I'm done arguing with gun proponents

[BainsBane]

When Joe Scarborough comes out for gun control, when Republicans post gun control petitions on Romney's webpage, the days of NRA terrorism in this country are coming to an end. I don't care what the intransigent gungeon dwellers here think. They are irrelevant. We now live in a different world. If a Republican is willing to work on gun control, he is worth more than 1000 so-called Democrats who don't care enough about the lives of children to work toward solutions that include some limitations on their arsenals. The safety of our nation's children must be our first priority. As the President said, if we can't protect our children, we fail our most basic responsibilities as a nation. Without that, we deserve nothing; we are nothing.

[liberal N proud]

1. When you argue with a gunnut, you must remember, they have guns

Sometimes, many guns.

[BainsBane]

5. They can't shoot me over the Internet

And if they violate the law, I'm happy to see them locked up.

[liberal N proud]

7. Not all arguments are over the internet

They take place in the homes and workplaces, bars and coffee shops all over America. And the gun nuts act like bullies when they get questioned over this subject.

[BainsBane]

8. I have no intention of arguing with them at all

As I said in my OP. I'm focused on action, on changes necessary to prevent future massacres.

[liberal N proud]

9. That can't happen without discussion and the gun nuts are not about to discuss it

And when they do, it becomes an argument.

I have walked away from so many conversations with gun nuts because you can't have a civil conversation over the subject. I don't even darken the threshold of the Gun Nut forum on this site.

[BainsBane]

13. Then they will have nothing to say about the solution

If they refuse to acknowledge a problem and won't engage in a discussion about solutions, they make themselves irrelevant. That Is their choice. There are going to be enough Americans willing to act, even if they won't.

[calimary]

14. All the more reason to crack down.

NOBODY needs "many guns." "Many guns"? WTF???? Seriously. What civilian needs "many guns"? Just WHY does one need "many guns"? For what purpose? Unless it's an outward sign of an inner instability? The days of Davy Crockett and the OK Corral are OVER. Okay? The purpose of guns is killing, and inflicting damage. That's what they're designed for. Primarily and exclusively. An enemy or an innocent victim regardless, it's STILL killing. You know, that thing that the so-called "right-to-lifers" are always insisting is criminally and sinfully and apocalyptically wrong? In case anyone on their side is still confused, cars are not that. Even knives are not that. As in - NOT designed primarily and exclusively for killing, and inflicting damage.

[Fresh_Start]

32. but I'm not afraid of their guns, even their many guns

and in terms of needing guns as protection against the government...
the government has drones....guns can't protect against drones.

[liberal N proud]

49. O K .

[geomon666]

68. Let them shoot me.

Just proves my belief that guns should be banned in this country.

[AldoLeopold]

76. They can come at me

[link:|

[Kurska]

2. Hope you have this bookmarked when absolutely nothing at all changes

[BainsBane]

4. Is that because you don't want it to change?

Or aren't willing to work for it?

[Chorophyll]

20. That's helpful.

You playing that little violin for the children of Newtown? Then go on with your bad self.

[AldoLeopold]

78. Don't you think we owe it to those little kids

to do whatever we can and keep a positive attitude?

Or do you just not give a shit?

[Bohunk68]

3. I've blocked

a friend's son on fb, the only time that I have ever done that. The breaking point was when he made the comment that it was the first thing that Hitler did when he came to power. For me, that did it. I had been going to the parents' home for Xmas but am now reconsidering that decision. I know that the subject will come up and rather than driving 3 1/2 hours to go some place to get into an argument, get angry and leave, it might be better not to go in the first place. I have already been invited to share Xmas with friends only an hour away and know that there will be no argument there.

[sellitman]

6. I have unfriended 3 people so far

One for posting about how precious his gun rights are hours after the shooting and two more for agreeing with Huckabee that the carnage is somehow related to no God allowed in school.

[kag]

29. I've unfriended one...so far.

Another guy is pissing me off enough that I may have to do the same. I think there have been some significant changes on FB over this.

[DUgosh]

37. We skipped the annual family gathering yesterday

Every one of them packing

[Comrade_McKenzie]

10. Me too. But the argument with censorhip proponents is just beginning...

I can't believe how many dumb fucks on here are falling for Joe's entertainment industry bullshit. Hook, line, and sinker.

[BainsBane]

12. We need to examine all factors

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 09:36 AM - Edit history (1)

And examine the social science literature on exposure to violence in video games and films. I find it difficult to believe that a boy who spends hours a day practicing to kill people in a virtual world Is entirely unaffected by that experience. We need to learn what legitimate studies on the issue reveal. Our solutions need to be evidence based to be effective.

[loyalkydem]

11. I'm done with them as well. I just used my ignore list for the first time on DU and I will be using

it again.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. Oh, we shouldn't ignore them...we should all post hundreds of posts in the gungeon and make their

lives here miserable. They've gotten away with murder, so to speak. They've been given a free pass for their amoral and despicable behavior. No more. Even on this thread, we have the "Nothing's going to change, tral la la, we're going to win" arrogance. It's as if they don't even recognize that 26 people - most of them six year olds - were murdered the other day in part because of their own philosophy. Now they're whining about "witch hunts" and "McCarthyism." Like all bullies, when they are punched back at, they run the cowards they are.

It's certainly true that the conversation with them is over, but that doesn't mean their free pass continues through indifference. We need an ACT-UP type movement that confronts them constantly, in their faces at every turn.

[BainsBane]

19. Go for it

I don't put them on ignore, but I choose to focus my efforts at enacting change. But I'm all for your carpet bombing them. They need to know we will no longer tolerate their BS. They need to know their views are unacceptable. If they remain intransigent, they deserve to be social pariahs.

[loyalkydem]

23. I understand your reasoning

but my patience for them is not as great as yours. I guess because I been the victim of right wing bullies on facebook, I have no tolerance for them any more. I'm sorry just how I feel.

[graham4anything]

79. This is what I have done, and in the past, I was pretty much alone

If one looks at my transparency record, one sees I am in that area a bit.
What it does NOT show you is 100% of every one of my posts are anti-gun, and more important ANTI-NRA.

100% of those posts.

I wish there was a way that could clarify that so people looking in don't lump me with them.

Now, I do have to say- NO to witchhunts we just have a disagreement on the issue with them.

I am NOT for censorship, and I realize I will not change most of their minds. But in numbers, with more people posting there, we could be the equalizers so that when only one person like myself is there, it is lonely, if alot come, it is a community and we can surpass the number and show that (much like President Obama in the election showed that the opposition was not as big as Mittens thought it was) and prevail that way.

Remember the SOP as they refer to it is about guns and the 2nd. It does NOT say one has to be pro-gun, or pro-NRA to enter. Argue the specific points on their turf.

Think of it like a baseball game, like my NY Mets going to St. Louis and playing at the Cardinals stadium. Think of the fans of the Cardinals and how they treat the Mets.
And in a good year, like 1969 was in baseball, think of how the NY Mets destroyed the Cardinals.

Or the Red Sox entering Yankee Stadium, or the Yankees entereing Fenway.

one day one has the advantage, but the next year, the other team all of a sudden does.

[loyalkydem]

80. So if what I read you saying is

that we have the advantage. Okay I concede that, but the majority of the time and this is true on facebook that they take the opportunity to spam the heck out of my pages and I don't want any part of that. Sure it means that my page doesn't grow like I would like it but at the same time I'm not exposed to their lies and their NRA talking points. Like Stephanie says, if we drop the talking points, treat each other with respect and focus on those 20 babies, then we could get some where.

[graham4anything]

81. I don't do facebook, ...

so that part of it I don't have. But can't you set facebook or twitter to only accept certain responses. So that you can more or less have your own point of view on that with no responses? (and that would make it safe for friends and family).

Same as like in biz. I wouldn't preach anti-guns to my customers because well, that is bad for the biz and leads or could lead to bad publicity and no more biz.

In that section, make the points that keep with their fabled SOp's I think they call it.

pro or con on that area and drive the point across and then debate, but just debate the issues and the kids

imho

[loyalkydem]

82. We just agree to disagree on this one

I have given up trying to talk to the Republican Party and the extremist.

[graham4anything]

84. I thought you wanted to fight them on their turf, my mistake

I myself am not attempting to change the few that are there who post in mass numbers so it looks like alot but it isn't, their opinion

I am trying to attempt to make that part of the board have both view points so a reader reading in will see that it can be fought.

btw-their "turf" so to say is not exclusive to their viewpoint. Nowhere does it say in what they call their sop that one has to be pro-gun or pro-nra. Far as I can tell.
though as its a private group and not public general discussion, they do control what stays and what goes.

Wonder if its possible to have a new group of anti-nra, anti-gun in the same subsection?

[loyalkydem]

85. Do not assume things about me please

I'm not the only one who has had it with the gun supporters. If you want to go ahead, knock yourself out. I don't want any part of it. I want to keep my sanity thank you.

[DocMac]

17. I have put three people on my

ignore list in my 1 1/2 years here up to yesterday. It stands at 15 now and sure to grow.

[erinlough]

71. I have ignored 30 of them so far, I went back to check and 5 have already been tomb stoned.

I can't listen to the stale NRA talking points and I'm not going to change my mind anyway.

[DanTex]

15. The gun nuts are a small but vocal minority.

The reason that gun control has not happened in the past is because, although most people support many common-sense gun laws, the gun control advocates aren't as vocal and determined on this one issue. The gun nuts think about nothing but guns all day, every day.

So trying to persuade the NRA crowd is pointless. What is useful is building activism and interest among progressives of sound mind, so we can get over the mentality that nothing can be done, or that the NRA will block any gun laws so there's no point.

[BainsBane]

18. The NRA is in hiding

They know their position is indefensible. I believe their reign of terror is coming to an end.

[Chorophyll]

21. May it come to pass.

We'll make it come to pass.

[BainsBane]

22. Would you support a gun control activism group

here on DU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240188872

[Chorophyll]

24. Are you kidding? OF COURSE I would.

I'll go to that thread right now.

[Pholus]

26. I disagree. I think they're waiting out the news cycle.

Christmas is a week away. They think that will break the momentum. Until then, just don't stick foot in their mouths is the order of the day.

[rustydog]

70. They have their mouthpieces out there

defecrive Republlicans from Oregon, Mike Fuckabee, Ghomert, Slant head hannity....
The NRA is laying low, but they are not silent, their goons are working it right now.

[Bonhomme Richard]

25. It's an eye opener to me that, even after this tragedy, there are...

gun owners here that would not give up one single thing, even if it is only a slight inconvenience, to help stop this slide into madness. Their thinking is it's our own damn fault because everyone should carry a gun.
The bottom line is, they are an extremely paranoid group and someone needs to do an intervention.

[Recursion]

27. That's completely unfair

At least speaking for myself, my disagreement isn't that it's "wrong" to try to ban guns but that it won't work. And I never really see that addressed, at all. I see tons of people trying to persuade me that there are too many guns and too much gun violence, when I already agree with that, and nobody ever gives me a reason to think that banning guns will be more effective at keeping people from getting guns than banning marijuana has been at keeping people from getting it.

[Bonhomme Richard]

31. To ban guns would be unfair but I didn't.......

propose that. Hell, I don't want my guns taken ( for the record I have 3 handguns and a couple of .22 rifles and a CCW) but what I do want is a dialog about magazine capacity, about any and all loopholes in gun sales, about a serious effort to stop illegal gun trafficking and illegal guns in the inner city.
Why won't so many be willing to have a legitimate discussion without talking about freedoms and the slippery slope. They are only responses to stop discussion.
For someone here to write off these deaths as "Freedom is Messy" as they did is insane and shows a complete lack of empathy which happens to be one of the worse traits for a gun owner to have.

[BainsBane]

33. No one is even seriously talking about banning guns

We're talking about banning high-death count magazines, assault weapons, and closing the gun show loophole. But some on this site refuse to even consider doing without magazines equipped to shoot hundreds of rounds. Why? Their only purpose is mass murder. You can't hunt with those magazines. They aren't necessary or appropriate for self defense. Their purpose is to inflict maximum casualties. While that might be justified during war, they serve no legal purpose domestically.

[Recursion]

35. "assault weapons" and "the gun show loophole" are fictions

and, yes, I bristle when I hear them because they're pretty much definitive proof that somebody is talking about something without understanding it, particularly since people seem to think I'm crazy because I don't follow along.

Private parties selling firearms are currently forbidden from accessing the NICS instant check system. That has nothing to do with "gun shows". We use the phrase "gun show loophole" because it scares suburban people. It's dishonest and it bothers the hell out of me.

Banning "assault weapons" means that a rifle can have either a pistol grip or a bayonet lug but not both. It was a stupid law then, it would be a stupid law now, and I hate being told that I'm the crazy person for opposing it.

Banning high capacity magazines could be a good idea. There's a few hundred million of them out there already, and I haven't heard a serious plan for addressing that.

And, in fact, people are talking on this board all the time about banning semi-automatic weapons.

[BainsBane]

39. Yes, I don't know about guns

If you want to lend your knowledge to finding solutions, I welcome your input. But if your goal is to dissemble in order to avoid facing the problem, I'm not interested.

40% of guns are sold with no background check. That must end. No one needs a gun used in a war zone. The constitution may guarantee the right to bear arms, but no rights are unlimited.

For me, learning has meant higher education and reading, not practicing how to kill. I make no apologies for that. But gun owners have expertise that the rest of don't, and some--if not most--are willing to find ways to curb mass gun proliferation leading to mass murder. Their assistance is crucial.

[Recursion]

42. It's difficult for Congress to keep people from selling their own property

Though I'd be the first to argue that violence affects interstate commerce enough that they can have that power, I doubt SCOTUS would accept that (particularly after they struck down the Violence Against Women Act's similar rational in Brzonkala). And even then I think the "better" solution is to attach criminal liability if you transfer a weapon to someone who uses it in a crime. Though that would have to be done through the states.

No one needs a gun used in a war zone.

The most common gun used in a war zone is the AK-47, which is practically impossible for a civilian in the US to buy (you'd have to find one, and their import and manufacture are banned so you have to get them from a fixed population from a collector, you'd have to get a federal firearms license, you'd have to get permission of local law enforcement, and you'd have to get a $200 tax stamp in addition to the cost of the gun). Ditto the M-16.

There are rifles that look like AK-47's and M-16's, but operate exactly the same as your grandfather's hunting rifle, and that's what we tried to ban (though the result was that the manufacturers removed the bayonet lug to escape the ban, and sales skyrocketed).

If you want to lend your knowledge to finding solutions, I welcome your input.

Well, let's focus on the illegal gun transfers that are currently happening. That's a ton of them, and making them illegal clearly hasn't stopped them. Rather than make more kinds of transfers illegal I would prefer to see what it would take to stop the currently illegal ones. Yes, that is in fact an argument the NRA sometimes makes too, but a broken clock is right twice a day.

If we can avoid the phrase "gun show loophole" I am 100% behind allowing (or better yet, mandating) that private parties selling use the national background check system.

I'm also big on using Federal money as an incentive to get states to keep that database up to date (that would have kept Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, from getting his weapons legally).

What I think is a horrible idea is banning weapons based on a specific list of features. It's as pointless as banning drugs has been, and beyond that it's politically damaging. Sometimes you have to take a fall to pass a good law, but losing the Senate over a bad law is a dumb idea.

[BainsBane]

45. Sounds like you have some valuable knowledge

And good ideas. I've posted in meta a call for an activism group. Perhaps you could read over what people have posted to see if you would be comfortable participating. Obviously I will need to do a lot of reading on the issue, but reading can't substitute for the practical knowledge gun owners posses.

[Bonhomme Richard]

41. I'll address high capacity magazines.

My view is that all new magazines should be limited to six rounds. Why six? Because that deals with the messiness of dealing with most revolvers.
If you already own magazines with greater capacity (like me) then you are grandfathered. The only hitch is that you cannot take them out of your home. Anyone caught outside the home with a magazine larger than 6 rounds it's a felony. All those that invested in large magazines I have the same sympathy for as I would have for all those invested in the buggy whip business when Ford started mass producing cars.
There is no legitimate reason versus the potential for greater tragedy for needing more than six rounds. At best it is a convenience.
I am not putting all the on emphasis on the back of gun owners. We also need to stop screwing around and address the trafficking in illegal guns and guns in the inner city.

[Recursion]

44. A few hundred million high capacity magazines are out there. Maybe a buyback would work

If we leave them out there, then they're still out there, and the ban on having them in public isn't going to be very persuasive to somebody who's shooting up a shopping mall.

California has a requirement that rifles that accept detachable magazines have a button-like thing that makes you have to use a screwdriver to change magazines. Maybe that would be a good idea, though I don't know how difficult those are to disable.

[Bonhomme Richard]

55. If there was a buyback then all would have to be.....

turned in...no exceptions and if you have even one it would be a felony. I realistically don't see that flying.
I don't think we have to go that far right now. All those out there now would collect dust over time in the attic except for the ones loaded for home protection and for a starter we wouldn't be adding any more to the problem.
The thing is with a magazine limit everyone could keep their Bushmasters and whatever.
The problem is bigger than the gun community alone and those other areas need to be addressed but this is a reasonable start. At the least it removes some convenience from the lunatics.

[BainsBane]

46. Sounds very reasonable to me.

Perhaps you could look over this thread and see if you're comfortable participating in this proposed group.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240188872

[Paladin]

52. Lose The Quotation Marks.

As far as I'm concerned, assault rifles and the Gun Show Loophole are for real, as defined by whatever the New York Times says they are on any given day. The vocabulary in this fight should no longer be subject to approval by Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, Ann Coulter, Antonin Scalia, or you.....

[Bonhomme Richard]

54. I used them because I am tired of the semantics that...

come from the gun lobby. I actually prefer calling them "Pretend Military Type Weapon for Those That Want to Pretend They are Shooting Military Type Weapons"

[BainsBane]

57. And for those who end up

Committing mass murder. Right on. Sensible gun owners are exactly what we need.

[Hoyt]

77. I feel better about imprisoning gun nuts, than pot smokers

If they can't behave.

[BainsBane]

28. And most disconcerting that they are on DU

While we see the Wall Street Journal, NYPost, and Republicans with A ratings from the NRA willing to consider gun control. My belief is that they will increasingly be outliers.

[Skittles]

63. the more and more people who see them for what they really are

pathetic and fearful little cowards - the less credibility they will have.......there are still people who deny the affects of smoking but no one pays attention to them anymore

[treestar]

83. It's hard to believe after this tragedy they can even have the balls to try to defend it

Everyone should be for more gun laws now. The gun advocates' positions have been defeated. It's all imaginary. Having a gun does not mean you can defend yourself against the rare attack. It's not the Old West now, people need to get over that.

[Zoeisright]

30. Yup.

You can't have an argument of wits with someone who is unarmed.

[Franker65]

34. Sad that an event like this can't have a bigger influence on the gun nuts

If the Newtown massacre doesn't make them think and change their ways, nothing will...

[LiberalArkie]

36. I am surrounded by them at work.

Every time they open their mouth I remember people like them saying "I am not a racist, I have friends who are ni**ers". The only reason I am retiring early is to get away from them. I canceled my Facebook this weekend simply because I am just too tired of this childish mentality the gun nuts have.
God have mercy on their soul. (If they have one)

[Hoyt]

86. B Maher- "Two things republicans don't like, (1) being called a "racist," and . . . .(2) Blacks."

I grew up with those asses, and most of them were into guns too. I feel for you.

[Daemonaquila]

38. "I can't STAND that anyone might have a different opinion than mine!!!!!"

Why yes - it's so much easier to lump anyone who isn't in lockstep about banning all weapons into the same category. It's so much easier to call anyone with a different analysis an NRA plant. ANYTHING is ok as long as it validates the upset feelings.

This would be such a fabulous place if EVERYONE agreed on EVERYTHING, right? Oh, but this is different - we get to be self-righteous about gun control, versus just accusing others of being political traitors for not supporting our favorite Dem candidate in the primaries or having a different view on single payor health care.

[BainsBane]

40. You are free to any opinion you choose

I don't care what you think or where you hang out. If you want to help find solutions to gun violence, great. I welcome your input. If not, you have chosen to make yourself irrelevant to the issue. I'm not interested in wasting my time in meaningless arguments.

[thucythucy]

50. You obviously haven't read the comments

in the thread where the OP says he's not in favor of banning all guns.

Instead of posting straw man arguments, maybe you ought to read the OP's comments in the thread, and figure out how you can be part of the solution, instead of continuing to be a part of the problem.

[BainsBane]

58. Thanks

And perfectly said.

[jonesgirl]

43. As we speak, they are probably stockpiling guns and ammo.

[BainsBane]

47. Definitely. Nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

64. You have no idea.

It was already very difficult to find many of the "ban candidate" weapons on the market. Most brick-and-mortar and online retailers had more listings "sold out" or "backordered" than they dd in stock. After Sandy Point? I suspect it's even more difficult to find anything. Those shipments in the pipeline will be spoken for before they ever hit the shelves.

Then once any ban that actually has a chance of passage is being debated, there will be an even bigger surge. And if it's enacted, ways around the ban will will arise almost instantly (like they did with the previous AWB).

"Same as it ever was..."

[BainsBane]

65. so much for their being law abiding citizens

It's pretty obvious that is a huge lie. They've outed themselves on that score over the past couple of days.

They break the law, they belong in jail. And the country will be much safer for it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

66. I wasn't referring to breaking the law, actually.

The ways around the original AWB were all perfectly legal. They involved modifications to the weapons to eliminate the (largely cosmetic) features specified in the law's language. yeah, they violated the spirit of the law, but not the letter. And the people doing so disagreed vehemently with that law's spirit.

The most likely scenarios of previously law-abiding gun owners breaking the law would be either the establishment of a thriving black market (in weapons, magazines, and/or ammunition, if new sales of any or all are banned or very heavily taxed) or forcible resistance to active attempts to enforce an outright ban.

[BainsBane]

67. they can always try it

that is what criminals do.

[Lizzie Poppet]

69. *shrug*

I'm sure that if there were an active, aggressive attempt by law enforcement to enforce a ban/confiscation measure, a lot of people would consider the social contract to have been abrogated, in essence. That is to say, they would consider the government to be actin in a manner that violated their basic human rights, regardless of what the law said. Whether or not that position is valid wouldn't be all that relevant...and it damn sure wouldn't stop the bloodshed.

Horrible scenario to contemplate, frankly...but I don't think the nation's chances of remaining intact (as currently constituted) long enough for it to reach that point are good. I see a Soviet-Union-Style breakup happening within a couple of decades. I hope it's at least as relatively bloodless as theirs.

[BainsBane]

72. Which would make them terrorists

And they should be dealt with accordingly. It takes a twisted mind to imagine guns equal human rights. Guns are the means by which the Human rights of peaceful Americans and our children are violated. In addition to the shining example in CT, twice as many preschool children die every year from gun violence as policemen die in the line of duty. Now that is a human rights violation, and human rights organizations denounce US gun violence as a serious and pervasive violation. No one is talking about taking away your precious guns. We are talking about limiting the number of people one can slaughter in a minute by banning high-body count magazines and assault weapons, just like under Clinton. So they may have to be content with killing only 10 children instead of 20. Naturally terrorists seek to inflict maximum casualties, but the rest of us don't much care for that.

A break up doesn't sound like a bad plan to me. If people refuse to abide by laws and basic standards of a civilized nation, they should leave. Somalia has just about everything they'd want. No gun control or a state capable of doing anything about weapons--a land where death and violence reign supreme. How eerily similar this sounds to the reaction of white Southerners to having a black man reelected President of the US.

[Lizzie Poppet]

87. Not necessarily.

Terrorist attack non-combatants, by definition. People resisting gun confiscation would be, I suspect, attacking the confiscators themselves (and possibly their political superiors...the "soldiers and leadership of the enemy" in their view). That would make them rebels or insurgents (and criminals), but not necessarily terrorists. I know that seems like a semantic quibble and perhaps it is. But I see the word "terrorist" misused a lot, and it grates.

"No one is talking about taking away your precious guns."

Actually dozens of people here on DU alone are talking about that very thing. More to the point, my hypothetical scenario of resistance was based on a ban and aggressive enforcement thereof, as stated in an earlier post. I also stated that I think it's an unlikely scenario.

I do indeed expect a break-up of the Union in the reasonably near future. I think it would have occurred already, except our cultural divisions are not geographic ones for the most part. When you look deeper than those "red state/blue state" maps, you find that the country is really "purple." Politically, we're all mixed up with each other. If the emerging regional polities were to somehow be socio-politically quite different from each other, there would have to be considerable back-and-forth population shift, and that seems unlikely.

Moreover, not everyone on a particular side holds all of that side's stereotypical views. For example, I'm not anti-gun...but I am in most all other aspects quite liberal. In fact, on economic matters, my viewpoints (I'm a socialist) would be a bit too leftist for many. A break-up is likely to be a messy thing (although hopefully without widespread violence), and the result of further economic degradation as any other factor.

[jonesgirl]

88. Well, you know what? Here's an idea to go toward solutions;

We the People can not afford to keep paying for the mess these monsters create. Therefore, I think it's only fitting for the NRA and all the supporters to help pay the majority of the damages, and help pay for the majority of safety measures and updates.

[ca3799]

48. I try to not argue

but persuade... by asking questions.

Use 'The Socratic Method' and lead them through some critical thinking and reasonable conclusions by asking questions. It's a lot more friendly and a ton more effective.

This is more in-line with changing hearts and minds. Be a leader.
You can try to top-down argue with folks, but bottom up is better. Lead them up.

[heaven05]

51. all

anyone can really do is try to be part of the solution, whatever that entails and stay away from being part of the problem.

[raouldukelives]

53. I'm with you in making the future of our children the #1 priority.

The biggest hurdle they face is climate change and the massive speculation on our natural resources fueled by Wall Streets undying thirst for more.
The time has come for more effective gun legislation, but even if that is pulled off, the safety of those children is still in much more dire straits from the people who put ownership of stocks and the assisting of international corporations ahead of their personal responsibility to create a safer world for all things tomorrow.
We can change these things if we all work together and demand it. If we lead by example perhaps we can force our leaders to follow us. It is the only chance the kids have.

[BainsBane]

56. One thing at a time

And guns are now the most urgent. If they don't live past age 6, the rest is moot.

[BainsBane]

59. there are some scary people on this site

I'm just starting to realize just how frightening they are.

[ThoughtCriminal]

60. Tempted to ignore them

I would have to ignore what? 10 people and not have to see one of their inane posts again?

But on the other hand, I wouldn't ignore a tumor, no matter how small.

[BainsBane]

61. don't put them on formal ignore

or you can't serve on juries for their posts. But you can ignore them by just not reading their crap.

[Skittles]

62. they're still comparing GUNS TO CARS

DESPERATE AND PATHETIC

[Egalitarian Thug]

73. "The safety of our nation's children must be our first priority". Since when?

Understand that I'm quite thankful that you've resolved to quit posting useless rants on guns. That's one. Thank you very much.

But since when has this nation given a rat's ass about children?

44% of American minors live in households at less than twice FPL. That's almost 48 million.
16 million of them are below FPL.
From 2005 - 2010 the number of children living below the poverty level has increased 17%.
If those kids are not white, it's much, much worse.
If they are in immigrant families, over 61%.
If their parent have less than a HS diploma, 85%.

Access to health care, food, clothing, the lists go on and on and on...

This has gone on for decades and has consistently got worse. So tell me again how the safety of our children must be our first priority.

[BainsBane]

74. You clearly don't

That much is obvious.
No, I'm not ranting. I'm mobilizing. And thousands are doing the same. I hope it will soon be millions.

[Egalitarian Thug]

75. Bullshit. Do you have any idea how many other kids will die from unpublicized violence and neglect

while you crusade to no purpose? Of course you don't, because you really only care about how this horrible incident makes you feel right now.

You don't give a shit about the children, you care about how you feel bad right now. And next month, when you're caring about how you feel about whatever comes across your attention then, even more children will be dead.

But that doesn't matter because you won't know about it.

Edit: Now you can put me on ignore and hit the alert button.