toting, etc., should be as taboo as flying confederate flags, smoking in public, even incest.

[Travis_0004]

52. So how do you feel about a picture released by Obama of him skeet shooting?

[Hoyt]

53. Bet it wasn't his gun, and it's not the kind of gun that has

gun fanciers drooling in gun stores and shows.

Some day, I'd like to see a Prez pull a Jimi Hendrix with a gun -- bash and destroy it, set it on fire and dance a little jig.

[upaloopa]

61. I don't need help it is happening now because

of you and people who think like you.

[NutmegYankee]

68. Oh Really?

How would that be? You were not just talking about people open carrying in stores, you were talking about hunters and regular people whose guns are just locked up at home. I see your bigotry, and I implore you to make it more known.

[hack89]

11. Good luck with that

Americans aren't that stupid.

[upaloopa]

18. It has already started thanks to you

and your gun nut brothers who carry AR15's into Sonic Burgers and such.

[hack89]

19. "Just you wait" the motto of gun control for 20 years

It will be a very long time before you even recover the ground you have lost since 1994.

Do you think gun control will be an election issue this year or in 2016 or will it be ignored?

[Hoyt]

54. I would hope gun fanciers would champion it.

[hack89]

55. I support reasonable gun control

The only two things I oppose is registration and an AWB.

But there is some really stupid ass shit being proposed right now that cannot be taken seriously.

[upaloopa]

60. Not in a gunner paradigm sure. But sensible to the

rest of us.

[hack89]

63. Ok. Nt

[awoke_in_2003]

64. Why oppose registration?

You have to register a car to drive it. Is it because you like the idea of stockpiling weaponry?

[hack89]

65. Car registration is a taxation scheme not related to safety

Since my guns are not taxed they don't need to be registered.

Secondly, I only need to register my car if I drive on public roads. If the car stays on my private property it does not have to be registered. Likewise, I need a permit to carry a gun in public. I need nothing to keep a gun on my private property.

[upaloopa]

59. I quit playing 20 questions with gunners

You aren't worth it anymore.

[hack89]

62. Bansalot is more your speed - no dissent, no thought required. Nt

[Nevernose]

22. 2/3s of guns are bought by just 7% of the population

For comparison's sake, there are twice as many Americans who subscribe to HBO as own more than four firearms. I think they already are pariahs, and one of the things fueling their purchases are the sense of being made into pariahs.

[Lurker Deluxe]

43. How can you know?

I own more than four firearms, and if I was asked by someone I would simply respond it is none of their business what I have. No more than I would tell someone how many bottles of booze are in my home.

The numbers you cite have no basis in fact, there is simply no way to know who has how many guns, accurately.

[randys1]

44. I agree...Americans are childish when it comes to guns

like a kid and the parent is taking away a toy or ball and the child screams about it

People will keep dying, someone will probably shoot me because I wont back down and I will say the truth and I will say we need to get rid of all guns...

[IronGate]

50. Good luck in your endeavor.

It's been tried before with the resulting backfire.

[krispos42]

67. So... culture war against guns and their owners.

Funny how when I say this, some people here look innocent and play stupid.

[Hoyt]

70. There is no culture war against guns and their owners.

There is a concern that a lot of the gun crowd feels like Rodger expressed in his manifesto -- "After I picked up the handgun, I brought it back to my room and felt a new sense of power. I was now armed. Who’s the alpha male now, bit#*&s."

[krispos42]

108. And so all gun owners must be shunned.

But it's not a culture war. Gotcha.

[Hoyt]

114. To preserve your "right" to amass and carry guns, we have to put up with these tragedies.

So don't think you are guilt free.

[krispos42]

119. And... deflection.

Is that a talking-point over there?

[Sissyk]

109. What law is being proposed that would have kept a gun out of his hands?

I'm curious as I do not know if he legally had the gun or not.

[Hoyt]

113. He bought three legally.

[Duckhunter935]

115. Yep

passed background checks, California required waiting period, used all low capacity California compliant magazines. So just what new laws are people here pushing for that already were not complied with in California's strict gun laws?

[Hoyt]

116. Howsabout getting serious no matter how much you guys whine.

[badtoworse]

117. Howsabout answering his question?

[Duckhunter935]

118. just asking a question

you and many others ignore. The silence speaks volumes.

[Sissyk]

120. Thanks for the answer.

I've been to busy to do the research.

I'm not sure you are one that is saying our gun laws are much to lax. But, if you are, would you tell me what law being proposed would have kept a gun out of his hands?

Thanks, again.

[HockeyMom]

132. Open carry will do just that

We have seen what has happened when these people have taken their guns into restaurants, parks, etc., and it has caused panic among the general population. The majority of the people, and businesses, don't want them to be near them.

That is why I don't like CCW. Others have no choice to leave gunners presence. It is sneaky and deceitful. Open carry and show yourself to the world, and yes, even those so called bad guys.

You can relate it to smokers who have been made to be the pariahs of society. Nobody wants to be near a smoker. Well, maybe a person with a gun is bad for your "health" too. The difference is that you can see somebody smoking, and leave. You cannot see a concealed gun and stay away.

Change hearts and minds where nobody wants to be around people with guns.

[Turbineguy]

5. I think it will have to be an economic cost.

So far the gun rights people have managed to avoid this issue but I don't think it can be hidden much longer.

[LittleBlue]

15. That's not the way the 2nd Amendment is interpreted, though

Not by the SCOTUS nor the public.

It is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", not "the rights of militiamen to bear arms..."

Regardless, if anyone attempts to enforce the law by your interpretation, they'll be impeached and removed from office.

[randys1]

16. I wonder how many have died from gunshots since I posted this an hour ago

blah blah blah

Cant go against the party, oh my!

Cant correctly interpret the constitution, they might get mad!

oh NO!

[hack89]

20. Can't formulate a coherent thought oh NO. Nt

[randys1]

25. Yeah, I am the one who wants to stop unecessary murder and I am incoherent

This is why you will never win an argument on guns, you may get your way, but you will ALWAYS be wrong...

[hack89]

27. So do I

You must be so very special if you are the one that gets to choose what is right and what is wrong. Do I bow or is a tip of the hat respectful enough?

[randys1]

30. I am not at all special, it does not take a special person to observe that guns kill people

And the more I read alleged liberals arguing about keeping their god damn guns, the angrier I get and the clearer it gets that the whole fucking thing is pointless, way too many childish men who are going to INSIST that their right to play with their gun trumps all life.

[hack89]

33. And childish rants and cartoonish world views are not going to solve the problem either

So perhaps if you were to stop with the broadbrush stereotypes we can actually discuss possible solutions.

[randys1]

36. Take your insults elsewhere, I am a liberal, I only want to talk to other liberals

[hack89]

39. Echo chambers are the incubator for real change?

[randys1]

40. Nah, I just like talking to mature people who have outgrown their need for a toy that kills

I play with toys too, but none of mine kill

[hack89]

42. Got it. Nt

[Adrahil]

21. How many have died in alcohol-related deaths?

Just sayin.....

Some crazy dude kills 6 people with a gun, it's national news for a week. Some drunk kills a family of 6 on the highway, it's a one-day tragedy in the local paper.

[randys1]

24. Alcohol isnt designed to kill

[hack89]

28. So the actual number of death is not the issue?

At least you are honest about it.

[randys1]

29. What are you talking about?

[hack89]

31. You dismiss alcohol related deaths even though it kills and harms just as many people as guns

That's all

[randys1]

32. Dismiss? No i dismissed ALCOHOL because it is not DESIGNED to kill as guns are

[hack89]

34. So accidental deaths are less important? Ok. Nt

[randys1]

35. Pretty funny guy, making light of thousands of deaths each year with tools designed to kill

[hack89]

38. Deaths are deaths. We should start at the top of the list of things that kill

And work our way down regardless of the cause. Let's save the most lives.

[Adrahil]

58. The CDC estimates 88,000 deaths attributed to excessive drinking annually.

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

Whether or not alcoholic beverages are DESIGNED to kill, they do so, quite efficiently. In fact the number of deaths attributed to excessive alcohol use in nearly THREE TIMES the deaths attributed to firearms.

[Adrahil]

57. I'm not sure that matters to people killed by the drunk.

And somehow I've managed to not kill a single person with my gun. I've killed a bunch of paper targets, and probably my aural nerves, but that's it.

[pintobean]

37. Actually, 3 were with a knife. /nt

[Hoyt]

71. You think he might have subdued them with his guns and used the knives to avoid noise?

"After I picked up the handgun, I brought it back to my room and felt a new sense of power. I was now armed. Who’s the alpha male now, bit#*&s." Rodger's "manifesto"

[pintobean]

72. Maybe he was a knife fancier.

[Hoyt]

73. Nope, knives did not give him a sense of power.

"After I picked up the handgun, I brought it back to my room and felt a new sense of power. I was now armed. Who’s the alpha male now. . . . . ." Rodger Manifesto.

[pintobean]

74. It was a joke, Hoyt. /nt

[Hoyt]

75. Oh, I laughed, but because it was another attempt by gunners to minimize this tragedy.

[pintobean]

80. By stating a fact?

Okay Hoyt.

Please define gunner.

[upaloopa]

148. Do we do all that we can to prevent highway deaths?

Do we license drivers? Do we regulate autos and owners? Do we build in as much safety that we can into cars?
Do we have a highway safety dept?
Do we spend billions on auto safety?
Do we do any of this with guns?
Hell NO!

[Demo_Chris]

41. Good luck. You couldn't even get Democrats to repeal the second. nt

[randys1]

45. And that is the problem

look at the whining and yelling from so called liberals

jesus christ..grow the fuck up, guns are toys that kill

get a god damn X box and play with your guns there

[mwrguy]

46. Absolutely

The platform needs to be changed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. You are definitely a good example of why gun ownership should not be universal. nt

[randys1]

48. Now that makes sense, the person who thinks guns are dangerous is the person who should NOT

have one

You just illustrated what is wrong with gun nuts...

[Lurks Often]

49. You're very funny

Not much of a grasp on reality, but funny.

Both parties recognize the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and eight of the nine Supreme Court justices recognized the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, the 5-4 decision was about where the line was to be drawn.

You have no chance of getting what you want through Congress in the foreseeable future

The majority of states wouldn't comply even if you did get through Congress and law enforcement in both Colorado and New York have already stated publicly they won't enforce the gun control laws that their state legislatures passed and I doubt they are alone in thinking that way.

So given all of the above, exactly how do you plan on accomplishing your stated goals?

And are you going to join law enforcement to help go door to door or do you just talk tough on the internet??

[NM_Birder]

56. LOL ! Ban crime if you think bans are the answer ! LOL ! ......

LOL ! ....bet I get banned ......... the irony is worth it ....... CHEERS !

[randys1]

91. Nah, you guys are right, lets do next to nothing and your kids and my grandkids can continue to

be targets...

amazing logic you have there

[NM_Birder]

150. BAN EVERYTHING ! it's the only way to protect the kids.

I'm sure there is a country in Europe that you could give as an example as a better place than "Murica" right ?

[krispos42]

66. So, you're going for their guns.

I take it that you and others in this thread will now stop mocking the people that express concern over the government taking away guns?

[randys1]

79. No, we will not stop mocking you, you see people like me who dont have to answer to

major corps, can never have enough power to do the right thing.

You dont have to worry, all politicians are bought and paid for by somebody...

It is infuriating to think there are so called liberals whining that their death machine might be taken from them, it just pisses me off that they exist in the liberal, adult party.



p.s. if I did have my way, I would probably let African Americans and Latinos and Muslims keep their guns, they would have a real reason to worry without them...

[Sissyk]

110. In your dictatorship going on in your own mind,

what about women? Do you want to take mine away?

[valerief]

78. Right. It's time to enforce the Bill of Rights.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Sissyk]

112. Comma

com·ma
ˈkämə/
noun
1.
a punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list and to mark the place of thousands in a large numeral.

[valerief]

121. ?

[Taitertots]

81. Can we blame you when Democrats become a permanent minority party?

What is your plan for taking millions of people's firearms?

What is your plan if/when people in the US end up living like the 1,000,000,000+ people who have draconian gun laws and high violent crime?

[randys1]

82. So countries with little to no guns have high violent crime?

As to the nonsenical idea that one person out of 300 million could change the entire system, well thanks, what a compliment.

[Taitertots]

84. No, there are countries with draconian gun laws that have high violent crime.

Pretty sad that you won't stand behind the policies that you advocate.

[randys1]

86. Now I am lost, i say no guns, and you wont have people dying from guns, you say that is wrong?

[Taitertots]

87. You have not expressed a coherent plan to get to "no guns".

You merely advocate draconian gun laws. What is your plan if/when the US becomes like other nations that have both draconian gun laws and pandemic violent crime?

[randys1]

88. You are making statements as if they are fact, why dont you just say the following

I love guns, I want to keep and play with my guns no matter how many die. (you must not care otherwise you would be working with me)

I will say "I want to get rid of most if not all guns, certainly all hand guns, and if it takes two generations to do it, it is better than your plan"

[Taitertots]

89. Why don't you come up with a coherent plan to get what you want? Then we can discuss it's merits

And you offer no plan to move forward if/when the US ends up like other countries that have draconian gun laws and high violent crime.

[randys1]

90. Again with the allegation as if it was fact...

I say you first offer people money for guns, and part of the trade can be jobs for guns.

Obviously you have to stop selling them at the same time, no new guns.

We put the taxes back to where they were when we built the greatest infrastructure and middle class in history, we property tax corps and we protect trade by forcing manufacturing here, all will result in much greater economic stability and guns can be traded for jobs etc...

It would take 30 years probably, but combining trade and guns and tax law and so on, could be done

Add green to that

[Taitertots]

93. What is your plan when millions of people don't want to do that?

Your plan is not a coherent plan to get rid of most of the guns.

[randys1]

94. What did we do when millions didnt want to get rid of slavery?

So should we go to war over it, maybe not, but your reasoning is weak.

And a plan could be worked out, problem would be people like you that wont go for it no matter how coherent it is.

[Taitertots]

95. You don't have a coherent plan for the millions of people who won't do what you want

We could make the country better, but people like you refuse to accept the fact that you need millions of people to agree with your plans.

[Lurks Often]

99. He has lots of plans

it's just that they probably wouldn't be found legal under US law. Of course none of those plans involve him actually doing anything that might place himself in danger, he'll just put others into harm's way.

[IoNP]

96. So we should go to war.. Killing people... To reduce violence?

[badtoworse]

102. You're not even selling your plan here.

You're delusional if you think the country as a whole will go for it.

[CTyankee]

146. You mean like Canada?

We don't even have to go to Western Europe with their constitutional democracies that live well and happily with gun control. But Canada shares our continent, our language, and even our American accent. And they, too, have a constitutional democracy. Moreover, their western provinces border our states. Would you call their gun laws "draconian"? Are Canadians just plain weird and part of the million plus people with draconian gun laws and high violent crime"?

[aikoaiko]

85. Ban teh GUNZ!!!!11!11

[aikoaiko]

111. As a gun owner I breathe a giant sigh of relief when I see "eliminate ALL guns"

Last edited Wed May 28, 2014, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Such a position will secure access to guns for a very long time.

[randys1]

137. Agreed, like a child, when you tell them you want to take their dangerous toy from them

they will react almost violently.

It is why we have regulations about toys with small parts being labeled correctly, but yes, to take your toy from you, which a reasonable person would do this instant if he could, will be tough.

[badtoworse]

144. The NRA likes it too

People like you keep the checks rolling in.

[randys1]

145. Agreed, adult/responsible thinking like mine will ALWAYS cause childish people like NRA members

to respond the way they do

[PowerToThePeople]

129. I agree. n/t