Debate about Gun Control

[pbrower2a]

Hunting rifles are generally good weapons for defense... and not crime. Hunters are generally well-behaved people with good demographics. Automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons are for the military, the police, and... criminals. The military and the police have legitimate cause to scare people. Criminals? Don't ask.

Leave hunting weapons alone, and the only people who will scream are those who sell the automatic and semi-automatic weapons that few of us need.

[Eric the Green]

Here are the top 20 lifetime recipients of cash from the NRA (1998 to 2016) serving in Congress. While many of them offered “prayers” for the victims of gun violence, they refuse to pass the gun-control laws that might have saved their lives instead. 


Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt ®
$60,550
(202) 224-5721

Alaska Rep. Don Young ®
$55,650
(202) 225-5765

Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot ®
$54,100
(202) 225-2216

Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte ®
$52,250
(202) 225-5431

Texas Rep. Pete Sessions ®
$51,650
(202) 225-2231

South Dakota Sen. John Thune ®
$44,155
(202) 224-2321

Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson ®
$43,750
(202) 225-5531

Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt ®
$43,749
(202) 225-4876

Kentucky Rep. Hal Rogers ®
$41,400
(202) 225-4601

Minnesota Rep. John Kline ®
$40,750
(202) 225-2271

Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop (D)
$40,650
(202) 225-3631

California Rep.Ken Calvert ®
$40,550
(202) 225-1986

Oregon Rep. Greg Walden ®
$37,250
(202) 225-6730

Missouri Rep. Sam Graves ®
$37,100
(202) 225-7041

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan ®
$36,800
(202) 225-3031

North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr ®
$35,700
(202) 224-3154

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter ®
$35,250
(202) 224-4623

Kentucky Rep. Ed Whitfield ®
$34,850
(202) 225-3115

Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Murphy ®
$33,500
(202) 225-2301

Texas Rep. Joe Barton ®
$31,500
(202) 225-2002

http://www.thenation.com/article/call-th...-congress/

[Odin]

(06-16-2016, 12:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Republican House refuses even to prohibit terrorists, even those on airplanes, from having assault weapons. If you want this lunacy to continue, vote Republican. And the Supreme Court is directly on the ballot in the presidential and senate races.

I thought we progressives were against the Terror Watch List because it was an unconstitutional attack of civil liberties and due process?

[Odin]

(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote: And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.

Yes, the US Army sure steamrolled the Vietcong...

[Odin]

(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

The difference is that Australia and New Zealand were given their independence from Britain while the US fought a violent armed rebellion to get our independence. The notion that we might have to take up arms against oppressive rulers in ingrained into American culture by our very history.

[Eric the Green]

(06-16-2016, 03:51 PM)Odin Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 12:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Republican House refuses even to prohibit terrorists, even those on airplanes, from having assault weapons. If you want this lunacy to continue, vote Republican. And the Supreme Court is directly on the ballot in the presidential and senate races.

I thought we progressives were against the Terror Watch List because it was an unconstitutional attack of civil liberties and due process?

Not this progressive. They can't be locked up until they commit a crime. But many terrorists have been intercepted before they committed their crime. They must have been under surveillance. That is needed, and what happened with Mateen is that rules allowed the surveillance to end. That can be changed. Meanwhile certainly anyone on the list can be and should be denied any guns. Republicans on the other hand listen to the evil monsters of the NRA and Gun Owners of America and do their bidding. No Republican should be allowed anywhere near any kind of government position. That's like allowing a drunk to get behind the wheel. Vote them all out.

Meanwhile McCain blames Obama for Orlando because he removed troops from Iraq in the agreement that Bush negotiated. He should be defeated for that statement alone; not even mentioning that he's a Republican-- duh. He's almost as bad as Trump then. It is he and those who supported the Iraq War who have responsibility for the emergence of the Islamic State.

Unlike some "free speech" advocates, I think we are very negligent in allowing the terrorist groups any access to social media. These companies like facebook and you tube do lots of blocking already for what are often unfair reasons; they can certainly block terrorist sites for inciting violence and hate speech. They supposedly have "community standards" against various kinds of abuse and even against uncivil statements; they should be required to take these sites down if they don't do it voluntarily. We are dropping the ball on this terrorism issue in many ways.

It's not that I want to ban all guns, if qualified people want them. But banning assault weapons is another thing, and metaphorically the USA is pursuing the Einstein definition of insanity; doing the same things and expecting different results. So that's why I say that if the USA were an applicant for a gun, it would be denied on the basis of poor mental health.

[Eric the Green]

(06-16-2016, 03:53 PM)Odin Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote: And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.

Yes, the US Army sure steamrolled the Vietcong...

Should a sovereign state legally allow a violent, armed revolution to overthrow it?

No, if it comes to that, then things have gone beyond the law, and very likely the state itself has too and become a tyranny. A violent revolutionary movement has to build its own army and its own state to replace the established one. It must have the support of the people on a massive scale, and the wherewithal to build this alternative army and state. 

The Confederacy is the only such movement in our history, and it failed. And just like the 1776 movement, it was a secession movement--- not even a movement to overthrow the established government, except in what it considered its territory. In Vietnam, the people rose up to defeat an invader (the US army), not to defeat their own government.

But non-violent revolution is now the preferred norm and the new approach, since the sixties. The United States may be in-part corrupt and may engage in imperialism supported by a military-industrial corporate complex, and all that, but it still has the ability to change itself legally and non-violently.

[Classic-Xer]

(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 03:22 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:26 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:18 AM)taramarie Wrote: Yes while i was typing out my response i was actually thinking Obama says one thing but may be wanting to do something else. I distrust politicians and as i have said elsewhere politicians 99% of the time are telling sweet lies for power. I felt like mentioning that but just going by what i have seen. My thoughts are primarily what i am thinking which may not be based on fact.

Someone who just wants to tweak the laws a bit wouldn't keep harping on the subject so much.  I always like to pay more attention to what they do than what they say.  It is one of my many tricks for spotting lies.

The Second Amendment provides for states to have their own militias (National Guard, state police).

You might want to look at what an English professor has to say on the language of the Second Amendment.  If you had bothered to understand the history of the American Revolution then you would know that it was about making sure that the new government would not have a monopoly on the use of force.  Thomas Jefferson was very clear about the purpose of the Second Amendment.  It was about the individual being able to defend themselves from the random criminal and an oppressive government.  This implies that the citizens must have arms equivalent to the infantry.

And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.

True it's not the 1700's. Our weaponry is far more advanced and deadly. You must assume that the US military would remain loyal and intact. I assume that the military would remain loyal to their own (friends, family and their community or home) and spit accordingly. I don't think the left actually has what it would take to win a war with the right.

[playwrite]

(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 11:23 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 01:53 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have predicted that these horrible, ridiculous massacres would continue and get worse as long as people continue with these silly arguments about bans not working and so on. My prediction has come true, over and over again. So, I make it again. When will people in America drop their illusions and the gun fetish? "How many deaths does it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" This is one mixed up, crazy country. Look who's running for president. Look who controls congress. Look at who congress listens to: the NRA. Case closed; this country is too mentally ill to be trusted with gun ownership. The USA fails its background check. Big time.

While I am not a gun owner nor have any desire to own one I have to say historically bans do not work.

Then explain Austrilia.

Quote:Obama I believe is not for banning them. Just for tighter regulation. I have seen a video of him saying so so that is where I get that notion from. I believe though you sound like you are for banning them. It will never happen. That is the failure here. The failure to see that reality. If you take them away, say hello to the next civil war matey. THEN real bloodshed will really begin.

The slippery slope to absolute gun banning is a ploy used by gun advocates to get foaming at the mouth - see the term "circle jerk."

Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

Re:  Australia - don't be a jerk -

Study shows people who correct typos may be jerks        



There's a lot of people who don't like their Meth labs taken away either, and they live pretty shitty lives trying to keep them.

But the vast number of people, including gun owners, are going to follow the law - they don't want their lives and their families destroyed, and they're certainly not going to wage gun battles over it against the government (do you guys watch a lot movies or something?).  The ones that don't will be treated like the criminals that they are.

There's ways to doing this.  You can ban manufacturing, transport, and sales with hefty prison terms - some will get made, transferred and sold but instead of $1200 people will be paying $12,000 black market prices and looking over their shoulder for not only its confiscation but being thrown in prison.  You can ban the ammo that is most prevalent for ARs - effectively, turn the gun into an expensive large door stopper.  You can revoke the business license for any gun range as well as gun store where these guns are found on the premise even if the store owner claims he had no idea - watch the self-policing that comes from that little trick.  You can have buy-back program, including credits for new, legal gun purchases.

Sure it will take time to get nearly all the ARs out of circulation, but some of these measure would result in removing much more than half within a year at most.

I'm not worried at all about executing laws aimed at ARs; I'm just concerned with getting them banned.

[playwrite]

(06-16-2016, 12:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 12:31 PM)playwrite Wrote: We're here to defeat you and put your ammosexual viewpoints in history's trash can where it belongs.  It's coming.

While it is not explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, in practice you have a right to daydream.  I shan't try to deny you that.

Gad, it's going to be fun watching your certitude meltdown with a Progressive SCOTUS.

Who knows, maybe it will drive you to actually go to a law school, one that throws a little political history into mix.

[playwrite]

(06-16-2016, 01:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Hunting rifles are generally good weapons for defense... and not crime. Hunters are generally well-behaved people with good demographics. Automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons are for the military, the police, and... criminals. The military and the police have legitimate cause to scare people. Criminals? Don't ask.

Leave hunting weapons alone, and the only people who will scream are those who sell the automatic and semi-automatic weapons that few of us need.

I'd say a 12-guage at the door and a Glock in the bedside table. 

Awesome, would be fingerprint trigger locks to avoid getting shot by your own gun.

[playwrite]

(06-16-2016, 03:53 PM)Odin Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote: And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.

Yes, the US Army sure steamrolled the Vietcong...

From my experience in dealing with both, there's no comparison between your typical ammosexuals -

[img][/img]

and the VC.

[playwrite]

(06-16-2016, 09:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 03:22 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:26 AM)Galen Wrote: Someone who just wants to tweak the laws a bit wouldn't keep harping on the subject so much.  I always like to pay more attention to what they do than what they say.  It is one of my many tricks for spotting lies.

The Second Amendment provides for states to have their own militias (National Guard, state police).

You might want to look at what an English professor has to say on the language of the Second Amendment.  If you had bothered to understand the history of the American Revolution then you would know that it was about making sure that the new government would not have a monopoly on the use of force.  Thomas Jefferson was very clear about the purpose of the Second Amendment.  It was about the individual being able to defend themselves from the random criminal and an oppressive government.  This implies that the citizens must have arms equivalent to the infantry.

And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.

True it's not the 1700's. Our weaponry is far more advanced and deadly. You must assume that the US military would remain loyal and intact. I assume that the military would remain loyal to their own (friends, family and their community or home) and spit accordingly. I don't think the left actually has what it would take to win a war with the right.

Sorry to disappoint your wet dream, but it would not roll out that way.

Most active military are either far from their families, and worried about their 'brothers', or they have their families on base. 

But it will never get to that point.  It won't be Civil War redux; it will be a few Wacos and Burns incidents with a few of you shot dead but most of you simply going to federal prison for a couple of decades.  I'm way okay with that - make this country a lot more pleasant in nearly countless number of ways.

[Classic-Xer]

(06-16-2016, 03:53 PM)Odin Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote: And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.

Yes, the US Army sure steamrolled the Vietcong...

The US military won every major battle that was fought during Vietnam. The Democrats of today aren't even capable of seriously taking on ISIS. I wonder what makes him (playdude) think that the Democrats and a few old Rhino's are capable of taking on us and a portion the US military within the United States. Bob's right, don't seriously mess with or undermine the US Constitution because there more than enough of America who are willing to fight to keep its right to bear arms.

[gabrielle]

(06-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Odin Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

The difference is that Australia and New Zealand were given their independence from Britain while the US fought a violent armed rebellion to get our independence. The notion that we might have to take up arms against oppressive rulers in ingrained into American culture by our very history.

Yes, but were we always this fanatical about gun ownership freedoms?  My conservative, Republican-voting 84 year old father would be considered a gun-grabbing liberal by many people who live in our red state, for believing that semi auto assault rifles should be banned (he himself owns a few guns; a handgun and some old rifles).  Ronald Reagan, the conservative icon, supported the assault weapon ban and the creator of the AR-15 himself did not intend his weapon for civilian use--he did not even own one himself.

[Classic-Xer]

(06-16-2016, 10:29 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 09:54 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 12:26 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 03:22 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Second Amendment provides for states to have their own militias (National Guard, state police).

You might want to look at what an English professor has to say on the language of the Second Amendment.  If you had bothered to understand the history of the American Revolution then you would know that it was about making sure that the new government would not have a monopoly on the use of force.  Thomas Jefferson was very clear about the purpose of the Second Amendment.  It was about the individual being able to defend themselves from the random criminal and an oppressive government.  This implies that the citizens must have arms equivalent to the infantry.

And what is really bizarre about that notion is you and your militia buddies would last about 3 minutes against a platoon of Army troops, much less against a couple of Marines.  This isn't the late 1700s.

True it's not the 1700's. Our weaponry is far more advanced and deadly. You must assume that the US military would remain loyal and intact. I assume that the military would remain loyal to their own (friends, family and their community or home) and spit accordingly. I don't think the left actually has what it would take to win a war with the right.

Sorry to disappoint your wet dream, but it would not roll out that way.

Most active military are either far from their families, and worried about their 'brothers', or they have their families on base. 

But it will never get to that point.  It won't be Civil War redux; it will be a few Wacos and Burns incidents with a few of you shot dead but most of you simply going to federal prison for a couple of decades.  I'm way okay with that - make this country a lot more pleasant in nearly countless number of ways.

I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.

[Classic-Xer]

(06-16-2016, 11:14 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 03:59 PM)Odin Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 01:00 PM)taramarie Wrote: Learn to spell Australia correctly. Australia has more common sense than America can ever dream of that is why it works over there and here. In America it won't. Why? Because the culture is different. Americans obsess over their guns. Even I know that. Because of that desire to own a variety of different guns it will not work. Ideally I would like for autos and semi autos to be banned. Ones that allow for one to mow down a crowd easily. High rate of fire guns. But when i hear of people saying they will have to take my gun out of my cold dead hands i realize it just will not work. People love their guns in America on a whole different level than the rest of the western world. Kiwis, Aussies and the British do not have the same passion on the whole for them and that is why it works here. Culture makes it work. You take away guns in America and i know from what i hear from republicans they will declare it an act of war. Do i like it....nope but that is reality.

The difference is that Australia and New Zealand were given their independence from Britain while the US fought a violent armed rebellion to get our independence. The notion that we might have to take up arms against oppressive rulers in ingrained into American culture by our very history.

Yup different history so it shaped a culture that solves problems by murder.

Americans are largely defiant by nature. That's what separates us from the European's and the rest of the world. I'm proud to say that I'm an American and I'm proud to be directly associated with American heritage.

[Galen]

(06-16-2016, 08:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-16-2016, 07:53 AM)Odin Wrote: Here's a good post on Democratic Underground about the absurdity of the gun debate and the term "assault weapon".




These are functionally the exact same gun and yet only the top one is an evil "assault weapon".

In general I'm with you, but there are some features on the assault weapon that aren't really called for when the enemy isn't shooting back.  The lower gun is bolt action, resulting in a slower rate of fire.  It has no removable magazine, making it slower to reload, and making it impossible to shop for a larger magazine.  It has no bipod.  Is that a shock absorber on the back of the top weapon?  When hunting deer, does one worry about repeated impacts to the shoulder?

You need to pay closer attention, they are both bolt action rifles.  There are also bolt action rifles with detachable box magazines.

[Eric the Green]

The Second Amendment should be repealed, or else again interpreted to apply only to members of a well-regulated militia, which in our time is such things as the National Guard and the police. I won't fully get my way on that for decades at least. I think it will happen, but that's my idealism and my vision. I close my eyes, and I can see a better day. If repealed, that would not necessarily outlaw gun ownership. That would still be up to the people to pass the laws they choose. But it would legalize gun bans if the people chose them. Again, I am cautious about that when it comes to regular guns. Not about assault weapons and other military stuff. But I am against using force to take guns away, if their owners want to fight and shoot them in order to keep them in their cold, dead hands. That is like washing blood off with blood.

[Eric the Green]

(06-16-2016, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I agree that it will never get to that point. The Democrats would cave before we ever get to that point. The Democrats have to much on the line and far more to loose than gain. Soldiers are more connected to their families today than they've ever been in the past. You should wake up and come to grips with the reality of living today. You do understand that the war would be a war against the progressive Democrats. Defeating the progressive Democrats in a  war isn't very hard to figure out once you're familiar with them and understand their weakness's. The Democrats have a lot of weakness's. BTW, it isn't a wet dream on mine. It's just a reality that I'm able to identify and see very clearly.

Playwrite is exactly right; that's what I predict too. It may last longer than one Waco, but that's basically what will happen. Defeating the progressive Democrats will not be so easy if they have the support of the people. They will, in that case, have the law and the army on their side. I don't know what any of this has to do with how close soldiers are to their families. What relevance is that? All people are close to their families. Progressive Democrats just want a fair society with a strong middle class. Conservative Republicans want an unjust society owned and operated for the benefit of the 1%. So once the spell of the trickle-down and self-reliance slogans is fully broken, there's no doubt which side the people will be on. And there's little doubt about which side the young people of the 4T (as opposed to those of the 3T) are taking.