My INALIENABLE Rights TRUMP Your SECOND Amendment Rights.

[IdaBriggs]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by SunsetDreams (a host of the General Discussion forum).

My rights to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness trump your right to own machine guns, assault weapons, and anything that looks like something that could kill half a dozen people from a distance.

I don't know the names or technical specifications or whatever the heck else matters when it comes to the different types of stuff out there, but I. Am. Done. Arguing.

If you want to keep YOUR TOYS, then YOU had better figure out how to make sure the next crackpot off his meds isn't going to shoot up my kid's school, a movie theater, a local fast food restaurant, the street outside his drug buddy's house where my kid is playing jump rope - you name it.

I. Am. Done.

You want to keep them because they really aren't that big of a deal, and you promise you will take care of them, and you will clean up after any mess they make, and because you just LOVE THEM EVER SO MUCH?

Then YOU figure out a way to make sure everyone else stays SAFE.

If YOU, the person who wants this crap sold to "anyone who wants to join your hobby group" can't find a way to STOP YOUR FELLOW HOBBYISTS FROM KILLING PEOPLE, so help me I will do it for you.

And you won't like my solution. I promise.

Are we clear?

I asked, ARE WE CLEAR?

With great power comes great responsibility; you've been lying down with killer dogs and now you and all of your fellow hobbyist are under suspicion of fleas.

It is not MY responsibility to clean up after YOUR mess; if you want to keep playing, you'd better take care of the problem and I mean NOW.

Now go to your room and think about what you've done. And don't come out until you have some better answers than "because I want to" and "daddy said I could back in the olden days!"

Mommy's putting her foot down.

I. Am. Done.

[LAGC]

1. *yawn*

How many times have we seen this same meme regurgitated here on DU?

Sorry, there is no right to "feel safe" in the Constitution.

No amount of gun control will stop criminals intent on breaking the law in such incredible fashion from doing so, regardless of what weapon they happen to choose.

[IdaBriggs]

3. I already FEEL SAFE. It's ALIVE I apparently have to argue about.

You don't like my solution (take them away)? Then come up with a better one because "neener, neener, you can't stop me!" isn't cutting it anymore.

[LAGC]

4. Should we take away everyone's cars because a few idiots drive drunk and kill people?

Why do you want to take away everyone's guns just because a few people abuse them?

[IdaBriggs]

6. Cars = Guns is NOT a solution. (EDIT: Maybe it could work?)

It is what we call a "false equivalency" but let's pretend it's a true one.

Cars have been regulated, safety features range from seat belts to rear view mirrors to air bags, regular testing is required to operate them, owning them comes with annual "title, tax and registration," you have to purchase insurance to operate them, they cost thousands of dollars to purchase, and if you are deemed unfit, you lose your right to drive one.

I am okay with all of those standards being applied to gun owners. Good thinking!

I apologize - here I was thinking you were just being a smart aleck, but this is actually some good thinking!

Well done!

ON EDIT: And you can only use them in a restricted way (speed limits) in certain places (roads and parking structures). The more I think about this, the cleverer you appear! This is some good, outside-the-box thinking!

[pintobean]

7. "I. Am. Done. Arguing."

I guess that's not true, either.

[IdaBriggs]

17. The argument is over; we are now finding a solution to the problem.

The problem is KEEPING PEOPLE ALIVE versus GUN TOYS.

If you have something to contribute to the discussion, participate. If not, sit down and be quiet; snide comments such as your passive aggressive one will be ignored as coming from someone who really has nothing meaningful to say.

[hack89]

130. "sit down and be quiet"

If anyone ever wonders why gun control is a dead issue in America, you have provided one reason.

[IdaBriggs]

136. Not a "dead issue" - its the dead PEOPLE.

And I repeat - what is your solution to the problem?

We are not playing "pray it away" here; if you can't help SOLVE the problem, you ARE the problem.

[LAGC]

139. You're the one looking for a solution.

So it is incumbent upon you to find one, not the rest of us.

Edit to add: as others have pointed out down-thread, overall violence is on the decline in this country, has been for the last 15 years, despite looser gun laws. You are looking for a "solution" to a problem that is being fixed already.

[lastlib]

174. We HAVE a solution. Melt 'em all down, and there won't be any gun crimes.

Simple. If you hold one back, we hang you in the public square to make an example of you.

If you don't like that solution, come up with a better one.

[slackmaster]

179. Except, of course, for weapons in the hands of government employees

Authoritarian solutions always require heavily armed enforcement personnel.

[Ghost in the Machine]

212. ok, great! You support the death penalty too! It's nice to not feel alone..... but....

..yeah, there's always a "but", isn't there?

The solution isn't punishing the 98% of gun owners who never use them to kill others. What we need is a swift and sure execution of convicted murderers. Fuck all the instant appeals and 20 years waiting on death row, when found guilty, walk them out the courthouse doors, with TV cameras rolling, and put a bullet in their temple. Then look into the camera ans say "This is what will happen to YOU if you kill someone and get caught. Now, will the family of this piece of shit please come get his body off the courthouse steps within 30 minutes, or he's going into the incinerator".

The problem today is that punishment isn't swift and sure. We have more advanced technology to stop innocent people from being wrongly executed. If there is ANY doubt at all about guilt, by all means, lock them up and give them one appeal, but in slam dunk cases, such as video evidence, multiple eyewitness accounts or confession, go with the above outlined procedure.

What do you think?

Peace,

Ghost

[LAGC]

270. I'm actually against the death penalty, and don't think it is a deterrent.

People like these mass-shooters who exhibit such wanton disregard for other people's lives probably don't think much about their own.

Granted, this latest shooter did allow himself to get captured without resistance and didn't take the easy way out (suicide), but the Death Penalty is legal in Colorado. Surely he knew what the inevitable consequences of his actions would be, but went through with it anyway. Although he may very well be able to mount a credible insanity defense that will at least lock him up in a mental hospital for the rest of his life.

Really, the only way to deal with these nut-cases is to nip their psychosis in the bud before it gets so out of control that they resort to such actions. We need better mental health care in this country, and more education so that people learn how to recognize the signs of mental illness and have resources available to them to intervene and do something about it.

But blaming the particular tool (guns, bombs, fire, etc.) they use to kill so many people is like attacking the messenger. Futile.

[Ghost in the Machine]

289. I thought I was replying to the poster below you, "lastlib" who said..

lastlib (1,290 posts)
174. We HAVE a solution. Melt 'em all down, and there won't be any gun crimes.

Simple. If you hold one back, we hang you in the public square to make an example of you.

If you don't like that solution, come up with a better one.

I do, however, agree with your last 2 paragraphs, and especially the last one.

But blaming the particular tool (guns, bombs, fire, etc.) they use to kill so many people is like attacking the messenger. Futile.

Dead on, my friend, dead on...

Peace,

Ghost

[LAGC]

293. My bad, I thought you were replying to me.

Dang software doesn't indent the replies after so many deep...

[hack89]

141. Here is my solution to gun crime

1. Decriminalize drugs and treat it as a public health problem. It will remove the financial incentive that drives so much crime.

2. Empty the prisons of non-violent drug offenders. It will save billions that can be spent on education, health care and social services.

3. Focus the justice system on like a laser on violent crime. Use a gun in committing a crime and go to prison for a very long time.

4. Single payer health care with mental health coverage.

My plan would actually address roots causes.

[4th law of robotics]

146. Isn't this the same mentality that gave us the patriot act, DHS, TSA screeners and the like?

"We have to be safe at all costs so take away all my rights even if it doesn't actually address the problem because I want to feel safe again"

[Mojorabbit]

278. [phone] nt

[SlimJimmy]

291. Well said. Generally speaking "reasonable" gun control to folks like the OP mean take ALL the guns

from everyone except the criminals. Ludicrous on its face.

[pintobean]

308. You're right, the argument is over.

It has been for over 220 years.

As to "sit down and be quiet", well, mommy can go in the opposite direction with her foot.

[Daemonaquila]

311. If you're worried about keeping people alive, go fight heart disease.

This kind of mass violence is extremely rare, and the risk is exceedingly small. It's splashy, it makes the headlines 'cuz if it bleeds it leads, and gets people all worked up in an emotional frenzy. But in terms of lives lost, it's a very, very low priority, and a distraction from much more important issues.

[SemperEadem]

11. +1 well said.

[LAGC]

36. The only "false equivilency" is that there is no right to own a car in the Constitution.

Yet, gun rights are an enumerated right that "shall not be infringed."

And you don't need any of that stuff you mentioned (seat belts, mirrors, air bags, registration, testing, etc.) to own a car on private land. Only if you take it out on public roads.

But you're right. Driving in public is a privilege, owning a gun is a RIGHT. So there is a difference.

Don't like it? Repeal the Second Amendment. Good luck trying.

[tiny elvis]

49. neener neener?

[IdaBriggs]

91. Wow. That is a powerful visual.

Thank you for making it. You took my comment, and made it ... painful, because that is exactly what I was thinking, without having the visual to go along with it.

Thank you.

[leftyohiolib]

61. only if youre part of a militia which we dont have so there goes the 2nd amendmnt and your

"right" to bear arms

[Clames]

65. Part of two militias actually.

And the courts say I don't have to be in either...

[tiny elvis]

73. does neighborhood watch count?

[LAGC]

153. President Obama disagrees with you.

He is on record as saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right, multiple times.

"The militia" is every able-bodied adult civilian.

It is settled law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. Read that again, because it presupposes the ability to REGULATE your precious

Read it CAREFULLY... and I mean CAREFULLY.

You either start agreeing to some regulations, like 100% background checks, or I can guarantee you won't like the backlash against your precious, and no, NOBODY is coming to take precious away either.

Most gun owners are responsible, but sheesh, even things that MOST gun owners agree to, you guys knee jerk don't want, like 100% background checks.

[slackmaster]

201. I'll bet I'm better regulated than you. One thing I learned from Vietnam...

...Phở is good food.

[nadinbrzezinski]

211. Whoosh

(And yes, it is good food, your point?)

You guys keep missing this...I know the backlash will come.

[LAGC]

205. The problem with universal background checks is that it is de facto registration.

If the government knows each time you purchase a weapon, it makes it much easier to confiscate them later on down the road.

Right now they don't know, because in most states, private-party transactions of used guns are anonymous and don't leave a paper trial.

But even universal background checks wouldn't prevent criminals from stealing them or using straw purchasers.

What you are asking for is an incredible invasion of law-abiding citizens' privacy, while doing little to stop crime.

[nadinbrzezinski]

216. There you go, predictable talking point

From the POV of a well regulated militia, if I need to call LAGC to the militia in case of an emergency, I need to know what you own.. . It's called logistics. I mean, after you run out of your ammo, I need to supply you with it. It would suck, it happens though, to get .40 cal when you need 9mm, wouldn't it?

And they are NOT gonna come take precious away, how do you do that when there are 300 million + guns in the streets? Good luck with that one! It is a fear based talking point, that has so many logic holes it's not even funny.

By the way, last check on tiranny, ask how that worked out during Shays rebellion, or the civil war? Want a more recent example? Ask the Iraquis who rose against Sadam in 1991.

The reason why Syria might work is...they ate getting guns, unconventional warfare and outlasting the government. How long do you think you'll last against...Drones, Apaches, M1-A1 and a few other toys? Think, because you will need an outside supply of weapons and a long time.

But thanks for proving how unreasonable you guys are...can't wait for backlash.

[polmaven]

72. All of what you said...PLUS...

The intended purpose of guns is to kill. That is NOT the intended purpose of cars.

[LAGC]

138. The only ONE intended purpose of a gun.

Most people shoot and collect them for fun, not to kill anything or anyone.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

215. Cars are not designed with the PRIMARY INTENT to hurt or kill someone.

You fool.

[LAGC]

271. Who says guns are?

The primary purpose of a firearm is to punch small little holes in paper targets.

Only 0.0001% of all bullets fired from guns are ever meant to kill someone.

[RC]

279. Wrong! The primary purpose of guns is to punch holes in living things, including humans.

Why to you think there are so many guns in wars? To make confetti?

Who is this someone you mentioned? They got a name?
At 0.0001% of all bullets and the hundreds of billions of bullets fired every year, the world over, that's still a lot of dead people.
What are the stats for maiming and injuring all these these special someones who are shot every year - both on purpose and accidentally? And how many someones, both dead and injured, are there in any given year?

Hint, it is more than enough for the rest of to say "Enough with the killing already".

[LAGC]

281. Well, all of the guns I've ever owned in my life, and those of most everyone I know must all be

defective then, because not a single shot from any one of them was ever fired at a living person, and only wild game on a few occasions.

Surely you don't think we need to go after the defective guns as well, do you?

Tell you what: you figure out a way to go after the effective guns while leaving the rest of our defective guns alone, and then we can start talking gun control. Deal?

[DrDan]

8. it transcends the constitution - don't you get that??????

these are INALIENABLE RIGHTS - they belong to EVERYONE

I completely agree with the OP - and have been stating the same thing for months and months.

Enough with the NRA talking points.

The poster is exactly right!

[LAGC]

39. "Feeling safe" is NOT an inalienable right.

No matter how hard you try to spin it.

You take a risk every time you leave your house. Hell, even when you stay inside there's a chance your house might burn down.

You can't legislate "feeling safe" -- no matter how hard you try.

[malaise]

43. Not until you use it to defend your guns

[DrDan]

47. ok - I agree

[tiny elvis]

51. Not until you use it to defend your guns

[LAGC]

56. Most gun-owners don't own guns to "feel safe" either.

Sure, there are the minority who conceal-carry for self-protection, which won't help you if someone gets the jump on you, but are still useful in strong-arm assaults and robberies with knives where you you have some wiggle-room (a chance to defend yourself).

But for most gun-owners, its just about the fun of sport shooting and collecting. It's silly to blame the majority of hobbyists for crimes committed by the extreme minority of those who abuse them.

[tiny elvis]

64. fun trumps murder?

what the fuck

[LAGC]

69. Absolutely.

The happiness of millions of people who enjoy the shooting sports trumps the few who abuse guns to commit murder.

No doubt about it.

[tiny elvis]

74. no happiness without it?

absolute is the right term

[RC]

102. The right to gun people down in the streets is not in the Constitution either.

And yet people with guns do it all the time! If someone's shot it leads @ 10:00 PM. And Almost every night here in Kansas City. Sometimes several someones.
Your toys, your fun, your fantasies do not take prescient over my safety, or my neighbors safety. Maybe you can't legislate "feeling safe", but we sure can make the rest of us actually safer, by dealing with your killing machines. Look at Canada for a nearby example.

Do U.S. Gun Laws Make All of North America Less Safe?
While a real conversation over gun control in the U.S. is a domestic nonstarter, neighboring countries end up suffering from lax American laws

Lost in the bluster and political gamesmanship is the fact that, whether Americans want to do something about the guns in their midst or not, their lax laws are hurting other countries, especially the neighbors to the north and south. Sure, Canada and Mexico are two vastly different polities, with different problems and with police forces in considerably different states of preparedness. But both countries can rightly point the finger at the U.S. for the prevalence of gun-related homicides on their side of the border.

(MORE: A Gun Owner’s Case Against Assault Weapons) http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/23/a-gunowners-case-against-assault-weapons/

Just this week, Canadian officials in Ontario convened what was dubbed the Summit of the Gun — a reaction to a summer of shootings in Toronto, the country’s most populous city. While certain measures were passed to strengthen policing and improve community outreach, the elephant in the room was obvious. Canada is hardly a gun-free country, but its rates of civilian firearm ownership are dwarfed by those in the U.S., and the weapons its citizens do possess are far better monitored. Recent calls to ban handguns in places like Toronto, some argue, would do little to stem the flow of guns trafficked from the U.S. over the 8,000-km, thinly patrolled boundary.

“The fact of the matter is,” said Ontario’s provincial premier, Dalton McGuinty, “most of the guns that end up in the hands of young criminals are illegal guns, and they’re coming from south of the border.” His comments followed a meeting with Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the matter. An editorial in The Globe and Mail tut-tutted at what it deemed U.S. intransigence in the face of an obvious truth: “The stubborn [American] refusal to link the worldwide availability of American-supplied semiautomatic weapons, accessories and ammunition to tragedy after tragedy is a black mark.”
http://world.time.com/2012/07/25/how-u-s-gun-laws-make-all-of-north-america-less-safe/

A Gun Owner’s Case Against Assault Weapons

I own guns — shotguns and rifles — and I hunt quail. I don’t want to give up my guns. But I know this: there isn’t the remotest chance under the sun that I will have to. And I know this too: the kind of assault rifle used in the Aurora massacre — an AR-15, which is essentially a civilian version of the military’s M-16 — has no sporting purpose save playacting, in which the shooter is in some kind of combat situation. You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt, and you certainly don’t need the high-capacity magazine that was reportedly used even if your interest is target shooting on a range.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/07/23/a-gunowners-case-against-assault-weapons/

Make no mistake the rest of us are fed up with you idea of fun and recreation.

[laundry_queen]

251. +1000 nt

[MrDiaz]

50. These INALIENABLE RIGHTS

may very well belong to EVERYONE...but the 2nd admendment gives every single AMERICAN the right to own and bear arms, that is why it was put into the constitution. If you don't like it then do something about it... but posting nonsense llike this and just stating that the arguement is over is ignorant...the arguement will never be over. And just curious how would you favor a gun ban taking effect? What do you think the best course of action would be required to remove all guns from the people of this country?

[DrDan]

54. these "American" constitutional rights are subject to restrictions

and to label someone's post as "nonsense" is not helping, now is it.

[tiny elvis]

59. the 2nd admendment gives every single AMERICAN the right to own and bear arms

that is why it was put into the constitution

the who with the what, now?

[DrDan]

62. subject to restrictions

was Z totin' in that picture?

[tiny elvis]

67. you wrote something that has no meaning

the second amendment was put in the constitution because
it gives every single AMERICAN the right to own and bear arms

do you see that you wrote something without meaning?

[DrDan]

114. so you really don't believe there are restrictions?

go commit a felony, be committed to prison, and demand your 2A rights.

[nadinbrzezinski]

199. Yet, 100% background checks are popular except iwth the precsious crowd

and I include most of the NRA crowd in this one.

As to Zimmy, he SHOULD have had his CCW taken away the moment he was involved in a domestic dispute... why wasn't that removed?

I forgot, it is Florida, one of the states with the WEAKEST regulations and HIGHEST death rates. Not a coincidence either. But hey, his right to carry precious superseded all.

Now see that part about REGULATED, it presupposes that like the FIRST, which is actually more absolute, it CAN BE regulated. Heller, you know what Heller did? Throw away PRECEDENT lots of it.

I can't wait for a more reasonable SCOTUS to look back at all this and be a lot more reasonable and a lot less in favor of the merchants of death. You of course knew that GUNS are NOT REGULATED as an industry... why do you think that is?

[SlimJimmy]

294. Wrong yet again. Florida is 24th in death rates from guns.

[CokeMachine]

298. Quit it with facts.

You're ruining a good rant

[SlimJimmy]

300. Sorry, it just erks me when someone uses blatently false information.

[tiny elvis]

210. ubiquity meets such a demand in practice

why does an ex con lose that right and not other rights?
are guns dangerous?

[MrDiaz]

255. in the hands of CRIMINALS

why yes they are sir! Oh and you also lose your right to vote in any election when you become a felon! Are votes dangerous?

[DrDan]

259. and non-criminals

accidents can happen to anyone . . . and in the case of gun accidents, the results are often tragic

[tiny elvis]

261. lost only in some states, but ask a repub if votes are dangerous

if crime was illegal only criminals would commit crimes
were you saying something?

[nadinbrzezinski]

195. No right in the constituion is free and clear of regulations and limits

but you knew that from Civics 101

[hack89]

132. Bill of Rights = Natural Rights = Inalienable Rights

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

The RKBA is an Inalienable Right

[DrDan]

160. good try - and perhaps you think it is your inalienable right - but way off base

[hack89]

164. So show me the case history that says otherwise.

show me where "inalienable" rights have superseded the Bill of Rights in the eyes of any US court.

[DrDan]

166. felons are denied 2A rights - for the safety of the citizens

[hack89]

167. Are felons denied inalienable rights also?

how can they be inalienable if the government can take them away?

[DrDan]

173. in the name of the safety for the rest of us

so our inalienable rights are protected

[hack89]

182. All the rights must be balanced

every right we have, inalienable or enumerated (which are really the same), can be restricted and even eliminated in certain circumstances.

The 2A can be restricted - no one, even the NRA disagrees with that. As long as any laws meets the principle of strict scrutiny it is Constitutional - which is of course the rub with many gun control proposals supported here at DU.

[deacon_sephiroth]

25. whatever helps you sleep at night

personally, knowing less guns were floating around the streets of my country would help me sleep at night.

[Skip Intro]

284. +100 nt

[Daemonaquila]

309. Yuppers.

Do, please, feel free to take a constitutional claim to court that relies on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You'll be lucky if all that happens is an eyeroll from the judge.

Ranting, raving, and stamping feet don't support a point. They just make a person look childish.

[xchrom]

2. i love it...

now we need a whole bunch more moms just like you.

[GTurck]

27. I'm in as a...

mom and grandma too. The NRA should not be in charge of people's safety.

[IdaBriggs]

92. Well said! nt

[sendero]

5. No they don't...

...otherwise cars, which kill orders of magnitude more people than guns, would be banned.

[DrDan]

9. and cars are regulated - and registered

speed limits, stop signs, no drinking and driving.

Regulated and registered. To include private sales.

[sendero]

10. I have no problem with ..

... regulated (guns already are to some extent) and am on the fence about registered.

I have no problem with private sellers having to call in the sale like FFL dealers do.

I have a big problem with a lot of the proposals that are floated here. And I also will say, for the record, that such things as registration and private seller regulation and pretty much anything you can think of short of an outright you will go to jail if you have one ban will have an infinitesimally small impact on the gun violence problem you seek to curb.

[DrDan]

15. insurance, registration, strict controls, enforcement, age limits, learners permits, inspections

lets start by treating them like cars.

I can hear the NRA now . . . the whining is simply overwhelming. "You hate America. You are trying to take my guns."

[deacon_sephiroth]

28. Brilliant! I'm all for this!

Same pathetic arguement EVERY time, w-w-what about cars!?!?!? Cars are so much worse than guns!

OK fine, treat guns like cars.... excellent.

The difference though, cars are a virtual NECCESSITY in this day and age, a gun is NOT.

[DrDan]

32. exactly - plus there is a worthwhile purpose for cars

[LAGC]

45. Same as there is with guns.

Far more crime is prevented by defensive gun uses than is committed by them offensively.

But they are fun to shoot for recreation as well. That's "worthwhile" to a lot of people. If not to you, fine, don't own one. But leave the rest of ours alone.

[tiny elvis]

83. are they fun to rub and lick?

that is as relevant to murder as any recreation

[Orrex]

95. Gosh, I wouldn't have thought so, but now that you mention it...

When you put it like that, there just might be something to minimally regulated gun use and ownership after all!

[Orrex]

94. I'd like to see hard statistics on that

Please provide some evidence that "far more crime is prevented by defensive gun use than is committed by them offensively."

How does one count the number of incidents that don't occur?

[DanTex]

104. It's a false NRA talking point.

There was one study in the early 90s by a pro-gun ideologue that claimed some enormous number of defensive gun uses. But this study was quickly refuted when people started to look at the methodology and realized that most of the events that were counted as "defensive gun uses" weren't actually "defensive" at all, they were things like escalating arguments. But that didn't stop the NRA from using it as a talking point.

Here's an overview of that debate, from gun violence researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/Bullet-ins_Spring_2009.pdf

The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in a socially desirable manner--against a
criminal during the commission of a crime--will occur, for the average gun owner, perhaps once or
never in a lifetime. It is a rare event. Other than self-defense, the use of a gun against another human is
socially undesirable. Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk, or afraid, and
who are not trained in dispute resolution, have lots of opportunities for inappropriate gun uses. People
engage in innumerable annoying and somewhat hostile interactions with each other in the course of a
lifetime. It should not be surprising that inappropriate, socially undesirable "self-defense" gun uses by
people who believe they are law-abiding citizens outnumber the appropriate and socially beneficial use
of guns.

Although most of the reported self-defense gun uses from Approach 1 surveys seem more like criminal
uses, even if one believed they were all genuine socially beneficial uses, the number of criminal gun uses
would still vastly exceeds the number of self-defense gun uses in the United States. No survey using
similar methodology to determine both criminal and self-defense use has ever found otherwise.

[LAGC]

190. That study's methodology is flawed, like others of its kind.

Relying on voluntary admissions isn't very accurate (see Kleck, et. al.) Most people who use guns defensively don't report it, for various reasons, to the police or especially to such invasive telephone surveys.

And while purely anecdotal, I know several people who know of someone who has used a gun defensively to thwart a crime, including a good friend of mine who stopped a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store he worked at by brandishing his carry-piece. No shots were fired, no one had to die, but it was enough to deter the crime and send them running. And I only know of one who has ever had a gun pointed at them in the commission of a crime. But of course, I don't live in a big city where most of the gang-related gun violence occurs, so your mileage may vary.

[bongbong]

280. Call the NRA Talking Points what they really are

Big Lies

[LAGC]

44. The main difference is driving is a privilege, owning guns is a right.

Unless you think your right to drive 4-wheels "shall not be infringed."

Feel free to try to amend the Constitution though.

[safeinOhio]

38. Damn if accidental deaths from car accidents aren't way down, just

like gun violence. How'd that happen? I didn't see anyone make car laws more liberal. No call to not register or regulate them. Even most gun owners want MANDATORY background checks on private sales. Just the crazy people that worship guns want to make all the laws regarding guns, as only they really understand the problem. Yet, it is the same people who everyday in the paper, we read about shooting themselves in the butt at wallyworld and their kids find pop's piece and kill themselves. Guess what, guns are more dangerous than cars, hammers and swimming pools. Crazy gun nuts are like people that are so in love with ice cream that they eat so much they weigh a ton a die early from diabetes and heart problems. Then they blame it on those that don't like ice cream.

[Clames]

75. Sure, let's do the car thing.

Since all of those rules only apply to cars driven on public roads. Now on to cars that are not driven on public roads, race cars. Since some of you obviously don't consider the second and third order effects of what you say this will be interesting. We can do the whole registration and licensing of guns carried in public. But with race cars that are not allowed on public roads I'll am allowed to build them to be as powerful and specialized as my budget will allow. So the same will apply to guns. I won't be able to carry it in public, strictly a range or special events only firearm but I can build it however I see fit. For certain completions I'd have to go by the rules of the governing body just like current automotive racing leagues. The more powerful I go the more stringent the safety requirements. I wonder what the equivalent of Top Fuel or offshore powerboat racing would be like?

[DrDan]

105. nice try

[Clames]

177. You want guns treated like cars.

Not my fault you lack the foresight to understand what that could mean. I can order any part for my vehicles and have it drop shipped directly to my door from an online source. Has to some compromise. You can't impose restrictions without giving concessions in another area. You want universal registration, I get to build a machine gun.

[DrDan]

178. not worth a response

[Clames]

209. Then why did you bother to type that?

[IdaBriggs]

14. LAGC beat you to this one, but I am glad you like this solution, too!

I am just going to "copy/paste" because I really like this thinking, and am willing to go along with your proposed solution - treat guns like cars.

Cars have been regulated, safety features range from seat belts to rear view mirrors to air bags, regular testing is required to operate them, owning them comes with annual "title, tax and registration," you have to purchase insurance to operate them, they cost thousands of dollars to purchase, and if you are deemed unfit, you lose your right to drive one.

I am okay with all of those standards being applied to gun owners. Good thinking!

I apologize - here I was thinking you were just being a smart aleck, but this is actually some good thinking!

Well done!

ON EDIT: And you can only use them in a restricted way (speed limits) in certain places (roads and parking structures). The more I think about this, the cleverer you appear! This is some good, outside-the-box thinking!

[EOTE]

16. Do you know what a magnitude of order is?

Because from what I've been able to find, about 43K people die annually from motor related injuries and about 30K people die annually from gun violence in the U.S. That's not even close to one order of magnitude, much less "orders" of magnitude.

[IdaBriggs]

18. Millions of people get benefit from relatively inexpensive transportation.

And we all strive to bring those numbers down with good ideas.

The same is not true of guns, which brings us back to the "false equivalency" issue.

Would you like to try again with a different benefit analysis?

[EOTE]

40. Did you mean to reply to me? NT

[IdaBriggs]

78. Oops! In a hurry! Sorry!

[Petrushka]

93. "...about 30K people die annually from gun violence in the U.S."??? Here's a link showing fewer

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

Do you have a link indicating 30K? I'm unable to find one.

[EOTE]

142. Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

That's a bit more than 10 per 100,000. Considering that there are more than 300,000,000 in this country, that comes out to more than 30K per year.

And that link you've provided does not provide all gun deaths in the U.S., only murders. Just as I haven't listed only the automotive deaths which have been murders.

[Petrushka]

149. When you said, "gun violence ", I took for granted that you meant murder. In any case . . .

. . . thank you for the link. I appreciate it.

[EOTE]

161. Because people who are killed otherwise, aren't killed in a violent manner?

Are those classified as "gun pleasantries"? If we're going to be making anything approaching an apt comparison, we should be talking about total deaths to total deaths, right? Unless you want to compare the murder rate via guns to the murder rate via cars and then we're talking about many magnitudes of order in the other direction.

Not trying to be snarky, but I think it's important that an appropriate comparison be made.

[Petrushka]

273. Sorry I asked a question. My bad! But . . . thanks again for the link, nonetheless.

[EX500rider]

295. Why would self inflicted gunshots count as gun violence?

That's suicide, not homicide.

Counting people who didn't want to die in a car Vs people who did want to die by gun not the same thing...the 11,000+ who were murdered by guns did not want to die just like the 32,000+ who died in car crashes.

US Firearm homicides 2009
Number of deaths: 11,493
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7

If suicide by gun is "gun violence" then is suicide by overdose "pill violence"? Jumping off tall buildings "building violence"?
Do auto carbon monoxide suicides count under "auto fatalities" you think?

Somebody wants to die, lack of a firearm won't stop them as the suicide rate in Japan aptly shows.

US rate 11.8 per 100,000
Japanese rate 23.8 per 100,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

[EOTE]

299. Because self-inflicted violence is still violence?

That's really not that difficult. And it's the same reason that I'm including suicide by car in the automotive category. Suicide, no matter how it is done, is violence. If you're going to do anything approaching a valid comparison, then you need to compare all deaths due to automobiles (which are pretty much a necessity) to all deaths due to firearms (which are definitely not).

I bring up this information not because I think that comparing automotive deaths to firearm deaths makes a very powerful argument for gun regulation, but that it was incredibly stupid argument to make for as to why guns are NOT regulated.

[DanTex]

70. Actually, cars only kill slightly more people than guns.

In the US, guns kill about 30,000 people every year, cars about 35,000. The statistics are really staggering. And then you have to consider the fact that cars are ubiquitous, an essential part of modern life. Without cars, society would grind to a halt. Without guns, some people would have to find a new hobby.

[IdaBriggs]

80. Millions of people benefit from inexpensive transportation.

And we all strive to bring those numbers down with good ideas.

The same is not true of guns, which brings us back to the "false equivalency" issue.

Would you like to try again with a different benefit analysis?

NOTE: Originally posted by accident to someone else - see #18.

[justanidea]

12. My rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Involve me owning guns.

I dont feel I truly have my right to life unless I have access to the tools of self defense. Target shooting also makes me happy.

Now what do we do?

[DrDan]

22. how'd that work out with second-hand smoke?

[deacon_sephiroth]

29. I guess all good things have to end somewhere

So by your logic I could say.

"I dont feel I truly have my right to life unless I have access to nuclear weapons. Genocide also makes me happy."

and that would mean I should HAVE those things right?

Now what do we do?

[leftyohiolib]

63. you have to change the constitution to allow non- militia people to carry guns

[Lizzie Poppet]

111. Not so.

the 2ns Amendmen does not restrict the RKBA to the militia. The structure of the sentence wodl have to be different for that to be the case. The "milita" clause establishes a rationale for proecting the people's right to keep and bear arms. It ascribes the right to the larger set ("people&quot not to the subset ("militia&quot .

This is, to be frank, a relatively simple linguistic analysis.

[bongbong]

304. Wrong

The SCOTUS in Miller, among many, many, many, many other Constitutional scholars & lawyers have written extensively about the 2nd Amendment and how the "well-regulated miltitia" is intrinsic.

[Lizzie Poppet]

313. Nope.

At least as many have written denying that the amendment restricts the RKBA to the militia. More importantly from a legal standpoint, this is how current precedent stands, and it is extremely unlikely a future SCOTUS will overturn stare decisis.

And in any case, I was referring to the linguistic analysis, not the legal one. If you're going to play the argumentum ad vericundiam game, you'll want to avoid doing so in an argument over the linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment. Trust me on that one.

[IdaBriggs]

87. Stop at "LIFE" - its the one where we seem to be having the problem.

You don't need a gun to breathe. It is either (to be fair) a TOY or in some cases a TOOL.

If you want to play with it (target shooting), then FIND A BETTER ANSWER THAN "TOO BAD, SO SAD, LET'S ALL PRAY ABOUT IT!"

Frankly, the folks using it as a TOOL seem to have more respect for the dangers it can pose than the "let's watch something blow up! (insert cartoon uh-uh-uh noise)" crowd.

[Orrex]

90. So you feel that you forfeit you right to life when you enter a place that doesn't allow guns?

Depending on where you live, that could be a school or a bar or a liquor store or a hospital or any of a million other places. Not to mention many jobs that forbid guns on the premises.

Hell, you must forfeit your right to life many times each day! How can you possibly stand it?

[era veteran]

13. Maybe this makes you feel better

I hold the 2nd Amendment as the tool that keeps the 1% / fascists from taking over the country. Don't worry we'll look out for you too.
King George 3, put his mommy foot down on the necks of the people.

[Shankapotomus]

31. Really? You'll look out for us?

Shouldn't gun deaths be much lower given that logic? Your right to access guns has yet to be infringed and yet gun deaths are so high? How is that looking out for us? Where is this payoff of protection gun access is supposed to bring us you speak of?

[era veteran]

79. Payoff for protection? How about 236 years as a Republic? Forget all that?

We still have a Constitution and have survived as a Country a lot longer than others with a different political system.

Did you ever hear of a government taking the guns away from the people then taking people to concentration camps?
That is the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

[Shankapotomus]

110. I know

Japan is one big concentration camp. How could we miss that?

I guess we should be happy about our 20,000-30,000 gun deaths per year when you put it in the context of the possible concentration camps that could spring up.

With all those deaths camps somebody could get killed. We wouldn't want that.

[era veteran]

244. Nazi Germany

What NINE MILLION people executed???????????????
9,000,000
-
30,000
____________
=8,070,000
Good mathematics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

248. Yet, when the US helped Adenauer and the rest WRITE the post war

constitution, they included things like Universal Health care but NO second amendment. THings that make you go hmmm.

[era veteran]

287. We were still occupying Germany as a conquerer.

I do believe before a real Status of Forces agreement on paper, 1951, and for sure before we trusted the new German State.
After all despite the auspices of Konrad Adenauer we still held two wars in the century against them. A bit too late for the murdered dead of the Concentration Camps to weigh in.

[nadinbrzezinski]

301. Gee so we can do that because of that

By that logic the US should have all weapons removed, you remember the Indian wars? Or is our memory only selective to 20th century genocides and not the ones we were directly involved in?

Wrong, Adenauer and company did NOT want that insanity...

Jaysus, there are days that I really think you guys really know jack about US History, let alone world history.

Oh and don't get cute and tell me I know jack about the German Genocide, for starters you got your numbers wrong... it was more like 20 million total. 6-7 million Jews, the rest came from a few countries and other ethnicity's, including POWs, but I guess you did not know that.

By that logic South East Asia, Russia and some regions of central africa can't have guns either... in one case Machetes.

[Shankapotomus]

275. The problem with your argument

is you are postulating that every government that removes guns from circulation is plotting a Nazi holocaust.

I don't think Nazi Germany was undergoing a high incidence of gun homicides between its citizenry when they banned Jews from owning guns.

Is the U.S. government breaking windows on gun shops and roughing up its owners? The anti-gun league just want a sensible gun policy. You can't claim a holocaust as a defense where there is none in a debate. Anyone could win any debate by claiming this or that will happen if such and such policies are instituted.

[era veteran]

283. Since you bring it up

About the Nazi gun violence against the Jews, read Communists.
The first camp in Germany, Dachau, was founded in March 1933.[5] The press announcement said that "the first concentration camp is to be opened in Dachau with an accommodation for 5,000 persons. All Communists and – where necessary – Reichsbanner and Social Democratic functionaries who endanger state security are to be concentrated there, as in the long run it is not possible to keep individual functionaries in the state prisons without overburdening these prisons."[5] Dachau was the first regular concentration camp established by the German coalition government of National Socialist Workers' Party (Nazi Party) and the Nationalist People's Party (dissolved on 6 July 1933). Heinrich Himmler, then Chief of Police of Munich, officially described the camp as "the first concentration camp for political prisoners."
This is from The Wiki, believe it or not but as soon as he could Hitler started killing people opposed to him politically.
Why don't you think it will not happen again?

[DanTex]

119. Concentration camps???? So we're getting our talking points from Joe the Plumber now? nt

[era veteran]

246. What did you just post?

I feel insulted by your knee jerk post.
I have stood in the lines for freedom since 1971, you can go out and multiply yourself.
I would alert but I am so tired of the minority of Democrats calling the MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS names because they can do it anonymously.


Joe the Plumber and I are so GODDAMN different it just pisses me the fuck off.

[DanTex]

312. Umm, the majority of Democrats don't think that gun control had anything to do with the holocaust.

I hate to break it to you, but that's a Joe the Plumber talking point.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/06/20/-joe-the-plumber-campaign-ad-pins-holocaust-on-gun-control-policy

[era veteran]

288. Historical Genocide

That we know about, do you think humanity has now passed this stage?

Contents [hide]
1 Alternative meanings of genocide
2 Timeline of genocides
2.1 Before 1490
2.2 1490 to 1914
2.2.1 Americas
2.2.1.1 United States of America
2.2.1.2 Peru
2.2.1.3 Haiti
2.2.1.4 Mexico
2.2.1.5 Argentina
2.2.2 Australia
2.2.3 France
2.2.4 Philippines
2.2.5 German South-West Africa
2.2.6 Ireland
2.2.6.1 War of the Three Kingdoms
2.2.6.2 Great Irish Famine
2.2.7 Russian Empire
2.2.8 Qing empire
2.3 1915 to 1950
2.3.1 Ottoman Empire/Turkey
2.3.1.1 Armenian
2.3.1.2 Assyrian
2.3.1.3 Greek
2.3.1.4 Dersim Kurds
2.3.2 Soviet Union
2.3.2.1 Decossackization
2.3.2.2 Holodomor
2.3.2.3 Deportation of Chechen people
2.3.2.4 The Mass Deportations in the Baltic States of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians
2.3.3 Nazi Germany and occupied Europe
2.3.4 Croatia
2.3.5 Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
2.3.6 Dominican Republic
2.3.7 Partition of India in 1947
2.3.8 Republic of China and Tibet
2.4 1951 to 2000
2.4.1 Expulsion of Germans after World War II
2.4.2 Australia 1900-1969
2.4.3 Zanzibar
2.4.4 Guatemala 1968-1996
2.4.5 Pakistan (Bangladesh War of 1971)
2.4.6 Burundi 1972 and 1993
2.4.7 North Korea
2.4.8 Equatorial Guinea
2.4.9 East Timor under Indonesian occupation
2.4.10 Dirty War in Argentina
2.4.11 Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon
2.4.12 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan
2.4.13 Ethiopia
2.4.14 Iraqi Kurds
2.4.15 Tibet
2.4.16 Brazil
2.4.17 Democratic Republic of Congo
2.4.18 Somalia
3.1.1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992–1995
3.1.2 Rwanda
3.1.3 Cambodia
3.2.1 Darfur, Sudan

[joeglow3]

112. Cause Chicago and DC show us that banning guns stops murders

[Shankapotomus]

116. People can't go outside dc and Chicago

to get guns?

[joeglow3]

186. Do criminals need to leave DC or Chicago

to get guns? You inadvertently proved my point.

[deacon_sephiroth]

34. That's odd

It's the 1% fascists that eat this 2nd amendment shit up with a spoon... something doesn't add up with your arguement. Oh yeah that's right, they aren't afraid of you. The 1% already took over the country, they did it with money and intelligence, and they did it legally, because they wrote the laws. So they'll gladly let you cuddle guns in a bunker until the end of days, what's it doing to them?... nothing.

[xxenderwigginxx]

46. The 1% already took over the country?

The 1% already took over the country? I don't understand your reason for continuing to vote, protest, or believe that re-electing our current president will matter. Trust me, if we allow the 1% to "take over the country" it will be obvious that it happened. Until then, that sort of rhetoric just discourages people from continuing to fight.

[era veteran]

76. That meme is bullshit

I don't fucking cuddle guns, I don't have a bunker and you can't make a point without an insult.
Those motherfuckers (the current 1%) did not write The Constitution.
Yes, the 1% is always afraid of the people. Always

[Warren Stupidity]

82. That is a joke, right?

Your pathetic disorganized under-equipped idiot militia has not will not and could not stop the kleptocrats from taking control. They didn't use arms to do that, they used dollars. But they will use the military power of the state to keep their control and if you were to be foolish enough to take them on you and your idiot pals would be dead in minutes.

[era veteran]

100. Thanks for all your helpful insight

Useful fools come in all political stripes.
Pathetic militia?
My Militia is a cell of one, the kind most feared by power.
The facts are most Democrats support the 2nd Amendment.

[Shankapotomus]

124. If you're happy with referring

to a consensus as proof of the practicality of a law, then there is no point in debating any further. You're going in circles. You're pointing out how the second amendment saves us from tyranny - one of the results of tyranny being killed senselessly - while thousands and thousands of people are already being killed senselessly under the second amendment.

Do you know how to debate because you're losing and you don't seem to know it.

I don't say this to offend but I don't understand your thinking.

Postulating a worse scenario doesn't seem to answer what we do about the very serious gun violence we have right now.

[era veteran]

165. There is no debate The 2nd Amendment is clear

What reason do you suppose they put it in?
I understand.

[nadinbrzezinski]

219. Hate to point this out

But this didn't work so well during the Whiskey Rebellion or the Civil War.

What tells you that you'll do better with your pea shooter against the modern-day military?

[Clames]

241. Considering how well the insurgency in Iraq...

...and Afghanistan has done? Keep in mind that the AR-15 is firing the same round add the M16 and most hunting rifles are firing more powerful cartridges than the 7.62mm NATO. I'm military and I sure as hell wouldn't want to fight the civilian population of the US because I know that we would be seriously outgunned.

[nadinbrzezinski]

245. What else did they use

And you are forgetting they were defending home...which is an incredible motivator.

You were there, what else were they using?

Don't be shy.

(For the rest of the reading public, unconventional warfare and remotely detonated explosives...)

Just head to head encounter, they lost every time.

Oh and be seriously outgunned? Serious, you are serious here...no shit, you are being serious...

I guess that squadron of Apaches is outgunned by a few yahoos carrying Remington 30-30 rifles.

[Clames]

254. You are seriously clueless.

Everything that Iraq insurgents applied could be applied here and with more effectiveness. Drawing on a much more technologically advanced base at that. Remember I understand the capabilities and the limitations of things like Apaches and tanks, you do not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

302. Of course you do, why the next civil war

will be over very fast... and YOU KNOW IT... YOU EVEN KNOW WHY.

But if you want to insist on that line, perhaps we could work on a fictional account of the coming great victory of the citizens over the US Government. I am sure in that fantasy line, we can even have the citizens defeat the big bad government.

Given the government is US... I guess we will have to defeat ourselves.

You especially should know why this is fantasy... and why the Military will be especially effective... and why Johnny will die a very fast and hard death.

But hey, whatever.

If you believe you can achieve what two other INTERNAL revolts could not... more power to you.

[CokeMachine]

305. Also don't forget

that Iraq is about the size of California. I don't think they understand what it would take, militarily, to cover this country. Plus, only a small percentage of the military would go to war against their countrymen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

306. Ah two more fantasies

1.- You have heard of the draft son? What do you think will happen if we have an actual internal civil war? I will tell you what will happen... BOTH sides will forcibly recruit people into the ranks. It is like a well known pattern since at least the American civil war... but hey...

2.- The army will not turn against civilians or their country men... possible, but not likely. Very few armies actually do that in such a case... Most do not, fyi. Yup both Egypt and the Red Army were great exceptions, not the rule.

I just love reading fantasy on the intertubes. Can I use this fantasy for plotting the novel on the great second american civil war?

Yup, the heroic and pure commander of the opposition that will liberate all of us from the tyrannical DC types will have to be named John Shay... just for shits and giggles.

[era veteran]

250. Hello

I watch your post for years and think you have some great insights.
The Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War were totally different things.
My point on an armed populace is based on the fact that any occupying force in history suffers from gorilla war from the people occupied. It does not work*. This country may have a coup d'état someday and if it comes from the military it will originate from the fascists at Colorado Springs and be stopped by the more traditional (read Constitutional following) US Army, to include the Veterans that sacrificed for you.

Channeling my heroine Cassandra

* Using the Roman model of Imperialism, killing everyone that doesn't comply, that will work but we don't do that.
Peace to you

[nadinbrzezinski]

257. Contextually they were BOTH internal rebellions

and we crossed the Rubicon a while ago by the by. We became an overt empire a while ago.

Have fun thinking that YOU will be able to put down something like that... Now that is a great idea for a novel\ script, given I control all that happens in a novel\script, I can make it happen that way... I might even name the hero John Shay... just for fun.

By the way, what you are advocating is civil war... and what tells you that the Army will somehow fight the Air Force? No serious here?



Precious will not do you much good against the current weapons of both war and surveillance.

For the record, due to the conversation we are having, say hi to our friends at NSA... no friend, that is not paranoia. We have the whistle blowers for this one. They even came the other day on the Spitzer show... so if you think that you can... by all means, Red Dawn was a hollywood script, not real life.

And like we used to joke when living in Navy Housing... boys nothing personal, but fuck hoover.

[geckosfeet]

19. And watch the smug punks come out of their dark corners to rub you face in the

pools of blood they are responsible for.

This kind of scolding is exactly what they are looking for. Like a little kid that keeps pushing you to get attention.

Taking guns away won't work. Tightening the regulation around the sale and purchase of guns might help keep them out of the hands of potential mass killers.

[deacon_sephiroth]

37. THE TERRORISTS WIN!

The real bad guys are just lurking in the shadows, waiting for us to disarm and then... they get ya... and the terrorists win. Or soemthing like that, right? I've heard this somewhere before... now who was it that always claimed that any disagreement with them was playing right into the enemy's hands..... hmmmmm

[tiny elvis]

89. describe the difference between taking guns away

and tightening regulation to keep them out of hands with potential

[JackInGreen]

20. I'm afraid

By and large you're seeing and going to see a reaction to this like anyone would have to someone trying to 'parent' a group of people. They'll flip you the bird and you'll get no traction.
Try something else, this doesn't work.

[Clames]

21. Was there a solution posted by the OP?

I read a wall of words but saw no solution in them.

[IdaBriggs]

33. See post #30.

I need to get to work.

Also, I like the "treat them like cars" suggestion offered by some folks, but I want to hear some more ideas, too.

You want to keep a gun, get to work thinking!

[Clames]

48. Keep a gun?

I have a few and that isn't changing anytime soon. That "they are going to take the guns away..." Nonsense works both ways.

[xxenderwigginxx]

52. You want to keep a gun, get to work thinking!

This approach will get you nowhere. You can't simply shift the burden. The right to own a gun exists, gun owners do not have to demonstrate that it should exist, if you want to remove guns then you have to demonstrate that the right to own them should not exist. (and get 38 states to ratify an amendment)

[IdaBriggs]

85. You can own as many guns as you want; I can regulate the heck out of the bullets then.

THEY aren't in the constitution.

I can also put ten thousand dollar taxes on your gun sales, shut down the "Garage Sale Gun Shows", and send the IRS after every single spokesperson for the NRA, or have the FBI go after "gun leadership" as a domestic terrorist organization if I find ONE PERSON supplying training or providing "arms" to "criminals" -- all without "taking them away" -- these are just SOME of the "creative solutions" I am coming up with to address RECKLESS GUN VIOLENCE.

Now, if you don't like MY ideas, come up with some of your own, because I AM DONE pretending "this is the new normal!"

[joeglow3]

115. All of which would be declared unconstitutional

because they inhibit a Constitutional right unduly. You need to review your history better.

[xxenderwigginxx]

123. ?

The problem is, you keep saying "I can". No you can't. Any solution has to pass congress and hold up in the coourts. None of your emotional and verging on tyranical ideas would pass that test. I understand your position, what im trying to express is that you are taking an irrational approach. You obviously don't care about having gun rights, but consservatives dont like some of the rights you think are important. I wonder how you will respond if they then decide to use your own tactics on rights that you do deem important. Ten thousand dollar tax on gun sales would fail for the same reason that the poll tax did. I think that you are throwing out idea without considering the precident it would set, and how it would then be used against other rights. As Martin Niemöller (A WWII German theologian) said
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[dmallind]

148. Leaving aside the fact you can't actually do any of those things, let's pretend you could

I can regulate the heck out of the bullets then.

and millions of people can reload the billions upon billions already in circulation using a few dollars worth of equipment and common commodities

THEY aren't in the constitution.

I'm not sure you're qualified to parse the meaning of "arms" in constitutional law. I'm not either of course, but I'd be willing to bet a sound argument can be made that the word entails arms that are...ermm.. armed.

I can also put ten thousand dollar taxes on your gun sales,

And gun buyers can always buy privately and untaxed

shut down the "Garage Sale Gun Shows"

Here I can speak to constitutional law because this one is black and white and settled as can be. No you can't. Intrastate commerce is reserved for the states and the people. Amendments 9 and 10.

, and send the IRS after every single spokesperson for the NRA,

only in an example of turpitude that would have you quickly impeached, and since under 5% of gunowners are even members, and few members probably care much about the taxes of the spokesmen, it would do bugger all if you did. Can't stand them myself, but this idea grabbers have that the NRA is the be all and end all of the gun-owning bloc is rather silly. If the NRA was wiped from the earth tomorrow it would do not one single thing to reduce gun ownership.

or have the FBI go after "gun leadership" as a domestic terrorist organization if I find ONE PERSON supplying training or providing "arms" to "criminals"

Again no you can't. You'd have to use statutes such as RICO which expressly cover only organized efforts not individual action. You can't make the group a terrorist organization for one person's actions any more than Eric Rudolph made Christianity one - and he actually killed people with bombs.

-- all without "taking them away" -- these are just SOME of the "creative solutions" I am coming up with to address RECKLESS GUN VIOLENCE.

Now, if you don't like MY ideas, come up with some of your own, because I AM DONE pretending "this is the new normal!"

None are solutions at all, let alone creative ones. I can at least cover the former much better. Since more than half of the gun murders in the US are gang and drug related, the most impactful idea would be blanket legalization of currently illegal recreational drugs (I use none now, and would use none if legalized). No more turf wars = far fewer deaths. But these folks are primarily minority urban victims so get little attention or fuss. To address the tiny fraction of gun deaths that are big media stories the best solution would be to fully fund and destigmatize mental health care and establish a consistent reporting structure to the NICS database that differentiates between the non-risky, the temporarily risky and the permanently risky patients (never been in or as far as I know needed that care myself). But none of tgose punishes or even inconveniences the nasty gun owning scum you obviously hate so non-starters I'm guessing. How about to go somewhat down that road and still deal with people who are actually a risk, we suggest a 15 yr non-parole eligible adder for serious crimes with a gun, even unfired. Rob, steal, fight, carjack, rape, threaten, assault, whatever with a gun and get 15 yrs added on. that would move most offenders past the peak criminal years and lessen reoffending risk as well as disincentivize armed crime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But do you know what all this will do to stop the current bete du jour infinitesimally likely and statistically irrelevant crimes like the movie thing that's got the grabbers all gleefully using it to push their crusades again? Bugger all. Just like any of your "ideas" would. Just like an absolute blanket ban would. Just like anything else you can think of would. Bugger all. Even if we magically could wave a wand and eliminate the existence, history and even idea of guns from all humanity, it would do bugger all to stop the mass murders committed by previously unremarkable people who go nuts. It wouldn't have stopped Kehoe blowng up three times as many. It wouldn't have stopped Gonzales burning seven times as many. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, 52 percent involved guns.

How do we stop these? We can't. The only thing likely to even reduce them is as unconstitutional as regulating intrastate commerce to enforce, but it would be a great help if voluntarily followed. We could stop talking about them, publicizing them, turning their perpetrators into household names and giving them the undivided attention of tens of millions of strangers slavering for every salacious detail. It's impossible of course, but it would do far more to disincentivize such things than making getting guns expensive, inconvenient, or even impossible.

[CokeMachine]

307. Very well stated!!

Thank you

[Shankapotomus]

23. Exactly

They talk about their right to guns. What about our right to life? What about the President's oath to protect us from all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC? What about when that "well regulated militia" is killing us?

[billy_j]

24. What Can You Do About It?

I hear and understand you , like many of us, are angry with the rising Gun violence in these United States. But, I wonder, despite you venting your outrage, what can you do to " so help me I will do it for you.

And you won't like my solution. I promise. "


And what is that solution? I am curious as to what to do.
Would you post what your "solution" is?

[IdaBriggs]

30. That is the point exactly.

It is not MY JOB to come up with solutions to the problem; it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the hobbyists to make sure it is SAFE for the people around them if they want to play.

I didn't bring this puppy home. Either take care of it, and clean up the mess its making/make sure it doesn't make any more, or it needs to go.

The analogy is pretty obvious.

[Shankapotomus]

41. And I'll back you up on this

You are exactly right and have stated it brilliantly.

If guns are supposed to keep us safe, why do we have one of the highest gun deaths?

Either guns do what they claim they do - protect us - or the gun advocates should expect severe regulation.

[LAGC]

42. So what other hobbyists are responsible for making it safe for others around them?

Swimmers? Swimming pools kill far more kids than guns. Are swimmers to blame?

[IdaBriggs]

96. As a matter of fact, YES.

When people who liked to swin noticed sometimes people "drowned", they came up with the concept of "life guards" and "life saving training," and also signs warning people not to swim in places that were "too dangerous" due to rip tides and such. Owners of pool's put up signs and enforce common sense rules that keep everyone "safe" - no running, no pushing, no diving, etc.

Other organizations - like people who fly toy planes - have common sense rules and guide lines, and there are consequences if your "toy plane" destroys property.

Responsible people need to step forward to address the situation.

I really like your "treat them cars" solution, by the way. It seems like a good source of revenue to pay the salary of the folks doing the paperwork, as well as a way to make sure everyone takes the responsibility seriously.

[Lizzie Poppet]

122. The same thing is already true for forearms.

In fact, for all its many faults,* the NRA is also the preeminent firearms safety training organization. Shooting ranges have all sorts of warning signs and rules governing behavior...just like public pools. And there most certainly are consequences if one's firearm destroys property (or people, for that matter)...


* for the record, I'm not a member and I despise the organization's tendency to act in the political arena like an arm of the Republican Party

[99Forever]

108. Well smart guy.

We have a pool in our backyard, and YES, as the owners of said pool, we are indeed RESPONSIBLE to ensure that it doesn't kill someone, and take measures to make sure it doesn't.

Have another cup of fail.

[Marengo]

267. What are you doing to ensure OTHER pool owners are taking the same responsibility?

The OP is requesting collective responsibility.

[99Forever]

285. Ask me that the next time someones pool ...

... leaves it's owners yard and kills and wounds scores of people who had no intention of swimming it it.

[slackmaster]

137. I've got you covered on that one, IdaBriggs

I spent almost $3,000 on a safe for my curio and relic firearm collection several years ago.

Wouldn't it make sense for Congress to offer an income tax deduction for firearm owners who decide to do the right thing and acquire robust safe storage devices for their weapons?

ETA - See? The OP's plan could actually work if only our lawmakers will start LISTENING to us instead of ignoring our helpful, practical suggestions.

[Pab Sungenis]

197. Interesting idea.

However I would balance it out to make it revenue neutral.

Increased taxes on the sale of certain classes of firearms, offset by tax rebates on the purchase of safety equipment (like safes and trigger locks).

[slackmaster]

198. IMO reducing stolen firearms would reduce law enforcement and emergency medical costs

It would also reduce insurance claims for thefts.

We all pay for police and fire protection, and for keeping schools running even after our kids have grown up.

Just take a little of the edge off the expense of a good safe. I'm not asking for a major subsidy here. Just a carrot to sweeten the pot.

[Pab Sungenis]

202. I'm serious. I think it would be a good idea.

I'm all for tax rebates for safes and trigger locks.

Like I said, however, we would want to keep it revenue neutral. Perhaps start with a significantly-increased tax on magazines larger than 10 rounds.

[IdaBriggs]

243. I like this, slackmaster. It makes sense to me.

Bravo on you!



(Using the original meme, you can keep your toys, as long as you take care of them in a responsible way - and this seems like an excellent suggestion.)

[liberal N proud]

26. Bravo!

[xxenderwigginxx]

35. Hmmm

Your rights to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness would eventually cease to exist without your second amendment right.

[leftofcool]

53. Finally. A post in this thread that makes sense.

[leftyohiolib]

58. that's right cause your ar15 is going to fend off the govrmnt if they come after you

it worked out well in waco didnt it?

[Thor_MN]

66. Really? Offer proof of your claim, please.

Can you prove that without allowing people to purchase an arsenal capable of reversing the outcome of any Revolutionary war battle, that the Constitution would crumble?

Just to be clear, I own several firearms. However, I don't think that I need to be able to own weapons that are capable of mowing down a crowd of people in a matter of seconds. I rarely have need to do that.

[xxenderwigginxx]

151. world history is my proof

Read a book.

[nadinbrzezinski]

222. So tell me, how well did that work out

During the Whiskey rebellion? Did I mention the Civil War? More recently, how did that work out for the Iraquis in 1991?

Oh and rebellions that actually succeeded had some serious outside help...or you telling me Lybians could have done it without a no fly zone? Oh next you'll point to Syria...they are also getting outside help, and getting pounded to snot since they are still using pea shooters against tanks.

So, red dawn fantasy and all, how long do you think you'll last against the government? And you truly think they truly fear you?

As you said, read a book.

[Shankapotomus]

68. Funny how

there are over 12,000 murders committed with guns each year WITH those second amendment rights in place and approximately 16,000 suicides. Seems a lot of people's life, liberty and happiness, including those in Colorado, have ceased to exist under an intact second amendment. Much more than in Japan, where guns ownership is intolerably regulated by U.S. standards. So your point is?

Deaths by self defense using a firearm is approximately 600.

[LAGC]

71. Most defensive gun uses don't involve killing anyone.

Just brandishing is often enough to deter a criminal assault.

[DanTex]

81. Most defensive gun uses aren't actually "defensive"

They are the result of escalating arguments where both the "other guy" started it. The statistical evidence indicates that, for most people, a gun increases the risks more than it reduces them.

[klook]

214. So I've read on DU recently.

Therefore, brandishing a convincing gun replica would be sufficient in many situations.

Self defense, then, is not entirely dependent on the ability to kill or wound.

Good info, thanks.

It seems reasonable, then, that the ability to kill or wound a lot of people in a short amount of time (say, 70 people in <3 minutes, just to pick a random scenario) would be necessary for self defense only in a very, very small number of situations, if ever.

I would argue that Second Amendment advocates and detractors alike have common ground in drastically reducing the opportunities for people to kill large numbers of other people in a short amount of time.

[IdaBriggs]

256. Wow. Nicely phrased!

I like everything you said!

[xxenderwigginxx]

145. Japan?

Mao Ze-Dong -China 49 to 70,000,000
Adolf Hitler -Germany 12,000,000
Leopold II- Belgium 8,000,000
Jozef Stalin-USSR 6,000,000
Hideki Tojo-japan 5,000,000
Pol Pot- Cambodia 1,700,000
See? I can do that too.
Congress estimates that the number of disarmed civilians killed by their own government between 1900 and 1991 to be 169,198,000.
You can point to non-gun owning nations as examples if you want, but I can point to facts on the other end of the spectrum as well. You also are ignoring the possibility that japans government is kept in check by us.

For comparison, estimated gun deaths in the US since 1900 is 2,700,000. That includes accidental, murder, and suicide. 80% of the murders were commited by felons, career criminals, and/or gang members..which dont care about your regulations. To check my numbers see the CDC Threat report 2005.

[Shankapotomus]

171. Firstly

of course it makes perfect sense that, left to their own devices, today's Japanese government would start killing off their population. Makes perfect sense! Why wouldn't they?

Secondly, if our government can keep the nation of Japan in check what do you think you're going to do to it?

Thirdly, I'm sure many of those populations started out armed and it made no difference in their fates to a strong government that decided it didn't want them around anymore.

Lastly, you are postulating intentions on our government based on history and no evidence attributable directly to the government in question. If our government wanted to put people in concentration camps, an armed populace wouldn't stop them as it didn't stop them during WW2 with Japanese-Americans interment camps.

[xxenderwigginxx]

131. Im not paranoid.

I am not a wild eyed survivalist waiting for the feds to bust my door in. But the framers of our Constitution clearly thought that the right to bear arms was NECESSARY to a free state. I think that the reason many people do not understand how true that is is because the 2nd has been quietly doing its job. Obviously our founders were aware of the idea of a centralized standing military since that is what basically every nation had, why would they not simply have required that the federal government maintain an active military if national defense were the only intent? I do not think there is presently any danger of our government turning on its citizens in that extreme. But to say that it is impossible it would ever happen demonstrates that you are ignorant of human nature and world history. Also, as i have stated before, we should be careful about selectively trampling rights that we dont see as "important". Our own tactics will be used against us on other rights when the wrong people hold majority. Its easy to say that "the right to own guns can stay, we will just regulate it into basic nonexistence " but wait until evil men apply that same logic to freedom of speech, press, religion, right to vote, etc

[nadinbrzezinski]

221. No, not really

That my friend IS AN NRA TALKING POINT.

[joeybee12]

55. KNR...the gun aficionados don't seem to realize it's called the Bill of RightS

Plural.

[LAGC]

57. I support the entire Bill of Rights.

Do you?

[secondwind]

60. Excellent OP IdaBriggs, and same for your subsequent posts. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Raging grandmother, here.

[IdaBriggs]

98. Thank you.

[Egalitarian Thug]

77. And every mass murderer started out as A CHILD!

Afraid to look at the root cause of all of our pain and suffering?

A-Ha! Take that!

[IdaBriggs]

86. LOL! Yes. And every criminal started out as a smarty pants.

But also some of the best and brightest minds did the same thing.

Now, put that intellect to work!!!

[michreject]

84. I don't own any assault weapons

I do however own an AR-15, an UZI and and a AK-47 in semi auto.

I have no plans in getting rid of them.

As to shooting up your kids school by some deranged idiot, I can assure you it won't be be. I can only control MY actions.

[IdaBriggs]

97. That is part of the problem - you can only control YOU

while your toys, through theft or your untimely demise, could end up anywhere, and in the hands of anyone.

And you are assuming you can actually "control yourself" - I believe you, by the way - but given the addition of alcohol, illegal drugs, or mental illness, the same "good judgment" can not be counted on by everyone else.

Now that I have pointed out these issues, do you have any suggestions on how to address these reasonably obvious realities?

Because, "yeah, that sucks, maybe we should all sing kumbya" isn't acceptable anymore.

[michreject]

103. I don't drink or do drugs

Been 20 years now.

Short of a out right ban, which ain't gonna happen, I don't see anything that could have been done to stop the CO massacre. The shooter didn't exhibit any of the traits that would have rendered him ineligible to purchase a firearm.

I do know that restricting tights and freedom of the 99% to ensure the the 1% doesn't cause mayhem and destruction is not the answer. Not to sound cavalier about it but I guess it's the cost we pay to remain free.

A persons INALIENABLE rights go only so far. They cease when they infringe on another persons rights. You can't deny me my right in the quest for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That's just the way it is.

[LynneSin]

88. It's not guns that scare me

It's the nutty owners who think their penis is somehow bigger because they own a shitload of them.

[Orrex]

99. It would be inconvenient to own a shitload of penises.

I can see how that would make people a little nutty.

[Remmah2]

196. Nuts generally are paired up with a penis.

Biology 101.

[Pab Sungenis]

204. DUzy!

[LAGC]

143. How does that apply to all the millions of women gun-owners?

What "penis insecurities" do they have?

[LynneSin]

152. This isn't about people who own a gun

It's about people who get all bent out of shape because they feel they should be able to buy as many guns as they want, anytime they want, any type they want and with little background check.

My stepfather owns guns and rifles but he treats them with respect and keeps them locked when not in use (he enjoys hunting). His life doesn't revolve around his guns they are just a hobby he visits maybe once or twice a year.

[Javaman]

101. Thanks for the post!

It has served two purposes.

1) it highlights exactly what needs to be done

and most importantly...

2) it helped me clear out all the gun nuts and put them on ignore.

This OP was a one stop shop for greatness!

[dmallind]

106. Yep you're done.

Your "ideas" here are done being considered. Dead. Never to be resurrected as long as our society and laws exist in their current form.

Your strident empty claims of authority are done being given the remotest sliver of influence or import.

Your admitted ignorance of the topic is done having even a back-row seat at any discussion of gun laws or rights.

Your empty "contrast" of rights that no more conflict than the right to liberty and the existence of prisons is done as even the sad tired rhetorical device it is, since the use of a firearm to end your life has always been, and remains, about as illegal as it's possible to be.

Mommy's just stamping her foot and pointlessly screaming a tantrum about millions of other adults who are, thankfully, not her children and never were.

You. ARE. Done.

[IdaBriggs]

120. Yawn. More "neener neener" - now address the issues, please.

If you want to keep your guns, help the grown ups find a way to make sure the rest of us can LIVE with that.

[Alduin]

107. A billion dollars would make me happy.

Do I have the right to get a billion dollars?

I totally agree with what you're saying. I hate guns and I want to see them heavily regulated, but your argument is flawed.

[ileus]

109. Are. You. Done.

LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...That's what the 2A is all about.

[Bellerophon]

113. People are killed by

Drunk drivers every single day.... More lives are destroyed by cars and alcohol than firearms.

You do know that the crackpots will just find another way????

[IdaBriggs]

126. Read the thread: Tens of Millions drive, and receive a benefit from get benefit.

We work to minimize the risk, regulate for safety, and insure standards are met, etc.

The cost benefit analysis is not the same for THIS HOBBY.

But if you wish to apply the same standards of care, I'm ready to jump on that band wagon:

Annual registration, law and skill tests, revocable privileges, insurance requirements, and rules where and how they can be used.

Its good thinking, isn't it? Good job on you!

[4th law of robotics]

117. You say you're done arguing so I won't bother refuting your claims

I will instead leave it at this: I'm glad people like you are a tiny minority in our republic.

[IdaBriggs]

121. The "arguing" was over whether random gun violence was a new, acceptable norm.

That argument is over.

ITS NOT.

[Lizzie Poppet]

125. I doubt there was ANY actual "argument" over that point.

No one's arguing that gun violence (random or otherwise) is acceptable. The arguments are over what should and should not be done to attempt to lessen the violence.

[IdaBriggs]

127. Unfortunately, the "neener neener" crowd disagrees with you.

I believe they consider it an "accepted fact" and the worse it gets, the more they double down.

If they don't like my solutions, then I want them to come up with some of their own, not just the same old "wah! wah! mean mommy wants to take my gun away!" cry baby nonsense.

[Lizzie Poppet]

134. Fortunately, it's NOT getting worse.

Violent crime, including that committed with firearms, has been trending downward for some time now. Not, unfortunately, to anything like the level prior to the enormous "spike" upward in the 60s. That would indicate that there is still room for improvement in our approach...unless one really does accept that we'll never see those pre-60's lower violence levels again.

That might well be the case. We may have seen a fundamental societal shift...it may just be impossible to ave lower violence levels in a nation clearly spiraling into its social and economic decline. but I for one prefer to continue making the effort. I think we agree on that, for all that we probably disagree on just how that fight should be carried out.

[IdaBriggs]

170. Saying "the problem isn't really that bad" isn't working for me.

Neither is it working for a bunch of people in (list states where gun toting maniacs gunned down multiple people).

In this case, I'm going to go with the "relationship issue" answer - if one of us thinks there is a problem, but the other one is perfectly happy with the way things are, there is a PROBLEM IN THE RELATIONSHIP.

[Lizzie Poppet]

228. You realize I said no such thing, right?

Just because a problem isn't getting worse doesn't mean it's not bad.

[4th law of robotics]

129. Gun violence is on the decline

all recent hysteria aside the trend is towards less gun crime every year.

Pretty impressive considering that gun ownership is on the increase and the economy is not doing so great.

[tiny elvis]

249. all recent violence aside

fuck it, all past violence aside
outrageous extremes are hard to maintain
i expect the hysteria to be over by christmas

[Logical]

118. LOL, was this a serious post?

[IdaBriggs]

128. Whoops - just understood your PM!

An intentionally humorous swipe on a serious topic, so yes.

I'm a MEAN mommy. Just ask my five year olds!

I want them to be around to complain about me even if they go see a batman movie next year, so, yes, its a serious post.

[slackmaster]

133. 7 out of possible 10 points

Good use of bold and italic text. Hyperbole and pride of ignorance always make a good foundation - Getting too specific about who or what you are railing against tends to draw focus away from the style and tone of a rant.

Referring to mentally ill people with the pejorative "crackpot" might not go over well with some in this audience, but few of our fellow board members who are coping with mental health issues would voluntarily wear that mantle, so it's probably acceptable.

It could be improved a point or two by adding some profanity, and maybe a few more animated emoticons. I'm afraid the subtle irony of ending a rant about personal firearms with an icon depicting one of the most destructive weapons ever conceived will be lost on most of the readers.

All in all a good effort!

[IdaBriggs]

140. Thank you - thank you very much!

We'll be here all night, playing at meaningful dialogue about tough political topics!

Glad you caught irony of the nuke - when no one mentioned it, I thought it had gone over most heads.

Can't help but notice the theater critic style ignores the content, but since I found it amusing (and it was correctly identified as a rant), I'm going to give you the point for nice writing.

[slackmaster]

157. Please see reply #137 - I haven't overlooked the content of your OP, but I consider it proper...

...to keep discussions of artistic acumen separate from the narrative.

It's a long tradition on the Internet to rate rants ONLY on the mastery of style demonstrated by the author.

[hack89]

135. The RKBA is an inalienable right

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

[Orrex]

150. If they were natural and inalienable, they wouldn't need to be enumerated

Plenty of "inalienable rights" have been curtailed, forfeited, and denied for millennia.

Inalienable right to life? Routinely denied.
Inalienable right to liberty? Frequently curtailed.
Inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness? Denied almost constantly.

The same goes for every right enumerated in the BoR; if they were universal and inalienable, it would be impossible to take them away.

Unless by "inalienable" you actually mean "stuff that we really, really want to have."


So what was your point again?

[hack89]

154. So none of the BOR are inalienable rights? OK.

too bad the Constitution is the basis for our legal system - enumerated rights are our most protected rights. As it should be.

[Orrex]

159. If they were natural and inalienable, they wouldn't need to be enumerated

They are enumerated expressly because they can be curtailed, denied, and taken away. Therefore, by definition, they aren't inalienable.

Understand it now? It's a pretty basic concept, as a matter of fact.

[hack89]

162. So show me where in the US system of justice, inalienable rights trump enumerated rights.

I have no doubt there are reams of case history to back you up. There must be many Supreme Court decisions based on inalienable rights overriding enumerated rights.

[Orrex]

229. I'm arguing the opposite.

Far from trumping enumerated rights, I would argue that the concept of inalienable rights is almost meaninglessly abstract. An enumerated right has the power of law behind it as well as mechanisms for enforcment. An inaliemable right is a philosophical construct with no power of law until it is enumerated.

So what was your question again?

[hack89]

230. I think we agree - sorry for the confusion. nt

[Orrex]

238. I'll totallly kick you ass for agreeing with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!

[Petrushka]

144. The phrase "inalienable rights" isn't found in the Constitution but . . .

. . . it's from the Declaration of Independence and, therefore, (in great-granny's opinion, of course) Mommy has taken the phrase "inalienable rights" out of context---unless, of course, Mommy would like to explain exactly why and how the Declaration of Independence trumps anything at all in the Bill of Rights.

[IdaBriggs]

163. Got me on that one.

I accept the spanking as deserved (with the constitutional identification), but stick by the concept that I was endowed by my creator with certain inalienable rights - LIFE - and they trump the second amendment.

Second amendment comes after LIFE. Dead people usually don't apply for CCW.

ON EDIT: My first reply made absolutely no sense - sorry! Trying to type fast and do work, too!

[Petrushka]

269. Didn't the British soldiers who fought on this side of the pond have the same "inalienable rights"?

Of course, they did! They were here, however, to destroy the inalienable rights of the colonists; and, in the process, lives were lost on both sides of the battle.

Because the Creator provided all living creatures with a will-to-live and a fight-or-flee reflex, who can pretend that defending oneself and one's territory isn't a natural right? If it takes a weapon to do so, I suppose there was a time when a slingshot and a rock did the trick. However, the Founding Fathers of this nation supposed otherwise and, thus, the Bill of Rights includes among other inalienable rights, the right to keep and bear arms---"inalienable" inasmuch as, whether we choose to use it or not, U.S. citizens possess that inalienable* right and can neither sell it nor transfer it to anyone else . . . but, oh, there are enemies who would destroy it!
_____________________________
*That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another.


P.S.
FWIW: If anyone asks: No, I am not even a fan of the NRA . . . much less a member.

[99Forever]

147. Thank you IdaBriggs.

It took Moms getting MADD to finally have our Nation take some real action against another brand of deadly insanity. Don't back down, not one inch. I refuse to "respect" the "right" of those that don't respect other peoples.

The facts are simple. Gun owners and their terrorist organization, the NRA, haven't just not done a damn thing to stop gun violence, they have steadfastly stood in the way of EVERY effort by the rest of us to do so. As you say, if they won't clean up the mess THEY MADE, we'll do it for them, on our terms. Frankly, I couldn't care less if they like it or not.

Bravo.

[LAGC]

155. The NRA has over 4 million members.

The largest gun control group in this country only has a small fraction of that number.

Who do you think politicians are more likely to listen to?

[99Forever]

168. The current population of the USA is ...

.. 314,035,435. Do the math smart guy. That means well over 98% of us AREN'T members of your terrorist organization.

Another cup of steaming hot fail?

[LAGC]

176. There are 80 million gun owners in the United States.

Only 4 million are NRA members, but many more can be mobilized to act and vote when gun rights are threatened.

The gun control camp has nothing even close. Not only are there very few members in these anti-gun organizations, but they aren't very good about motivating independent voters either.

With violent crime still on the decline after 15 straight years, I don't see that math changing any time soon...

[99Forever]

181. "Mobilized"

Is that some sort of threat?

I keep hearing that you all are such a bunch of 'good, law-abiding, patriotic' citizens. WTF is up with that?

[LAGC]

193. My goodness, no!

All I'm saying is that gun owners are highly motivated to vote in their self-interest.

If the gun controllers were anywhere near as organized or motivated, obviously our politicians would vote quite differently.

But they aren't, and they don't.

And nothing is going to change if the violent crime rate keeps on falling.

So your argument falls on deaf ears.

[disidoro01]

207. Mobilized to act and vote

How offensive you are. No where was there a threat of violence but that isn't good enough for you is it? You are painting anyone with a gun as a criminal and a terrorist and that is both disgusting and why the gun control lobby will never affect any change.

[99Forever]

220. 33 posts...

... and spouting the NRA line.

Care to explain?

[disidoro01]

290. no

I will not explain the number of posts I have.

[99Forever]

292. Wow, I'm stunned.

Will the surprises never stop coming?

[nadinbrzezinski]

225. Just don't make the mistake of all gun owners

Even NRA members, not the leadership, are behind things like 100 % background checks. We have been literally hijacked by a small, paranoid fringe. In the case of Wayne LaPierre, he's not paranoid, he's raking in the dough. He knows who butters his bread.

[99Forever]

272. If I'm over the top...

.. it's because the NRA ilk has put me there. As I look at where we are and how we got here, what has become painfully clear, is that the actual extremists, the anything goes gun lovers and greedy corporate murder machine manufacturers, are who is getting paid attention to. The dead, wounded and sick and tired of the reign of terror, merely asking for some sane controls on their murderous tools of their trade, are being ignored. Aurora was the tipping point for me and lots of others. I don't give a rat's ass about their phony claims to a "right" that clearly ISN'T as they would have us believe it. So now I'm an unapologetic extremist. If they can't play nice with their toys and see to it that all of their cultist brethren do also, then they don't need their toys. A no halfway compromises strategy has worked to keep the yearly (or so) pile of bodies growing, perhaps it's time we adopted the mirror image of it. No guns in the hands of private citizens, period.

Up until a week ago, I was willing to settle for "reasonable limits," now I'm not, and it sure wasn't because of anything the sane controls on weapons contingent said or did. My opinion was pushed over the edge by the actions and words of people who have a fetish that kills many thousands of other people every year for no damn good reason.

[disidoro01]

156. the pool analogy

fails because while anti-gun rights pool owners may be able to secure their pool, you can't secure the pools of others. Law abiding gun owners do secure their weapons, they can't make others do so. This nonsensical and hateful attack on law abiding gun owners is really a key reason why no changes will be made. References to toys, to penises, gun-nuts. People, this may be they way you talk about your friends and families but when dealing with other adults, you also should behave like an adult. No one in this forum killed innocent people, why are you attempting to pigeon hole them as murderers or at the very least accomplices?
You don't like guns, I get this. You will never take them away from the american citizenry, you will never put prohibitive taxes on them. Do something useful come to the table and discuss the issue of gun violence rationally.
Lets also discuss lax mental health laws that allow this kind of violence. Europe has more stringent standards, allowing the detention of individuals against their will for long periods of time to ensure treatment even if the person doesn't want treatment. Is being mentally ill and possibly a danger a crime? I don't think so but I think to look at gun violence without a hard look at mental illness treatment options is wrong.
I have never fired my guns at a person or in anger, why call me an accomplice to murder? I will never work with you to reduce violence if this is how you feel about me. You will never get any changes put forward if this is how you talk about gun owners. We will just double down against your proposed changes and we will win. Stop fantasizing that you are actually going to do anything with this kind of vitriol.
Are we clear?

[xxenderwigginxx]

169. K&R

Well said.

[99Forever]

175. Our pool...

.. isn't going to be stolen and used in the massacre of dozens, in not hundreds of innocent people going about their lawful daily lives. Nor should I have a break with reality, can I take it down to a theater and drown dozens of people.

When your maniac brethren stops mowing down thousands of people a year, you'll hear the end of OUR "vitriol." Till then, you are going to hear it until your ears bleed.

[qb]

158. K&R Thanks Ida

[Remmah2]

172. Guess it's obvious, our kids will never play together.

Glad you're not my mother, glad you're not my kids mother.

Both of my kids have been captains of their schools rifle team (when they were jr-sr's). Both of my kids go shooting with me and their mother.

Keep an eye on your kids and I'll keep an eye on mine.

[IdaBriggs]

185. And what did they think of the new Batman movie?

Were they nervous when they went to see it? I was (but I went anyway, because I'll be damned before I let fear prevent me from living my life). I liked Spiderman better.

Did they come home alive? Did that have anything to do with the guns in your home, or was it because THEY GOT LUCKY?

When seeing a movie, visiting a mall, going to college or even stopping at a gas station has to come with a warning label: "Today, you might not get lucky, because a lunatic might decide to kill you because he can," there is a problem.

Does it have *anything* to do with your kids activities? You tell me. If the answer is NO, then help fix the problem because a bunch of kids AREN'T LUCKY ANYMORE.

[Remmah2]

194. My kids are sane and mature.

Their mom is sane and mature. We're working at making them productive members of society, not problems.

They're not so sure about their dad though.

[dickthegrouch]

180. Militia wear uniforms

A well regulated militia wears a uniform
EVERYONE carrying should wear a uniform which is HEAVILY regulated.
Anyone not in uniform when carrying goes to prison forever IMHO

[slackmaster]

184. Actually, only members of the organized components of the militia e.g. National Guard wear uniforms.

I'll be wearing slacks and a Hawaiian shirt today because it's Friday.

Aloha!

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130


120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia--and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the
State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

123. Whenever the Governor deems it necessary, he or she may order
an enrollment to be made by officers designated by the Governor, of
all persons liable to service in the militia. The enrollment shall
include any information that the Governor may require. Three copies
thereof shall be made: one copy shall be filed in the office of the
clerk of the county in which the enrollment is made, and two copies
in the office of the Adjutant General.

124. Enrollment shall be made upon such notice and in such manner
as the Governor may direct. Every person required by such notice to
enroll who fails or refuses so to do is guilty of a misdemeanor.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[dickthegrouch]

189. Where does that mention uniforms?

The Geneva Convention requires uniforms for all combatants.

[slackmaster]

191. Members of the unorganized militia aren't combatants

We're a reserve component.

[Remmah2]

192. The art students on campus all wear uniform clothing.

Milita?

[slackmaster]

203. That's because art students are all strive to be unique individuals

Just like everybody else.

[Remmah2]

218. I like the sculpture-art students.

I've designed exhaust systems for bronze casting, welding and woodwork.

They end up with a working knowledge of materials science and industrial fabrication. (I'm a frustrated artist).

[IdaBriggs]

236. This has some serious points - a "knight in shining armor" concept, maybe?

Identify the ones who know what they are doing, have taken the classes, and pledge to be responsible when carrying?

It is an old concept; I kind of like it a little. Bears more thinking about.

[xxenderwigginxx]

183. Anyone else notice

that some of the same people on DU who rant about the "police state", police brutality, and the military industrial complex will join 2nd Amendment discussions and claim that only the police and military should own guns? Odd

[slackmaster]

187. Nobody is more blind to a hypocrite's logical inconsistencies than the hypocrite himself or herself

All you have to do to get most of them to think is to point out that they are advocating for an authoritarian solution.

[IdaBriggs]

208. For heaven's sake, SAFETY CONCERNS for your HOBBY are not a dictatorship!

This is a lovely article about how "safety" was too expensive for movie makers, and what it took to fix that situation:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/07/the_twilight_zone_tragedy_how_vic_morrow_s_death_changed_the_way_films_are_made.html

Thirty years ago this week, a Hollywood star was decapitated while shooting a scene for a movie. The actor was Vic Morrow, the veteran star of the TV series Combat. He was killed, along with child actors Renee Chen and Myca Dinh Le, by a falling helicopter during filming of The Twilight Zone, a feature-length adaptation of Rod Serling’s television series.

Morrow played a bigot who skipped through time getting a taste of his own medicine. In the scene that would prove fatal, he was earning some Serling-style redemption by trying to rescue a pair of Vietnamese children from an American air raid. Mainly, the setup was an excuse for director John Landis to capture immense explosions on film.

(snip)

When the cameras rolled, pyrotechnic fireballs engulfed Wingo’s helicopter, forcing him down into a river where the actors waded. As a hundred or so people looked on, the right skid of the aircraft crushed 6-year-old Renee, who was a few feet from Morrow (the aging star had dropped her). The helicopter then toppled over, and its main blade sliced through Morrow and 7-year-old Myca. According to Stephen Farber and Marc Green’s exhaustive book on the incident, Outrageous Conduct, there was shocked silence until Renee’s mother started shrieking as she kneeled over her daughter’s lifeless body. Morrow never got to deliver his scripted line: “I’ll keep you safe, kids. I promise. Nothing will hurt you, I swear to God.”

(snip)

Terrible as the Twilight Zone accident was, some good did come of it. At Warner Bros., a behind-the-scenes revolution was set in motion, as a vice president named John Silvia was determined to tighten up the industry’s approach to safety. Silvia convened a committee that created standards for every aspect of filmmaking, from gunfire to fixed-wing aircraft to smoke and pyrotechnics. All the unions and guilds in the business were represented. “It was like lawmaking,” says Chris Palmer, a risk-management consultant who was part of the committee. “The committee had to parse words like ‘would, shall, and must’ because of the possibility of negligence lawsuits overtaking Hollywood if they were too strict in the wording.” The committee’s codicils were collected into a group of standards called Safety Bulletins. The studios then issued a manual to their employees based on the bulletins, known as the Injury and Illness Prevention Program. (The guidelines have been updated over the years and are now digitized—the current versions can be found here.)

And yet, movies are still being made, and when accidents happen, THEY UPDATE THE STANDARDS. They don't "play pretend" that there isn't a problem; THEY LEARN FROM IT.

[nadinbrzezinski]

233. Is anybody telling you to give up your precious

No

Just as a practical matter taking away 300+ guns from the streets is paranoid fantasy.

Keep your precious, by all means.

[cherokeeprogressive]

200. Yawning facepalm...

You're NOT my fucking Mom. Are we clear?

The Second Amendment confers NO rights. Learn a little about the BoR.

[kctim]

206. No they don't

and your fear of that Constitutional right means nothing. Stomping your feet in childish tantrums mean nothing. You hollow threats mean nothing. "I promise."

But, since you are pretending that you are done arguing and want solutions, here are the ONLY two solutions you have:

1. Accept that Americans love their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
2. Take that Constitutional right away from them.

[badtoworse]

213. This is tongue in cheek and I'm the only one who gets it. Right?

[aikoaiko]

217. IdaBriggs, "And you won't like my solution. I promise."

Ohh, please share. What is your solution that you think I won't like?

What solution could you have that has the slightest chance of even becoming a bill or getting a sponsor?

You call it a hobby. I call it a civil liberty.

[99Forever]

223. Sounds like the same kind logic ...

... when Big Tobacco insisted that the entire population had to be subjected to the dangers and deadly consequences of their killer product. How'd that work out for 'em?

[aikoaiko]

240. Not well for them but it led to a law to prevent that from happening to gun manufacturers.

Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)

So sad for the anti-gunnies on the left and right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - The Republican-controlled Congress delivered a long-sought victory to the gun industry on Thursday when the House voted to shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from liability lawsuits. The bill now goes to President Bush, who has promised to sign it.

The gun liability bill has for years been the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, which has lobbied lawmakers intensely for it. Its final passage, by a vote of 283 to 144, with considerable Democratic support, reflected the changing politics of gun control, an issue many Democrats began shying away from after Al Gore, who promoted it, was defeated in the 2000 presidential race.

[99Forever]

286. Doesn't that make ..

.. your gun loving heart just go pitter-patter? Heaven forbid that the first link in the chain of death for thousands of innocent citizens, without which, the murder couldn't happen, beheld responsible for their carnage. I bet you are so proud of your gun lobby's ability to threaten and buy off our government that makes you swoon, eh? Funny thing about tides....

[badtoworse]

242. Big Tobacco was done in because the contemplated and LAWFUL use of their product caused harm.

For that reason, they were sued. You cannot say that about firearms. Except for product defect, it is only the illegal or irresponsible use of firearms that would be actionable, and then, not against the gun manufacturer. That makes a big difference. Additionally, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right; the right to smoke is not explicitly stated.

Why do you think the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed? The manufacturers were being sued for the illegal acts of criminals, which is no different than suing Ford or GM for the actions of a drunk driver. Both would be abuses of the courts.

[MicaelS]

224. Mommy can put her foot down as often as she wants..

And Daddys and Sons will do what they always do. Which is let Mommy's screaming rants go in one ear, and right out the other, and not pay the slightest bit of attention.

Then go ahead and do what they planned to do anyway.

As the old saying goes "You are not the boss of me."

[IdaBriggs]

237. Sigh. "Neener neener" - right?

Already been addressed up thread. But I like the play into the original post!

[-..__...]

226. I can sum up my opinion regarding your little screed...

in two words...

Molon "fucking" Labe

(ok... that's 3 words, but I thought the original quote need a bit more emphasis).

Is that "clear" enough for you?

I mean... is it really, really clear?

Good!

Now... take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard, go to your room (pout if you must), and contemplate your foolishness.

[IdaBriggs]

239. Yes, its clear. Didn't they all die?

Every single one of them? Or are you talking about the FICTIONAL book, instead of real life?

(Yes, google is my friend! Did you read the books? Were they any good? Because the write up is about the power of the ballot box, and not about the beauty of unrestricted access to fire-arms.)

Also, I am confident they can be taken without resorting to violence. Lots of thieves do it all the time. They just wait until you aren't home.

[cali]

231. I understand your frustration, but I don't think you have a point other

than venting outrage in a rant. Nothing wrong with that.

[IdaBriggs]

253. I think I'm going to do a little more, cali.

Its partly a rant, but it is also a bit of a declaration of war.

I'm angry that the people who "love" guns haven't been stepping up and taking care of business. Nothing that has been said in this thread hasn't been said multiple times - both by the "neener neener" crowd, and the "it stops here" crowd.

The "it stops here" crowd doesn't know what to do; we feel helpless, and victimized. I'm not a good victim. I'm kind of a fighter. I don't need a gun for the kind of fighting I plan on doing - if I can figure out what needs doing (which I'm starting to get a little more clear on, but not completely yet).

At one level, since I'm not "into" guns, I've kind of just ignored the problem, shaking my head at the tragedies, and rolling my eyes because I know at least three people who have histories of mental illness where they actually spent some time in a hospital setting for their issues - and they have CCW permits.

I won't have a gun in my house because I don't trust myself (I have a quick temper, and a vivid imagination - lol! - "didn't I tell you to put the toilet seat down?" blam! blam! blam!). My dad was a hunter; he left his guns to my brothers (who, as far as I know, probably haven't used them since he passed); he was also involved with law enforcement, and I know they can be used as tools.

But like all things that can be deadly (cars, chemicals, wild animals), I believe they need to be treated with respect. They aren't. They are plot points for our entertainments. And the people who should care the most - the "enthusiasts" - don't seem to want to ... take responsibility? Acknowledge there is a problem in the relationship? Pick an analogy; there are dozens.

Somebody made a post last week "its the video games" - I think partly it is. That, and the television shows, and the movies, and the attitudes --

"Guns are cool. Guns are toys. Guns will make people FEAR YOU and RESPECT YOU and BE POLITE."

Let me tell you, put a gun in my face, and POLITE is the last thing I'm going to be. Lol!

I am my brother's keeper to a certain point. When this thread is done (and I'm almost there myself), I will file it. There are some good ideas here, along with the requisite "neener neener" stuff. My "other" project is coming along splendidly (pm me if you want details), and if I can do one impossible thing, then I don't understand why I can't do another.

Tools and Toys. That's all they really are, isn't it?

[Marcia Brady]

232. What about the gun owners' "inalienable right

to happiness?" If their guns make them happy, then isn't gun ownership an inalienable right?

[IdaBriggs]

234. They come in order of importance: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

The dead care for neither liberty or happiness.

[Synicus Maximus]

235. The phase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" appears in the Declaration of

Independence, which although a great document does not have the power of law, it simply declared our independence from Britain, and has nothing to do with the laws of the United States, as opposed to the Second Amendment to the Constitution which is the law of the land. A minor point but how can a phase that has no power in law trump an actual law?

[IdaBriggs]

247. Because it is one of the major concepts on which our country is founded -

along with demanding that the people be represented in government, etc.

But it is also enshrined in the Constitution's Pre-Amble (ingrained in my brain thanks to Schoolhouse Rock! Lol!)

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and insure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Justice is empty when babies die from AK-47 shots while sleeping in their own homes:

Dozens of bullets from an AK47 pierced the windows and walls of a home on Detroit's west side early Monday, killing a 9-month-old baby sleeping on the couch.

Several neighbors, accustomed to hearing gunshots in the neighborhood, dropped to the ground and protected their pets and children.

Police arrived 24 minutes after the first 911 call, although they weren't told anyone was hit until a later call. Delric Waymon Miller IV was rushed to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

It was the second fatal shooting of a child in the city in recent weeks, angering city officials who have repeatedly called for an end to gun violence.

(snip)

http://www.freep.com/article/20120221/NEWS01/202210408/Detroit-baby-killed-in-a-spray-of-gunshots

Do I have to pull more? There are thousands of articles about these types of tragedies, but it takes the public massacres to get most of us really riled up.

Domestic tranquility. General welfare. All treated as inconsequential for a HOBBY for an elite few!!!

for the family.

[DrDan]

264. ah but it does have power in the law

speed limits, stop signs, etc . . . all in the name of safety . . . in the name of our inalienable rights

[dickthegrouch]

274. IMO the Declaration is implicitly referenced in the Constitution

because the constitution couldn't exist without the Declaration of Independence.

[indepat]

252. In this RW-graced country, 2nd Amendment rights trump all others and if you

are left with a multi-million dollar hospital bill after having been almost mortally wounded by someone who has legally bought an assault rifle, a 100-round magazine, and 600 rounds of ammunition, tough, suck it up and just shut up.

[hughee99]

258. Amen! People who own guns, EACH OF YOU are personally responsible for the actions

of the mentally ill.

On a side note, I'm not sure you have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I couldn't find that anywhere in the constitution, oddly enough. I didn't see it BEFORE the second Amendment, and I didn't see it AFTER the second Amendment either. The second Amendment was definitely there, but your rights that trump it? I couldn't find them.

[DrDan]

260. that's because it transcends the constitution

2A is the be-all and end-all

[hughee99]

277. In general,

Something that ISN'T in the Bill of Rights doesn't usually trump something that explicitly is, but in general, if we all really had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that our rights have been violated by the 1% for generations, leaving the gun argument aside.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

265. Please see the 10th amendment. ;) n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

262. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4...

...5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10. There!

Don't you feel more calm?

My rights to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness trump...

Rights are aspects of humanity for the individual to exercise. A right is the freedom to choose to do or not do something.
Everyone can choose to be somewhere which armed (sorry) government employees work to ensure that all residents remain unarmed, gun-free and respectful of their neighbors.

There are several; here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_prisons

[IdaBriggs]

266. And another "neener neener" answer.

Thank you for playing, tho.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

268. Your welcome

Have a nice day.

[IdaBriggs]

263. Dear President Obama (www.whitehouse.gov)

"When it came to picking the "Subject" of this message, I debated whether to pick "Civil Rights" or "Homeland Security"; arguments can be made on both sides - being killed definitely violates one's civil rights, but I opted for "Homeland Security" because I believe being safe from madmen spraying crowds with bullets is something that should be a "no brainer" of a basic goal. And yet, as anyone with a television set can tell you, its becoming "common" - and this isn't just tragic, it is the very definition of the word "abomination." As an American, I have been raised to honor and hold sacred the Bill of Rights, but we seem to have veered off into cuckoo land with the interpretation of the Second Amendment. I believe calling a Special Task Force together, with representatives from all sides of the debate, would be an appropriate action on your part to find some answers to deal with these issues. I realize this is a tough political minefield for anyone to walk (see this thread from the liberal Democratic Underground website for a range of the opinions on this topic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1029524) but we need courage to change the debate into one that addresses not just the right of people to "keep and bare arms," but also the rest of us to stay alive when they do so. Thank you in advance. Respectfully, Ida M. Briggs"

ON EDIT: Great, used the wrong "bare" - should have been "bear"! Argh!

[CTyankee]

276. someday people will look back and call it "the right to slaughter their fellow citizens" in the

same way that we look back on our Founders defense of buying, owning and selling human beings. So, we start raising the next generation to look upon "gun rights" in that fashion.

I did my share with my 3 kids and have every intention of doing it with my 5 grandchildren.

Say it loud and say it proud, Ida!

[guardian]

282. No, you are NOT clear

"...so help me I will do it for you.

And you won't like my solution. I promise.

Are we clear?

I asked, ARE WE CLEAR?"

So enlighten us. What will you do?

[Dreamer Tatum]

296. They'll get huffy and inveigh some more on the internet.

In any case, I don't see in the Constitution a Power Ranking of rights like the OP seems to.

[EX500rider]

297. If only we could ban guns...

.....like our neighbor to the south does, Mexico, then we could be a peaceful paradise just like them!!!

Right?

[LiberalEsto]

303. +1.000.000!

You GO, Ida B

[Kaleva]

310. You have my permission to go ahead and do what you say we won't like.

[SunsetDreams]

314. Locking

Locking

Statement of Purpose

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.

Please consider posting in Gun Control & RKBA group.

Thanks for your understanding

SunsetDreams
GD Host


FYI Skinner announcement to hosts this morning.

Skinner (56,085 posts)

You can once again enforce the prohibition against gun threads in GD.

I think it is clear that members' interest in discussing Guns has died down, and we are now focusing on other issues. (Thanks, Mitt!) So you can once again start enforcing the prohibition against gun threads in GD.

Of course, if you do want to lock any threads about guns, you should probably discuss it in here before you do.

FWIW, my personal opinion is that some narrowly-targeted discussion of the tragedy in Colorado might still be on-topic for GD. But we no longer need to provide an open environment in GD for all gun discussion.