Its Starting To Be A Bad Year For VPC.

[GreenStormCloud]

A bad year for VPC and the Brady's is an understatement. Look at all the pro-gun related bills that are in state legislatures:

Arizona: Comprehensive Firearms Reform Bill Passes in the Senate (Loosens some current restrictions.)

Wyoming: Permitless Carry and Castle Doctrine Signed into Law!

North Carolina: Bills would respect Right-to-Carry in parks, restaurants

Arizona: Senate OKs bill on guns in public buildings

Pennsylvania: Castle Doctrine passes commitee

Iowa: Stand Your Ground Legislation Passes in the House Public Safety Committee

Colorado: Right-to-Carry without permit receives preliminary approval

Utah: Permitless carry advances

Nevada: Bill to protect Right-to-Carry privacy

North Carolina: Legislators seek wider protection for self-defense

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced In U.S. House

Texas: House and Senate Versions of Parking Lot Protection Bill to be Heard Soon!

North Dakotas Worker Protection Bill Assigned to Senate Committee

South Carolina: Panel approves permit less carry legislation

North Carolina: Senate tentatively OKs presumption for deadly force

And that isn't all the bills that are being considered. Yup. Very bad year for VPC & the Brady's. Joyce Foundation may decide that they aren't getting their money's worth.

[jpak]

1. All that above is GOP sponsored legislation - it sucks. they suck

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Much of it is bipartisan

[jpak]

7. Which of the above were NOT sponsored by the GOP/NRA?

It's all about the GOP's war on America

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Do your own research...if you do you will find it was indeed bipartisan in many cases

Your false claims to the contrary not withstanding.

YUP! YUP!

[jpak]

14. They are all GOP sponsored

yup

[X_Digger]

20. Really? Tell that to John Wozniak, Wayne Fontana, James Brewster..

Tim Solobay, Lisa Boscola, Michael Stack, John Yudichak, and Richard Kasunic. They're all co-sponsors of the PA legislation mentioned above.

Or David Bobzien, D-Reno and John Oceguera, who sponsored the Nevada legislation mentioned above.

Or David J Weeks, D-Sumpter and Patsy G. Knight, D-Dorchester who are listed as co-sponsors of the SC legislation mentioned above.

Or Doug Berger and Ed Jones, who are listed as co-sponsors of the NC legislation mentioned above.

...

That's all the research I felt like doing for you.

You might actually want to research things before making yourself look silly.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. NO! Not facts! I'm MELLLTINNNNNGGGGGGGGggggggggg *glurb*

[GreenStormCloud]

42. LOL Love it. N/T

[Hoopla Phil]

82. OK. I really did LOL on that one. n/t

[pipoman]

48. How do you explain

the inherently blue states which have LIBERAL firearms laws? There are many.

Yup

[X_Digger]

65. See post 20. Still waiting. n/t

[rl6214]

39. The war on jpak

I like that.

Yup

yup

yup

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. you need to quit putting down Democrats and you need to quit now

I am beginning to think that you are some kind of troll....

[krispos42]

41. Yes, the GOP sucks.

We'd be better off without them, certainly, and unfortunately they are powered by those with more emotional and less factual grasps of reality.

However, just as the Democratic party has a few flaws (such as trying to be GOP), the Repubes are right on an issue or two.

Well, two might be generous.

[Atypical Liberal]

54. Damn shame it isn't Democratic sponsored legislation.

n/t

[SharonAnn]

2. What is VPC?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. Violence Propogation Center

[GreenStormCloud]

8. Violence Prevention Center. Used to be called Handgun Control Inc. N/T

[Euromutt]

23. Correction: Violence Policy Center; also, HCI is the former name of the Brady Campaign, not the VPC

The VPC is, in effect, a fairly small "think tank" consisting of half a dozen or so employees, and maybe a couple of interns, that specializes in presenting cherry-picked statistics in a misleading fashion to "show" that Guns Are Bad. It's not a voluntary association, and has no dues-paying members; it receives about 2/3 of its funding from the Joyce Foundation, without which it would have had to close its doors years ago.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Thanks. I sometimes get the two confused. N/T

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. You left out Maine which is also going green

though there may be a least on casualty due to excessive hyperbole when that happens

[GreenStormCloud]

6. You're right. Thanks. I missed it. I am sure I missed some other pro-gun bills too. N/T

[jpak]

9. More GOP/NRA horseshit

yup

[RSillsbee]

10. The times they are a changin' NT

[jpak]

18. The GOP still sucks - that will never change

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Not at all, the progressives are moving forward and leaving reactionaries in the dust

Private ownership and carrying of firearms is a progressive value. Those opposing it are reactionaries of the first order.

[jpak]

16. I don't know any progressives that support the NRA/GOP legislation but Wayne LaPierre IS an asshole

and he is not a "progressive"

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. When are you going to figure it out, gun rights are a progressive value

[dreamnightwind]

25. Really?

How about semi-automatics? Are they also protected by "progressive" values?

Pretty much none of my progressive friends and acquaintances own, let alone carry, firearms. In fact we mostly despise them.

Personally I'm unsure where I stand on this issue. Is it about the right to use said firearms to overthrow a tyrannical government? If it's about hunting I'm fine with that, though that would seem to me to apply to certain firearms more than others.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Hi. I'm a progressive.

I own at least 9 semi-autos, all for different purposes. 3 are specifically for hunting certian types of animals.

[dreamnightwind]

29. And the others?

And how is this in any way representative of progressive values? This is an issue I have never fully fleshed out, but I gotta say I just don't get the gun thing. Less guns = better planet.

[Straw Man]

30. You seem very sure of your conclusions...

...for a person who admits to not having given the issue much thought. Why don't you do a thought experiment and try to think of how private ownership of firearms might be a progressive value?

[dreamnightwind]

31. I'm sure of my own feelings about them

Less so on a socio-political level. If you have anything to contribute I'll listen. I asked a real question in my first post on this issue: is it about a supposed right to bear firearms against a tyrannical government? I believe that's a common interpretation by the right-wing, never was so sure about that one myself. What makes private ownership of firearms progressive in your view?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. It is the fundamental right to self defense for me

I have had my life saved by my wife with a semi automatic handgun. The magazine was larger than 10 rounds though she only needed two. I was busy taking care of the perp's partner at the time.

I teach both martial arts and shooting. In the latter my students are mostly GLBTQ or women. Many have had brushes with violence or been a victim. It is hard to bash or rape a person who is armed and prepared. A firearm is the equalizer between the victim and the predators.

Finally it is not the firearm, but the person using it. Get rid of the nuts, criminals, and other ineligibles, and there really is not a problem. Current laws would do that if they were adequately enforced.

[dreamnightwind]

34. Thanks, a reply with content

I can see how appealing (and occasionally life-saving) they can be for self-defense. If I was in different circumstances I might have a different view, such as if my life felt threatened.

Plenty of arguments, and statistics, that go against that line of thought, though. Guns are more frequently used to take lives needlessly than to save them. And the nutcase argument would seem to me to break the opposite direction from how you see it. Plenty of these nuts have guns, it would be better if they didn't. Also domestic violence gun-related deaths deserve consideration. Plus many other nations have stricter gun control laws and pretty much every nation has fewer gun-related deaths.

These things are all practical, balancing-act kinds of issues, having little to do with principle or values. Someone upthread (perhaps you? Sorry I forget) said guns are a progressive value, or some such, and I'd never heard that before, nor thought it. I still don't, but I will explore the merits.

I see there's a whole forum here on guns (I picked up on this post from the Greatest page), maybe I'll visit the forum to learn more about progressive thought on guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. Those who have suffered injury and attack feel different about it than those who have not

Seems to be the primary factor in my experience. Some of the most ardent defenders of personal weapons are those who have been attacked or had loved ones who have. That is why I really prefer to teach shooting to GLBTs and women. They are most often the victims of violence and many already have suffered it.

Increasing individual rights and protecting basic liberties are liberal and progressive goals and values. Self defense is one of those. Firearms are the primary tools for that. That is why I and others call private gun ownership a progressive value. It supports the right of self defense, especially by those who could not effectively defend themselves otherwise. It is really power to the people. Gun control has racist and classist roots and remains true to them today. How a liberal or progressive could support it is beyond me. Check out PinkPistols.org, an interesting shooting group. Quite liberal but quite hardcore on the 2nd Amendment. Armed gays do not get bashed.

I am a very big guy with extensive martial arts training. It was stated that I could/should be able to defend myself without a gun. I pointed to that person's partner, who was maybe 5-1 and asked the speaker, what about her? What should she do when some one my size attacks them? I added a few more colorful comments about the risk he was taking with her safety. He got quite red, but had no effective answer because there isn't one. When you need law enforcement in seconds, they are at best minutes away. The personal safety of you and your loved ones is up to you. Do you want to face that kind of situation unarmed?

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sporting use. It is about defense. I do not sneer at those who choose not to arm themselves. Hopefully they will never find themselves needing a gun for self defense and not having one. However, I snarl at those who think they can take their risky decision and condescendingly impose it on the rest of us.

[dreamnightwind]

36. Sounds libertarian to me

OK, I have never been on any kind of "take their guns away" kick, I feel that I need to get more of a handle on the issue before going that far with it. I would certainly take away semi-automatics, I thought Bush made a huge mistake, basically a concession to the NRA, when he repealed the assault weapons ban.

You make some good points and plenty that I disagree with. I appreciate the thought of your post, and the circumstances of disadvantaged people who need protection.

As a principle or a value, I don't see it as anything resembling progressive. It is more "every man/woman for themselves", libertarian, wild west justice (a gun as judge, jury, and executioner). Progressives believe in civil liberties and freedoms, but we also believe in the common good, which is largely absent from libertarian thought. Barring some fundamental, inalienable principle that supports unregulated and unlimited rights to individuals to own deadly weapons to use against their fellow humans (and I don't see this principle anywhere I look when I examine my heart), I would look to numerical analysis to see if such gun ownership is generally in the public interest. I'm quite certain that this kind of analysis stacks up well in favor of limitations to acceptable private gun ownership.

I respect your opinion, hopefully you can respect mine, and hopefully both of our opinions will continue to evolve as we learn more sides of this issue.

[RSillsbee]

37. Bush didn't repeal the assault weapon ban

Bush is on record as stating that if congress put the legislation on his desk to make the AWB permanent he'd sign it. (research is our friend)

I would certainly take away semi-automatics

Are you aware that roughly 80% of firearms in Civilian hands are semi automatic? You ban semi automatic and you will be living in Freeper nation for the rest of your life

[Straw Man]

38. That doesn't make it unprogressive.

I think you're laboring under several misconceptions here.

I would certainly take away semi-automatics, I thought Bush made a huge mistake, basically a concession to the NRA, when he repealed the assault weapons ban.

Semi-automatic firearms have been in civilian use since the late 19th century. The assault weapons ban was merely an attempt to ban certain types of semi-automatic weapons based on cosmetic rather than functional features (with the exception of magazine-capacity limits, which is a topic all its own). The very term "assault weapons" is a construct that means "semi-auto rifles that have a military appearance." The rifles themselves are not the full-auto weapons used by the military. Here's ban proponent Josh Sugarmann on the subject: "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." In short, the whole thing was such a scam that it's hard to see it as anything but one move in an incremental strategy to ban private ownership of firearms.

As for handguns, semi-automatic handguns are the most common type in existence today. In practical terms, the function of a semi-auto handgun is only marginally different from that of a double-action revolver: one pull of the trigger yields one round fired. The advantages of semi-autos are mainly in terms of capacity, portability, and ease of maintenance. Semi-automatic firearms are a 20th-century technology. Banning them would be akin to addressing auto-safety concerns by bringing back the horse and buggy.

Furthermore, Bush did not repeal the ban. The ban had a 10-year sunset provision. Congress would have had to reauthorize it and then send it to Bush to sign. Congress did not do so. Bush even said he would sign if Congress reauthorized, although this was disingenuous since he knew that they wouldn't.

As a principle or a value, I don't see it as anything resembling progressive. It is more "every man/woman for themselves", libertarian, wild west justice (a gun as judge, jury, and executioner).

Armed self-defense has nothing to do with judgement or punishment. Its only purpose is to ensure one's own personal safety in the face of a potentially fatal attack. I and many others believe that the right to defend oneself is a fundamental human right. To deny that right is to say that one is expected to sacrifice one's life to someone else's notion of "the common good." No one should be expected to suffer grievous personal injury or death because he or she has been denied the means of self-defense through some misguided attempt at social engineering.

Barring some fundamental, inalienable principle that supports unregulated and unlimited rights to individuals to own deadly weapons to use against their fellow humans (and I don't see this principle anywhere I look when I examine my heart), I would look to numerical analysis to see if such gun ownership is generally in the public interest.

Again, your error is in pre-supposing firearm use to be offensive rather than defensive in nature. Use of a firearm in any but a defensive manner is illegal already. As mentioned above, I believe in an inalienable right to use a weapon against someone who is trying to do me serious bodily harm. I could be wrong, but I think that if you really examine your heart, you will recognize that right. You should not have to "take one for the team" and forfeit your life to a conception of the greater good.

That is where I will draw the line between personal liberty and the public interest: I believe that denying the individual the fundamental right of self-defense is certainly unprogressive. It suggests a multi-tiered society in which the uniformed representatives of the state have the means to protect their own lives, but the citizens do not. Perhaps you've heard the saying, "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy." It points to the fact that the function of the police is not the protection of the individual citizen, but the maintenance of the overall social order. While we all share in the benefits of that social order, there may come a time when it cannot protect you and you will have to protect yourself. You should be allowed the means to do so.

I'm quite certain that this kind of analysis stacks up well in favor of limitations to acceptable private gun ownership.

Forgive me for harping on this point, but here again, you have an unfounded certainty in the rightness of your conclusions. You say that you are certain that statistical analysis "stacks up well in favor of limitations," but you haven't looked at any. I will tell you now that much of the data is inconclusive and controversial, but one thing that has become evident is that ever-higher levels of legal firearms ownership in the US have not been shown to correlate with increases in gun violence. In my opinion, the absence of demonstrable harm to the public good and the obvious benefits for protection of the individual, taken together, suggest that further restrictions on firearms ownership are not merited, and are in fact unprogressive: they are restrictions that disproportionately handicap the poor, the elderly, and the weak, all whom are especially vulnerable to criminal attack.

That's one way in which I see firearms ownership as a progressive value. Maybe another time we can talk about Blair Mountain, the Deacons for Defense, and goverment trusting its citizens.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. Bush did NOT repeal the AWB.

The AWB had a sunset provision such that it expired in 2004. For it to continue Congress had to reauthorize it. Both Democrats and Republicans ran away from renewing the AWB, except for a few high profile gun controllers. The bill died a quiet bipartisan death in committe.

Nor did Bush bow to NRA pressure. Bush was and is very pro-gun. In the early 1990s the Texas legislature passed shall-issue concealed carry only to have Democratic Governor Ann Richards veto it - twice. Bush for governor promising to sign a concealed carry bill. At the time Texas was no-carry. Texans wanted concealed carry and elected Bush. He used the governorship as a springboard for the Presidency.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. At one point I thought as you did

Guns were for the military, police, and hunting. The real world disabused me of that, including the rampant disparities in police protection and the real world impact of racism and classism.

Self defense is not the wild west. It is not everyone dispensing justice as they see fit. Instead it is the realization that practically and legally the police take reports after things happen and are very rarely able to prevent or intervene while things are happening. Firearms for self defense has nothing to do with the common good other than I am more likely to survive to contribute to it than others.

As I said earlier, being a victim changes your world view dramatically.

[PavePusher]

60. Semi-auto firearms have been around for over 100 years.

How is it that they are a particular problem?

[rl6214]

68. " Bush ... repealed the assault weapons "?

Seriously? This is what you think

The AWB had a sunset clause in it so it would end after 10 years unless extended by Congress and Senate. The Democraticly controles house and senate. Bush said he would sign it if it passed but out Democratically controled house and senate couldn't get the job done.

[benEzra]

69. The vast majority of ordinary civilian guns are semiautomatic.

"Semiautomatic" describes a gun that fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and reloads the chamber after each shot but will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. Basically how an office stapler works.

If you want to outlaw semiautos, you want to outlaw most civilian guns, period.

I think a lot of people have been misled into thinking that "semiautomatic" is a synonym for "automatic", i.e. guns that spray bullets when the trigger is held down. Those guns are tightly controlled by Federal law and have been since 1934 (10-year Federal felony for unauthorized possession outside of police/military duty).

[slackmaster]

72. Wow, you are seriously misinformed

I thought Bush made a huge mistake, basically a concession to the NRA, when he repealed the assault weapons ban.

The ban expired automatically due to inaction by Congress. Proponents had 10 years to make a case for renewing it, and came up empty-handed in 2004.

[Euromutt]

40. I think you're stating a number of assumptions as fact

Guns are more frequently used to take lives needlessly than to save them.

We don't actually know that, largely because it's impossible to say with certainty that something that didn't happen (in this case, a death) would have happened were it not for someone having a firearm. In their study "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" by Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz (http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html) the authors report:

Another way of assessing how serious these incidents appeared to the victims is to ask them how potentially fatal the encounter was. We asked Rs: "If you had not used a gun for protection in this incident, how likely do you think it is that you or someone else would have been killed? Would you say almost certainly not, probably not, might have, probably would have, or almost certainly would have been killed?" Panel K indicates that 15.7% of the Rs stated that they or someone else "almost certainly would have" been killed, with another 14.2% responding "probably would have" and 16.2% responding "might have." Thus, nearly half claimed that they perceived some significant chance of someone being killed in the incident if they had not used a gun defensively.

It should be emphasized that these are just stated perceptions of participants, not objective assessments of actual probabilities. Some defenders might have been bolstering the justification for their actions by exaggerating the seriousness of the threat they faced. Our cautions about sample censoring should also be kept in mind-minor, less life-threatening events are likely to have been left out of this sample, either because Rs forgot them or because they did not think them important enough to qualify as relevant to our inquiries.

If we consider only the 15.7% who believed someone almost certainly would have been killed had they not used a gun, and apply this figure to estimates in the first two columns of Table 2, it yields national annual estimates of 340,000 to 400,000 DGUs of any kind, and 240,000 to 300,000 uses of handguns, where defenders stated, if asked, that they believed they almost certainly had saved a life by using the gun. Just how many of these were truly life-saving gun uses is impossible to know. As a point of comparison, the largest number of deaths involving guns, including homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths in any one year in U.S. history was 38,323 in 1991.

<...>

Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.

Emphasis in bold mine. It should be noted the survey was conducted in 1993, when violent crime levels were about double what they are now.

Also domestic violence gun-related deaths deserve consideration.

They do, though frankly, no more so than domestic violence-related homicides committed by means other than a firearm. The thing is that--popular belief to the contrary notwithstanding--intimate partner killings are typically not "spur of the moment" events. Over 75% of spousal killings occur after the woman has left the man (usually after a pattern of controlling, possessive and/or abusive behavior), and in over 50% of cases, the man is known to have stalked the woman before killing her (which is not to say that in the remainder of cases, the man didn't stalk the woman; it's just that he could not be shown to have done so). These are overwhelmingly not "crimes of passion," these are deliberate, premeditated murders. The "crime of passion" is almost entirely a myth concocted by criminal defendants in a bid to plead 1st-degree murder charges down to 2nd-degree murder or even manslaughter.

I should point out that I do strongly support the Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which makes it illegal for a person convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence, or who is subject to a restraining order against an intimate partner and/or one or more of that partner's children, from possessing a firearm. We don't have to make it easy on the abusers. But we shouldn't expect that more stringent gun control laws will stop domestic homicides, as this type of murder is already committed with firearms less frequently than murders in the U.S. overall.

Plus many other nations have stricter gun control laws and pretty much every nation has fewer gun-related deaths.

Why should we care about comparisons of only deaths inflicted by means of a firearm? The relevant comparison, surely, is how many violent deaths occur, regardless of the means? As I put it elsewhere (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=368996&mesg_id=369138) just over a month ago:

Let's say we have two states/countries/jurisdictions: Xylophonia with loose gun laws and a murder rate of 3.0/100,000 population; and Yankeedoodledandia with stringent gun laws and a murder rate of 5.0/100,000.

In Xylophonia, 2/3 of murders are committed using firearms, yielding a gun murder rate of 2.0; in Yankeedoodledandia, 1/5 of murders are committed using a firearm, giving a gun murder rate of 1.0.

You can focus on the gun murder rate alone, and claim that guns must be a threat to public health and safety because the gun murder rate in X is double that in Y. But by doing so, you're willfully ignoring the fact that the overall murder rate in Y is 140% that of X.

To cite a real-life example of a comparison, see "Spousal Homicide in Russia Versus the United States: Preliminary Findings and Implications" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/mw745335u0468647). The abstract states:

Adjusted homicide data suggest that Russia has a higher spousal homicide rate, more female victims, and fewer shootings than the United States. Women in Russia may be two and one-half times more likely to be killed by their spouses or lovers than their counterparts in the United States.

There you have it: in Russia, fewer shootings but nevertheless 2½ times as many intimate partner homicides. Availability of firearms isn't what drives spousal murders.

[PavePusher]

59. Can you cite to evidence to support your claims? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

47. Good for you on the martial arts

What makes gun ownership progressive though? You can make your arguments all day, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing progressive about guns or owning them. More like regressive and aggressive. You shouldn't just use words that sound PC to try to validate something that you have managed to rationalize.

[Ken_Fish]

51. Whats progressive about owning and drinking alcohol?

I say alcohol kills many many americans, leads to domestic violence, rape, assaults, and is generally bad.

So lets restrict that, because, well, my feelings tell me its the right thing to do..

[PavePusher]

61. Self-defense is "regressive and aggresive"? Seriously? n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Guns enable the powerless to defend themselves against stronger criminals.

Violent crime is a reality. Criminal look for weaker people to attack. Senior citizens and women are often targets. My guns enable me to be able to resist a criminal attack. I consider self-defense to be a strong progressive value.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. It is not representative of progressive values.

It has absolutely nothing to do with progressive values. Having them, or wanting to keep them legal is consistent with a progressive interpretation of the BoR, and beyond that, has zero to do with it.

Those that aren't for hunting are for home defense, and target practice. Also not dependent upon, nor exclusive or inconsistent with progressive values.

I disagree with your 'less guns' statement. Less guns in the hands of people willing to initiate force, yes. Less guns in the hands of peaceful people is historically a bad idea. Not bothering with firearms didn't save 200+ people from homicidal maniacs with machetes in Nigeria March of last year. Firearms could have. (As an example)

The relative 'danger' of a firearm is entirely dependent upon the values of the person holding it. For many of us, firearms are for preserving human life.

[Vinee]

75. Those who don't carry swords can still be killed by them

and history proves time and time again that they will be. The road to hell is paved with good intentions born out of the minds of naive short sighted individuals.

[Starboard Tack]

45. What is progressive about owning 9 semi-autos?

[Upton]

49. What is progressive about wanting to restrict or repeal

a constitutionally guaranteed right?

[Starboard Tack]

78. To bring us into the 21st century

by making it no longer a constitutionally guaranteed right for the ruling class.

[X_Digger]

79. "no longer a constitutionally guaranteed right for the ruling class."

So you'd support the repeal of 'may issue' laws like those in NYC, etc that mean only those rich, politically connected, or famous can protect themseleves?

Or repeal laws like those in Chicago & DC that make owning a gun for home defense an expensive and time-consuming proposition- wasting money and time that the poor may not have to spare?

Thanks, glad to hear you're with us.

[Starboard Tack]

81. No I would support banning the manufacture of all weapons

designed solely for the killing of humans. I would also support legislation that would ban the carrying of same in public places. Shotguns I have no problem with. Rifles, depends on their mass killing capacity. Pretty much like the UK. Seems to work well there.

[X_Digger]

83. Ahh, lovely UK..

No I would support banning the manufacture of all weapons designed solely for the killing of humans. I would also support legislation that would ban the carrying of same in public places. Shotguns I have no problem with. Rifles, depends on their mass killing capacity. Pretty much like the UK. Seems to work well there.

You mean like the shotgun used in Cumbria last summer?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/02/cumbria-shootings-slaughter-countryside-derrick-bird

And here I thought that couldn't happen in the UK..

[Starboard Tack]

84. Never said it was perfect

but if you think shotguns should be banned also, then I would have to disagree. Shotguns have a valid place in this world.

[X_Digger]

85. And you are the arbiter of such things, why?

Why should one legal use be protected (bird hunting, I suppose?) and another legal use be denied (self-protection)?

Shotguns were used in WWI as 'trench sweepers'-- why do you want to keep those evil weapons or war?

*snort*

I love the 'my gunz are good, yours are ebil' posters.

[Starboard Tack]

87. No guns are good. Some are handy on the farm.

All tools can be used for the wrong thing. You could use a pistol to hammer a nail, but it wasn't designed for that. Nobody who "loves" guns should ever be allowed near one, because loving a gun is really, really sick.

[X_Digger]

88. "All tools can be used for the wrong thing."

You mean like how handguns can be used to rob someone, or they can be used to save someone?

Wouldn't it be more rational to compare the incidence of usage in 'good' v 'bad' purposes than trying to be the moral arbiter of some ambiguous 'design' criteria?

[Starboard Tack]

89. "Good" v "Bad" purpose? And you accuse me of being the moral arbiter

[X_Digger]

91. Are you saying that self-defense is morally ambiguous?

I was trying to short-hand.

How about we compare legal v illegal use, since that's a more concrete metric.

Gun use in crime? Roughly 400k per year.

Gun use in self-defense? 800k-2.5M per year (old numbers, but they're the best we have at the moment.)

Gun use in hunting? ~12M hunting licenses sold each year.

Gun use in other recreation? Hard to determine. Folks list target shooting as the second most prevalent reason for owning a firearm behind self/home-defense.

[Starboard Tack]

93. Of course not.

The use of a gun against another human is morally ambiguous in any context, even in self-defense.

[X_Digger]

94. Tripe and codswallop.

What tools would you find 'morally acceptable' to use in self-defense, eh?

Are you going to trot out the UK's 'offensive weapon' standard? ie, *anything* carried for the purposes of defending oneself is an offense?

[RSillsbee]

95. I've used a gun against another human being in self defense

(no shots fired) I have no moral qualms what so ever

[GreenStormCloud]

96. If someone is threatening my life I will have no trouble ending his life by shooting him.

Are you really ready to offer your life so that a violent criminal might live to hurt and/or kill others? Is his life really more valuable to you than your own life?

[GreenStormCloud]

92. The UK has a higher violent crime rate than the U.S.

Further their occupied building burglary rate is several times what ours is. Burglars in the U.S. usually try to find homes where everyone is away. "Hot" burglaries form only a small percentage of our burglaries. But in the UK hot burglaries account for about half of all burglaries. Their criminals aren't afraid of discovering that the intended victim is armed.

[Ken_Fish]

50. Whats progressive about owning a multiple $5000 laptops

or an Ipad per kid? Whats progressive about a vacation home?

I tell you whats progressive, not feeling the need to interfere with peoples personal choices.

[Starboard Tack]

56. Like interfering with our personal choice to live in a gun free society

[Ken_Fish]

57. Or choice to be gay or jew free. You dont get that choice. Actually the SCOTUS

pretty much defined that belief in the same pile as brown vs board and roe, basically that belief puts antis in some pretty interesting company.

[slackmaster]

73. Your personal choices about what kind of society to live in end where other peoples'...

...personal space begins. You are free to ban guns from your home, but not from mine.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Some people make an anti-progressive choice to live in a speech-free society.

Like to build little fenced off 'free speech zones' and the like.

Not going to happen. Not on my watch.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Nothing.

I am pointing out that the two are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, they are not even related.

[TheWraith]

64. No offense, but I wouldn't exactly call that a basis to make informed choices.

Someone who doesn't own guns, doesn't use guns, doesn't like guns, and doesn't know people who own guns, is kind of like a virgin thinking that they're well informed about sex. You might think you know things, but in fact, there's a lot more to learn.

As far as progressive values--Are you familiar with the Working Families Party here in New York? They're a left-wing pro-labor organization, and I happen to know from personal experience that one of their top regional guys carries a concealed handgun at all times. Also, both of New York's US Senators own guns for self-defense. As did Eleanor Roosevelt, who famously took pistol marksmanship lessons from her husband's Secret Service detail. Later in her life, when she was under threat from the Klan for doing civil rights activism, she went on despite the FBI advising she cancel her trip--one old woman, her friend, and a handgun, driving out into the rural south to help black people.

Or there's the "Deacons for Defense and Justice." They were a black armed self-defense group in the south, protecting their people from abuse by the white majority. Today we've still got the Pink Pistols, whose motto is "Armed gays don't get bashed."

What firearms do on the most basic level is even out the field. A 65 year old woman with a pistol, or a black man toting a shotgun, aren't easy prey for the stronger predators. I would certainly define enabling the old, the weak, and the minorities to defend themselves to be a progressive value.

[slackmaster]

71. I started shooting semiautomatic rifles because I am left-eye dominant, and right-handed...

Left-handed bolt-action rifles are scarce and expensive. Semiautomatics have made it possible for me to shoot competitively and efficiently.

Politics has nothing to do with it.

[cognoscere]

15. A fine comment from an expert on horseshit. N/T

[jpak]

17. I see GOP/NRA horseshit - I call GOP/NRA horseshit

yup

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. Democrats are finally seeing the light...

only you want to remain willfully blind to this. You are getting very tiresome.

[Common Sense Party]

66. The schtick stinks, it's getting old, and I think we're all starting to see

that it's an act.

75% of DU'ers that responded to the poll said they believe U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to own firearms, and this poster lives in fantasy land, calling us GOP-supporters, anti-government extremists and declaring that we are not sane.

Tiresome, indeed.

[DWC]

13. But a good year for the Constitution & the 2nd Amendment n/t

[sharesunited]

19. Like the decision in Citizens United was good for the 1A?

[Straw Man]

28. No. Not like that at all. That was bad. This is good.

Different issue, different decision, different rationale, different ramifications.

Analogies are not your strong suit.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. It expanded the rights of Unions and non-profit corporations, so yes.

What do you have against unions participating in political speech during elections?

[ileus]

58. When gunrights win, America wins....

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Some reposts for those who have forgotten (or never knew) that progressivism is sometimes armed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=245730

These illustrate *why* gun ownership by the masses is a progressive idea


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=245730#245970

friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-10-09 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
18. Progress for ordinary folks didn't always come by way of non-violent civil disobedience...

To pretend otherwise is dangerously ahistorical

Of course, this history has been censored in some cases- witness the controversy over a mural depicting (accurately) Harriet Tubman armed with a rifle.

Some links for those who have forgotten (or ignored) history:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x144160#144226

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

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/1999w42/msg00022.htm

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/index.html

http://www.amazon.com/Radio-Free-Dixie-Robert-Williams/dp/0807825026

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/index-hb.html

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County,_USA


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=331645&mesg_id=331645

Remembering Robert Hicks and the Deacons of Defense

http://www.thesouthernshift.com/news/2010/04/remembering-robert-hicks-and-deacons-defense

Remembering Robert Hicks and the Deacons of Defense
Submitted by Southern Shift on Mon, 2010-04-26 11:32

The story around Robert Hicks and his group Deacons for Defense have all but been erased from public consciousness. You check on familiar touch points like YouTube and there's nothing there. Pictures are hard to find and articles are scant. The thought of armed Black men standing up to the KKK and successfully protecting lives and propert during the harsh days of the Jim Crow South is a scary thought for many. The truth of the matter is many African Americans did not sit back and just allow themselves to be beaten and terrorized by the KKK. Hicks represented an underplayed part of our history..


The passing of Robert Hicks will not be acknowledge on the same scale as the passing of Guru, Dr Dorothy Height and Benjamin Hooks but he is no less important. We tip our hat because he did what many have come to belive was the unthinkable.We also encourage folks to try and pick up a copy of the movie that stars Forest Whitaker


-Davey D-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25hicks.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=robert%20hicks&st=cse

Robert Hicks, Leader in Armed Rights Group, Dies at 81
By DOUGLAS MARTIN
Published: April 24, 2010

Someone had called to say the Ku Klux Klan was coming to bomb Robert Hicks’s house. The police said there was nothing they could do. It was the night of Feb. 1, 1965, in Bogalusa, La.

The Klan was furious that Mr. Hicks, a black paper mill worker, was putting up two white civil rights workers in his home. It was just six months after three young civil rights workers had been murdered in Philadelphia, Miss.

Mr. Hicks and his wife, Valeria, made some phone calls. They found neighbors to take in their children, and they reached out to friends for protection. Soon, armed black men materialized. Nothing happened.

Less than three weeks later, the leaders of a secretive, paramilitary organization of blacks called the Deacons for Defense and Justice visited Bogalusa. It had been formed in Jonesboro, La., in 1964 mainly to protect unarmed civil rights demonstrators from the Klan. After listening to the Deacons, Mr. Hicks took the lead in forming a Bogalusa chapter, recruiting many of the men who had gone to his house to protect his family and guests....

[Pullo]

63. Excellent collection of links

Thank you. :-)

[DWC]

76. The 2nd Amendment is for the Protection of All

The right to keep and bare arms is guaranteed to all citizens. It is not subject to prejudice or political persuasion.

I personally hold that it is not simply a right but a responsibility.

friendly_iconoclast, yours is an exceptional post. I am saving it to my "keepers" file.

Thanks you and

Semper Fi,

[dreamnightwind]

67. Updating

I posted upthread, a lot of responses from posters here, most of them good and informative. I agree with some points and not with others. Thanks for the correction about the AWB being a pre-scheduled sunset, not that I really care though.

This issue is not one I am willing or able to devote a huge chunk of time to at the moment, honestly. I recognize it as an area that the left needs to grapple more with, and there will likely be a lot of disagreement about it. So I'll get more into it over time and my positions on it will evolve, as do my positions on everything.

I had hoped for a more balanced discussion on these issues, it seems however that mostly who hangs out here are strong gun advocates. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, you're probably sure everyone else is wrong about the issue, not the context I choose to explore this issue in though.

I read all of your posts and learned some things, so thanks for taking the time, they did not fall on deaf ears.

I fully appreciate the desire of people to be able to defend themselves. It's not that simple for me, a gun is not a shield. It's whatever its bearer decides it is, and that can change from moment to moment, as can the mind of the bearer of that firearm. Guns are capable of doing things that are forever irrevocable. I know that cuts both ways (I mean it can also be used as a need for defense argument).

I don't think I have much in common with people in this forum, I'm an old west coast hippie who would rather get shot than survive in a violent world that requires firearms for protection. That's my choice, I'm not trying to make it yours. I see a great public interest in there being less guns in this society, but I realize it's not that simple either so at least at this point I am not mobilizing against gun ownership. Anyway we all have to find our own path to bringing more peace to this planet, assuming that is also your goal. I don't think my path will ever include owning or using a weapon. Best to all of you though.

[GreenStormCloud]

70. Thanks for dropping by.

You asked reasonable questions and were civil and open-minded. We enjoy getting folks like you down here. I respect the decisions that you have made for youself, even as I decide differently for me. Best of all to you too.

[DWC]

77. It is a privilege

to benefit from your honest, open, intelligent mind. Please visit us often.

Semper Fi,

[VoteProgressive]

80. The Gun battle is over in this country. The NRA has won. There is not much..

use fighting it any longer as it is a waste of time and money. The dems need to fight other battles that we can actually win.

[cleanhippie]

90. We are in complete agreement, except for one thing.

The NRA didn't win, the People won.

[virginia mountainman]

86. In all truth...

It has been a bad Decade and a half....

[Pullo]

97. The trend is definately not the antis friend

It looks like the blue CCW wave that has swept the nation is being starting to be followed by a green wave.