Our view: Gun laws are taking a radical turn (USA Today)

[jpak]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-04-24-state-gun-laws-radical.htm

<snip>

What we are seeing is a systematic campaign for a doctrine of guns anywhere, anytime and in the hands of just about anyone, without consequence for irresponsible actions. When the gun lobby first started winning concealed carry laws about two decades ago, it said that vigorous background checks and permitting procedures should be maintained, and that some places should remain gun-free. Having won such laws in most states, it is now working to undo those parameters.

The gun lobby is also going after the two states (Wisconsin and Illinois) that do not allow concealed firearms, and the nine that leave the issuance of a permit to the discretion of law enforcement. In its one major foray into Congress recently, gun extremists fell just two votes shy in the U.S. Senate on a 2009 bill that would have forced any state to recognize a carry permit issued by any other state. That measure — a monumental infringement on states rights and local governance, to say the least — would have forced urbanized states dealing with gangs, drug lords and other violent criminals to essentially adopt gun rights deemed appropriate in more rural states.

These are precisely the kinds of results that opponents of gun rights predicted during the multi-decade debate over the confused meaning of the Second Amendment. From a constitutional perspective, the Supreme Court may have gotten it right. But from a standpoint of public safety, lawmakers are getting it very wrong. A right to keep and bear arms should come with restraints that equally protect those who have no interest in owning them.

<more>

Looks like I'm not the only one to connect the dots

yup

[Fearless]

1. I bet this'll get buried.

[Ian David]

2. ...

[rl6214]

3. Our View is that everything is going just as it needs to

YUP

YUP

YUP

[NewMoonTherian]

45. Wrong. The right direction, but not nearly quickly enough.

Shall-issue needs to come to all states(partially mitigating the need for universal reciprocity), and the NFA is a piece of garbage I cannot wait to see swept into the gutter of history.

[aikoaiko]

4. "guns anywhere, anytime and in the hands of just about anyone" is a fear mongering untruth.

And yes, Jpakker, you're not alone in repeating it.

[jpak]

5. That is the GOP/NRA Master Plan and folks are on to them

yup

[aikoaiko]

6. I don;t think so, because I've not heard anyone except anti-rkba types say it.

Really, its up to the people of each state to decide the requirements and prohibitions for carrying a concealed weapon. One party and one second amendment organization cannot dictate this issue.

[jpak]

8. The truth is bitter sometimes

yup

[Bold Lib]

11. Then provide some proof. Oh, you cannot city yourself as the source.

As yours is the only one saying it. . . good luck.

[jpak]

13. I've posted all the stories from all the states where this is happening - it was called "spam"

The GOP/NRA wants guns in schools, bars, churches, parks, public buildings, libraries etc.

They want no permit CCW - everywhere

The want open carry - everywhere

They want Castle Laws - everywhere

yup

[krispos42]

18. Yeah, because why should people carry guns in public places?

I mean, jeez, you would think that violent crime or something could happen there.


And why should people have the right to use deadly force simply when somebody is breaking into their house? People should definitely be forced to retreat by an intruder into a corner of their basement or attic before they can pull the trigger. And that's only assuming they can't escape through a window or door.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kolesar]

22. Dont bitch and whine about the DU moderators...eom

[aikoaiko]

23. ROFL

:rofl:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. Yeah, we gotta watch out for for all those pro-rights conspiracies on our liberal website.

:crazy:
:rofl:

[RSillsbee]

53. Yes, and your point is? NT

[Oneka]

89. and this is bad how? n/t

[aikoaiko]

15. I don't think truth means what you think it means.

[villager]

7. "fear mongering untruth" -- nice shorthand for the entirety of NRA-speak!

thanks! :thumbsup:

[Bold Lib]

12. NRA - speak translated= You cannot provide proof.

[bowens43]

25. keep your head in the sand if it makes you more comfortable.....

[aikoaiko]

16. FWIW: I don't like it when the NRA does it either. But the pro-RKBA side is not alone in doing it.

OP is case in point.

[whoneedstickets]

19. Really can you prove that statement? Where can I find the info

that tells me that the gun lobby has said "yeah, we really think that weapons don't belong here"

[aikoaiko]

27. In my state the NRA supported bills that maintained certain off limit places ..

...like court rooms.


Here is an NRA link supporting this bill with its list of prohibited places.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=5787

[whoneedstickets]

33. Your link leads to a article celebrating gun access to airports.

And fewer restriction on weapons at public demonstrations.

Do you see that making the point that there is one or two places actually supports the point of the "anywhere anyplace" critique.

[aikoaiko]

48. If the NRA's position was "anywhere anyplace" then they wouldn't have supported the prohibit places

Furthermore, after the Virgina Tech shooting, the NRA worked with legislators (mostly Democrats) in EXPANDING those included in NICS checks.

In truth, there are many laws prohibiting firearms that have no rational basis. And it is correct to challenge those idiosyncratic prohibitions.

But that is a far cry from "anywhere anyplace". Restrictions to civil liberties should be few and far between.

[PavePusher]

61. What is wrong with legally carried guns in the non-secure areas of airports? n/t

[TPaine7]

34. Truth is irrelevant. Don't expect a reply. n/t

[pscot]

21. guns anywhere, anytime and in the hands of just about anyone

describes todays reality. It's what you wanted, it's what you've lobbied, cajoled and threatened to achieve. Now you're almost there. Guns in churches, schools and taverns. Guns brandished at political gatherings. You can be proud of yourselves. You should be thrilled. This will surely beget new age of civility.

[aikoaiko]

28. hardly "guns anywhere, anytime and in the hands of just about anyone"

I am proud of civil liberties. Not you?

[pscot]

30. Carrying a concealed weapon

into a tavern or a college classroom doesn't seem all that civil to me, but I've been shouted down because I can't intimidate my congressman the way the NRA and the gun makers do. They wave regulation around like a bloody shirt and millions of terrified "sportsmen" go into full panic mode. You got what you wanted. I wish you joy of it.

[aikoaiko]

31. Thank you. I am happy with civil liberties. I wish you joy, too.

As someone who works on a college campus, I would be fine with those who are licensed carrying a concealed weapon in my classroom.

[RSillsbee]

54. Carrying a concealed weapon into a tavern or a college classroom

I've done both (completely legal here in Colorado) w/ zero instances of blood in the streets. Must be more the person carrying the guns than the evil gunzzz themselves

[Starboard Tack]

59. Do you honestly believe that because you've managed to do that

with zero blood in the streets is reassuring to the rest of us? Who ever said guns were evil? People have a propensity to be evil at times and carrying a gun facilitates that. There are much healthier ways of dealing with an inferiority complex.

[RSillsbee]

65. There are 80 million (legal) gunowners in this country

and over 300 million guns if this People have a propensity to be evil at times and carrying a gun facilitates that. is the case why are there not more shootings?

There are much healthier ways of dealing with an inferiority complex.

Quite true, when you're dealing w/ a bad guy w/ a gun however......

ETA forgot to answer the question; I don't care if it reassures you or not. As long as both activities are legal (and assuming my business takes me to a college campus or a bar again)I will continue to carry my fire arm in both locations (I haven't had a drink in almost 30 years BTW)

[Starboard Tack]

66. My argument is not with gun owners, legal or not

It is the toting in public that I don't buy. Those who carry on a regular basis probably number less than 10 million and I'm sure the majority are sensible, responsible, law abiding citizens. So, my question to you is, why are there so many shootings?
Good for you on the not drinking for 30 years, but I would imagine you are more the exception than the rule. How many times have you used your gun (draw/brandished/fired) and how many times have you considered using it?

[RSillsbee]

82. How many times have you used your gun (draw/brandished/fired)

I killed two Iraqis w/an M16 during Gulf one ( probably several hundred if you count artillery fire)

I had a defensive display 15 or so years ago during an attempted mugging.

I put down a deer that had been hit by a car.


how many times have you considered using it?

I am actually more likely to back down if I am carrying a gun because I know just how much trouble I can get in if I draw it and I'm not justified in doing so.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Fair enough.

Seems like a lot of responsibility. Good luck and stay safe.

[Oneka]

90. people

do have a propensity to be evil at times, and carrying a gun can protect innocent life, in times like that, just as easily as facilitate it. I'm not really interested in allaying your fears, if it includes giving up my means of self protection in situations where evil happens.

[Starboard Tack]

57. To most people, living in a gun toting free society is a civil liberty

You wanna tote, then you're gonna have to deal with being ostracized by the rest of us who truly value civility and aren't scared of bogeymen jumping out of the shadows everywhere we go.

[spin]

60. The majority of my co-workers owned firearms and a high percentage ...

had concealed carry permits at the place I work at in Florida before I retired.

There, of course, were people who chose not to own firearms but they didn't have an irrational fear of those who did or even those who had concealed weapons permits. We all worked together and were friends.

Everybody I worked with was well aware that I had a concealed weapons permit but I never felt ostracized in the least by those who didn't have a permit or didn't own firearms. Often, they would ask me questions about buying a firearm for self defense or obtaining a carry permit.

Those of us who had carry permits were not viewed as dangerous or paranoid. The people I worked with were far too intelligent and mature to hold such foolish stereotypes.

[Starboard Tack]

62. The whole point is that your friends/co-workers knew you and that you carried,

which renders the concealed part moot. What about the rights of those that don't know you? I assume the reason you carry is because you don't trust others who may be carrying with intent to harm you. I've lived in Fla. and seen guys OC in bars, knocking back shots. I have a right not to be around a drunk with a gun and so I would leave. Your right to CC takes away that option.

[RSillsbee]

64. It's against DU rules to call another poster a liar

That said, this statement I've lived in Fla. and seen guys OC in bars, knocking back shots.
is untrue.

Fla law prohibits both OC and carrying while intoxicated

Spelling error

[Starboard Tack]

68. I have little knowledge of Fla. gun laws, but I don't lie

All I know is, I lived there (Tampa area) for 4 years 1978-82 and occasionally visited Miami, where I saw 2 guys with guns on their belts knocking back shots. I didn't breathalyze them, I just walked out.

[RSillsbee]

84. I never called you a liar, DU rules specifically forbid such behavior

I merely questioned the veracity of your statement. I question it further since your time frame places the incident prior to legal concealed carry

[Starboard Tack]

87. Well, it was the truth

[RSillsbee]

88. Of course it was NT

[Starboard Tack]

93. Now I understand why you carry a gun around.

With an attitude and view of others like yours I would too. Happy trails

[RSillsbee]

94. Clearly you DON'T understand

A gun is not something you carry so you can insult people w/ impunity. You can't run your mouth just because you you have a gun and then use it as an equalizer when your mouth writes a check your ass can't cash.

In fact it would be a total liability because it could be argued that your started the argument to give yourself a reason

A gun is to be used as a last resort when all other means of defense have failed and you truly believe that you (or someone close to you) is going to die if you don't use it.

I've had people try to start trouble since I started carrying and the first words out of my mouth have always been 'I'm terribly sorry if I've offended you I don't want any trouble." as I'm backing away.

If you are carrying a gun you don't have the right to get into some random argument w/ a stranger. You don't have the right to flip someone off on the road. You have to be the one to back down every single time or,sooner or later, it will comeback and bite you in the ass.

[Starboard Tack]

100. This is truly fascinating. It stops you from running your mouth in public

I'm picking up on that more and more here. It really is quite ironic, but I can see how carrying can really work as a tool for anger management. And it seems to be working very well for you and I sincerely wish you the best. I also hope that it works for others just as well. I had never really considered CC in this light before.
I learn something every day in this forum.

[YllwFvr]

97. Could have been LEOs

[spin]

67. That's interesting because open carry is currently illegal in Florida

and has been since 1987 although there is a possibility that the law will change this year.

'Open carry' bill up for debate
Updated: Monday, 25 Apr 2011, 4:57 AM EDT

PALMETTO - Before the Florida legislature took a break for the Passover and Easter holidays, a controversial bill took another step toward becoming law.

Senate Bill 234, or the "open carry" bill as it has been called, passed in a senate rules committee.

The bill would allow anyone with a concealed carry license to openly carry a handgun.

***snip***

Many say those with concealed carry licenses run the risk of getting in trouble if their firearm is accidentally exposed. They believe this bill will protect them.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/sun_coast/gun_control_legislation_florida042411

Under the current law, carrying a concealed weapon in "any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption*" is also illegal. (source: Possession Restrictions http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/possession.html ) You can carry in the restaurant portion of an establishment but not in the bar area.

People who don't know me do not know that I am carrying since I carry concealed. If you fear me or others like me who have concealed weapons permits you are being irrational. Since 1987 Florida has issued 1,953,856 concealed weapons permits of which 801,219 are currently valid. Over that twenty three year period only 168 licenses have been revoked because of a crime involving a firearm after the license was issued. (source: Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html)

On the average lightning kills about 10 people a year in Florida. (source:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0522_030522_lightning.html) Therefore since 1987, 230 people have died because of a lightning strike in Florida. So your chances of being hit by lightning in Florida is higher then your chances of shot by a person with a concealed weapons permit. This is especially true if you consider that not all of the 168 revoked concealed weapons permits involved a shooting.

[Starboard Tack]

70. I lived there from 1978-82. Sorry I'm not up to date with Fla. law

I don't have any fear of being shot by anyone, whether they're OC, CC or illegally carrying. I also don't have an irrational fear of lightning, in spite of the fact that I spend over 90% of my time on the ocean, with a 50 foot mast, making my chances of being struck much higher than on land and at least a billion times higher than being shot.

[PavePusher]

76. Your post implied that you had seen this recently, not three decades ago, when it probably was legal

Your consistent disingenuousness is bordering on mendacity.

[Starboard Tack]

77. I never implied recently. You infered it.

I apologize for any confusion. I had no idea that Florida had become so "civilized" in the intervening years.

[RSillsbee]

63. If living in a gun toting free society was a civil liberty

Every criminal who ever commited a crime w/ a firearm would be charged w/ a civil rights violation as well

[Starboard Tack]

69. Why? To create more paperwork?

Do bank robbers get charged with breaching the peace or for parking in a red zone outside the bank? The DA will go with the strongest case that supports the most serious crime.

[MicaelS]

72. Unless someone is open carrying,

How do you know precisely WHOM and how many in an area is carrying? Do you have some sort of sixth sens that let's you see a concealed weapon?

So thus, just how do you know who to ostracize?

[Starboard Tack]

80. Apparently there are about 8 million out there

It's a basic math problem. I don't know precisely, nor do I care how many in a certain area. In social situations I often ask out of curiosity. Been in Texas the last few days. I ask people their views on 2A and CC. So far, most support 2A for protection against government, a few support CC. Haven't met anyone yet who even owns a gun. I'll keep asking though.

Seems to me most CC types are Libertarian conspiracy theorists and teabaggers. Not the kind of company I care to keep.

[aikoaiko]

73. Too bad the Constitution does not support your bigotry.

[Starboard Tack]

103. You think that disapproval of anti social behavior is bigotry?

Yet you disdain those who disagree with you when exercising their 1A rights.

[rl6214]

75. I would think most people don't even think about whether

they are "living in a gun toting free society" so it being a "civil liberty" is just in your mind. People that carry aren't "ostracized" because for most people it is a non issue, just to anti gun activists it is an issue.

[Starboard Tack]

102. I think you are right. Most people don't think about it.

I am not an anti gun activist and I don't know anyone who is. But when I bring up the subject in conversation, the most common response is that carrying in public places, by ordinary people, makes no sense, and carrying in schools and churches is beyond ridiculous.

[RSillsbee]

83. Why should I be scared of the Boogeyman?

I have a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

101. We've already established that you're not afraid of others

and that your reason for carrying is more to control your own anger. Undoubtedly, you're not the only one to use this kind of personal therapy.

[Euromutt]

95. "To most people" is a reliable indicator of an imminent argumentum ad numerum/populum

Admittedly, there are pro-RKBA posters on this forum who also appeal to public opinion, but at least they provide some evidence (opinion poll results et al.) that public opinion actually is what they claim it is, as opposed to baldly asserting that some majority shares their exact opinion.

[lawodevolution]

36. Meanwhile crime rates keep falling and you keep wondering why.

[sylvi]

37. Funny how that keeps being ignored, isn't it?

If we could somehow harness the psychic power it must take to keep that fact suppressed from the gun-haters' consciousness, our energy problems in this country would soon be over.

[Smokewagon]

9. What a load...

"A right to keep and bear arms should come with restraints that equally protect those who have no interest in owning them."

Then you shouldn't own one. Simple.

[ileus]

10. op eds from scared gun grabbers equal what?

[bowens43]

24. it's called truth.

Like it or not, guns do kill people. We should be pushing for a total ban of all handguns.

There is no Constitutionally protected right for individuals to own guns.

[lawodevolution]

35. Heller Vs DC, go read about it,

"We should be pushing for a total ban of all handguns."

McDonald vs Chicago, go learn something

Yes, there is a constitutional protection for ownership of handguns and it is a civil right protected by the 14th.

Handgun ownership is a part of my culture and I view my culture to be just as important as any other culture that liberals should be open minded to and coexist with.

Thank you for your tolerance.

[DonP]

38. Don't forget, that Obama guy said so too

In his recent Arizona Op Ed, he affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms as an individual right not connected with militia service. Or maybe he's just another tool of the NRA?

Let's see, that all 9 SCOTUS justices (Yes, all 9 agreed on that in Heller), the POTUS and most of Congress agree on it. Some people will never wake up I guess.

The real problem here, IMHO, is there are some people here that refuse to accept they are a shrinking minority of the voting public on what is quickly becoming a non-issue to most people. Maybe because it has a smalller impact on society every year.

[PavePusher]

39. You are either lying, or wilfully ignorant.

No, I really don't care which it is.

[spin]

43. Firearms also save lives ...

when used in legitimate self defense. Of course, you ignore this.

The result of a total ban and confiscation of handguns would be at a minimum a lot of unnecessary bloodshed and a possible revolution. Successful or not, the positive effects of such an effort would be offset by the negative effects. If the Democratic Party was behind such an effort, Democrats would be voted out of office and the party would be history.

That's the truth.

[RSillsbee]

55. Like it or not, guns do kill people

So do, baseball bats, plastic bags, pit bulls , scaffolds, alcohol, drugs, cars, garden hoses, swimming pools, knives, rope, pvc pipe, hammers, wrenches, sporks, cancer, TVs, artillery shells , blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah

Should we be pushing for a total ban on those as well?

[oneshooter]

91. Automobiles, pools, knives, and poison also kill people.

Should we also ban them?

And if you do manage to ban guns,and have them taken up. How are you planing to pay for them?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ThatPoetGuy]

14. Can it be? Sanity?

I thought that was against the rules?

[whoneedstickets]

17. The Deterrence Society! Peace through mutual assured destruction..

It is amazing to me that we managed to see the lunacy in this doctrine internationally, where there is NO legal authority, NO policeman, but we seem intent on implementing it domestically.

[DonP]

41. Not mutually assured - you don't have a gun

It's only MAD if both parties are equally prepared. The crimninals are all already armed as they see fit, carry anywhere they want to and use it at their "discretion", if that's the way to describe a sociopathic mindset.

Your solution is to not carry a gun for self protection because you feel it's uncivilized (your choice) but also to forbid anyone else from making that choice.

Some of prefer having a choice for the law abiding.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. USA Today: shit news rag.

The first sentence is entirely untrue.


"without consequence for irresponsible actions"
lol

[Euromutt]

96. McPaper, indeed; interesting how none of the usual anti-RKBA posters are impugning the source

Let's face it, if somebody posts a pro-RKBA opinion piece from the Washington Times, a FOX News affiliate, WorldNutDaily or whatnot, you can count on at least one person to dismiss the piece based on its source alone. Curiously, when the same kind of source posts something in favor of increased gun control, that seems to make it more legitimate in their eyes, not less.

[TPaine7]

29. Why lie?

Why do those who oppose rights insist on lying to support their position?

What we are seeing is a systematic campaign for a doctrine of guns anywhere, anytime and in the hands of just about anyone, without consequence for irresponsible actions.

Bullshit. That is a lie. There is no such systematic campaign. There is no one of any consequence who wants guns everywhere. People can forbid guns in their houses. Guns can be forbidden in airport secure areas. There is no concerted effort to get them in the hands of "just about everyone"--any person can refuse to have a gun in her hand and I and millions of gun owners and the NRA will support her right to no have a gun in her hand. There should be consequences for irresponsible actions. For example, waving around a handgun in the mall and "painting" people with it, carrying while intoxicated, shooting in city limits (with exceptions such as self-defense, range practice, etc.) should be severely punished. Why must those who oppose rights lie? I think it's clear. Bigotry and hatred have always lied; fair mindedness and respect for rights can afford to tell the truth.

In its one major foray into Congress recently, gun extremists fell just two votes shy in the U.S. Senate on a 2009 bill that would have forced any state to recognize a carry permit issued by any other state. That measure — a monumental infringement on states rights and local governance, to say the least — would have forced urbanized states dealing with gangs, drug lords and other violent criminals to essentially adopt gun rights deemed appropriate in more rural states.

Congress has a constitutional mandate to force defiant states "to recognize a carry permit issued by any other state." "Full faith and credit" does not mean "after getting permission from those who oppose the rest of the Constitution."

Yes, to the anti-rights extremists, that would be "a monumental infringement on states rights"--STATES RIGHTS--"and local governance." It would be horrible--just like states recognizing each other's driver's licenses or interracial marriages.

(Interesting how the opponents of rights today echo the opponents of rights decades ago, isn't it? George Wallace and Ronald Reagan would be so proud.)

Then there's the brain dead "logic"--this awful, constitutionally mandated law would have

forced urbanized states dealing with gangs, drug lords and other violent criminals to essentially adopt gun rights deemed appropriate in more rural states

Here's an easy plan to deal with that:

1) make drug dealing a felony
2) make serious violent assault a felony
3) make armed robbery a felony
4) make rape a felony
5) make kidnapping a felony
6) make it a law that violent felons can't carry for the rest of their lives without a special hearing before a judge to restore their rights after showing that they've really reformed

Now the authorities can deal with "gangs, drug lords and other violent criminals"--who will have no gun rights once they've been stripped by due process. (For those who don't know, the above is already law. THE PROBLEM OF HOW TO DEAL WITH VIOLENT CRIMINALS IS ALREADY SOLVED--except we can't seem to get URBAN PROSECUTORS to take gun possession by felons as seriously as gun possession by people with immaculate records. Prosecutors plead down gun charges for thugs and throw the book at people who dare think of defending themselves.)

...gun rights deemed appropriate in more rural states...

Gun rights have been deemed appropriate in the UNITED STATES. Period. That includes the right to keep and BEAR arms. You can constitutionally say no concealed carry, you cannot constitutionally say no bearing of arms. States have the right to deem Second Amendment rights "appropriate" just like they have the right to deem First Amendment or Fourth Amendment rights "appropriate." In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment was written specifically to empower Congress to FORCE the states to abide by the first eight amendments.

From a constitutional perspective, the Supreme Court may have gotten it right. But from a standpoint of public safety, lawmakers are getting it very wrong. A right to keep and bear arms should come with restraints that equally protect those who have no interest in owning them.

In other words,

gun rights "extremists" are right, the Supreme Court is right, but it doesn't matter. Lawmakers should ignore the Constitution, and the CORRECT Supreme Court ruling and listen to the folks who were wrong--us losers.

Ok, we're pathetic. We're wrong on Constitutional interpretation and have been wrong for years. We're impotent politically and have no chance of changing the Constitution legitimately. But we're hoping and praying that if we stand here, stamp our little feet and hold our breath till we turn purple, the grownups will give us our way.

Good luck with that.
:evilgrin:

[spin]

44. Great post! (n/t)

[RSillsbee]

56. You missed it by that much

1)just legalize the damn drugs let people meke their own decision about what to put in their own body
2) make serious violent assault a felony
3) make armed robbery a felony
4) make rape a felony
5) make kidnapping a felony
6) make it a law that violent felons can't carry for the rest of their lives without a special hearing before a judge to restore their rights after showing that they've really reformed


Fixed it for you

[benEzra]

79. Exactly. (n/t)

[TPaine7]

92. I think it's a little more complicated than just making the drugs legal.

I agree that people have the right to do what they want with their bodies.

John and Jane Doe have the right to be crack heads. They don't have the right to conceive a crack baby, however, IMNSHO.

Society doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing. We can forbid brother and sister from conceiving (or at least marrying); there's the ancient and universal "yuck" factor to thank for that, reinforced by religious beliefs. We even test for the likelihood of engaged couples having children with rare diseases. But in many American's minds, crack addicts have a "right" to do things that lead to babies--babies that are doomed to struggle and suffering even more than the average person. Any attempt to require sterilization would "violate civil rights" or be "racist" or "fascist."

I believe that if given the choice and the opportunity, a person chooses to be a crack whore--let's say a male crack whore to avoid the appearance of sexism--he has that right. However, he doesn't have the right to impregnate a woman and sire a victim. After he surrenders his driver's license and has his vasectomy, give him a license to use any drug he wants--in private. And make sure he doesn't have a position of responsibility or involving heavy machinery or crucial to human or even animal life. We don't want meth addicts raising children, or operating dump trucks or working in crime laboratories with people's futures hanging in the balance.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

40. The line you emphasized is not true.

No progun organization or movement is advocating putting guns "in the hands of just about anyone" and then pushing to limit "consequence for irresponsible action".

in fact, the NRA was a backer of the NICS background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Gun owners and the gun lobby knows that guns in the hands of disqualified and irresponsible indiviuals is BAD for gun rights and the gun industry. Bad guys with guns give everyone with guns a bad name... there is no way in hell any gun organization wants bad press. They want to curtail gun violence and misuse just as much as any organization. The NRA even spends more on education and firearm safety programs than ANY gun control group in america.

[Chris_Texas]

46. B-But guns are scary!!!!

Only the "man" should be entrusted with weapons!

[ileus]

49. no no......guns kill people.....haven't you heard?

[Tesha]

47. NRA is on ALEC

The rash of far-right corporate-supporting bills rushing through state legislatures should be no surprise. These corporations belonging to ALEC, that gives free access to state legislators, that helped to get the right elected because of the anonymous corporate funding...

Guns, anti-environmental, privatization, anti-union... just follow the breadcrumbs.

[eallen]

98. There's a dangerous logic to extreme political rhetoric...

There was, at one point, a political push for gun control. Still is, in some quarters. The NRA pushed back. The GOP, to its considerable electoral benefit, exploited that as a wedge issue. But what happens after a political fight is won? Heller and McDonald enshrine the right to privately own guns. Concealed carry laws are "shall issue" in most states. So, what next? The NRA enjoys its political clout. It doesn't want to return to the days of yore when it was more a sporting association. The GOP desperately needs the wedge issue. So they keep pushing. Concealed carry everywhere. More liberal conceal carry issuance. Open carry.

It doesn't matter what the issue is, because the sides have already been chosen. So long as the GOP can identify gun-control advocates, it will generate proposals that trigger opposition from them, then use that opposition as evidence and motivation to close the ranks. Rather, rinse, repeat.

:hippie:

[DrDan]

50. laughing stock around the world for our rambo-esque attitude toward guns

[benEzra]

51. I'll never understand the fixation with a before-my-time Vietnam action movie

by gun control advocates.

If I remember correctly, I was just old enough to be aware of Rambo III or IV or whatever it was that was popular in the 80s, and I've seen snippets on TV from time to time. As I recall Stallone had some sort of big knife, and some sort of restricted Title 2 machinegun (M60?) that happens to be a 10-year Federal felony for civilians to possess without Federal authorization.

Yet in any discussion of sufficient length concerning civilian firearms law, the "Rambo" canard comes out, even though most of the people posting in this thread are probably not old enough to have seen it when it came out.

When they come out with Rambo XXVIII, about an accountant and part-time convenience store clerk who shoots USPSA with a civilian .223 and 9mm and has a CHL, let me know...

[DrDan]

52. yet you get the point - I am quite confident about that

[benEzra]

71. I understand the insinuation you're trying so hard to reach for, if that's what you mean.

But as you well know, the gun issue is, and has been for decades, about the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to lawfully own and use non-automatic civilian small arms. Not machineguns, not vigilante fantasies, or whatever other pejorative meme you wish to invoke.

And as I have mentioned many times before, it is that failure to recognize that lawful gun ownership in this country is and has always been mainstream that has (IMO) largely resulted in the gun-control lobby's spectacular crash since its heyday in the early '90s.

[petronius]

78. The first Rambo movie was actually pretty good, IMO - not at all the silliness

of the sequels. A bit cartoonish at times, but not completely trivial as far as mainstream movies go...

[MicaelS]

74. I don't care about the rest of the world's opinion

About our gun laws. Nor about free speech, or freedom of worship, or the 4th or 5th Amendments. Nor for that matter about any of our freedoms.

We have a system of government based on the idea of guaranteeing and protecting the rights of the individual. If you don't like that system, and want another type then start working to call a Constitutional Convention to draft a new form of government.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

81. When I meet my British and Canadian friends, they laugh

at our health care system, or lack thereof.

Guns don't usually enter into the conversation.

[eallen]

99. Just us, and Switzerland, huh?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

104. heehee

[Starboard Tack]

58. Good post! Time to grow up America!

[Logical]

85. Typical, OP only showed one side of the story! n-t