is also a progressive value. There are and must be limitations to all rights. None are absolute. Logical restrictions to protect society as a whole are appropriate and progressive.

There need be no limitations unless you can prove a tangible harm. That is only logical.

Some people here think that "reasonable restrictions" means banning anything manufactured after 1850, banning you from keeping weapons in your home, and banning anything that they don't understand or don't like.

And then there are the people who think they can spew any old shit and pretend that somebody else thinks it.

But my opinion is that there is a lot of area between anti-gun and pro-gun. Your question seems too black and white to me.

I own a gun and believe we have gone too far with relaxing gun control laws. The general public has just as much right to be safe from gun violence as gun owners have the right to their weapons. The pro gun lobby as been bullying the public these last few years and I hope to see the pendulum swing the other way if we can get some decent Federal judges in place soon.

Thank you for your input. It's appreciated.

so how can you say that the status quo is somehow jeopardizing the safety of the general public? Looks like we are on the right track.

Where is it? To me that doesn't make sense. The more people carry around guns the more they will be used. If the opposite were true then there would not be the need to carry guns.

But if I accept the idea that gun violence is declining, I can only conclude that carrying a gun is not a rational choice but rather an act stemming from some feeling of inadequacy. The majority of people do not feel the need to arm themselves.

On edit: If George Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun Trayvon Martin most likely would have had a promising future. The reason he will not live to experience that future, in my opinion, is because we have let ourselves be bullied by the gun lobby. And to me, that is the tragedy that the gun lobby so willingly dismisses in a selfish insistence on rights over reason.

so. Has been dropping for years.

in violent crime in the last 20 years, not saying more guns=less crime, but certainly more guns does not=more crime.
BTW, your conclusions that carrying a gun is not a rational choice but rather an act stemming from some feeling of inadequacy is something we RKBA supporters have seen time and again here and just as before, it's pure bullshit coming from the anti-gun crowd.

Here, for example, we see at drop from 10,225 murders with firearms in 2006 to 8,775 murders with firearms in 2010.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

If poke around in previous years you will see the same consistent downward trend since the eary 1990's:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

In every respect when it comes to violent crime you have never been safer - in 1992 there were 24,703 murder and non-negligent manslaughter deaths while in 2010 there were 14,748 deaths.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls


I don't care what you think about why I carry - the fact that you think it is sufficient to restrict my civil liberties tells me all I need to know about you.

You have never been safer from gun violence - there is a reason you are on the wrong side of history on this issue.

Seems a bit suspect. If true I would expect three people to sight three different set of statistics.

I feel that the gun violence is less of a concern than the fear of anti gun people. Martin's death can be accepted so long as we keep our guns and there are FBI reports we can sight saying his death although tragic is only one of a lessening statistic.

They are also the official US government statistics. There is no other source more authoritarian.

So what you are saying is that one death due to a gun is reason enough to restrict everyone else's civil liberties? OK - at least you are honest.

I feel we have gone past the point where common sense would have us be with the trend toward lessening gun restrictions.

I am not anti gun but I am not comforted by the idea that anyone standing around me could be carrying a loaded weapon. That thought I lived with for two years in Vietnam and I never in my life would have thought it would be the case in the "real world." Instinct tells me something is really wrong in a society where anyone could be carrying a loaded weapon. To me it is de-evolution.

Even in Illinois where concealed carry is prohibited, anyone could be carrying a loaded weapon. They just wouldn't be doing it legally, and you wouldn't know because you can't see it.

then you might have something. All you have right now is your personal fears, opinion and bias.

The past decade has shown that Americans can own guns in a responsible manner - perhaps if you had more faith in your fellow man you would feel different.

Huh? Why? That makes no sense.

Yeah, those darn FBI statistics

"I can only conclude that carrying a gun is not a rational choice but rather an act stemming from some feeling of inadequacy."

It places the trust with the people where it belongs which is highly progressive.

We all have our favorites; the 1st, 2nd, and 4th seem to have the most direct and immediate effect on my life, so I pay the most attention to those.

...about the quartering of soldiers in your house!

Both words mean pretty much the same thing outside of some partisan knife fight. Both terms refer to accelerated cultural change which, under the circumstances, is a good thing.

In terms of progress toward the safe and equitable empowerment of people relating to technology that is ubiquitous and inevitable in our country, laws regarding ownership, carriage, and rules of engagement are progressive. They help us learn to deal with each other, even when some of us can't behave.

Progressives support freedom - real freedom, not the illusory freedom offered by those who would permit you your freedom as long as it agrees with their ideas.

Real freedom:

Freedom of speech.

Freedom of the press.

Freedom of (or from) religion.

Freedom of peaceable assembly.

Freedom to petition redress from the government.

Freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Freedom from compulsion to be a witness against yourself.

Freedom from excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishments.

Freedom to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment is the one that guarantees all the rest. The 2nd Amendment is the one that gives us the right to the tools that permit us to fight for our freedoms. When freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, or freedom to petition redress from the government all fail, the freedom to keep and bear arms remains as a last resort.

Gun control is not a progressive value when it is used to prevent law abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms.

The Second is of little use without the Fourth. The Fifth is useless without the First. Etc., etc.

(and really, the word has meaning, and it doesn't mean "liberal", which of course also has meaning, notwithstanding how both get bandied around willy-nilly in the US)

support RIGHTS as well -- and in particular, the right to equality and the right to security.

You may be happy living in that 18th century jungle, but a whole lot of people aren't, and are entitled to better lives than mere "freedom" gets them.

All the freedom in the world does nothing for someone who has no job, who has no home, who has no health care, whose school or workplace or neighbourhood is not safe. All the freedom in the world does nothing for someone who is dead.

And progressives, real progressives, actually give a shit about all that.

informed Jimmy Carter that there was no empirical evidence that any gun restriction law had accomplished anything. Ten years later the national crime rate began the steady decline that we're enjoying today, further undermining the "control" cause. Further, crime stats from Texas and Florida reveal that concealed carry has presented no harm. In so far as progressives have typically held to the expansion of civil rights when doing so presents no harm to society, I'd have to say that gun rights is a progressive value.

Edited to add: I know that I've posted a link to this Daily Koz article numerous times, but it's particularly fitting to do so here......

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

I think that nearly everyone supports the right of people to own guns, there are very few people who would support taking everyone's guns away. There are however differing interpretations of the second amendment, the second amendment never says that there can not be reasonable regulations put in place and in fact specifically uses the words "well regulated". Many progressives oppose concealed carry and Stand Your Ground laws, but that is not the same as opposing the second amendment as the second amendment never says you can bring a gun anywhere you want and it certainly does not say you can shoot someone anytime you feel threatened. Most progressives support the right of law abiding people to have guns in their homes, that means they support the second amendment.

...that the words "well-regulated" do not mean regulation through rule or law in the sense you are using. In the context of the period of time when that amendment was drafted, well-regulated meant well equipped and organized.

The second amendment was written at a time when the most advanced types of arms were muskets, today we have nuclear arms. I think most people can agree that the founders were not talking about nukes so we are OK with the government prohibiting us from owning them even though if you were to take the amendment very literally banning nuclear arms would be an infringment. The point is that the Second Amendment is not absolute, there are reasonable restrictions on arms but these restrictions do not prevent people from having many types of guns in their homes. Saying that people have the right to keep and bear arms however does not mean people have the right to bring arms with them wherever they go, no reasonable person thinks guns should be allowed on airplanes or by people touring the White House.

anymore than howitzers are.
Using nukes as an example is absurd. Assuming one could legally own a nuke, the price would be a defacto ban.
Are you OK with guns in check baggage (usually going hunting or target competitions, which was the point about AMTRAK)?

Google the term "nuclear arms" and you will get plenty of results, they are arms.

And for the record, yes I am fine with guns in checked baggage. When I said no reasonable person would allow guns on a plane I was referring to the passenger area, sorry that I did not make that clear.

I think a nuke would be ordnance. Like I said though, unless you have more money than the Kochs, it is kind of a moot point. Even in Switzerland, ordnance is kept in the local cantonment area while individual assault rifles (for the most part) or pistols (officers, military police, medics etc,) are kept at home with their personal guns. That is what the founders actually wanted instead of empire and MIC.

...is "strategic weapons". Unlike small arms, conventional bombs, mobile artillery and direct fire land platforms they serve a "broader" role in war. Battleships and aircraft carriers fall in this category too and those are systems that have the capacity to limit or deny an enemies ability to continue fighting through large scale destruction of industrial, civilian, and military centers or through control of large areas of land, sea, or air.

I see no reason why guns on airplanes is a bad idea. If we could still do that, we might not have a major construction site in NYC today. (And before your head explodes, I have 21+ years of military aviation maintenance experience, much of it in special operations units. Guns on aircraft aren't a big deal.)

It really doesn't happen that way. It's a bad fictional literature/movie trope.

so the question is, where does it say the government must or should?
as PP pointed out, movie and TV chiches are just that. How many fender benders turn into explosive infernos as soon as the hero gets the kid out of the car and leaps for cover?

Think about it, if all it took was a tiny puncture to bring down an airbus, or a 7x7, would all of these companies take on the liability of sending up thousands of them full of people?

Never in a million years.

Try checking out mythbusters.

...already busted that myth....

That still does not change my view that I don't want bullet holes in the side of a plane 30,000 feet in the air however, and allowing guns on a plane is idiotic as a shoot out at high altitudes could never be a good thing.

Crashing a plane into a massive building qualifies as "worse" in my book. And I think the empirical evidence supports my assertion.

A shoot-out in a plane is not particularly any more dangerous than in any other crowded environment. The largest danger, by far, is in hitting an innocent person. And this is pretty damn rare, even by average civilians, when in a legitimate defensive shooting. A fe bullet holes in the plane, even wounding, or killing, a few innocent people, is still far better than killing an entire aircraft of people, plus the number of people in the end target. Unpleasant, but cold, hard, indisputable fact.

An aircraft would need to be missing several square feet of fuselage before experiencing a noticable pressure drop. Even then, you simply put your emergency oxygen mask on and the crew decends to a safer level (generally 10,000 feet or lower). It doesn't make a plane experience loss of control and crash.

Unless you were intimately familiar with the make, model and modification of aircraft you were on, you'd go through a lot of ammo before you could hit anything important. Actually hitting a critical system would be extremely low probability, and civilian passenger and cargo aircraft have heavy redundancy in order to mitigate exactly this kind of damage.

But in these "civilized" days, it is apparently more moral to disarm the passengers and let terrorists take over a plane, than to let them defend themselves effectively and decisively. The math doesn't work out, but why let facts get in the way, eh?

As much as gun nuts like to pretend that the good guys always win a shoot out, the reality is that Die Hard is a fictional movie and allowing guns on a plane would not assure that the good guys could always defeat the terrorists. It would however ensure that terrorists would be able to get weapons on the plane, even if you only allowed air marshalls to carry guns that would give a potential hijacker an easy target. They could gang up on the air marshall to get his gun away from him and then the plane would be in their control. There is absolutely no evidence that allowing guns on planes would have prevented 9/11, it is pure gun nut fantasy but we do know shoot outs mid air would not make for safer air travel.

The point is to have a better chance than submission. Because in the day of highjacked planes used as artillery, submission is not a method of victory.

It would however ensure that terrorists would be able to get weapons on the plane,

even if you only allowed air marshalls to carry guns that would give a potential hijacker an easy target.

They could gang up on the air marshall to get his gun away from him and then the plane would be in their control.

There is absolutely no evidence that allowing guns on planes would have prevented 9/11,

Or the terrorists would just have guns too...

massive for you

or it would not have occurred to them.

and the question is how do we balance the two. And this is where the extremist "gun rights" movement in the US becomes distinctly unprogressive. In the US, the pro-gun movement thrives on ignorance and fear, and pushes an ideology that encourages, even glamorizes violence, and ultimately takes a great toll on society.

And this is the main reason that there are few progressives on the NRA side of the issue. It's not because guns are inherently unprogressive, it's because of entirely different progressive values: living in reality, using reason and evidence as opposed to ideological dogma, and recognizing that there are competing interests at play that must be balanced.

I think reasonable progressives can differ as to whether the gun laws are better in, say Canada versus the UK, because, as I said, both individual self-defense and public safety are legitimate values. But, given that the US suffers from far higher rates of gun violence and homicide than any other developed country, it's basically impossible to assess the evidence in an rational and unemotional way and avoid the conclusion that gun laws here are too permissive.

But that's not the main point I want to make.

The point I want to make is this: the non-gun homicide rate (blunt and edged weapons, poison arson, etc.) of America is about the same as the total homicide rate in western European nations.

I believe about 1/3 of our homicides are with non-gun, the rest with guns.

Even if, magically, all non-governmental firearms in America turned to rust and dust by sunset today, a portion of the murders that would traditionally be committed with firearms will instead be committed with "other".

There are about 16,000 homicides a year in the US, about 11,000 of them are with firearms if memory serves. That means that if guns turned to rust-and-dust at sunset, there would still be 11,000 people that somebody wants dead, and most of them will be killed by "other".

Simply assuming that the 11,000 people that will be murdered with guns will have a 100% survival rate is not reasonable.

Perhaps so, but certainly far less so than the pro-restriction side. The side that is so frequently ignorant of the current laws, ignorant of their meaning and application, sells fear with invented or misleading statistics, lying by ommission, lying outright and commonly resorting to ad hominem attacks on genitalia.

YMMV.

the pro-control organizations thrive on ignorance, e.g. what an 'assault weapon' actually is and fear, VPC 'concealed carry killers', as well.

Must hit home...

That comes under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", and I see the Bill of Rights as tools to implement this, not as absolutes in and of themselves.

I fully support the right of sensible gun owners to drive the lunatics from their ranks by any means necessary. Under those conditions (i.e. I don't examine the whole country to see what the FBI stats mean, I observe the number of batshit crazy people, in my own neck of the woods, doing godawful stupid things with guns it's clear they never should have possessed in the first place.) I support the right of safe, sensible gun owners to do anything with their guns except kill people without trial.

None of the ten amendments stand being enforced literally.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Not SENSIBLE law. Not REASONABLE law. Not a compromise with other rights. NO LAW ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF PRESS.

That's what it SAYS. Want to enforce it literally? Lying on ingredients and safety labels? Freedom of speech. Libel and slander? Freedom of speech. Systematic smears and rewriting of history? Freedom of speech. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded factory? Freedom of speech. Outing gay kids, and outing spies? Freedom of speech.

Why is the SECOND amendment always the one where people insist on a literalist reading?

is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

"I fully support the right of sensible gun owners to drive the lunatics from their ranks by any means necessary."

"Any means necessary"? Them's fightin' words - which are among the abuses of free speech that you did not cite in your examples.

Yes, my freedom of speech does not extend to the right to cause panic by falsely shouting "Fire; it does not give me the right to incite violence by threats or insults, it does not give me the right to perjure myself.

Freedom of religion does not give me the right to practice human sacrifice.

Freedom of the press does not give me the right to publish the nuclear trigger codes or the names of NOC agents.

RKBA does not give me the right to possess weapons of mass destruction.

The 2nd Amendment gets a literalist reading because it is the one most heavily parsed to support opinions opposite to its intention, which is to guarantee the people the right to keep and bear arms.

As for innocents having the right not to face a nut with a gun, the main problem with "gun control" is that in many places it prevents innocents from having a gun themselves.

I'm also all for people being held fully responsible for any harm they cause.

Lie about a product you make? Anyone injured or survivors of anyone killed get to beat you to death with peices of re-bar and take possesion of all your assets. Including your decendants. (Yeah, that'll be tricky working around the Thirteenth A., but we can figure this out.)

O.k., the last part was a joke (yes, a bad one, whatever).

Guns are not progressive, just like war is not.

Is defending itself from an invading force? Is that ok in your book, or should they peacefully submit?

Because snidely associating posters here with the evil that is the KKK is low even for you. I always think you've hit the bottom of the barrel, but then you break out the shovel.

At Sun Apr 22, 2012, 05:44 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Reminds me of a KKK member I got into it with once -- he called himself "a civil rights activist."

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Commentor is insinuating that the author is associated with the KKK.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Apr 22, 2012, 05:51 PM, and voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Borderline.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: opinion, not too offensive
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No such insinuation, imo.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: i think you may have hurt a gun's feelings. ((sniff))
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: That is a stretch...Analogies are not always (not usually) literal

I own 40 acres of land. I have both horses and goats on this property. I ride my fences once a week, repairing and that are damaged.
I am armed with a Colt SAA in a holster, and a Winchester M92 in a scabbard.

Am I "polluting society" by doing this?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

I am against the number and types of guns that get you excited.

A Winchester and Colt are not a big issue with me. My dad left me one of each from the 1870s when he died. The Colt was nice, even though it had been rebuilt with mismatched parts/serial numbers. The Winchester was one of the big, heavy, long ones. Sold them to help my mom. The Colt went for a good bit, even in its condition.

Now the assault/tactical weapons that seem to strike your fancy -- that is a different story.

You sound like a lucky man, so why screw it up with a bunch of street and compound guns?

Reason: His knowledge of firearms is limited by the catch phrase of the day.

In other words , he has no freaking idea about what he is talking about.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

If hoyt were on MASH, he would be Frank Burns.

Yeah, i really did.

I'm so glad I wasn't in the middle of drinking when I read that. Lol.



"Rude baser toter tactical mallcop zimmermans, all of you!"



Not to put too fine a point on it, we also have our own smug version of "Chuck" too:

I always thought of Hoyt as Col. Flagg.

Hockeymom I think.

about gun owners here and not be hidden. Nazis, KKK, killers in waiting. Hoyt just called us all Zimmermans and got away with it. Again.


At Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:34 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

Yes, many of the gun culture here are just cyber Zimmermans. In reality, some may be too.

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Calling DUers "Zimmermans" is highly inflammatory. I know a lot of DUers hate "gungeon" posters but casually comparing them to a high profile murderer is ridiculous.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Apr 27, 2012, 12:44 AM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Yeah, that's crossing a line. Hide.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: initially voted to leave but alert said it was directed at duers so reread again and there is the word "here" well "here" is du so i gotta hide <verdict by swampg8r>
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: "cyber Zimmermans" not "Zimmermans".
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given



You'll notice dipshit number 4 didn't even read the whole post, apparently. The other cowards couldn't even come up with an excuse. Alerting is pointless.

We pretty much know what Hoyt thinks of gun owners. He's made his views well known here. At this point, I don't believe a fucking thing he claims he has done or a word he writes. I hope your post stays up.

I will add my bravo and well done on to this post.

And besides, what makes you mad about my post. Your buddy called folks walking around in public with guns -- "progressive." Well that is absurd, just like the KKK member saying he is a "civil rights activist." If you don't get the connection, that is your problem, not mine.

Good, I think there is an ignore feature -- use it.

I vote to leave your post and every other pro-gunner who posts here. It's about time the majority of folks who don't turn to guns for comfort learn what is walking around on our streets with a lethal weapon. The right wingers are even worse than you guys.

a new Hoytism-turn to guns for comfort.
Still waiting for those links Hoyt, are you ever going to post them?

All civil rights are important. To give up RKBA would allow those who do not follow the laws to deprive any one of their rights at any time

I would add that I also believe if a persons abuses their rights at the expense of others they should face consequences.

I think it is also progressive that if one jury finds you not guilty you should not have to face an additional civil trial. I still fail to see how this is not double jeopardy. You are charged by the state, face trial and can then be charged by the aggrieved party, whom a jury has already cleared you of offending, to face a second trial. Civil suit should be incorporated into or at least dependent on the criminal action.

Not many governents around the world, historically, have allowed their populaces to maintain a level of armement that ensures their freedom (even from a tyranny). America has a level of armament that rivals many militaries around the world (over 80,000,000 armed people) and that is a power that rests completely with the PEOPLE. In fact, the attepted disarmamanet of the colonies is what sparked the onset of the revolutionary war... the british government did not want the colonies to have any armament and went to confiscate supplies in concord/lexington.

Now 230 years later, as modern military arms become so complex/expensive that people cannot effectively posses them, the original intent of an armed populce being more powerful than the government is long lost. My glock is not going to work against a Humvee with a M2 mounted 50 caliber on top. But the original intent is still there and still more progressive than many countries around the world who restrict the rights to adequete self defense.

It really boils down to one thing... more rights versus less rights. Words and actions including "restrict, control, and/or ban" typically pertain to the reduction of rights. However truly progressive individuals seek to expand the rights of indivuals as evidenced by the many political movements of this nation. "Progressives" that call to "restrict" rights always make me scratch my head.

...that is reminiscent of George W. Bush's attitude: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Particularly false in that one half of it isn't even intelligible: "2A rights". WTF does that MEAN? The right to keep great-great-grandma's musket in a closet? The right to carry a semi-automatic handgun around the mall? FFS.

"1A rights" doesn't mean anyone is entitled to lie under oath, or advertise snake oil to cure cancer, or bellow obscenities in the middle of a city council meeting. That's because there is a broad consensus that the exercise of those rights may be limited where there is justification, and the issue comes down to what is good justification.

That's true of any and every right.

So what sense does it make to say someone is either for these "2A rights" or against them? indeed, and for more than one reason.

...while being entirely deluded about both the Constitutional and social issues at stake. As Justice Stevens argued, the presumptive interpretation given in the majority decision in Heller v. DC is so vague in it's conception so as to be Constitutionally meaningless.

Progressive would entail tearing it up and starting over.

other reactionary assholes unchained? Starting over now would be more than regressive. The risk of a plutocracy like Mexico would be too great.