Ignorance Is Bliss for Gun Show Attendees

[Charleston Chew]

Run time: 02:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkEn4zEwj8U   Posted on YouTube: January 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: ThinkProgress2 Views on YouTube: 77   Posted on DU: January 23, 2011 By DU Member: Charleston Chew Views on DU: 3905

 

"Gun supply CEO, NRA Board member says high-capacity clips are needed for self-defense"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCumN46AgY

[wtmusic]

1. When I was attacked by a band of outlaws on the stage from El Paso to Amarillo

a high-capacity clip sure would have come in handy

[jody]

2. "Ignorance Is Bliss for Gun Show Attendees" & MORE BLISSFUL for anti-gun posters on Internet forums.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Ironic, isn't it...

how blissfull it is to ignore the 2nd, 5th, and 14th amendments when evisioning their peaceul utopias.
LOL @ the nanny-state authoritarian hypocrites, eh?

[AlbertCat]

10. how blissfull it is to ignore the 2nd, 5th, and 14th amendments

the 2nd clearly states you can have a gun in order to form a militia. The militia stuff comes 1st in the wording for a reason

The 5th is about legal issues, not guns. Besides, if you follow the letter of the 2nd, then the 5th is moot, because it says "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia". But anyway, it's about legal matters, not guns.

And so is the 14th. It's about what states can do and how reps are chosen, not guns.

You must prove that carrying a gun around concealed and with 30 rounds contributes to everyone's "life" "liberty" ...and "property".


All this hyperbole! St Gun again.

Where do you people live that you have to protect your family with a no-waiting-list-buy-in-a-tent gun? With Kurt Russell in the prison of NYC?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Four things...

1) Well regulated had a different meaning than the word "regulation" does today. The unorganized "Militia" is codified in the Constitution. And the prerequisite statement is not an exhaustive condition on the actual meaning of the second - the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The use of "The People" is consistent throughout the Bill of Rights and other state constitutions from the time period... there is no evidence to show that the usage is any different in the 2nd amendment. This is SCOTUS's official standing. Even the liberal dissent opinions in Heller v. DC don't dispute the 2nd amendment as recognizing the individual right - they only disputed that DC's restrictions violated rights.

2) The fifth amendment is bigger than that. I was actually referring to the latter part of the 5th amendment, "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. What this means is that to ban 30 round magazines, or any other arms in the interest of public safety would require the US government to justly compensate (pay for) the items which they are taking from the public. There are literally billions of "hi-cap" magazines in the US.

3) The 14th amendment incorporates protections of civil liberties to the states. This is what the Heller and McDonald cases go a long way toward establishing. Even state laws have to recognize civil liberties which are federally protected. Because of Heller & McDonald, the gun lobby will go state to state, starting with the most oppressive, and strike down laws.

4) In a free society, the argument which IMPOSES restrictions is required to give persuasive argument for why only limited round magazines are needed. Furthermore, it's required to show us how those restrictions supply the desired effect using the least amount of restriction possible (ie - why not 15 rounds or 17 rounds... why TEN?). This is simple due process and strict scrutiny. In the end, your explanation of why I only require 10 rounds is every bit as much much conjecture as my desire to have 30 rounds. Prove otherwise... because in America the onus is ON YOU.


This is not hyperbole... this is how the courts interpret the law.
I'm sorry you choose to live in a country with more freedom than you desire.

[SlimJimmy]

38. Hmmm, no rebuttles to this post. (nt)

[Charleston Chew]

one - two - three

Run time: 02:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkEn4zEwj8U   Posted on YouTube: January 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: ThinkProgress2 Views on YouTube: 77   Posted on DU: January 23, 2011 By DU Member: Charleston Chew Views on DU: 3905

 
calm down

[Charleston Chew]

22. one - two - three

calm down

[Paladin]

8. Give Us A Cogent, Persuasive Argument For Why 30-Round Magazines Are Needed.

As opposed to 10-round magazines---without making yourself sound like someone who clearly shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of any sort of firearm.

And the usual boilerplate "'Cause the 2nd Amendment says I can have 'em" default answers don't count.

And keep in mind: even NRA Gun God Dick Cheney is against you on this one.

Lotsa luck.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. That's not how a free society works...

In a free society, the argument imposing restrictions is required to give us a cogent, persuasive argument for why only 10-round magazines are needed. Furthermore, it's required to show us how those restrictions supply the desired effect using the least amount of restriction possible (ie - why not 15 rounds or 17 rounds... why TEN?). This is simple due process and strict scrutiny.

In the end, your explanation of why I only require 10 rounds is every bit as much much conjecture as my desire to have 30 rounds.
Prove otherwise... the onus is ON YOU.

[bowens43]

33. Typical.

You have absolutely no valid argument. Big surprise there.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

40. I'm not the one trying to restrict the actions of others... the valid argument is YOURS to supply.

How about this... the government decides to makes social networking sites and online discussion (forums, twitter, irc, messaging, email) illegal and then tells us to supply a cogent argument why we should have them and why the 1st amendment is applicable. Is that the kind of liberty you espouse?

THAT'S NOT HOW FREE SOCIETIES WORK. That is undemocratic fascist bullshit.
GTFO of DU if that's the kind of government and freedom you support.
Liberal my ass... (welcome to my ignore list, you're the only one on it).

And just to humor you... If you think high capacity magazines are more dangerous it must be because you think they provide increased firepower. Bingo! The more bullets I have in my gun, the potent my weapon is with which to defend myself. THAT is my justification for owning them. That's what the 2A is all about protecting (ability to acquire articles befitting defense).

[baldguy]

35. Then why can't I have a nuclear bomb?

My neighbor's cat has been hostile toward me in the past. I need an adequate deterrent.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

39. Actually, the 1934 NFA has covered that issue...

SCOTUS has upheld the 1934 NFA restrictions on uncommon weapons which may be especially dangerous. It's an indiscriminate weapon - unable to be prudently used for defense. As such, it would likely be classified a "destructive device" along with exploding artillery, grenades, morters, and other similar items (yes, you can own artillery, grenades, rockets, etc...). Technically, as far as arms laws go, I don't believe you are prohibited from owning one as long as you submit the proper NFA paperwork to the ATF. Although there may be nuclear/radioactive/epa laws to contend with... I'm not sure about all that. But hey, if you can afford your own warhead, you can probably afford your own island to test it. Go for it, moneybags.

You've had this explained to you at lest 3 or 4 times now.

[baldguy]

53. So you're willing to allow the govt to regulate of one type of weapon, but not another?

Why can one be arbitrarily classed as a "destructive device"? And why doesn't a 30-round clip that can be emptied in 1.5 sec fall into that category?

The security of a free State requires that the people be secure from idiots with guns.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

self delete... double post.

Run time: 02:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkEn4zEwj8U   Posted on YouTube: January 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: ThinkProgress2 Views on YouTube: 77   Posted on DU: January 25, 2011 By DU Member: OneTenthofOnePercent Views on DU: 3905

 

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. Well, the ATF legally defined those devices and SCOTUS upheld those definitions and regulations...

There's nothing arbitrary about NFA classifications.
The liberty of a free state requires that the people be educated and not sound like fools.

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term “Destructive Device” means:
i) A missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1/4 oz.
ii) Any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may readily be converted to expel a projectile, by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter.
iii) A combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a device into a destructive device and from which a destructive device can be readily assembled.

You figure out how to mentally contort "high capacity magazine" to fit the ATF's above definition... and then get back to us.

[baldguy]

55. So, it IS arbitrary.

It just happens to include nuclear weapons, and exclude automatic handguns. It would no doubt also exclude any handgun that could theoretically expel a billion projectiles. That would reduce any conceivable target to dust.

And the 2nd Amendment discusses Security, any rational definition of which would include the right not to reduced to dust.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

56. I think "discrete" is the word you were looking for...

seeing as "Destructive Device" really ONLY covers explosives and overtly large calibers.

I'm not sure arbitrary means what you think it means. :shrug:

[Politicalboi]

14. Because beer comes in 24 packs

And if you're shootin empty beer cans you need more than 10 rounds. :sarcasm:

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Because my handgun is designed to carry 15+1.

Why would I carry less? I'm no danger to you. Why would I intentionally hamstring my firearm?

[bowens43]

You shouldn'ty be able to carry any at all.

Run time: 02:11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkEn4zEwj8U   Posted on YouTube: January 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: ThinkProgress2 Views on YouTube: 77   Posted on DU: January 24, 2011 By DU Member: bowens43 Views on DU: 3905

 
And yes, if you carry a weapon you are a danger to all of us.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. 48 states disagree with you.

And no, I'm not a 'danger' to anyone, any more than I am when I get behind the wheel of a car. The potential for malfeasance is always there, no matter what we are doing. Even if you're just in the kitchen, chopping an onion, the potential is there.

How dare you imply I'm a danger to 'everyone'.

[HelenWheels]

44. You are a danger to us all

with your BIG gun. And the comparing of driving a car to carrying a gun is not an intelligent comparison. People need a car for many purposes, a gun is used for only one purpose, killing. Hunting guns are different than hand guns. The proliferation of hand guns in the last several years is due to the NRA lobby and is harmful to the public.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Well shit, I guess all my guns are broken then.

None of them have ever served their 'intended purpose'.

From the top:

1. It's not a 'big' gun, by any measure.
2. Comparison is apt. Person carrying in a responsible legal manner, is no more dangerous to 'everyone' than a driver operating a vehicle in a responsible and legal manner.
3. 'Purpose' does not 'excuse' the 'inherent danger' of an object that the person I am responding to envisions.
4. Hand guns are in fact used for hunting in many cases.
5. Please cite numbers support your assertion about recent 'proliferation of handguns'

It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

[HelenWheels]

57. Are you serious?

Do you really need statistics to make you believe hands guns have proliferated? It's pretty obvious.

[X_Digger]

49. Ahh, the 'gunz are to keel' canard..

I'd love to have your input on this thread..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x292384

[bowens43]

34. You shouldn'ty be able to carry any at all.

And yes, if you carry a weapon you are a danger to all of us.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. For what sort of firearms?

Give Us A Cogent, Persuasive Argument For Why 30-Round Magazines Are Needed.

For what sort of firearms? For rifles? They are absolutely needed. The intent of the second amendment was to make sure that civilians bore the kinds of small arms appropriate for infantry use.

Most small arms appropriate for infantry use today use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

[Charleston Chew]

21. Laugh Out Loud!

go get'em tiger

[safeinOhio]

3. In only 28% of defensive gun use

are any shots fired at all. The average number of rounds fired in self defense is 2. The average distance is 7 ft.

High capacity mags are very useful for offensive gun fire and virtually useless in self defense. Great for gang wars and situations where spraying gunfire is needed.

Perhaps one could justify having 30+ rounds in the home for home defense, but for use on the street for self protection, not so much.

These comments have nothing to do with writing new laws. That is up to the people and their representatives.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Go ahead, ban them...

And then you can kiss SS, HCR, ending wars, and your precious new ban goodbye next legislative session.
The People spoke in 1994... and in 2011, the gun lobby and gun vote is 10X more potent...
ignorance is truly bliss, eh?

[safeinOhio]

6. Not really,

2010 Ohio governor race blew that argument.

Personally, I would not ban them. I would make it against the law to possess them outside of a home.

[spin]

11. So would you stop them from being used on a a shooting range ...

and are you talking about 30 round and larger magazines or the standard magazines that come with the firearm that may hold 15 or 17 rounds?

Most shooters who use these extended 30 round magazines use them on the range so they can do "more shooting and less reloading." To be required to keep your extended magazine in your home would make little sense and would do nothing to prevent you from loading it and going on a murder spree. After all, if a person wants to murder a large number of people, why should he give a shit about a law that says he can't have an extended magazine outside his home?

99.9999% of people who own extended magazines will never use them in the commission of a crime let alone a mass murder. Since mass murders have been committed with magazines that only hold ten rounds, an extended magazine is in no way a requirement. In fact, such magazines have a reputation for jamming while might enable a citizen to jump on the shooter while he was trying to clear the malfunction.

Please explain why your idea, if passed into law, would be more than a mere "feel good" piece of useless legislation that would accomplish nothing meaningful.

The 2010 Ohio governor's race occurred during a shellacking that the Democratic Party received all over this nation. Being a pro-RKBA Democrat works well in normal elections and this last midterm election was far from the norm.

[safeinOhio]

17. Here is what I'd do.

Make it illegal to have in your possession a loaded mag with more than 10 rounds. This would give the courts a chance to extend jail time for those bent on destruction. It would also increase jobs as there would be a new need for 10 rounders to fit those that came with 12 and 15 rounds. I would make it the same as possession of a full auto, big jail time. I don't see any advantage, at the range, to 30 rounds. You still have to load 30 bullets. Plus you end up with all of those jams that slow everyone down on the range. I think it would be meaningful. Some idiot trying to save everyone by spraying 30 rounds at a crowded event could be dangerous. If the person spent more time at the range, I can see no need for that many shots in a defensive situation.

A couple of more shootings and this won't be a normal election. In fact in my 60 plus years, I have never seen a normal election.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. Possession of full autos was not prohibited... even in public.

When the full auto restrictions went into effect in 1934 and 1986, all full autos in circulation were grandfathered under the law, becaus of that pesky 5th amendment.

I own a full auto (registered with papers & everything), and I assure you when I travel with it no laws are being broken. Technically, its a machine-pistol, so I could carry it around... but that would be stupid because it's not that small, 30/50 round extended magazines are a bit unweildy, and the thing is fairly uncontrollable when shooting (not ideal for self defense or the safety of bystanders). But no laws in Ohio prohibit me from carrying it.

Even the AWBs across the nation had to grandfather the already existing items which they regulated. What you propose in terms of magazine restrictions could pose 5th amendment constitutionality issues AND possibly at least be argued to violate 2nd amendment issues (keep and BEAR). That would be for the courts to decide.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Boy that would have really stopped Loughner, wound't it?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[zinnisking]

29. self-delete

never mind. misread your post.

[baldguy]

36. "Gadzooks, Abe! If you push for Emancipation, we'll lose the South!"

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. Yeah, the only difference is YOU'RE the one's supporting loss of liberties.

That would kind of put you on the Southern side of your little analogy, huh...
:rofl:

[DRex]

52. that depends....

From the Southern point of view, they were losing their liberty, their freedom to own slaves.

And it depends which kind of liberty you value more, the freedom to own absurd amounts of human-killing machinery, or the freedom to go to a small political gathering and come out alive.

I hate that emoticon, btw. It's really disrespectful and tone-lowering.

[jody]

7. Do you actually believe a law will protect you from crime? How effective were God's Ten Commandments...

e.g. eradicating adultery?

[AlbertCat]

13. Do you actually believe a law will protect you from crime?

So.... we should have no laws, none at all, because someone might break them? Is that what you mean?

People break traffic laws daily. Best just to not have any. Drive on whatever side of the road you like!








Guns in..... logic out....

[X_Digger]

50. Please google malum in se , malum prohibitum n/t

[bongbong]

18. Do you actually believe a gun will protect you?

Lots of bad guys own body armor now. Better get a rocket launcher to defend yourself.

Wait a minute, I might be giving the NRA ideas ....

[booley]

19. Why does this always devolve into this?

Did you seriously just rationalize all need for law enforcement?

It's not even about gun control but my exasperation in how those against ALWAYS end up going there eventually.

[jody]

26. There are several issues that divide voters into polarized groups and for which no compromise seems

possible, .e.g. abortion, gays, guns.

RKBA is one such issue and although the law of the land is that law-abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, those who would prohibit that unalienable/inalienable right continue to fight to impose their opinion on the majority who support RKBA.

In like fashion, the anti-abortion minority who oppose abortion , like the anti-RKBA minority, continue to fight to impose their opinion on the majority.

IMO the majority of voters support GLBT rights however, the anti-GLBT minority, like the anti-RKBA minority and anti-abortion minority, continue to fight to impose their opinion on the majority.

Interesting question is how can one find a compromise between proponents of the majority and minority opposition represented by anti-RKBA, anti-abortion, and anti-GLBT groups?

It's also interesting to note that some people may be in one or two of those minority anti groups and not in the other.

IMO a true progressive values all natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable INDIVIUAL rights and does not identify with any of those three "anti" groups.

[booley]

32. Sorry but that's a lot of straw man/excluded middle clap trap

Regulation does not equal prohibition. And yes even law abiding citizens have to deal with laws.

And abortion does not quite equate with this since to my knowledge, no innocent bystanders have ever been killed by a stray fetus. Please correct me if I got that wrong.

Been gay for years and yet in all my life I have never accidently "gayed anyone" or had a crazy person gay a crowd, killing 6 and injuring 14.

In other words, here are you lamenting how some won't compromise while casting those same people as these card board cut out straw people.

And this is all ignoring the sheer illogic of your earlier statement.

Remember, I am not arguing for or against any kind of gun laws. WHat I am saying is the way you advocate against gun control is, I have found both typical and woefully lacking.

Maybe before you worry about them, worry about your own attitudes and arguments. You might be part of the problem.

[jody]

37. So you're 1 anti and 2 pro. Thanks for acknowledging the point I made. Have a great day. nt

[X_Digger]

51. Many rights have inherent dangers.

That however, has never been legal justification by itself for infringing that right.

The fourth, fifth, and eighth amendment sets violent criminals free to continue harming people in society. Yet that's not justification for infringing those rights.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. That's great, now post the average number of rounds fired in criminal acts.

So everyone can see the reason you omitted it.

[Plucketeer]

15. I'm gonna be 66 next month

While I did own a 22 for a year (for an anticipated backwoods stay that never happened), I've never had a gun for protection, or any other reason. Imagine me living this long without a Glock and a couple 30-round clips under my pillow!


GOP JOBS PLAN

[spin]

43. That was your choice and it has worked well for you...

others of us make different decisions.

I've owned firearms for over 40 years and never had to use one for self defense. However, my daughter used one of my handguns to stop an intruder breaking into our home in Tampa. She pointed the revolver at him and he ran.

I made my choices and they also worked out well. I still have my daughter and now I have two grandsons that I can teach how to shoot.

[Plucketeer]

46. Yes! Everybody needs MORE guns. LOL!

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

[jody]

48. OK so what other unalienable/inalienable rights do you want to prohibit? nt

[Plucketeer]

58. That would be a legitimate question

if any of those other countries were ones of repressive repute. Loughner grinned thru his entire court proceedings yesterday. He was confident, no doubt, that we're about to spend thousands where a few insignificantly priced checks and restrictions would have cost us but a few bucks. But yeah - let's have full automatics, hand grenades and whatever else we deem we need for TOTAL self security.


GOP JOBS PLAN

[underpants]

27. Molestation hasn't become a part of Mass either

I went to a Mass this weekend. No mention of it.

[1American]

28. The REAL reason

THIS is the REAL reason why so many rat-wingers worship guns: And this is all in quotes:

Them soshulist naygrus is gonna take are freedoms, are white dotters, and are babies ta git ree-venge fer bein made slaves, call em paid employees. We aint gonna let em do that there and we aint gonna let em shut us up.

[RowdyRacer]

31. When a person has a handgun in their house,

the odds are astronomical that if anyone is ever shot with it, it will be a member of the household - not an intruder. Dumb people with guns in their homes do have a Darwinian benefit, I will admit.

[jody]

47. Please provide a source for your assertion. IMO anyone who uses "Dumb" not knowing that it means

"lacking the human power of speech" disparages all who have that infirmity, is either "stupid" or "evil" and I know what those two latter words mean.