Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumFirearms Prohbitionists think of the Pro-RKBA crowd as their pets
They love us and they want us to be happy, but boy oh boy kitty just can't have those claws. They know "what's best for us" and they aren't afraid to try and hijack rule-of-law to "de-claw" the lawfully armed populace.
They want to register us and make us have licenses to exist, like dogs. The Gun-Prohibitors want to tax the hell out of every branch of firearms ownership: from guns and ammo, to the ranges we practice at. They want it to be as difficult as possible to be a legal gun owner, because they love us and know what's best for us. They don't want us furring up the furniture and if we're not careful they'll make us sleep outside.
However, these actions are just stop gap measures. Gun-Prohibitors won't tell you their end game, because even they don't believe it. They don't want any civilian legal firearms at all. They want the whole kit-n-kaboodle, but they can't devour it all at once. They have to take it slice by slice. Everytime they propose a new firearms law or ban, it's not the endgame for them. It's another slice. You need look no further than some of the posters right here on DU. For the Gun-Prohibtionists, it's just another step in the direction of total prohibition. When it comes down to brass tacks, there are no moderate firearms prohibitionists. They say the only people who should have guns are the police, the military and, because we live in reality, the criminals. Everyone else gets declawed, tagged and "cared for" like a cute little kitty cat.
The Prohibitionists are happy to willfully misinterpret the 2nd Amendment to further their agenda against lawful gun owners. Thankfully, this issue has already been decided by the USSC, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. MEOOOW!
We saw how well the last US Prohibition worked out with alcohol. The alcohol NEVER stopped flowing and many people suffered because of the violence the black market brought with it. In fact we're neck deep in another prohibition right now: The Fabled "War On Drugs". The catnip party never ended, it's just got a little more expensive to yowl at the moon. Unfortunately, It led to the rise of organized crime to the heights of which had never been seen before in the US. Prohibition isn't the answer. We already have enough gun laws, enforce them.
I guess what I'm try to say, unapologeticly: The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting, it's about preventing tyranny and personal protection. Without private firearms ownership the US Constitution is toothless. We're not your pets, you can't "put us down" and you can't have our guns. We're all for reasonable laws, but WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE ON THE BOOKS. Enforcement, not legislation is the answer.
Gun Control is a red-herring. Guns don't cause violence, but inequity, mental health, ethnic/racial oppression and the War on Drugs do.
If you still think of us as your pets, well just remember: it's illegal to declaw your cat in some parts of California and.....it's inhumane.
I'm going to go take a cat bath now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)I wouldn't have in my house and should be caged around small children.
Tyranny? That's hysterical-- how fragile is our democracy that on the entire planet only the US is the only democracy that requires an armed citizenry to protect itself from its government. As if the peashooters said armed citizenry owns will protect them from even what the local cops have now, much less the Air Force.
You want to shoot rats, deer and raccoons? Knock yourself out. Feel safer from bear attacks and criminals? Fine.
But, the fundamental difference between city/suburban and rural gun attitudes is simply that in NYC more innocent kids get shot than criminals (two more last weekend) so keep your guns out in the woods and help find a way to keep them out of the hands of gangbangers.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... innocents getting shot in NYC -- take firearms away from the cops. Apparently private citizens are much more responsible.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"requires"? No, protects the ability.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about throw out a term just to look educated.
I said that there is a huge gulf between the attitudes of urban and rural populations toward guns-- do you have a rebuttal?
I asked for help in keeping guns out of the hands of gangbangers-- do you see that a a bad thing? An impossible thing?
Or is there something fallacious about the statement of the US being the only developed country with an ingrained gun culture silly enough to think it can defend itself with small arms against tanks and daisycutters.
Nirvana my ass.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Keeping guns out of the hands of gangbangers is a good thing, but impossible. USVI has very strict laws, and their murder rate is worse than Chicago and DC. Jamaica, Mexico, and the UK can't even do it.
second point is, we are not the only developed country with an "ingrained gun culture" and an $800 rocket can destroy a $21 million dollar tank.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)where did I say it's possible to get all guns out of the hands of gangbangers, and where did I say the only way to try was gun restrictions?
Since when are rockets protected by the 2nd Amendment and available at gun shops, and how are the Syrian rebels doing even with some rockets?
And one more just for shits and giggles-- weaponry of all sorts has been ingrained in most human cultures throughout history, but rarely is it enshrined in law as necessary to protect oneself from government-- particularly in modern times.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Our murder rate and no legal civilian handguns. They are just as high tech as we are. Another "Big Lie".
Also, asymmetric warfare is the name of the game. You can't "daisy cutter" NYC.
I guess it's hard to be a "TreasonousBastard". 
Nirvana Fallacy stands supreme in your original post. A police state would be required to accomplish your goals.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)without bothering to answer any of the hard questions.
And, no, you probably wouldn't waste daisycutters in NYC, but you can close the bridges and tunnels with little effort. And you could conventionally bomb the city with great effect while setting the daisycutters off on Long Island and New Jersey.
But, we don't arm ourselves to protect us from our government doing these things-- we trust our government to protect us from others doings these things.
If you don't, then may you continue to drown in your own phlegm.
Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)no?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)
msongs
(67,361 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)I support the president because I'm not a single issue voter, but I have no illusions about where he stands on the 2nd amendment. If he had a pliant congress we'd have a new assault weapons ban.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)[URL=
/][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)“No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.”
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I'm sure Jefferson took into account modern day weapons, as well as the vast imbalance between what NRA-Approved 2nd-Amendment-Weaponry is vs. what the US Army has!
What laughable "arguments" you gun-relgionists present. Talking Points is all you got!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair, that they made the Jews wear...
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)Gun prohibitionists think of the American people at large as pets. But, like TreasonousBastard said, they view gun owners and people who believe in gun rights as dangerous wild animals, and they want us wiped out completely. There's no affection or concern for our wellbeing. It's an adversarial, spiteful feeling, which I reciprocate.
I have great sympathy and understanding for people who actually want to keep the public safe, and I'm very interested in discussing ways to do that. Most of what I see here, though, has nothing to do with public safety. It's just irrational, militant hatred of guns and the people who own and use them.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I know of at least one anti-RKBA DUer that believes that even law enforcement should be disarmed.
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)the streets would belong to the criminals even more so than they do now. Gangs would be in control of every major U.S. city in about 4 weeks if law enforcement officers were disarmed.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)And just think, if everyone had guns, the US could be like the wild west where they had no crime at all...
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 1, 2012, 05:58 AM - Edit history (1)
Also, the Wild West as most people imagine it didn't exist. Most major frontier cities had murder rates measured in the SINGLE digits, usually 1 or less.
http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-myth-of-the-wild-west
Confusious
(8,317 posts)And you're repeating a myth.
Because the counties in McKanna’s study reflect the diversity of rural southern and central California as a whole, there is reason to believe that the homicide rate in the southern two-thirds of the state (excluding San Francisco) was between 66 and 80 per 100,000 adults per year—the 99% confidence interval for McKanna’s seven counties combined. If we include San Francisco and Los Angeles counties, the interval for all of southern and central California was between 60 and 70 per 100,000 adults per year—seven times the homicide rate in the United States today.
Pretty awful.
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/reviews_in_american_history/v035/35.2roth.pdf
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Did you even read the link you posted? It's talking about how the violence in the Old West was over-exaggerated by revisionist scholars. And stressing how low the violence rate really was.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)"The West was extraordinarily homicidal."
"Dykstra's common-sense approach has won praise from many scholars. Many have distanced themselves from recent studies of Western violence or have dismissed them altogether. But Dykstra's skepticism is misplaced. The "new" Western scholars he criticizes, such as Clare V. McKanna, Jr. and David Peterson Del Mar, are right. The West was extraordinarily homicidal."
He talks about how revisionists have been saying the west wasn't violent at the top of the page, but at the bottom, you will find that phrase.
In the middle, with the big numbers, you will find the death rate.
Try reading it again.
Ps. One of the people who pushed the myth that the west wasn't violent had his prize revoked for arming America (the only time that has happened) for sloppy academic work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_America
rDigital
(2,239 posts)is beyond the pale and it seems like, from the abbreviated info available from the site, this author has a serious axe to grind with regards to WW violence.
He pulled that number out of his rump. Small numbers != large numbers. This kind of thing cannot be linearly extrapolated. There is no data set that suggests any of those conclusions.
All I see is junk science with a "professional" veneer.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Or history? and have been published in a peer reviewed journal, and are able to make those calls?
Or do you just not want to believe it because it doesn't fit your belief system?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)It's propaganda.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)You don't agree with science?
You seemed to agree with the Proposition that the west was less violent then it was. That claim was made by some people, who have now been proven to take liberties with evidence, I.e. lie.
They even ignored first hand accounts of the violence made by people like mark twain.
Now a person goes digging through records, and comes to a number that says it was a violent place, That agrees with twain, and all of the sudden its all bullshit.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)78 murders and other such non-sense. He can probably turn lead into gold too.
It's not a valid source. He's working on assumptions. He's grasping at straws and looking for a root argument against the 2nd Amendment. He didn't find one, so he has to make one up.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Nowhere does he say the data comes from ONE murder,
The reports he's quoting came from death certificates, trials, coroners inquests, etc.
I guess you'll tell me now that there's a long standing conspiracy going back to the 18th century.
It's in a peer reviewed journal, you don't get more valid then that.
The book he gets his data from:
http://www.unpress.nevada.edu/Browse/Titles/Race%20and%20Homicide%20in%20Nineteenth-Century%20California/R;1915?PHPSESSID=df2e7bbf160b9af8a6e8246ef2847feb
A paper on the same thing:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3642130?uid=3739552&uid=2460338175&uid=2460337935&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&uid=3739256&sid=21101185210977
rDigital
(2,239 posts)little one page blurb. I'm using what was given.
Next time post a public article. Also, peer reviewed doesn't mean true. It's a minimum standard, and not much at that. There's peer reviewed studies that deny evolution and global warming.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Evolution is the basis for all biological sciences.
Anyone who submitted a paper denying evolution would be laughed out of the room.
Same for global warming.
Can't make a case, so you're going to try and undermine science, eh?
Guns are more important to you then even living.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Confusious
(8,317 posts)Right up there with homeopathy and antivaxxers.
Maybe you got proof of Bigfoot too?
Mah guns'll keep dem ghosts, goblins and witches away!!'
I don't need no damn science! I got mah guns!!
Your guns weren't no gift from god. Science made those too.
Response to Confusious (Reply #40)
Post removed
Confusious
(8,317 posts)I gave you an argument, you ignored it. Par for the course.
Nothin' more important then guns.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Confusious
(8,317 posts)You seem to have forgotten the past hour.
That could be a sign of something serious.
Or maybe some mental help. You know, a trauma like finding out your long held belief really isn't true? It can be quite a shock.
Just lookin' out for your health.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)activist "researcher" by the name of Clames who takes an absurd revisionist view of history where one single gunshot can be the difference between 0 murders and 78.
Plus, you didn't post any article that was availible to the public. How is that fair if i don't have the same source materials? I don't have your login, sweetie.
Clames
(2,038 posts)n/t
rDigital
(2,239 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)This is one of the things I figured out a long time ago. The only way to really believe the NRA line is to ignore all the legitimate scientific research into gun violence and to have no understanding of statistics. This is why almost all gun fanatics are ignorant teabaggers. They really are no different that global warming deniers and creationists.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Edit: typo.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)... the rhetorical equivalent of "Your mother wears army boots."
C'mon, man -- don't you have peer-reviewed study to cite? You're really letting your side down here.
Would it be fair to suggest that almost all gun-banners are elitist control-freaks and faux-progressive snobs? From one broad brush to another ...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)he said gun ownership from the founding to the civil war was rare.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Committee looking into the fraud that he committed.
http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases/Final_Report.pdf
I can probably find more if you like, that was the first one to pop up.
""Bellesiles’s larger argument is about the stereotype of the Old West which might lead us to imagine rifles as more useful to pick off hostile Indians at a distance or bands of marauding whites than against foxes and squirrels. I found no evidence to contradict Bellesiles’s claim that Hall’s narrative portrays the West as an essentially peaceful place."
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Now ANOTHER one of the NRA Talking Points that the NRA Acolytes and Gun Lobby on DU turns out to be, like all the rest of their Talking Points, a big fat lie!
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Just kidding, don't have a dog named after a gun manufacturer but it would have been funny.
ileus
(15,396 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)were disgruntled employees (current and former), are you carrying your guns to work on the lookout that your coworkers might shoot you? Are you prepared to outdraw them too?
A few years back the people where my husband works were afraid a fired employee (on drugs) was going to come back and shoot somebody. This was in Florida where they could take guns to work, and could get CCW very easily. All TALK, but no action. Not one person bought a gun and took it to work; not the owners of the company who fired (most AFRAID) the man, or my multiple gun owning, CCW permit owning husband. I guess he wasn't afraid of the guy, even without his gun. I guess he didn't feel the need to protect the owners (FEMALE) either. Although this former employee called and still calls 2 years later, frequently ranting and raving, and a few times showed up there, he never brought a gun to his former employment, well yet.
In a way, my husband IS a lot like my pet cats. ROARS like a liion, but is really as tame as a pussy cat. Guns just give him a really false sense of bravado. If something were to actually happen, he would probably run away just like the cats.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and I don't know what shall issue has to do with committing murder. But I'm guessing your husband and the owners can tell when someone is for real and just ranting.
Getting a CCW in NYC is actually easy, just have a couple of million dollars. At least Wyoming, from 1886-1995, had specific qualifications that had nothing to do with the whims of a police sergeant.
You finally said something nice about your husband.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)for their protection, and especially if they have already been robbed. I was told that after the store I worked in was robbed. The owner said she would get a gun but I her I didn't want it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I'm talking about unrestricted CCW like Sean Hannity and Howard Stern.
Wyoming's CCW law, which applies to all weapons, was shall issue to specific occupations listed in the statute and no issue to anyone else, which means Sean and Howard would be out of luck. If I were a NYC resident, I would prefer that over than the arbitrary and classiest system that is there now. As a matter of principle, giving the cops arbitrary decisions over any civil liberty or privilege, depending on your viewpoint, has no place in a liberal democracy.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy? Funny: every single progressive I've ever known didn't have much use for those five right-wingers, or their right-wing jurisprudence.
Wery, wery curious....
Actually, not so much.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)is only to be praised for their brilliant jurisprudence. After all, they brought you Citizens United. And let's not forget one of their greatest hits. Election 2000. Very persuasive.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)is only to be praised for their brilliant jurisprudence. After all, they brought you Citizens United. And let's not forget one of their greatest hits. Election 2000. Very persuasive.
And then there was that healthcare thing. Really tearing it up, that SCOTUS.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts) 