we were trained to try and avoid getting in the shit by being proactive.

You guys are funny.

The only accepatable proactivity in America appears to be preparing to be as murderously reactive as possible.

Owning a gun is akin to having kiddie porn? Really?

Or, more likely, you are being willfully idiotic.

AR-15s, high capacity magazines, concealed-carry permits, special ammo, etc...
THAT'S what is being compared to kiddie porn.
Not keeping a shotgun for duck hunting, a .45 in the locker, or grandpa's old .22.

We're talking about fetishists. Those people are fetishists. They need to be shunned.

I know in our family and workplace the "gun enthusiasts" are being unfriended. This recent turn of events is causing many of the gun whackjobs to out themselves.

I'm talking about the flakes, the ones who have these high capacity clips and assault weapons. I'm talking about the guys who carry a concealed weapon even though the only threat they face every day is that someone might cut them off on a highway entrance ramp or give them a funny look at a restaurant.

For the record, I have nothing against normal gun ownership for hunting, target shooting, or self defense. I thoroughly respect gun safety training and awareness. But I do draw the line at "flake weaponry" that makes my skin crawl. The less we have of it, the better. It's like kiddie porn or asbestos. I've always thought that it brings respectable gun ownership into disrepute.

Get a motorcycle or raise scorpions if you want a thrill. But let's not have this "type" of gun ownership hide as some sort of legitimate hobby or even more pathetically as a line of defense for our freedoms.

"People who own these weapons, these high-capacity magazines, this "special" ammunition...you are starting to be viewed more and more like the people who have kiddie porn."

You can stop clutching your gun to your chest now. No one wants to take it away.

about drone strikes on every gun owner and their family's. Other than that your hatred covered just about everything. And people think gun owners are nuts.

FFS, get a fucking grip.

That's up to anonymous, what if they prevent a murder spree?

Personally, I think anyone advocating felonious acts in DU should be tombstoned. But I suppose I can settle for Full Ignore. Bye.

I think your tin foil hat is on a bit crooked today.

And owning a gun for protection often didn't work and was fraught with dangers such as accidents etc.

Even hunting rifles were dangerous. Every year, during deer season, there was a hunting accident near my house. Every single year.

Persons who are devoted to fire-arms, who insist they must have a gun to defend themselves at all times, ought to face disdain and ridicule, on the level faced by people who view beer as a breakfast drink, or who shower on a monthly basis. It should be pointed out to them, whenever they poke up their heads, that they are farcical loons at best, and disgusting perverts at worst, and dangerous to the community they disfigure. What is necessary is a change in social mores, which makes it damned uncomfortable to be an NRA member, a gun owner, collector, or what have you.

and a nice start.

Sunned, ignored and isolated from decent people. If they show any signs of remorse and open to thinking harder about their positions, listen to reason and show that they truly want to learn better ways of dealing with whatever their "devils" may be, then we can start to have a dialogue and their healing can commence. Until then, a shunning is necessary.

"Name and shame." Next thing you know, we'll post the name and address of everyone who owns such a firearm on a public database as well as the access codes to their alarm systems to make such guns easier to steal.

because a lot of gun advocates are for a national list of people they feel shouldn't have guns, themselves of course would never be on it.

I'm a liberal Democrat who supports the Second Amendment. So no, I don't support the OP.

like your stances on national registries, and how you completely dodged my question. Are you for national databases that state who and who cannot own a gun?

If by "database" you mean something along the lines of an improved NICS check, I could support that. But if the database is just some arbitrary and unimpeachable list, then no.

I would like to add that the OP made a call for a change in attitudes about guns, that we need to view people who buy and horde guns as not "cool" which is a big, big issue in our culture. We have this whole built up idea that guns are more sacred than any other right, and that is something that needs to change (The idea, not the right, as you or someone else is going to come along and point out)

Noticing that the OP also said nothing about a list, but it's the gun lobby who, as always, jumped to an illogical conclusion.

The original ideas spoken of by the OP amount to madness and delusion. Improve the NICS check. That's where I stand.

That's what you stand behind?

Where do you stand on "mental illness?" Because that is a very real list that violates several constitutional rights, and is a serious suggestion out there, unlike the fear that someone is going to make a list of gun owners and systematicly take their guns (which is called paranoia, a "mental illness)

...what part of the original OP did you misunderstand?

Lewis and Clark took one into the wilderness during their expeditions. Okay, so the magazine held 20 shots instead of 30. Dianne Feinstein still wouldn't have approved,

We shouldn't ban assault weapons and multiple murder magazines because "Lewis and Clark took one into the wilderness during their expeditions?"

I highly doubt Diane Feinstein (who, remember, became mayor of San Francisco after a homophobe gunned down her predecessor) has any opinion whatsoever on the weaponry carried by Lewis and Clark.

Really, gun lover arguments are getting stranger by the hour.

Oh, and what part of "well regulated" don't you understand?

If I purchase a firearm, it goes through an NICS check. If I want to carry a concealed weapon, I'll need a permit. If I'm seeking full-auto, that requires a different permit. If I have to transport the firearm, there are certain restrictions I need to follow or risk the consequences. And so on...

"well regulated" enough. Even so, you do seem to accept that "shall not infringe" doesn't mean "shall not in any way restrict, regulate, or even prohibit certain weapons"--so your question about "what part of shall not infringe don't you understand" seems a little odd. I understand it's a common rhetorical flourish, has a certain ring to it, but really, even you seem to acknowledge that it doesn't make much sense.

Speaking of which, and getting back to Lewis and Clark, what on earth prompted you to post such an absurd observation? What possible relevance does the weaponry carried by two explorers heading out across an entirely unknown (to them) continent at the dawn of the 19th century have to this discussion today, in which we're dealing with the aftermath of the brutal murder of twenty primary school children?

It's strange leaps like that--esoteric references to gun minutia that bear little if any relevance to the issue at hand--that strike so many people, here and elsewhere, as bizarre, and given the context, even somewhat callous. One might even see it as an instance of "weapon flakery" that the OP is railing against.

...there were lots of DUers who said something like "The Founding Fathers never envisioned semi-automatic guns, let alone high-capacity magazines." Granted, I'm not the world's foremost historian on weapons design, but I did know about the Girandoni, and I used it as an example of how the Founding Fathers knew about technology like this and seemed to be okay with it. There were admittedly a few drawbacks with the design, so muskets remained the standard for a little while longer until the first repeating rifles and revolvers hit the market.

As for "restricting certain weapons," I'll share a story with you. About a year and a half ago, I visited a gun range that allowed people to rent out a full-auto Uzi for use on the range, so I figured I'd try it out. Under the careful and direct supervision of a range safety officer, I raised the weapon to my shoulder and slowly fired a few single shots to make sure I'd be comfortable with operating the Uzi in the first place. When the RSO gave the go-ahead, I flipped the selector from semi-auto to full-auto, tightened my grip on the barrel to fight muzzle climb, and opened fire. I emptied out a "shorty" 25-round magazine in about four seconds.

Yes, there was a serious adrenaline rush. I felt a bit exhilarated, like I just finished a ride on a roller coaster. I had never fired full-auto before, and I was grateful for the experience. But I couldn't help thinking to myself, "I'm sorta glad I can't just buy one of these over the counter." There are a number of reasons for keeping the National Firearms Act in place. Al Capone's thugs used a couple of Thompson submachine guns in the infamous St. Valentine's Day massacre. Private corporations bought and used automatic weapons against union coal miners at the Battle of Blair Mountain in West Virginia. If these guns were going to be allowed to remain in private hands without the nation tearing itself apart, there had to be a level playing field that also made it harder for criminals to get these weapons.

Out of context it just seemed completely out of left field.

And I'm glad you see the need for well-considered but stringent gun controls.

Since you've shared some with me, I'll share some personal experiences with you.

I too have been to a gun range--went with a friend who was a collector (probably still is, haven't kept up with him--not because of the guns, but time, distance, etc.). And yes, I had a pretty good time. It IS a rush, no doubt about it.

But... my partner's grandfather was shot in the back in a "hunting accident"--he was out in the woods and a moron mistook him for a deer. A good friend lost his lover when she was shot through the windshield of her car, and bled to death before the EMTs could arrive. I used to be a volunteer at a rape crisis center, and heard first hand accounts from women raped at gun point. And a good friend of mine lost her lover to suicide--by hand gun. And another friend lost her brother -- also hand gun suicide. In at least one case the suicide was on an impulse-- he'd had an argument with his mother on the phone, and blew his brains out, evidently in a "she'll be sorry when I'm dead!" sort of moment. In the case of the suicides, maybe they would have killed themselves eventually anyway--they obviously had serious problems. But the handgun being there made it just so god damn easy.

Suicide shouldn't be so easy. Murder, especially mass murder, shouldn't be accomplished with a couple of twitches of a finger.

Anyway, you can see how I have a visceral reaction to discussing guns on a highly theoretical plain. Arguing over definitions of "semi-automatic" versus "assault," or whether the calibre of the bullets used in Connecticut was as lethal as some other calibre, etc.

I wish we were at the point with ALL guns that we were at in the 1930s with machine guns. That is, before the advent of a billion dollar industry that has managed to flood the nation with hundreds of millions of the things, insuring that I will live the rest of my life awash in guns and gun violence.

It's my personal perspective, and obviously I'm emotionally involved, and obviously this whole issue is complex, multi-faceted, multi-layered.

But twenty dead school children, all for nothing. I guess for me that was the final straw.

We HAVE to figure out a way to stop this.

...and could easily break down. I don't recall in the writings of the expedition that it was ever used, even for hunting.

What part of "common sense" do you not understand when it comes to semi-automatic rifles and magazines that hold more than ten rounds? If you need more than a single-shot rifle and 3-5 rounds when you go hunting, you're doing something wrong.

One more point...I served in the Navy as an officer and I promised to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. But, my oath said nothing about defending the "rights" of US Citizens to own or buy semi-automatic weapons and extra-large magazines for ANY purpose.

You don't like my opinion on this issue? Too bad, because I no longer give a damn whether you do or not.

And whether you give a damn about my observations or not, at least you can concede if someone tried to infringe on the First Amendment, there would be fucking Hell to pay.

...and we're done here.

I can't imagine why she would have an issue with a wilderness expedition over two centuries ago.

She definitely would have an issue with an expedition to slaughter children or assassinate a gay politician. See the difference?

Hekate

I knew Dianne Feinstein had worked closely with both of them in the past, but was she ever a target of White's?

All three of them were her colleagues. She was within feet of both murders. Blood...


NBC Nightly News Nov. 27, 1978 - 5 1/2 minutes
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/27913449

Harvey Milk, Mayor Moscone killed in city hall
Nov. 27, 1978: Watch NBC Nightly News coverage of the Mayor Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk killings. Dianne Feinstein, then a city supervisor, discovered Milk's body and delivered an emotional press conference. Look at her face at 2:20 when she makes the announcement -- clinical shock.


Dianne Feinstein On Moscone, Milk Deaths - 10 minutes

I don't want their access codes to alarm systems (reductio ad absurdum, much?) and why on earth would I want to steal what I abhor (but I realize you didn't think that sentence through)?

I just don't want to live near these people. I will not like them and they will not like me (boo hoo). And if I were a parent of a young kid, I would not allow my child to go into their homes, period. And if I found myself in a neighborhood where any one of these people lived, I would make plans to get out.

Except for California, New Jersey, and parts of New York and Illinois.

abhor guns and don't want to live around gun flakes with assault weapons. That makes us rational human beings.

You don't like it? That is unfortunate.

Although I bet you still can't tell me what the definition of "assault weapon" is.

Be careful that you don't confuse being "rational" with being "smug." I see that a lot.

You ARE trying to make me keel over from laughter, correct? Are you sure there isn't a secret decoder ring involved?

Look, the closest I've ever come to an actual definition of "assault weapon" came from a DUer who volunteered the following: "Any semi-automatic firearm that is modeled after or copied from a weapon that was designed for full-automatic fire." No flowcharts, no emotionalisms, no hot air - just straight to the point. I can respect that. Even though Washington state negated that proposed definition by trying to apply the term to pump-action shotguns, I can at least respect it.

know exactly what I think an assault weapon (or whatever, fill in the blank) is.

Sorry, I don't play your little games. The game is over, AFAIC. Run along.

It is not a refutation.

"Any opinion not fervently anti-gun."

I've just started routinely dismissing posts that use that phrase as obvious nonsense and stop reading at that point.

My kind of neighborhood.

You are going down a wrong path with a statement like that.

So let me make this clear. I do not want to live around such people. It's nothing personal, I just don't want to be at risk of violence erupting in my neighborhood. I think that is wise fear, a rational fear, a fear that anyone thinking this whole thing through and looking at the evidence would say is rational and sane.

You've found somebody you can publicly hate, somebody you can blame, someone you can feel morally superior to. You can proudly say you don't own such weapons, and those that do are of lesser morality.

Of course it's not personal, though. You would obviously not want to be associated with such people and thus never know any of them well enough to make it personal.



Of course, the vast majority of gun deaths are from career criminals with handguns, but hey, it's fashionable to fear the middle-class working guy with the rifle.

I don't spend my time hating on anybody. I just prefer not living in close proximity with them. I wouldn't like to have a neighbor who threw garbage out of their window, or carreened down the street in a speeding car, or played loud music late at night. I don't particularly want to be around them, either. And I'm REALLY particular about my personal safety. I'm funny that way...

if that is irrational, well, then, we need a new definition of "bigot."

We all all dumber for having read it.

IMHO, it is you who deserve to be unemployed, along with those who agree with such "thoughts". Why? Because, by your statements, you have proven yourself to be incapable of any manner of useful thought. Your continued presence on this, our planet Earth, is an insult to each and every teacher whos time you wasted.

Over the past week, as a gun owner, i've learned:

1) I'm a horrible person

2) I'm a nut job

3) I'm on the same level as a child molester

4) I'm the spawn of Satan for owning an AR-15

5) I deserve to be treated as a second class citizen

Did I leave anything out?

The OP is talking about stockpilers and paranoids.

Sorry if it has been a tough week for you. Your "suffering" really doesn't rate.

RIF...

about you being the victim of all this gun violence.

Such a sad story.

Never thought I'd see progressive talking the same way about guns that conservatives talk about abortion.

Their idea of a tyrannical government is African American Reagan Democrat Obama and that evil Nancy Pelosi. They have a long history of using their guns against blacks, Hispanics, Asians, LGBT, Jews, Muslims, unions and women, basically the whole Democratic coalition.

Tell me, do I not deserve a means to protect myself in this fucked up society? You really want to disarm me? Not everyone fits your neat little meme of who owns guns. Most gun owners are centrists, just like the vast majority of country is.

Don't believe you

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:22 PM - Edit history (2)

I guess I'm not gay guys. Maybe you should have told my dad that while he was beating me for it? What do you want a picture of me sucking a dick and holding my gun? Do you generally go around telling minorities they aren't minorities? Maybe you should go make buddies with Scott Brown, I heard he was into that.

Fucking disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Can't wait to see you not respond. Come on tell me I'm not gay again, question my entire identity and life history.

Here is a thread I posted in 2011

"I recently had a very heated argument about this topic on another website and I wanted hear input on it. I understand HIV isn't a strictly gay issue, but as a gay man I wanted to hear gay perspective on it. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1137608

So unless my 2700 posts on DU is some grand conspiracy to make you look like an asshole, you owe me an apology.

Waiting for it, buddy.

Far more likely you'll slink away and not reply.

Thank you DU jury, I will always value the fact that DU is a inclusive community where minorities are protected from shit like that.

But I haved moved from San Francisco to a very, very rural, red state in the last six months. I have had NO need for a firearm to protect myself, and I am OUT.

I'm so sorry you've found it necessary to carry a gun--whether something has happened to you, you have felt threatened, or you just like to carry.

As member of a vulnerable and often hated minority, I feel it is smart to carry an equalizer. I'm not the only one.

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

If you'd like to learn more about an organization that I really admire.

Ultimately carrying is decision that needs to made carefully. Firearms are as much a responsibility and a burden as they can be a help.

...being "gay bashed" is the rabbit punch to the back of your head, the most likely target of your "defensive piece" is yourself. On raw statistics alone you're 4 times more likely to be killed by your weapon, than to successfully defend yourself with it.

Given your specific circumstances, if you're ever seriously in a situation where the gun MIGHT make a difference, I'd guess at odds of about 10 to 1 or higher. If you don't successfully defend yourself in the first few seconds, your life expectancy is very likely to be measured in minutes or less.


And yes you do fit one of the "neat little memes" doing the rounds. You're a just one more "scared little man".

I'm also very curious where you got that first piece of information from. Wouldn't basic situational awareness counter that?

If you're in the habit of cruising park toilet blocks (and that is absolutely no suggrestion that you do) then perhaps you might be on your guard and potentially be in a position to defend yourself.

In the street outside a nightclub not so much. Watch Crime Stoppers some time. How many bashings start with a fist entirely out of left field, or just a few seconds of verbal? Are you going to draw the moment the first epithet is thrown?

You're confident? Really? 80% of people are confident that they're "better than average" no matter what you ask of them, so excuse me a moment while I "cough" up my sleeve.

Your self assesment is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS.

Statistically speaking, YOUR GUN IS FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY TO KILL AN INNOCENT (or yourself) THAN SAVE YOUR LIFE (or the life of another person).

Those are the bloody (as in dripping red gore) odds. And it doesn't matter if you personally are good enough to shoot the left testicle off mosquito on the wing. That just makes you a statistical anomally. More people die in FRONT of their OWN guns, than survive BEHIND them, if/when the shit hits the fan.



You (and your attitude) are no different to the teenager who knows the road rules and still wraps himself and four mates around a tree at 100 mph, because of one thing he KNOWS above all else: He's better than average and he wants to do what he wants to do.

So why don't you view it as my self sacrifice for you.

Or you could view it as my personal decision, unless you are me or intend to jump me it really isn't any of your concern.

If I'm going to be jumped and bashed there isn't a whole lot I can do about that period, well besides not putting myself in that situation in the first place. I carry for the situations I can do something about.

...violent crime.

Also what violent crimes committed with a firearm? And with firearm by a family member not a CC holder?

Oh the seatbelt and helmet argument again. How drole.

But in this case you don't leave the spouse and/or kids to look after a drooling, shitting imbecile. They get to share your "sacrifice" will he or nil she. They too are far more likely to die a shooting death than Joe Average.

Your gun, simply by existing in its assigned role, is much more likely to be a killer than saviour.

Fortunately, as far as fortunately goes, it's far, far more likely to be neither.

As far as "sporting" use of firearms is concerned, stack lethality up against ice hockey or horse racing, let the chips fall where they may and let GE and Prudential set premiums accordingly.

But if your primary target (no matter how unlikely or unwanted) is another human being, then if you're not saving more lives than are being spent, you're going backwards and it's time to rethink your strategy.

You're quoting a lot of statistics, but you haven't sourced a single one of them. I'd like to examine it's methodology.

"But if your primary target (no matter how unlikely or unwanted) is another human being, then if you're not saving more lives than are being spent, you're going backwards and it's time to rethink your strategy."

The primary target would be someone trying to do me real physical harm, why would I have sympathy for such an individual especially at my the expense of my well being and personal protection?

...put about on DU several times over the past few days without objection.

As for the rest, I simply want to know how those groups of people with access to guns, stack up against your rather limited claim that CC holders commit less violent crime, not let crime in general, and not less gun crime. I don't know, but I very stronly suspect that those groups make a rather poorer showing than CC holders, or the general public.

Who's asing you to have sympathy for an attacker? Not I. But you don't seem to care much for bystanders either if your life happens to be on the line at the time.

Does it include gun suicides? Is the fact that people who own guns might just live more dangerous lives controlled for?

Found this on Google. I was wrong, it was apparently crimes in general.

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2012-12-22-264494.112112-Texas-study-Concealed-carry-permit-holders-commit-less-than-1-of-the-crimes.html

"The Texas Department of Public Safety published a list of crimes committed in Texas in 2011 by everyone convicted and by those convicted who also held CCL's. The bottom line: Concealed carry permit holders commit less than 1% of the crimes. If you want to be exact, they committed two tenths of one percent of the crimes in 2011. And not all of those involved firearms or violence.

The data show that 63,679 people were convicted of a long list of crimes. Of those 63 thousand, only 120 were CCL holders."

There are about 500,000 CC permits in texas, so roughly 2% of the population.

Seems like a pretty straightforward case against guns, right there.

Write off all the suicides. Disregard all the people foolish enough to leave them out and loaded with young children around. Once all the undesirable parts are removed, you find that every single gun owner is affluent, happy, highly educated, and is named Frank. Good job, Frank!

Shouldn't you be reloading something? Never know when a gang banger might be walking by.

that guns mean you're weak inside, driving fast & dangerously means you're immature & stupid, drinking a glass of wine is not utterly forbidden, and gay marriage is no big deal. You should see my kid. He rocks!

sentenced to perform slave labor in the salt mines?



This is one of the most repugnant and disturbing posts I've had the displeasure of reading in DU since I've been a member here.

Seek professional counseling.

Tell it what it won, chuck...

to post their names in public. Weekly or monthly listings in the local newspapers and an internet database should work.

That way we would know who to contact in case of an emergency. No doubt potential employers would cherish having a militia member to help guard their place of employment. Militia members would probably get extra points just like our veterans.

I can't think of a better way to honor our militia members.

Good to know.

Unfortunately, there a more than a few of us who remember being painted with the broad brushes because our military service meant we were losers who were unable to find any better jobs or schooling. Certainly not to be trusted with women or children, God only knows when we might snap and have some Rambo-esque flashback.

So, you WILL excuse me when I bristle at those who want to throw a bunch of dissimilar people into a group to be reviled just because it is the popular thing to do today.

If you thought I was equating so called militia members to veterans, I apologize for not being clear enough.

You do know that veterans get extra points toward employment don't you? Well at least for government jobs.

But if I did have a problem with veterans, why would it be good to know?

he's decrying the treatment of veterans, and saying that brush is better suited painting chickenhawk gun fetishists.

Including mine. And I for one am grateful for that. I'll take my chances with talking them down rather than Amateur Joe the "sport shooter" riling them up worse and endangering everyone else's lives in the process.

I was trying to point out the absurdity of owners of assault weapons wanting the right to own them and claim the 2nd amendment gives them the right because they are part of a militia. But I do feel that if you are going to be part of what is protecting me from my government or some other perceived threat, I want you to be credited for it.

As in the words of the "infallible" founders, what with their broad knowledge of semi-auto/auto assault rifles and instantly reloadable 30 bullet clips that they so obviously foresaw back when it took 3+ minutes to reload a single shot musket...

should be kept in an armory when not in use. Practice ranges should also be conveniently provided in the armories.

It's fanatical and will only galvanize people against you...

And people are galvanizing against gun fetishists. But you are right, this is not negotiable. Gun fetishists are freaks and most the nation is coming to a consensus that this is the case.

500%+ profit margins this week alone. Most of the people who're holding onto large amounts of this stuff are collectors or investors, not fetishists.

of you and La Pierre!

weapon advocacy.

A lot of the problem is caused by those "gun Shows" where Military grade weaponry is sold like a flea market. Let me offer perspective:

I used to have a hot dog cart. In Florida. Now in Florida, the regulations on selling food were very, very strict. My cart had to have three sinks, one for rinsing, washing, and soaking. I had to be careful not to sell Candy bars, because while pastries were not regulated by the dept of agriculture, candy bars WERE. I found many of the regulations onerous, but then when i saw the crap my competition pulled, I understood full well why they were in place (namely the cleanest looking trucks could be the biggest roach coaches, and vice versa.)

However, right next to me in that same Flea, there was a guy selling martial arts weapons, including the "asp.", German baton that has either a gas cylinder or spring, meant to deliver lethal force. Add to that the "marketing": we used to have a lot of African American customers that liked us, but they would always glare at my neighbor. I overheard...apparently those weapons were begin marketed as:

&quot Racial expletive deleted) Be Cool sticks" or...N__BC sticks.

My point is, I was called to account to the state government for selling HOT DOGS, chased off of selling CANDY BARS. Yes some vegans may think they are lethal weapons, but few else do But my neighbor was selling a LETHAL weapon that was marketed for killing people, especially Black people. I can imagine what half my customers thought when they got their lunch from me and saw my neighbor, knowing I was clueless!

The point is, when we have a country that lets anyone sell weapons meant and marketed to KILL PEOPLE, but thinks they need to be less regulated than Hot Dogs and Candy Bars, we have a serious problem. Now, in an earlier thread, I said that i think a full out "war on guns" would end up being like the 'war on drugs"...if a yuppie wants to buy a pistol or a dimebag, nothing will stop them, and the jails will fill only with people who cannot afford lawyers.

However, making a well-regulated militia...er market will ensure that people jump through hoops to get things, and those that don't, are not martyrs to a cause. If you want the power, take the responsibility. To speak ill of the dead, Nancy Lanza, by leaving her guns around, and training the same son she thought of committing to shoot that Colt rifle, was NOT responsible. Yes, it is unfair that we have to deal with regulations, but we all know that if we did not have them, some idiot would do the unreasonable, "oh my god did someone actually do THAT? type of abuse."

Like selling weapons marketed to hurt black people next to the hot dog guy that has tons of them for customers.

and they can't keep up with background checks. Same with ammo making supplies. Not happening in my neck of the woods.

In addition, more than one online seller has suspended all new sales of ALL products to try and catch up with their current order processing. Looks like the anti-gun folk have gotten what they wanted: "assault weapons" are almost impossible to buy.

Not quite he way they wanted that to work, I suspect...

They are loved here. DU will always be a place of welcome for the NRA bucket brigade.


So it seems.

I know a lot of "flakes"" and none of them would ever dream of owning or using an AK-47.

The people who own these things and the people who defend ownership of these things are not flakes. They are people who are either already insane or at least well along the sociopath path.

Seriously. Think about all the people you have ever seen who have these things. Is there a single one of them you would trust as a babysitter, for example?

And the rest of the gun advocates out there who do know the difference between a humble hunting weapon and a killing machine, please don't' bother to respond. I am not talking about you, and frankly, you would all do well to shut your pieholes for awhile.

The idea of being the legal owner of the gun used in the next massacre should be so terrifying that no one would be willing to keep such weapons in their home where they could be stolen.

Anyone willing to take such a horrific risk loves their lethal weapons more than they love their own and their neighbors' children. Sounds like a good reason for shunning to me.

Lose their jobs, their spouses, children disown them, etc.?

Do you honestly wonder why some of us have a really hard time taking you seriously?

The name-calling needs to stop. If you want to have a rational discussion about serious, common-sense gun control, you have got to stop the name-calling. "Weapons flakes," "gun nuts," etc. (to say nothing of comparing law abiding citizens to child pornographers) isn't constructive.

Bake

Someone who does that is perfectly law abiding.

Whether anyone else wants to hire them or associate with them, is simply up to others.

There are plenty of "law abiding" practices I don't have to put up with.

own words, at long last? If you say it, you own it, it's that simple...

The name-calling has to stop, unless you NEVER want to win another election OR get reasonable gun control passed.


Bake