1. I think “shall not be infringed” should be interpreted (only as applies to an active militia, very narrowly, very broadly, absolutely)- broadly

2. I think gun control legislation should focus on the (guns/owners/both) -owners

3. I think everyone has a right to defend themselves even if it means an attacker could be killed -yes

4. I think all shooting deaths should go to a grand jury, even if it clearly is self defense -yes

5. I think if a person is exonerated under self-defense at any stage they should have civil immunity -yes

6. I think partial bans are reasonable e.g. the former AWB -no

7. I think total bans are reasonable e.g. pre-Heller/McDonald D.C./Chicago -no

8. I think inflammatory labels and accusations are counterproductive to making any change in the status of gun control -yes

9. I have taken or will take action, beyond posting on the internet, to support gun control -yes

10. I support the plank of the DNC
“We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few”
as written. –if no, please explain -No, I think the AWB, besides being ineffective, immediately quenches any discussion and forward motion to bettering gun control. Saying a right is recognized then stating support for a ban gives the impression that the initial statement cannot be trusted

1. shall not be infringed to me means that ordinary citizens should be allowed to obtain, and use small arms comparable to what law enforcement use, this includes "assault weapons" that DO NOT have automatic fire capability.

2. any new legislation I think should focus on the behaviors people display while using firearms

3. yes I agree

4. agree

5. agree

6. some things should not be available for private citizens the former AWB is not something I would ever support

7. no

8. agree

9. I have in the past, and will in the future but it depends on what it is

10. to me reenacting a "assault weapon" ban is not commonsense, and the "gun show loophole" could be closed but as of yet I have not seen many reasonable ways of doing so proposed by legislators. The rest of the plank I can agree with, but if it's all or nothing then NO I do not support it.

Could we find common ground on these points?

1 no. Your expamples are infringement

2 Both (by guns, you mean manufacturers?)

3 yes, including spouses, children and other contextual individuals ie parents, neighbors

4. Agreed, in fact, in all seriousness, let's take all gun crimes and create a traffic court type of branch of the judiciary.

5. No. People should be able to sue civilly.

6. Reasonable, yes. As a proponent of low gun control, many of the ammo, etc points are getting more difficult to argue.

7. Total bans are almost always sabotaged by the elite class. So no, against total bans

8. If you call me a gun humper, I'm not bloody likely to consider you reasonable on the subject.

9.

10. Works for me

1. I think “shall not be infringed” should be interpreted (only as applies to an active militia, very narrowly, very broadly, absolutely)

Broadly

2. I think gun control legislation should focus on the (guns/owners/both)

Owners

3. I think everyone has a right to defend themselves even if it means an attacker could be killed

Yes

4. I think all shooting deaths should go to a grand jury, even if it clearly is self defense

I think so (but IANAL)

5. I think if a person is exonerated under self-defense at any stage they should have civil immunity

I think mostly (but again, IANAL)

6. I think partial bans are reasonable e.g. the former AWB

Rarely, if ever

7. I think total bans are reasonable e.g. pre-Heller/McDonald D.C./Chicago

No

8. I think inflammatory labels and accusations are counterproductive to making any change in the status of gun control

Yes, and there's no need to limit this statement to gun control discussions (but perhaps such behavior is 'fun' for some interneters).

9. I have taken or will take action, beyond posting on the internet, to support gun control

Yes (assuming you mean to support what I think the gun regulation landscape ought to look like)

10. I support the plank of the DNC

“We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few”

as written. –if no, please explain

Drop the part about the AWB...

1. I think “shall not be infringed” should be interpreted (only as applies to an active militia, very narrowly, very broadly, absolutely)

Broadly, but not absolutely. A miltia is a subset of the population whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

2. I think gun control legislation should focus on the (guns/owners/both)

Both. But that legislation has to work.

3. I think everyone has a right to defend themselves even if it means an attacker could be killed

Agree.

4. I think all shooting deaths should go to a grand jury, even if it clearly is self defense

Agree

5. I think if a person is exonerated under self-defense at any stage they should have civil immunity

Agree

6. I think partial bans are reasonable e.g. the former AWB

Disagree. Technology and marketing will always outrun legislation.

7. I think total bans are reasonable e.g. pre-Heller/McDonald D.C./Chicago

Disagree. Bans never work.

8. I think inflammatory labels and accusations are counterproductive to making any change in the status of gun control

Mostly agree. People are human, and sometimes name calling is part of the process. We aren't Vulcans.

9. I have taken or will take action, beyond posting on the internet, to support gun control

I might if somebody could come up with a new form of gun control worth fighting for.

10. I support the plank of the DNC

“We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few”

as written. –if no, please explain

Mostly, but the AWB is a bad idea.

1. I think “shall not be infringed” should be interpreted (only as applies to an active militia, very narrowly, very broadly, absolutely)

Answer: Broadly. Its also been decided by the SCOTUS. However, regulation does not always mean an infringement.

2. I think gun control legislation should focus on the (guns/owners/both)

Answer: Both. Licensing focuses on the owners, licensing based on reality based types of guns (rifle v handgun, auto v semi v manual action) could provide a framework for reasonable licensing.

3. I think everyone has a right to defend themselves even if it means an attacker could be killed

No, not as written. Yes if it means when there is a threat of death or serious bodily harm.

4. I think all shooting deaths should go to a grand jury, even if it clearly is self defense

Answer: No, not as written. Most should but there's no reason to mandate shooting deaths be required to go to a grand jury. That should be up to the DA, and they should have discretion not to seek an indictment if they believe no crime was committed. In addition, sometimes the DA won't have enough evidence to secure a conviction if they seek an indictment too early. The result could be guilty people getting off due to the inability of the DA to have a good case.

5. I think if a person is exonerated under self-defense at any stage they should have civil immunity

Answer: Probably not. They might have not committed a crime, but they might have been negligent.

6. I think partial bans are reasonable e.g. the former AWB

Answer: No. AWB is smoke and mirrors. Reality based regulation based on functionality yes. See 2.

7. I think total bans are reasonable e.g. pre-Heller/McDonald D.C./Chicago

Answer: No no and not ever. This concept is far broader than just guns. Since guns are a right under existing law, and will likely be in the foreseeable future, its really really bad to allow geographic bans on rights in the interest of safety. That's how the patriot act got started and continues to grow.


8. I think inflammatory labels and accusations are counterproductive to making any change in the status of gun control

Answer: Yes. Weasel words do nothing, except create more weasel words.

9. I have taken or will take action, beyond posting on the internet, to support gun control

Answer: Difficult to give yes or no answer. Most of my efforts outside the internet have been to oppose stupid gun control laws. If the pro gun control side wants to change that, they need to seriously change how they approach things. I have no desire to help a side that considers me a blood drenched baby killing NRA supporting devil. I'm kinda funny that way.

10. I support the plank of the DNC
“We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few” as written. –if no, please explain

Answer: I can support the entire DNC platform as written. The problem is there are so many weasel words that my support may not be what they intend to accomplish. That's the problem when mission statements don't match the real goals.

1. I think “shall not be infringed” should be interpreted (only as applies to an active militia, very narrowly, very broadly, absolutely) - very narrowly so as not to conflict with "well-regulated"

2. I think gun control legislation should focus on the (guns/owners/both) - both

3. I think everyone has a right to defend themselves even if it means an attacker could be killed - the question is too ambiguous

4. I think all shooting deaths should go to a grand jury, even if it clearly is self defense - not necessarily a grand jury at first, but some method of review.

5. I think if a person is exonerated under self-defense at any stage they should have civil immunity - too ambiguous

6. I think partial bans are reasonable e.g. the former AWB - I object to the use of the term "ban", restricted or restrictions would be a better term. Yes, restrictions on weapons available for sale to civilians would be reasonable.

7. I think total bans are reasonable e.g. pre-Heller/McDonald D.C./Chicago - again I object to the word "ban" but stronger restrictions in urban areas are reasonable.

8. I think inflammatory labels and accusations are counterproductive to making any change in the status of gun control - inflammatory labels and accusations are counterproductive in a courtroom or legislature, but are okay to express opinions on a liberal message board, especially when used against the right wing.

9. I have taken or will take action, beyond posting on the internet, to support gun control - too ambiguous, but yes

10. I support the plank of the DNC

“We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few” as written. – yes

Does that mean that inflammatory accusations against what is considered the right will be permitted but criticizing the left's position will not be?

I'm asking because I know you're a group leader on a different board and probably have some authority here as to who gets banned or muted, and who does not.

I'm good with whatever standard applies, so long as it applies equally to everyone who is not violating the Group's stated rules.

I don't have any authority here beyond being a host of the Gun Control Reform Activism Group so I can't speak to who gets banned or muted from the entire site. There used to be a system where moderators(chosen members) and admins would make all decisions on locking threads or posts and banning members. We now have a Community Standard based system where alerts on posts are decided by a jury of members or hosts of the groups depending on the reason for alert.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem

There is also a group of voluntary members on a MIRT board which can ban newer disruptive members.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10133512

As far as making inflammatory accusations, generally smears against the right are used liberally(pun intended). If you decide to criticize or make inflammatory comments against the left, you're taking your chances on the post being locked and/or you being banned from DU.

Here's the new rules on locked posts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10133332

The disinterested reader will observe that their prolixity is in inverse proportion to their efficiacy
at both real-life politics and controlling discussion here at DU.

Nonetheless, they are both edifying and amusing for their near-continuous
use of logical fallacies and the corresponding intellectual exercise they provide for the less
ideologically dogmatic posters.

I think you may be confusing it with "vague."

Vague is a synonym of ambiguous and could also be used.

"Ambiguous" means that there are two distinct meanings that are both possible given the wording of the statement. The Latin root ambi means "both," as in ambidextrous. "I shot an elephant in my pajamas" is an ambiguous sentence: either the elephant or the hunter is wearing the hunter's pajamas.

"Vague" means "imprecise." "I shot something somehow" is a vague sentence.

They often elide their actual long-term goals while attempting to appear 'reasonable'
or 'common-sense' to the unbelievers. Others are vague simply
due to mush-headedness.

At other times, they'll drop all pretense- especially when they become frustrated...

To see if we can find common ground to have discussions.

1. I think “shall not be infringed” should be interpreted very broadly,
I think American Citizens should be able to own a variety of firarms in multiple configurations, and should also have access to supressors with a much streamlined tax process.

2. I think gun control legislation should focus on the (guns/owners/both)
Owners. without malicious intent, or criminaly negligent behavior, a gun is merely an inanimate objest. for most, it is a tool to protect, enjoy, admire and use.

3. I think everyone has a right to defend themselves even if it means an attacker could be killed
Yes, of course there are numerous caveats and subtle distinctions.

4. I think all shooting deaths should go to a grand jury, even if it clearly is self defense
I have always favored the idea that ANY shooting, whether it results in death or injury should face a legal review.

5. I think if a person is exonerated under self-defense at any stage they should have civil immunity
Very much so, given that some here believe it is legitimate to use civil tort procedings to punish a person duly tried and found not guilty.

6. I think partial bans are reasonable e.g. the former AWB
BANS... no, I agree with Secular this is a louded word, AWB was and is just political theater, but reasonable sane and practical restrictions are already in place.

7. I think total bans are reasonable e.g. pre-Heller/McDonald D.C./Chicago
NO

8. I think inflammatory labels and accusations are counterproductive to making any change in the status of gun control
Very much so as my last few days have shown, I resent attempts to question my sanity, sexual accumen, compassion, and even humanity because I disagree about a basic human right, and protected American freedom

9. I have taken or will take action, beyond posting on the internet, to support gun control
On my own terms, and conditions I will support, or withhold my support towards political movement on this issue. I already endeavor to work outside NRA umbrella events, and training, by offering people an alternative, open and politically neutral shooting environment.

By the way. Honest discussion

1. "shall not be infringed": Recent SCOTUS decisions have been congruent with my thinking.
2. ...legislation...guns/owners/both: primarily on owners.
3. self-defense regarding the use of lethal force:

"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one’s goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor's death... In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one's life or one's goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim." - Thomas Aquinas

4. shooting deaths should go to a grand jury: no, the prosecution should make this decision.
5. exonerated under self-defense/civil immunity: IMHO, simply asserting self-defense and either being found not guilty or not proceeding to trial does not guarantee innocence. OTOH, such an assertion reinforced by evidence or testimony should lead to immunity.
6. partial bans: Bans of all kinds are useless and only lead to further crime.
7. total bans: Bans of all kinds are useless and only lead to further crime.
8. inflammatory labels and accusations are counterproductive: A stray remark isn't a discussion killer but that's from my perspective and I have a thick skin.
9. supporting gun control: that depends.
10. the DNC plank: I support this except AWBs. (Bans of all kinds are useless and only lead to further crime.) The balance depends on interpretation.

1) Very broad interpretation of 2A

2) Legislation should be focused on owners

3) Yes, SD may include inflicting fatal wounds on attackers

4) I favor grand jury decisions

5) I favor immunity in principle

6) No partial bans

7) No complete bans

8) Inflammatory language is counterproductive

9) Yes, on the issue of expanded B.G. checks

10) I support the Platform, sans AWB & loophole

1. I think “shall not be infringed” should be interpreted (only as applies to an active militia, very narrowly, very broadly, absolutely) very broadly

2. I think gun control legislation should focus on the (guns/owners/both) Owners in that current age restrictions and prohibitions on only violent felons and DV abusers. Guns as far as machine guns and destructive devices are concerned.

3. I think everyone has a right to defend themselves even if it means an attacker could be killed I agree with the current standard, that is common in both SYG and DTR, that everyone has the right to use lethal force with a real or reasonable perception of a threat of imminent death or grave bodily harm.

4. I think all shooting deaths should go to a grand jury, even if it clearly is self defense not if it is clearly self defense or others

5. I think if a person is exonerated under self-defense at any stage they should have civil immunity yes

6. I think partial bans are reasonable e.g. the former AWB not really

7. I think total bans are reasonable e.g. pre-Heller/McDonald D.C./Chicago no

8. I think inflammatory labels and accusations are counterproductive to making any change in the status of gun control it is counterproductive when it comes to anything.

9. I have taken or will take action, beyond posting on the internet, to support gun control no

10. I support the plank of the DNC
“We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few”
as written. –if no, please explain I tune out as soon as I see the term "common sense" because it denotes intellectual laziness. the AWB was theater, nothing more. The intra state private sales issue should be a state issue, not a federal issue.

and interesting answers from all. Hopefully more will be willing to chime in.

so far, it can been seen we vary a lot on details but no one is really out there and totally off the chart

I look at it like a journey. We all want to go to the same place (less deaths, injuries and violence) but we have very different opinions on the road(s) we should take to get there. If we can find a couple common point of agreement we can use that base to move towards the destination