I submit that we ban the term "gun-grabbers".

[zanne]

One thread was locked because of the use of the term "gun crazies". All things being equal, I don't think that term for gun control advocates should be used, either. Who agrees with me?

[Ano Genitus]

1. "Gun Grabbers" is simply "Nanny State Amendment Rapists" with a different stock.

[zanne]

28. Oh yeah. That's a rational, objective point of view.

:rofl:

[albert johnson]

52. agreed,we shouldnt ban them,but-

we should wall off all cities larger than 10,000 people and in those ares there can be no guns,but anywhere outside the cities we would have our freedom.i wouldnt have any need to go to those towns.or how about all the gun grabbers move to a country that already bans guns,there they can live how they want and leave us alone to live in the u.s.a.having the same freedoms we always have had,as it would seem that the gun grabbers are the ones wanting to CHANGE the way it has been here and would probably be happier elsewhereand we would have our freedom uninfringed,like it was written in the constitution.

[slackmaster]

2. Would you prefer something like "gun ban advocates"?

That's an accurate description of some people, like Congresswoman McCarthy.

[L1A1Rocker]

3. And Kennedy and Biden and Schumer and. . . . . .

[madinmaryland]

6. I think this better reflects the two camps:

Gun Control Advocates

vs.

Anti Gun Control Advocates

"2nd Admendment Supporter" is kind of irrelevant, as both sides both accept the 2nd amendment, but have totally different interpretations of it.

[krispos42]

8. it's usually more a high-restriction vs. low-restriction argument

Both sides agree that gun controls are a must. Except for a few that think it's not a Constitutional right at all, or that it's an absolute right.

The question is always where the line is to be drawn.

The debate also contains elements of social or class conflict as well.


Any term must also be short, or it will not be used.

I think pro-gun and anti-gun works well. People that are anti-gun ten to be for strict storage laws, background checks, licencing, registration, limits on semiautomatic rifles and/or handguns, and magazine limits. They get distressed when people use guns to defend themselves, often arguing that even if it was justified, if we were to change our violent attitudes and culture, the incident would never have happened in the first place.

People that are pro-gun tend to support safe storage laws that still allow quick access to a gun, background checks but not mental competency check, and licencing for concealed carry. They do not see limits on semiautomatic rifles or handguns as an effective crime-control measure, or magazine limits as an effective murder limiter. They feel a sense of justice when a criminal gets shot by an intended victim, and feel the problem is aggression, not violence in our culture.


So, pro-gun and anti-gun.

[madinmaryland]

9. I don't like the "anti-gun" label.

Anti-gun sounds like they are opposed to all guns and want to rid the nation of ALL guns. While there are a small minority that want that, I don't think it realistically reflects the debate we should be having.

If you want to shorten the name, I would say "Pro-control" vs. "Anti-control"

[benEzra]

12. "Anti gun control" has the same problem as "anti-gun" in that sense...

Anti-gun sounds like they are opposed to all guns and want to rid the nation of ALL guns. While there are a small minority that want that, I don't think it realistically reflects the debate we should be having.

If you want to shorten the name, I would say "Pro-control" vs. "Anti-control"

"Anti gun control" has the same problem as "anti-gun" in that sense. I am not opposed to all gun control; I support a substantial amount of controls, many of which are already in place. I am opposed to senseless controls for the sake of controls (such as the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch), and those that target the lawful and responsible instead of criminal misuse.

[jody]

4. Google returned 63,700 hits for "gun-grabbers" and 134,000 for "gun nuts".

Given that wide usage, I see no value in censuring either of the two phrases.

[slackmaster]

14. I got 983 hits on "gun-grabbing monkeys"

;-)

[L1A1Rocker]

16. LOL

Funny post!

[jody]

18. Good one! LOL n/t

[iverglas]

59. good one ;)

I'll raise ya 1,490 for "gun loons"!

[gorfle]

5. Agreed.

I agree, Zanne. In this important debate on firearms we should strive to use only logical, non-inflammatory, non-emotional descriptive words to describe each side of the debate.

Too often the descriptive word is intentionally used to frame the debate.

"Gun Crazies" is an attempt to frame the debate in terms that all gun owners are crazy.

"Gun Grabbers" is an attempt to instill fear in those who own firearms.

I prefer "pro-firearm" and "anti-firearm".

[benEzra]

7. I agree, if the similarly derogatory terms "gun crazies,"

"gun nuts," and "gun lovers" can be similarly banned.

Derogatory terms like gun grabber, gun lover, gun crazy, gun nut, sheeple, etc. tend to introduce more heat than light into the discourse.

[zanne]

24. I'd be happy with that. nt

[Wickerman]

10. That idea was approached some time back

Ideally, all users of the gun forum would avoid name calling. Might go a little further towards polite discourse.

[jody]

11. After reading other posts to this thread, I would prefer pro-RKBA and anti-RKBA. That's actually

the issue, a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms primarily for defense of self and secondarily defense of state.

As long as we're dreaming, I hope someday DU's "Guns" forum will be renamed "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" or just "RKBA".

[AlinPA]

13. That is going too far; some of us want to honor the 2nd amendment but

keep them away from mentally ill, criminals and children not properly trained. So that makes us against the right to bear arms?

[jody]

17. No, I assumed all DUers know that SCOTUS says certain groups have restricted rights; e.g. right to

vote, right to keep and bear arms for convicted felons. Apparently I was wrong.

See 18 USC 922 (g)for those who cannot legally possess firearms.

Perhaps some might object to the phrase "anti-RKBA" because it correctly means that group is trying to limit or abolish a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right.

That puts them in a difficult position of opposing one inalienable/unalienable right while supporting others. :shrug:

[AlinPA]

20. Do you agree that preventing certain individuals (those I mentioned) is

"gun control"? They have right to bear arms. They are US citizens. That is my problem with all this arguing back and forth about gun control or no gun control. Let's face it there is a certain level of gun control in effect now, so why say we should have none? I'm not challenging you directly, just the stupid debate that goes on and on (if you can call it debate).

[jody]

21. Did you read 18 USC 922? I agree with the people it prohibits from legally possessing

firearms.

What additional groups do you propose be added to 18 USC 922 section (g)?

IMO the problem is federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and the courts are not enforcing existing laws.

[AlinPA]

23. No, I did not read it today, in the past I have. So you agree with the people it prohibits.

I don't want to add anyone to the list. Of course the laws are not being enforced. I'm just saying simply that any restriction at all, even those dealing with the people we mentioned is in fact "gun control". So we should accept the fact that there is gun control in effect.

[jody]

25. Every person with whom I have discussed RKBA (a) knows that we have gun-control laws and (b) agrees

that government does not enforce those laws.

You say "So we should accept the fact that there is gun control in effect."

OK, what next?

[AlinPA]

29. Jody, again, I'm not going after you. Agreeing that certain individuals should be kept away from gu

is favoring some level of "gun control". Restricting guns in any way is control of guns. That's all I'm saying. Nothing else. I don't want guns taken away from us (they can do some good if the government decides to take everything over.

[AlinPA]

30. One more thing, I am afraid you think I'm trying to rattle your cage. I' m not.

I'm done now. BTW who do you like in the primary? Peace.

[jody]

32. I'll vote for the Dem candidate as I have since I started voting decades ago.

[AlinPA]

33. I first voted for J. F Kennedy.

Best wishes.

[jody]

34. I first voted for Adlai Stevenson. JFK gave the commencement speech when I finished my undergraduate

degree. :hi:

[AlinPA]

35. I hereby defer to your wisdom. Thanks for your patience.

[gorfle]

36. Gun Control

While there may be some ardent pro-gun folks who take the 2nd Amendment at absolute face value and say that any infringement is unconstitutional and thus no "gun control" is acceptable, I believe most gun owners understand that there are, in fact, some controls in place today, and most gun owners probably are comfortable with some controls.

For example, I do not mind the current hoops that one must jump through in order to obtain a CCW permit.

I do not have a problem with the current restrictions on machine gun ownership. I do have a problem with the ban on new manufacture of machine guns for public ownership, as this has artificially restricted the available supply and made them cost prohibitive for most people to buy.

I do not have a problem with NICS background checks for FFL-dealer firearm purchases.

I do have a problem with not being able to mail firearms through the mail like any other piece of property.

[AlinPA]

37. I didn't know they could not be mailed. Are UPS / DHL/ Fedex OK?

I think companies like Orvis, Cabelas et al should be able to ship them

[gorfle]

38. Yes...

Yes, you can ship firearms, but you must use a commercial service like UPS or FedEx. These carriers usually make you pay for overnight shipping, due to problems they have had with firearm theft in their own internal facilities. The logic is the faster it moves through their hands the less chance of theft.

In addition, you must ship to, and sometimes from, an FFL dealer who will charge a fee for processing the transaction. You can't mail a gun directly to someone in another state. Within your state it may be different.

This makes buying guns through places like gunbroker.com or gunsamerica.com a pain in the butt.

[Tejas]

43. US Mail is fine for anything but handguns

US Mail is perfectly acceptable under the law for shipment of longarms.

As far as in-state, no federal law prevents you from shipping to someone in your state without FFL involvement. Kalifornia and other states may have their own regs though.

[jody]

39. Private individuals can ship firearms to a FFL holder and receive them from a FFL holder.

I routinely use UPS because its cheaper although insurance can raise shipping costs very high.

Private individuals cannot ship to other private individuals.

ON EDIT ADD:
I've never used USPS but apparently one can ship long guns intrastate

B8) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U. S. Postal Service?
A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. A nonlicensee may not transfer any firearm to a nonlicensed resident of another state. The Postal Service recommends that longguns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms.

[sergeiAK]

49. Regulations are oddly written

All guns must be shipped to an FFL of some variety. The sender must have a copy of the FFL on file to be able to verify this (though ezcheck is helping). They must also be unloaded (duh).

A dealer (01 FFL) can mail guns, or ship them UPS/DHL/etc.

A collector (03 FFL) can mail rifles (but not handguns), and can ship any gun via DHL/UPS/Fedex.

A person (no FFL) can ship rifles via the USPS, UPS, DHL etc. They can also ship handguns via UPS/Fedex.

I hold an 03 FFL, and handguns shipped to me have to be shipped UPS/Fedex. The USPS mail system only allows dealers (01 FFLs) to ship and receive handguns. I don't understand why, but hey, the law's the law.

[benEzra]

41. I think it's a common misconception that gun owners "oppose all gun control."

What we generally oppose are measures aimed at curtailing lawful and responsible ownership, or which are designed or structured in such a way as to make lawful and responsible ownership unnecessarily expensive or difficult for ordinary working-class adults with clean records.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I am OK with the existing NFA Title 2 restrictions on automatic weapons (including assault rifles, which contrary to popular belief are tightly restricted in this country), sound-suppressed weapons, rifles and pistols over .50 caliber, the 1986 restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition, requirement of a license in order to carry a concealed firearm, etc. I am OK with most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, including the ban on possession by criminals and those adjudicated mentally incompetent, and the traceability. I am OK with the NICS background check system, the 1986 restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition, the ban on X-ray-transparent firearms, am OK with requiring a license in order to carry a concealed firearm in public, strict requirements for the use of force in self-defense. I am OK with prosecuting illegal gun smugglers, including those who knowingly buy guns for prohibited persons ("straw purchasers").

The only thing most of us are opposing here is further restrictions on the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to lawfully and responsibly own non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under . 51 caliber that meet the barrel length and overall length requirements of the National Firearms Act, without additional petty harassment. I'm not arguing for no restrictions. I'm saying that further restrictions on lawful and responsible ownership of non-automatic civilian small arms are unreasonable, wrongheaded, and would do nothing to reduce illegal gun misuse.

Just because we don't support extreme restrictions (rifle handgrip bans, pre-1861 capacity restrictions, handgun bans, whatever) doesn't mean we oppose all restrictions, including those that are already law.

[zanne]

26. That's right, jody. You're trying to frame the argument on your terms. nt

[jody]

31. You mean you don't know the issue is RKBA? If that's true, then you need to read more carefully the

posts in this forum over the past seven years.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spoonman]

19. I think............

we all need a group hug! :puke:

[zanne]

27. Are you against anything that's supportive or compassionate?

You seem to equate kindness and compassion with weakness. Actually, those things have more to do with strength.

[Spoonman]

40. I am a veritable cornucopia of compassion

But only when it is warranted!

[SecularNATION]

22. Not me

Any intellectually honest person understands the terms "gun crazies" and gun grabbers" are not in the same category. There are people on this forum who would confiscate all firearms(with the possible exception of hunting guns) if they could. Referring to such individuals are "gun grabbers" is not unreasonable or incorrect. It's what they are. Of course, some of those people also want to the power to control the debate, by dictating the terms used.

[Tejas]

42. Hammer, meet head of nail:

"Of course, some of those people also want to the power to control the debate, by dictating the terms used."


I don't see it as name-calling. No idea how somebody could get their feelings hurt by being called a "gun-nut' or an "anti". If that's the case, best stay out of GD where you (pro or anti) can REALLY get called some names.


gun-nut = collector, skewers shish-ka-bobs on cleaning rods.

anti = thinks guns have a mind of their own, believes anything Brady tells them.

gun-crazies = uses Ballistol instead of Right Guard.

gun-grabber = wants to abolish the BOR.



eta:


:grouphug: <-------------- :sarcasm:

[Boomer 50]

44. How about not banning any of them on either side

If we truly stand for freedom, banning a term or phrase makes our position seem somewhat hypocritical doesn't it? We are all adults here and if a poster feels a term is the correct one to show his or her feelings better, who are we to say that someone can't say it?

I've been called some very bad things over the years by people on the opposite side of the gun issue. I'm a big boy, I can take name calling. My feeling is that if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Seems some people don't like something, they immediately want to ban it. It's things like this that give some of the issues brought up by Republicans some creedance.

[beevul]

45. How about banning incorrect usage instead...

That way someone that really IS a gun crazy can be called such.


And when people openly admit to hatred of firearms, we can call them gun haters.


And people that really support banning guns...we can call them gun grabbers, or gun banners.


How about just getting the usage right.



Lets ban incorrect usage of the words, instead of the words themselves.

[benEzra]

46. Even a ban isn't in the cards, we can certainly attempt to be civil all around.

And I'll grant that most of you who support new bans on various currently-legal civilian guns, or support attempts to make lawful ownership more difficult or expensive, do so because you believe that such bans would somehow reduce the rate of criminal homicide. I think some of you are are seriously misled about the contribution of some types of guns (e.g., rifles) to the overall violence picture, or the practicality and efficacy of some proposals, but I believe that you and most other pro-new-bans people do have noble motives.


Pro-new-bans people, please also understand that the overwhelming majority of us who oppose new bans do NOT do so because

(1) we don't care about criminal violence or about innocent people being murdered (yes, we DO);

(2) we are attached to guns in some sort of pseudo-Freudian psychosexual way;

(3) we view guns as "macho" and own them to "feel like men" (around a third of U.S. gun owners are women, BTW);

(4) we want to arm everybody;

(5) we "oppose all restrictions on guns";

(6) we are easily manipulated by evil geniuses at the NRA (please, the NRA is still stuck in a 1970's Old Media paradigm, and many of their talking points are still idiotically wrapped up in the term "sportsman," a term which I despise);

(7) we are stupid rednecks who think you want to take our "huntin' guns" (we statistically have more undergraduate and graduate degrees than the population at large, and the vast majority of us don't hunt);

(8) we are all a bunch of undercover repubs sent here to educate Dems on how to erase the "Dems'll take yer guns" stigma (think about that for a minute);

(9) we are bloodthirsty savages who wish consciously or subconsciously to blow people away, and own and train with guns as a means to that end.


Before you call someone (gun crazy, neonazi, KKK, small-dick, redneck, idiot, repub, NRA stooge, racist, bloodthirsty, whatever) because we don't share your belief that .50 target rifles pose a real threat to airliners, or that small-caliber non-automatic carbines with protruding handgrips are Ultra Lethal Death Machines Designed to be Spray Fired from the Hip and Only Useful for Mass Murder, or that those of us state-licensed to carry firearms are a bunch of incompetent police-academy wannabes who would shoot anybody in sight the moment we heard a loud noise or "felt threatened"---consider for just a moment that we know a lot about guns and their capabilities through years of training and firsthand experience, and maybe, JUST MAYBE, we're not lying or speaking from NRA cue cards when we try to correct some MSM/gun-control lobby exaggeration or some misunderstanding of Federal gun law in a debate.

I've posted a bit about myself in other threads and won't repeat that here, but suffice it to say that I am not an NRA stooge, I am not a repub, I am not compensating for anything, and I am neither heartless nor bloodthirsty. I will do my best to be civil to you (and if I slip up, let me know); please extend to me the same courtesy.

[Recursion]

47. In a short "us vs. them" formulation, one side has to be "anti"

And neither side wants to be that. So it won't work.

I prefer "patriotic Americans" vs. "loathsome Godless communist gun-grabbing scum" :P

[SteveM]

48. Zanne, you're such a prohibitionist. Review your own language...

Prohibition is all about: My morals are more moral than your morals. And in this forum, you want to censor others while not being censored.

[CTyankee]

50. Absolutely agree, even as I am here as a family member of a victim

killed by the legally owned gun of a "law abiding" citizen.

I tell my story often here at DU. I do not recommend any law or even opine on the 2nd amendment. I simply tell my story and let anyone reading it make up their own minds as to how they feel about it.

[jody]

51. CTyankee, I understand your loss due to suicide you describe in the thread below but violent crime

is another issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=159920#161041

[CTyankee]

53. I didn't make it clear that this man had killed a family member, my neice,

before he killed himself. He also shot and wounded her mother (who watched her daughter die before her very eyes) and grandmother who was dying of cancer at the time (she survived the gunshot wound but died of her cancer 2 weeks earlier). The shooter was the stepgrandfather of my neice. He was enraged that he was being cut out of the grandmother's will, got drunk and then turned violent. He had no history of violence or any other anti-social behavior.

My neice was 24 years old.

[jody]

55. I'm saddened by your loss and what you describe is very different than I thought from your post.

:cry:

[CTyankee]

56. Thank you, Jody. You know, these things have reverberations in our lives.

My other neice, the sister of the girl who died, was so consumed by guilt and remorse she went into the ministry of the United Methodist Church. I think it was a relief for her because she and her sister had been so devout in their faith at their church in Dallas, Lovers Lane Methodist. Her mother had asked her to come that weekend to help with her grandmother (with cancer) because the private nurse was out for the weekend. She declined because of a party she had wanted to attend. She lives with that decision everlastingly because her sister took that bullet. The girls' youth minister was the one who was called and came to the scene of the carnage. He was the one who called my brother at home to tell him about the death of his daughter.

My brother, her father, was, I guess you could say, not fortunate. I saw him collapse at the side of his daughter's coffin the night before her funeral. He became alcoholic and actually never worked again, living with our parents. He died in 2004.

My neice's husband had insisted on an open coffin at the funeral to "show" that her beauty had not been ruined (the undertakers had been able to mask the bullet wound to her temple with makeup). I thought that decision was appalling but I had no say in the matter. The young men who were the pallbearers at her funeral had been the ushers at her wedding only 4 months earlier.

My mother was too sick at heart to attend the funeral. My father at that time was so out of it that he couldn't understand what was happening or even who she was. I tried to explain; he was uncomprehending and died a year later.

The news story of this in the archives of the Dallas MOrning News and even USA Today, which had a little segment in their state news section. I read it on the flight going down to Texas for the funeral. I had advised my mother not to talk to the press about it because I thought it would just upset them further. The Dallas MOrning News did their story without my family's comment. It's all there if anyone wants to challenge my account, the Saturday before Father's Day in June, 1987.

Jody, people live and have lived with so many scars from this experience, at this point my neice's mother, sister and widower (and me). Because the scope of this tragedy is so great, I can't begin to tell anybody about it except the way I have. I cry each time I tell this and I am crying now. The thing about grief is it never gives up on you...

[Hangingon]

54. Why bother to ban the term? It is too late.

"Gun grabber" is a term deeply ingrained in the American culture. There are only 115,877 registered DU users and there are several million gun owners who are watching the gun control issue. Banning the term "gun grabber" is not going to hide the fact that a sizeable portion of the party is deeply committed to overturning or subverting the second amnedment and removing guns from citizens.

[bossy22]

60. unless those citizens

happen to be off-duty/retired law enforcement- or they are politicians

[L1A1Rocker]

57. I SUBMIT THAT WE BAN GUN-GRABBERS!

[WWFZD]

58. Ban words?

Are you kidding me?
JHC, what are you, 12?
Get some thicker skin why don't you.

[DeadEyeDyck]

61. I am here because of the Gun forum

Okay, anyone can see by my post count that I am new. I called myself a "non-joining" member of the libertarian party and my proffessor convinces me to look at DU after some late night discusssions and very good sex.

I am an attacker survivor because of my gun. It has left me with countering political spepective. I struggle for the best Dem that believes I have a right to live.