Guns are not a panacea, but empowering decent people is a good thing.

[TPaine7]

Guns are not a panacea, but a society in which every sane, law-abiding citizen is empowered to protect themselves, their families and other innocents is less likely to devolve into an anti-gun, anti-defense of innocents without special status, anti-getting involved in dangerous situations paradise like Mayor Bloomberg's New York City.


http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/04/27/ac.gupta.left.to.die.cnn&hpt=C1

It calls to mind the wisdom of Ceasare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson in his “commonplace book” (a personal treasury of great quotations):

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or
trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because
one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that
forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who
have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the
code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease
and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty—so
dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator—and subject innocent persons to all the
vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the
assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent
homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed
man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced
by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration
of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

Source: Ceasare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments (Henry Paolucci, tr., Bobbs-Merrill, 1963),
87-8 quoted at http://www.guncite.com/journals/2nd-ideo.html .

There is a different mentality in society when decent people are empowered--it's very different from a society that empowers only police officers--and of course, predators.

"Don't get involved."

"Let the authorities handle it."

"Are you a police officer?"

I would rather live in a world with Beccaria's worldview. It wouldn't stop all crime by any stretch of the imagination, but it would encourage a very different mindset, IMHO. People wouldn't kill casually with impunity in public, and people wouldn't feel so powerless without the "authorities." I doubt they would be so inclined to walk by dying strangers, too.

[sharesunited]

1. You're wrong about any such benefit from the proliferation of guns and ammo.

Guns cloud judgment and result in harmful and irrevocable choices.

[cliffordu]

2. Of course you can substantiate your claims with some sort of

actual evidence, or even logic, right???

:shrug:

[spin]

3. LOL. Never happen. (n/t)

[Chulanowa]

24. Tpaine can't either.

He's falling back on "Someone famous said this, so we should agree with him"

Hey Tpaine! Can you autotune your Appeal From Authority?

[TPaine7]

25. I am not making an appeal to naked authority. The quotation makes its own case.

Ceasare Beccaria is not an authority most people today would recognize. His wisdom commends itself to me by its logic alone. People should agree with what he says because it makes sense--it appeals to "logic" as cliffordu put it.

Jefferson was a political genius, but it shouldn't take a genius to follow Beccaria's logic. If you let go of your prejudices, you too can follow the logic and see its strength.

If you had the wisdom to say the same thing in a post on DU, I might quote you too. "Chulanowa" doesn't have the same cachet as "Jefferson" or even "Beccaria", but I respect wisdom wherever I can find it.

[Chulanowa]

28. Just because it expresses your own ideals in better prose than you can manage doesn't make it "wise"

Tell me. Do you and Ceasare support diverting tax dollars from the treasury of the nation or state and using it to keep every eligible citizen armed and ammo'd up with a reasonable amount of firepower? Say, a pair of pistols, one for home defense and one for personal protection, with a hunting rifle for those dependent on subsistence?

The writers of the constitution didn't. I have yet to meet a gun bunny who does, either. And while maybe by wild lark, you do support such an idea... the odds are pretty much against it.

So what you and your new idol are saying then, is that you have an inherent, inalienable, immobile right to be armed, pack your weapons, and proclaim the need for self-defense... but only for those people who can afford the expense. Sort of like how voting worked, back when that 2nd amendment was written up. In a bit of irony often the people most in need of self-defense are the ones least able to afford it. The message being spoken is basically "Laws protecting my right and ability to be armed are awesome, laws doing the same for those with less lucre than me are abominable"

And this part of your argument is laughable: "If you let go of your prejudices, you too can follow the logic and see its strength"

Did you go from gun bunny to tent revival minister, Tpaine? 'Cause I hear this inane argument from them as well. It amounts to "there's something wrong with you if you don't agree with me" which is disingenuous. I don't expect much better around here, but really.

First, prejudice is defined as coming to a judgment or opinion of something without first ascertaining the facts of it. Unfortunately for your claims of my being prejudiced, I actually did read the quotation before reaching an opinion of it; that opinion just happens to not be as immediately fawning as your own. So you decide to attack me as prejudiced and pretend you have some deeper, wonderful understanding that my flawed, feeble mind cannot grasp unless I take your hand and throw my own opinions aside for your own.

Again this reminds me of how religious people tell me I don't follow their religion simply because I am too stupid to understand it without their help.

[TPaine7]

32. You're dissmissed.

You cannot let go of your prejudices against the RKBA, not against the quotation. But I've wasted too much time already.

You are worth neither the time nor the effort to take apart your straw men, name calling, or weak snark.

[Chulanowa]

35. Clearly, you are wasting your time

Kind of like a D student applying for a job in aeronautics.

First, I explained to you what "prejudice" means. I've seen the facts at hand - thanks to you presenting the material so handily, thank you - and have reached an opinion based on what i am presented with. This is a reasoned opinion, not prejudice. Prejudice would be if, like, I refused to read anything you actually said, and instead chose to respond to what I wish you had said.

Sort of like what you did, claiming I'm against the 2nd amendment. Good luck finding any supporting material for that bullshit. Again with the lies in the gungeon. YER FER ME UR YER AGIN ME!

Evidently I'm worth the time to type up an unoriginal, snide, and easily-dismantled response to, though, aren't I? :)

I'd love to hear about my straw man. Perhaps you're thinking that my pointing out that only people who can afford weapons get to enjoy their 2nd amendment rights is a straw man? Unfortunately, that's exactly the situation; If you can't afford a gun, then you're relegated to lesser arms, if any, aren't you? Thus putting poorer people at a self-defense disadvantage against threats to their persons or property.

Here's another question for you; Should ex-cons be allowed to arm themselves? I know the general gun bunny response is a reflexive "FUCK NO!" but take a moment and think about it. if the person is inclined to be a repeat offender, they're going to get a gun somewhere, right? And if they're not so inclined, then how can you post that quote of yours in the OP, and maintain that stance? it's cognitively dissonant. Is isn't right to restrict your rights to a weapon because of what you MIGHT do with it, but it's right to to put the restrictions on him because of what he MIGHT do with it?

I anticipate more garbled chest-pounding about how I hate America love terrorists and want to grab guns. I vote Democratic, too, what a fucking piece of work I am!

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Once a felon has served his sentence, and any probationary period imposed

restoration of all civil rights, from voting, to access to firearms, should be automatic.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you actually making a case for civilian armament at the expense of the government, similar to what the Swiss do? I think that would be awesome, and we could likely trim a huge percentage of the federal budget that goes toward the Defense Department if we did that. Guns are cheap, relatively speaking.

[TPaine7]

50. "Once a felon has served his sentence"

I agree with the words, but not with what I think you're meaning by them.

To use a non-gun related analogy, let's consider a pedophile. His sentence may be x years in prison and a lifetime of no private time with children under the age of y. I agree that after the felon has served his sentence--after his death--he may be alone with children. No escort is required when children visit his grave.

Similarly, an armed robber's sentence may be x years in prison and a lifetime of firearms restriction. After his death he may have physical contact with a functional gun.

[Travis Coates]

55. Where do you draw the line?

What crimes are worth a life long loss of RKBA?

If I can't trust you with a gun why are you out of prison?

[TPaine7]

62. At violent felony, statutory rape and treason.

That's where I would draw it personally.

Of course you could try to convince a judge to restore your rights. You could point to special circumstances or evidence of rehabilitation. But I would make violent ex-cons plead for their rights--as opposed to having people with perfect records plead for theirs, as in NYC.

If I can't trust you with a gun why are you out of prison?

Freeing up space for more dangerous criminals due to budgetary constraints?

[Travis Coates]

66. Fair enough

I like that you give felons the option of petetioning for rights restoration.

I just don't think I should (hypotheticaly) lose my civil rights forever because I came up hot on a piss test in the Army

[AtheistCrusader]

57. That sort of sentence seems wrong to me.

People can be rehabilitated. Even pedophiles.

[TPaine7]

59. Morally, you may be correct.

Considered as a matter of policy preference, we are all entitled to our opinions. Personally, I weight the interests of the child as so much higher than that of the pedophile that the interests of the pedophile effectively vanish. Apparently our opinions differ. And you may right in your moral belief and I wrong.

What I think is beyond debate, however, is the fact that the state can consttutionally deprive a convicted violent felon of his gun rights whether he is imprisoned or not.

[Euromutt]

80. Most pedophiles can be rehabilitated

This is from an article in The Economist from a few years back (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VQTRPDT):

Contrary to the popular view, sex offenders can be treated. Don Grubin, a Newcastle psychiatrist, says that anti-depressant drugs and therapy seem to reduce the chance that a convict will offend again. And the mere fact of conviction may be enough to change minds. Unlike burglars and armed robbers, child abusers often suffer from the delusion that what they do is acceptable. A spell in prison, where they have to be protected from other inmates, will swiftly disabuse them of that notion.

Colin Pritchard, a psychiatrist who has studied paedophiles, says they are a diverse bunch. Most are “pathetic nuisances” who grope children but commit no other crimes. They respond well to treatment and are unlikely to re-offend. A smaller but much more dangerous group consists of men who, like Mr Huntley, are both abusive and violent. They are harder to treat, and more likely to re-offend—so much so that Mr Pritchard believes they should not necessarily be let out of prison.

The same article mentions that a USDoJ study indicated that while 39% of child molesters were rearrested within three years of release, only 3% were rearrested for a sex crime against a child.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Speaking of Prejudice, i've always wondered about the 'saturday night special' smear for

small inexpensive handguns, that people near or below the poverty line can still afford.

Efforts to ban them always seem to me to be unfairly targeted at people of lesser means.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. "If *all* cannot afford it, *none* should have it", then?

Opposition to gun ownership on class grounds? Quite the Leveller, you are.

Strangely, Switzerland does just what you posit and has a low violent crime rate.

We only claim the right to self defense *as best we can*

I feel badly for those who would arm themselves with a reliable firearm and can't afford it. I can't, myself,
yet somehow I don't resent those who can. Perhaps you could help provide fundulation to some would-be gun owner
in your area. Not for me, mind. I'll be saving my shekels for the day I can get something effective and reliable.

[TPaine7]

52. Citizens have the right to travel nationwide, and to relocate to the state of their choice.

The argument you are refuting is asinine. There are a multitude of parallels that you will never hear mentioned, as they do not fall under the gun control reality distortion field.

One easy example: Citizens have the right to travel nationwide, and to relocate to the state of their choice. But in practice, the very poor cannot relocate. This means that they are being deprived of liberty and the government must relocate them on demand, in order that they may have the same "rights" as Bill Gates.

Whatever.

[Chulanowa]

54. Where did I say this?

Where am I saying none should have guns?
Where am I opposing gun ownership on class grounds?
For that matter, where have I ever opposed gun ownership?

What you're doing is called "lying," friendly. It's where you say something that is explicitly untrue, in the hopes that others will believe the untruth.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

85. someone please direct this poster to the forum rules

He seems to have missed one.

[Euromutt]

81. The same applies to freedom of the press, when you think about it

So what you and your new idol are saying then, is that you have an inherent, inalienable, immobile right to be armed, pack your weapons, and proclaim the need for self-defense... but only for those people who can afford the expense.

By that same argument, people who state they are in favor of freedom of the press must be hypocrites because they don't support using tax funds to supply every adult citizen with their own printing press, radio transmitter or whatnot.

[TPaine7]

27. Here's someone "not famous":

Mr. Struthers. I move that the Convention go into committee of the whole, for the purpose of specific amendment, by inserting in the twenty-first section, after the word “citizens,” in the first line, the word “openly,” so as to read: “The right of the citizens openly to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.<”> ...

Mr. MacVeagh. For one, I shall vote against the proposition. I the first place, I think the present Constitution is perfectly explicit and satisfactory on this subject; and in the second place, I have never been able to understand why a man might not be under the necessity of protecting himself by carrying a weapon of defence.

Suppose an epidemic of garroting breaks out in the city of Philadelphia, as it did in the city of London a very few years ago; to tell me that I am to walk the streets of this city at night without any protection whatever from ruffians, is to state something to which I will never agree. Suppose I may be required, as I have been on different occasions, coming from the city of Washington upon a delayed train, to walk at half-past one or at two o’clock in the morning from the depot at Broad and Prime streets, and have my steps dogged all the way to the hotel, am I to have no possible protection?

I understand that among other things that cannot be taken from a man, is the privilege he has to defend his life and to protect himself. Of course he is answerable to the fullest extent for the use of it, and your law against carrying concealed weapons does not interfere with the habit among the dangerous classes. But there are periods in every community, periods of excitement, when it may be necessary for a man to say in his own behalf, “Say what your please and do what you please, but you must not beat or maltreat me,” and with all the inequalities of physical condition that exist, it is the very worst thing in the world to say that if a man of my condition offends a man like Judge Woodward, he is to take a severe beating whenever his enemy chooses to inflict it. I do not believe in it. I believe in the right of self-defence of the weak against the strong, and I do not propose to allow any man to maltreat me at his pleasure, as long as there are any weapons of defence to be had by which I can equalize any strength with his....

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=GDRHjKHxR2AC&pg=PA258&dq=%22The+right+of+the+citizens+openly+to+bear+arms%22&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22The%20right%20of%20the%20citizens%20openly%20to%20bear%20arms%22&f=false

I found this reading volokh.com here: http://volokh.com/2010/04/27/the-right-to-carry-concealed-guns-debate-pretty-similar-in-1872-and-in-2010/

MacVeagh served briefly as U.S. Attorney General, but he is certainly not famous today. You should agree with him because he makes sense.

(Edited to add context and sourcing.)

[Chulanowa]

29. I actually do agree with him

I simply don't agree with you, and I think your need to quote-mine, name-drop, and otherwise display your inability to make your own argument about a subject is really rather silly

[TPaine7]

31. Your disagreement with me is indeed "simple" (not to say dishonest)

If you actually believe that I "need" to quote anyone to make my own arguments.

Come on, we've discussed this subject before several times. You're not stupid enough, or even silly enough, to believe what you're pretending to believe. I make my own points all the time.

Stop your silly posturing, it's boring.

[Chulanowa]

34. Well, maybe if I ever saw you make your own arguments..

Having presented you with the opportunity to do so, all you can come up with is "nuh uh you're stupid I'm done bye." If we've discussed your inability to make a good argument in your own words, then I have to guess that's because it may be a recurring problem.

It's not posturing; I'm here for an argument, not some dude who copy-pastes everything he says from someone else.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. There is nothing wrong with quoting a more eloquent person.

The same points are still made. If you refuse to discuss the points because they are quotes it implies that you have no counter-argument.

[jazzhound]

41. Great quote, this. n/t

[TPaine7]

4. I would much rather someone made an "irrevocable choice" to use a gun

to stop the mugger, even if they had to shoot him and even if he died. Given the choice between



1) An irrevocable choice by a mugger to kill, wound or intimidate innocent people and a society of helpless victims

and

2) An irrevocable choice by a decent person to intimidate, wound or kill the mugger in legitimate defense of self or an innocent person



I will chose (2) every time. Which would you choose?

And I have a question for you. Is the death of the Good Samaritan irrevocable?

(Careful now. Remember, the mugger used a knife.)

[jazzhound]

10. "Is the death of the Good Samaritan irrevocable?"

The closed-minded false compassion of sharesunited doesn't allow him to contemplate such questions.

[jazzhound]

6. "Guns cloud judgement"

Ahh yes..........the "Bad Ju Ju" argument.

As in...........the BAD JU JU of the evil gun seeps into the gun owner and compels him to do that which he would never be capable of doing without the evil gun. He'd never kill with a hammer, a bat, his fists, or by strangulation. But put a gun in his hands and LOOK OUT!!

Talk about blinding stupidity.

[cowman]

7. Reeeeeeally

I've been carry a gun for years and my judgement is just fine, it sounds like you are the one with clouded judgement by trying to define the 2nd Amend differently from what it really means which, BTW, the SCOTUS has said is an individual right

[cliffordu]

12. My judgement was bad WAAAAAY before I got my first gun...

[one-eyed fat man]

8. Unclouded judgement and callous disregard

Here is another example of the great civic minded spirit in the Kitty Genovese tradition. A man lies dying on the street, in plain sight, after helping a woman escape an assailant. Stabbed for his trouble, no one comes to his aid or calls for help. Not even the woman whose life he likely saved.

Multiple Pedestrians Ignore Dying New York Hero

If this is what it takes to be a gun-free urban sophisticate, the studied and callous disregard of someone in trouble, you can just keep it.

[TPaine7]

9. Same story n/t

[cliffordu]

14. EXACTLY.

Fucking poodles.

[marybourg]

15. Yea, lots of folks running up and down the

crowded sidewalks with guns would have been a big help in this, or any, situation. And I don't think there was anything "studied or callous" in this situation, merely a mis-reading based on the prevalence of homeless sleeping or in a stupor on sidewalks all around this country.

[TPaine7]

18. We'll have to agree to disagree about the virtues of an armed society,

but you may have a point when you say you "don't think there was anything 'studied or callous' in this situation, merely a mis-reading based on the prevalence of homeless sleeping or in a stupor on sidewalks."

The one serious difficulty I have is that a mortally stabbed man on the sidewalk would make a big bloody spot, and would probably be calling out for help.

[jazzhound]

19. I agree to some extent with you about the manner in which we've become

desensitized to what might actually be going on with a person lying on a sidewalk. Still.........it's incredible that nobody seemed to care enough to at least approach and check out the man to see if a 911 call was in order.

Yea, lots of folks running up and down the crowded sidewalks with guns would have been a big help in this, or any, situation.

The blatant misrepresentation of the views of pro-gun rights persons on this board gets pretty damn tiresome.

[proteus_lives]

13. Standard SU non-logic.

Sorry bud, firearms don't have magical powers. Human being are responsible for their own choices.

I've been a gun-owner since I was 12 and I have yet to make a harmful or clouded choice with firearms. The story is the same with millions of Americans.

Will you admit your theory doesn't hold water?

[Euromutt]

30. I can answer that question

Will you admit your theory doesn't hold water?

Around the time Hell freezes over. Shares' opinion is purely faith-based, and as the saying goes, "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

[aikoaiko]

37. Do you not have any compassion for the person who defends him or her self with a gun from a threat?

Are you so beholding to your anti-gun stance that you cannot see that good people can use guns for good purposes (i.e., self-defense)?

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Properly, and lawfully used, guns can save lives as well.

[Remmah2]

46. Comparison?

The same thing could be said about the male penis.

[Travis Coates]

67. My penis

Has got me in faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more trouble then my gun ever did

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIqttbRlJUQ

[safeinOhio]

5. I think it is important for law abiding, sane citizens

to have the right to carry. I also think we need every law possible to keep law breakers and unstable folks from gaining access to fire arms. How to do that is the question. The greatest threat to the 2nd Amendment rights we now enjoy is the outbreak of gun violence that could sway public opinion away from those rights.

[marybourg]

16. I think it's important for law abiding sane citizens to supply a tax base

sufficient to support a reliable law enforcement apparatus and a civil society which relies on the commonly supported apparatus and not armed citizen defenders to protect itself. Anarchy follows otherwise.

[jazzhound]

17. Right ---- as anarchy has been the result in state after state after state

after state after state after state after state after state that has passed concealed carry legislation.

Better luck next time with your next one-legged argument.

[marybourg]

21. We've never been this far down this road since the days of the

wild west. That era lasted only a few years before civilizing influences took over, armed citizens were discouraged, then disarmed, and government supplied the law and order. Within the past decade or so, this has begun to be reversed and yes, with every citizen his own police force, anarchy will inevitably ensue. I'm a optimist however and I believe the pendulum will swing back the other way eventually.

[jazzhound]

22. "We've never been this far down the road"

With this vague statement I'm guessing your incorrectly asserting that violent crime is on the increase, but who knows.

The fact of the matter is that violent crime has been decreasing slightly but steadily nationwide while gun ownership has risen fairly sharply.

[marybourg]

23. No. Down the road to every man(or woman) being his own armed guard.

And the personal slurs are unnesessary.

[TPaine7]

26. Every woman or man is already her or his own guard.

All arming does is give the less athletic, the less experienced at street-fighting, the aged, the small, the slow, the handicapped, the sick and the outnumbered a better chance.

If you are assaulted, the odds of a police officer being able to protect you is vanishingly small. No society can provide guards, armed or otherwise, to protect every person.

[jazzhound]

60. You seem to be operating under the assumption that at some

"critical mass" in the number of guns all hell will break loose and we'll revert back to the "Wild West Days". Care to explain how you've arrived at that assumption?

For openers, estimates of the number of guns in this country range from 250-300 million. Can you give us a figure that represents the point where the number of guns "causes" societal decay? Secondly, while there definitely has been a spike in the number of CC permit holders the overall percentage of people who exercise that right remains modest. You're welcome to envision a time when 75% or more of the population is carrying arms, but barring a serious collapse in the social order it's extremely unlikely to occur. And if the social fabric degrades to the extent that people start rushing to get their own protection we won't even be having this discussion as the lack of wisdom of a "gun free society" will be a joke.

W/regard to your accusation of leveling "personal slurs" you're simply factually incorrect. Have I been cranky and needlessly confrontational at times? Yes.

[TPaine7]

20. Pick the state with the highest police to inhabitant ratio,

multiply that ratio by 10 and the odds of a law enforcement officer arriving quickly enough to stop a stabbing assailant is roughly equivalent to your winning a few million in a lottery.

Unless, of course your last name is Obama or Biden. (Come to think of it, I'm not even sure the Secret Service is that good. They rely on keeping knives out of the President's immediate vicinity, not on sufficient speed and reflexes to stop a knife attack.)

Have you visited any of the (vast majority of) states that allow concealed carry? Could you tell us about the anarchy you witnessed?

[PavePusher]

33. If I am in danger of being injured or killed by an attacker...

and somehow am fortunate enough to be able to dial 911...

What do I do while I am waiting for help to arrive?

Are you going to be there to provide security for me?

[Euromutt]

40. That sounds like a false dichotomy to me

And based on flawed premises at that.

The first is that any law enforcement apparatus can be relied to provide protection to each citizen where and when necessary. The phrase "there's never a cop around when you need one" exists for a reason; violent crimes happen even in police states. The police can, to a limited extent, deter crime, and investigate them afterwards, but they cannot be counted on to provide a timely intervention in 100% of cases.

The second is that the role of armed private citizens is to protect civil society, and in the combination of the two lies the false dichotomy. Protecting civil society as a whole is indisputably the role of the police and the criminal justice system, but they cannot protect the individual citizen; that task is one that can only be assumed by the citizens themselves. Hence the functions of the law enforcement apparatus and armed private citizens are complementary, not mutually exclusive. This is not an "either/or" proposition, but an "and" proposition.

[quickesst]

11. "sane, law-abiding citizen"

...a phrase, along with "responsible" that you will rarely hear in the arguments against gun ownership. It is an omission that, in many minds, helps to legitimize the arguments against gun owners. We, the responsible, we the law-abiding, and we the sane, are in their limited capacity, "all the same". Thanks.
quickesst

[Chulanowa]

36. Well, there's just one problem

Not all gun owners are sane, law-abiding, or responsible. The pro-gun side likes to pretend there is absolutely no overlap between, as one poster has termed it, "thus" and "gun owners" - East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet, y'know?

Trouble is, just as the Brady Bunch are living in a utopian fantasy universe, so are the gun bunnies. The bradies think that if no one has gun, everyone will be safe, while the Gun bunnies are certain that only the most flawless, responsible, stable people ever own the things.

Both you and they are missing the damn point.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. We're not 'missing the damn point', because you present a false equivalency

I'd expect this inabilty to grasp nuance at Free Republic, not here.

Trouble is, just as the Brady Bunch are living in a utopian fantasy universe, so are the gun bunnies. The bradies think that if no one has gun, everyone will be safe, while the Gun bunnies are certain that only the most flawless, responsible, stable people ever own the things.

While the Bradys may or may not be entirely sincere (the terms "false flag" and "rat fucking" come to mind), that is
more or less what they publicly proclaim.

Conversely, I've yet to read anyone (here, at least) claiming "...only the most flawless, responsible, stable people ever own the things...."

We do claim that the legal gun owners tend to be quite law abiding, and the actions of non-legal ones are not good reasons for restricting the rights of the former.

[Chulanowa]

49. You don't say "tend," you say "are"

If they ever do break the law, all of a sudden they are excommunicated, were NEVER "gun owners" and are now shadowrider's "thugs" and thus completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Becuase No True Gun Owner Would Do Anything Bad.

[shadowrider]

48. That poster was me

I said thugs are a major part of the gun/crime problem (as a percentage). (And before you ask, I define a Thug as someone who developed a rap sheet at 8 with petty larceny, graduated to auto theft/burglary by 12 and armed robbery/murder by 16. The ages are not locked in stone, but their pattern of behavior leads itself to continue, not stop. A thug can be of ANY color, ANY race, ANY religion, etc.).

Gun owners are NOT the problem as their involvement in crime is very, very low (as a percentage). I NEVER said gun owners are flawless, far from it. They're all human and humans are not flawless. Overall they are extremely responsible and stable and are SUPER cognizant of laws surrounding the use of deadly force.

You took my statement and embellished it into something I did not say, then repeat it as fact.

[Chulanowa]

51. No, I said exactly what you said

Your statement amounted to there being "thugs" and there being "gun owners" and that there was absolutely no overlap. There was no problem with "gun owners" you said, only with "thugs."

I agree that overall, most gun owners are stable. Then again, most people are stable; but some aren't. I see no reason to erase their existence from memory. I understand that the existence of less-than-stable gun owners is an inconvenient fact for people around here and so you try to deny it - just as you deny the fact that in order for a gun to protect you, you have to actually use it - but it IS still fact, and needs to be considered in the discussion.

[shadowrider]

53. "Amounted to" is your summation

Again, you read into it a little too far. AS A PERCENTAGE OF GUN CRIME COMMITTED, gun owners are NOT the problem. Thugs ARE.

Nowhere do I say gun owners are saints, nowhere do I say gun owners never commit gun crimes. They do and I freely admit it. But as a PERCENTAGE of overall crime, they are NOT the problem.

[Pholus]

38. Where's the limit then?

So an armed society is a polite society -- we have your thesis. Interminably!

How much armament is enough though? I just watched a couple of gun enthusiasts on Chris Matthews recently and
that question got them really giddy. They couldn't decide which AK or AR variant would be sufficient!

I grew up in a society of decent people who didn't need to carry. In fact, people who talked too much
about having to carry armament were considered a bit daft. And this was the WW II generation. What did
they know about guns that we appear to have forgotten?

I find it interesting that we keep having this stream of gun threads on DU by a bunch of supposedly liberal
gun owners, yet the gun culture as portrayed in the MSM seems to be overrun with right-wingers. Why are
you guys in here pushing on people you supposedly agree on most issues with rather than getting your voices
heard so the gun culture is not portrayed as some monochomatic organization that is exclusively GOP?
The Liberal Gun Club has done nothing since February and they're the most recent according to google!

Where was the support for the president of Cooper Firearms back in 2008 or for Jim Zumbo before that? How
can you guys let your voices get drowned out by a group that likes to use their guns politically to remind
us that they think they have other options than democracy on the table? Are you afraid that if you disagreed
with your fellows that they'd shun you? Having grown up around some of the bigger gun loons out there, I
could understand that. They are pretty vindictive and have VERY long memories.

[shadowrider]

39. How much armament is enough though?

Depends on how much you can afford.

[Pholus]

69. Edgy answer....

The problem is, it's either a *really* good joke or said in deadly earnest. I can't decide whether to laugh or to weep for our future! :)

[Travis Coates]

56. Cooper / Zumbo

Cooper makes single shot highend hunting rifles and wrote a big check to a candidate that wanted(wants to) put his compition out of business and LIED about it.

Zumbo wants to decide which firearms are acceptable for me to own

why would I support either one?

[Pholus]

70. Name some progressives/progressive ideals you DO support, please!

Seriously. I love debating gun enthusiasts because they think that finding a negation of every example is the end of the argument. For example, watching them go nuts on the minutia surrounding the term "assault rifle."

So let's make this more positive. Tell me some democrats you support. Who is doing a GOOD job from your point of view and why?

[AtheistCrusader]

75. There is no 'minutae' around the party's mis-use of the term Assault Rifle.

It's simply wrong, and needs to be corrected.

We cannot have productive discussions around proposed gun laws until everyone is speaking earthling, and it REALLY doesn't help our position when democrats get in front of mics and speak pure fantasy-land.

[Travis Coates]

76. I support the progressive idea of

Trusting people to make their own decisions WRT firearms ownership. I'm also quite Pleased W/ Senator Mark Udall's efforts to get Rampart Range reopened. do my Credentials pass muster now?

[jazzhound]

79. "For example, watching them go nuts on the minutia surrounding

the term "assault rifle."

First of all, the abused phrase is "assault weapon" ---- a completely manufactured moniker designed to keep the gun control argument down in the emotion-based argument gutter. And as AC has pointed out, there is nothing trivial about objecting to the continued support of "assault weapons" bans (and the bs descriptor itself) inasmuch as it does so much damage to the Democratic Party. I think you'd appreciate this if you had a deeper understanding of the facts and history surrounding the gun "control" debate.

As far as providing you with my bona fides regarding my status as a progressive ---- fuggetaboutit.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. I get in the face of conservative gun owners all the time.

Particularly at the range. They want to know why I'm a Democrat. It would make things a lot easier on my to engage with and debate these people if I didn't have to defend shitty legislation like the orginal AWB, or the follow-up pledges to re-instate it. That legislation is harmful to us politically, it is sold on lies and hysteria, and I'm sick and tired of it.

[Pavulon]

61. Bingo, it does not address the causes of violence and just pisses off

voters and causes people to vote against their interest. It will stop being a wedge issue when we just drop it.

[jazzhound]

64. Exactly ----- there you go.

I must say though, I make it a point to stay out of politics at the range!

[Pholus]

71. Okay, I can see that. What limits on gun ownership are reasonable?

I really do want to know. Are guns supposed to be the only completely unregulated thing in this country, freely obtainable by anyone for any reason?

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Gun owners have agreed to far more regulation than you seem to think.

Between state and federal laws, and each state will vary, we could be here all day and I couldn't relay them all to you. It would fill entire volumes.

No one is pushing for 'no regulation' of firearms. In 1934 we passed a law requiring registration, inspection, a full background check, and periodic inspection for all assault rifles, submachine guns, any weapon that fires more than one round per pull of the trigger. In 1986 that registry was forcibly closed by the government, so no new machine guns of any type for civilian ownership, and existing machine guns that were already registered to individuals cost tens of thousands of dollars now. They are effectively out of circulation. There are people that encourage eliminating the Hughes Amendment so the registry can be re-opened for new weapons, but there is no political movement to get rid of the 1934 NFA.

We've also limited firearms larger than .51 caliber as 'destructive devices' instead of firearms, because they are used not for shooting people or animals, but for shooting materials, such as vehicles. (Bonus laws, the geneva conventions specify how those weapons must be used as well)

There are specific state and federal laws around age, to acquire, and to possess firearms of differing types. Same for mental health issues by prospective owners. Same for the nature of sales, etc.

These are laws the general public agrees with. The AWB was sold on false pretenses, to combat a problem it could not impact in any way, and it didn't even accomplish what the authors intended. It was a legislative lie. Repealing it (or letting it sunset and never reviving it) does not amount to 'completely unregulated'. 'Assault Weapons' are still heavily regulated, particularly in certain states like California and Hawaii.

[jazzhound]

63. Not sure why you assume that the only pro gun rights activity we pursue is

posting on this discussion board.

I've always believed that a good way to effect change is to let my Democratic leaders know that they won't be getting any more of my $$ until they stop shooting themselves in the foot and damaging the nation with useless gun laws which sabotage their agenda. By virtue of the fact that I donated heavily to President Obama's campaign and the DNC I've been bombarded with solicitation letters from Dem pols across the country. Instead of getting a check in the postage-paid envelope they get a piece of my mind with the request to take me off their mailing list. I've made the personal decision that it's time to practice "tough love" with our leaders. And while I have a form letter prepared, I sometimes customize the note based on who sent me the solicitation. In the case of Joe Biden, I reminded him of his damaging (sneering) response to a question raised by a gun owner during the Dem primary debate. In the case of Charles Schumer I remind him of his sneering expression of contempt caught on video as a survivor to Luby's Massacre was testifying before him and others.

As far as confronting the hard-righters ---- sorry, but there just aren't enough hours in a day.

[Pholus]

68. I already knew you are pro-gun rights -- I'm asking if you are pro-progressive rights.

Your answer appears to be no.

[shadowrider]

72. Are you saying it's either/or?

It IS possible to be a good liberal AND support 2A rights/CCW. For too many posters on this forum, it's a concrete black/white proposition. Either you're a good liberal and abhor guns, or you're not a good liberal because you support 2A.

IMHO, 2A support is apolitical. There may exist a large rift between left/right as far as politics goes, but 2A is one issue that unites them.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. What, like a constitutional amendment to protect a woman's right to choose?

Or full, nationwide gay marriage? (not this bullshit seperate but equal horsecrap 'civil unions')
Or overturning the Patriot Act and countless other infringements on our civil liberties?

What litmus test do you wish to gauge my 'progressiveness' by? I'm willing to bet I'd damn near peg it to the limit.

[jazzhound]

78. "What litmus test do you wish to gauge my 'progressiveness' by?

I'm willing to bet I'd damn near peg it to the limit."

I believe I would as well.

[jazzhound]

77. What shadowrider said. My answer is *most certainly NOT* no.

In fact I'll take what shadowrider said a step further by suggesting that it's faux progressives who support certain civil rights while opposing others.

I don't want to read too much into your question, but it sure smacks of what we've heard before --- which is that our loyalty to progressive causes is somehow seen as compromised by virtue of our support of RKBA. At minimum you've created a false dichotomy.

[jazzhound]

83. kicked n/t

[jody]

84. Liberal means for minimum government and maximum individual liberty. You advocate a true liberal

agenda not the corrupt policies espoused by those who masquerade as liberals and advocate prohibiting an individual from using firearms for self-defense.