Is Everytown For Gun Safety really this ignorant?

[Jgarrick]

They don't even know how bullets work.

[villager]

1. Is every apologist for gun violence really this ignorant?

Don't worry, rhetorical question.

And of course, there's the utter predictability of the snarky "ROFL" smiley -- the gun proliferationist's favorite symbol of "empathy" in the face of violence, loss, and devastation.

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. Consider asking an actual "apologist for gun violence."

Protip: there are none such here.

[villager]

5. Well, you'd be one.

And you seem to be here.

[Lizzie Poppet]

6. Nice slander.

Got any more hate-blinded blurts to "contribute?"

And yes, that's a rhetorical question, too. The answer is almost as obvious as the idiotic graphic in the OP.

[bravenak]

14. Greetings!

On Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:39 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Well, you'd be one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=143508

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack. Calls another DUer a "gun violence apologist".Please hide!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:48 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't hide posts that are critical of gun luvvers.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Unless the specific post was excusing gun violence (it was not) it is not appropriate to call another poster an apologist for gun violence based upon the views she may or may not have expressed in other threads. So I vote to hide.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Accurate Assessment of the person the person alerted on was responding to.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Minor bickering between two parties, and I hope it ends naturally without official censure. The alerted comment wasn't made without provocation. Too many gun posts, both pro and anti, spiral down this route.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The previous poster was a bit snarky and got it back in kind. There is nothing wrong with that.
Please stop alerting every post you don't agree with. If you can't handle a post as innocuous as this, you need to get off the internet and hide in your safe room.
I vote leave it alone. Now, move on with your day.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I'm #7


Have a nice day!!

[JohnnyRingo]

25. #6...

I reiterate that I hope the squabble ends without peer censure, and that seems to be the case.

I don't even want to take sides on this argument, but too many resort to the alert button in order to "win" a heated debate. Gun issues will always have an elevated level of passion, both in the DUniverse and elsewhere. It's probably best to make one's point and move on.

[bravenak]

41. I agree.

Gun debates get heated and i chose not to involve myself. I have notice lately that the posts i've been on the jury for have not been hide worthy. I usually don't hide unless it's over the top, even if i do not like the post myself. Or the person who posted it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

60. I'm glad it didn't get hidden.

I certainly didn't alert on it, that's for sure. A little snapping at each other over a heated issue is only a problem if it persists or it it threatens to derail the thread.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

80. I'm guessing that the irony escapes...

https://www.google.com/search?q=apologist

In the circles of religious scholars Apologetics has nothing to do with apologizing and apologists are known sometimes as defenders of the faith.

[NYC_SKP]

44. Ooh! Fancy words! "apologist" and now, OMG, "proliferationist"....

Your labels actually tell more about the users than the fictional characters that they are meant to describe.

We deal in fact.

I guess that makes us realists.

Or honest.

[villager]

47. Sort of like the fictive label "Gun-grabber" you mean, and what it tells about the user?

[NYC_SKP]

51. Yes, indeed! I try to avoid the term for the very same reason, it's just divisive.

Having said this, I'm also sure that I've used it a time or two, but not proud of it.

[larryjf]

131. Apology

Plato's Apology has nothing to do with "I'm Sorry".

[SQUEE]

65. Smileys show a lack of concern?

Yup.

[Lizzie Poppet]

2. When entire cartridges fly out of the muzzle...

...it's time to see a gunsmith.

[ManiacJoe]

37. Or just buy the correct ammo for the gun next time.

[John1956PA]

102. Or use a sabot.

From Wikipedia:

Sabot

A sabot /ˈsæboʊ/ is a device used in a firearm or cannon to fire a projectile, such as a bullet, that is smaller than the bore diameter, or which must be held in a precise position.

. . .




More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabot

[rrneck]

3. Well, to be fair in terms of imagery the entire cartridge has greater symbolic power.

To my mind the blind spot that kills it is that anybody with any sense will understand that both innocents and evil doers share the same inability to outrun a bullet. Of course, the objective is not to make people safer but to feed at the trough of a partisan culture war.

[DonP]

7. I wonder if this was designed by the former MDA group?

Aren't they "grass roots communications" experts?

The massive display of ignorance is incredible and pretty funny. The fact that at least one poster here still doesn't get what we're laughing at is all the more rich.

Bloomie really isn't getting his money's worth.

Might be time to make some fast changes before they embarrass themselves again

[upaloopa]

8. Superman is faster than a speeding bullet.

Anyway that's what my TV show said when I was a kid.
You don't need to know how a bullet works to know that people are killed by them. Of course if superman stopped the bullets would bounce off him. We all know bullets don't bounce off people even though some may not understand how they work.

[Jgarrick]

9. So we've now established that an organization devoted to gun control is better informed about

comic books than they are about firearms.

[mikeysnot]

32. So you can outrun a bullet?

[SQUEE]

66. one launched cartridge and all out of an unrifled barrel, yeah probably..

and if not, probably just be annoyed at the annoying thing just annoyingly flung at me.

[mikeysnot]

68. oooo-k?

[Jgarrick]

70. I never asserted I could. What we do know is that while the poster demonstrates a certain

knowledge of a comic book character, it demonstrates a stunning lack of knowledge regarding the fundamentals of how firearms function...which is amusing, given that the whole point of the organization in question is to restrict civilian ownership and use of firearms.

[JohnnyRingo]

27. Ah, but Superman was impervious to gunshots.

I recall from the TV show as a kid that he would stand firm with hands defiantly on hips as bullets ricocheted harmlessly off his chest, then duck when the gangster threw the empty gun at him. I always chuckled at that.

As a disclaimer, I own guns but am not opposed to common sense regulations like background checks and even short waiting periods. I went through both rituals here in Ohio back in the day, and it didn't kill me (or anyone else for that matter).

I also didn't start screaming that the constitution was dead, but these days that's the normal reaction from some who have been brainwashed by the gun manufacturers lobby (AKA NRA).

Crazy world we live in.

[SeattleVet]

10. I want to see the cartridge that fired *that* thing!!

I think that accuracy would really suck! There's not enough of a rim behind the extractor groove to catch the rifling for any sort of stability, or to create a gas seal. I'm also a little surprised that the cartridge is so perfectly aligned with the barrel as it exits the muzzle.

I don't think that the image projects the message that they think it does. It just sort of screams, "We know nothing about firearms, much less gun safety."

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. So they should show an actual person being shot instead? Would that pass your test?

[clffrdjk]

30. Test? What kind of test?

The pic did exactly what it was supposed to and what Bloomberg paid for. It is an add for his new group, he managed to annoy just about every gun owner on the internet, that gets it spread across the whole internet. Do you have any idea what it would cost to buy the exposure that he got for free with that stupid cartridge. And hell the anti gun people are proud of not knowing anything about that which they want to ban so it is not like they are going to care about the error.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. Whatever it is you are using to judge this public safety message ad campaign.

But apparently the Standard is.....you must not take ANY kind of literary license when it comes to guns and their paraphernalia it must accurately depict an ACTUAL gun and bullets and it MUST match reality....no use of visual imagery that doesn't reflect this standard will be taken seriously. Therefore....the ONLY public safety announcement will be required to use an ACTUAL image of a toddler actually shooting his playmate (no stick figures allowed). That will be the only kind of warning about guns allowed....everything else is just open for ridicule by gun "enthusiasts".

[clffrdjk]

38. And hell the anti gun people are proud of not knowing anything about that which they want to ban

So it is not like they are going to care about the error.

You have some pretty sick ideas about what this add should have depicted. But am I wrong about my reason for Bloomberg's use of artistic license?

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. No I am not saying it SHOULD have depicted that....I am saying...if NO creative license

is apparently allowed....shouldn't we also expect actual depictions of the end result as well? I bet those that are demanding no creative license when it comes to the weapons....would object to the reality of the end results being used by the opponents.

[clffrdjk]

42. Ok one more time

What was the purpose for the use of that artistic license here?

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. to convey a safety message perhaps?

I think people understand what a gun and a bullet are....I don't think they need to be able to read the serial numbers on the weapon or be able to tell the ballistic pattern the bullet would create to understand that message.

[clffrdjk]

50. So how did showing a cartridge leaving the barrel

Better convey that safety message than a bullet leaving the barrel would have?

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. because people unfamiliar with guns wouldn't know that perhaps?

Perhaps the message wasn't meant for you.....

[clffrdjk]

58. The target audience is not capable of using context clues?

But knows what a cartridge looks like?
That is quite a stretch.

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. No the target audience might not know as much about individual weapons and ammunition...no

You seem to think a majority of people in the U.S. do know lots about guns. You are sadly mistaken.

[clffrdjk]

176. Look if you want me to walk you through the process of using context clues

To figure out which part of the picture is the gun and which is the bullet I can. And all without using any prior knowledge of firearms. You are the one making assumptions on gun knowledge, reasoning that the person will better recognize a cartridge over a bullet.

[DashOneBravo]

59. Maybe only a few saw that

and the people who created that train wreck won't whine with:

"you must not take ANY kind of literary license"

Before anyone takes this seriously you have to at least have a basic understanding of the subject.

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. the basic understanding you NEED is that GUNS KILL people....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. If the people that poster is attempting to reach are as oblivious about how guns work

Odds are they have no guns to be worried about.

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. So ONLY people who already have guns buy new ones?

No one who has never had a gun before decides to buy one?

And this is not a commercial FOR gun ownership....its a ad AGAINST them. You don't need to own a weapon to figure THAT out.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

115. If I wanted to buy a gun I would assume

1) it was faster than any human being. In fact, I'd probably be counting on that assumption. Never once has anyone walked up to a purveyor of firearms and said, "Do you have any guns that a person could outrun?"

2) the people who designed and published that poster think I'm an idiot ergo they must be idiots

And this is not a commercial FOR gun ownership....its a ad AGAINST them.

That may be its intent but its effect is far wide of the mark. The billionaire Republican has been very good at galvanizing large bodies of voters against Democratic politicians, yet horrible for those seeking gun control. If I were you I would start wondering if this guy is running a false flag op.

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. Like I said....if you want these Ads to be Literal....then they

should show things like an abusive husband shooting his abused wife. There's some reality for yah!

Apparently you expected an anti-gun message to be supportive of them!

I don't care if they used a crayon to draw it frankly......its about the message not the imagery.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

119. "show things like an abusive husband shooting his abused wife"

Women use guns to defend themselves. Why are you opposed to that?

[VanillaRhapsody]

121. We are talking about THIS ad. That is ANTI gun....

there is no...."we have to be fair to guns" about this ad.....

Are you expecting EVERYONE to support gun ownership?

Or are guns people now too? Do guns themselves have constitutional rights? Can a gun sue for libel?

by the way....many many women are raped....should they ALL just go around "strapped" 24/7? Is that your solution?

[gejohnston]

122. from a blog post by someone whose views on guns are probably closer to yours than mine

Last edited Wed Apr 23, 2014, 05:26 PM - Edit history (1)

But his blog is usually spot on and calls out both sides equally.

It undermines the group’s own cause, and betrays the trust and loyalty of contributors, members and allies. The ad makes gun control activists look like silly, unserious fools….which, sadly, a critical mass of them are.

That is actually kinder than he has said anything about Ted Nugent.

http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/04/22/pop-ethics-quiz-whats-wrong-with-this-picture/

by the way....many many women are raped....should they ALL just go around "strapped" 24/7? Is that your solution?

They don't have to be, but it is better than other proposals from "progressives" who sound more like some sexist from the 1950s (urinate on themselves, tell the attacker they have an STD, carry a whistle. The Colorado pol who said "they will more likely just get scarred and shoot some guy was sexist.) If predators reasonably assumed they could be, it will have the same deterrent effect. Think about it, if you were to rob or rape someone, would you pick the person wearing the biking shorts and tee shirt or the Hawaiian shirt (un tucked) or fishing vest? Oh you happened to be in, say, someplace in Arizona or Idaho.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. I HAVE been raped....AND no one ever told me to do those things...

NOR will I go around strapped 24/7. That's for weaklings....

[gejohnston]

127. Didn't go to school in Colorado?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/justice/colorado-rape-prevention-guidelines/
That was just last year.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/19/state-lawmaker-apologizes-for-rape-remark/
I don't give a shit what the letter next to his name is, he is a sexist ass who should be primaried. Even if he is replaced by another gun control advocate, doesn't matter. I have two basic core values that applies here: reason before dogma, principle before party. Bigotry, misogyny, and intolerance is always wrong be it from the left or the right.

Your choice is your choice. I believe in choice both ways: the choice of be armed or not armed should be up to the individual at hand. I respect both choices equally. Don't like guns, don't buy one. Don't like abortions, don't have one. Works both ways. You either believe in a principle or you don't. That simple.
Physical "weakness" is not the same as mental or moral toughness. If someone larger and physically stronger than I happens to be beating my head in the sidewalk (or kicks in my door) my number one goal becomes for me to survive by any means I have at hand and have no moral or legal obligation to be overly concerned about theirs as long as they are threat.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

125. "Are you expecting EVERYONE to support gun ownership?"

No. I do not.

However, when stupid people create stupid ads that make stupid statements portrayed stupidly I reserve the right to note the fact it's stupid.

If you are REALLY so attached to this ad -- fine. Post it far and wide. Rent an IMAX movie projector and shine it on the moon. If this is how the gun control movement chooses to beclown itself far be it for me to interfere.

by the way....many many women are raped....should they ALL just go around "strapped" 24/7? Is that your solution?

Whether or not a woman decides to carry is her choice (Try to remember that, would you?) but any person considering committing a sexual assault should fear for their life. A would-be rapist should be terrified of the idea of acting on their intention and I support utilizing whatever means is necessary to decidedly instill such abject terror.

[VanillaRhapsody]

129. Funny how its only "stupid" to the gun "enthusiasts"

Funny how that works huh?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

132. Entire cartridges flying out of pistol muzzles is stupid.

But, by all means, spread this highly-erudite and thought-provoking ad as far and wide as your means allow you. Maybe even get a tattoo.

[VanillaRhapsody]

146. Creative License....ever heard of it?

perhaps we should ad some realism with your expectation of weapons being treated "fairly".....how about we start showing actual preschoolers shooting playmates....now there is some realism for ya. If we HAVE to present guns in the LITERAL sense......the weapon AND ammunition MUST be absolutely correct and true....then lets quick dilly dallying about and go ahead and do commercials showing one of the many many many hundreds of people who actually die from gunshot wounds each yeat too? I mean if you insist on realistic portrayals and all....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

148. You have your blood lust, don't you?

Would you be okay with depictions of women who wanted to be armed but were forbidden by some stupid law based on a stupid poster leaving her to be brutally beaten and raped.

That is what you are working for.

[VanillaRhapsody]

150. I am not the one that thinks more guns are the answer....

I think LESS guns are the answer.

You don't think there aren't ALREADY commercials portraying that? You don't watch much TV do you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

157. Be honest. You want a blanket prohibition.

[SQUEE]

112. you just inadvertently gave up the whole game..

We know exactly who it was for, the ignorant and fearful.

it was aimed at low information idiots, and is a perfect example of the common threads that run through control advocacy.
Complete misunderstanding and disdain for any technical truth, blatant misrepresentation of what weapons do, and sensationalist imagery and rhetoric.
All to push a lying and cowardly agenda of theft, and demonization.
More games, that are costing lives.... if any part of their agenda has a kernel of truth, they are responsible for deaths now.
Another criminal has gotten a gun, another person is dead, and all gun grabbers are trying to do is to win arguments....tick tock

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. What? Uh no....not everyone who doesn't own a gun is "ignorant and fearful"

sorry I am neither.....

I know what guns do.....they kill people...DEAD!

[SQUEE]

114. none of mine have,

So, guess you don't know do ya?

Look if you are just coming from a position control, hey good on ya, but if you really understood most owners, and anything about firearms, then the BS propaganda would strike you as comical as others here... IF you see your cherished beliefs being eviscerated by knowledgeable people... yeah I guess I would lash out too, I agree with you, SOME PEOPLE don't need to own or even be allowed near "gunz"

[Jgarrick]

116. A bit of a tangent regarding the "my guns haven't killed anyone" catchphrase:

Given that I have a number of military-issue firearms in my collection, many of my guns may well have been used to kill someone. This is neither good nor bad; guns are merely tools, they're not haunted be bad karma. The fact that a gun may have been the instrument of someone's death is of no more consequence than that a car was previously used as a getaway vehicle.

[VanillaRhapsody]

120. Wow....just wow.....

if that is not an apologist's statement......

The fact that it HAS killed people is not nearly as important as IF it WILL kill more people. and NO most gun owners are NOT responsible.

I have known many many many gun owners.....they do NOT follow the guidelines.

[Duckhunter935]

139. how many

of the hundreds of millions of gun owners do you know? I know some also and all are responsible. Former military that like to go target shooting every so often.

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. I am from South Carolina....

and my father was military career....NUFF said.

and I don't care WHAT you do with YOUR guns....YOU are not everyone....."you" do not a trend make.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. Not yet.....

doesn't mean it will NEVER happen. Lots of "responsible gun owners" until they are not....and contrary to YOUR belief...MOST gun owners are NOT responsible.

[Straw Man]

124. Really?

...and contrary to YOUR belief...MOST gun owners are NOT responsible.

Funny -- all of the ones I associate with are. You must be hanging around with a skeevy bunch of folks.

[VanillaRhapsody]

142. All of them lock their weapons?

yeah right....

Been to the deep South lately?

[Straw Man]

164. Yes. Lock all weapons ...

... except those under one's immediate control, such as in a holster, in the hand, or benched in a safe condition at the range.

That's right. Do you have information to the contrary? Let's hear it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

133. And who's to say you won't get drunk and slaughter a family of 4 in your car?

Let's reinstate Prohibition.

[Duckhunter935]

138. or ban cars

as it might happen

[VanillaRhapsody]

144. Has your pea shooter been banned yet?

Has anyone said the word "ban" besides you in this conversation?

How about we background check ALL weapons and require insurance....just like we do CARS!

How about some "Common Sense" gun laws.....just for starters...

[Duckhunter935]

152. I did not require a background check

to buy my car, truck or motorcycle.

Insurance would be stupid cheap as criminal acts would not be covered. How about having a weapons license and treating it exactly the same as we do for cars. Fairly cheap, no training needed, good in all 50 states and I can renew with no test and possibly even over the internet.

And of course, I do not need insurance if my vehicle is operated on private property. Not banned yet but not for lack of trying. My rifles all have bayonets or bayonet lugs, even my 90 year old one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. but you DID have to take a test and YOU must renew...AND you MUST

purchase insurance and in many places PROVE that said car passes certain tests....THOSE are all "Common Sense" car laws.....Not to mention REGISTER IT....and by the way....your drivers liscence....puts you in a database...along with your driving "history"......there is your background check.

[Duckhunter935]

160. lets see

I did take one test 40 years ago. Do not need to register or insure if I use the vehicle on a farm and not on a public road. I have been for an firearms license for a long time. One time background check, training required for each style of weapon. Endorsement for type of weapon just like car, truck, bus. I walk into dealer or private seller with correct endorsement for weapon, walk out no waiting period.

[VanillaRhapsody]

143. because I don't drink

so that is not a problem and by the way WE DO have common sense drinking and driving laws....


Shouldn't we have COMMON SENSE gun laws?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

145. People who think entire cartridges come out of guns shouldn't lecture about "common sense."

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. the person who did the artwork....is not the person creating the actual laws.....

you know that right?

People who demand that weapons and ammo be portrayed realistically in advertisements against them....should have no problem with showing actual gunshot victims in those ads then....since you are so hung up on realism and all...

People who lecture about artwork being realistic.....and all....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

149. Lemme guess, you also think rifles that only fire single shots are "military assault rifles."

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. Frankly I don't care.....

I don't worship them.....and I certainly don't think MORE guns is the solution. AND I fully support ANYONE who goes against the NRA.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

155. I don't worship them either. i can count on my fingers the number of times I've been shooting

and never need my thumbs. I did, however, make the effort to educate myself.

and I certainly don't think MORE guns is the solution.

Someone who is so deliberately ignorant of a subject doesn't think, they merely emote.

[Duckhunter935]

153. we do

thousands of them, lets try enforcing the laws on the books.

[VanillaRhapsody]

156. Obviously we DON'T

You have more laws enforcing your driving than that gun.....

[Duckhunter935]

158. just keep adding more

243 pages so far

https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

do not forget sate, county and city laws and regulations

another good link, short and sweet

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/documents/guncard.pdf

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. How many traffic laws do you think there are?

and don't forget...depending on WHAT you drive....there are even more laws that are called into play....

[gejohnston]

161. the number of states and territories there are

although almost all of them are uniform. There are no federal traffic laws outside of federal reservations.

[VanillaRhapsody]

162. Yes and much of the traffic laws you obey ARE States rules.....States also

don't have uniform gun laws either do they? Are you one of those "States Rights" guys? You trust the State govt not the Federal Govt?

[gejohnston]

163. No they don't

Last edited Thu Apr 24, 2014, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)

nor should they.

Are you one of those "States Rights" guys?

What does "states rights" mean? It sounds like one of those propaganda buzz words like "conspiracy theory" or "assault weapon" used to stifle actual examination of facts or create an stereotypical image in the minds of the naive. So, please explain it to me.
I'm willing to bet that you believe in "states rights" as long as it reflects your bias, not not as a principle. Are you asking if we should ignore the founders' intent and the Constitution and have a unitary system? No, I do not.
Most modern democracies have federal systems instead of unitary systems. We along with Canada, Australia, Germany, and Mexico are examples of federal systems. Japan has a unitary system as does South Korea.
Each state have their own limited autonomy and it varies with each country. Australia for example has no federal gun laws. I'm not so sure they have any federal laws at all. Before the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (which the federal government blackmailed the states in adopting just like the US federal government black mailed the states to agree to the drinking age.) none of the state laws were similar. Now they have some. The founders developed the Constitution to fix the flaws in the Articles of Confederation. That is why the house represented the individual and the senate represented the state governments. That is why there were no direct elections of senators until 100 years ago. I'm not saying we should repeal that amendment, simply explaining the history.

When it comes to "states rights" it all depends on whose ox is getting gored isn't it? Under our current system, local police have no duty, and often not the right, to enforce federal law. The same is true of federal LE on the state level. If you are against all "states rights" then you should be for local and state police forces busting pot shops even in Colorado and Washington. Why? It is still violating federal law. Like I said before, you either believe the a principle or you don't.
Should the states be allowed to blow off federal prohibition of pot? Yes. The DEA should be bound by the Commerce Clause just like the rest of the federal government. If the NRA got its national reciprocity law passed, would I support it? No. It violates the 10th Amendment, and I would support California or New Jersey's efforts to over turn it on those grounds.
I would have supported Wisconsin and other states nullifying the Fugitive Slave laws. Should states have the right to deny the federal BoR to their residents? No. Do I support the incorporation of all of the BoR against the states? Yes Whatever you think of McDonald v Chicago, it finished off the remnants the worst of the worst SCOTUS decisions that said not only can states deny second amendment rights, but also first amendment rights and made the 19th century civil rights acts unenforceable. .

You trust the State govt not the Federal Govt?

Both should be trusted or distrusted equally. Both have their legitimate place. Both have their share of incompetents and crooks. It isn't the corporate like abstraction "the government" it is the people who operate it. Both have their legitimate place and should stay within their bounds as the framers intended. I know Thom Hartman and some other progressives think that the federal government is less corruptible and more competent than the state and local governments, and many conservatives claim the opposite. Both are correct and incorrect. Just look at TARP, Tammany Hall, or modern Chicago (the whole fucking state of IL for that matter.) Think Florida playing kiss ass with real estate developers is better or worse than the feds playing kiss ass with the banksters? I guess that depends. Same deserved distrust different level.

Did I answer your question? You asked an essay question, I hope you didn't expect a simple answer. It isn't complete nor edited as best as it should be, but it is late.

[VanillaRhapsody]

165. No it doesn't...

and what the hell WAS that....I believe you are grossly misinformed about what "States Rights" means...

[Straw Man]

166. Grossly misinformed?

It appears to me that you just got a primer lesson on the federal system in the United States and the position of the states vis-a-vis the federal government when it comes to questions of power, authority, and rights: the "states' rights" issue in a nutshell.

Perhaps you are thinking of the buzz-phrase "states' rights," which was used by those opposed to the civil rights movement of the 1960s to encapsulate their belief that individual states were entitled to ignore Constitutionally-guaranteed rights if they saw fit. They were wrong. They were "grossly misinformed" about the meaning of "states' rights."

[VanillaRhapsody]

167. Yes that IS exactly what I WAS talking about (as I recall I mentioned it first)

...whatever you were going on about I have no idea.....

As good a place as any to start...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights

[Straw Man]

169. So you admit ...

... that you are conflating a political concept that is a cornerstone of our federal system with a particular misapplication of it, and that you are compounding your error by calling others to task for not sharing your own blinkered view? "States' rights as a code word" is not the sum total of the concept. Read your own linked Wiki and learn.

Sheesh.

[gejohnston]

168. I gave an essay, although incomplete, answer to a question

that was not relevant and of questionable intent. Let's face it, it was code for "are you a racist or a neo confederate". Or, you were subtly accusing me of being one with no evidence. I don't play that game, and I have zero respect for those who do.

..I believe you are grossly misinformed about what "States Rights" means...

It is code for "southern redneck who wants to end integration". IOW, a weaponized word that falsely equates believing in limited federal government with Bull Conner to avoid legitimate debate. After reading what your reply to Straw Man, it is obvious that was your intent. It is also clear that you don't know much about civics.

Since I am not southern by any means (although my kids were both born on Shaw AFB, does that make them southern?) and segregation did not exist in Wyoming (in fact it has been illegal since 1957) at least in either of our lifetimes, I find that really insulting and quite inappropriate.
Instead of re writing I'll give you the Cliffs Notes version:
Should the DEA leave Colorado and Washington alone as long as the pot is grown inside the state? Yes. The DEA should be bound by the Commerce Clause and the 10A just like the rest of the federal government.
Should the IRS go after growers for tax evasion? Damn right
Should a state, territory, county or city have the right to infringe on any constitutional/natural/human rights of its residents? No.
Do I support the NRA's national reciprocity bill? No. I think it violates the 10A
Would I support a state's 10A challenge to above law if passed? Yes
Do I support the incorporation of all of the BoR against the states? Yes
Does it make sense now?

[friendly_iconoclast]

175. Six words for you: Cannabis legalization at the state level

Are you for or against it?

[VanillaRhapsody]

178. I am FOR it at the FEDERAL Level....

what does that have to do with this or is any of your business to ask?

[gejohnston]

182. if you have to ask

then you don't understand what states rights actually means. BTW, did you read the Wiki article before posting? It didn't seem like it. It is one thing to blindly believe any misinformation some radio or TV pundit tells you and think you are well informed. Being arrogant about it is quite another. If you start with that, then read the dictionary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights
Please know what you are talking about before you start accusing people of being racist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

183. Who accused someone of being racist?

Knee jerk much?

[gejohnston]

185. you accused me

in a very subtle manner. I read the article, notice the term "loaded term" which means dog whistle. You used the loaded term to accuse me of racism. Please leave the race baiting to the likes of Ted Nugent (who probably is racist) and Al Sharpton (who is also antisemitic) they have been at it for a very long time and are pros.

[VanillaRhapsody]

184. I think a little reading for YOU is in order...

Background
The balance of federal powers and those powers held by the states as defined in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution was first addressed in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Court's decision by Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the laws adopted by the federal government, when exercising its constitutional powers, are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments. After McCulloch, the primary legal issues in this area concerned the scope of Congress' constitutional powers, and whether the states possess certain powers to the exclusion of the federal government, even if the Constitution does not explicitly limit them to the states.[1][2]
Controversy
Since the 1940s, it has often been considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation.[3][4][5][6] In law, states' prerogatives are protected by the Tenth Amendment.

[gejohnston]

186. here is my proof

Since the 1940s, it has often been considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation.

you don't know what loaded terms mean? It does not change the dictionary definition.

[VanillaRhapsody]

187. Yes I know what it means.....

....did you think I wasn't aware that it is used in more than one way? That's WHY I asked....

[gejohnston]

188. no, I didn't think you were aware

[VanillaRhapsody]

189. then you were also wrong not to.....

you know what they say about the word "assume" right?

[SeattleVet]

62. My 'test'???

The only 'test' I would apply when trying to create an ad espousing something would be, 'Does this ad really make me look like someone that knows nothing at all about the subject I am trying to educate others about?'.

[Scuba]

11. There ya go. Proof that there's no gun violence in America!

[jimmy the one]

12. probably intentionally done that way

I think it was intentional, for an entire fmj or tmj coming out is more graphically understandable rather than just the fired projectile, which would be smaller.

As someone once said as far as your criticism goes - if that's all you gots, you ain't gots much.

[geckosfeet]

13. It also speaks to the blatant disregard of truth and reality, as well as

the willingness to mis-inform in order to serve the tactic of making emotional appeal.

You cannot, simply cannot create effective legislation when it's founded in mis-information, ignorance and fear.

[clffrdjk]

20. If you are going to use acronyms try and use them correctly

FMJ

TMJ

Cartridge


But I agree I think it was intentional, are we sure that this came from Bloomberg's group and not another group making fun of anti gunners intentional ignorance?

[bowens43]

15. you're fucking hilarious.... nothing as sick as laughing about something like this

do you laugh about school massacres too?

[Jgarrick]

16. Nope. Do you?

[gejohnston]

17. no, but I do think that

Bloomberg and his minions get giddy at the prospect of having political capital. The NYC/MAIG emails gained via FOIL certainly gives that impression.
I'm certain Leland Yee was too, while he was making deals to flood the streets with illegal machine guns.

[SecularMotion]

18. What a disgusting post.

This belongs on Free Republic, not DU.

[IronGate]

19. If you believe that, then alert and take your chances with a jury.

[petronius]

22. The jury on the OP was a 4-3 Leave

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:27 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Is Everytown For Gun Safety really this ignorant?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172143503

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

There is no humor in gun violence. This sort of comment belongs on Free Republic. Please hide this post and ban the troll.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Apr 21, 2014, 02:10 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: There is no humor in gun violence - belongs on Free Republic
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is no humor in gun violence, but there is humor in (arguably) poorly-made graphics, no matter the cause. Answer it in the thread if you find it objectionable, or Ignore the DUer, or Trash the thread, or Trash the Group.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Inflammatory.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Extremely bad taste, but not hide-worthy. Would need to see more evidence of trolling.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: So, an anti-gun violence organization doesn't know every masturbatory detail about the behavior of projectiles and this invalidates them in the eyes of gun fetishists? Seems like rather weak criticism to me.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[IronGate]

23. Thanks.

Close, but no cigar for the alerter.

I think we all know who the alerter was here.

[Jgarrick]

21. "Disgusting" for pointing out the sheer ignorance of advocates of civilian disarmament?

That's ok...we can still be pals.

[mikeysnot]

34. civilian disarmament?

Hmmm? Are you afraid if you actually had to prove competence and responsibility, that you might not be eligible to own firearms??

I am just asking since all your posts are about extremes....

Name one bill at the state or federal level that calls for "civilian disarmament"? since Columbine?

[clffrdjk]

35. Safe act.

[mikeysnot]

63. Nice link!

[clffrdjk]

77. You said name a bill I did exactly as you asked.

So go google it.

[mikeysnot]

81. punt?

[clffrdjk]

88. Google too complex? Here you go

[link:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Ny+safe+act|

[mikeysnot]

98. Common courtesy to complex for you?

Just putting the well regulated part back into the 2nd...

[clffrdjk]

105. Lol

mikeysnot (1,951 posts)
96. Cry baby.

Have a nice day.
Reply to this post
Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

[gejohnston]

54. many of the bills sponsored by

Leland Yee and were so extreme Jerry Brown vetoed them.
It seems ironic that someone whose concern for gun violence prompted him to sponsor "gun safety" bills to harass peaceful target shooters and hunters while dealing to arm drug dealers and street gangs with illegal machine guns.

[mikeysnot]

64. Link,

we know he was busted.

[Jgarrick]

67. Given that I have a C&R FFL and have passed the background check to acquire a silencer, I think I'm

"eligible"...

Name one bill at the state or federal level that calls for "civilian disarmament"? since Columbine?

Just in the last year: New York, Connecticut

NY:

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

Connecticut:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Connecticut#Assault_weapons

Those are just a couple that actually passed. Would you like a list of more draconian bills that were proposed, but didn't become law?

[mikeysnot]

69. I'm sorry where does it state civil disarmament?

Help me out here... I read it... but must have missed it?

Did not see any "civil disarmament" mentioned anywhere. The word "disarmament" appears nowhere.

Most of the provisions seem reasonable to me, nothing "draconian" here.

If this is the best you got... you got nothing.

My suggestion to you is to take a cold shower.

[gejohnston]

72. if the SAFE Act was so reasonable

why was it passed in the middle of the night without anyone reading it?

[mikeysnot]

73. Get a law degree

and fight it in the courts...

[gejohnston]

75. that's not an answer

it is already being fought in the courts. Some of it has already been struck down. Various police agencies already said they will not enforce it.

[mikeysnot]

83. "Various police agencies already said they will not enforce it."

That's scary? Not doing their jobs. What backwards ass townships are these butt farts living in?

[gejohnston]

87. Not doing their jobs

How many laws are not being enforced, hummmmm
employing undocumented workers is a crime
pot is still a federal crime
So, if the DEA started shutting down medical marijuana dispensaries and certain smoke shops in Colorado an d Washington, you will have Holder's back, right?
Didn't think so. Oh, and a lot of it is grown illegally on public land where they dump toxic waste in the nearest river. They also booby trap the area and nonchalantly blow away any hiker who stumbles across the grove. Oh, they don't pay taxes either. Picture the Koch brothers, and worse, in tie dye. Yet the feds are hassling some old Mormon guy and his cattle.

What backwards ass townships are these butt farts living in?

Most of the counties.

[Jgarrick]

74. If the SAFE Act were to be passed in my state, I would be forced to dispose of most

of the firearms in my collection. How is that not disarmament?

[clffrdjk]

78. But but banning guns and forcing people to dispose of them is not disarmament!!

It is just common sense don'tch ya know.




I wonder where he will move the goal posts to this time.

[mikeysnot]

86. Is this the provision that you are afraid of?

There was no "goal post moving" asking for a link after asking for the bill is not goal post moving, but then this is why you are afraid of the safe act? I usually ask for a link so that I am on the same page as you are since some sources that I may google might be different then the one you are looking at. It is also common courtesy..

"Requires designated mental health professionals who believe a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her."

The bill is banning ASSAULT WEAPONS... "don'tch ya know". You think someone versed in gunz would realize this...

[clffrdjk]

89. Asking for a name of a bill because you don't think someone could possibly find one.

And then commenting "nice link" when given the name is the definition of moving the goal posts.
Demanding that the bill have the actual words civilian disarmament in it is just icing on the cake.

Final note, how is the banning of a firearm not disarmament?

[mikeysnot]

96. Cry baby.

[clffrdjk]

104. Seriously?

[mikeysnot]

200. Song for your blues...

&feature=kp

[mikeysnot]

170. Good luck with your BS dude...

Taking away an unnecessary military grade weapons that has been responsible to enable deranged individuals the chance to go out in a blaze of Rambozo glory and kill innocent young children and movie goers is not going to get any sympathy from me... Beside no one or no law is forcing you to move to Connecticut.

So either you are a paid shill getting paid to disrupt any reasonable gun laws discussion of ressonable gun laws or you are a fool fighting a law that has no effect on you.

So I leave you with this...

[blueridge3210]

172. Stay classy "dude". (NT)

[mikeysnot]

195. right back at ya!

[clffrdjk]

177. What discussion have I disrupted?

So I should ignore a bad law and just let it spread until it directly effects me?
Also where do I go to sign up to get paid to post, my ammo budget could use a boost?

[mikeysnot]

196. So you are a true believer...

it is only a bad law for those wanting to engage in bad behavior... with their weapons of mass destruction.

[clffrdjk]

201. I am busy what do you want?

[mikeysnot]

202. really?

315 post in the last 90 days, there you go again, moving the goal posts...

[clffrdjk]

203. Was that supposed to make sense?

[mikeysnot]

205. Have someone explain it to you...

[clffrdjk]

207. Hey everybody, does anyone know what he is trying to get at?

Or is it kind of like modern art where its meaning is a little different for everyone, and not even the artist is really sure what it means?

[mikeysnot]

208. maybe one of your sycophantic gun nut supports could help you out here and laugh at your stupid Joke

and put a bunch of nice little emoticons to help you with your temper tantrum...

[clffrdjk]

210. Rough day?

[mikeysnot]

212. no?

great day today and I get to see Oi Polloi tonight so I am looking forward to that...

[gejohnston]

90. do you know what an "assault weapon" is?

Last edited Tue Apr 22, 2014, 10:45 PM - Edit history (1)

It is a political term that any politician calls "assault weapons" to get mentally lazy people think it is a machine gun or some nonsense. Most of them are defined by cosmetics. The term "assault weapons" is simply a propaganda term coined by VPC to scare the ignorant. Some of these "assault weapons" have no military or LE use at all but are used in Olympics and ISSF World Cup, simply because the magazine well is outside of the grip. IOW, an intellectually bankrupt movement that depends on dishonesty and perception management.

Given the gun prohibition movement, which changes terms to "control" to "safety" for better sales.

[mikeysnot]

97. typical...

[Duckhunter935]

95. here you go

Assault weapon


not an assault weapon


http://www.blackrainordnance.com/newsletter-april-2014-new-york-compliant-ar15-ar10-rifles/

the two rifle function identical and have the exact same rate of fire. A couple of cosmetic changes and behold.

[Straw Man]

107. Like this?

Last edited Wed Apr 23, 2014, 01:14 PM - Edit history (2)

The bill is banning ASSAULT WEAPONS... "don'tch ya know". You think someone versed in gunz would realize this...

The "large capacity ammunition feeding device" section of the "SAFE" Act also bans guns with a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds, even for manual-action guns with fixed magazines, like this Rossi rifle, which will hold 10 rounds of .357 Magnum or 12 rounds of .38 Special:



Furthermore, this section of the law has no grandfather clause allowing owners to register and keep such rifles. So the original owner of an AR can keep an it for the rest of his/her life by registering it, but the owner of the Rossi lever gun must sell it out of state, destroy it, or turn it in.

Now tell us about "reasonable regulation."

[mikeysnot]

179. Sounds reasonable to me.

I'd hate to see that weapon in the wrong hands could do to a child.

.357 rounds in a long barrel rifle... please. Cry me another river...

[clffrdjk]

180. Just where is the limit on reasonable?

Or rather what is your definition of reasonable gun control, and why?

[Straw Man]

181. So then ...

I'd hate to see that weapon in the wrong hands could do to a child.

.357 rounds in a long barrel rifle... please. Cry me another river...

... you would put an end to all big game hunting by banning the firearms that it requires? Anything that can kill a deer can kill a human.

Actually, most things that can kill a rabbit can kill a human. So you're on board with an outright ban on all firearms, as well as bows?

Just looking for a little clarity here. And honesty.

[clffrdjk]

190. Come on now.

You wanted to talk about reasonable regulations let's do that. What do you think is reasonable gun control?

[Jgarrick]

193. ".357 rounds in a long barrel rifle" being too much firepower to entrust to an honest citizen,

exactly what sort of guns do you think should be allowed for me to own?

[mikeysnot]

82. so registration = confiscation?

paranoid much?

Which state do you live in?

[Jgarrick]

84. Are you not familiar with the SAFE Act? Residents of NY are not allowed to keep previously

registered "assault" weapons. They must either turn them in to the State, or send them out of state. In either case, they have been disarmed.

Do you really not understand this?

[mikeysnot]

85. Cry me a river...

I'm trying to see the negative here?

[clffrdjk]

91. Yep no movement here

34. civilian disarmament?

Hmmm? Are you afraid if you actually had to prove competence and responsibility, that you might not be eligible to own firearms??

I am just asking since all your posts are about extremes....

Name one bill at the state or federal level that calls for "civilian disarmament"? since Columbine?
Have a nice day.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

92. You're a very good advocate for the 2A.

[mikeysnot]

99. Thank you!

Just trying to put the "well regulated" part back int the 2nd. You know the part most gun nuts are oblivious too. dot, dot dot....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

100. I agree.

Congress should specify the best characteristics for accuracy, ease-of-use, reliability and inter-operability and then require all males between 18 and 45 to own just such a rifle.

Edited to add -- and a tax credit good towards the purchase of a rifle that meets those standards.

[mikeysnot]

101. Be licensed and insured.

Under go psychiatric evaluation and pay for gun safety training and demonstrate the ability to handle, store and transport their penis enlar... I mean guns properly.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. Only if it is also required for voting and publishing as well.

After all, the anti-2A crowd seems pretty unhinged and detached from reality so it's best to make sure they are sufficiently cognizant.

[mikeysnot]

171. That's your opinion...

We are just trying to put the "well regulated" part back in.... you know the dot, dot dot part the gun nut crowd is oblivious too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

174. So couple "well-regulated" with the part you forget --

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

It should also be pointed out that firearms purchases were never prohibited to people to women or men over the age 45.

[mikeysnot]

194. and yes, when that amendment was written

we had muskets... so sure carry all the muskets you want.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

197. "we had muskets... so sure carry all the muskets you want."

And the 1A referred to moveable type printing presses. Did the founders anticipate a world where teenagers with smart phones could start civil disturbances with flash mobs? Or a disgruntled Army private and an NSA employee could leak volumes of national security secrets? Perhaps the threats posed by those technologies suggests that your posting ought to be better controlled by the government.

By the way, muskets in those days were "military-grade assault weapons" and in some instances civilian arms performed better than their military counterparts.

Still, I can't help but notice how quickly you moved the goal posts -- again. That tells me that "the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed" is the thing you cannot answer.

[mikeysnot]

198. oh the "moving the goal post" gun nut meme...

again... so tired no matter how many times you moved the goal post. Your first paragraph of issues that have nothing to do with the 2nd... your first paragraph is your last gasp to come off "reasonable", epic FAIL.

So you would be cool with going back to the "military-grade assault weapons" of 1700's, so a single shot powder gun.

I would be good with that.

BTW, another fail of yours...

That tells me that "the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed" is the thing you cannot answer.

No where does it say anything about anything goes with that right, and once again you moved the goal posts by leaving out the "well regulated part"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

204. "again... so tired no matter how many times you moved the goal post."

Your penchant for claiming one thing then (#34), when a rebuttal has been made, demanding evidence (#63) then, once the evidence has been provided (#88) abandoning the argument for gripes about something wholly unrelated (#98) has been on full display.

Your first paragraph of issues that have nothing to do with the 2nd... your first paragraph is your last gasp to come off "reasonable", epic FAIL.

If it is your contention that the 2A only protects those technologies available at the time of the authoring of the Bill of Rights then that standard should apply to the entirety of the BoR, not just the parts that butt up against your subjective demands.

So you would be cool with going back to the "military-grade assault weapons" of 1700's, so a single shot powder gun.

As long as the police and military were kept to a similar standard, okay. Whatever is common personal arms within those organizations should be available to the civilian population.

No where does it say anything about anything goes with that right

Nothing need to. Even if the US Constitution had never been written the human right to self defense would still transcend all government.

and once again you moved the goal posts by leaving out the "well regulated part"

And once again you fail to include "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Your every argument relies on abrogating that passage.

[mikeysnot]

206. and you always leave out the dot, dot dot well regulated part...

so right back at you... or are you going to move the goal posts again.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

209. Okay. My proposed regulation --

All citizens or those wishing to become citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 unless adjudicated otherwise shall purchase and maintain a minimum of one long arm of standard US military caliber capable of semi-automatic fire. Such weapon shall be capable of qualifying under military weapon qualification standards. All persons subject to this law will maintain no less than 400 rounds of ammunition for their personal arm to be replaced every five years but not through sale, gift or or transfer to other parties. Persons who believe this law poses an undue financial hardship may file for a tax credit in each year such costs are incurred.

[mikeysnot]

211. add 10 round magazines to this and I am cool with it.

They also have to purchase gun owner insurance and a license fee for each arm...

400 rounds is a lot, but if you are actually an professional sportsman/marksman then you can have an exception based on your profession.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

213. 10 rounds is not the most practical limit. Extensive military experience shows 30 rounds is optimal.

That's why 30 rounds is standard.

They also have to purchase gun owner insurance and a license fee for each arm...

My proposed regulation notes any costs can be deferred through a tax credit. A license would not be required because ownership is mandatory.

400 rounds is a lot...

400 rounds is approximately the amount of ammunition a soldier carries on patrol.

You'll also notice that the regulation does not require a person to surrender their arms at age 46.

[mikeysnot]

214. 30 rounds is for people with

bad aim...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

215. "30 rounds is for people with bad aim"

Really?

When the Boston police were looking for a single suspect they had hundreds of cops carrying hundreds of rounds in 30-round magazines.

[mikeysnot]

216. Police not private citizens

Really!!!! you cannot tell the difference between a well regulated militia(police) and private citizens? and BTW I was completely against the actions in Boston...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

217. If 30 rounds is the sign of bad aim why are police issued 30-round magazines?

Wouldn't it stand to reason that the police who have strength of numbers and on-going training would require fewer rounds as opposed to civilians?

[mikeysnot]

219. Becasue they are part of the "Well regulated Militia"

The part the gun nuts of "Merica" always leave out...

[friendly_iconoclast]

221. And people like *you* always leave out...

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title10/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311/content-detail.html

[mikeysnot]

240. Ah, moving the Goal posts you are!

and we are not even playing football.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

222. That makes no sense. You're just reflexively bleating.

You said 30-rounds were the sign of a poor marksman. I noted the fact police carry 30-rounds even though they have on-going training and strength of numbers. Their presence or not in a militia has no bearing on that point.

By the way, there is a federal law on the books that defines the militia. All males 18 to 45 are included.

[mikeysnot]

223. cough "well regulated" cough

[Nuclear Unicorn]

227. What happened to the "militia" part you were so fond of and

what does that have to do with the fact you completely fumbled your 30-rounds = bad aim silliness?

[mikeysnot]

229. Here you go, so you are on the same page as the rest of us...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

232. Your turn --

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

Current through Pub. L. 113-86, except 113-79. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[mikeysnot]

233. Thanks for proving my point!

And they are WELL REGULATED!























Get it now!!!!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

234. They are not militia, they are police.

The militia is a military force (you'll not the commonality in spelling that reveals their common root). Posse Comitatus forbids using the military for law enforcement. I can see why a would-be dictator would be interested in endorsing a hyper-militarized police state by hopefully you're smarter than that.

However, if it is your contention that those picture above represent the well-regulated militia then -- by extension -- all males between 17 and 45 and all females serving in the National Guard who, by virtue of the fact federal law declares them members of the unorganized militia.

Thus the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so as to facilitate the acquisition of every piece of equipment pictured above by members of the unorganized militia.

[mikeysnot]

235. Fail.

I guess your not smarter than that..

[Nuclear Unicorn]

236. No! You!

[mikeysnot]

238. "Doubling down on EPIC fail

you are..."

say in a Yoda voice.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

242. The police are not the militia.

[mikeysnot]

244. Looks like it to me in the modern context

or are you one of those self serving 2nd amender's that wants to mix 1781 with modern interpretations.

Police are made up of ordinary citizens who are supposed to serve their communities. They are not mercenaries or apart of the military.

Oh, btw they are well regulated....

Now, in the wet dream of the wrong wingers, the militia is not made up of unregulated, undocumented idiots playing Rambo dressed in military garb... with no oversight on their weapons, no control of the type of arms they can have, etc...

See the Bundy mensch.

but that point is always lost on the wrong interpretations of the 2nd..

[Nuclear Unicorn]

250. Federal law has defined who is part of the militia; not your personal, self-serving silliness.

And that definition does not even speak to civilian law enforcement. And as the militia is a military force they could not serve as a civil police force except when authorized by Congress for a specific purpose.

Police are made up of ordinary citizens who are supposed to serve their communities.

As are ordinary citizens.

They are not mercenaries or apart of the military.

orly? You seem pretty comfortable with the idea of a militarized police force (with no counter balance, no less).

with no oversight on their weapons, no control of the type of arms they can have, etc...

If that were really the case than gun control would be a matter of providing the best possible weapons available, not a bunch of pointless measures that impair performance and access.

See the Bundy mensch.

So, you think because you can point to Bundy you get to disqualify, for all time, the idea of citizen militias.

Okay, your rule: Show a bad example, disqualify the group (HINT -- that's the logical fallacy known as guilt by association).

So let's talk about the cops in the Rodney King beating. Let's talk about the cops killing 13 year old kids carrying airsoft rifles. Let's talk about families killed, beaten and terrorized in the middle of the night because your awesomely regulated "militia" serves no-knock warrants but don't know how to properly read an address. Let's talk about SWAT teams busing into companies to look for paperwork on imported rare woods or student loan fraud. Let's talk about the endless parade of beatings, false arrests, torture, perjury, entrapment, shootings, corruption and general assholery that parades across our headlines every day. And all this without meaningful regulation and oversight.

I guess that disqualifies the police.

By the way -- "mensch" is German for "man" and in Yiddish its a compliment of maturity, i.e. "He's such a little mensch," the grandmother beamed with pride over her grandson as she pinched his ruddy cheek. Hardly a pejorative.

[Jenoch]

218. What actions in Boston is it that you were against?

[mikeysnot]

225. Where were you?

Martial law? Complete militarization of of the police force. House by house search...

We did not do that for the Olympics bombings, now did we?

[Jenoch]

226. The authorities in Atlanta had no idea where to search.

Had the cops found any illegal activity other than the bomber they could not use the information in any prosecution.

[mikeysnot]

231. Really, huh...

[Straw Man]

220. The police are a militia?

This is news -- and very disturbing news at that.

[mikeysnot]

224. life must be hard for you...?

Just asking...

[Straw Man]

228. I have no idea what you're talking about ...

... except that I think you don't know what a "militia" is.

[mikeysnot]

230. Of course you don't know...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I understand at the time of the writing of the constitution what the founders intent was.

[Straw Man]

237. I know that very well.

You, however, are claiming that the police are a "militia." This is dangerously wrong.

You might notice that when martial law is declared during states of emergency, the civilian police are supplanted by the National Guard. Historically, police in this country are not a military force, and I, for one, would like to keep it that way.

[mikeysnot]

239. Way past that dude...

way past that.... time for you to move on....

Militia...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172143503#post233

[Straw Man]

241. So, dude ...

Are you saying you favor a militarized police force? I don't.

Dude.

[mikeysnot]

245. No I don't, but at least

they are responsible to the law, unlike the idiots at the Bundy moocher ranch.

[Straw Man]

246. Responsible to the law?

Everyone is "responsible to the law," the cops no more nor less than the Bundy idiots. That's what law is for, at least in a democracy.

[mikeysnot]

247. Serve and protect...

unless you are a peacefully protesting the 1%

[Straw Man]

248. Exactly.

Serve and protect...

unless you are a peacefully protesting the 1%

And that's a huge "unless."

Nobody is above the law, least of all police.

[oneshooter]

249. The police have no duty to protect the individual.

They are charged with the protection of "society as a whole".

[derby378]

191. No, you're not...

But thanks for the pathetic attempt at subterfuge, anyway.

[mikeysnot]

199. It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

and everyone on the site realizes that...

have a good day.

[Jgarrick]

106. So you *do* now acknowledge that the SAFE Act is a civilian disarmament measure?

[derby378]

192. He has no choice but to do just that

And all of his Brainy Smurfing and all of his "gee, yew don't know how to read" hot air isn't going to dig him out of that hole.

[Eleanors38]

24. Not a mistake. Just the usual studied ignorance.

[Democracyinkind]

28. Uhm yeah, because technical accuracy would help to better spread the message?

[deathrind]

29. It's sad that...

An advertisement promoting simple common sense for regulation/legislation of firearms has to use such a benign graphic. We tolerate firearms in our society in fact some even advocate for them yet showing the true effect of what a firearm does is off limits.

[clffrdjk]

31. What simple common sense regulation/legislation is it promoting?

[deathrind]

43. Read for yourself.

everytown.org

[clffrdjk]

48. Well at least this time you got the right answer for what this add is promoting.

Bloomberg's new website.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. What's wrong with promoting Republican power-mad billionaires on a liberal forum?

[tularetom]

33. Oh Jeezus gimme a frickin break

OK you don't agree with them. BFD. Neither do I. But nit picking about the technical accuracy of what is obviously a symbolic illustration says more about you than it does about them.

Of course they probably know "how bullets work". But even if they didn't, so what? Is someone who doesn't know how bullets work somehow a lesser person than you? What's wrong with this ad? Are you faster than a speeding bullet? Are you in favor of gun violence?

I'd like to end gun violence too although I'm pretty sure my approach to doing so would be greatly different from theirs. But I wouldn't be so childish as to make fun of their ad.

[djean111]

76. I believe nit-picking about the technical accuracy is a tried and true way of derailing a thread.

Much like bombarding a thread with hoots and outraged dismay when an article about a murder by gun gets the gun model wrong.
Deflection and misdirection.

[Jenoch]

79. It is not possible that "nit-picking about the technical accuracy..."

can be applied in this thread since the OP was ABOUT pointing out the error in that graphic. In this instance it is YOUR post that could be considered an attempt to derail this thread. Deflection and misdirection.

[Duckhunter935]

39. I think so

[NYC_SKP]

45. Beat me to it. We really need a qualifying exam before we let people create new legislation. nt

[Duckhunter935]

46. and they never learn

can we say SAFE act compliant? This is what you get going after cosmetic features. At least they are no longer assault weapons.

[NYC_SKP]

52. Can I get it in pink, please?

Cuz that just set's a whole 'nuther bunch of people off!

[Jgarrick]

55. Heretic!

[ileus]

53. A: Yes

Comes from the same regressives that think gun kill people.

[NYC_SKP]

56. We have the technology. 65% more bullet, per bullet!!!

[Straw Man]

61. Reminds me of the guy who bought a house near a shooting range.

He tried to get them shut down by claiming that "bullets" were landing near his house. As evidence, he showed a complete, unfired cartridge.

Ignorance is ignorance. Educate yourselves, prohibitionists, if you wish to have any credibility at all.

[Eleanors38]

71. Maybe it's the new MIRV rifle!

[gejohnston]

94. best criticism from someone who hates the NRA and Ted Nugent

Out of the eight bullet points, this one should be number one:

It undermines the group’s own cause, and betrays the trust and loyalty of contributors, members and allies. The ad makes gun control activists look like silly, unserious fools….which, sadly, a critical mass of them are.

http://ethicsalarms.com/2014/04/22/pop-ethics-quiz-whats-wrong-with-this-picture/

[randys1]

126. I want to carry around a bottle of the Ebola Virus, tiz my new hobby, OK with you folks?

I mean, we know there isnt a single legitimate reason for any American to own any gun other than folk who live way out in the woods and need it for hunting, which is a tiny tiny minority.

We know that if we wanted to we could control all guns including criminals access to guns, eventually, the same way we control the Ebola Virus.

But if you get to carry around a semi automatic machine gun and take it into churches and stores (heard today some idiot state made that legal now) I get to carry around my Ebola Virus, deal?

I might drop it on the floor, the same way you might accidentally shoot me or get pissed and since you have the gun shoot 20 people.

The difference is?

Forget your misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment for this conversation, explain to me the difference?

[gejohnston]

128. being absurd destroys your argument

I mean, we know there isnt a single legitimate reason for any American to own any gun other than folk who live way out in the woods and need it for hunting, which is a tiny tiny minority.

Need a "legitimate reason" according to someone else for anything is not compatible with a liberal society.

We know that if we wanted to we could control all guns including criminals access to guns, eventually, the same way we control the Ebola Virus.

But if you get to carry around a semi automatic machine gun and take it into churches and stores (heard today some idiot state made that legal now) I get to carry around my Ebola Virus, deal?

semi automatic and machine gun is an oxymoron. As for where to carry, it always has been legal in many places. In California you can even carry in a court room if you are not the defendant in a criminal trial or the plaintiff in a civil trial. As for stores and churches, that is for the stores and churches to decide, not the State.

I might drop it on the floor, the same way you might accidentally shoot me or get pissed and since you have the gun shoot 20 people.

other than it almost never happens other than the movies?

The difference is?

Is there a law against walking around with a virus vial? I doubt it. It is like the stupid "what about tanks and Tomahawk missiles" There is no law against owning a tank either. There is a place in the UK where you can order them from, if you have the money. With Tomahawk missiles, there is the couple million per missile, several million for the infrastructure and you will have to hire people who know how to maintain it. Will the maker sell one to you if you have the money? Probably not. Is there a law against it? No.

Forget your misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment for this conversation, explain to me the difference?

The second amendment has never been interpreted the way you think. Even Stevens conceded it was an individual right.

[randys1]

130. You are consistent, wrong about absolutely everything.

And i get why you are bothered by my proposal, you cant win this argument, give up.

[blueridge3210]

134. He seems to be doing fine do far. (NT)

[gejohnston]

135. name one thing I got wrong,

and cite your evidence.

[randys1]

137. Your entire post is your rightwing opinions about guns and meaningless

Everything is wrong including the wrong interpretation of your rights to own guns.

[gejohnston]

140. for example?

calling something "right wing" or "left wing" doesn't make it so. Everything I said was empirical fact, therefore it is informed. First you said it was factually untrue. When asked for evidence, you said it was "right wing". Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive (If I believed that, I wouldn't be here would I?) I fail to see how it is "right wing" or any wing opinion.
As Obama explained in his first days in office (and some dim bulb like Rush freaked and ranted) The BoR is a set of negative rights. That means it tells the State what it can not do, not what the individual may do. Not only does the 2A protect the right to own guns, so does the 9A, just as it does the right to abortion (right to privacy is protected under the 9A, see roe v wade. I would argue food, water, clean air, and health care also falls under the 9A.) All individual and human rights come from nature (or God if you will). If that seems really whacked out right wing or libertarian, then someone cheated you out of a liberal education. You can make up for it by reading John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers. That is who influenced the founders.
The Constitution does not grant the individual anything. It outlines the responsibilities and limitations of the federal government.

Once again, show me where anything I said was either opinion of either wing, or factually wrong.
http://www.tanktownusa.com/buy-a-tank.php
http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/
http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/
I have just proven that individuals can legally own tanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun
I have just proven that semi-automatic and machine gun is an oxymoron.

[Bazinga]

173. How exactly are you going to use that bottle of Ebola to defend yourself?

Let's draw it out. A mugger accosts you in an alley (just to be cliche), you have your bottle of Ebola, what do you do?

[SFangel]

243. Not to complecate things further, but

there is no such thing as speeding bullet, there are slowing bullets, since all not self propelled projectiles start losing speed once they leave the muzzle. But then again it is Artistic License.