Can any PRO Gun-Control person on this forum name one Gun Control WIN in the last 3 years?

[Logical]

Notice how I used the work PRO to describe them?

I cannot think of any win for gun control crowd.

Maybe CA stopping Open Carry. But that is about it and not much of a win.

More states have allowed Concealed Carry
Campus carry is gaining ground
Castle doctrine is expanding
More guns sold every year/month

And yet crime continues to fall. I am not saying the drop in crime is caused by more guns but it sure seems to lean towards more guns does not equal more crime.

Maybe I am missing a bunch of wins for the PRO Gun Control crowd. So list them here.

[ileus]

1. there were several open carry defeats last year.

[YllwFvr]

104. really?

I'm honestly curious. Other than oc getting smacked downing California what have I missed?
I've been away for a while. I probably missed a lot.

[rl6214]

2. Dosen't matter if they can

the backlash cometh

[X_Digger]

3. There was that one courthouse in Wisconsin.. or Missouri.. I forget where..

Someone ruled that folks couldn't conceal carry there.

Other than that.. let's see.. open carry in CA (which will actually result in a win for us, long term..)

Illinois didn't get concealed carry, though if I recall, it was a real squeaker there.

[Logical]

4. I bet IL comes this year. They seem ripe for it everywhere but Chicago.

[Starboard Tack]

5. The amazing thing to me is you guys see it all as a game

The right to or prohibition of carrying concealed guns on your person is irrelevant. The decision of an individual to engage in such a practice is what is important.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Not irrelevant at all.

If my right to carry is not protected then my decision to carry would be illegal and could get me in a lot of trouble. With shall-issue CC I can get my permit and carry my gun. I got my permit about six years ago and carry all the time.

[Starboard Tack]

7. I understand that you don't want to get in trouble. Who does?

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that carrying a gun is more likely to get one in trouble than not carrying one. But it's your choice, legal or not. If I felt the need to carry, the last thing I would be thinking about would be the legality of it.
That would be like sticking to the speed limit while being chased by a truck full of bad guys. I know you think that carrying your gun all the time makes you feel safer. I honestly hope you are right.

[GreenStormCloud]

9. It is impossible to predict if I will or won't need it.

If someone could actually predict that I would need my gun to defend myself at a particular place and time I would be sure not to be there. I carry because I can't predict the future.

Yes, I am safer with my gun as it gives me options that I would not have otherwise. I hope I never need those options.

I have started walking daily - weather permitting - for exercise. I am up to walking five miles per day. I carry a canister of pepper spray of the anti-bear type. So far I haven't needed to hose anybody's dog down with it, but I carry it just in case. And the Kel-Tec P3AT is in my pocket, with a round chambered - just in case.

[Starboard Tack]

13. I hope all that makes you feel safer.

I think the 5 miles a day you walk will contribute more than the gun to your longevity, but as I say, it's your choice. I assume you don't have a dog.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Why do you think I walk 5 miles a day?

I expect a return on investment proportionate to the investment. Walking 5 miles a day and going to the gym for a workout on the weight machines takes over two hours of time and effort every day. I expect it to make a serious difference in my health. And it is working. In earlier posts early last year I said that I have a slight disability. That disability is now reduced. Blood sugar is under excellent control. Last A1C test was 6.5. All other blood reading are have good numbers.

Putting the gun in my pocket takes only one second. It is a very, very small investment of time. It guards against a very low probability event that would still have high consequences if it did happen. The return of investment is proportionate to the effort. If putting on the gun required two hours then I would not consider it worth the effort.

[Starboard Tack]

33. So it's really all about how long it takes to put a gun on?

Damn, and I thought it was all about self-defense, 2A rights and fighting the king's army. Hey, I 'm glad to hear your blood sugar is under control.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

34. That's not even close to what he said

Way to totally misrepresent what is being discussed. And you wonder why your side keeps losing in the courts, the polls and the legislatures...

[Starboard Tack]

36. Newsflash! I don't have a side. Which means I can't lose.

You guys get funnier by the minute.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

37. Newsflash!

Your stated views and arguments have put you pretty firmly in the pro-gun-control camp. You may not like that, but its true.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Comprhension fail on your part WHAP

There's a big difference between self control and gun control. If there ever is any serious gun control legislation enacted in this country, it will be your side that brought it about. That's why I think indiscriminate gun carrying will lead to the rest of us, moderate thinking people, losing our rights to own and use guns, and even carry when necessary.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

43. Believe as you wish

Frankly, if you think the exercise of a right is reason to justify losing it, you and I have nothing further to discuss.

Consider this sentence:

"That's why I think uppity black people moving in to all these white neighborhoods will just offend moderate thinking people and cause them to lose their rights to live anywhere they want"

Same mentality as yours...and just as wrong.

Let me know when you understand rights are not dependent upon how "moderate thinking people" feel about them.

[Starboard Tack]

52. Again, comprehension fail!

I never said and do not think that "the exercise of a right is reason to justify losing it". What I am saying is that the proliferation of indiscriminate, automatic, mindless carrying of handguns throughout society will ultimately cause all of us to lose our rights to own guns responsibly.
I understand rights and support them. I also understand that when rights are abused, there are consequences. Constitutional rights are far from absolute. When children abuse the rights they are granted, there are consequences. They get grounded and their rights get suspended.
You don't have to agree with me. I really don't care, but those who promote indiscriminate gun carrying are shooting all of us in the foot. Your refusal to understand this doesn't change anything. The irony is that I don't have a dog in this fight and you do. I want to have the right to be armed, but if the stupidity of others caused it to be taken away, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, whereas it would be life changing for you.

[Simo 1939_1940]

50. Newsflash! With this nasty piece of snark you showed your

cards quite clearly:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11727494#post3

[Starboard Tack]

53. Oh no! Showed my cards? Say it ain't so!

I thought they were hidden up my sleeve, right next to my Derringer.

[ellisonz]

65. "These Derringer bullets sure are weak" - Bart Simpson as Tom Sawyer

[cleanhippie]

70. Dude, all of those posts are his passive-agressive bullshit intended to get just this repsonse.

The first 5 posts of posts were all passive-aggressive taunts, and when he failed to suck anyone in, he fabricated some stuff (hence the post saying "thats not even close to what he said) to elicit a response, and several people jumped right on the hook.

Keep that in mind for the next time, it may save you some headache.

[Simo 1939_1940]

81. Thanks, but no headache here, clean.......

Not even vexation.

I'm hip to this member's "style".

[Union Scribe]

56. Your side is mere antagonism. nt

[Starboard Tack]

58. Maybe you haven't noticed yet

but most of us around these parts are trying to maintain an air of civility in our posts.

[Simo 1939_1940]

59. Sure "we" are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11727494#post3

[cleanhippie]

71. Passive-aggressive ain't civility.

[Starboard Tack]

75. I assume you're an expert on such things.

Is your post supposed to be a demonstration?

[cleanhippie]

80. Well, I'm no psychologist, but I did stay at a Holiday-Inn Express last night.

[Simo 1939_1940]

82. No, but this is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11727494#post3

I'm sure you'll claim that you were just funnin' around -- but as has been observed by more than one member, you're extremely transparent.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Oh mon dieu, non! "Funnin' around" - moi? Jamais.

Damn, your easy. And I'm proud of my transparency. How about you Simo?

[Simo 1939_1940]

93. To take a page from your playbook.......

it should be "Damn, you're easy."

How about me? I'm proud that I'm not progressive on some issues, and arrogant, dishonest, hypocritical, self-defeating, bigoted and willfully ignorant on others.

[Starboard Tack]

94. At least you've learned some humility. Kudos.

With a list like that, you're going to need a lot more than I can give you. But I wish you the best.

[Simo 1939_1940]

120. What part of the word *not* escaped you? NT

[rl6214]

61. Really?

Just

[Starboard Tack]

76. Yeah! Really!

[spin]

40. I really didn't start to carry on a regular basis...

until I bought my S&W Airweight snubnosed .38 revolver. It's extremely light and compact and when I leave the house I just drop it into a pocket holster and slide both into my pants pocket.

I live in Florida and the heat often limits the type of clothing you can wear to cover up a weapon and until this year you had to be very careful to never reveal your weapon accidentally even for a instant. A new law allows a short inadvertent flashing of your weapon such as would occur while walking across a parking lot and a gust of wind causes your jacket to move. Therefore I felt that pocket carry offered deeper concealment than a belt holster under a shirt. It also has the advantage of a quicker draw If you find yourself in a threatening situation. You can just innocently place your hand in your pocket on the handgun and you are ready to draw it if necessary without being obvious and possibly escalating the situation.

A large market has been created for those who carry concealed and don't want to have to carry a heavy bulky handgun. The sale of newer more compact handguns has skyrocketed. My son in law used to carry a compact Glock .40 caliber pistol but now usually carries a much smaller Ruger LCP chambered for .380 auto.

While it is true that the smaller more concealable handguns sacrifice firepower for convenience, the first rule of a gun fight is to have a gun. The bulky .45 auto is a far better weapon for self defense but it's worthless if you leave it behind in a safe.

[Starboard Tack]

24. You carry a gun and bear spray in Texas to hose dogs?

I can't begin to imagine where in Texas you live and choose to walk. Do you like living in such a place?

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Every place I have ever lived has had loose dogs.

Like almost all towns we have a leash law, but there are some people who ignore it. Five times, here, I have had a large dog (different one each time) charge out into the road after me doing the snarling, growling bit. I had forgotten my spray the last time and almost shot the dog. If he had made one jump closer I would have.

I have been attacked by dogs in other cities and other states too. Each time I have been either walking or bicycling on a public street.

Is there a city or town where you can absolutely guarantee that there won't be any uncontrolled dogs?

[Starboard Tack]

38. You might want to change your brand of after shave.

Or maybe get a dog. One of the first things you would learn is that dogs can smell fear and other emotions. How many times have you actually been bitten?
I'm not defending dog owners who let their dogs roam off leash and if you seriously feel threatened, you should feel free to use a pepper spray. My old UPS guy always used to carry a pocketful of dog treats. Works like a charm and makes the dog friendly. My mail carrier sprayed one of my dogs years ago when he was a puppy. From that day on, he wanted to kill anyone wearing a USPS uniform, but had no problems with UPS, Airborne, FedEx etc..
Don't discount your options is all I'm saying.

[ellisonz]

66. lol

Mailman once sprayed our 40lb runt Aussie shepherd mix through a chain link fence she clearly couldn't jump. Asshole.

[Logical]

10. It is not like being chased! LOL. Work on another analogy. You are in the car anyway.

[PavePusher]

11. The Right to be able to make that decision, and not have the state make it for you....

There, fixed it.

[Starboard Tack]

12. I was born with my rights

The state cannot take them away or endow me with them.

[ManiacJoe]

15. The state most certainly can take them away.

[ellisonz]

22. Not without just cause...

[Starboard Tack]

23. All depends on one's point of view.

The rights I was born with have nothing to do with the state. They are natural rights which cannot be taken away as long as I live. Freedom of individual thought is the only true natural right anyone has. All other so-called rights are contrivances, many of which are designed to have one surrender that one fundamental natural right. Believing that carrying a gun is a right, means you have already surrendered that one fundamental right of the individual, by buying into the herd mentality and the politics of fear.
Constitutional rights are fine until they contradict that fundamental right of individuality, which is what happens when you change your behavior in such a way that you feel afraid to navigate this world, at all times, without being armed.
That's my point of view and it has served me well.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. That doesn't even make sense.

How in the hell does it 'contradict the fundamental right of individuality' to go about your business armed?

Humans have been doing that for tens of thousands of years, if multiple hundreds of thousands of years.

The only Americans ever denied that right, were people denied basic civil rights.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Yep, and I'd like to encourage it as much as possible.

[Starboard Tack]

25. Encourage what?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. "The decision of an individual to engage in such a practice is what is important."

[SteveW]

41. Well, despite the connotations of 'game,' it's better than political sado-masochism...

Really, when one keeps engaging in the same fruitless; nay, counterproductive behavior it seems to call into question something more disturbing than 'game.' In any case, it is not a game to "us." Perhaps you can ask us how "we see it all...?"

A mistake: Your so-called 'right to or prohibition of carrying concealed weapons' is not a right. Perhaps you have confused 'right' with state "powers." What remains to be settled is whether or not it is constitutional for a state to 'prohibit' concealed weapons without consequently making "open carry" a recognized right. An interesting dilemma.

"The decision of an individual to engage in such a practice is what is important."

With this I agree.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Ah, so you agree that the decision making process is important. Good.

Do you also agree that the decision should be made each and every time you strap a gun on to go somewhere, rather than it being automatic and thoughtless, like breathing or walking?
If so, then we agree.

[rl6214]

60. Actually the right to carry concealed guns on our person is extremely relevant

That is why many of us are involve in this group.

[Starboard Tack]

78. It's not a right. It's a privilege for those in states that issue permits.

Rights don't involve permits.

[Callisto32]

125. No.

The whole damn thing hinges on whether it is a right or not.

[Starboard Tack]

132. I'm not contesting the right.

Irrational behavior is not justified because it is a right, and bragging about it is mind boggling.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

133. And what irrational behavior would that be?

You consider carrying a firearm to be irrational behavior? Really?

[Simo 1939_1940]

8. "Maybe CA stopping Open Carry."

Add mine to the extensive list of names who believe an actual backlash will result from this.

[Starboard Tack]

14. Faulty causality.

"And yet crime continues to fall. I am not saying the drop in crime is caused by more guns but it sure seems to lean towards more guns does not equal more crime."
Why mention it if it has no basis in fact?
Crime is falling in places with strict gun control, like Los Angeles.

How's it going with the "Pro Gun Control Crowd"? You haven't attracted too many yet.

[gejohnston]

16. it is falling in Billings too

LA is still too high.

[Starboard Tack]

20. Any crime is too high

Point is there is no evidence that more guns carried has any lowering effect. It is wishful thinking on the part of those who enjoy being armed. My mentioning LA demonstrates that.
We all know that crime levels will lower substantially when the war on drugs is abandoned. By that token it could be argued that relaxed marijuana laws in California have contributed to lowering crime levels.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. Unless you can point to...

...clear facts which indicate gun ownership causes an INCREASE in crime, then really, you've got no leg to stand on. If it has no effect on crime rates, then there isn't even the slightest reason to restrict it.

Thanks for playing - pick up your parting gift on the way out.

[SteveW]

42. Reason for mentioning: "More guns = More crime" was pumped for years by gun-controllers. nt

[Starboard Tack]

55. So what? Extremists on both sides making bogus claims.

Par for the course. That leaves the rest of us to pick up the pieces and try to restore some sanity.

[SteveW]

87. The question was asked and I answered it...

If you go back 40 or so years (about how long the Democrats have been constructing their "liberal" issue of gun-control), you will find little animosity from both gun-controllers and pro-2A folks alike. (You really had to look long and hard to find someone spewing off about "liberal-socialist gun-banners," etc.)

But in the 1980s you began to see the spew -- little better than courthouse bathroom wall scrawling -- coming mainly from gun-controllers. Read Kates and Kleck's The Great American Gun Debate, and you will find this "extremist" language coming not from anonymous trolls on an obscure web site, but from academics, policy-makers, major editorialists, editorial cartoonists, politicians, etc. And MSM was only too-willing to oblige this smearing of tens of millions of gun owners. What gun-controllers didn't realize was that the support for the Second Amendment was WIDESPREAD and DEEP, hence the massive response to gun-control schemes. What gun-controllers perhaps don't want to admit is that they have little popular base. This is for one salient reason: Gun-control/prohibition is an elitist outlook, one which says: You cannot have guns to defend yourself, but I can have them because I am more worthy (the Feinsteins, the Bloombergs, the Daleys, not to mention Hollywood power-elites like Jodie Foster, who had armed bodyguards with her. At Yale. On Campus).

Certainly, the bad language is now taken up by pro-2A folks because there are far more of them. And as hard as it is for some controllers to admit, these flannel-mouthed 2A-defenders have, as Patton exclaimed "...read your book!"

They know what was said about them, they know what most gun-controllers' agenda is (prohibition), and they know how to defeat them.

I think the best 'sane' way for the Democratic Party to approach this issue is to DROP gun-control from the Platform, returning (on this issue) to a pre-1968 status. I don't think the rank 'n' file Democratic Party members want anything more to do with "gun-control." But that's not the problem: This 'outlook' is zealously held by elites, many of whom are within the pilothouse of the Democratic Party and have no intention of getting out.

It is a worthy discussion, the cultural reasons for the rise of the gun-control/prohibition outlook. They are entwined with elitist self-interest, a not-so-logical extension of the morally passionate 60s Civil Rights Era, animosity toward men, compassion as substitute for policy-making, and a complete misreading of Gandhian non-violence.

Elitist Democrats set out on a quick-fix culture war and lost. Big-time.

[Starboard Tack]

88. Interesting how you refer to liberal Democrats in the third person.

I do agree with you on one point. Gun control should not be part of the NDC platform. Any changes to the constitution should be bi-partisan and eventually will be, as they have been in the past. Change is usually driven by events, as we saw after 9/11.

[SteveW]

89. I often use third person when using "liberal," due to the distortion of the term.

What I consider "liberal" would not pass muster with some in DU, let alone among those on the RW. And I often "slash" together "liberal/progressive" since both notions are hazy to many.

I have no problem with those who wish to change the constitution, though I think using the document as a means for mass moral validation (as with alcohol Prohibition) is stupid, dangerous, expensive and corrupt.

Yeah, well, change often comes about due to events; some good, some just moral panics into whose vacuum step the worst sorts.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Prohibition was a moral issue.

Gun control is a public safety issue. When the kids misbehave and start destroying things with their toys, or the toys are deemed too dangerous, they get taken away. All the kids suffer for the misbehavior of the few. I hope it doesn't come to that in this country, but it looks inevitable the way things are going at present. We'll see.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

91. Prohibition was presented as both

a moral and public safety issue - far more on the public safety side honestly. The moral side was brought in to further influence the vote.

Guns are not inherently unsafe and when used properly cause no public safety problem. When used improperly or illegally, they cause a very localized safety problem for the victims but that's about it.

Yes, all children may suffer in school for the misbehavior of a few, but we're not talking about children are we? We're talking about law abiding tax-paying adults being made to pay for the criminal behavior of a small number of specific criminals.

That you believe the people are mere children to be controlled by government says a lot about you. In fact, I'm pretty damned offended at the comparison.

[X_Digger]

92. All prohi's think their cause is a public safety issue. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

97. So what? I'm not a "prohi" and this is a safety issue.

Or do you think the mentally ill should be allowed to buy guns and kill people?

[X_Digger]

98. False dichotomy. Try again. n/t

[SteveW]

95. Both gun and alcohol prohibitions are moral culture wars...

Gun control is not a public safety issue because there is little evidence to show that the number of guns in society can be linked to some measure of "public safety." A lot of speculation/theorizing, but little evidence. This becomes more stark when one sees that most crimes committed with a gun are committed by repeat felons. The focus should be on the dogged pursuit and imprisonment of repeat felons, there is some reason to believe this is happening.

When anyone, "kids" or no, destroy things, they are taken away from their "toys" and effectively restrained. This is how criminal justice should address such transgressions. I am not concerned about the guns. I am concerned about the thug.

[Starboard Tack]

96. You must be joking. Tell me you're joking.

Gun control is not a public safety issue because there is little evidence to show that the number of guns in society can be linked to some measure of "public safety." A lot of speculation/theorizing, but little evidence.

30,000 gun deaths a year is not a public safety issue? What is it then? A celebration of RKBA? It's a fucking tragedy. That's what it is.

Oh, right, it's all about "THUGS". They are to blame for everything.
All the rest is "STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT" - all the accidents, all the suicides, all the mentally ill.

Do you read what you write?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

99. Nope he's not joking

And no - those 30k deaths per year is not a public safety issue. Removing the suicides (which are intentional acts by people who would kill themselves anyway) and the crimes (which are also intentional acts and a criminal issue) and you've got under 1000 genuine accidents which could be considered to fall under "public safety". 1000 accidents in a nation of 310+ million are statistically insignificant. Tragic for those involved certainly, but not even close to the realm of a public safety issue.

Life cannot be made 100% safe 100% of the time. You may not like this fact, but it is a fact. Quite honestly, even if we were to consider the whole 30K number as preventable (it isn't since suicide is utterly unrelated to firearms availability) you're still talking about ~30,000 out of ~310,000,000 or less than 1/100th of 1% of the population. For fuck's sake, we don't even stress over airborne diseases which would affect so few people.

At some point you have to apply cold hard ruthless facts and logic. Simply put ST, people die. They always have, they always will. Crying over 30K people you don't even know (the majority of which did it to themselves mind you) is nothing but crocodile tears to sway the opinions of those with no capacity for critical thought.

[SteveW]

105. No, sir. Not joking...

I believe I said that most "gun crimes" are committed by repeat felons. That accounts for a lot. The other ills you mention are worthy of attention and meaningful governmental actions; gun control is not among them.

You really give the human condition and societal ills short shrift be reducing them to an artifice. Your insults notwithstanding, you have a very obvious and very narrow outlook on the role of government and society with regard provision for the general welfare.

[Starboard Tack]

106. First, show me where I am advocating gun control

Then we can discuss the rest.

[SteveW]

107. You don't support gun-control? Then we are in agreement on that. Thanks. nt

[Starboard Tack]

109. No, I support and advocate self-control

The lack of which is running amok and will inevitably unleash an unwelcome response from an outraged population, causing everyone to lose even more of their current freedoms.

[SteveW]

110. I'm with you on that first part. The rest...

"The lack of [self-control] which is running amok and will inevitably unleash an unwelcome response from an outraged population, causing everyone to lose even more of their current freedoms." If you mean by crime, then I don't have much fear of that.

I am more concerned about the increasingly centralized ideology of a "national security state" (Gore Vidal's expression?) which infects both political parties, and has its clearest expression in the newly-institutionalized "UnitaryPresidency" (definitely Cheney/Bush).

If things really get that bad (with regards centralized police-state actions), the RW will call for gun-control; that should be the signal for all that they are going for it.

That's not "paranoia," that's a measured analysis of the situation.

[Starboard Tack]

114. And that is the beast that is being fed, unfortunately

I think we're being sucked into a situation that you describe and those who encourage this crazy proliferation of carrying guns everywhere are being duped. I might add that I'm not a conspiracy theorist, by any means. My advice is, if you really feel the need to carry, do it quietly and discreetly and stop announcing and cheering for it on public websites, under the impression that you are promoting civil rights, when the reality is you are really setting the stage to lose them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. "...stop announcing and cheering for it on public websites". I certainly will not.

No right was ever protected by backing down and playing nice. That only encourages prohibitionists.

[X_Digger]

116. You know what that post reminds me of?

Have a watch- great talk that touches on a similar theme.

[Starboard Tack]

117. You just don't get it, do you?

You are encouraging the prohibitionists. Try thinking outside the box and you'll see it. You and those like you are being manipulated and totally set up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. Would you say that about anything else?

Marriage equality?
The Occupy movement?

I'm afraid I can't buy that reasoning as presented. And for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct and some future government decides to
'declare we are now at war with Eastasia' (so to speak). Even if 99% of gun owners meekly submitted, you are now looking at ca. 800,000 armed and
ready "terrorists". Government is often stupid, but it is rarely suicidal...

[Starboard Tack]

119. I give up. You win. Good luck.

[SteveW]

143. Lot of loose change, here...

I'm not being sucked into any situation. There were plenty of guns when I war growing up, and in terms of both raw numbers and percentages of people owning guns, far fewer than we have now. I've never worried about that. I worry about an increasingly authoritarian government in which both parties have agreed to the hard-wiring of the Unitary Presidency, which depends on PermaWar. Respectfully, you should be as well.

Please, don't lecture me on "...announcing and cheering for [the 'need' to carry] on public websites, under the impression that you are promoting civil rights..." I will from time-to-time chime in on the relative merits of concealed vs. open-carry, but in either case, it is a constitutional right. And it is a recognized civil right.

Any stage-setting for losing this civil right will come from the Right; the few Democratic centrists who still cling to the gun-control outlook can never overcome those who defend 2A, only the Far Right can. They will do so only when they think greater authoritarianism will give them the power to effect such a confiscation/ban. Even then, it will be a problem for them.

[Callisto32]

126. All those drunk driving deaths aren't a public safety issue.

Well fuck me! All these years I had no idea what "safety" meant!

[Starboard Tack]

131. What century are you living in?

Prohibition - drunk drivers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. There is a crowd...

...that have push the idea that crime is lowered by expanding firearm ownership. While the capacity for self defense is an objective good, IMO, there is nothing conclusive that shows that expanding that capacity lowers crime.

I specifically believe that the converse is quite false as you, apparently do, also. More guns do not equal more crime. Absolutely.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. THE BACKLASH COMETH

[E6-B]

69. Al Gore Paid the Price for Clinton's Gun Comtrol

If the President tries for his 'under the radar' policies for more gun control, it will be the end of the next democratic presidential candidate before he even tries to run.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. No worries.

I doubt he's going to try it. In fact, he's signed quite a few bills that are favorable to gun owners.

He keeps going like he is, and the NRA will be totally de-fanged.

[ellisonz]

21. They are winning the battle, but may still yet lose the war...

Also: This isn't about money, this isn't about buying politicians and judges, and imposing your will. This is about doing what is right and what the Constitution clearly demands, "a well regulated Militia" - 4 annoying words the gun advocates don't want to reckon with in meaningful terms.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. You still don't get it do you?

Militia service or membership is not a condition upon which the right depends, but rather just one of many reasons for it.

I'm sorry you can't understand that, but that's your problem.

[ellisonz]

44. Thanks to Antonin Scalia and friends! n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

45. Has nothing to do with Scalia.

Keep trying though.

[ellisonz]

47. Oh for Christs sake...

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Would you care to address the bolded statement in this context?

[X_Digger]

48. Your response does not address the post you replied to.

Who claimed that the right is unlimited?

*looks around*

Certainly not any post in this thread. What does an individual right have to do with the scope of constitutionally permissible restrictions?

Did you lose your place somehow?

[derby378]

57. I'll do it

The Second Amendment does not give me the right to wave around a Kalashnikov with a 75-round drum magazine at a gas station shouting revelations I'm receiving from Hello Kitty and demanding obedience to Her purrfect will.

But, the Second Amendment does guarantee my right to own a Kalashnikov. Fully assembled and ready to go. The impetus now becomes preserving domestic tranquility while at the same time safeguarding our Constitutional rights.

If you're looking for a well-regulated militia, look in the mirror.

[ellisonz]

108. Some people would say that's free speech...

"But, the Second Amendment does guarantee my right to own a Kalashnikov. Fully assembled and ready to go. The impetus now becomes preserving domestic tranquility while at the same time safeguarding our Constitutional rights."

Domestic tranquility is not preserved by giving criminals the ability to outgun law enforcement.

[beevul]

111. Since law enforcement generally has access to fully automatic weapons...

Since law enforcement generally has access to fully automatic weapons, any argument that relies on "giving criminals the ability to outgun law enforcement" in this day and age, as a talking point, is either:


A: a deliberately crafted fiction,


B: fiction spawned from a fundamental lack of factual knowledge of both the state and level of equipment of law enforcement, and an equally ignorant foundation of factual knowledge of the state and level of equipment of non law enforcement gun availability.

C: both





Feel free to counter by explaining what firepower law enforcement lacks which the general public has simple NICS access to.

[ellisonz]

112. The average beat cop doesn't walk around with a full auto weapon at the ready to my knowledge. n/t

[beevul]

113. Nor does the average citizen, or average criminal.

Check.

On edit:

You said "giving criminals the ability to outgun law enforcement"

Those were your words. Stick to them, or admit they are false.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

124. The average "beat cop"...

...doesn't walk around. They use this thing called a car.

Usually cars have these things called "trunks" which are a storage area outside the passenger compartment where things are placed that one may need but does not need to have at hand. In addition to that, there are things called "storage racks" which enable a long arm to be stored securely inside a the passenger compartment.

In most large cities and many medium to small ones, the police officer has at least a shotgun and typically what is sometimes referred to as a "patrol rifle" in either the trunk or the storage rack. This "patrol rifle" is typically an AR-pattern rifle, frequently an actual select-fire M16a1 or M4.

It has been repeatedly established, and you have repeatedly admitted, that your actual knowledge in this area is sorely lacking. As such, why would you think for one moment because something is unknown to you it does not exist?

[Callisto32]

127. If you think reality is dictated by people...

we have discovered the core of your problem.

[beevul]

32. " What the Constitution clearly demands"

Wow. Just wow.

In a document, the purpose of which is to restrict government, you see your way fit to "interpret" a restriction on people. The very same people those restrictions on government are intended to protect the rights of. Like "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms", for example. Right of the people, not "power of the government". The fact that the words "right of the people" are written there, makes crystal clear that they are not talking about bearing arms in the context of military service as it is today. That would be a power of government, you see. Rights are the opposite of powers, and at odds with them as such, in case you didn't know it.

"4 annoying words the gun advocates don't want to reckon with in meaningful terms"

We do reckon with them in meaningful terms. Just not meaningful terms you and your pro control ilk agree with.

The fact is, those words aren't annoying to us, they're annoying to YOU.

Annoying because they don't serve as a limiting factor like you wish they did.

It would be completely redundant for an amendment to be written that in essence said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the context of military service, shall not be infringed". "the government shall not infringe upon itself". Thats a hoot, it really is. Lets be plain, thats the road you'd like to take it down.

Even more ridiculous, is the notion of "the government shall not restrict itself" being written into a document whos SOUL purpose was to restrict federal government with protecting the rights of people as the intended goal of those restrictions.


The collective rights interpretation is dead. It was always dead.

It just hasn't sunk in for some folks with ideological blinders, yet.

Fortunately, thats not my problem.

[ellisonz]

46. Thanks to Antonin Scalia and friends!

BTW Even they disagree with your basic interpretation of individual rights:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

What does it say when even the right-wing SCOTUS doesn't want to fully agree with your opinion that "the collective rights interpretation is dead," maybe they're scared of people taking their decision precisely the way many here do as an unlimited right to own and do anything with firearms?

[X_Digger]

49. That's the second time you've repeated that straw man.

Care to elaborate as to how you (apparently) equate an individual right to 'unlimited right to own and do anything with firearms'?!?

Do you apply this same *cough* logic to other individual rights?

[ellisonz]

64. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater...

[X_Digger]

67. Who said you can? Care to respond to what I actually said? n/t

[ellisonz]

68. Sure. What gun control do you support?

For example, one poster here has maintained with you should be able to carry in the presence of the POTUS and that should be able to carry on a airplane, do you agree with this?

Are there classes of people that should be prohibited from ownership? What standards do you think should be used to implement such a prohibition if you support it? What efforts do you think there should be to enforce such prohibitions?

Are there any types of firearms you shouldn't be able to own?

[X_Digger]

72. I'm interested in how you think an individual right connects to 'unrestricted' blah blah blah..

Or was that just meaningless blather on your part? You do realize that it being a fundamental, individual right has no bearing on the scope of the constitutionally permissible restrictions, yes? It's analogous to the first in that regard.

I carry on airplanes frequently- either I'm riding general aviation with one of my buddies who regularly fly, or it's checked into my luggage in the cargo hold if I'm flying commercial.

I support the provisions of the '68 GCA as they stand now. I'd like to see states submit timely data to NICS. Apply the same stick/carrot that they did for seat belt laws.

There are no types of firearms that I shouldn't be able to own. I agree with the '34 NFA, except for the suppressor bit. In much of Europe, they're sold over the counter as a safety device. Hollywood and spy novels have perpetuated the 'phthut' myth. I'd prefer not to have to use ear plugs *and* muffs to protect my hearing.

[ellisonz]

74. lol

Nice job dodging the question of carrying near Federal officials. And so you don't carry on your person on commercial flights?

My thoughts have been repeated ad nauseum; I think this is the first time you've expressed any practical concerns.

Good to see you support background checks and don't see them as unnecessary bureaucracy.

Poor inconvenient you having to use ear plugs and muffs...inconvenience, the basis of all fine notions of liberty.

Have fun with your "death spewers" ...

[X_Digger]

77. No, I just missed it in typing my reply.

I don't think there's anything special about federal officials up to and including the president.

If they're in a private venue they control, sure, feel free to wand anyone.

If Joe Congressman is walking down the street? I see no reason why a bubble of limited rights should follow him around. What, if Joe Congressman drives past a gun store, should the whole place be locked up?

Re airplanes: Honestly, I'm tired of the stupid security theater. That's one reason I tend to fly GA. No TSA screener grabbing my ass for the illusion of security. But commercial planes are private property- there is very little expectation of rights there.

But I know you've got a special place in your heart for the patriot act, so I assume you've got the same love for granny-groping TSA, right?

[div class='excerpt']Poor inconvenient you having to use ear plugs and muffs...inconvenience, the basis of all fine notions of liberty.

It doesn't even pass the lowest level of judicial scrutiny. The ignorance on this subject has festered for 75+ years. Does legislation based on ignorance appeal to you? (Wait, you support the patriot act- I know the answer to that question, already.)

[ellisonz]

79. We're not talking accidental, we're talking deliberate.

Does the Secret Service have a right to temporarily seize your gun if you come near the President?

Good, don't try to bring guns on commercial planes, we don't even need to start with that shit.

It's okay. When the GOP goes down and your "expansive" interpretation of "gun rights" goes down you can complain about gun laws that make sense to many people for good reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#1960s - hijackings are non-existent almost because of the "security theater" and please leave your guns at home when you go to political events - it's not necessary and people are crazy enough anyway.

[X_Digger]

86. It's dependent on venue. In a public space, not otherwise proscribed by state law? No.

[div class='excerpt']When the GOP goes down and your "expansive" interpretation of "gun rights" goes down you can complain about gun laws that make sense to many people for good reasons.

More 'backlash cometh', eh?

LOL!

[gejohnston]

73. May I?

That is less about gun control than it is about security.

Basically the same people who have been prohibited since the 1930s. Most countries, including Canada, allow nonviolent felons to own guns after they get out. John Dean (or some guy who got busted for pot in college 30 years ago) taking up skeet is not a threat to public safety. Under current law, that would still get them sent back to federal prison. I like the opt out code on your DL as a de facto license. Basically, if you pass the NICS and you do not opt out, a code goes on your DL or state ID. Private sales are up to the states, but still ban inter state sales without FFL (in other words, it is a federal crime for either one of us to buy a gun in Arizona. The same applies to "buy backs." If a church in Portland is having one, and you drive over from Vancouver, WA, with Grandma's Clerke clunker for a Wal Mart gift card you and the church committed a federal crime according to the letter of the law.) To enforce such prohibitions? An ATF that is professional and does its job. In order to do that, the institutional culture must be fixed. That has to range from their institutional sexism and racism and management that damages morale of good agents. In other words, replace the top management.
If we adopt a national licencing scheme, I am not big on re-allowing direct mail order. Canada does and it seems to work for them. My reason has more to do with protecting local small businesses and local economies. Paying the local hardware store a few bucks to special order something is a small price to protect mom and pop. I go Amazon only after checking local sources.
Federal gun laws fell to the Treasury Dept. Until the ATF was created in the 1970s, the IRS had the job. How much effort did the IRS put in gun laws v tax laws? Close to zero.

No but different regulations. NFA for machine guns and destructive devices vs Title One weapons works fine (although the problem with the high profile mid western roving gangs in the 1930s was lax security at national guard and police armories.) I would ditch the Hughes Amendment. I would regulate silencers the same as France and Norway, and make pen and belt buckle guns Title One. I would also repeal the Miller Act of 1927 simply on the principle that gives unfair advantage to private corporations over USPS. Since Miller was a Republican and signed by Coolidge (R) I figured you would agree to it.

[S_B_Jackson]

85. Sure I can, just as you could....

how is the state to prohibit me (or you) from doing so?

Of course, if I (or you) did, then I could be held responsible for having done so. But if there IS a fire, then the truth is an absolute defense.

[Callisto32]

128. You may,

IF IT IS ON FIRE!

[rl6214]

62. You can keep repeating that line as much as you like but

it is settled, just not to your liking.

[ellisonz]

63. "it is settled, just not to your liking."

Thanks to Antonin Scalia!

"Every banana republic has a Bill of Rights,” he said. Those are “just words on paper.” It depends on the “structure of government." - Individual Rights Interpretation Supporter.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/05/news/la-pn-scalia-testifies-20111005

[Doctor_J]

101. Here we are in the DU Fan Club

for Scott Walker, Anton Scalia, Paul LePage, and the rest of the anti-American far right.

the same people who have decided the US should be one big free fire zone are also the ones who gave us Bush v. Gore, union-busting legislation, anti-public school legislation, anti-teacher initiatives, voter suppression, and the destruction of Medicare and SS. Somehow the gunsters can't seem to put those together.

[ellisonz]

102. I don't get it either...

...watching Ron Paul blather on about his misconception of liberty the other night, all I could think about was the Gungeon.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

103. Did you stop to consider....

...the ENTIRE Supreme Court decided it was an individual right, and even if they had not, the right to protect one's life is not a right or left issue but rather a human issue?

Look, if you don't want to own a gun, then don't. Once you start telling others they may not make that choice for themselves, you are not advocating freedom.

[E6-B]

122. We're called the NRA not the National Union Association.

We're the NRA. We do guns.

[Doctor_J]

130. And the people you vote for also do unions, teachers, pensions, anti-choice initiatives,

anti-gay-rights, and so on. Congrats on your ability to ignore all of that. You belong to an organization that is actively trying to elect a republican president and others across the land. I understand "doing guns". I don't understand sending money to the NRA and calling yourself a Dem.

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. There are also some here that are able to ignore the head of MAIG's *other* activities.

As well as those of William Bennett, father of the first assault weapon ban.
And the origins of recent proposals to restrict firearms sales:

Why Gun-Controllers Suddenly Love Bush's "Terrorist Watch List".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x416903

see also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x415807

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x416549#416745

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x416121

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x415123#415252

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3934094

So it's not as if there is a lack of role models from your side of the issue...

[gejohnston]

135. that include

Howard Dean and Brian Schweitzer?
Your side includes Trent Lott, Bill Bennett, and Reagan.

[E6-B]

136. BTW I am an IBEW brother since I was 12.

I do two things, my job and my guns.

[E6-B]

121. Militias

Seriously, will you forget about my guns if I start a militia?

[ellisonz]

123. And submit to government regulation...

...up to the point of actual infringement of the right to bear and keep arms?

There's always the National Guard you know...

[E6-B]

137. I thought so.

Regulation under militias and regulation for individuals.

Do understand that the Supreme Court already decided this?

[ellisonz]

138. Do you understand the Supreme Court has corrected itself before? n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

139. It has happened but it is extremely rare

Further, I am unaware of any case in which it has done so and restricted rights.


Still waiting for you to attempt to express the conditions under which a case could even be brought to give the outcome you seem to think you're going to get...

[DonP]

31. Well, we still don't have CCW in Illinois ... yet

They couldn't stop it in Wisconsin but they were able to at least stall it here.

Is delaying the inevitable a "win"?

Probably this summer or at the worst, next year, post elections and we'll join the rest of the country.

Funny how I never read about gun control supporters planning their family trips to "safe and secure Chicago" for a neighborhood tour?

[Doctor_J]

100. No, which is why I don't understand all of the bitching from the NRA and their cult

the NRA and their members are determined to vote out Obama, according to their mailings. Why?

[Callisto32]

129. B/C NRA-ILA is probably almost as bad as people make it out to be...

when it comes to partisan politics.

[E6-B]

140. He did waste anytime getting to gun control

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30389664/ns/politics-white_house/t/first-days-assault-weapons-ban/#.TxDJg_F5mK0

[Ter]

141. I'll name two that's far more damaging than any legislation

The two anti-gun extremists appointed to the SC by Obama. This way he can slickly say he didn't do anything to curtail our rights, when in fact he hurt the 2nd Amendment immensely.

[Logical]

142. LOL....you sounds like the NRA spokesman. The 2nd is safe. Calm down.