In praise of anti-gun defiance

[TPaine7]

I must express my thanks to those who have fought tooth and nail to ensure that sane, law abiding adult Americans lack the means to defend themselves. Sure their cause is morally and logically reprehensible. Sure their government officials are, in large part, hypocrites who will  not hesitate to arm themselves and their bodyguards (and spouses and relatives and mistresses and fellow thugs). It is true that they are defying the Constitution and even the current, popular will of the American people. But I believe that credit must be given where it is due.

So I sing your praises, extremists! Without you, there never would have been a Heller decision, or a McDonald. States and localities would still be flying in the face of the Framers of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments--with relative impunity.

I think you should keep up the good work. Every little tinpot dictator and anti-constitutional thug should engage in what one judge perceptively called "thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court." ( http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/9C0NWF4M.pdf  p 52). I think your lawyers should keep making pathetic arguments that will elicit devastating rulings. I think that DC and Chicago and Hawaii and LA should not give up the "good fight" until they are stripped of their ability to make laws affecting guns and court appointed experts take over that role. I think they should force even the most reluctant courts to concede that their bad faith tactics demand the strictest of strict scrutiny.

More power to the extremists!

I'm tempted to donate to the Brady Campaign and the VPC... but  not enough to actually follow through.

[rrneck]

1. Is this a great country or what? nt

[jeepnstein]

2. Sure is!

[DWC]

3. This OP made my day. Thank you! n/t

[intaglio]

4. So, are you proposing assassination as a tool of democracy?

Or perhaps you view the concept of a government or state controlled militia as being "unAmerican"

You would certainly seem to regard the best defense as being attack, so why not shoot any stranger who enters your neighbourhood? In which case the nervous, frightened and paranoid are set to inherit the earth.

[rrneck]

6. Looks like you're looking to gain some property. nt

[gejohnston]

7. The mother of all straw men or

you were so impressed with Mount Lishan's terracotta army, you decided to make your own of straw men.

Who has been advocating anarchy?
The best defense is having situational awareness and best tool for the job. Attack is not defense. Why not shoot any stranger? because it would be murder.

Sometimes it is not paranoia, you have do business making judgements about people or situations you know nothing about.

The frightened and paranoid are the ones who think that every target shooter and hunter next door to them are time bombs waiting to go off. The insanely nervous and paranoid are the ones who think those same target shooters and hunters are redneck terrorists bent on helping make Sarah Palin theocratic for life.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Executive Orders #11905, 12333 ban assassination.

Is that a good idea? http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2006/0406/lill/lilly_crosshairs.html

[rl6214]

15. You just worry about the UK

We'll worry about the US.

Maybe you could post that on the UK version of DU.

[spin]

5. The current laws should be enforced and in some cases improved ...

For example we should not stand for government agencies such as the ATF allowing the straw purchase of firearms with full knowledge that these weapons will find their way into the hands of criminals in both this nation and Mexico.

Perhaps the penalties for the straw purchase of a firearm need to be stiffened but one thing is absolutely certain, the job of law enforcement is to enforce the law - not to allow or even encourage and foster criminal activity, especially when deadly weapons are involved that will be used to kill or injure innocent people.

I can also support improvements to the NICS background check system. The names of people who should not be allowed to legally purchase firearms from gun stores, including criminals and those who have been legally adjudged to have severe mental issues, should be on this list. Many states have been slow to post the names of such individuals to the national database. This needs to be corrected.

I also believe that no areas or cities should be allowed to have draconian gun laws that prohibit or ban the ownership of firearms by honest citizens when such firearms are readily available and commonly owned by citizens in other areas of our nation. That's why I support the recent rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases in Washington D.C. and Chicago. Why should citizens in Tampa Florida be allowed to own handguns while citizens in Chicago or Washington D.C. can not. Why should New York City be allowed to have laws that make handgun ownership so expensive and difficult that only the rich and privileged have the money, the time and the influence to obtain a license? Are citizens in some areas of our nation more equal than citizens in other areas? Are the upper class more capable and responsible to handle firearms than the lower classes. Is the life of a wealthy banker or a celebrity who lives in a gated community in a crime free area of a city so much more valuable than that of much poorer individual who lives in a dangerous slum area that one should have the right to own or even carry a firearm for self defense while the other, possibly more deserving person, should be denied?

The object of future gun control laws should be to focus on taking firearms from criminals not honest people. At a minimum the punishment for an individual with a violent criminal record caught carrying a firearm illegally in public should be so severe as to discourage that activity.

The fact that gun sales has skyrocketed in recent years and that now all but one state allow some form of legal concealed carry has not led to an increase in violent crime, in fact the opposite. While allowing honest citizens to own firearms may not have been the main reason that the violent crime rate has fallen, it has proved that more guns does not equal more crime.

It's time for those who want to ban all firearms or to make ownership so difficult that only the rich and the well connected can own guns to realize that their efforts are wasted and foolish and are not solving or reducing the violent crime rate as much as if they were actually trying to improve and enforce existing law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. re: The object of future gun control laws should be...

It's time to move toward a zero-tolerance policy for violent crime.
Murder's, rapists and other serious violent attackers need to go away for life.

It's time to end some of the drug bans, marijuana for example.

[spin]

11. We definitely need to end the failed war on drugs ...

it backfired and led to the development of organized drug gangs and has also led to a war between the drug cartels and the Mexican government that could eventually find its way into our nation.

History repeats itself and when our nation tried to prohibit alcohol we had a similar failure.

After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as bootlegging (rum-running) became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally imported to the U.S. Chicago became notorious as a haven for prohibition dodgers during the time known as the Roaring Twenties. Prohibition generally came to an end in the late 1920s or early 1930s in most of North America and Europe, although a few locations continued prohibition for many more years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

Marijuana should definitely be legalized. It should have never been illegal to begin with. The laws against the use of marijuana have racist roots just as many gun control laws.

Why is Marijuana Illegal?

***snip***

5. It was once associated with oppressed ethnic groups.
The intense anti-marijuana movement of the 1930s dovetailed nicely with the intense anti-Chicano movement of the 1930s. Marijuana was associated with Mexican Americans, and a ban on marijuana was seen as a way of discouraging Mexican-American subcultures from developing.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/tp/Why-is-Marijuana-Illegal.htm

[jpak]

10. What a stupid post

:rofl:

[armueller2001]

12. Blind ignorance.

Attitudes like yours are exactly what the OP is talking about, and have resulted in court rulings which end up expanding the rights of gun owners.

Thank you!

#headinthesand

[jpak]

13. "gun extremism" = "teh stupid"

yup

:rofl:

[rl6214]

17. "teh stupid"= stupid juvenile shtick

At least that's the way the teenagers my 16yo son hangs out with act and write.

But you enjoy your new shtick. Acting like a 16yo.

[TPaine7]

14. Thanks! That's high praise considering... And thanks for your opposition, too. n/t

[rl6214]

16. You're talking about your post

Right?

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Our side has been winning, your side has been losing.

In the past few weeks several states have enacted NRA backed laws. Your side has not had a single anti-gun victory so far this year.

[armueller2001]

21. It really has been a fantastic year for gun rights.

Gonna be awesome when all 50 states have CCW laws on the books, and it's only matter of time before a national reciprocity bill passes. The permits are going to be just like drivers' licences. :bounce:

[east texas lib]

24. If you are referring to the one I'm responding to, then I heartily concur.

:rofl:

[ileus]

18. What a great post......POTD

[GreenStormCloud]

20. If it were not for the antis the NRA would still be a gun safety and marksmanship organization. N/T

[benEzra]

22. The 1990s "assault weapon" fraud helped give us 49-state CCW licensure, among other things. (n/t)

[AzWorker]

23. Excellent post OP !!

Thanks!!

[east texas lib]

25. Good post, TP7...

As a plus, you've already irritated one of the under the bridge types. Zing!:D

[DanTex]

26. All hail the GOP and the Scalia majority!

Making sure our murder rate stays way above the rest of the industrialized world! Woo-hoo! In your face liberals!

Hey, maybe I should just become a teabagger. Gloating over right-wing victories is so much more fun than fighting for social justice.

Hey liberals, guess where all the money has gone over the last few decades. That's right, to the richest 1%! Hahahaha! Looks like the "class warfare" backfired. Liberals lose again! And good luck finding a union job, cause the same right-wing nutcases who brought you right-to-carry are now sweeping the nation with right-to-work! Freedom! USA! Low paying jobs and gun violence, all the way!

Plus, as a teabagger, I would have decades of 5-4 far-right SCOTUS decisions to celebrate. Bush v Gore, Heller, Citizens United, WalMart. Judicial awesomeness!


Even better, I'll be a corporate lobbyist. That way I can enjoy $300 bottles of wine with Paul Ryan, while commenting that despite what the "liberal media" says, neither of us have ever seen any firsthand poverty, unemployment, gun violence, or uninsured people in our entire lives. Those are "other people's problems".
:sarcasm:

[DonP]

27. Lie still, the Wahmbulance will be here for you really soon

If you could show us a single state that passed CCW with only GOP votes you might have a point.

Or if the Heller decision didn't have all 9 justices agreeing that the RKBA was indeed an individual right, even that crazy right wing nut Ginsberg, you might have a point.

But you don't. All of these things that upset you have been passed with Dem votes too and will continue to be. That's the things that really upsets you methinks. You are realizing that you are the one out of the mainstream.

If you don't have a real point, just claim that it's all a right wing plot and everyone that disagrees with you must be a GOP shill. Sounds like somebody else around here.

But you don't have a point, just sour grapes rapidly becoming a cheap whine.

[DanTex]

29. Yeah, a lot of Dems voted for the Iraq war, too.

As well as the Bush tax cuts. Sadly, you are correct when you say many things that upset me have been passed with Dem support. And even with the presidency and both houses, we still couldn't get the public option. I've seen plenty of teabaggers gloating about that as well.

Actually, since I'm not one to shy away from political discussions with people I disagree with, so I've heard my fair share of teabagger gloating on all these issues. Personally I find the gloating to be in bad taste, because these are real issues that affect real people. The loss of the public option will actually cause a great deal of human suffering, the Iraq war cost lives and lots of money, etc. Of course, pro-gun extremists aren't really known for good taste, so your juvenile mockery doesn't come as much of a surprise.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Frankly, *you* should be thanking *us*.

For helping to remove the automatic assumption "Is a Democrat" = "supports gun control".


You lot have been exaggerating the negative effects of widespread gun ownership for years, and blithely (or maybe

not-so-blithely) insulting and demonizing gun owners and gun culture in the bargain by conflating it with criminal acts

and thug culture.


If the mainstream of recent history means that the subset of Dems that support draconian gun control are losing their

influence within the party and the culture at large in order to further the advance of the Democratic Party as a whole-

and I believe it does-


Then I say good, and hard cheese for those who would rather have their version of 'purity' than keep the Republicans out of power.

[gejohnston]

28. That's OK, UK will still top us in violent crime.

Our murder rate will always be above the rest of the industrialized world when their gun laws were laxer than ours. Until we come to terms with our empire building, history of genocide and racism, all of the gun laws in the world won't do squat.

There are no liberals on the SCOTUS. What passes for liberals are Ford era Republicans.

While Heller was 5-4, the concept of individual right outside of militia was nine zip, and founded on precedent. So, to lump it with Bush v Gore or Citizens United (which the ACLU supported by the way) is absurd. Your straw man of the "liberal media" is also crap. It has a cosmopolitan and corporate bias, but not liberal or conservative.

I know you like Joyce Foundation economists better, but a professor of criminology put it best.

‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... 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.’’

— Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

For more modern

Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all-pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism. Gary Kleck, PhD Professor of Criminology

patterns of firearms ownership tend to be inversely correlated with violent crime rates, a curious fact if firearms stimulate aggression. It is hard to explain that where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest. criminologist Hans Toch

I'm a Second Amendment Liberal.. and anyone that isn't has a pre-Bush mentality. It can happen here.

[TPaine7]

31. Thank you for your opposition.

The tactic of labeling a regressive policy "liberal" and then condemning those who disagree has long since lost its original, feeble power to intimidate. I will not eat a road apple because you have solemnly christened it "cake."

The way you ignore the substantive issues--for instance, the hypocrisy--is especially helpful and representative of your side. The "The safety of MY family comes first"--(while the safety of other families matters not at all ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576434181088614252.html?mod=WSJ_article_LatestHeadlines ))' philosophy gets all the respect it deserves.

The "liberalism" that sees that as an appropriate response to the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" and the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is finally getting the ugly death it deserves.

Yes, I'm wearing brightly colored clothes and dancing at the funeral. It's appropriate.

Thanks again for your opposition.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Certain self-proclaimed "liberals" don't like it when the proles get uppity...

...and start doing things without consulting their betters.


We can only hope that the great mass of the Democratic Party (and sympathetic non-Democrats) learn from, and are inspired by,

us pro-2A types. I daresay that prospect fuels at least some of the anger of gun control bitter-enders...

[SteveM]

34. Remember: Gun-controllers have made their own nest...

Since you profess such concern about "finding a union job," "low paying jobs," "teabaggers," "poverty, unemployment, gun violence, " you might want to read up on what Eugene V. Debs had to say about the Second Amendment.

He went to jail for those concerns.

www.liberalswithguns.com/ -

[virginia mountainman]

33. They have no clue, how their "antics" end up helping our side..

Great post BTW!!