"Gabrielle Giffords Gun Control Super PAC Raises $6.5 Million"

[applegrove]

Gabrielle Giffords Gun Control Super PAC Raises $6.5 Million

by Paul Blumenthal at the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/gabrielle-giffords-gun-control-super-pac_n_3683118.html

"SNIP...................................



WASHINGTON -- The super PAC created by former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, former NASA astronaut Mark Kelly, to provide a counter-weight to the politically powerful National Rifle Association raised $6.5 million in its first six months of operation, according to a Federal Election Commission report filed Wednesday.

Unlike many other super PACs, Americans for Responsible Solutions received broad support from small and medium-sized donors. Tens of thousands of small donors giving less than $200 combined for a total $3.2 million to Giffords' group, and thousands of medium-sized donors giving under $1,000 accounted for slightly more than $1 million.

"We're really excited about what this means for us going forward," said Pia Carusone, executive director of Americans for Responsible Solutions. "It's clear that Americans have found a middle ground, and our hope is that Congress will listen to them instead of the gun lobby."

Though super PACs can accept contributions of unlimited size from corporations, unions and individuals, Americans for Responsible Solutions raised just $1.75 million from five- and six-figure donors. Overall, the group received more than 100,000 contributions from 72,420 donors.



.................................SNIP"

[CTyankee]

1. This is the future, gun folks. Get used to the new normal for you.

Don't be afraid. We are no going to hurt you. We just don't want you (in your actions) to hurt us, so we will politically disable your movement. It will soon be over. It is only a matter of time.

[billh58]

2. Gabby Giffords and her husband

are representatives of the majority of responsible American gun owners, and I am proud to be a contributor to their efforts. They are at the forefront of a growing movement of responsible Americans who have had more than enough of the daily gun violence which plagues our country.

The NRA is becoming politically marginalized, and responsible and sane gun regulation will replace the gunz-for-everyone mentality of the radical gun extremists who hide behind the Second Amendment.

[CTyankee]

3. I will gladly admit I am one who thinks the Second Amendment IS the problem and needs to be

gone from our Constitution or at least permanently moved to historical status only, a relic of the past that is interesting from the perspective of the way things were in the 18th century, but no longer is relevant in the 21st (and in fact is dangerous because of its misinterpretation).

Until that time I will do everything I can to politically marginalize it to irrelevancy through regulation.

[jimmy the one]

4. absolutely outdated

CtYankee: .. the Second Amendment IS the problem and needs to be gone from our Constitution or at least permanently moved to historical status only, a relic of the past that is interesting from the perspective of the way things were in the 18th century, but no longer is relevant in the 21st (and in fact is dangerous because of its misinterpretation).

Agree completely, but we are indeed connecticut yankees in king wayno's court.
I actually renounced this trumped up 2ndA right to bear arms a few months ago, on rkba board, & agree it's outdated antiquated & essentially worthless & more a hazard than any protection against harm, blah. And still I could go out & buy a stupid gun if I wanted, no '2ndA check' needed.

jimmy the one, march30,2013: I renounce & relinquish my alleged 2nd amendment right to keep & bear arms.
I no longer own any guns & I have no intention of owning any ever again (I only ever owned 2 longguns). The 2ndA means nothing to me as far as gun ownership.
I do not believe in the current 'individual rights' interpretation. The 2ndA in 1791 was written to provide arms for a militia common defense, and was subverted in 2008 by a modern day, politically motivated, rightwing supreme court, into an individual right to keep & bear arms, disconnected from militia service. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/12621722

[CTyankee]

5. sadly, we get the "pesky 2nd Amendment" song and dance from gun lovers here, which is why I am

in full pushback mode against that phrase. Rather than "pesky" I call it "pernicious." It's time they stop with the folksy "gee it's too bad but we've got that pesky 2nd A and well, that's just the way it is..."

I'm done with that argument.

[billh58]

6. I totally agree

that the Second Amendment is no longer necessary in our society. I am realistic enough, however, to know that it will take time to accomplish the demise of that "pesky" part of the Bill of rights. It will take a death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach, and I believe that has already begun to happen.

The fight begins with the surgical removal of the NRA from the political process, and their corrupt influence on our political system at all levels of government.

[CTyankee]

7. It is really evil when you remember how it used to be.

I grew up in Texas in the 50s and as much as Texans talk about their guns, it simply wasn't a problem like it is today. We never had guns and my relatives who did maybe went out dove hunting in September or something, nothing more than that. Guns just weren't that big a deal...

[jimmy the one]

8. gun hoarding

bill: I am realistic enough, however, to know that it will take time to accomplish the demise of that "pesky" part of the Bill of rights.

Thomas Jefferson didn't think the US constitution would last 19 years before needing a new one, figuring it would become outdated or unusable or america bankrupt. Yet here gunnuts think the 2ndA was planned to be everlasting. Can't understand why they worship it so. Maybe cause in mainland america, what else is there for average american to become but a 'home protector' even if that image is conjured up with phony premises by the gun lobby? people don't accept that a gun in the house is more dangerous to their family, until it bites.

CtYankee: I grew up in Texas in the 50s and as much as Texans talk about their guns, it simply wasn't a problem like it is today. We never had guns and my relatives who did maybe went out dove hunting in September or something, nothing more than that. Guns just weren't that big a deal

Same time different place; rifle owners were pretty much accepted in 60's as hunters & as home protectors with a handsome cabinet & no assault rifles or supermags, but handgun owners were generally held in suspicion unless they demonstrated bona fide need, like money carriers.
If you had a handgun you were considered suspect & a warning flag went up in people's minds, even if unwarranted. If neighbor owned several handguns parents didn't want their kids playing with their kids at their house, & some even advised walk on the other side of the street when you go past. They often tended to be racist minded too, dems too but politics has changed since then, repubs & dems sorta changing places in several aspects.
Now today, a gun owner owning 5+ guns is sorta like a 'basic' class, 10+ guns 'middlin', & 15 or more in the advanced class of gunnerdom. It's become a status symbol for some extreme gun owners. They had arsenal fees back then in 60's for that, like $200/yr for 15+ guns. This accounts, as you likely know, for the rise in gunsales, generally to the same people wanting more & more guns. Hoarding in a sense, for fear of the phantom govt boogeymen.
Some even think a gun's an investment which will appreciate in value, not realizing it takes a buyer to get a return, & who's gonna want a used or even pristine gun when they already got 10?
The silver lining is that personal gun ownership has declined from 60's from about 45% to 30%.

[Paladin]

9. You and CTYankee have accurate memories as to gun ownership in years past.

One deer rifle, one shotgun, and one .22 rifle, and people used to consider themselves well-armed. Pistols were for law enforcement types or felons, and if you had a military rifle, like, say, a 98 Mauser, you sunk some time, effort and money into "sporterizing" it, so that it resembled a Winchester Model 70 hunting rifle as near as possible, rather than a battlefield relic. There was an entirely different mindset that went with such firearms---a lot healthier mindset than we see on display these days, where ownership of any number of military-styled rifles and shotguns, and as many semi-auto pistols as possible, is the new template.

[CTyankee]

27. Honestly, I was going through my old photos, growing up in Texas...picture after picture

and not one gun....my father was really into aviation, which became big in Texas after WW2. My mother swimming with her friends, my brother and I opening Christmas presents (no gun toys that I can recall)...my cousin who hunted doves every September was never pictured with his hunting gun...nobody cradling, handling, posing with guns...actually, the only recollection of a gun that I have was the story of my aunt who would not let a visitor hold her pistol in her house by politely but firmly saying to her "Here, I'll put this up for you while you are here..." as she took it out of her hand. And this visitor was from Colorado (and considered unhinged by my family). We were city mice and but had country mice relatives and no one even talked about guns...

[Paladin]

28. Again, that's how I tend to remember things. Better times. (nt)

[Paladin]

57. What is healthier is the mindset and fantasies involving such changes.

Sporterizing that 98 into a gun resembling a Remington or Winchester bolt action rifle makes it a gun ready to take in the field for deer and other game animals. An unaltered 98 remains a war weapon, designed to kill human beings. The whole movement toward military-styled long guns and semi-auto pistols is part and parcel of the gun problem we face today. If you've got a gun designed to use against people, that's what you're going to be thinking of, even if you never follow through on such toxic thoughts. As always, daily proof of this disturbing trend is found in DU's Gun Control & RKBA group.

[Paladin]

60. This user recognizes willful obtuseness when he sees it. Bye-bye. (nt)

[billh58]

66. And yet another one

shows its true colors.

[billh58]

70. I'm not sure

that disruption has a distinctive color, but if it did you would be wearing it. Your pro-gun bias is very apparent and stands out in this Group whose goal is to stop the obscene proliferation of guns in this country.

On edit: Is it true that you carry a concealed lethal weapon in the woods?

[Marengo]

74. Never mind, it's not worth being contentious

[billh58]

75. I agree. n/t

[billh58]

71. I grew up in

Southern California and Hawaii, and guns (especially pistols) were virtually non-existent except for the police. As I grew older and began to travel around the country, I noticed that the more backward a region was, the more guns they tended to have, and the more they talked about them.

The proliferation of handguns in our society is exactly as you say -- a status symbol for the extremist paranoid.

[mwrguy]

31. The 2nd needs to be stripped from the constitution

There is no need for it in the 21st century.

[BainsBane]

10. Sounds like a good cause for Christmas and Holiday donations

[CTyankee]

11. Notice how there are NO "reasonable" gun owners here at DU who claim to be in favor of gun safety

regulation they approve of, i.e. background checks, HERE on this thread?

Is it because they wouldn't be caught dead in a "gun control" thread, no matter what? They "say" they are for those reasonable regulations and then they don't show in a thread about Gabby Giffords, who is a gun owner herself. Are they afraid of the moral power of Gabby's mere presence?

[billh58]

12. Actually, a few of them

are trying a different tactic lately. They are posing as "genuinely concerned" gun owners who want to have a "conversation" with gun control proponents and find common ground.

While walking the fine line between disruption, and following the SOP of this Group, they manage to slip in the standard NRA talking points in an unobtrusive manner. They are sly, but still very transparent and when called on their bullshit, they use the defense that "if I were violating the SOP, the Hosts would have already banned me." They know full well how to play the game and still infest this Group with NRA/Gungeon garbage.

They use give away phrases like "I just want to protect our citizens' 2A rights," and "I don't want to start an argument, but..." which they believe makes them sound sincere. The other dead give away is that they hardly ever deny having spouted Gungeon bullshit talking points, but hide behind "I follow the SOP for this Group" when confronted.

They are cowards for not being up front about their opposition to sane and reasonable gun control. This is the same mind-set that promotes the paranoid fear which they use to support obscene CCW and SYG laws, and the unfettered proliferation of guns across this nation.

[tumtum]

13. Talking about me again huh?

One more time, please post any NRA talking points I've posted in this Group, then I will gladly address them.

SYG? I come out against SYG and think every state should repeal them and go back to the standard Castle Doctrine laws that worked quite well.

CCW? Even though I have one, it wouldn't impact me in any appreciable way if it were repealed.

I'm for Universal Background Checks, registration of all firearms as long as protections were put in place to prevent government abuses, a national gunowners ID card, like the FOID in Illinois, national safe storage laws, stiffer penalties for the criminal misuse of a firearm.

Still think I'm spouting NRA talking points?

[CTyankee]

14. I also love the way they "reject" the NRA, often saying they were once members but no more.

Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that one...

[tumtum]

15. I reject the NRA,

I prefer the Liberal Gun Club. Great org., very level headed.

[CTyankee]

16. What is the Liberal Gun Club?

Does it have a Mission Statement?

[tumtum]

17. Here ya go.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a voice for gun-owning liberals and moderates in the national conversation on gun rights, gun legislation, firearms safety, and shooting sports. We serve as a national forum for all people, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, to discuss firearms ownership, firearms use, and the enjoyment of firearms-related activities free from the destructive elements of political extremism that dominate this subject on the national scale. We also actively develop and foster a variety of programs for the purpose of firearms training and firearms safety education, for both gun owners and non-gun owners.

[CTyankee]

19. Its position on universal background checks?

[tumtum]

20. In favor of.

Last edited Thu Aug 15, 2013, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

They're a really great alternative to the crazy RW gun organizations like the NRA, the GOA, they're not very well known yet, but we're working to change that.
They don't get the flash that the NRA does, and that's how they want it, they're working behind the scenes to try and enact some sensible firearms laws.

[CTyankee]

25. does it have a position on Gabby Giffords efforts for gun safety regulation?

[tumtum]

29. We are favorable to the firearms safety regulations the

Mark and Gabby's organization are lobbying for.

We are very safety oriented when it comes to handling firearms. We have our own certified instructors not affiliated in any way with the NRA.

The Liberal Gun Club is pleased to announce the launch of our Basic Firearms Course. Currently, we have LGC certified instructors in Illinois, Florida and Massachusetts – where it is an Approved Basic Firearms Safety Course for the state.

Our course is designed to be intimate and free of political baggage. It is aimed at inexperienced firearms owners or those who simply want to relearn the basics. Class sizes are small and range instruction groups are even smaller – they are limited to no more than three students at a time. This makes for more one on one time with the instructor so that you get the most out of your time at the range.

The course consists of both a classroom portion and a hands-on portion at a range. The classroom portion takes approximately 4 hours to complete. After successfully mastering the class materials you will spend an additional hour on the range familiarizing yourself with the proper way to safely and effectively handle a handgun.

For more information email the LGC Education Coordinator for your state listed below. If you don’t see your state listed, we apologize but encourage you to check back again – new instructors are being added all the time, maybe one will be close to you. Thanks for your interest in The Liberal Gun Club’s Basic Firearms Course.

For more hands on safety training, LGC can recommend some great courses, again, not affiliated with the NRA.

[CTyankee]

30. Thank you. That sounds encouraging...

[billh58]

23. The "Liberal"

Gun Club is an NRA pig with lipstick. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, some gunner will shoot it. They are nothing more than yet another group of gun huggers who call themselves "Liberal" and believe that makes them superior to their NRA cousins. Neither group supports true gun control, and both of them hide behind the Second Amendment and wrap themselves in faux patriotism.

This gunner organization is the exact opposite of what Gabby Giffords and her organization are fighting for.

[tumtum]

24. Your wrong about the Liberal Gun Club.

You seem intent on picking a fight with me for some unfathomable reason.
Find someone else as I won't answer to your posts anymore, but I will continue to talk to other members here that want to have a reasonable and courteous conversation.

Buh By.


On edit: Host's, please observe that I have been courteous towards this member while enduring attacks and insults.
Thank you.

[billh58]

26. Aw, and just

when we were getting to know each other. Oh well...

[billh58]

18. See what I mean?

It seems that they can't control themselves, and this one appears to be stalking.

[tumtum]

21. I'm not stalking,

I'm trying to get you to provide proof that I'm disrupting and posting NRA talking points, that's all.

[billh58]

22. And, it seems that

they will NOT be ignored, and keep spouting the same old "show me the proof" line that's been used by Gungeoneers since the formation of that swamp.

[MicaelS]

32. How can Gun Owners post here?

When you have banned so many of them from this forum? Current count is 23.

I seldom post here, because I realized that y'all over here don't want to really debate, all you want is an echo chamber for your beliefs.

Any position supporting the RKBA is derided as "NRA Talking Points".

As for me, I'm support Universal Background Checks.

[Kingofalldems]

33. Read the SOP

[MicaelS]

34. I have read it, and I stand by my statement. n/t

[Kingofalldems]

35. Didn't see anything about debate in the SOP.

I don't go to the gungeon and complain. In fact I never post there. Perhaps you should do the same here.

[MicaelS]

37. Yes, that is why I don't post here.

Too bad others who feel as you don't do the same to the Gungeon.

But I wasn't going to let the post by CTYankee pass without a reply.

My blunt opinion is this: Those of you who don't like guns got your safe zone / echo chamber where you can talk all you want without having to tolerate opposing views. But there are still a some of you (not you) who come over into the Gungeon and stir shit. And stir shit about guns in GD. Any pro-RKBA view anywhere, anytime is derided as "NRA Talking Points". And your "reasonable gun owners" term is just a dog-whistle . It really means that a gun owner has to agree with everything that is proposed by anti-gun people anytime, anywhere. If they don't, they're not "reasonable". And Gun Owners will always be defined as "unreasonable" if the definition of "reasonable" means overturning the 2nd Amendment and the RKBA.

[Kingofalldems]

38. Well those last 2 sentences were NRA talking points

I know of no one who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

[MicaelS]

39. Really? Then you're not reading this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=3927

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=3928

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=3930

And I stand by my statement, and so no, it is not an "NRA Talking Point".

[Kingofalldems]

40. Modifying is not overturning.

[tumtum]

41. This isn't modifying,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12623921#post31

This is flat out calling for getting rid of it,

[ellisonz]

49. Then don't post here.

[CTyankee]

36. There are reasons for the divide. A major reason is the belief I hold and several others here hold,

that the 2nd Amendment is a relic and has been incorrectly and dangerously interpreted by this Supreme Court.
Another is our firm belief that gun proliferation is a major public safety problem in this country.

We're going to be deeply divided on those two points.

[MicaelS]

46. Yes, we WILL always be deeply divided.

My personal positions are:

I am not an advocate of non-violence. I am most certainly not, and never plan on being a pacifist. I like the statement Heinlein had one of his characters make in one his novels.

I am not a pacifist. Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

- John Joseph Bonforte,"Double Star" - Robert A. Heinlein.

Even if there were no 2nd Amendment at the Federal level, I would support and work for the RKBA at the state level. If my state did not have a RKBA in it's state Constitution, (Texas does), then I would move to a state that did. I believe I have a right to have the means to defend myself and my home with Lethal Force, against those who would seek to harm me, since the police can not be everywhere. I believe the best tool for that is a gun. I believe absolutely in the concept of the Castle Doctrine, without ANY Duty To Retreat from my own home. If a person forces their way into my home, then that person is there to do no good. I do not support the disarmament of the ordinary people in this county because some people do not like guns.

And in case you have sigs blocked in some fashion this is mine:

As long as guns are legal, and I may legally own them, am mentally and physically capable of using them properly and safely, I will do so. I will not be shamed, shunned, embarrassed or made to feel some sort of phony remorse into not owning guns. Not by anyone. Not for reason. If I ever reach the decision to not own guns, it will be solely on my own accord.

[billh58]

54. Wow!

An armed, angry gunner looking for a fight, and a proponent of summary vigilante justice to boot. Would you like to be my neighbor?...

[MicaelS]

58. Nope, not angry, nor looking for a fight.

Never been in a physical altercation of any kind. Not a fist fight, nor gun fight nor a fight involving any type of weapon. But I do want the ability to be able to defend myself and my home in the worst case scenario. And self-defense is NOT vigilante justice.

[Paladin]

62. Your post 46 is a lot more convincing. Unfortunately. (nt)

[billh58]

63. Yet you are so

paranoid that you would move in order to have access to a gun? Not angry? You sound like Charlton Heston and the "cold dead hands" rant. Your angry posts above and your disruption of this Group speaks volumes about your volatility toward those who disagree with you. The spooky thing is that you actually believe that you are one of the armed "good guys."

And, shooting an unarmed burglar to death who would get maybe 5 years at most after a fair trial is indeed vigilante summary justice. Yeah, I know -- but you would have "felt" threatened and would have been within your SYG rights. This is the Zimmerman "defense" which your group applauded. Legalized murder is just one of the NRA-sponsored obscenities that this Group wants to repeal.

So please keep looking under your bed for boogeymen and keep your well-regulated lethal weapons handy just in case you hear a noise at night. The rest of us will attempt to ignore the noise of your teeth chattering on a warm night...

[Paladin]

64. +1000. (nt)

[Robb]

42. Incorrect. The current count of people blocked is 40.

There are only 23 active members blocked from this group. The rest were banned from DU by admin or MIRT at some point after they were blocked here, so you can perhaps imagine how we feel our own process of blocking disruptive members is effective and useful.

In the event you do not have access to the hosts forum, and in the interest of transparency, they were:

Remmah2
markeybrown
skinnytrees
WinniSkipper
Peter cotton
holdencaufield
Trunk Monkey
dklo
Family Man
slackmaster
CokeMachine
DemDealer
JohnnyBoots
supernaut
grok
MalcomInTheMiddle
ceonupe

There are many DU gun owners who have not been blocked from this group. Those gun owners support the SOP of this group, e.g. broadly speaking they support gun safety legislation and progressive gun control groups. This is not complicated; we don't want to debate whether gun safety legislation is a worthwhile goal, we want to discuss ways to accomplish it.

I'm happy to hear you support UBC. In this group we're seeking to examine ways to get this and other gun safety legislation efforts passed at the state and federal level. Not whether those efforts are worthwhile, because we all feel they are. If we have to spend all our time defending that, we cannot discuss implementing; those who make us do so, here, are disruptive.

Finally, I had to chuckle that you complained we wanted a protected group to discuss a particular viewpoint, then complained you weren't adequately protected from it elsewhere. Perhaps you should ask admin for a protected pro-gun group, if you weren't being intentionally ironic.

[billh58]

43. This is what some of us

have been trying to explain to the persistent disruptors from the Gungeon:

"we don't want to debate whether gun safety legislation is a worthwhile goal, we want to discuss ways to accomplish it."

Yet they come into this group and insist on "finding common ground," and "encouraging honest debate," between gun fetishists and those of us who have had enough of the NRA bullshit propaganda. We know that they spend an inordinate amount of time ridiculing this Group over in the Gungeon, which is the very reason this Group was formed. It was impossible to even state an opinion about gun control without being viciously attacked by the hard core "cold dead hands" Gungeoneers over there. The Gungeon was, and remains a swamp which harbors right-wing NRA apologists on a Democratic discussion board.

These various "gun club" cultists now want to infiltrate this safe-harbor Group and spread their venom about the very things that this Group is fighting for: no public carry of lethal weapons, repeal of SYG vigilante laws, registration of ALL guns, insurance requirements for gun owners, regulations which enforce gun owner responsibility and accountability with penalties for non-compliance, to name just a few.

As Robb said, the only things that we wish to debate concerning gun control is the "HOW" and not the "WHY." But no, gun nuts want to infiltrate and disrupt by claiming that they are "really on our side," and just want to "discuss ways that we can agree." I call bullshit, and the divide and conquer ploy is older than all of the Gungeoneers combined. They are neither clever, not original.

The truth is that with organizations and people like Gabby Giffords, MAIG, The Brady Center, VPC and others, the gun violence issues and attendant gun control measures are becoming a part of the national conversation, and the NRA and its supporters are rapidly losing ground. I am proud to be a part of that coming change, and I have donated, and will continue to donate money to all of these gun control groups who believe in a better gun-free America.

[Kingofalldems]

44. Yeah, but he never posts here.

[MicaelS]

45. We did ask for a protected pro-gun group.

That request was denied. So I consider what I said to be a valid complaint. And I'm not being ironic. You got what you wanted. You have a safe zone where your views can't be challenged. But a few of your same members who are prolific posters in this group regularly come over to the Gungeon and try to stir shit. If it's good enough for you to have a protected group, it ought to be good enough for us.

And no I do not have access to the Host's forum. Nor do I have the time or inclination to ever become a Host.

[Kingofalldems]

47. You don't like this group? DU? Take it up with Skinner.

I don't like that the gungeon even exists but I don't go there to bitch and moan.

[ellisonz]

50. You asked for a gun porn group.

DU is not about gun porn. Sorry.

[BainsBane]

56. Unreal

You all obsess about this little group way too much. Groups have SOPs. Anyone who shares the SOP can post. If they do not, they don't meet the criteria to participate in the SOP. If you wanted to talk about ways to get background checks passed, that would be fantastic. But you should want to come challenge gun control. There are plenty of places on both DU and the web where you can do that. This doesn't happen to be one of them.

[ellisonz]

48. That's a 42.5% ban rate.

I'll take that to the bank.

I would also like to point out my favorite part of our well-crafted SOP:

Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

I think this is the critical part of the debate. The belief of the NRA-types is that the problem with gun violence is that the problem with society is too many bad people having too many guns and not enough good people not having enough guns everywhere all the time. We reject this viewpoint that encourages the endless and reckless infusion of guns into society. That's not pacifism, that's practicality and an honest view of history. The basic reality is that more and more lethal weapons are present in society, the more and more devastating violence is to occur, and as our SOP aptly describes, this can be posited to be a "tragic epidemic of gun violence." If I have to accept gun ownership as a fundamental right, I want to accept it in the most responsible and safe manner possible, and that means fewer guns as a guiding principal and not more.

[Paladin]

52. I'm a gun owner, and I post here.

What I'm not is a pro-gun activist, spewing the same old "NRA talking points" and taking every opportunity to trash Democratic politicians and policies. If you Gun Control/RKBA Group regulars are mourning the absence of the lively debates of earlier times, you have yourselves to blame. Gun Control/RKBA has been working toward "echo chamber" status for years now, due to pro-gun militancy and right-wing sentiments. Might as well enjoy yourselves.

[BainsBane]

65. Exactly. They continually pretend they represent all gun owners

Who have nothing in common with the gun evangelists.

"If you disagree with me you're mean to all gun owners. Wah, Wah" I have never in my life encountered a person off line that is anything like those gun extremists, and for that I am thankful.

[Paladin]

67. Gun OWNERS vs. Pro-Gun ACTIVISTS

I know I'm starting to beat that distinction to death, but I think it must be kept in mind. Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, and all those old white guys who turn up at the NRA convention do not represent me and my firearms policy, and they never will.

[billh58]

72. It's an important

distinction, and one which eludes the die-hard Gungeoneers. They don't realize that they are actually a small minority of American gun owners, and that most gun owners want sane gun regulation as much as Gabby Giffords and her supporters do.

[sir pball]

53. I own an "arsenal" that would make you blanch and I'm quite in favor of new laws thx.

I support mandatory FFL transfers (via a dealer who records the sale on an ATF Form 4473), not just UBCs - that would provide an unbroken paper trail to the last legal owner, who would have some 'splainin to do if they hadn't reported a crime gun as stolen. The few times I've sold guns, that's how I've done it. I support greatly enhanced mental reporting. I support magazine limits. I support utterly Draconian mandatory-minimums for firearms crimes. Safe-storage, too. CCW, yes I've had several, but it's really a non-issue to me either way though. The slightest thought of joining the NRA hasn't even begun to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing my mind.

I'll freely admit I *don't* support an AWB though; long gun crime is just far too small a percentage for such a colossal waste of political capital, so there's your reason to dismiss me as "a nutter" or whatever the en vogue phrase is. I don't hang out here much. Na zdorovie!

[Skittles]

51. chump change to paranoid gun humpers