Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: When Will We Stop Cars - Scratch That - GUNS, From Killing People?

Posted 1 year ago on April 1, 2013, 6:18 p.m. EST by LeoYo (5843)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

When Will We Stop Cars - Scratch That - GUNS, From Killing People?

Monday, 01 April 2013 15:19 By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann Program | News Analysis


In April of 2009, the Department of Homeland Security released a report entitled, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

The report detailed the rise in right-wing extremist activity in America that included, “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

The report said that the "Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines 'rightwing extremism in the United States' as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority."

The report was solid, factual, matter-of-fact, and an honest attempt by the DHS to start a discussion about a very real homegrown terrorist thread. And, because of that, it outraged Conservatives. House Speaker John Boehner, reacting to a tsunami of calls and emails from viewers of Fox News, listeners to right-wing radio, and readers of right-wing websites, slammed the report.

In a very public statement, Boehner demanded that DHS chief Janet Napolitano provide an “explanation for why she has abandoned using the term ‘terrorist’ to describe those, such as al Qaeda, who are plotting overseas to kill innocent Americans, while her own Department is using the same term to describe American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation.”

The report received so much heat from the right that Napolitano was forced to withdraw it, although a similar report on left-wing extremism – radical and violent environmentalists, for example – drew no similar rebuke and was not withdrawn.

While kids like Aaron Schwartz face decades in jail, right-wing extremist groups have apparently been overlooked by the federal government.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that gun-toting members of far-right extremist groups are now coming out of the woodwork and murdering government officials.

On Saturday night, Texas district attorney Mike McLelland and his wife Cynthia were shot to death in their home in Kaufman County, Texas, becoming the latest victims in a recent string of shootings of government and law enforcement officials.

The deaths of McLelland and his wife come just two months after a Kaufman Country assistant district attorney was shot and killed, which led to suspicions that law enforcement officials were being target by a white supremacist group.

And, authorities are now looking into whether or not McLelland’s slaying is related to the shooting death of Colorado prisons chief Tom Clemons, who was shot and killed by a member of a white supremacist group just a few weeks ago.

While little is known yet over the circumstances in the McLelland shooting, the Denver Post reported this past Thursday that the gun used to shoot and kill Clemons was bought by a straw purchaser. Clemons’ killer, Evan Ebel, was a white supremacist gang member and felon, who was barred under federal law from purchasing and possessing a gun.

So, Ebel had 22-year-old Stevie Marie Vigil go to a gun store for him, and legally purchase the gun that he used to kill Clemons.

Using a straw purchaser is one of the most common ways criminals get their hands on firearms, and this is mostly because straw purchasers face few if any punishments for their actions.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reports that straw purchasing of guns is the single most common method by which firearms move between the legal and illegal gun market. Similarly, an ATF study showed that 46% of guns related to illegal gun trafficking involved straw purchasers.

When straw purchasers do get caught, like in the case of Stevie Marie Vigil, the penalties for legally purchasing a gun and then giving or selling it to someone else are extremely weak.

Speaking about the Clemons murder case, Brad Beyersdorf, spokesman for the ATF Denver field office, told the Denver Post that, “There’s little-to-no punishment for being a straw purchaser. Gang members know it, drug trafficking organizations know it.”

So how do we fix this major loophole, and stop the epidemic of straw purchasing firearms?

Let’s start treating guns like cars.

Had Stevie Marie Vigil purchased a cheap used car for a 14-year-old boy and given him the keys, and that boy then proceeded to run down and kill someone, Vigil would be facing an automatic charge of manslaughter or accessory to manslaughter in almost every state.

This is just common sense.

Yet there are no serious laws against putting a gun in the hand of another person, even if they use that gun to kill somebody. To the contrary, the NRA and gun manufacturers have made sure that any attempt at such serious felony laws are replaced by weaker misdemeanor laws.

Like cars, guns should be registered from the time they're manufactured to the time they're destroyed, so there's a detailed chain of ownership.

Similarly, anyone who owns a gun should be required to have liability insurance, so if they accidentally or intentionally injure or kill somebody, the victim or the victim’s family will receive monetary damages.

Just look at the Newtown tragedy.

If those 20 children had been murdered by a drunk or crazed driver, Geico or some other insurance company would be paying millions out to their families.

But because they were killed with guns, the victims’ families are receiving nothing, not even burial expenses, for undergoing one of the most unthinkable and horrifying tragedies imaginable.

Finally, anyone who wants to purchase a gun should have to have an operator’s license, like all car drivers do. And, they should have to undergo a gun proficiency test, similar to a driver’s test, to get that license.

We started car registration, licensing, and insurance back in the 1920s, when cars got fast enough and abundant enough that they started killing people. We realized we needed to put some accountability into the chain of ownership.

People may say that there's no right to have cars on roads in the Constitution, but they're wrong – it's in Article 1, Section 8, where Congress is given the specific power to raise and spend tax money to create roads. It became the law of our land years before the Second Amendment was passed.

No rights are absolute. We limit the right to drive with licensure. We limit the right to free speech with rules against yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, and by limiting certain forms of pornography. These are all common-sense limitations, and it's time to put common-sense limitations on the right to own a gun.

With this simple step, when right-wing terrorists start to use “Second Amendment Remedies” to remove government workers they don't like, we'll at least be able to more easily track them back and hold them accountable. And some may even think twice before they begin building their own personal armories.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

I was in a accident. Somebody stupid hit me with a car while I was standing innocently at a red light.I was ready to yell out to the world CARS ARE DANGEROUS! , but before I could the insurance company paid me off, and I shut up.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Law enforcement nationwide should be disbanded. They are nothing but crooks and protectors of the criminal elite. If you listened to law enforcement speak in the 90's by now we should be over run with gangs in suburbia and facing the complete decline of society due to high potency marijuana uses grip on society. They are nothing but hacks looking to keep their jobs. They don't do shit for the average citizen accept write them a ticket. FUCK THE POLICE.

[-] 3 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

So who you gonna call when you’re robbed or assaulted? Maybe your local militia?

When I hear someone make blanket anti-cop statements I think they were arrested at some time and now hate all cops all the time. Face it. Cops are generally the good guys.

[-] 3 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Cops are like any other profession- a few bad ones ruin the rep for the bunch.

that being said, the militarization of the police is a bit disturbing and Ive noticed a trend towards treating us as if we were in Iraq as opposed to being there for the people.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

that is bullshit. it is far more than a few bad ones it is more like the few good ones. cause that is all there is a few good ones. most cops are pigs or hacks plain and simple.

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

What leads you to believe that? I’m an old man. Never been arrested. Had a few traffic tickets, but that’s it. I didn’t like getting the tickets but I admit deserved them. The cops were professional at all times.

It is bullshit to claim most cops are bad seeds. Not even close to being true. I think maybe you were doing something have been doing and got caught. Now you don’t like them because they didn’t say please and thank you.

[-] 0 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

I generally agree with you. But I think the militarization of the police is probably justified. In some respects, at least in some places, we are close to being like Iraq.

I agree with cops treating everyone as a suspect. Somehow that’s probably due to the nature of the job.

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The fact that its justified is due to the ever increasing amount of laws htey are enforcing, in what the people are led to believe is a free society.

You cannot have the supply and demand issues that our country has, and expect the cops to go out and stop it, especially when congress is fine with the money and the murders. Its a no win for the cops. hence they go sour.

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

That’s actually quite a good post. Enjoyable to read. But I don’t have any solutions.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

whats the purpose of calling someone when you get mugged at gun point? they show up 45 minutes later and file a report. whats the purpose of calling cops after you got beat up? what are they going to do stop the fight?

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

The cops may be able to arrest the criminal and prevent additional crimes. Also, If you have a gun to protect yourself maybe you can prevent yourself from being robbed, hurt or killed. There is a saying that says “When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away”. That’s why I carry a gun.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

if i was carrying a gun i would have ended up dead.

[-] 2 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

We're all gonna die someday. Don't live in fear.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i don't live in fear hence i don't carry a gun.

[-] 3 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

I guess that makes even. I don’t live in fear because I carry a gun.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

actually you live in fear thus you carry a gun. pussy.

[-] 3 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

Oh good grief, settle down. No need for name calling. You live your life and I'll live mine.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

it hurts cause its true.

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

How would you know? You have no idea even if I'm a man or woman, if I'm young or old, rich or poor. You're just calling names because you don't like my opinions. I recommend you get used to it, your gonna run into a lot of people who don't agree with you in life.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

the people that i meet in life that don't share my general point of view are either stupid or ignorant.

[-] 0 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

If the nation was under attack would you not want to serve. I’m an old draftee. I hated every minute I was in the military, but in the long run it was one of the best things I’ve ever done.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

probably not.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

If someone points a gun at you, you could always just take the fuking thing - but I guess you never considered that . . .

[-] 2 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

I don’t need his gun. I already have one.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

r34lly? well, as it happens, I have two . . .

naturally you will suspect that I am simply engaged in that most childish of games, one upmanship, which is most surely not the case. I could, I suppose, surround this day's news paper with the various implements of violence currently in my possession, take a pic, and post on my website, with a link from here . . . . but why . . . .

That would simply lend credence to the rumor that I am mad . . . .

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

Well now, if we’re doing one upmanship. I own a few guns. Not as many as I used to since I seldom hunt anymore. I’ve always felt everyone should own five basic guns. A shotgun, a bolt-action hunting rifle, a revolver and a good hi capacity pistol and a small pocket pistol. Some would add a AR-15 to the list, but my .308 bolt action works well for me.

… and I’m not even a gun nut (anymore). I just have a basic set of guns that should be sufficient in most situations. As for being mad. I agree with you, I’ve read some of your posts. :) Anyway, We all are in one way or another. It’s a mad world and being mad may be the only way to stay sane.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

why a revolver? Isn't that a bit redundant given the other weapons on your list?

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

Because a revolver never fails. I’ve never seen one fail. No FTE’s or FTF’s. Plus I shoot it better than my pistols.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It happens . . .

[-] 2 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

Most revolver failures are bad ammo. Also, some revolvers have light primer strikes when they get old and the springs strech. I read cases like your example, but I haven’t personally experienced ANY revolver problems.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

many auto ftfs and ftes can be remedied simply by using the right ammo . . . the M-16 and its bad press was a classic example of that back in Nam.


[-] 0 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

Maybe you have a chance of taking it if he is right in front of you and you are trained in hand to hand combat.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago


fuk no

15 years ago, sure - now I'm just too old and slow. HOwever, If someone points a gun at me today they will quickly discover they are in deep shit, because they are just going to have to shot me.

[-] 1 points by Jamblack21 (-5) 1 year ago

If they are a serious criminal then they probably will.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Do serious criminals actually use guns?

I thought they all wore white collars and came armed with pens . . .

And just how much do these serious criminals of yours actually take home, on average . . . ?

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

The really serious criminals have private armies, like Al Q'aeda and Xe, formerly Blackwater mercenary.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Al Qaeda is an army . . .

So then you are not in favor of prosecution in civilian court, of these serious criminals . . .

Your repelican stripes are showing . . . .

think I'll call you . . .

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

The List is indeed an army.

Recruited and trained to repel the advancing red peril from the lucrative poppy fields of Afghanistan. Very effective they were, too.


[-] 0 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

Yep. I'm a senior citizen. I carry a gun because cops are too heavy to carry.


[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

This woman is not a Mensa member

you really shouldn't boast . . . .

[-] 0 points by freakzilla3 (-75) 1 year ago

and that was creepy. How many bodies have you buried in snowdrifts over the years?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

The courts over them are the real problem. When courts fail to decide civil rights cases constitutionally in police abuse cases, they feel empowered to continue and even escalate.

Cops have a low opinion of Americans that do not know this.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Why don't we drop the divisive issues that have nothing to do with OWS.

[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5843) 1 year ago

All issues are divisive. Post anything and there will be someone opposed to someone else over it for whatever reasons.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

There is a place for everything. I don't bring up legalizing MJ because it has nothing to do with getting money out of politics. The same applies with gun control. If we keep going off on tangents we will accomplish nothing. Especially when we drive potential supporters away.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5843) 1 year ago

There are several worthwhile OWS issues that have nothing to do with getting money out of politics such as moving accounts from banks to credit unions, occupying foreclosed homes, and the rolling jubilee. Many posted issues are simply to alert people to what's going on as everyone can't always come across such things as individuals reading the standard media. People will naturally focus and commit to the issues that are important to them as no level of divisiveness will detour their commitments. Potential supporters will do likewise. As such, whether it's money out of politics issues or other issues, everyone remains free to choose which issues to occupy most of their time with.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Occupy disagrees with you. Divest Wall st investment from gun mfg/nra.


They have decided it very much has something to do with us.

Join us! We need you!

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

I still don't see how this will help defeat the corruption of gov't. All this accomplishes is turn people away who agree with the core issues of occupy. Mainly getting corps outof gov't.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We are growing this great movement with every additional issue we take stand on and all the new individuals those new issues bring with them.

These new people come to occupy because they care about gun safety, or debt abolishment, or foreclosure prevention, or immigration reform, or labor rights, or gay rights, etc and so on.

Once here amongst us they learm about the 1st issue we took a stand on. Wall st corruption, and coopting ofthe peoples govt.

More issues, more people, more people, more pressure.

No one is turned away from the original effort. If someone walks away, they never had a true commitment. Seems kinda selfish and spoiled to do that. Not the personality type found amongst occupiers.

A real occupier looks at every new person as a possible supporter, someone to be converted.

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

This fractures the movement not strengthen. For every person who comes on board you lose someone else. You also waste time and energy by going off in a hundred different directions by attacking the symptoms andnot the root cause. If their is one issue everyone agrees with it is that our politics are corrupt. Instead of focusing on that we go after issues that might be meaningful but doesn't do a thing to confront the dangers of us losing our gov't.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

we MUST fight for change in many areas at once.

We cannot do what you want and only what you want. For every issue we bring in large groups of people. The job of the "govt is corrupted" working groups is to convince and convert all others to your thinking.

If you cannot that is your failure.

And we absolutely do NOT lose a person in the "govt is corrupt" group for every person that comes in for other issues. That is offensive.

Our supporters are dedicated people of integrity! Not spoiled little brats who storm off when they don't get everything they want.

What about you? You gonna walk away cause we fight for many things?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Point of Difference.

All directions = Wallstrteet Crime - Bought/rented government - Poverty/homelessness - Health care - Fracking for oil or natural gas - Greed-Profits over People/environment/world - etc etc etc - are all gathering points for the public to embrace.

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

Just more anti-gun diatribe. In all the fear mongering about guns, over 80 million legal gun owners have never hurt anyone, never committed a crime and honest hard working members of the 99%. To suggest anyone who owns a gun is lunatic fringe group member just isn’t true.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5843) 1 year ago

Where exactly is such a suggestion made in the article?

[-] 2 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

I assume you’re joking. The entire article was an inference that gun owners are lunatic fringe group members.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5843) 1 year ago

No, such a generalization is in no way inferred from the article.

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

The first few paragraphs talk about the increase in right wing extremist groups. Including the DHS report on such groups and mentioning the Kaufman county Texas and the Colorado killings being done by an extremist group.

Then it changes the subject and talks about licensing guns in the last half of the article.

Seems pretty clear to me the author was trying to relate hate groups with gun owners. Basically saying if we had more gun restrictions we’d have less gun crime. So, how does he reach the conclusion that placing more restrictions of legal gun owners reduce crime?

[-] 0 points by LeoYo (5843) 1 year ago

The author of the article made no connection between right-wing extremist groups and general gun owners. In fact, the author is very specific in singling out such groups along with special interest groups while targeting the need to restrict criminal access to guns.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Somewhere around 10,000 gun owners (some legal, some not) WILL hurt and likely kill someone in the next year.

When is enough, enough?

The criminals in the "pro-gun" camp, not the "anti-gun" camp. The criminals agree with people who want to preserve gun rights and the 2nd amendment. They need someone to make the guns, so that they can aquire them illegally(some legally) and then kill people.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Criminals get guns from stores? Really? What makes you say Criminals get guns legally... Americans normally don't want to sell guns to people that look like criminals or look like they are hiding something. You are talking about American men mostly... If you go to a gun show, I don't see how it is so easy to find someone to sell to you even 20 years ago... if you look like a wacko.

What is your source of information that make you so sure that criminals can buy from legal sources in the USA.?

Recently I spoke to some pro-gun people making the point that they never talk about killing Liberal Politicians or journalists. But ... they way they see it, Liberals talk about killing GOP or Conservative Politicians.

I'm just listening now to see if it is true. I'm pretty sure there is Vitriol on both sides. I don't like conservative authority figures generally. But I don't like Liberal Law Makers that don't know what they are talking about either. We have Liberals that are not progressive in Washington DC. We have Liberals that are Elitist. We have Liberals that are voting to pass laws ... just as GOP people ... and both camps seem bought off to me.

Remember under Clinton ... the Dems and the Reps both take corporate dollars and came under complete control of people that deregulate the banks, protect banking criminals, support war in Afghanistan, fund mercenaries in Iraq, and assassinate people in countries in over 140 countries around the world. oh, by the way there is no NCLU under the Patriot Act and NDAA.

Where are the democrats on the NCLU and Individual Rights.? The country is lost. There is no democracy. It is over. Progressive government is a European thing not an American thing.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

When did I say that criminals get their guns from stores? I said that nearly all guns are manufactured legally here in the US. Criminals generally aren't making their weapons en masse.

Also, this gun debate is completely a political in the context of American politics. Both parties are pro 2nd amendment and neither wants to prevent gun violence.

I not only want it to be illegal to own and/or posses guns but also to manufacture guns.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

LOL. Yes, I knew I was overstating. But I still can't tell what you were trying to say. I think I must have problems with short sentences. I know I don't always use subject-object type sentences... but I seem to lack a skill in guessing what people are saying.

Thanks for laying it out above for me. I suppose making guns for ourselves is like mixing dangerous chemicals in your house... when there is the possibility of an explosion.

My take on gun laws is that the smart laws have been put in place long ago. Most of what I hear in terms of new laws won't stop deaths in the US, won't stop murders, and probably helps criminals and black marketeers of guns. I see gun prohibitions as likely to fail and lead to more crime and violence....

There is a lot of Gun bans in Central America and Mexico... doesn't seem to protect people at all. Looks like new gang members execute someone as an initiation to get into a drug gang.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The problem with gun "bans" in mexico and central america is that most (not all) of those guns are manufactured in the united states. You gotta enforce gun prohibition for it to be effective and it must also be universal. That is what I thought this thread was addressing, but inclusionman has made it clear that this thread is not about gun abolition. Gun "control" is like "controlled" substances. These substances are not outlawed or banned, they are simply "controlled" by the government. To prevent gun murders we need to rid the equation of guns. Because we cannot (and should not) imprison paranoids and patriots who want to shoot first and ask questions later, we must rid these people of their guns; or better yet, get them to rid thierselves of guns.

Confescation of guns will also not work because for this to work the government must also destroy it's guns. The US government is the worlds most prolific gun owner and it is the leader in furthering the gun problem.

Gun abolition needs to be a common law solution that doesnt require new laws.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I see what you are saying. I'm not sure that paranoids and patriots are a big problem... it is just that when they have a weapon like a knife, machete, or sword they can easily do damage (doesn't have to be a gun). If you looked at the FBI Violent Death Data ... setting aside suicides which arguably are self choice .. and setting aside accidents with guns which fall into the unpreventable area of all kinds of accidents ... I think the number of hand gun homicides by civilians is equal to the murder by knives, blunt objects, beaten to death by hands or feet, etc... And remember could be a lot of the death is a spouse who could use a different weapon. And the drug gang killings probably won't stop because their are psychological elements: like losing face, macho personality, and sociopathic personality...

I know I won't change your mind about Guns being the cause. But killing is part of human behavior... probably we can't wipe it out. And I don't think we can stop suicide either. The most likely perp of Rape or murder is someone known to the victim... not a random paranoid or a patriot.

But I support your right to free speech. You make sense to me. Death is a natural part of the circle of life.... but we have values for life, youth, and beauty. We don't like death and we don't like to see people die young.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I just think we have different rationales for the same conclusion. Guns arent the "cause' per se because they are not independent sentiant beings. The person behind the gun is the "cause" de facto, while the gun itself is the tool for the person to carry out the violence.

I personally dont fear death. What I fear is not being free.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Possibly we are in an accord to borrow words from Johnnie Depp.

Anyway, you may be free-er than me. I have some hang-ups. So best of luck to you, best of freedom, best of liberty.... I will likely struggle with the crap that society has given me.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I was born free and I intend to live forever free.

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

OK, Let’s take a different approach. Guns have been debated to death on this forum, I doubt anyone has changed their mind. So, here are the facts:

  1. The assault weapon ban is DOA. Nothing will happen at the federal level.
  2. The magazine capacity limit is DOA. Nothing will happen at the federal level.
  3. Universal background checks is still up for grabs. But the odds are it will not pass at the federal level.
  4. Three states didn’t wait on the Feds. California, New York and Colorado have passed stricter gun legislation. All three are being contested in the court.
  5. About twelve states have proposed state level legislation that would make it illegal to enforce any new federal gun legislation.
  6. A number of law enforcement agencies have publically stated they will not enforce any new gun restrictions.

So, gun restrictions aren’t trending toward more legislation. In fact my State will pass open carry of a gun this month.

No point in continuing to argue it. You won’t change your mind and I won’t change my. So what’s the point in arguing about it. Guns are here to stay; and no additional federal gun restrictions are on the horizon. I understand you don’t like guns, and that’s OK with me. But since I’m a law abiding citizen and a member of the 99% I’d prefer you just leave me alone on gun rights.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

The fact is that gun murders will continue to occur about 11000 times a year or so. That is 3 or 4 people a day.

Our government has screwed the pooch on this one big time.

[-] 0 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

Government screwed up on this? I guess it depends on your personal view. But thinking any of the new proposed gun restrictions would reduce gun crime or violence is naive.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I want gun abolition not ineffective "restrictions".

Only abolition will stop people with guns.

[-] 1 points by Narley (-629) 1 year ago

HA!, good one, I needed a chuckle on a cold dreary day. It'll never happen, at least not in the forseeable future. You're pissing in the wind.

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I know that I'm pissing to the wind, but that just means the pro-gun folks are pissing on the dead bodies of 11000 human beings each year.

Don't expect gun murders to disappear.

[-] 0 points by reggielove (-5) 1 year ago

Where do you get the 10,000 number from?

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

That is a rough average of how many humans get killed every year in america by guns.


[-] -1 points by reggielove (-5) 1 year ago

It's the lunatic fringe that's after gun confiscation , which they call gun control.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

really? I had not heard that. Yet it has been said that I, myself, am a member of that illustrious and shiny chapeau wearing mass of humanity . . . yet never let it be said that I am a conservative . . .

And I do not advocate gun confiscation, unless it be yours . . . .

[-] -1 points by reggielove (-5) 1 year ago

If i had a gun why would you want to confiscate it?

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (13470) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Why? Why?

because . . . . if you think it is the lunatic fringe that is after gun confiscation, then clearly you are mad and should not be in possession of such dangerous tools . . ..


[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

what you say is true, but the ows operatives have their talking points and they will never divert from them. their job is to further agenda and thats what they do, 24/7.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

So you are not an OWS supporter.

What "does" that make you?

[+] -4 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

a person capable of critical thinking.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You may or may not be capable of critical thinking. You are not an OWS supporter - so - what are you doing on an OWS forum? Besides looking to get kicked in the ass.


[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

how tolerant of you.

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

he isnt impeding your ability to speak........

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

No thinkers in OWS? I have met some libertarians that would make your msm nonsense look like a first grader wrote it.

Keep following a blind talking head. That outta work out well.

The less dumb Dem and Rep supporters we have, the better.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You're talkin' about stupidity and you misspelled 'ought to' or 'oughtta'.

Just sayin' No biggie, I'm sure everyone knew what you meant.

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I have a Rochester accent, not a brooklyn one :) Take yours and combine it with Canada....thats what you get. Lots of harsh A's.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Very good, My bad. Never can be sure of spelling slangy words.


[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Would you rather they follow your agenda? Are they not allowed to follow thier own moral compass?

[-] -2 points by greysone (-264) 1 year ago

The Constitution is my " agenda". "They" do not have a moral compass. "They" have a script .

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

They could say the same thing about you.

You continually defend gun rights and the second amendment despite the fact that about 11000 people a year die because it is legal to manufacture guns in this country.


[-] -2 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 1 year ago

Apparently you are not that familiar with firearm ownership nor are you familiar with any state laws regarding firearm ownership.

I would suggest you educate yourself about both subjects before you decide to post comments on these subjects.

You like most people who think firearms are the problem have no clue about people who own firearms nor do you have a clue as to the state/federal laws that are already in place.

[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5843) 1 year ago

If you would like to point out where the article puts forth erroneous statements, you're certainly welcome to do so.

[-] 0 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 1 year ago

First off there are "federal laws" on the books dealing with "straw purchases" regardless of which state - and the laws aren't weak as a matter of fact they aren't even being enforce.

Next - there are quite a few states that do require "firearms training programs". Look at all the states that have the most stringent firearms ownership laws and then look at the murder rate - goes hand in hand - NY, California to name two states.

Lastly - Do you really think a person who wants to "illegally own" a firearm will go through the legal process - NOT!

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5843) 1 year ago

Where does the article state that there aren't any "federal laws" dealing with "straw purchases"?

Where does the article describe any "laws" as being "weak"?

Where does the article state that there aren't "quite a few states" to require "firearms training programs"?

Where is it suggested that a person who wants to "illegally own" a firearm will go through the legal process?

[-] -1 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 1 year ago

Great questions - however what does you post want to accomplish other then making it sound like we need more laws with regard to firearms when in fact that isn't the problem.

Now if you stated that we need to focus more on why the younger generation is violent and how to treat that desease then I would agree with that.

But stating "When will we stop "guns" from killing people you make it sound like the gun is the problem when in fact it's not.

We have a "youth violence desease" in this coutry that needs to be addressed.

[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5843) 1 year ago

The title of the article is the author's. The author's point is that gun ownership should be no less federally regulated than automobile ownership as such regulation will aid against criminal violations.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

People who make and own guns are the problem. People kill people not guns.

What are gun owners so afraid of that they have to arm themselves and act violently?

LMG just wanted to stick gum on cameras whenever she got the chance and the people of OWS chastized her to high heaven. Yet, violence and guns are tolerated like neither do any harm.

The criminals are PRO-GUN, they want gun restrictions taken away just as much as you do.

[-] -1 points by Stormcrow1 (-25) 1 year ago

Hold on - where has it been proven that "legal gun owners" act violently.

Seems to me all the murders committed in the schools over the past years were not committed by "legal gun owners" but by people who shouldn't have been able to have access to guns because of their "mental desease"

And where have you polled "criminals" to make a comment that they want gun restrictions taken away?

It's the "youth violence desease" that needs to be addressed - lets focus on where the problem is.

I know a lot of people on this site don't want to hear that because they are part of that generation but the X and Y generation are one of the worst when it comes to being violent.

Look at the stats on the murders committed and you will see the vast majority are accomplished by young people - that cannot be denied.

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Hunters act violently, anyone who has defended themselves with a gun has acted violently, the US military(the world's most prolific legal gun owner) regularly acts violent, police also regularly behave violently.

Adam Lanza was a legal gun owner.

Our youth is regularly told that violence is glory-filled and honourable. We are told that if we are violent in the name of the state for 4 years, the govt will pay for our college and health care. We are given points for me more violent in our games And we are told that killing animals for sport is manly and fun.

The youth in this country are extremely fuck on the violence homefront.

Gen Y also has no say in this debate. There is not a single member of gen y in the us senate.