Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumCharleston shooting leaves many around world shaking heads at enduring US racism, gun violence
Some said the attack reinforced their reservations about personal security in the U.S. particularly as a non-white foreigner while others said they'd still feel safe if they were to visit.
Especially in Australia and northeast Asia, where firearms are strictly controlled and gun violence almost unheard of, many were baffled by the determination among many Americans to own guns despite repeated mass shootings, such as the 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults.
"We don't understand America's need for guns," said Philip Alpers, director of the University of Sydney's GunPolicy.org project that compares gun laws across the world. "It is very puzzling for non-Americans."
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2015/06/19/asia-shocked-at-enduring-racism-gun-violence-in-us
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Charleston, the shooter has been identified, arrested, extradited and is facing charges of First Degree Murder.
China: how many people were charged with murder for the killings at Tiananmen Square?
I'll wait................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................ ...................................................................................................................................................... ...............................................
Was there something you wished to discuss?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Yes when you are a country with no freedoms like China, it must be easy to criticize. So how many have they killed with headshot said they could harvest the condemned prisoners organs. Australia had much fewer gun deaths even before the buyback. Cultures and population also are vastly different. I see this is just another Google dump with no comment from the host of the other gun group. So far he has done this several hundred times. Close to spamming and I would argue, a violation of this groups SOP.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)matter as long as the killer was taken to Burger King by the cops?
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)The ridiculous proposition that an authoritarian thugocracy like China, with it's record of killing massive numbers of people as a matter of State policy, can say anything in judgment about a murder committed by a lone actor in the U.S. is truly something at which to marvel.
China has made no apologies for the murders it has committed as a matter of State policy; the murders at the church were investigate by the state, Roof was identified, arrested, extradited back to S.C. to await trial on charges of First Degree Murder in a state that will impose the Death Penalty.
Regarding taking him to Burger King; who cares? He's in custody and probably needed a meal of some kind and the BK was probably convenient.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Forget China 9 people were killed here
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Yes, 9 people were killed, by a deranged, racist lunatic. And the crime was investigated, the perpetrator identified, arrested and is facing trial to answer for his actions. That China, of all places, would think to criticize the U.S. for the actions of an individual given there record of murder by State policy is ridiculous in the extreme.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)American gun violence and near open racism combined with a military that dwarfs all others....no reason at all for the Rest of the World to claim America is the greatest threat to world peace, is there?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Do you ever stop to contemplate what you write before you post or do you just want to stir up nonsense?
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)In case you haven't heard, the POTUS decides how the US military is deployed. If there is harm being done blame Obama.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)And Obama is not the one who started all these fruitless wars of aggression- it was Bushco!!!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)2) Nobody forced him into Libya
3) You still tried to scapegoat the military by calling them racists when, in fact, they are one of the best integrated communities out there
ncjustice80
(948 posts)"We" means the United States. And "we," as a nation, commit wars of Imperalist aggression. "We" are a rascist nation, there is no denying that. The military itself is no more or less to blame for that.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)and I were dating while he was enlisted.
The whole "we" shtick is a poor rhetorical device to claim, "everybody sucks but I really exempt myself"
If Obama is such a weak president that people with no ability to give orders to federal law enforcement and the military can force him to wage war then he would be a sad, pathetic specimen of a president and he should never have been voted into office.
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Unless you are a person of color (in which case, please forgive me), you need to check your priviledge and do some reading on America and racism. Here are some links to help you out- I found them most informative!
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/yes-all-white-people-are-racists-now-lets-do-something-about-it
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-men-project/why-its-so-hard-to-talk-to-white-people-about-racism_b_7183710.html
http://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/post/why-all-white-people-are-racist-cant-handle-being-called-racist-theory-white-fragility
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)ncjustice80
(948 posts)Joining the military doesn't turn you into some angelic being beyond reproach. They are just people to.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)choose their missions. Their missions come from the CINC who is elected.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)I would add that the military should take their fair share of the blame. Hero worship and all.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Ever been in the US Military? Every member of the military, no matter what color, religion, creed, etc, has the same opportunity to advance.
The US Military is the least racist part of our society today, the US Military was the first major entity in the US to desegregate.
I spent my whole career in the Military and I saw first hand how all races were treated equally, so take your hero worship and all and......................................
Cassidy1
(300 posts)because it was necessary AND the black men were being used. Blacks were not being hired in a prejudiced society, so there was a great opportunity for the army to make suckers out of them. Accommodate them so they can fight the white man's wars.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Funny, I saw just as many whites in Vietnam as I saw blacks.
You know squat about the US Military, so don't pretend to lecture me about what I spent over 40 years doing.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)blacks are in the military and fight wars. That's what I'm talking about.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)POC are over represented.
I would be fascinated to see those statements reconciled.
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)Of the history of blacks in the military is very deficient.
I suggest reading
DiNicolo, Gina M. (2014). The Black Panthers: A Story of Race, War, and Courage. Westholme. ISBN 9781594161957.
about the 761st Tank Battalion to educate yourself. It is a good, informative book.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)If so, then put it in your own words.
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)All throughout WW1 and 2 AA units were kept segregated. The vast majority were used in support and labor roles because it was believed black soldiers did not fight well.
Civil War- 186K black soldiers served. They were paid $10/mo plus $3 clothing allowance. White soldiers received $13 and $3.50
WW1- 350K black soldiers served. Under U.S. command they were only in support roles. When France appealed for help on the lines they were given command of all black units. The 369th Infantry "Harlem Hellfighters" spent the longest time at the front of any U.S. unit, six months under the command of the 157th French "Red Hand" division.
WW2- over 1 million blacks served. In the Navy they were only allowed to be cooks and waiters. Most black were in the Army but only 5 were officers; if in combat, all black units, like the 761st, had white officers. The training of blacks was less than whites because it was widely believed blacks would mutiny if placed in combat.
Despite Truman's order to desegregate in 1948, all black units persisted into 1954.
Desegregation did not occur because blacks were needed in greater numbers, they were already there, nor because they were not being used, it was because they were being used. The military fought long and hard arguing that white soldiers were enough to fight wars and all that blacks were needed for was backup roles; which also coincidentally limited rank advancement.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)segregation WITHIN the entity. That has nothing to do with what I said.
I am talking about blacks simply being used in the military. The segregation was actually insult to injury. The black man was used. He got lower pay because it was still better than anything he might get in civilian life. He chooses the best option (military) and still gets discriminated against.
So, the percentage of blacks in the military was/is higher than the population at large. He then joins and still gets insulted.
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)this is within the military. There was no "accommodating them to fight the white man's wars"; desegregation was to make blacks equal to white in pay and opportunity. It parallels the debate about women in the military today. any of the same arguments used to support restrict female roles in the military are recycled fro racial segregation.
As for why blacks and Hispanics have a higher percentage in the military than the population- it is because the military is the most color-blind, racially equal opportunity available. I know many POC who had three options- minimum wage jobs, gang membership or the military. With near impenetrable roadblocks on every other life path, the military was their best option.
Also military service opens doors of its own. Besides the chance of a career within the service, including mid- upper management (officers), GI bill and other education benefits can allow access to college which is otherwise impossible.
Desegregation opened these opportunities. It did not shove POC into combat zones.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)That is a fairy tale. You also just provided evidence for my point. Blacks can look forward to minimum wage jobs, gangs, or going overseas and intervening in the lives of people who are not bothering them. Yes, killing people and destroying the countries of people who are not bothering you. What an "opportunity."
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)I said the most color blind...
The military has a higher percentage of minorities in higher positions than any major corporation. It is an opportunity that is unavailable elsewhere.
That options are limited for so many outside the military is neither the fault of the military nor in any way worsened or improved by desegregation within the military.
As for what the military does, do recall we have a civilian controlled military. No one from Private to General decides where the military goes. Deployment, objectives and Rules of Engagement are all determined by political (civilian) masters. While military members may refuse illegal orders, I have seen it happen and even done so myself, many, many orders are distasteful but fully legal under the Laws of War, the United States and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Refusing legal orders can bring serious consequences, even if in your personal opinion "it sucks".
Cassidy1
(300 posts)"That options are limited for so many outside the military is neither the fault of the military nor in any way worsened or improved by desegregation within the military."
That's my point. Options are limited. Corporate won't hire blacks for their board room, but they'll hire them to do their dirty work overseas.
The military is also so intertwined with the civilian world (e.g., defense contractors), so saying the the military is "civilian controlled" is meaningless. Eisenhower warned of the "military industrial complex." Trying to absolve yourself by pointing elsewhere is meaningless. The solider who joins today is just as culpable as the politicians and the generals (who are also just politicians, at that point and rank).
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Did you vote for Obama? If so, by your own rules you're culpable for Libya and drone strikes. That in turn makes you culpable for the feeding of the MIC and any inherent racism in US foreign policy and its domestic institutions.
That doesn't make you look like a very good person -- by your own rules.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)I always write in or vote for an alternative. Maybe you've heard of parties like the Green Party and others.
So again, the solider who joins today is just as culpable as the politicians.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Interesting avatar you got there.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)Should I not attend a Chicago concert just because Robert Lamm voted for Bush I?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)picked an establishment candidate this time.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)of someone in sunglasses means I'm picking them as a candidate?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)sarisataka
(18,208 posts)About how corporations interact with the military but that is a whole other issue.
You are correct noting a parallel between Generals and politicians which has great influence over procurement. Foreign policy, not so much.
I note you are willing to pillory the "poor urban youth" or "hillbilly white trash" who joins the military to try and break a cycle of poverty but ignore the voter- people such as yourself- who elect the politicians that determine foreign policy.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)Why don't you also stop pointing the finger and take responsibility for the organization you joined? People love to point to this abstract "politics" as the problem.
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)1)General asks for widget, company offers to supply widget, politic an approves and authorizes monet for widget.
2)Company then delivers widget that does not perform as promised but has an upgrade that will make it into wonder widget. General isn't happy about under performing widget but likes idea of wonder widget. Politician approves wonder widget upgrade if company builds in politician's home state.
3)Company delivers wonder widget which is about as good as original widget promised but also makes tea. General is pissed because he doesn't have wonder widget just original widget at higher cost and prefers coffee to tea. He wants a different widget. Politician approves wonder widget 2.0 because canceling wonder widget will result in company closing production in politician's state and loosing jobs.
4)Wonder widget 2.0 is pretty good and makes coffee but company offers widget 3000, better than anything anyone in the world will have in the next 20 years. General is suspicious since widget 1 didn't work as advertised but agrees to support it when company offers a "consulting" position when General retires. Politician balks at widget 3000 because it costs 8x as much but changes mind when company offers to keep a lobbyist position open for when politician gets voted out.
5) got to #2
edit> Forgot to include, Sergeant wonders why the fuck he and his troops are saddled with fucking widget because they have fucking gizmo built in 19 fucking 78 that does the fucking job better, requires less fucking maintenance, doesn't fucking need field modification to keep the fucking sand out so it will work in the fucking desert and doesn't fucking need to be fucking sent back to the fucking factory for repair every fucking time fucking Private fucking Rockhead fucking drops it.
As for responsibility- if the military called the shots we would have taken Baghdad in '91. It was a defenseless city and Hussein would have been captured or forced into exile. Politicians (Bush I) said no; we predicted we would return in 10 years.
Twelve years later we returned. We told TPTB invading was stupid because A) Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and B) the plan was shit. Defeating the Iraqi army was a given but the assumption that the population would throw flowers at our feet was idiotic. Politician (Bush II et al) said "we know better"; they didn't.
In both cases abstract "politics" backed by voters at the time overruled military advise. we knew they were wrong in both cases but the orders were legal. To refuse in either case would have been mutiny.
Maybe you pat yourself on the back saying 'I hate the military' and 'I didn't vote for either King Bush' but you are still a member of the electorate that did. Blaming some dumb private for the war is like blaming the janitor at Ford for gas prices because you like driving an SUV.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)1. Corporate America and the military work together to steal, cajole, and interrupt in other countries to make money and names for themselves. Americans get fat and lazy in the process.
2. Full grown man makes a willful and conscious decision to join such an outfit. Gets to blame higher ups when things go wrong or don't go his way.
3. All are heroes. The intervened countries are full of savages. Happy Days comes on at 8:00.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Cassidy1
(300 posts)make me exactly the same as the adult who willfully signs up for the military, actively engages in these activities, and then blames others when things do not go his way.
Shame on me.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You should have the courage to live by your own rules.
The government you claim is so eeeee-vil, racist and war-mongering that anyone who joins it to do its bidding must by association share in that guilt is also the exact, same government you will need to enforce your gun control laws. You can carp about civilian law enforcement not being the same as the military but the government a the top is run by the same government. This is the government you want to use to disarm the people.
You demand the government be given the power to disarm the people even if it is illegal for it to do so. You will demand they use whatever money is required. You will demand police/agents/soldiers be recruited and trained and dispatched. And if any dare refuse you will demand that GUNZ! be employed against them to bring them to heel.
Is it your general policy to have people you claim are war-mongering racists watch over a disarmed populace? You seem to object to it in Iraq why is it your preferred policy in the US?
Cassidy1
(300 posts)I don't get ticker tape parades. Man up and take responsibility for your actions.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Sexist jackass.
And you didn't answer the question as to why you want the government you claim is racist an war mongering to possess and ironclad monopoly on force. Perhaps if you can take a moment to move past your chauvinism you could try and answer that.
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)1) more or less correct although it is the CIA that does most of that meddling
2) You forget that many full grown women make the same choice. And what went wrong? If you ask a mechanic can i drive over nails, he says no it will wreck the tires so you make him drive it- is it rhe mechanic's fault?
Ignore expert advice at your own peril
3)I've met heroes, I'm not one. These heroes were in places like Battaan and Normandy. Funny thing is they think they aren't heroes but can tell you someone they knew who was a hero.
Never have met a savage...
I'm starting to suspect you just hate people who join the military.
My advice- don't hate. It is an unhealthy emotion that blinds you into only seeing that which supports hate.
Even in war I don't hate the people who are trying to kill me. Once they became my prisoners I found they were just regular people and we got along quite well.
How you treat an enemy determines if he will remain your enemy and recruit others or if he becomes your friend.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)You keep trying to avoid your responsibility and point to others. You blame the CIA, the policy makers, the electorate, other politicians, corporate America, etc. Time to look in the mirror.
Your idea about "heroes" is just cliched. The tag line is, "No, I don't see myself as a hero." These people say that, but will still show up for all the accolades and ceremonies at events. The military even pays the NFL and others to sponsor these contrived hero events. Spending my money to manufacture heroes. Nice.
No, I don't hate anybody either. I hate what people like those in the military do to others. I hate it when people refuse to take responsibility. It's funny how to you try to spout these wise platitudes, but somehow we make more and stronger enemies.
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)Let's get back on topic, race and the military:
First I remind you of your words
Now why do you believe POC are so disproportionately supportive of the MIC and foreign intervention?
Cassidy1
(300 posts)You're in the military, right? You're a person, right? Should I be discussing this with a book?
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)There- I answered your questions now answer mine
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)To run around in subthreads below demanding answers and sources. Somehow you didn't find time to answer any of their questions or the question I posed.
That tells me a lot about you.
I'm going to eat a couple chili dogs and read The Billy Goats Gruff to my kids. I am positive it was not one of your favorite stories; more likely it left you with emotional trauma and caprophobia.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)Guess that makes it even.
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)Yes- retired reserve
Yes
It might help.
Reading books helps build comprehension and increases knowledge.
Now can we cross the bridge, stop deflecting and see you answer a question.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 25, 2015, 07:08 PM - Edit history (1)
As much affection as I know he has for me -- and I know he loves me dearly -- he developed bonds with the soldiers in his unit that I can never fully know because I do not have that shared experience. In many ways they were closer to each other than blood relatives. And they became that way without the slightest hint of racial consciousness among them. It was amazing to behold and the only thing that kept me from wishing it for the rest of the US is I knew what it was that had made them the brothers they had become.
There is much about US foreign policy that is worthy of criticism but the soldiers are some of the finest drunken, rough-housing, foul-mouthed individuals I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)"And they became that way without the slightest hint of racial consciousness among them."
That is another fairy tale. Of course your going to be racially conscious. The "slightest hint" means that you don't see it.
I also don't see how you separate foreign policy from people who carry it out. They are both in the same bucket.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Maybe you want it to be a fairy tale but it is still true or maybe you're obsessed about race and think everyone else must be as well.
You may think you want a military that says, "This is a bad idea, I refuse the order" but you don't. That would be a mutiny against civilian political leadership and it would be the end of the nation.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)silly cliches. I am stating my observation.
The military also does not refuse the order. They and the civilian political leadership are really one in the same. Higher ranked military are really nothing but politicians themselves.
And how would intervening in other nation's affairs and killing them be the end of our nation?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That is how I saw them interacting with each other.
Your every statement shows just how divorced your talking points are from reality. The senior, Pentagon-level military leaders, i.e. the Joint Chiefs of Staff serve at the pleasure of the President.
What I said was, you do not want the military to refuse orders. The military refusing orders would be the end of the nation because then the military would no longer be subject to civilian-political authority.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)instead of pointing to politicians. There is no longer a draft. People willfully join the military. Take responsibility for knowing what goes on and what you do.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Cassidy1
(300 posts)Taking personal responsibility is full of holes?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but what can we expect from someone who's never served in our nation's Armed Forces.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)instead of trying to monopolize a word like "serve." Anyone can serve others in any occupation or industry. The military does not even really serve. It's just a lot of hero worship for people interrupting other countries affairs.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)because......... they really suck.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)The last refuge of a person who can't debate the issues.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but in reality, you're trying to get one of us to post something that you can alert on and hope for a hide or a ban, it's so obvious it's comedy gold.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)It's military passing the responsibility to nebulous policies, politics, and politicians. Time to man up and take personal responsibility. Stop acting like there is no face behind military action. Just like there are faces behind horrible corporate decisions--there are faces in the military.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)because that's all you've been posting so far, that and a bunch of lies.
Don't think that we don't know what you're doing here, thing is you're not very good at it.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)instead of your nonsense? Surprised when somebody doesn't worship the military like a hero?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Why should I respond to your nonsense about the Military, something I spent over 40 years in.
Tell us again how many years you spent in our nation's Military?
Cassidy1
(300 posts)and never would. That's zero. Nothing. Never. Ever. I would never be a part of a contemporary organization that has done mostly nothing but intervened and interfered in others' affairs to make Americans even fatter and lazier than they already are.
Is that clear enough for you?
You talk as if your proud of yourself.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Yup, you just proved my point about knowing nothing about our nation's Military beyond the talking points.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)You still have not said where I am "lying."
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Dude, you're so obvious.
The person who says I'm a parrot uses cable TV lingo.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Okay, whatever. I don't know what that means and I am not going to Google it.
How about getting an original thought? Or, how about learning proper English? Talking is a verb. Point is a noun. The two don't even go together in your cable TV term talking point. You could just say scripted points or cliches or something.
You tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, but all you do it parrot the TV. I'd hate to see what 40 years does to a parrot. Actually, I know. It's contributing to zombie Americans who want to be fed and entertained while their "heroes" get accolades forever.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Wow, this is getting better and better.
Oh well, enjoy your stay.
I am proud of myself, I'm proud of my service to my country, I served honorably for over 40 years in our nation's Armed Forces and I apologize for nothing I did during my time in.
IOW, I have nothing to be ashamed about.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You don't appear to have any business lecturing others on who can't debate the issues.
Do carry on.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)Do I have to frame your questions too? Or, you can just tell me what part of the process in that bill was not legit.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I could simply ask, if you approve of the tactics used to pass it.
What tactics? Did they do something illegal in the process of that particular bill? What was awry? Tell me.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)We'll just let the "not-Americans" be puzzled.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)nt
ileus
(15,396 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)or my right to keep and bear arms.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Play sports or coach childhood sports teams? How much blood, according to your rules, do you have on your hands? And if you were to govern yourself with the same rules you would impose on us, what should be done about all this death and mayhem you are responsible for?
Cassidy1
(300 posts)From the article: "Especially in Australia and northeast Asia, where firearms are strictly controlled and gun violence almost unheard of, many were baffled by the determination among many Americans to own guns despite repeated mass shootings, such as the 2012 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, where a gunman killed 20 children and six adults."
Guns and racism is like mixing baking soda and vinegar. People just keep ignoring the obvious. Fuck yeah 'Murica, just keep combining things that don't go together and sweep the consequences under the rug:
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)what any other country thinks of us?
Cassidy1
(300 posts)Talking about a practical and good example to follow. Something that works.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)We're not Australia, nor any other country, we're the United States of America, where we have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
If you want other countries gun laws, I suggest you move to a country of your choice that has gun laws more to your liking.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)I am not the problem here.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you and your cohorts constantly belittle gun owners here on DU, you want to restrict or ban a Constitutional right, so, if you prefer other countries gun laws, move to a country that's more to your liking in respect to firearms policies.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)Or a new party.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)party is for the individual RKBA as is the President. I know I like it here so no, I and others do not plan on going anywhere.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Mmmmmm
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)and take a hard right turn.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)"Assault weapons" and the "gun show loophole". Little wonder that we have zero credibility w/regard to gun violence.
Whether you care to admit it or not, SecMo, it is Democrats who have poisoned the well vis-a-vis productive dialog on gun violence with decades of lies, misrepresentation and hatred/bigotry directed at gun owners.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)looks like the "Gungeon" has acquired another Zampolit. I hope you show proper revolutionary zeal, comrade!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)the Democratic Party and the President believe that the 2A confers and individual right to keep and bear arms, yet you want to ban firearms, so how does that square with our Party and President?
Cassidy1
(300 posts)here, and America, agree with me. The platform includes a token line to appease the perverse NRA.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Say it all you like, but keep in mind, repetition is a poor substitute for truth.
America is a pro-gun nation. A majority 74 percent last time I looked, support the second amendment as protecting an individual right. That leaves you and others who hate/fear/don't like guns, as a portion of the remaining 26%.
benEzra
(12,148 posts)Cassidy1
(300 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,470 posts)And there are those who deny there's a box.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and you say, and I quote, "I don't think you people get it"?
What don't we get? That Americans are overwhelmingly pro 2A?
The only one not getting it here is you, if you don't like Americans stances on the 2A and don't like the 2A, then I would suggest, again, that you move to a country that's more in lockstep with your desire to ban firearms.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you're the one not thinking here, you're provided 4 sources by another member, and one by me and we're the ones that need to keep thinking?
This is pure fucking comedy gold.
If you ever decide on a career of comedy, I'll pay to see you, because dude, you're funny.
BTW, how's your teaching career going?
Cassidy1
(300 posts)Oh, it certainly is.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but not in the way you think it is.
BTW, how's your teaching career?
Cassidy1
(300 posts)I don't teach. What are you blabbering about now?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Oh, I think you know what I'm talking about.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)There is no problem with me because I never did any disservice in the military.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Dude, you are soooooo obvious.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)You must've got me.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)there are members here that can give you pointers on how to do this.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)I'll try to do better next time.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Just trying to help.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)More than you probably know.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)I've exposed you for what you are.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)I'll bet you were in the intelligence division.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)you were obvious from the get go.
Cassidy1
(300 posts)You're a regular Lieutenant Columbo.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)more like Capt. GGJohn
United States Army-Retired.
sarisataka
(18,208 posts)Until then a cartoon for your enjoyment
Shamash
(597 posts)Since the Democratic Party platform, statements by President Obama and numerous polls on the issue do not seem to qualify as "sources" that meet your standards, perhaps you can help us out by telling us what source or sources would be considered valid to you?
Cassidy1
(300 posts)That's what I thought.
Shamash
(597 posts)I never offered sources. I asked what sources you would consider valid on the issue. Once I know what you consider valid information on the subject, I'll see if I can provide it.
In other words, time for you to put up or shut up.
If you don't think I can quote the President and the party platform and you will admit you would change your mind if I provided that, then say so and we'll see whether I provide it or not and whether you are as good as your word or not.
Otherwise I will simply point the reader to the fact that despite having about 40% of the comments on this topic, you have added 0% in terms of useful content.
Care to keep that record unbroken with your reply?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Appox. 75% of Americans oppose banning firearms and a majority of Americans now oppose stricter gun control laws.
But keep up the comedy, it's gold.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)A recently released Gallup Poll showed that public support for gun control has waned since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
According to the Poll, which surveyed 1,028 adults, aged 18 and older, on Oct. 3 to 6 via the telephone, about half (49 percent) of Americans believe that laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict while the other half believes gun laws should be kept as they are now (37 percent) or made less strict (13 percent).
Immediately following Sandy Hook support for tougher gun laws spiked at 58 percent, the highest it had been since 2004 when it reached 60 percent, according to Gallups tracking.
Meanwhile, a majority of Americans approximately three out of four oppose a ban on the possession of handguns for everyone who is not a police officer or authorized person. As indicated by the chart below, that 74 percent figure is the all-time high for opposition to banning handguns.
randys1
(16,286 posts)It is shortsighted and immature as well.
Thank god we have a president and cabinet and at least some senate and house members who disagree strongly with that attitude of yours.
demosincebirth
(12,518 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)99.9% of firearms in this country will never be used in an illegal or negligent manner.
demosincebirth
(12,518 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Sure we have a 2nd Amendment but that doesn't explain the need for guns.
Shamash
(597 posts)Look at how many auto accidents these days are because of distraction caused by a cell phone/texting/etc. I'm old enough to know for a fact that no one "needs" a mobile phone. But you know what? Owning one is not inherently harmful to anyone, and we have laws about using them in situations in a manner that could cause harm. So I'm content to assume the average user is responsible and their "need" is thus irrelevant to me either in a personal sense or as a line of reasoning for regulations or laws.
So, I repeat: Why, in a liberal society, should I have to justify to you (or to a bureaucracy that might be ideologically hostile) my "need" to do something when that something is a) none of your business and b) causing you no harm? An answer in the form "I'm afraid of something you have a vanishingly small chance of maybe doing someday" doesn't sound very liberal.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)in this country unlike other developed countries.
And because it is an important question to Americans
Shamash
(597 posts)Since I, like 99.9% of gun owners are not part of the gun violence problem, much like a huge majority of people are not part of the "alcohol abuse" problem, does that mean your approach is to deal with the individuals who are the problem and the societal factors that drive these people there, rather than a "stop & frisk" approach against the 999 out of 1000 who are not the problem? Because if that is your approach, we're in agreement, because that is mine as well.
And it is an important question to Americans, who apparently think that gun rights are more important than gun control first the first time in the more than 20 years the question has been polled on. Now to be fair, I have heard that the phrasing of the question on this poll has been called into question. Of course, no one on the gun control side questioned that phrasing at all in the twenty previous years, when the result, coincidentally enough, was more in favor of gun control. An easy thing to overlook, one supposes.
Again, why in a liberal society should I have to demonstrate a "need" to you to engage in a consensual act that does no inherent harm to anyone? Are you really going to position yourself on the Scalia side of the court when it comes to whether someone "needs" something before they have permission to do it?
benEzra
(12,148 posts)I choose to own them, which is my right.
Your neighbor does not have to understand or agree with your choice to drink alcohol, or use contraception, or have an abortion, or marry your same-sex partner, or watch movies James Dobson disapproves of, or ____, in order for you to exercise your right to choose on those issues; a right means you have the authority to choose for yourself.
There are time/place/manner restrictions on all rights, but such restrictions must be based on strict scrutiny. For example, we require that if you get drunk, you can't get behind the wheel of a car in public---or carry a gun in public, for that matter---but we don't ban alcohol or ban all beverages over 10% alcohol; we just limit its use to adults and set penalties for its misuse.