Let's end this argument for once and all.

There is no gun law that can be passed to end gun violence in the next 30 years. The only way that gun violence could be significantly reduced is by

a total confiscation of all guns, and surprise 24/7 searches to get guns off the streets. Continuous searches. So in absence of that kind of law,

all that any other law could accomplish is to continue to drive a wedge between democrats. That is why the Republicans of fewer numbers get elected

every so often. Why not drop the push for all gun legislation and unify the Party and get busy saving this country from the Republicans and their

ilk. Barack won, but now he is going to be battled by the Republicans at every turn, and the Republicans still have a stronghold in working people

that don't want to see taxes raised. PRO gunners have already demonstrated that they don't care what kind of argument is presented against guns.

There is no legislation that will do anything except break up the Democrat part. So why not drop any push for gun legislation that only aggravates

pro gunners and unify the party with a solid front. I know that I tried to make this as logical as possible and I know the shit will get knocked out

of it, but lets consider it. Even the most regulated countries like Germany still have gun homicides. Every country still has gun homicides. And the

gun homicide rate and the non gun homicide rate are functions of a ratio that indicate that if they kill a lot of people without guns , they will

kill a similar but smaller number of people with guns. There is always going to be gun violence. The trend is that gun violence declines with

licensed gun carrying. Any significant gun law will get voted out at the next election. And if we keep fighting about gun laws , thats the right we

have, but it is not right for the party.

:)

I do generally like the cut of your jib, and I think it would be practical to put gun regulation on the back burner for the time being. However, passions on both sides of the issue are too high for any real compromise or progress to be made.

without offending or seeming to challenge. LOL

all guns and those of us who support the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

and realized that the feelings are strong and fervent on both sides and rightly so. And each has its own right to choose whatever outcome is wanted. Looking forward and looking for help.

It is divisive, polarizing issues like RKBA, abortion, and GLBT rights that are used by cunning politicians from all parties to stay in power to rob and pillage public coffers while ignoring critical public matters like health, education, welfare and the economy.

Civil rights are non-negotiable. Period. If we don't stand up for them, who will?

continue to fail to do their duty required by our Constitution.

I'm tired of lobbyists for special interest groups corrupting the people's representatives, who are the only true lobbyists for their constituents, about 600,000 per congressional district.

reproductive freedom, or gay marriage, etc, in hopes my pet issue might get more time/attention. All these issues are critical, and should not be budged on.

Yeah, I believe the second amendment recognizes and protects an individual, civil right. If Congress infringes upon that right, what do I lose? Does it compare to people living together, daily, without equal protection under the laws? All these issues are important. I don't see how lobbyists figure into it.

I pointed out that lobbyists for special interest groups had more influence on congresscritters than their constituents.

What component of nature gives you a right to own guns?

PA Constitution (1776) and VT Constitution (1777)
Natural Rights
"Natural Rights Theories" by Richard Tuck
"Natural Law and Moral Philosophy" by Knud Haakonssen
and many other writings spanning the last several centuries.

The right to self preservation is considered fairly "natural". Life, and liberty are often listed in that order for a reason. It isn't much of a stretch to consider that the tools of self defense are a "right". Since they are also property and commerce is involved much of the time, it like many rights, is often asserted as far more absolute than it is. But the alternative is to suggest there is NO right connected.

by the right to reproduce. Other rights exist may exist as believed in a given culture but those two are IMO the most basic.

Consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948, there are some rights that exist without government and government cannot take away those rights, i.e. they are inalienable/unalienable.

the most basic is survival beginning at conception

Good of you to fly 'em, jody. Why, I would never have suspected this kind of ignorant misogyny from one of DU's leading, er, "gun rights" advocates ...

Good of you to fly 'em, jody. Why, I would never have suspected this kind of ignorant misogyny from one of DU's leading, er, "gun rights" advocates ...

More bullshit that if somehow you believe life begins at conception you also hate women.

Watch where you step, folks!

if somehow you believe life begins at conception you also hate women

Sure wasn't me.

jody was talking about rights. I was talking about what jody said.

What are you talking about?

Never mind. We know I don't give either a flying fuck or a pinch of poop.

You said:

Jody said:

Agree. IMO if we humans have rights, the most basic is survival beginning at conception followed

by the right to reproduce. Other rights exist may exist as believed in a given culture but those two are IMO the most basic.

Consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948, there are some rights that exist without government and government cannot take away those rights, i.e. they are inalienable/unalienable.

And then you said:'

Good of you to fly 'em, jody. Why, I would never have suspected this kind of ignorant misogyny from one of DU's leading, er, "gun rights" advocates ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
Misogyny is hatred (or contempt) of women.

Since you accused me of misogyny based on my concept that life begins at conception, and since Jody speaks of the right of survival beginning at conception, it is logical to infer that you believe that anyone who holds that life begins at conception is a misogynist.

Now you keep right on backpedaling away from "what you didn't say". It's fun to watch you squirm and dance.

Never mind. We know I don't give either a flying fuck or a pinch of poop.

That of course is belied by the fact that can't keep your mouth closed when your betters correct you.

My statement is precisely as true as your statement:

you accused me of misogyny based on my concept that life begins at conception

Your statement is one hundred and seventy-three per cent false. And you know it.

And a toadstool is not what that makes you.


Life began in a primeval swamp somewhere.

RIGHTS begin at successful birth.

Your statement is one hundred and seventy-three per cent false. And you know it.

My statement is absolutely true. You aren't worth the effort of posting quotes. You'll just exclaim, as usual, "I didn't saaaaaay that!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166774

And a toadstool is not what that makes you.

Even here you resort to insinuation again, out of fear of your post getting nuked again. You're transparent as iver-glass.

Never in my life have I ever seen someone who is so terrified to say directly what that mean and yet run their mouth so much.

Conception only recently was considered the beginning of any "rights" (and really they haven't been recognized by any government). Up until then, rights were considered to begin at birth. Thus, the expression "birth" rights. You had to be born to obtain your rights, not just conceived. Citizenship is established by birth, not conception. (And if we ever try to extend rights "pre-birth" we're gonna have alot of laws to change. Imagine unborn with property rights.)

were a matter of jody's opinion.

Well, I'll thank my stars they aren't. What an ugly world that would be.

hee hee hee ha ha ha ho ho ho! If only RIGHTS were a matter of jody's opinion.

Likewise we are all equally thankful that firearm rights aren't a matter of Iverglas' opinion.

Likewise we are all equally thankful that firearm rights aren't a matter of Iverglas' opinion.

there's nothing remotely "likewise" about it.

**I** have never asserted that such things are matters of my opinion. (In fact, I'll say they are not matters of my opinion at the least provocation.)

jody asserted precisely that.

See how Thing 1 and Thing 2, which are the exact opposites of each other, are the exact opposites of each other?

there's nothing remotely "likewise" about it.

**I** have never asserted that such things are matters of my opinion. (In fact, I'll say they are not matters of my opinion at the least provocation.)

Whether you assert it or not, we've all had lots of your opinion on the right to keep and bear arms here.

Jody has expressed his opinion on the right of survival and to whom it applies. You have expressed your opinion on the right to keep and bear arms and to whom it applies.

You assert that "rights" (presumably survival or birth rights) are not a matter of Jody's opinion. I assert that likewise the right to keep and bear arms is not a matter of your opinion.

See how Thing 1 and Thing 2 actually have relevant parallels?

Jody has expressed his opinion on the right of survival and to whom it applies. You have expressed your opinion on the right to keep and bear arms and to whom it applies.

Really? Won't you tell me what I've said? I can't seem to recall what you have in mind.

I have indeed expressed my opinion about the interpretation of your second amendment. And my opinion that the right to possess firearms is like the right to eat pizza -- an exercise of the right to liberty, not a right in itself any more than the right to eat pizza is. Unless you really want to get into listing the infinite numbers of ways the right to liberty (or life) can be exercised, and calling 'em all rights.

There is not the remotest similarity between my opinion about the nature of a right and jody's "opinion" that a right exists before birth. Not the remotest.

I actually doubt that you even understand that.

Really? Won't you tell me what I've said? I can't seem to recall what you have in mind.

Nope. You're not worth the effort. I've been reading your opinions here for years. If you really think you can sit back and claim you have not made your opinion on the right to keep and bear arms abundantly clear, you are mistaken. Anyone who has been here for more than, say, a month, knows what your opinions are on the subject.

I have indeed expressed my opinion about the interpretation of your second amendment.

And, more broadly, on the right to keep and bear arms.

And my opinion that the right to possess firearms is like the right to eat pizza -- an exercise of the right to liberty, not a right in itself any more than the right to eat pizza is. Unless you really want to get into listing the infinite numbers of ways the right to liberty (or life) can be exercised, and calling 'em all rights.

Except you are adamantly against the right to possess firearms, but probably not so negative about eating pizza.

There is not the remotest similarity between my opinion about the nature of a right and jody's "opinion" that a right exists before birth. Not the remotest.

I actually doubt that you even understand that.

Oh I understand just fine - you're just trying once again to wiggle out of getting caught in a pickle. Again.

Like I said:

Jody has expressed his opinion on the right of survival and to whom it applies. You have expressed your opinion on the right to keep and bear arms and to whom it applies.

You assert that "rights" are not a matter of Jody's opinion. And I agree with you, and say that likewise we are fortunate that your opinion on rights doesn't matter either.

Except you are adamantly against the right to possess firearms, but probably not so negative about eating pizza.

If there were, you would. But you didn't.

I think the truth about you is abundantly known around these parts.

I was merely commenting upon the assertion that rights begin at conception. Rights have never been considered to exist from or at conception. And currently, I don't believe you'll find a country where they are recognized at conception, nor any UN or international agreements which recognize such things. The discussion was about "natural rights" which is a rather long and historical set of understandings and precidents. If one wants to extend rights to the "yet born", it would require changing an awful lot of laws, and the impacts are truly unimaginable.

as the Roman Catholic Church?

the Roman Catholic Church had anything whatsoever to do with RIGHTS.

I mean, okay, within the Vatican City city limits, sure ...

You blinked, and when you opened your eyes, there you were in the 18th century!

Natural rights, my child. They just, um, are. ;)

isn't that inherent in every living thing?

and hurt Democrats.

If any attempt to made by Obama and the Congressional leadership to push for a law that would ban and totally confiscate firearms, I would expect that the Democratic party would simply disappear into history.

"The only way that gun violence could be significantly reduced is by a total confiscation of all guns, and surprise 24/7 searches to get guns off the streets."

and doesn't seem to be backed up by the rest of your post, which mostly discussed why gun deaths cannot be completed eliminated, which no one would disagree with.

If that's your starting point, of course, it leads directly to your conclusion.

violence seems to be present everywhere and that gun violence ( homicides ) tend to trend non gun homicides. No point, just an observation.

of gun vs. non-gun homicides.

And I am not BTW an anti-gun advocate. I think a more relaxed attitude toward gun control has greatly helped Democrats in the last few elections.

The statistics I've seen have shown that US murder rates are off the charts compared to most other developed countries, and that the number of guns in the population appears to be the most observable difference.

It seemed that you were arguing that since gun violence cannot be completely eliminated without a virtual police state, that no set of laws could even reduce the rate of violence somewhat. That is a very tenable position.

I think politically it's wise the Democrats backed off from gun control.

I think moderate forms of gun control may turn out to result in moderate reductions of gun violence and would save lives.

I was mostly responding to what seemed like a poorly constructed argument by the OP.

There are many things we can do, from a legislative standpoint, that should help curb crime committed with guns. There are LOTS of issues that feed into that. I firmly believe it is possible to address the straw purchases issue. If the answer is registration with iron clad grandfathering, more funding for BATFE/FBI undercover work/sting ops, free NICS checks accessible to the public for private transfers, or requiring FFL transfers, but paying for them with state or federal funds, there are a LOT of things we can do to reduce crime without stepping on civil rights.

We cannot ignore the firearms issue. There is too much inconsistency between federal and state laws, not enough measures to actually reduce criminal activity, too many laws that create criminals out of thin air for mere possession of a few pieces of metal, etc. We don't have concurrent sentencing for crimes committed with firearms..

Soo many things to work on, without touching any prohibition, that can help make society safer, and reduce the availability of guns to criminals/criminal behavior.

We do indeed have a right to bear arms for self defense but that right should require some level of responsibility and regulation. But what type of armament and what level of threat do we have to deal with? I don't see a 50 cal rifle as being something I need to deal with the daily threats on my life and liberty. A semi or fully auto would probably be overkill in most self defense situations. The last thing I would want to do is to hurt some innocent bystander because I felt threatened. There might be tons of people out there that disagree with me, I can't accept the idea of taking someone's life to defend yourself from a "perceived" threat makes the situation any better.

For the more urban environments, where most of the gun violence seems to occur, where do these guns come from? They're mostly stolen or bought from gun shows from private owners.

The only change I want to see in gun regulation is to keep mental midgets and mentally challenged from getting access to lethal weapons and monitor those that want to play with extremely lethal weapons that they don't need. If you want to have fun with all the death tools, go for it, but show your stripes!

I've lived in, and worked in, some pretty tough neighborhoods and never carried a gun of any sort.

You can regulate and legislate the shit out of this issue but it won't do shit until you accept that "they are no different from us".
We're all just trying to survive as best we can.

Nobody from either party will do anything about arms owned by private citizens because it would be political suicide.

as their weapon of choice for home defense. Why did you choose to not carry a gun in pretty tough neighborhoods. Point of principle ? Was there no threat in the neighborhood ? I carry a gun for personal gratification. I just like guns. I almost always have a digital voice recorder with me as well as my camera. These are things that I like to have with me. I would suppose that most pro gun people have guns just because they like guns. For sure personal protection is right there also. Other people like other things and feel safe and secure in law enforcement for their personal protection. These are factual and honest statements and answers.

and many people who are familiar with firearms do indeed rely on one for home self defense, many others chose a handgun or in some cases a rifle.

It is possibly the best bedroom weapon. When you hear glass breaking or an alarm sounding, you dial 911 on your cell phone and seek cover. You point the shotgun at your door and if the intruder decides to break it down, you have the advantage.

But if you decide to leave your bedroom to check the situation out, a shotgun has disadvantages. First, it's an awkward weapon with a long barrel. The intruder may be able to grab the weapon and wrest it away from you. Second, unlike what you see in the movies, at close range the pellets do not cover an extremely wide area. You still have to aim the weapon. (Playing Wyatt Earp and clearing your house is a bad idea, but calling the police and hiding for half an hour behind your bed after the cat broke a dish will make you like and feel like an idiot.)

I grew up in a community that had pretty much no racial diversity, but there was a pretty high level of sub-standard working class income. When I went to school, after high school, I could only afford to live in an area that most people I knew were afraid to even drive through. When I walked to work or school, I looked everyone in the eye and considered them as equals. I learned a lot from those neighbors and don't think I could ever return the favor.

When I was a kid and to this day, I had a fascination and interest in guns. I love the technology of their construction, the concentration of power in such a small device. Beyond that, I don't have much use for them. When I was about 12 I used a gun to kill another living thing. That, I hope is the last time I ever need or wish do do the same.

If I felt a need for a firearm for personal protection, I'd also choose the pump shotgun. It provides a lot of impact without the need for accuracy. Of course, it doesn't make a bit of difference if your an 80 y/o lady in a tough neighborhood when someone (LEO SWAT style) breaks down your door on a no knock warrant.

I guess my most basic response is that I don't fear my neighbors or feel a need for some strategic advantage. If they are threatened by something in the community, it probably is a threat to me as well. If they are doing a "chicken little", I figure I'm smart enough to figure it out.

I pride myself on being skilled in situational awareness. If you can recognize, quantify, and determine the most efficient response, you have the best chance of not holding the shitty end of the stick.

It's the folks who choose to ignore the law and use them in a reckless and criminal manner. Since many people are uncomfortable confronting criminals they choose, instead, to go after an inanimate object. Get to the heart of the matter and go after the criminals and maybe we'll see an improvement in a few years.

I don't care what a law-abiding citizen chooses to own. They aren't the ones out doing the drug dealing, robberies, and all the other violent behavior that is really at the heart of this debate.

And you're the only one saying it ...


Since many people are uncomfortable confronting criminals they choose, instead, to go after an inanimate object.

Can't even parse that one, I'm afraid.

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

I'm a wheel gunner myself, and both of the weapons I normally carry for self defense are small S&W revolvers. One is a .38 snub nosed revolver and the other is basically the same weapon but with a 3" barrel with the capability of firing either .38 or .357 rounds.

But realistically it takes a lot of practice to become proficient with a revolver, especially if you want to use in it double action rather than single action mode. Proficiency is very important if you carry a weapon or own one for self defense. So, I would be one who would disagree that a semi-auto weapon is overkill for self defense. A lot depends on the individual, his skill level and his individual preference.

Full auto weapons are an entirely different issue and as they are very tightly regulated and are uncommon in civilian or even criminal hands. They are useful in the military for suppression fire, I can't see a lot of times where they might be used for civilian self defense.

While it's true that you can live your entire life in a dangerous urban area without ever having a problem, it only takes one incident to end your life or seriously change it. People who own firearms or carry concealed are not paranoid, just realistic. The firearm is like an insurance policy or a fire extinguisher. You hope you never have to use it, and indeed you might never need it. But if you do, it may save your day. If you did live in a dangerous area, you probably know of incidents where an unarmed civilian was a victim of crime. What separates your experience from others is merely they were in the wrong place and the wrong time. You weren't.

I also lived for years in a fairly rough neighborhood. I had firearms in the house for self defense and I carried a concealed weapon. And like you, I never had any problem. My daughter, however, did use a firearm to stop an intruder who was breaking into our home. As he was making entry, she pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he fled.

You stated:

The only change I want to see in gun regulation is to keep mental midgets and mentally challenged from getting access to lethal weapons and monitor those that want to play with extremely lethal weapons that they don't need. If you want to have fun with all the death tools, go for it, but show your stripes!

I agree with you on tightening the regulations so as to prevent those from serious mental issues from owning firearms. I'm not quite sure what you mean by monitoring individuals. And what do you define as an extremely lethal weapon?

"A semi or fully auto would probably be overkill in most self defense situations."
That puts you in disagreement with every single thing I have ever heard or read about survival shooting situations. I really believe that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about now. Six people are at your door, better grab the 5 shot revolver.

"I've lived in, and worked in, some pretty tough neighborhoods and never carried a gun of any sort."
It is good to know you have a crime proof vest. I'll give one to my physically disabled father, that should replace his guns. It is good to know that one person during a finite period in a "tough" neighborhood didn't have any problems, that means all people for all time will have no problems.

"The only change I want to see in gun regulation is to keep mental midgets and mentally challenged from getting access to lethal weapons"
NICS already does that. I agree there should be better mental health screening in America.

"There might be tons of people out there that disagree with me, I can't accept the idea of taking someone's life to defend yourself from a "perceived" threat makes the situation any better."
I can't see how doing nothing to ensure your personal security in the face of a perceived threat could make the situation any better.

We do indeed have a right to bear arms for self defense but that right should require some level of responsibility and regulation. But what type of armament and what level of threat do we have to deal with? I don't see a 50 cal rifle as being something I need to deal with the daily threats on my life and liberty. A semi or fully auto would probably be overkill in most self defense situations.

But do you think such weapons would be appropriate to use in an armed rebellion? Because this is what the second amendment is about. It's not about hunting or even particularly individual self-defense.

Also, the weapons you mention are hardly ever used in crime. According to FBI data, hands and feet kill more people each year than the weapons you mention. So why bother regulating them at all?

The last thing I would want to do is to hurt some innocent bystander because I felt threatened. There might be tons of people out there that disagree with me, I can't accept the idea of taking someone's life to defend yourself from a "perceived" threat makes the situation any better.

But what about the idea of taking someone's life to defend yourself from a real threat?

For the more urban environments, where most of the gun violence seems to occur, where do these guns come from? They're mostly stolen or bought from gun shows from private owners.

My experience has been that there are very few private sellers at gun shows. Very rarely you will find someone walking around with a rifle on their shoulder with a flag sticking out of the barrel that says "For Sale". But mostly people come to see the vendors with thousands of firearms spread all over the tables. I've never once seen an individual trying to sell a handgun at a gunshow, and I can't imagine how you'd even go about it, short of walking around holding it over your head shouting, "handgun for sale!"

The only change I want to see in gun regulation is to keep mental midgets and mentally challenged from getting access to lethal weapons and monitor those that want to play with extremely lethal weapons that they don't need. If you want to have fun with all the death tools, go for it, but show your stripes!

I agree that the mentally ill should not be allowed to own firearms. But we must preserve anonymous firearm ownership or the deterrent of such people against tyranny disappears.

I've lived in, and worked in, some pretty tough neighborhoods and never carried a gun of any sort.

I'm sure everyone respects your choice.

Nobody from either party will do anything about arms owned by private citizens because it would be political suicide.

Yet a ban on assault weapons is currently part of both the Democratic Party Platform and Obama's urban policy. Banning classes of firearms does the same thing as confiscating them it just is slower.

would be harmful to the Party. If that is the case, then how do we get the message across to the congress people. I know that this is only a few people, but I feel encouraged.

strident minority of gun-grabbers who led we Dems to defeat in congress.

Obama won this time thanks to an absolutely incredibly worthless 8 years under the most reviled president in history, an over the hill Republican candidate with nothing of substance to offer voters, and a falling economy that has not yet reached bottom.

If Obama signs an AWB, IMO it will go very bad for we Dems in 2010.

who toward the end of the campaign acted as if he had no real desire to be President. Many people feel that McCain picked Palin to sabotage any possibility of winning. Considering his age, why would he chose such an inexperienced person to be a "heartbeat away from being President".

Firearms didn't play a significant role in this election because of voter disgust with Republicans. Many conservative voters decided not to show up at the polls and vote for another four wasted years.

If the Democrats push for draconian gun laws and the Republicans get their act together, the mid-term and the next Presidential election may prove a disaster for Democrats.