Rachel TORE this forum up tonight!

[KansasVoter]

Covered the Gun Lobby, the lies about guns laws on the internet. She was on fire.
Any rational person watching would agree 100% with her.
The non-gun people should catch a rerun and enjoy!

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

1. Well except your 'any rational person' which then immediately ..

.. makes anyone who may disagree with you even slightly IRrational.

[KansasVoter]

2. Anyone who disagreed with Rachel tonight is irrational. Yes. Like most nights.

[lawodevolution]

6. Wrong. People have different values and cultures

It is acceptable to disagree with Rachel and those who do at times have perfectly valid views. Bigots think their political view is the absolute and those who disagree are "garbage" as you are insinuating.

[virgogal]

12. + 1

[hootinholler]

27. Which is exactly the attitude that has gotten us where we are.

The one you describe as bigoted, that is.

-Hoot

[lawodevolution]

34. True, this attitude is why blacks and whites are now treated as equals.

People didn't like the bigotry and did something about it, and gun owners are and will do something about the bigotry against them.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

8. LOVE me some Rachel. And I do agree with you...

.. but I do not try to 'Poison the well' I think its called with something like that.

It's like Xians who start off saying 'GOOD christians would'... just irks me!

Love MS MADDOW! GO RACH!

[Pancho Sanza]

22. Oh, Holy Kansasvoter Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.

Since you are obviously sitting at the Right Hand of God, could you let me know the winner of this year's Super Bowl?...I'll cut you in for 40% off the top.

[Pancho Sanza]

23. That's the biggest pile of horseshit I've seen since the Calgary Stampede

in '04.

[PavePusher]

30. Oh dear, we seem to have the anti-Lim-bot.

Do you suppose, like with matter and anti-matter, if you bring them together, they annihilate themselves with much sound and fury, signifying... nothing?

[Union Scribe]

49. "Like most nights" = when she agrees with you

What about when she doesn't? Are you the irrational one, then?

[badtoworse]

57. Is there such a thing as an "anti-dittohead"?

Kind of like matter and anti-matter - virtually the same thing but with opposite polarity.

[cleanhippie]

66. Sounds like hero worship to me.

[sharesunited]

5. Bingo!

[lawodevolution]

3. Lol emotions. Let's pass laws based on emotions devoid of facts

She only managed to stir up some bigotry against gun owners

[KansasVoter]

4. Yea, like you watched her. Nice try!

[lawodevolution]

9. Oh I'm sorry, I guess I'm not allowed to have my own opinion.

Sorry I should know my place as I'm just another one of "those" gun owners

[rhett o rick]

16. Well you sound like "those" gun owners that care more for their big guns than a nine year old child.

Every time this happens, and it happens waaaay to many times, the gun owners, right and left, join forces and start spewing propaganda to save their big guns. Pathetic.

[lawodevolution]

20. Like I've shown before, nations with high gun ownership rates are more safe for a 9 year old child

To live in backed by a t test at 95 % confidence interval.

Here is the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=339915&mesg_id=339915

Gun bans/control don't keep kids safe

[beevul]

36. No, actually...

"Every time this happens, and it happens waaaay to many times, the gun owners, right and left, join forces and start spewing propaganda to save their big guns."


No, actually, every time this happens, gun haters, left and right, join forces and talk of bans, further restrictions etc, and attempt to enact legislation.

And were forced to react.

Don't let that get in the way of a good hate though, many of your brethren aren't.

[DonP]

60. And then they react is surprise and horror when, after the 37th thread and news reports ...

... calling for gun bans based on magazine capacity, the brand name of a firearm, and of course, all privately owned guns, when people rush out to buy the guns and magazines that they want to ban.

It happened in 95 and here we go all over again. Thanks to GOP led Brady group and their friends here and on HuffPo et. al. we are going to see another quarter or so of record gun and ammo sales.

The odds of the GOP and heavily NRA supported House or NRA "A" rated Senate members passing any more feel good laws is slim to none. Most of them saw what happened to their predecessors and understand Bill Clinton's lessons learned on this subject.

But it gives the usual weak suspects that get their ass kicked around here a week or two of smug satisfaction. Then they will all go back to GD and other forums where they can pretend to be knowledgeable.

[krispos42]

38. I don't buy that argument from RWers, and I'm not going to buy it from you

"Democrats care more about coddling terrorists than a nine-year-old child"

"Democrats would rather a nine-year-old child was brutally murdered than let a terrorist get his face wet".



Sorry, not buying it.

[rhett o rick]

43. It's not me it's the gun owners. Immediately after each of these events the gun owners

start their pro-gun rhetoric. They never or rarely show compassion toward the victims, but launch an all out attack on anti-gun discussion. Recently one gun guy commented that driving a car was more dangerous. So he was saying that statistically the nine year-old's death was nothing.

[krispos42]

45. And the anti-gun people start their rhetoric.

And a lot of nine-year-old girls died today. Some in car accidents, some of cancer, some from falls, some from drowning, some from medical issues or medical malpractice. All of them, of course, are tragedies. What makes this one of note is that it occurred during an assassination attempt on a sitting US Representative.

[rhett o rick]

62. And the gun people start screaming for no control on guns. I dont want to ban guns.

But that is the black and white argument that gun owners always use. "If you deny loonies their guns then you WILL deny me my guns". It is a matter of degree like all laws and regulations. All I want is some sanity. Gun manufacturers are marketing guns for wackos and innocent people die. To try to rationalize these deaths by comparing them to other tragedies is shameful.

[krispos42]

63. I never said "no controls on guns" either.

I do think, however, that we've probably reached the point in our laws where massive expenditures of money and effort would yield little change.

There are a couple of areas of gun legislation that I think if we did change the laws, it might just make a half-decent impact on crime.

But nobody has asked me what I think. I've said what I think SHOULDN'T be done. I've been told that I have to agree with bans on 11+ magazines or I'm some sort of loony, and I've been told I'm part of some sick subculture of America. But nobody has asked me what I think SHOULD be done.

[Katya Mullethov]

65. I will

WITF are we supposed to do now ?

[krispos42]

70. There is stuff I'd like to see happen regarding gun laws

However, nothing of what I'm about to propose would have in any way mitigated the type of shooting that happened is Tucson.

Idea one:
Closing the private-sale gap in gun-transfer laws, also known popularly as the "gun show loophole". Currently, when a person buys a new gun, they have to by federal law buy it from a federally licenced gun dealer, an FFL. When a person in State X wants to buy a gun from a person in State Y, it also has to go through an FFL. However, a person can buy a gun from another person in the same state, there is no background check. It's a purely private intrastate sale, like selling somebody a TV set or a sofa.

I would like to see a system set up where any time you get a state-issued ID card (e.g, a driver's license), as part of the application process you fill out a abbreviated version of ATF Form 4477, the one for the background check. The clerk at the DMV would, as part of the licensing process, perform a NICS check on the person, a check on that person's ability to purchase a firearm.

One corner of an ID card would be marked as "OK to purchase". If the person applying for the ID passed the NICS check, that corner would remain on the card when it was issued. If the person failed the check, was not a US citizen, or refused to fill out the 4477 part of the application, the DMV clerk would pull out a pair of sharp scissors and snip off that corner.

If an ID holder at some point did something that causes his 2nd Amendment rights to be revoked, the police and the courts could simply snip off that corner whenever needed. On conviction for domestic abuse, for example, or the issuance of a restraining order.

Then, whenever a person (non-FFL) wanted to sell a gun, they would have to confirm that the buyer's ID was intact (no corner missing) before completing the transfer. No corner, no sale.

FFLs would still use the call-in system at the point of sale, though, to get the most recent information before the sale.

Item 2:
Whenever a person (non-FFL) sells a gun to another person (non-FFL), the seller would have to make a copy of the buyer's photo ID, record the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the gun sold, and keep those things in his possession for a set period of time, say, 7 years. Or whatever.

This means that, with reasonable cause, the police could trace the path of ownership of a gun from owner to owner, but would prevent data-mining by the federal government.

Item 3:
I don't have a problem with a purchase limit of 12 guns per calender year. I don't like the one-gun-a-month limit that some states have, but I also admit that if you're buying double-digits of guns a year you probably should have some kind of federal license for that much volume.

Of course, this only applies to guns that pass through the hands of FFLs, but that's a pretty sizeable number of guns.



None of these would have stopped the Tucson shooter... despite the personal opinions of associates, he was never convicted of a felony, or of misdemeanor domestic assault, or was involuntarily committed to a mental-health facility.


However, I think it would make trafficking and straw purchases harder and help keep guns out of the hands of some of the more unstable people. A couple of the guns used in the Columbine massacre were acquired through straw purchasers, for example.

[Katya Mullethov]

75. Now.... doesnt that feel better to get all that off your chest ?

Dayum !

Quite the laundry list of demands . . lol .

My prediction is nothing will change , and in fact , more freedoms will be forthcoming .

[krispos42]

76. I've stated it before on this forum.

The first one had people expressing concern about the privacy issue, in that by having the corner clipped on your license it's an indication of your criminal or mental-health background.

:shrug:

If there was an opt-out, though, it wouldn't necessarily be telling.

[beevul]

78. Not so fast.

"And the gun people start screaming for no control on guns."

No. Most of us scream no MORE (further) restrictions on guns. Not quite the same thing as you infer is it?

" Gun manufacturers are marketing guns for wackos and innocent people die."

Cite me just 1 example of a gun manufacturer marketing a gunds for wackos. Just 1. Shouldn't be too hard since if as you imply, theres a plurality of more than 1 doing it.

[NewMoonTherian]

51. That girl's death was a disaster.

As were all the deaths and injuries that depraved monster caused. What we're saying is that guns are not responsible for those deaths and injuries. Banning gun ownership would not have prevented this, and it won't prevent future disasters.

What I want to do is look at ways to get provably mentally unstable people into the NICS database. This has to be done fairly, with a path to getting off the restricted list for people who overcome their problems. Otherwise, you wind up with abuses in the style of the no-fly list.

[shadowrider]

54. Actually, I don't have a big gun

It's a subcompact, easily concealable, makes a LOUD boom and shoots a 40 cal, 165 grain hollowpoint. I don't need a big gun.

[donco]

24. It sure is a bur in the saddle that

there is a contingent of liberals on DU that own guns and…. gasp, actually have their own forum. :evilgrin:


Believe it or not, most of us even like Rachel.:toast:

[sharesunited]

7. It worked for child porn. It can work for guns and ammo.

[lawodevolution]

10. Sorry SU but cameras are not banned or highly regulated

[sharesunited]

13. Cameras are not the contraband thing the possession of which is forbidden.

It is the images. Without regard to any other culpability of the party in possession of them.

The images because of their presumed-in-law potential to cause harm.

[lawodevolution]

17. Guns are not the contraband thing the possession of which is forbidden

It is the violence that is illegal, not the firearms, ammo, or magazines

[sharesunited]

21. Not yet they're not. The potential for harm is the case to be made.

Possession of CP images is not a crime for which an examination of actual misuse is bothered to be undertaken.

Merely having them is punishable.

[lawodevolution]

31. The problem SU is you made a good argument against gun control

You brought back the old comparison between cameras and guns both are used 99.99 percent of the time in a lawful way. Cameras are used to take pictures of vacations etc, while most of the billions of bullets sold each year are used to shoot at targets.

It would be just as useless to push camera registration schemes and camera bans thinking that will stop child pornography or trying to reduce the availability of cameras, film or limit memory stick sizes thinking it will make things better as it is to push the blame of violent crime on the gun and trying to control the gun rather than find another way to reduce violent crime like improving education, and helping people get mental health care. Gun control gives politicians a chance to be lazy and not work on the underlying causes of violence while they pass "feel good" gun laws that do nothing to reduce violence

[sharesunited]

32. It's you who are making the comparison between cameras and guns.

The comparison is between CP images and guns.

Things deemed inherently harmful because of their potential to cause harm.

The only thing keeping guns and ammo legal is some strange imprimatur of wholesomeness attached to them.

Massacres highlight how unwholesome they are.

Not neutral tools as some would have it. But the worst kind of poison.

[lawodevolution]

33. Massacres are a form of misuse of guns just like child porn is a misuse of cameras

Doesn't place the blame on the existence of the object in either case. Both objects are used almost all the time legally for recreation. Both will also continue to remain legal and you will not have success in banning either. Ok?

[sharesunited]

35. Possession of unlawful images does not require that you own a camera at all.

Or that you used your camera to create them.

That's why I say you are on the wrong track when you make the guns/cameras comparison.

Possession of a thing deemed harmful in and of itself.

That's where to hit gun love where it hurts.

[NewMoonTherian]

52. If that...

is your knockout punch, it leaves me thoroughly unimpressed. CP is the direct result of causing harm to children. Unless you parallel that to guns, your argument is going to appear, not just weak, but patently silly.

[lawodevolution]

56. and raping a dead body after it has been shot doesn't require you to possess a gun

we can go back and forth with this.

You made a good pro gun argument up above, deal with it. I know you will never change because I've shown you real evidence and others have shown you that gun proliferation does not result in increased violence, but you never learn because you have your anti-gun FAITH. You believe strongly in your doctrine without any evidence to show for it. That's very religious of you.

[beevul]

37. Trod on down to the local police department then...

Trod on down to the local police department then, and let them know that the sidearm they carry are "Not neutral tools as some would have it. But the worst kind of poison."

:rofl:

[sharesunited]

40. You're going to the war with the police and the government. Yes, I get it.

[beevul]

46. LAWL. I'm not the one that believes...

LAWL. I'm not the one that believes guns are a poison...


:rofl:

[oneshooter]

59. How are the negotiations going?

The ones that are going to bring the Mexican and Canadian army's to the USA to confiscate our firearms? Are you having any luck with that?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Straw Man]

53. Neutrality.

Not neutral tools as some would have it. But the worst kind of poison.

So when do you suggest we begin disarming the military and the police?

[one-eyed fat man]

58. Reconsider your analogy

"Cameras are not the contraband thing the possession of which is forbidden. It is the images."

Guns are not the contraband thing, its the corpses.

Child porn is against the law because fucking little kiddies is against the law.

Killing people who don't need killing is murder, also against the law.

[Nailzberg]

11. She lost me at plastic guns.

[Pancho Sanza]

25. Yeah, she's all moist at the intersexion about something that was banned without ever existing

jesusfukinchrist................

[RamboLiberal]

42. I know anti-gun here won't believe NRA but I remember this myth

and the discussion back in the 80's-90's.

** The "plastic gun" is a myth. There was never an all-plastic gun in the marketplace. The notion was created by the media. Phillip McGuire, Associate Director of Law Enforcement of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) testified: "The entire issue was raised in response to reports, many wildly inaccurate, concerning a particular firearm, the Glock 17." (House Subcommittee on Crime, May 15, 1986)

** The Glock 17--constructed of more than a pound of hardened steel, about 83% of its total weight--was fully detectable by airport security systems existing when it was approved for importation by BATF. Billie Vincent, FAA Director of Civil Aviation Security, testified: "(D)espite a relatively common impression to the contrary, there is no current non-metal firearm which is not reasonably detectable by present technology and methods in use at our airports today, nor to my knowledge is anyone on the threshold of developing such a firearm." (House Subcommittee on Crime, May 15, 1986)

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=25&issue=005

[X_Digger]

14. Ahh, the 'no true scotsman'..

Any rational person watching would agree 100% with her.

Therefore those who don't agree with her are.. irrational?

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

If that's the best you got, color me unimpressed.

[S_B_Jackson]

15. Hey, KV!

How did that CCW class you were going to take go?

[Katya Mullethov]

18. That would be one hell of a thread .

We can compare purses .

[gatorboy]

19. I forgot about Cheney's vote for plastic guns.

And he was suppose to protect America?

[PavePusher]

28. You mean the ones that did not and do not exist?

Possibly the only vote he ever got right.

[Union Scribe]

48. What plastic guns? Air soft?

[RSillsbee]

26. Rachel Lied her ASS off tonite

Far as I know she's not a DU member so that should be w/ in the rules

[Pancho Sanza]

29. Shouldn't matter. Even DUers shouldn't be allowed to lie that way.

grr

[RamboLiberal]

39. +1 - I think she usually does her homework

But my goodness tonight she trotted every damn gun fallacy dating back 3+ decades.

Makes me wonder about some of her other research.

[RSillsbee]

50. She's usually spot on

And she likes to shoot but she doesn't believe civilians should be allowed to keep guns in their homes.

I'm sorry but I believe tonights show was agenda driven. You don't disseminate that much misinformation W/ out a reason.

[Katya Mullethov]

64. You can do that on TV , but not in here

She will have her ass handed to her .

[RamboLiberal]

41. Sorry but Rachel was all wet tonight

She proved that majority of liberal journalists know crap about guns and buy in to every fallacy that gun-banners trot out.

Plastic guns.....please. Never was such a thing and no Glock never developed one.

If ban on high cap mags (or as most media and too many Dem lawmakers shows their gun ignorance by calling them clips) hadn't expired the killer couldn't have had them. WRONG! As noted in numerous other threads on DU they grandfathered in existing high caps which were completely legal to own, sell and buy. There was plenty on the market.

Bullet microstamping - oh will that be easy to get around by criminals. Will solve few crimes & only drive up ammo costs.

Bullet microstamping is a technology which embeds information about a gun on each bullet it fires. The idea is that investigators at crime scenes could use the stamped bullet casings to track the owner of the gun, potentially reducing the amount of time needed to track down a suspect. Bullet microstamping laws have been proposed in several states, usually specifically for hand guns, and they have met with considerable opposition from the gun rights community, for a variety of reasons.

In order for bullet microstamping to work, a weapon must be fitted with a special firing pin which has been etched with a unique serial number. When the gun is fired, the firing pin strikes the casing of the bullet, marking it with the serial number. While the microstamp is generally too small to read with the naked eye, it can be identified on a microscope, allowing investigators to cross-reference the serial number with a database of registered weapons.

There are several problems with bullet microstamping. In the first place, if a criminal picks up his or her shell casings, the microstamp will not be recoverable. For this reason, some people argue that microstamping would be more effective if it marked the actual bullet, not the casing. Bullet microstamping also does not address the issue of stolen and unregistered weapons, and a large number of gun crimes are committed with such weapons. Gun owners could also potentially replace the firing pin or file the microstamp off to avoid microstamping when the gun is fired.

Advocates of bullet microstamping believe that even with all the arguments against it, it could still be of great help to forensic investigators. Every little bit helps when looking into a serious crime, so bullet microstamping could generate a breakthrough in some cases. Opponents suggest that it could add substantially to the cost of new weapons, while also creating a tracking system for law-abiding gun owners who register their weapons, potentially abridging their right to privacy.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-bullet-microstamping.htm

Case microstamping easy to get around. Shoot a revolver. Or go to a shooting area and gather a whole bunch of cases of your caliber & just scatter them at the scene to confuse police.

And bullet serialization at the factory - oh so now the retailers have to record every box of bullets sold and that will make manufacturing more expensive and costs prohibitive to all legal gun owners & police. Must be thousands or hundreds of thousands of bullets each year shot down range for every bullet in a crime.

Listen to Corey Booker on Rachel, only 1 shooting in his city by a legal gun owner!

Liberals laugh at Repubs about crying FEAR FEAR FEAR about Islamic terrorism but Rachel & anti-gun liberals are equally guilty when it comes to being chicken little on firearms.

[TupperHappy]

44. Maddow got so much wrong in this.

Cop-killer bullets and plastic guns, the reason the NRA "came around" is because they were able to get the laws written to have a narrow impact. The original bills were so overbroad that they would have banned most handgun ammunition and practically all rifle ammo (for the bullet ban), and most handguns (for the plastic guns).

The innovation Glock announced was for the use of plastic in the frame and the barrel shroud; the barrel itself, springs, and most of the other parts would still have been made of metal. Yep, the "undetectable plastic gun" would still have had over a pound of metal in them.

As for cop-killer bullets, some handgun ammo and most rifle ammo can defeat bullet "proof" vests. Also, it depends on the class of the armor in question being tested, there are several different classes and they are resistant to varying ranges of ammo.

The ban on full auto ownership for guns manuafactured after 1986 was a solution in search of a problem. I think at the time there had been exactly one case of a legally owned and registered full auto weapon being used by the owner in a crime, and that was a former police officer (IIRC).

Of course, the biggest... error (ahem) was the claim that the 30-round magazine would have been banned and unavailable for purchase if the assault weapons "ban" had not been allowed to expire. Not so, the "ban" only restricted sale of magazines mads after the ban took affect. Prfe-ban magazines would still have been available. True, it would have been quite expensive, that's the only real affect the "ban" had, and by now maybe not that many 30 round mags would be available. Of course, you could get around that by having multiple guns, or multiple magazines. Yes, he was initially stopped during reloading, but I have heard (cannot confirm) that he was having problems fitting in the magazine. A bit more practice could have overcome this, and it seems the shooter had his particular grief with the Rep. since 2007.

This is all just from the first segment of the show on the website.

Later,

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Sure, if you like being uninformed about this issue.

The two politicians from new york were pretty hilariously inaccurate.


I have to admit though, I am enjoying the turnabout on the 'weapons of mass distruction' phrase. That is pretty delicious, seeing how it was so dishonestly used against us.

[jeepnstein]

55. Willful ignorance doesn't cut it with me.

She doesn't understand the issue and is too emotional to listen. I'd say she bordered on hysterical but Glenn Beck has set the bar too high on that these days. She's no more a journalist than Beck is. As entertainment she's OK, since fiction is acceptable in entertainment.

[-..__...]

61. OP needs to change subject line to...

"Maddow inserts foot in mouth... sycophants cheer"

[DonP]

69. That's "brainless sycophants cheer misinformation" N/T

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[xchrom]

68. Spot on, Rachel. Nt

[RamboLiberal]

72. Nope, Spot Off, Rachel

[virginia mountainman]

71. all she did was prove

Just how little she actually knows on the subject at hand.

[old mark]

73. The non gun people should go shit in their collective hat....nt

[Jenoch]

74. She has to have been lying

because anybody that did merely ten minutes of research online would know that the only plastic gun ever made was in the film In the Line of Fire and that was just a prop that didn't actually fire real bullets.

Her rants on plastic guns and high capacity magazines has to be deliberate lies to manipulate her audience. There were too many simple errors of fact for it to be otherwise

[Tejas]

77. Most of us can think independently, no need for the MSM kool-aid.

I think the celebrity-worship forum is that way ---------->