Quick, let's all run to the gun store before....

And that was This Week In Gun Nuttery presented by the NRA and dead kids.

Laugh all you want, but this is a problem. A non-specific call for more gun control by Hillary will inflame the ardent pro-2A crowd like nothing else. I know full-well that most of this crowd would never vote Hillary anyway, but it certainly makes convincing our neighbors to vote Democratic that much harder for pro-2A Democrats like myself.

It doesn 't have to be this way. Hillary could come forward with concrete proposals toward expanding background checks without creating a back-door gun registry, and many gun folks might be persuaded to sign on. But she seems to be choosing otherwise and I believe, choosing poorly.

The Supreme Court and so many other issues hang in the balance at present,and Hillary chooses to expend political capital on ill-defined open-ended calls for gun control? Not smart.

Hillary's hawkishness on international policy and pro-TPP, pro-Wall St. stances alienate the left. Her gun grabber reputation and many other aspects alienate the right as well as those of us progressives who take the Bill of Rights seriously. Who exactly does she hope to vote for her? Her math does not add up to a candidacy that can win here in the south. Hillary should know better.

-app

You sound vapid. Care to argue with my reasoning, or do you prefer only to sling thinly-veiled insults?

-app

Warren 2016

I highly doubt you be able to look back on today and say May 6th was the day she lost the primary, but hey bookmark the thread just in case.

I think the "concern" on this thread is overstated.

Nobody trusts Hillary , she speaks from both sides of her mouth as always....

She is the epitome of a Washington politician , tells you what you want to hear depending on the crowd
she has in front of her , she even changes accents .




Warren is the real deal and I hope she runs. I will do what ever I can to see her elected phone banks , door to door etc..

We need a change from these Washington bought and paid for politicians.

If you're a Hillary fan sorry but I can't stand her.............

She didn't say anything of substance, nothing that anyone could hang their hat on. It wasn't a proposal, or even a deeply held belief, or maybe I've missed her prior anti gun proclamations. If so I stand corrected.

which party's primaries are you familiar with?

Anything she proposed, no matter how sensible would create the same condemnation that this announcement did. That's what your crowd does.

I've yet to see any evidence of gun nuts that are just waiting to vote Democratic if not for gun control. They are a bunch of paranoid lunatics.

Time to stop trying to please right-wingers by trying to out-Republican the Republicans, and instead take a stand on progressive issues like gun violence.

They may well be ( and many are ) paranoid lunatics, but it really is a wedge issue for people who are economically center-left. I'm familiar with many of them: friends, family, co-workers, acquaintances. They may be wrong-headed, but the gun issue is the only thing making them vote for the GOP. If she's economically center-right on top of that it just makes it all the more difficult to grab the center by being by sucking somewhat less than the republicans.

Not in the polls, not in person, not anecdotally, nothing. Even when I lived in Texas, I counted a total of zero people I knew that would be Democratic voters if not for gun control.

I don't doubt your own observations, not do I hold my own anecdotal evidence as a microcosm of what's what. I know these same people used to hurl f-bombs at Bush left and right for being a clueless doer of plutocrat's biddings, yet still remained loyal due to the gun issue ( and in some cases religion ). It's crazy.

Truer words were never spoken.

control. When any Dem candidate says things like that I hear ka ching in the Republican's campaign coffers. It may be that comments that are open-ended like that are designed to push Wayne LaPierre over the edge (since he's so close already) and show how people like LaPierre work for the gun manufacturers and don't have much of an interest in regular gun owners. I think LaPierre is the worst thing to happen to the NRA and he's one of those guys who just needs enough rope and one day he'll hang himself.
Let's hope there is a bigger plan at work here.

In fact, just being a Democrat riles up the conservative base. I vote we stand up for progressive policies like gun control and corporate regulation, rather than staying away from them because of fear of Wayne LaPierre and the Koch Brothers.

should be more definite in what she wants done. I realize it's typical political campaigning to be vague at this point, but when she leaves blanks psychos like LaPierre tend to fill them in.

knowing Hillary, her actual proposals will be middle of the road and not too radical. If she comes out soon with specific proposals then the RW will not be able to paint her as a gun grabber.

This won't hurt her, might win her a few votes from those disgusted with her other policies.

In fact she did not call for anything specific. Thus allowing anyone to project their views onto her.

While I hope I'm wrong, she could end up being regarded as the worst of both worlds regarding right/left in the minds of many centrists.

It seems to me that the Democratic Party has the forward momentum to swing more than a few Republicans. I'd hate to see that tempered by taking a hard stance on the gun-control debate and making it part of the campaign platform.

I live in Utah. For Republicans, gun-control is a deal breaker. (Not that Utah has any chance in hell of turning blue, any time soon...)

TYY

is a Republican anyway. She can represent the other ninety percent of the country that favors greater gun control.

Go ahead, call me a Republican. I dare you.

If a person's most important issue they vote on is opposition to gun control, they don't vote Democrat. I have to assume there are other issues you care about besides guns.

So it is irrelevant to who is president. There are many good reasons to vote Den that I never consider the views on gun control unless I am choosing between two Dems.

I have addressed our city council regarding my opposition to fracking. I've started phonebanking for Wendy Davis because of the hatchet job Texas legislators have performed on women's health care. And many of the old-timers on DU know how much Shrub's invasion of Iraq sickened me.

But my own activism in gun rights since 2005 has been to help the fence-sitters take a fresh look at Democratic policies and principles so that they'd be less likely to default to Republican candidates. I also wanted to galvanize Democrats who think like I do on gun issues, and I still try to do that so they don't sit out elections. I just don't want gun owners being dismissed as a monolithic lost cause trapped in the lint of Ted Nugent's pocket. (Ew.) Maybe you're not trying to do that, but some people are, and they remind me why I'm such a hardass on gun issues sometimes.

The right-wing gun lobby is beginning to crumble from the top down. There is a difference between "pro-2A" and being "pro-NRA," and Democrats are at the forefront of making that distinction.

Do they control the Senate? When was the last time Republicans got the most votes in the nation? It's been decades. The only reason they win is gerrymandering.

of some kind or another. The only reason it didn't pass is because the fear-mongering, corruption peddling NRA bought, threatened, and cajoled congress into voting against it. They bear responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths and are the single greatest source of evil in this nation.

So you be proud of that your corporate allies subvert democracy in favor of the blood-drenched profits. Murder is big business, and we can't have anyone trying to save human lives and messing up the greater purpose of enriching the robber baron gun companies.

Maybe she's forgotten about the 1994 midterms.

Even a weak argument would be better than that. It's not even an argument.

Thanks for enlightening me. I learn something everyday on DU.

But as late as last year, in Colorado when 3 Democrat lawmakers were recalled out of office because of their gun control votes.

smooth.

Some people have always lacked the courage of their convictions and some always will but this is just sadly at DU these days. I don't know why I even bother to try.

We are accused of only caring about attacking gun proponents and not doing anything worthwhile in life. When we present evidence in black and white, it is systematically ignored. It is clear that the mere idea that people have the nerve to even suggest something like a background check is seen as entirely illegitimate. The gungeon crowd claims they support reasonable measures until it comes time to vote or contact a representative to support a measure, then all but a tiny few oppose it. I learned several months ago that there is no interest in compromise of any kind. The gungeon crowd cares about two things: promoting their gun propaganda and, as one admitted to me, getting their kicks out of screwing with people like me who support gun control. I decided I would no longer serve as their amusement. Debate needs to be in good faith. When that doesn't exist, it is pointless.

As for 1994. recent studies by political scientists have demonstrated that NRA meme to be false. Naturally those studies are rejected as being by librul academics. The pro-gun crowd systematically denies every study that doesn't conform with what they want to hear and takes others and claims they say the precisely opposite of what they actually do. Anyone here who has tried to discuss these issues has been through it all a thousand times. It is a pointless exercise that serves no purpose. We don't share common values, common goals, or even common respect for evidence or knowledge.

Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)

While it is true to say that some others are guilty of bad conduct, this does not rationalize that same behavior in this very thread. Your stereotypical judgment of the gungeon crowd is intellectually lazy but perhaps justified. But I am not a pro-gun crowd, I am a person.

You don't need to call my argument an NRA meme. It is insulting because it implies I am not capable of independent thought, and this labeling does not promote fair debate.

You say debate needs to be in good faith. I will give you an opportunity to practice what you preach. You have seen a source that supports my argument about the 1994 midterms. You say recent studies have proved my argument is false, but you have done nothing to explain why this could be so. Make your argument and link your sources.

I didn't characterize you or your arguments in any way. I simply pointed out why I no longer participate in debates with pro-gun posters as a way of suggesting why others may likewise choose to avoid them. That your response is to insult me for engaging in bad behavior only further reinforces the futility of such discussions.

Have a nice day.

Next up: flag-burning amendment.

on the Iraq War Resolution...

Setting that aside, what DO you have against the Bill of Rights, huh?

Let them all carry muskets. The type of arms that exist now weren't even a remote dream in the late 18th century. We are drowning in gun deaths, more than any other first world country. I'm shocked that someone who has Liz Warren in their sig would think that calling gun laws lax is a bad thing.

helping her become an also-ran.

As for also-ran, that's the funniest thing I read all day.

because that is the type of media they had at that time.

I don't see why civilians need the kind of armament that could take down several people without even reloading.

so you can certainly try to repeal or modify the 2A.

Why do we need the kind of weaponry that is easily available to civilians nowadays? We are a violent society. How many gun deaths do we have per year?

Especially those two words "well regulated".
-
I am sick of gun nuts trying to hide behind the Constitution. Either left or right. The Constitution is not on the side of gun-nuttery. We can't make progress on gun control because the same 1% that owns us needs us terrified.

not behind the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or anything else.

I support the right to bear arms. No, it's not an absolute right, but one as important to me as any of the other ones relating to speech, press, unreasonable search & seizure, etc.

Let's talk about gun control then. Usually the conversation stops before it gets started by someone holding up the Bill of Rights and saying it protects their gun ownership. It does no such thing.
So what type of regulation can you live with?

I'm essentially fine with the status quo in terms of the regulations we currently have.

If you are not fine with it, then the burden is upon you and those of you who wish to change things to advance and defend ideas about solutions.

I'm curious, though - are you the type of gun control proponent who wants civilians to be restricted from gun ownership, without applying the exact same restrictions on law enforcement officers?

I think we need many more regulations. Cops too. At least as many as we have pertaining to automobiles or refrigerators even.

in order to change Americans' attitudes, and/or get the regulations implemented. Cheers.

certainly not an evangelist. I know a hopeless cause when I see one. America will lose its religion before it loses its guns.

is helping to change American's attitudes all right.

One shooting at a time.

both say that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Neither party thinks individuals should own nuclear weapons. I'm opposed to armor-piercing bullets for starters. Did I lose you there?

So are nukes - the 2A only pertains to small arms.

I remember a huge uproar when they tried to ban them. I guess it passed a second time. How about identifiers in gunpowder?

I'm ok with small arms and rifles. Are we friends?

The regulations on armor piercing ammo are among the strangest of the federal firearms regulations. The first is that AP ammo is rather odd in its definition. The ATF defines it as handgun ammunition, but there’s a catch. If any handgun has ever been made in a specific caliber, then ATF considers that the AP ammo regulations then apply to that caliber. That’s why you can’t buy AP ammo for cartridges like 7.62×39 and several others. The 5.56x45NATO is specifically exempted from this, even though there are pistols made for it.

It’s perfectly legal to possess, purchase, sell or shoot armor piercing ammunition. It’s not legal to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition.
-

I saw this on the web, so it must be true.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/07/29/armor-piercing-ammo/

I got a lot of other hits too. Wanna backtrack on that?

Restricted, but not outlawed. Every gun-nut that wants APA has got APA, and there's nothing the ATF can do about it.

You can't legally buy it.

You can't legally buy it in some places, but that doesn't stop anybody who really wants it. The DEA can arrest people though, the ATF can't.

Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

since we both now agree that you have to break the law to obtain APA, what is your point? Make it doubly illegal?

Google "can the ATF arrest people" if you don't believe me.

The ATF can't arrest anyone for obeying the law.

In some parts of this country, if I have two joints in my pocket, I can be arrested and thrown in jail for years for intending to sell marijuana. Someone wearing one of those western belts with the little sleeves for bullets, all of them filled with armor-piercing ammo, can safely walk the streets of any city or town in America, its territories, or any protectorate without any fear of the ATF arresting them.

Can you provide a single link to show it is a problem?

The problem is in trying to control gun violence without insane obstruction by the NRA. Whenever a sensible approach is put forward, the cries of "they're coming to take our guns away!" ring out across the land. APA is indefensible, yet even here there are people who defend it.

Sensible solutions:
1) Background checks
2) Waiting periods
3) Registration
4) Safety training

Not one of these solutions involve the taking away of guns, yet anyone who pushes for them is called a gun-grabber.

I am now removing myself from this conversation as it is apparent that arguing gun control with gun nuts is like arguing politics with a Freeper.

A 20 year losing streak can be discouraging. The good news is that during that time gun violence has steadily declined and is at historic lows. We have cut our murder rate in half. You have never been safer and next year you will even more safe.

They are a Federal Law Enforcement Agency with all the powers of arrest.

please, be specific on both, thank you.

It was spelled out in an earlier post, then shortened.

To me, opposition is a no-brainer. To the NRA, taking away their AP ammo is the first step to taking away their guns.