You can't reason with the pro gun crowd.

[davishenderson265]

They have the standard answer for all of this. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." They think other church members should have been armed.

I almost feel the gun argument is unwinnable.

[villager]

1. They are, for all intents and purposes, "climate deniers."

They have a huge emotional stake in not seeing the "causality" of things they espouse, to things that are happening.

[Warpy]

2. Only because their obsession makes them incapable of rational discourse.

You see that with all fanatics and zealots.

[Hoyt]

3. Sadly agree. It's like debating s flat-earther, Tbagger, or one devoid of compassion for anyone else

[GGJohn]

8. Oh Hoyt.

[Skittles]

13. Hoyt is absolutley correct

[GGJohn]

15. Naw, he's not.

And I suspect I know why he wants firearms severely restricted.

[Skittles]

18. gun humpers are sickening

but you don't even know what gun humper means - let me clue you in - DYLANN ROOF IS A GUN HUMPER

[GGJohn]

24. WRONG!!!!

He's a murdering gun humping coward who is a racist POS and I hope he spends the rest of his worthless life in prison where he's going to have to be put in segregation to keep the AA prisoners from getting to him.

[Skittles]

28. too bad they cannot ALL go

fuck them ALL

[GGJohn]

30. +1000.

[Hoyt]

104. A few days ago, you would have been calling him a law-abiding gun owner.

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. And, once again you fail- he was already a convicted felon and in illegal possession of a gun

[GGJohn]

140. Not if I knew what his background was, like being a substance abuser,

being a white supremacist POS racist.

You're a hoot Hoyt.

[Logical]

136. I would not consider you a responsible gun supporter. nt

[GGJohn]

137. Like I care what you think? eom.

[Logical]

138. LOL, you responded. You are loving this story so you can say "look at me". nt

[GGJohn]

139. LOL, you're doing the same thing,

and again, like I give care what think.

[notadmblnd]

101. Selfish, greedy, shallow people.

They lack consciences.

[madamesilverspurs]

4. but LaPierre has a dream...

[pkdu]

76. ^^^^^^^^excellent question^^^^^^^. To gun bumpers , are these or are these not

Members of our well regulated militia?

[HassleCat]

128. Yes, they are

The NRA likes to dodge this question whenever they hear the words "expanded background checks." Their position seems to be that there are only a few bad apples, compared to the millions of nice gun owners. I don't agree with that, but it doesn't matter, since the NRA resists any attempt to identify those bad apples and take away their guns, believing Big Gummit will use some pretense to declare all gun owners unfit and confiscate their arms. I don't know if the NRA's militia is well regulated, but it's definitely paranoid.

[Juicy_Bellows]

5. The only way we get change is a societal re branding.

We changed perceptions on smoking through health warnings but more so with shaming. However it's easier to shame someone wielding a smoke than a handgun. Laws won't do much because there are so many existing guns and 3D printing is a reality. A paradigm shift in attitude is what is needed. Truly a Sisyphean task.

[Skittles]

22. shaming cowards is no easy feat

[Juicy_Bellows]

25. Nope.

Perhaps we can do some sort of second hand smoke relation? Something like we non gun users suffer from second hand guilt of our fellow man? Again, they wont give two shits. Maybe take a jab at my manhood or something.

[daleanime]

55. Huh?

[Juicy_Bellows]

62. I was trying to convey

that the reason smoking took such a cultural blow was largely due to the second hand smoke scare that was effective over the past decades. I think something like that is the only way to curb the gun hunger we as a nation have. Laws won't do it - it'll take a change in opinion.

[GGJohn]

59. Can you translate that word salad for us? eom.

[Juicy_Bellows]

65. In a nutshell -

We need a cultural shift to decrease the number of guns in America. They can not be legislated away - it will take a cultural paradigm shift. I have no idea the catalyst.

[GGJohn]

66. Ok, thanks for clarifying that,

Welcome to DU.

[Juicy_Bellows]

69. You bet - I wasn't intending to be obtuse. nt.

[treestar]

90. Very good point

It's a matter of attitude to these people. They think it makes them look strong and independent and ready to defend themselves. Plus whatever part of the culture causes these mostly young white guys to think this is what they want to do. How do you end up in a frame of mind to do a thing like this? It's appalling.

[HooptieWagon]

6. I'm in the middle, and I find both sides unreasonable. Nt

[GGJohn]

7. Funny,

I find it the other way around.
Most of us pro 2A members are usually polite, well reasoned, thoughtful and have links to back up what we claim, the majority of the pro control members aren't so much, although there are a few pro control who debate honestly and do provide links to back up their claims.

Your thread is an example of the former.

[truebluegreen]

9. No, this is funny.

And true:

[GGJohn]

10. While Jim Jefferies is a funny comedian,

that's all he is, and clueless about the issue of firearms.

[Hoyt]

16. He's an Aussie, fully understands most losers will do fine without their sick 'hobby.'

Why is he clueless, because he hasn't felt the rush you guys get fondling an AR or strapping on a gun to go to store?

[GGJohn]

27. LOL.

You said fondling an AR or strapping on a gun to go to the store.
C'mon Hoyt, why don't you really admit why you want firearms restricted?

Sorry Hoyt, but I don't need an Aussie telling me about firearms, I'm very well versed on the subject.

[Hoyt]

61. Yeah, it appears all you care about. How much ammo do you keep on hand, again?

[GGJohn]

64. Appearances can be deceiving.

I keep thousands of rounds of different calibers on hand just in case.

[Hoyt]

67. Just in case, what?

[GGJohn]

68. Just in case the ZOMBIES attack. LOLOLOLOL.

[One_Life_To_Give]

86. Insulting some 100 million people is really going to help

I am sure everyone with some sort of Rifle in the house really appreciates it being called a sick hobby.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

102. Not insulting them doesn't seem to help either.

What actually will help? Anything?

[One_Life_To_Give]

106. Building bridges and finding common ground.

Might learn they are not so different and have many of the same common everyday concerns. At worst you both agree to disagree, but just maybe you can find some compromise on both sides that address the majority of both your problems.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

108. That's a nice trite statement. How about making a real suggestion?

Give me one 'bridge'. Preferably one that simply hasn't already gotten proposed and voted down by NRA suck-ups in Congress.

[One_Life_To_Give]

125. UnBan Jeb Stuart LeMat Cavalry Blackpowder Pistol

I think a start would be to offer an olive branch such as a line that won't be crossed. Might be Black Powder Long Guns, or Bolt Action.
Something that takes the specter of complete confiscation off the table. In turn that might require background checks and a mental health eval. Devise a Class system such as Australia uses to differentiate between varying legalities of firearms with increasing requirements as the class increases. So we don't apply the same rules to a 22LR as a AR15 or Mini14.

FYI - The 10 Shot Blackpowder Pistol runs afoul of NY States recent law on pistol ammunition capacity.


On edit Gun enthusiasts really need to also speak out on Open Carry in Public places. That really has no place in a modern urban/suburban environment. Save open carry for the rural area's, when out hunting or other appropriate activities. You don't need a Mossberg Pump to go to the local Walmart.

[truebluegreen]

19. So, you like guns. Just own it. nt

[GGJohn]

31. Just own it?

When have I ever denied it?
I do like the mechanics of how a firearm works, I enjoy target shooting a finely tuned firearm at a target downrange, it helps me to unwind after a hard day on the farm.

[truebluegreen]

81. It's a reason, an entirely selfish one,

and has fuck all to do with protection, defense against tyranny, or sacred cow-level rights. You just like guns! and apparently the greater good of society is a non-issue. OK.

[GGJohn]

82. My personal firearms have fuck all to do with the greater good of society.

And since when were rights based on the greater good of society?
If that were the case, the 1A, 4A, 5A, would be an abomination for the greater good of society.

[A HERETIC I AM]

32. What a load of nonsense.

"clueless about the issue of firearms"

On what pray tell, do you base that assumption? The stand up bit?


Every single point he made is spot on. He is absolutely correct when he said the only REAL argument you have is "I LIKE GUNS"

That's it.

The rest of it is, as he points out, bullshit arguments and lies.

[GGJohn]

33. Wrong, the only real argument is the 2A,

which confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, something the Aussie's didn't have.

[A HERETIC I AM]

35. And, as he points out, it can be changed.

because it is called an "ammendment"

"If you don't know what a Thesaurus is, start with a dictionary and work your way forward"

The Aussies didn't have the exact wording of the US 2A, but gun ownership and usage has a long history on that continent and private gun ownership is still allowed, it's just much more highly regulated than it is here. I lived there in the 70's, OK? Australia is a land mass about the size of the lower 48 but with the population of the LA/San Diego metroplex. Lots of land, 24 million people. Trust me, every single Cattle and Sheep Station owner and most of his hired hands own rifles. The outback is a BIG place.


Look, I own guns too, and I plan on buying another rifle soon, but that doesn't mean I am doing it BECAUSE of the second ammendment or for protection or anything else. I'm doing it for pretty much the exact reason he states. I like guns, but I am not a fanatic, nor am I a collector. I am going to buy a competition type long-range target rifle.

What I always find fascinating about you super pro 2A types, is when I meet one on the street and we start talking, 95% of the time, when I ask them, they can not tell me what the THIRD ammendment is. Can you? Off the top of your head, without looking it up?


If context means anything, the framers of the constitution put the third BEFORE the right to a speedy trial, the right to be secure in your papers and effects, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. etc.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not the entire ammendment.

Are you a member of a well regulated mlitia?

Again, bullshit arguments.

I at least admit why I own what I have and want another. The ideas that are promoted by the gun lovers in this country as justification for their owning weapons are simply 90% nonsense.

"We will fight tyranny with them"

Yeh.

"You realize you're bringing guns to a drone fight, right?"

[GGJohn]

37. Good luck with changing the 2A,

better get started on it right away.

"You realize you're bringing guns to a drone fight, right?"

Why don't you tell that to the Taliban? Or the Iraqi militants?

[A HERETIC I AM]

38. Are you seriously going to suggest that I have to fear the Taliban or Iraqi militants?

Or are you suggesting that they are being successful against drones?

Either way, At this point, I don't give a fuck anymore. There is a very good reason why I don't post in your favorite group. You people bore the living fuck out of me.

Fine. You like guns and I am sure you are a law abiding citizen. Terrific. Goodonya, yank!

I have no desire to change the second ammendment, but I do understand context and the times in which it was written. The constitution ALSO does not leave a provision for a standing Army, ONLY a Navy, and arguably the Marine Corps. It sure as hell doesn't call for an Air Force, which personally, I think should be done away with, but I digress. The fact that there is no provision for keeping a standing Army is precisely WHY the 2A was written the way it was, yet how many of the guys you know down at the range are members of the National Guard or a "Well Regulated Militia"?

"Why don't you tell that to the Taliban? Or the Iraqi militants?"

Why the ever living fuck would I bother? Why the ever living fuck would you even contemplate suggesting such an asinine thing? You think I speak Arabic? Or Pashto? You think I give two flying fucks about those people?

For fucks sake. What a stupid thing to say.

[GGJohn]

39. When I suggest asking the Taliban or the Iraqi's

I meant they've managed to fight to at least a draw, the best military in the world with just mostly small arms.

[A HERETIC I AM]

42. Bullshit.

You're a vet. You say so on your profile. You should know as well as anyone that wars are fought for corporations and politicians these days.

You know god damned well the US military could literally wipe those countries off the map. And I mean literally.

But we didn't. Fight us to a draw? No. We just backed off. But you're right. Unless we had the will to kill every single one of them, we could not win, just as we couldn't win in Viet Nam. It would be the same if we got invaded here. No matter who it was or the size of the force, they could never defeat the American People.

"Wars do not end when one side is victorious, they end when the vanquished stop fighting"

I don't know who said that, but it is an old one.

Again, these arguments bore me, and I have to go to work in a little while, so I've had enough for tonight.

So...peace. Have a good evening. Shoot straight and keep your powder dry.

[GGJohn]

44. No bullshit,

they fought us to a draw with the type of warfare we were waging, local battles we won, but overall, we were worn down by the guerilla warfare waged by the Taliban and Iraqi's.

You have a good night, stay safe at work and peace to you also.

[Liberal Veteran]

120. How tiresome. Same old shit.

Someone suggests gun control and the answer is: We can't do gun control because of the second amendment.

Someone suggests changing the second amendment: We can't change the second amendment.


Lather, rinse, repeat.

Meanwhile, the bodies just pile up and the gun nuts just write them off as collateral damage for worshiping the second amendment.

Mass shootings happen with alarm regularity and we do nothing.
Run of the mill shootings happen so often, we can think of think of them as "run of the mill" and that doesn't bother us.
Our cops have had to become a paramilitary organization that all too often shoots first and asks questions later because their are so many guns and we wring our hands asking where we went wrong.

And you are going to bring the Taliban into this argument? Who the fuck do you think armed the Taliban in the first place? And what do you think we armed them with: hunting rifles and handguns? What a pathetic argument.

[spin]

57. Gun control advocates failed to get a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban to pass in ...

a Senate controlled by Democrats in 2013 after the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. Fifteen Democrats voted against it. Had it passed in the Senate, it would have failed in the Republican controlled House.

Now you suggest changing or doing away with the Second Amendment.

The chances of that idea succeeding in the near future are about the same as my winning the lotto this week if I don't buy a ticket.

[A HERETIC I AM]

60. Please quote me where I "suggest changing or doing away with the Second Amendment"

Can you do that please?

It isn't MY suggestion. It is that of the comedian in the clip above.

Kindly do not assign sentiments or statements to me that I do not hold or did not make.

[spin]

71. I may have misinterpreted your post. ...

The part that confused me was where you said...

"And, as he points out, it can be changed because it is called an "ammendment" "

That gave me the impression that you favored changing or eliminating the amendment.

Plenty of gun control advocates suggest doing this. I find the suggestion laughable at this time and probably for the next several decades at a minimum.

[LanternWaste]

97. Something we often say when confronted with an opinion that fails to validate our own.

"and clueless about the issue of..."

Something we often say when confronted with an opinion that fails to validate our own.

[GGJohn]

142. And vis versa. eom.

[-none]

112. He sounds to me like he fully understands the issues for firearms.

[GGJohn]

143. No, he doesn't. eom.

[Paladin]

84. Even the President of the United States appears to have given up.

He seems to be resigned to doing nothing more than making sympathetic comments for however many more mass shootings occur on his watch. So tell us, resident gun militants: are you proud of yourselves? As far into the future as we can currently see, psychotic terrorists are going to be easily acquiring firearms in this country, and using them to blot out innocent lives. You've managed to establish your rights to guns, without any proactive responsibilities whatsoever, and the rest of us just have to put up with it. Again: are you proud of yourselves? Particularly those of you who claim to be Democrats and/or liberals: are you proud of yourselves? It's a fair question to ask. You no longer appear to have any capacity for shame....but are you proud of yourselves?

[GGJohn]

85. WTF?

Why should I be ashamed? My firearms have never harmed a human, and your attempt to shame us is pathetic as hell.
I had nothing to do with the tragic events in SC and I refuse to be shamed by you or anyone else for the actions of a POS racist who chose to use a gun in an illegal manner.

Don't like my answer? Tough, I don't care.

[Paladin]

96. Precisely the response I anticipated.

The flood of easily-acquired firearms in this country that people like you fight so hard for is resulting in the loss of innocent lives. I'm a gun owner myself, my guns do harm, but I certainly recognize the problem. If you want to ignore the situation, feel free to do so---God knows you have a lot of company.....

[GGJohn]

135. Precisely the response I anticipated.

Good, then you weren't disappointed.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

107. He should do it every single day.

Make sympathetic comments for every single shooting, every day. Then just maybe, when the reality of 80+ deaths a day by guns starts to percolate through the country, there might be a little bit more momentum for real change.

[pipoman]

11. Yeah, this topic has been of interest to me for a long time...

Mass killers like this have grandiose delusions of making some record and going down in infamy...anyone who thinks it is an accident he was in a place with statutory restrictions on concealed carry....along with nearly every other mass killer...are kidding themselves.

We don't actually know what would have happened under any other circumstances...some circumstances would have obviously lead to less shots fired, some more shots fired...we don't know what would have happened if someone were armed (AFAIK nobody was armed), we don't know if anyone would have been armed if it were legal, we don't know if the shooter would have picked the church if carry in churches was legal, who knows...from what I've seen it couldn't have been any worse in this church if churches could decide for themselves if they want to allow carry in their building....

[lostnfound]

80. I want to understand something.

Is it your idea that the response to these events is
1) a whole lot more people need to carry a gun to their church prayer groups (and malls and movies and tennis courts and beaches and every other public place)? So that there is usually at least one good person holding a gun at the ready to stop a bad guy? Only about a dozen people were in that prayer meeting, including a little kid and old women. I personally don't have a desire to keep a gun in part because I have a teen in the middle of the volatile years and in part because I'm prone toward depressive moods myself. I don't want to carry a gun at all, much less to a prayer meeting. Do you want me to have a gun when I don't want one? Or for those little old ladies at the prayer meeting to have one if they don't one? I assume not; you just want people who want to have one to be allowed to carry them? So that still means there will always be defenseless small groups without guns going about there business, right?
2) that these mass shootings are just something we have to live with (or in some cases, die with), and we shouldn't change anything?

I don't understand what is the alternative that people who don't want gun control (or "people control" related to guns) are proposing?

[pipoman]

88. I really don't want anyone who can't count carrying a gun....

That said, I've never heard a single person here or anywhere else, advocate a requirement to carry, own, shoot, or look at a gun. Skipping across the dogs breakfast above to the "small groups without guns" part, the point is...nobody would know...there would be no promise that anyone at any time is or isn't armed.

Who said we shouldn't change anything? These threads in the wake of these tragedies are always chock-full of impossible ideas...either constitutionally impossible, or unreasonably impossible...there are possible things which could be done, those arguing for the impossible don't want to hear it....

[lostnfound]

93. But with nearly one gun for every American man woman and child, aren't we there already?

I.e., Americans have so many guns that there's already "no promise that anyone at any time isn't armed. (Setting aside the ban on guns in churches for a minute, because this crime could have happened at an outdoor gathering as well.) With all these guns, I think most of the "good guys with guns" don't actually carry them around. Most want them for self-defense in their own home, right? Relatively few want to carry them around in public. Assuming that the "good guys with guns" would deter massacres, how do we get enough of them out there -- not just guns, but people willing and mentally able to carry guns in public?

I also wonder whether the crazies like Dylann Roof would ever be deterred by the threat that he might get shot by a "good guy with a gun", even if such people were everywhere.

What IS possible then? What could be changed, that would make a difference?

[pipoman]

98. who said anything about any of that?

As long as we're pretending, pretend you want to kill people and make the biggest mark you can....do you pick your target (s) carefully? If you do, wouldn't you select someplace that you were pretty certain wouldn't have police, security, or armed citizens? Most people under the above conditions would. As stated nobody knows when or where something like this will occur, it is an unbelievable coincidence that almost all of these occur in places where nobody is allowed to carry.

There are many possibilities for change. One example would be arresting...or at least investigation of every person who tries to buy a gun and is denied by NICS. As it is over a million people are denied annually and less than 1% are even investigated. These are people with involuntary commitments, felonies, and domestic violence issues actively trying to illegally purchase and possess firearms who are calling the FBI...in real time...to tell them they are actively trying to acquire a gun....how about start there?

[lostnfound]

148. That sounds like a sensible idea.

Is it a crime to try to buy a gun when you aren't legally allowed to have one?

I don't have huge opinions one way or another about guns. I have friends that are hunters (even though I personally don't eat meat) and I have relatives with guns (even though I wouldn't want one myself). I just think there's way too many mass murders in the U.S., and I live in a city where kids are routinely killed by stray bullets, and I wanted to understand what gun rights advocates think should be done to reduce the number of them.

I thought some of the ideas about a license for people or insurance on the gun sounded sensible.

[pipoman]

149. Yes

The federal form (4472) that is filled requires a signature under penalty of perjury that the person isn't a felon, drug addict, domestic abuser, or been involuntarily committed. A denial usually means that the person is likely to be one of these things.

Licenses and insurance are constitutionally problematic. License are a litmus test for enumerated civil rights/liberties and would be struck down by a unanimous SCOTUS before the ink dried. Insurance is means testing and/or similar to a poll tax for exercise of a civil right/liberty and would be struck down by a unanimous SCOTUS decision before the ink dried.

This illustrates the frustration felt by many on this issue. Insurance and licensing invariably come up (along with about 20 other constitutionally impossible ideas) every time a tragedy occurs. It is usually brought up by the same people who are 'Johnny on the spot' to appeal to the logic of sorrowful, shocked, disgusted, wounded common people who are caught in a moment and who haven't been either personally or professionally involved in the issue of gun control for 20 years (as I have).

As I said and illustrated before there are definitely things which could be done to improve our system. Just that the political activists on both sides don't want to solve the problem, they want to keep it as a fundraising opportunity so their paycheck doesn't go away.

Another example...universal background checks, something constantly pimped by gun control...something supported in principle by a lot of the public. It is and always will be impossible to pass and keep federally mandated universal background checks. As it stands right now in the US there is only 1 very specific kind of firearms purchase which doesn't require a license of some sort or a background check. This is a exchange between two residents of the same state and the seller is not in the business of selling firearms, rather selling a personal gun...a piece of legal to possess and own personal property. The federal government has no jurisdiction..in fact enumerated revocation of the authority to regulate intrastate transactions in "the commerce clause". There will never be a federally mandated universal background check for this very reason.

What does big gun control (lawyers..who all know that ubc's are impossible) do every time in the wake of a tragedy like this? They cry and wail for the impossible federal mandate. They ask for donations to battle in Washington for this oh-so-needed legislation...people angry and grieving send their money in and big gun control lives to raise more money on the next tragedy.

The solution nobody wants to hear...NICS currently is not available for these private sales. A simple change to the conditions of the license for ffl dealers requiring them to do NICS checks for any private sale in a timely fashion for a nominal fee...like $20. Simple. At the same time a bill to eliminate all civil or criminal liability if a gun is transferred using the NICS system and is later used in a crime...perhaps even increasing the possibility of civil or criminal liability for transfers without using the system. Then public awareness campaigns "Use NICS and sleep well tonight!" Etc. Frankly if big gun control were really all that interested in UBC'S they would be setting up kiosks at gun shows doing free private checks...but alas....

I own a couple of family guns and a pistol..I don't carry and usually won't even now that my state has permitless concealed carry. For me, I am a civil libertarian, I believe in a very liberal interpretation of all civil liberties and rights.

[Travis_0004]

12. What is your solution?

Keep in mind there is a second amendment and its not possible to just ban all guns.

Also keep in mind when england banned all handguns they saw violent crime go up 40%, while the US has seen murders drop 50% since 1993.

[Hoyt]

20. How far do you think murders might drop without gun fanciers polluting society with the darn things?

[Travis_0004]

26. How is a handgun ban working in England?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html

[Hoyt]

58. I'll tell you. When you go from 1 to 2, it's doubled. The only place we have 2 homicides is some

rural area where people can disappear and no ones notice.

England is a civilized country compared to our gun wielding society, promoted by folks like you.

[beevul]

74. "The only place we have 2 homicides..."

The only place we have 2 homicides is some rural area where people can disappear and no ones notice."

Oh, you mean like those bastions of gun control, the States of Kansas with its 0 in 2010, and Vermont with its 2 in the same year ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

There are 7 States in the single digits for gun murders those years, with 5 (or more) of them being places that people like you would consider "lax" in their gun laws.

[GGJohn]

34. Oh gee Hoyt, why don't you ask the citizens of England how well their

gun ban lowered the murder rate?

[Maedhros]

117. I don't believe that statistic regarding England.

Do you have a link to provide evidence?

[Skittles]

14. they have excuses for stuff like this

but get upset over penis analogies - they can all FUCK themselves

[NaturalHigh]

141. I don't know anyone who gets upset about penis analogies.

I just think it's hilarious that some of you can't make a point about firearms without throwing in some sort of sexual reference or ranting that "they can all FUCK themselves." It's a strange obsession.

Are you going to threaten to kick my ass now?

[sadoldgirl]

17. While the 2nd amendment supporters

claim that this gives them the absolute right to get and keep
any gun, because the SCOTUS said so, they seem to forget that
the bill of rights has been changed several times.

Perhaps it takes these kind of shootings to happen every
second day for 2/3 of the populace to insist on serious
changes, and it may not happen during my lifetime,
but I think it will happen sometime in the future.

[gratuitous]

21. It's nothing but a game to them

Blood still stains the floor at Emanuel AME, and they're out in force, "winning" the argument while the nation reels from yet another gun-fueled violent tragedy. The dead, the wounded, the grieving are nothing to them. The casualties and the survivors are not people, they're not even real. It's just positioning for the next killing, the next shooting spree, the next massacre. They are so convinced that violence will drive out violence. The next execution will settle everything. We will kill all our enemies and then we'll have peace. The violence machine has been cranked up in overdrive for 13 years, and we're told that we're in greater danger than ever, greater even than when the Soviet Union had enough nuclear weapons pointed our way to kill us all a dozen times over.

It's madness. It's a sickness. 28 dead in Newtown didn't faze them. Another nine last night is a bagatelle. All that counts is the braying of the donkey hordes about their "freedom" to kill and die by violence. There is no reasoning with a sickness that has penetrated a person's soul.

[Skittles]

23. make a penis analogy joke

*THAT* upsets them

[beevul]

75. Deliberately trying to upset people makes DU suck.

Skittles

23. make a penis analogy joke


*THAT* upsets them

Deliberately trying to upset people makes DU suck.

[Eleanors38]

111. It's a hateathon. Anything goes.

[hrmjustin]

29. Getting sick about here how much people love their guns.

Fuck guns and fuck the NRA.

[wheniwasincongress]

36. And for them,

right now is not the time for "blaming" and discussing legislation. "The bodies are still warm! This is time for mourning!"

There is never a good time to discuss this problem, let alone do something about it. murica.

[Eleanors38]

114. Correction: You got Guns Dogs to open a 3rd gun forum. We are engaging.

The raw hatred here is duly noted. The Shaming strategy is duly noted. The get there first and smear gun-owners is duly noted.

What some folks seem to miss is that the we pro-2A folks have been here for years, we are Not going away, and we have engaged in far better arguments on 2A issues, such that some of the controller/banners must stoop to the kind of hateful, bigoted posts which make DU suck.

This is nothing new. It takes so much energy to hate. But how long can it be sustained, and at what cost?

[valerief]

40. It's like religion. Facts are useless. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Even if you pass legislation there are so many guns in circulation I don't know how you...

Even if you pass legislation there are so many guns in circulation I don't know how you prevent these tragedies from happening. I don't know how you put the toothpaste back in the tube,

[JI7]

46. start confiscating them

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. All three hundred million plus of them./NT

[JI7]

48. yes, it will take time but we need to get out of this backwardness

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. I'm all for trying but I am not remotely optimistic...

Folks love their guns...

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. Who do you propose do that, specifically?

Last edited Fri Jun 19, 2015, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

The cops? The military?

[EL34x4]

54. Start confiscating them how?

What's the plan?

Australia passed a law to confiscate guns back in 1996. They expected 2.5 million guns would fall under their confiscatory laws.

A little over 600,000 were turned in.

That is less than a 25% compliance rate.

How do we confiscate over 300 million firearms? Even if 90% complied, that's still 30 million guns in circulation. And 90% won't comply. 50% won't comply. If even 25% complied, we have 225 million guns in circulation.

Just curious.

[GGJohn]

70. You want to start a civil war?

You want to lose the govt. for decades?
It's people like you that make people like me less willing to compromise on gun control.

[Telcontar]

92. Agreed

On my block alone we could hold off a company-sized element for days, unless, of course, they bring in tanks or heavy artillery.

Two retired Army, one Marine, couple Chairforce, and a cop all on my street. Don't see any of us joining in any collection efforts.

I would be shocked and dismayed if a majority of police and military personnel actually obeyed such an unlawful irder as to confiscate guns from Americans. It really wpuld be a Civil War.

[-none]

116. Forget all that.

Try to defend against the government drones, with your imitation war rifles. You want civil war. Our government has proven itself to be very uncivil when it come to war.

[friendly_iconoclast]

119. There are *lots* of drones in Afghanistan- and the Taliban is still there

[-none]

124. The Taliban are still there in large part because we want them to be there as part of our excuse to

fight the war on terror. We don't want to win that war. Too profitable for the MIC. Afghanistan is rich in minerals we want and need.

The Taliban used to be our friends at one time, when Russia was the enemy du jour. Russia gave up and went home. The only enemy left there was our old fiends friends, the Taliban.

[Sparhawk60]

127. Do You Really

Thanks the Bush wars, we have well over 1 million former soldiers/marine/reservists who have severed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really expect these vets, who are trained in insurgency, to stand out in the open, shoulder to shoulder against an invading force in their own towns? As a former tanker, I want to know...how do you plan on refueling that 65 ton monster?

I have to wonder at the mind set of all the posters who have fantasies about using the military to kill people they disagree with. I have yet to see a 2A supporter gleefully post about killing all the gun grabbers, can't say the same about the grabbers.

[Ghost in the Machine]

43. Blah, blah blah!!! We could say the same thing about the anti-gun crowd...

... and sorry to bust your bubble, but this is pure BS:

They have the standard answer for all of this. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." They think other church members should have been armed.

I certainly don't think that, and you need to be careful with such broadbrushed statements. I don't need ANYONE putting words in my mouth, whether it's from the Pro or Anti gun side.

A stupid, hate-filled individual committed a horrendous act of violence and he should pay for his actions. People like these are why I, as a Liberal, support the death penalty. He's already confessed, to the point of bragging, so fuck the standard appeals that go along with the case once you've been convicted and sentenced, strap his ass down and fry him!

Then there is this:

I almost feel the gun argument is unwinnable

It sure doesn't help when the anti-gunners and the people who want ALL guns banned can't have a civil debate. They resort to using derogatory terms like "gun nuts", "gun humpers", "people foaming at the mouth, fantasizing about killing another human being" and many others. At least you didn't say anything like that in your OP, so thank you for that!

I will appreciate it very much if, in the future, you refrain from putting words in my mouth and/or thoughts in my head. You have NO IDEA what I say or think, other than what I have just told you.

Thanks in advance...

Peace,

Ghost

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Declaring a desire to desire to jail large numbers of non-criminals, a la:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026862315#post18

Skittles (100,449 posts)
18. gun humpers are sickening

but you don't even know what gun humper means - let me clue you in - DYLANN ROOF IS A GUN HUMPER

Response to Skittles (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 11:33 PM

GGJohn (4,863 posts)
24. WRONG!!!!

He's a murdering gun humping coward who is a racist POS and I hope he spends the rest of his worthless life in prison where he's going to have to be put in segregation to keep the AA prisoners from getting to him.
Gay rights are human rights, get with it America!!!!


Response to GGJohn (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 11:36 PM

Star Member Skittles (100,449 posts)
28. too bad they cannot ALL go

fuck them ALL

is an excellent way to impel them to both a) fight you politically tooth and nail,
and b) trust you about as far as they can throw you...

[Ghost in the Machine]

56. Exactly the point I was trying to make...

Almost every anti-gun poster I have seen uses derogatory terms for gun owners and they think we're ALL just "Killers waiting for the chance to kill"...

Peace,

Ghost

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. The subject has drawn lots of AntiLaPierres and AntiNugents

Seems that there is a certain faction that's determined to match every stupid, hateful, ignorant
and/or simply tone deaf thing those two have ever uttered with ones of their own.

I guess they think there's some critical mass of moralizing, name calling, dick jokes, and calls
for the imprisonment of their enemies that has to be met before they can get what they
claim to want.

It's almost as if they think post enough anti-gun cartoons, or proclaim their own moral superiority
often enough and loudly enough, the antigun New Jerusalem will magically come to be...

[Arugula Latte]

51. Agree. They are nuts.

[mountain grammy]

53. I heard someone today say if Sandy Hook had happened while a Republican was president

and the president got behind it, Congress would pass gun control. Republicans are so paranoid about gun control, only another Repub could sell it to them. But, even St. Reagan couldn't sell it even after almost getting offed himself by a gun toting nut with bad aim. Finally, the Brady Bill passed under Clinton, but it's had a rocky road with the corrupt supremes.

I've given up on any meaningful gun legislation and may just start packing myself. Not likely.

[aikoaiko]

91. Not quite, Reagan sold and signed into law one of the must restrictive gun laws ever.

He effectively eliminated machine guns from the average gun buyer market, but signing into law a moratorium on selling new machine guns to the general public (even after NFA required background checks, taxes, and registration). It was an amendment to another bill that was loosening some restrictions, but he sold it as worth it. RWers are in complete denial of his betrayal.

The price of machine guns rose and then rose a lot. Today you have to spend $15,000 - $20,000 for a used machine gun that should probably cost $2,000 - $3,000 given what the markets required prior to the moratorium.

[mountain grammy]

94. I stand corrected, thank you.

and somewhere in the fog of the 80's, I remember that. Had it not, everyone would be walking around with machine guns. A good friend's rich son in law proudly owns one.

[marlakay]

63. Had that discission with husband today

He says nothing will change because our constitution gives everyone the right to bear arms and we don't have a chance in hell of changing the constitution regarding guns.

[Fairgo]

72. I walk the streets of Sydney in the middle of the night...no fear

Its a civilised country. Problems? Sure. But not this one. You can have your freedoms...they keep you in chains.

And I agree, you can't walk this back. People have become too isolated, too afraid, too desperate, too ignorant and too well armed to see how far they have drifted from rational human behaviour. U.S. will have to endure decades of piecemeal slaughter and at some point with enough desparation and lunacy, something absolutely unthinkable will happen. Imagine a civil war with no geographical boundaries...Until society itself is threatened, it will not find the resolve to face this sickness. The gun worship, not the gun itself mind you, is a symptom of a very deep social diease.

[lebkuchen]

78. I'm enjoying London at all hours of the night, few police in view

People of all race, creeds, colors and class walking the streets peacefully. I guess that's one of the reasons it's the top tourist attraction in the world.

[Snow Leopard]

99. I've walked the streets of Chicago, Dallas, NYC

in the middle of the night too. So what? Foreigners seem to think there is a shooting gallery going on because of the hype a shooting gets.

<People have become too isolated, too afraid, too desperate, too ignorant and too well armed to see how far they have drifted from rational human behaviour.>

well it is good then that +90% of gun owners are not like what you describe

<The gun worship, not the gun itself mind you, is a symptom of a very deep social diease.>

then it is good that no one is worshipping guns isn't it. JHC.

[LeftOfWest]

73. What does Joe Biden say?

[lebkuchen]

77. Yes, since parents self-describing their children as "troubled" allow them access to guns.

I'm so eager to hear from the father.

This is the 800 year anniversary of the Magna Carta. Only three of its many statutes are considered relevant today. And so it will go with the Second Amendment.... eventually. I only hope it won't take 550 years.

[DanTex]

79. That is correct. It's like arguing with creationists. It's a no logic zone.

[Phentex]

87. I'll just ditto this.

says it all.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

83. It is unwinnable unless you want a bloodbath of confiscation attempts.

[treestar]

89. And the dumb thing there too is even if the victims have a gun

You have to find it and get it out and the shooter has time to kill in that interval in any event.

No the better answer is to have fewer guns out there, as few as possible.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

95. And they have the 2nd Amendment on their side.

Everybody in the American political fight loves the Constitution, but everyone picks and chooses the amendments and articles they love best. Despite the "well regulated militia" wording, the courts have interpreted the amendment to mean that the citizenry can arm itself. From time to time, we've put limits on that, such as with automatic weaponry.

And plenty of people use guns in perfectly lawful, respectable manners: they shoot skeet; they hunt predators on their ranch; they engage in legal (and - as a motorist - I'd assert beneficial) hunting.

The gun control movement really has no clear, unified voice in the manner of the NRA. The NRA doesn't just perform lobbying: they sponsor shooting sports tournaments, and teach courses to promote firearms safety. Nobody is out there countering that with the same sort of enthusiasm and membershipp level.

My sense is that if this nation were going o address this problem, they'd have done so after Sandy Hook. They didn't. Now my sense is that we just accept that -- every year to year and a half -- there will be a mass shooting.

[Sheldon Cooper]

100. No, you can't.

They are delusional, terrified little men (and yes, it's mostly men) with fantasies of glory. They desperately need help but of course they'll never acknowledge that.

[HockeyMom]

103. You cannot force a gun on someone who doesn't want one

This is what these pro-gun people simply cannot understand. They think guns are the answer and refuse to believe that other people don't think the same. I will include people who have witnessed violent crime themselves. Members of that church wanted to carry guns there? How about peace and prayers have no place for bringing Glocks into?

It has taken 40 years for my NRA gun owning husband to finally give up on me. No, I do not want to learn to use your guns. No, I do not want YOU to buy and gift me a gun so I would not have to wait or go through a background check. That one really infuriated me, only a few years ago. IF I wanted a gun for myself, I could pass my OWN BACKGROUND check.

This is my own personal pet peeve; which relates both to Lanza and Roof. Relatives giving guns as gifts.

Personally, I think these pro gun people do need not strangers, but their own FAMILY members, making them see the light.

[ileus]

105. It's almost as bad trying to reason with the anti gun crowd.

[mooseprime]

109. boy you called that right.

you never hear of people shrieking for more alcohol as a solution to drunk driving.

[-none]

122. ^^^This^^^

Where are those people that appear to worship alcohol and don't want any laws interfering with their freedom regarding alcohol? They kinda did get their wish, but with much better regulations than we have with the deadly weapons that kill many more people than alcohol ever did in peace time.

[Stellar]

110. So then maybe they will all be dead when the shooting STOPS. N/T

[craigmatic]

113. You're not supposed to reason with idiots you go around them and get whatever done you can.

This is one area where Obama has failed in leadership. He can't even help his core base of voters (black people) safe or economically secure.

[reflection]

115. "I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into."

I use this phrase when I'm dealing with someone who is logically spinning and flailing, try to defend the indefensible. Then the conversation is over, because I only use it when I've made two or three attempts to have a proper discussion.

[retread]

121. Of course not!! They think you are trying to take

[beevul]

123. Theres a whole thread, 300 + posts, of examples of you guys trying to "reason"...

Theres a whole thread, 300 + posts, of examples of you guys trying to "reason" with the pro-gun crowd:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11729858

Read the entire thread, and get back to me about how we pro-gun folks are the ones that can't be reasoned with.

[Eleanors38]

132. I don't know if the OP realized what his allies are like...

or if he does, if he accepts these characterizations and will enjoy the good reading you referenced!

He did stumble across a truth when he vaguely mentions that he/she is beginning to believe the gun argument is unwinnable.

I still can't fathom why folks had never heard of the "bullet hose."

[HassleCat]

126. Depends

I could be called pro-gun, because I believe ordinary citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I do not think that is an absolute right, and I think the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is much narrower than the NRA thinks it is. Above all, I realize the stupid, stupid, stupid argument that the church congregation should have been armed is something only idiots would espouse.

[hifiguy]

129. They're fundies, only in the Church of Gunz.

It's like arguing with a tree - a complete waste of time and energy. The tree may be a bit smarter, though, than the average ammosexual.

[Eleanors38]

130. Is this Reasoning? "Gun humpers, selfish, greedy, shallow, cowards,

sick, nuts, creationists, fundies, climate deniers," and of course, lots of "penis."

You have revealed with this post why -- at least here on DU -- the "gun argument is unwinnable." Were you expecting the posts to be along these lines?

Sometimes, people become so blinded by their own hatred they can't see the overwhelming irony in their "reason."

I am, however, amused by the remark about how "shaming isn't easy" work.

[Orsino]

131. Guns are seen as a cure for male sexual dysfunction.

Until we solve the latter, men will clutch at the former beyond the reach of reason.

[beevul]

133. Mostly by anti-gunners. N/T

[JI7]

134. that would be consistent with the numbers which show more men

who love them.

[etherealtruth]

144. Its no different than trying to have a rational conversation with the snake handling fundamentalists

... it can't happen .... when one participant is consumed by "religious" zealotry (or in this case, gun zealotry)

[GGJohn]

145. That's rich coming from you. eom.

[etherealtruth]

146. Why, thank you!

[GGJohn]

147. You're very welcome. eom.