"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

[Scuba]

[billh58]

1. K & R!

Thanks for sharing...

[Warpy]

2. And we want PEOPLE to take out liability insurance

to cover any damage they do with their guns and to cover their theft by bad guys.

[billh58]

3. But that would infringe

on my Second Amendment rights to have a secret, concealed, big, shiny, loud gun with lots of bullets that nobody knows about, so I can sell it to anyone I want without any gubmint interference, so that they can use it for anything they want. You damned grabber you...

[supernaut]

4. Alright

Just as soon as you have to take out libel insurance to exercise your 1st amendment rights.

[billh58]

6. You DO know where you are

don't you? You have the audacity to bring that NRA bullshit to this group? You've already been shot down on the other OP you posted, so are you going for a record?

Get a grip Dude...

[Warpy]

7. I will when I publish a newspaper, novel, or magazine.

Or didn't you look that word up?

[supernaut]

8. Uh

Libel and liability are not the same thing.

[enlightenment]

26. Warpy isn't the one who is

definition challenged here.

[billh58]

10. Sometimes it's just not

worth the effort...

[Scuba]

9. Take your NRA bullshit elsewhere.

[norge]

30. An Appalling Lack of Civility Here

Scuba, why do you feel the need to be so hostile? Is no one allowed to believe in gun control, but think that requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance might be going too far? So that if someone agrees with your viewpoint in all but that single issue, you respond with "Take your NRA bullshit elsewhere". What a sad commentary on the idea that this could be a forum for a civilized discussion. With all due respect to your right to respond as you see fit, I must say that your response brings to mind the image of a right-wing religious fundamentalist preacher that tells his congregation "Believe and think and do exactly as I say, right down to the Nth degree, or you are condemned to Hell! I cast you out from this church!" Is this really the message you want to convey?

[lastlib]

31. Civility is a language inherently alien to bullet-heads.

Please read the SOP. Ask an adult to explain it to you, if the words are too big. Then vamoose. Exit--stage right.

[ellisonz]

17. ^^^^

Blocked

[CreekDog]

29. and PPR'd now too...like so many at DU who get blocked here then PPR'd shortly after

it sure is an obvious pattern of trolling.

[freshwest]

5. But, but, what about...

Gun Control - Are our "babies" safe?

Leave our babies alone!

[appal_jack]

11. Are you renouncing future AWB's & magazine limits?

Seems like there has been a lot of talk about banning certain guns &/or firearms features here at DU. Are you, Scuba, renouncing future AWB's & magazine limits? Because then we might find some common ground.

I can get on board with most or all of what your graphic advocates (depending, of course, on the details), but I'd have to hear that you & your side are finally, really, ready to quit advocating for failed policies such as magazine limits and 'assault weapons' bans.

-app

[Scuba]

12. You're in the wrong forum....

... this one is for people who want to rein in the gun violence. Please take your bullshit elsewhere.

[appal_jack]

13. So, asking questions is forbidden here?

I found this post via the "Greatest Threads" Page, and just assumed it was another GD post. Is asking questions such as I did really forbidden here?

Forgive me for disrupting the sonorous harmony of your precious echo-chamber hidey hole, oh "delicate flower," as some on one side of the RKBA debate are particularly fond of saying.

On edit- Sarcasm and my own error aside, I asked my first question above in a spirit entirely consistent with the purpose of this group. I'm as against gun violence as anyone here, and will gladly sign-on to measures that actually reduce gun violence while also respecting Americans' rights. If gun control advocates want to advance legislation, there will have to be some horse trading (not to mention respect for the Constitution). That's politics. So, do you want to ban guns or not? An answer of "yes" will mean that your legislation will likely continue to fail.

-app

[Scuba]

15. Your premise was that if one is for background checks, one must not also be for magazine limits.

That's bullshit.

[DanTex]

18. If you think magazine capacity limits are unconstitutional, you are definitely in the wrong place.

Try FreeRepublic. Thanks for playing.

[appal_jack]

19. It's you who are confused, Dan.

Last edited Sun Apr 28, 2013, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm proud to be pro-free-speech, pro-diversity, pro-choice, pro-privacy, pro-union, pro-organic, pro-environment, pro-due-process, pro-safety-net, pro-equality, pro-public-infrastructure, & a registered Democrat since 1989. Why would you really think freepers are my type?

The fact that I respect a codified right that sits between the First and Third Amendments in our Constitution in no way disqualifies me as a liberal. And consistent with the SOP of this group, I asked about priorities and legislative steps toward reducing gun violence. I happen to think it can be done most effectively without straying into the "shall not be infringed" territory of magazine capacities.

For the sake of the group, I'll voluntarily refrain from joining other threads here at GCRA. But I'm very happy being a long-time DU member, thank you very much. I posit that the Democratic Party needs rural liberal/libertarian-inclined Democrats like myself at least as much as it needs any other similarly-numbered constituency. The fact that we have the Bill of Rights on our side also helps.

-app

[DanTex]

20. The belief that magazine limits are unconstitutional puts you well to the right of Scalia.

Even the belief that the second amendment deals with personal gun ownership outside of militia service puts you at odds with history, since this is a relatively new piece of right-wing judicial activism.

But I'm glad you have progressive views on other issues besides guns.

On edit: being pro-environment, pro-union, pro-safety-net, and pro-infrastructure are not libertarian views. Libertarians oppose those things for the same reasons they oppose gun control.

[appal_jack]

21. Regarding the new, & the effective.

Prior to the 1930's, the Federal government did not take an active role in RKBA issues. What is even newer than the "belief that the second amendment deals with personal gun ownership outside of militia service" is the Democratic Party's embrace of gun control. Before the 1960's, gun control was pretty much the province of segregationists and racists of either party. Indeed, I contend that Reagan's CA gun control efforts were primarily racist in intent, &, obviously, Republican-led.

I think that we can agree that the tragic assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Harvey Milk, etc. of those times (too many to name) deserved a response, as do the violent tragedies that have happened in the US since. Given that many of these early tragedies happened with bolt action rifles and revolvers, I do not feel that progress was or will be made via hardware restrictions. I believe that a re-prioritization of law enforcement efforts (away from all victimless crimes & toward stopping violence), and targeted programs to alleviate poverty and improve mental health services are the way to go.

Since the late 1960's and the Democratic Party's embrace of gun control, Democrats have almost only won the Presidency when guns were not a big part of the national conversation. Clinton's 1996 victory (post 1994 AWB) is a notable exception, but his second term was hardly inspiring or exemplary on any front. Gun control issues did play a significant role in the defeats of Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, unfortunately. How many more elections are worth losing over this?

-app

[appal_jack]

22. Regarding liberalism, & libertarianism.

I of course agree that "being pro-environment... pro-safety-net, and pro-(public)infrastructure are not libertarian views," which is one of many reasons why I would never describe myself as a (capital-L) "Libertarian." The American experiment is one of constant tension & dynamism between personal freedom and social responsibility. I find that my own ideal balance between the two requires drawing from the rich traditions of liberalism & libertarianism both. My libertarian side comes out front when it comes to the surveillance state, the war on (some) drugs, attempts to deny due process, restrictions on speech, etc. On the environment, the safety net, public schools, roads, research, etc., I am solidly & proudly liberal.

I would say that workers organizing among themselves to broker a fair value for their labor (i.e.- unionism) should be very compatible with libertarianism, even if "Libertarians" are in denial about this. Of course, denial about corporate power and the social privilege that comes with wealth are the huge blind spots of "Libertarianism."

-app

[Mwc33]

25. Name calling all you have?

Or isthere a rational argument hiding someplace?

[billh58]

27. Well. aren't you the

persistent one? A new name with the same old NRA bullshit. Can't take a hint, can you?

[In_The_Wind]

32. Hey ~ Mwc33

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[billh58]

14. And yet another Gungeoneer

is heard from with the "let's do it my way, or no deal" argument. Fail.

On Edit: The answer to your question, at least from my point of view, is that no we are NOT "renouncing" those things that you whine about. What we ARE renouncing is the NRA and its apologist "cold dead hands" supporters, and the continued unfettered proliferation of guns on our streets, with absolutely no accountability.

[Paladin]

23. Well said. (nt)

[gcomeau]

28. You nean bans/limits on *PEOPLE* owning those things? -eom