Good luck with that.

[SoutherDem]

Yesterday in the flood of posts about the Aurora shooting I noticed a common phrase used by the pro-gun members here on DU, “Good luck with that”, I didn’t notice if it was just one or two posters who posted a lot or if it was being repeated by several posters.
I also don’t know the real intent of the phrase.
I could have been arrogance, “We have the support of the majority of the American people, we have the NRA, we have the politicians, and we have the money, so shut up”.
It could have been aspiration, “Are we having this discussion again, come on, nothing is going to change, so why not just give up”.
It could have been desperation, “Oh, gee you are right there really is no reason to have a 100 clip magazine, or an assault weapon to hunt or for self protection not to mention 6000 rounds of ammo.”
It may have been a combination of all three, but never the less it seemed to be the “phrase of the day”.
But, it made me think of the phrase beyond the possible intent.
I started thinking what if this phrase had been around for the last 250 years. I thought of times when it may have been used in the past.

• When we the King of England received the Declarations of Independence did he say “Good luck with that”?

• When some wanted to free the slaves did the white plantation owners say “Good luck with that”?

• When women wanted the right to vote did the men say “Good luck with that”?

• When the blacks marched for civil rights did the bigots say “Good luck with that”?

• When progressives say we want an end to Citizens United do the wealthy say “Good luck with that”?

We have seen how four of those examples did change and one is still playing itself out, so I do see how circumstances can change the tide and what once seemed impossible becomes possible.

So my question is what event or events would it take for the tide of public opinion to shift the balance of power in the argument of guns?

[lunatica]

1. It's already shifting in places like New York and New Jersey

That's how it happens. One change of mind at a time.

[Fresh_Start]

2. in the same vein, there were lots of threads about gun control isn't going to happen

because it imposes on someone right to feel manly because they have a big weapon in their arsenal

I guess we should give up on all progressive goals, clean air, clear water, saving species from extinction....
all of those goals will require people to give up some of their rights as well because after all the the right to make a living and pursue happiness and profit from their individual ownership of land/labor would also be impaired if we as a society are going to have clear air and clean water.

We should give up on science education because it imposes on someones freedom of religion to believe in fairy tales of their religion's chosing.

We should just give up...because someone has to make a sacrifice for the common good and it sure isn't going to be them (the gun-lovers, the economic polluters, the pro-religion, anti-science...

Someone else must make the sacrifice because whatever the beholders pet interest is, is too important a right to be diminished for the common good. At least the damn polluters create jobs, as far as I can tell the gun-lovers only make their own hard-ons

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. More sexual canards that do nothing to help dialog

I find your comments truly amusing since I teach firearms classes targeted towards women and GLBTQs. You must have a real broad definition of manly and hard-ons.

I also would argue that the private ownership of firearms is a classic progressive value and a good thing overall. No legitimate gun owner wants to sell a gun to someone who is not authorized to have them. However the law precludes using the available tools. That surely is something the pro and anti gun people should agree on.

[Fresh_Start]

14. So you are vested in the current gun culture

do you realize that you don't have an unbiased perspective?
BTW, I have had guns in the house for almost my entire life (except for a few years when I had toddlers at home).
So I'm not anti-gun.
I'm anti- the belief that reasonable gun control is an impairment on god-given rights.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Not particularly

I teach the most effective form of self defense to people who need it most on the weekends. I teach it from a moral perspective, not just rounds on target. Most students have never handled a firearm, so there is lots of background material as well. Its not your typical CA handgun course, though it covers all the material.

I think that there are things that could be done to help insure that unqualified people do not get firearms. Most gun owners would support that. I do not support some of the cosmetic nonsense that will not impact the problem.

The real issue is people, not if the rifle has a flash suppressor. Those focused on the weapon or magazine size are missing the crux of the matter. We need to find ways to insure the background checks are rapid, accurate, and support private sales. They need to be reviewed over time to make sure they are still valid. How much ammunition someone has is not the issue, what matters is if they are a danger to society.

Aurora will not change things since the shooter was clearly crackers. That means there will not be a major push for change. I expect the nation will continue for form into two camps...liberal gun laws and repressive gun laws with no significant Federal action.

[Fresh_Start]

21. we don't really have an option to not have people or to not have people with mental illness....

and as you well know, many guns which kill were legally acquired...indeed Aurora weapons' were legally acquired.

The problem is too many guns and
Too few checks on whether people who have guns are responsible gun owners...
not just at the point of purchase but for the rest of their lives.

And yes, if you own a gun, you should be periodically evaluated about whether or not you should still be allowed to own the gun

And you can't leave it to family to make that decision...its too hard to tell a loved one, no more....

As reasonable as I think I am, I am dreading when I have to tell my mom or my father-in-law that they can't drive a car anymore because they have become too impaired to operate it safely.

I expect them to hate me

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. We partially agree

It doesn't matter how many guns or rounds of ammunition I have if I am not a threat to society. That I am not a threat to society needs to be ascertained and verified over time. However it needs to be done in a fair and reasonable manner, not capriciously like it is done in NJ for ownership or in CA for a CCW. Not clear how to do it, but clearly some steps could be taken WRT reporting.

I had to take the keys away from my mom and much later my wife. It was not a fun time.

[Fresh_Start]

24. its not just whether you specifically are a threat to society

it is also whether you are an indirect threat to society

If you don't control your weapons, you are also a threat to society.
If you loan a weapon, you are also a threat to society
When you don't secure the weapon, and your child/grandchild can get access
There are other situations, but you get the drift.

The weapon by itself is dangerous because others who are not as wise can get access through fair means or foul

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Not mine, but I take precautions well beyond the CA requirements

[Zoeisright]

28. So?

Doesn't mean your precautions will make that weapon completely safe.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. That goes back to that human part

I am what makes my weapons safe, and firearms are not all of the weapons available to me. It has nothing to do with whether or not it has a flash suppressor or has a 5 round magazine.

[Fresh_Start]

29. also in CA

everything in a gun safe

but that doesn't make it risk free

sometimes those guns are in the car on the way to the range
the car could be stolen

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. There is a threshold of what is considered reasonable precautions

In my case since I ride a MC the vast majority of the time I carry everywhere. Has to do with where I live (remote desert).

[SoutherDem]

33. We are in agreement on many issues

I do not support some of the cosmetic nonsense that will not impact the problem.

I totally agree, too many do get caught up on the fact that a gun looks military. This is a matter of education. But, I see very little education of the people. Between the anti-gun people using the wrong terms to describe a gun and pictures of what looks like the gun used in the Vietnam War show on the news every time some crazy does something like what happened yesterday, and the pro-gun people screaming about "there coming to take our guns", no wonder many are misinformed.

I think that there are things that could be done to help insure that unqualified people do not get firearms. Most gun owners would support that.

While I agree with the first part, I don't know if I agree with the second. As to the first, there are things which are in place and some which are in place in some states, but as long as someone can travel to a state with weak laws and take them to a state with strict gun laws we by default have weak gun laws, you know the weakest link. As to the second, I know some who feel any restriction is too much, I honestly do not know if that is the majority or just a very loud minority.

I am not familiar with the laws in CA, but the course you refer to does it have to be completed to get the gun? Does it only apply to handguns, what about long guns? If during the course you felt someone was not "stable" or seemed to obsessed with killing or some other thing which made you think "this person should not have a gun" is there something you could do?

As to the number of rounds a clip holds, I respectfully disagree with that one. I just can't see why anyone would need 100 rounds without reloading. On that one we may need to agree to disagree, but I could accept 100 rounds if it took an additional check similar to the stamp, tax or whatever it is to own a fully automatic gun and maybe a demonstration for legitimate need.

In regards to the total amount of ammo, I could be swayed on that one, if I felt other safe guards were in place.

[safeinOhio]

18. I'm all for legal and responsible gun ownership.

Also for making it more difficult for others.

Handgun registration is not a problem for me. Either is more, better and mandatory training.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. For me, it is about the person, not the gun or the magazine

Borrowed from another post I just made

I think that there are things that could be done to help insure that unqualified people do not get firearms. Most gun owners would support that. I do not support some of the cosmetic nonsense that will not impact the problem.

The real issue is people, not if the rifle has a flash suppressor. Those focused on the weapon or magazine size are missing the crux of the matter. We need to find ways to insure the background checks are rapid, accurate, and support private sales. They need to be reviewed over time to make sure they are still valid. How much ammunition someone has is not the issue, what matters is if they are a danger to society.

Aurora will not change things since the shooter was clearly crackers. That means there will not be a major push for change. I expect the nation will continue for form into two camps...liberal gun laws and repressive gun laws with no significant Federal action.

[GarroHorus]

3. You want to ban guns? Amend the consitutiton.

Good luck with that.

[missingthebigdog]

7. Your "right" to bear arms is derived from a constitutional amendment.

It always amuses me that people scoff at the possibility of further amendments.....

[GarroHorus]

9. Amendments are HUGE hurdles

There have literally been THOUSANDS of proposed amendments since the constitution was ratified.

To date, 27 have been ratified including the ten amendments in the Bil of rights.

You can try, but when even more than 70% of DU supports lkeeping the second amendment in place, I simply do not see it EVER happening.

[missingthebigdog]

15. You must have access to statistics I don't have

Upon what do you base this 70% figure? I don't recall being asked for my position when I joined.

[GarroHorus]

17. Right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002979625

[SoutherDem]

25. So DU has 478 members I though we had at least 1000

But there were two choices. Keep or repeal, I don't remember if I voted on that one or not but given only the choice of repeal or not I too would have voted no.
Because I don't want to ban all guns, I don't even want to ban most guns, I feel we should ban some guns and some gun accessories. If change and clarify was an option I would have voted for that, but given yes or no, NO.
Based on what I saw the last time I was in the Bass Pro Shop and a local outdoors store there were very few I would object to. I actually do understand there is a difference between semi-auto and auto, and looks don't make the gun.

[SoutherDem]

16. Yes it is difficult to amend the constitution

but, as many pro gun people have pointed out the 2A is about the militias. They have also stated that the SCOTUS has stated that it is established law which gun ownership is constitutional to spite the militia part of the 2A. But, established law can be changed without changing the constitution, a future SCOTUS could state it IS about militias, NOT gun ownership and that you must be part of the regulated militia to have the gun. I must wonder if some form of verified militia membership (including regular drills) were necessary to own guns which can easily be taken from the 2A, would some of the big gun supporters no longer be so energetic.
Never the less, I do not want to ban all guns, and I know very few who do actually, if any. Most want to make SOME guns/accessories illegal, and/or they want to insure those who are armed, are armed responsibly. Too often we find out that someone is mentally unstable only after they commit the crime, not after purchasing multiple guns within a short period of time, purchasing 1000s of rounds of ammo or purchasing things like 100 round clips.
One thing which does give me a little hope is when I hear the NRA say there is a "secret plan to take all our guns" I know that is not true, if you must resort to out right lies you must be threatened by the truth.

If your answer is we already have so much gun restrictions the only other thing to do is ban guns please list this restrictions.

[GarroHorus]

19. After listening to anti-gun extremist rants for the past two days

I am now 100% convinced that given the chance, outright ban is what will happen.

I'll fight against that.

Just keep in mind what happened to the Democratic Party after the AWB.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Some of us are still waiting for the ERA to pass...

[PoliticAverse]

31. Actually, no. The 2nd Amendment acknowledges a right considered to be already existing.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the federal government wouldn't 'infringe' on that right.

[SoutherDem]

10. I knew someone would answer with good luck with that

instead of trying to answer the question.

[GarroHorus]

12. I answered the question

The anti-gun lobby got the Assault Weapons Ban back in '93 (I called my Senators and Congressman at the time in support of it). It took effect in '94. It killed a forty year run of Democrats controlling the House of Representatives and guaranteed there would never again be a federal attempt at gun control legislation.

So you want to ban some shit? Go for it and good luck with that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. It would actually be a second shift or reversal

The tide has been decidedly pro gun for last decade. Moreover the pro gun vote has been decisive in places. It is as you stated, the majority of Americans are more pro than anti gun.

The other part is the shrillness of the anti gunners. A much more moderate approach would be met in kind. Neither side is particularly interested in being moderate. There are things that could be agreed upon. No legitimate gun owner want one in the hands of someone not qualified to own it. However its black letter law that the tools to assure that are not allowed for use in private sales.

The tide will turn (it always does), but I do not expect to see it the next decade.

[GarroHorus]

11. Teh Assault weapons ban, meaningless as it was, did accomplish one thing.

It meant that for the foreseeable future, no party would ever again attempt gun control legislation at the federal level.

Some Democrats from very liberal states and districts will make proposals from time to time as read meat for their base, but those proposals never make it to the floor for a vote, which is not surprising.

[Zoeisright]

30. Shrill? Shrill??

Gee, stating a FACT like there are 10,000 GUN MURDERS in this country every year is SHRILL? I'll give you shrill, bud. Shrill is the parents in mourning over those dead children, the children who have lost their parents, the siblings who lost a brother or sister because of the stupid fucking gun nuts in this country. My God, you have really crossed the line.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. The tone on DU alone has gotten quite shrill. Demands for what amounts to purges and such

and its really not helpful. The RKBA crowd here has either responded in kind (also not helpful) or simply quit posting until this blows over.

There is middle ground is both sides would take a breath...

[DainBramaged]

38. You don't know what mourning the dead from a gunshot wound is like do you?

Shrill my ass. Pious, you bet you are.



I'd say a few more words, but I can see you're talking out of your methane hole.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Actually I do. The details are not important, but I have buried too many people over the years

And you have been a good example of the shrill tone some are taking. Its not helpful, nor will it change anything. It makes you part of the problem.

[DainBramaged]

40. Get off you pious little pony and go lecture the gun crowd

have a nice life 'professor'

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. Rationality has never been your strong suit

Take you poutrage and spew it where you will. There will still be some of us willing to discuss things rationally.

[permatex]

41. I do and it hasn't changed my mind about the RKBA

We can disagree w/o the nasty comments made, seen or unseen.

[Kingofalldems]

5. I want nuclear weapons

It's my right as an American.

[flamingdem]

8. When Mitt Romney was asked for his tax returns guess what he said:

Good luck with that (you people).

He thought he was above the fray but then he lost to Obama in 2012.

So good luck with that Mitt.

[TheKentuckian]

27. I wish the effort nothing but failure, to be swept away, and liberals get back to

giving poor and working class a livable piece of the pie while taking care of our habitat rather than fucking around fetishes as our nation goes down the tubes as our last pennies are sucked up by predators of our labor.

Count on the Turd Way to come up with "free trade" agreements, corporate welfare, phony self regulation programs for industry, and some failed gun control effort to make dealing with everything else way less possible while simultaneously failing to actually institute effective controls because the whole deal is pushed by folks who don't know shit about guns and generally fear or are disturbed by the equipment.

[Fresh_Start]

32. giving the poor and working class a piece of the pie means that someone else has to give up their

right to the piece of the pie they already have....

clearly we can't expect anyone in our society to sacrifice their piece of pie anymore than they should be asked to sacrifice the right to have 120 weapons and 10000 rounds of ammunition

[TheKentuckian]

45. A person has but two arms, physics limits the effective capacity of to use any number of weapons

beyond that. You are not going to limit the number of firearms below a level that a person can effectively utilize in a one off scenario. I don't get the crying out about any particular number of guns someone owns based on these kind of circumstances, it never actually is impactive. The assailant usually has a hand full of weapons and does the damage with one. Gun collection doesn't have any statistical correlation with increased likelihood of violent crime.

The cures prescribed never seem to fit the ailment and there is almost always pushes for restrictions sought the overreach the goal, as a consequence the agenda tends to seem disingenuous and poorly informed.

What does 120 guns ever have to do with these situations? Has any such thing ever had any impact? Logically, all it is incremental movement toward zero because one will tend to do it with any practical magazine, even a revolver or a shotgun. You folks know this so the agenda must be to take advantage of a tragedy to play to a fetish rather than any substantive effort to even address the point of the rallying cry material. That or dishonest wink and nod misrepresentation as a step in an agenda you can't endorse and make an inch of headway toward. Sure a few hotheads can call it but "calmer heads" moderate the message to keep it alive.

I used to scoff at the "gun grabber" conspiracy folks but I think in truth they aren't as far out as I have believed. The weirdo focus on cosmetic features and collectors makes no sense but such nonsense is always a focus of the movement. People gung ho about taking away (repeal the 2nd Amendment types) rights or curtailing them should always be regarded with cynicism based on history and those seeking to expand rights and equality of access, given latitude.

You also can be accused with reason of concentrating power, it is the citizen that is to be cut out and cannot be trusted in this worldview which is a model that seems inherently toxic based on real world application. All power is best heavily democratized and diffused as practical application allows. There are ways to do it but ignoring the need isn't sane much less wise.

Give me a different paradigm and perhaps I give a more palatable menu of options but if we are going to do business the exact same way with one edit then I'll take proliferation and actively oppose anything but, what is the point, to fake clean up statistical noise for an illusion of security?

[DainBramaged]

37. They try to bully us here like they do in real life

they have only paranoia, nothing more. When the gun becomes the central point of your life, you have no life.




I always wondered why some people wear camo when they go shopping. Is it because we're supposed to think that their tough guys, or they simply don't know how to wash their own clothes and wear them between hunting trips? Or not hunting trips so much as beer runs?

[permatex]

42. Because they're comfortable to wear.

Thats my reason I wear my BDU pants every now and then.
Why would you wonder what other people wear?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. I like the thigh pockets, but camo for me is over the top

There are some cleaned up BDUs that work well. No blousing band and they have zippers. When I commute I wear a 'Stich.