General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho else feels the same
I am sick of the prayers, the hugs, the flowers, the candles
I am sick of hearing we can't discuss gun reform at this time
I am sick of politicians reading the NRA script
I am sick of hearing about acts of heroism
All I want to hear about is dealing with the fucking guns.
That is all - for now
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)It is time,
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Glorfindel
(9,747 posts)You said it just right, and thank you!
johnp3907
(3,736 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)SICK OF IT ALL
Chiquitita
(752 posts)Hey, I'd even be happy if we just got rid of all the bullets.
Stargazer09
(2,132 posts)I am so sick and tired of ALL of the gun violence in this country.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....is a good guy with a spoon.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,996 posts)Somebody decides to go out to a mall or a theatre or a school and shoot people. Everyone is horrified. There are vigils and statements of condemnation. If the shooter is still alive there might be a trial. Public officials express dismay. The NRA says something offensive about how it had nothing to do with guns. There are funerals. People leave flowers and teddy bears at the site of the shooting. And eventually after that we all go back to whatever we were doing, and there is another shooting and the same things happen again, and again, and again.
mountain grammy
(26,673 posts)malaise
(269,310 posts)Sick of them too
calimary
(81,605 posts)This has been how many mass shootings in how many WEEKS????
WHY can't we do something?????
All I want to hear about is dealing with the fucking guns! AMEN!!!
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)When the hell will the Congress grow a spine and DO something?!!!
And may the NRA rot in its own special corner of hell with all of the murderers.
Boomerproud
(7,985 posts)I just saw the headline on CNN's website with Jindal saying (so stoicly and bravely) "We will get through this." What he means is we will forget about it and it will happen over and over and over. Amen, Malaise, enough of the stuffed animals, the flags waving in the breeze (what the hell is that supposed to represent anyway-that we are the home of the crazy mass murderers?) and the people standing around "comforting" each other. ENOUGH!!!!!
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)in my mind to look around to see if anyone looked suspicious or acting unusual.
This deeply sick behaviour has finally seeped into our daily lives and caused us to change the way we go about normal daily routines.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)people they don't immediately know, everyone has a certain time limit after which someone staring or standing around becomes suspicious, everyone has an eye on the bollards and engine blocks and building-corners they might have to duck behind once (not if) the firing begins
these countries feel sorry for us, BTW--to them, they're under the gun because they have a per-capita income of $500 a year: what's the US's excuse for letting a corporation or two have full liberum veto over things that even 70-90% of NRA members want?
UTUSN
(70,793 posts)onyourleft
(726 posts)It is way past time for this to be addressed.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Fuck the NRA and fuck the NRA political enablers. If the fuckers use mass propaganda and corruption then I see no problem us using emotion and truth.
Fire up the furnaces, light the bonfires, because there are 320 million inanimate objects of death that need melting, pronto.
We ARE coming for your guns because your fucking guns keep coming for us.
marble falls
(57,523 posts)and trying to explain they don't even speak for a majority of whites let alone a majority of Americans. Their influence is way beyond their numbers.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)The NRA contacts every freshman Senator, every freshman Representative and says..
"If you EVER move on gun control, we will kill you and your children"
sub.theory
(652 posts)I don't think the NRA would literally kill a congressional rep, but I do think they clearly threaten to do so politically. They make it unmistakable that they will destroy anyone who crosses them. The NRA unquestionably has one of the most powerful and effective lobbies in Washington. It's astonishing just how powerful they are even compared to other powerful interests. They sort of remind me of an organized crime syndicate in that you either take their money and play along or they will destroy you.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)The governing body of that organization is (the tin foil whispers) capable of murder.
sub.theory
(652 posts)the NRA are some of the nastiest, dirtiest fighters in all of American politics and it's simply impossible to have a "debate" with them.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Although I'm not an NRA member (that organization's bankrolling of right-wing GOP candidates alone would prevent that, let alone its disgusting fearmongering), but I am a gun owner and competitive shooter. I strongly support multiple gun control measures, both existing and proposed. I'm far from unusual among gun owners in that respect. The NRA in no way represents gun owners like me.
staggerleem
(469 posts)... the bulk of the NRA's funding does NOT come from its gun-owning members.
It comes from the gun manufacturers, who want to be assured that every living American, no matter how batshit crazy they may be, can buy their death-dispensers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)A small portion of the population feels incredibly strongly that there should be no gun control.
That group can be used to remove politicians who do not toe the NRA line. For example, in CO several state legislators lost seats in recall elections after they passed gun control laws in the wake of the movie theater shooting there.
The people who wanted gun control didn't bother showing up for the recall election. But every single "cold dead hands" person did.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)A majority of people favor liberal policies and then don't vote, vote against their own beliefs because Faux News told them to, or are so gerrymandered that their votes are irrelevant
One of those "unifying" issues, IMO. The majority of Americans are for increased, reasonable, effective gun control. As you say, VERY few are for no control at all, rural or urban residents, owners or non-owners.
ananda
(28,912 posts)..
packman
(16,296 posts)The Second Amendment!!!
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)CrispyQ
(36,567 posts)Sadly, I expect I will be able to recycle this cartoon in another 3-4 years, again.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The NRA is the most effective group of political asswipes in the US
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)old guy
(3,284 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)aren't or at the very least TOO UNWILLING to do anything about it! It's simple become a NORMAL way of life in our SO-CALLED Greatest Nation! I wonder when we'll be required to wear paper bags over our head AND be required to pay for the BAG!
Yeah, OUR GREAT DEMOCRACY! "Eyes Wide Shut!"
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,190 posts)"Obama admits US gun laws are his 'biggest frustration"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33646704
freshwest
(53,661 posts)malaise
(269,310 posts)They are fugging evil
riversedge
(70,459 posts)sgtbenobo
(327 posts)I don't get why you don't understand us "gun-nuts." I luv me some guns! That's a fact. My knives too. They make me feel like I can solve everything. All I have to do is strap on my Glock 9mm, my WWII British commando dagger, my off-market AK-47, and my Remington sawed-off street sweeper and everything's going to be OK.
Unless, I decide to go to the movies.
Point is; Guns are porn for the weak. They call themselves "Sportsmen."
Carry on... but, very quietly, they know you're in here.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Although I agree with the sentiment
sgtbenobo
(327 posts).... is because we know they are listening.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Without using what is now sexist terminology.
It wasn't always sexist: it was just a shortened form of pusillanimous, but stupid people confused it with the nickname for a female cat, and sexism was born. Yay, ignorance!
sgtbenobo
(327 posts)Would you even have read my post if not for the epithet?
My ignorant cat likes you too.
-none
(1,884 posts)"Point"? Why?
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)We better listen because he's using intentionally offense language and pretending to be the toughest guy in the universe.
sgtbenobo
(327 posts)....maybe I should be flattered. The point I was trying to make with my post is simply this; "they are crazy." Perhaps, I should have started by telling this story instead.
I was out of work and close to the streets. A friend said, "Hey, the couch is right over there." So, I put my stuff in storage and moved in. He has guns. Zillions. Everywhere. We are both former Army. To most soldiers weapons are tools that no one likes to clean. I get it. But, it's different with him. He thinks he needs them.
While I was trying to be a decent house-guest, an out of work house-guest, I decided I should clean. I shouted out from the bathroom, "Why is there a pistol on the toilet?" He answered, "What is it?" I replied, "A thirty-eight." He told me, "just put it under the sink."
We've moved on since then. I've gotten most of my life back together. He got married. His new bride made him put his "Collection" in the crawlspace, along with a ton of ammunition.
Now, they collect knives together. They have two beautiful little daughters.
Welcome to Montanistan.
Carry on.... but don't say too many bad words.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)You joined an organization whose stated goal is killing people. Assuming you're not a WWII vet you joined an organization that killed millions of innocent people.
But you want to lecture us about how the non-criminal whose charity kept you from absolute poverty has a mental defect ("they are crazy" for having guns in his crawl space.
Rhythm
(5,435 posts)matt819
(10,749 posts)I think it would be interesting to see how the NRA would respond if there were a mass shooting at. . . ready for this? . . . the NRA.
pnwmom
(109,025 posts)so he can re-think his position on gun control.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)pnwmom
(109,025 posts)gun manufacturers and sellers responsible for their products.
He also voted against the Brady law after Brady and Reagan were shot. Among other pro-gun actions.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)See here for specific exceptions to the protections of the PLCAA:
There are six exceptions to the blanket civil immunity provided by the PLCAA:
(1) an action brought against someone convicted of knowingly transfer[ing] a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;
(2) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(3) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;3
(4) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(6) an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.4
And the Brady Bill passed. I guess it didn't prevent this latest mass shooting. Surprised?
Even though people try to paint him as in the pocket of the NRA, the truth is that he is a moderate who voted for universal background checks and magazine limits as well as some smart votes against gun control.
pnwmom
(109,025 posts)Most Democrats did not take his position, especially the progressive ones.
"Smart votes against gun control." Right. Because he's so much smarter than other progressives about gun control.
Why is it not possible that Bernie is ever wrong about anything? Is it so important that he always be right?
Why can't a position that was okay for running for Senator of rural Vermont State be not so okay when running for President of the US?
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)Well, I'm not for magazine limits so I disagree with him there, if that makes you feel any better.
I don't think Bernie is right about everything, but I don't understand why DUers like you want to paint him as being opposed to gun control.
pnwmom
(109,025 posts)the gun profiteers who helped kill their children.
Now, thanks to the PLCAA, the manufacturers and sellers are safe from those cynics.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)The manufacturers sold a legal product to a legal dealer who sold it to a legal buyer (Adam Lanza's mother). He killed her and took her rifle.
I don't think parents were cynical, but the Brady Campaign that recruited them to file the suit was cynical. The Brady Bunch knew it was a loser and they went forward knowing the parents would be held accountable for the lawyer fees of the defendants which amounted to over $200,000. We should all be free of cynics like the Brady Bunch.
pnwmom
(109,025 posts)with their case. Maybe the sellers WERE negligent. They won't have to prove that in court now, thanks to the law that Sanders supported.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/14/169317524/lawmaker-plans-bill-to-lift-immunity-for-gun-manufacturers-and-dealers
Add this to the list of proposals to overhaul the gun industry: Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., says he will introduce legislation this week to roll back legal immunity for gun manufacturers and dealers.
Schiff tells NPR there's no need for the 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to remain on the books. That law gave gun makers, gun dealers and trade groups immunity from most negligence and product liability lawsuits. "Good gun companies don't need special protection from the law," Schiff says, "Bad companies don't deserve it."
Schiff says his proposal would allow lawsuits to move through federal and state courts if plaintiffs could show that gun dealers or makers were negligent, for example, by failing to protect their stores of weapons and failing to keep customers who have felony convictions from getting their hands on guns. Schiff is working with the Brady Center, an organization that has pushed for greater accountability for the gun industry, on his legislation. Schiff and the Brady Center say courts have interpreted the 2005 law too broadly and have dismissed lawsuits by victims and their relatives.
"When someone makes a dangerous product or acts negligently, they ought to be held liable otherwise it encourages irresponsibility," Schiff says.
SNIP
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)See here for specific exceptions to the protections of the PLCAA:
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-industry-immunity-policy-summary/
There are six exceptions to the blanket civil immunity provided by the PLCAA:
(1) an action brought against someone convicted of knowingly transfer a firearm, knowing that such firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence by someone directly harmed by such unlawful conduct;
(2) an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se;
(3) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought;3
(4) an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product;
(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or
(6) an action commenced by the Attorney General to enforce the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.4
druidity33
(6,452 posts)if someone driving a Civic intentionally drove into a loved one of mine?
I don't get your point here. Gun sellers should be held responsible if they didn't follow the law. Manufacturers should be held responsible if their product is DEFECTIVE and harms people. Why should someone be able to sue a gun manufacturer if their gun was used in a crime?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Because its absurd on its face. The only way they can argue against the PLCAA, is by misrepresenting what it actually does, and why.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)You are getting more despicable by the day
Doc_Technical
(3,530 posts)Handguns, rifles, shotguns.
The Federal Government should buy them from their present rightful owners for a fair price.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Who defines the "fair market price" for an object that you just banned?
When it's a price that no one would willingly accept, how do you call it the "fair market price"?
gademocrat7
(10,687 posts)liberal N proud
(60,352 posts)and the 2nd amendment too.
valerief
(53,235 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)It's an oddly unpopular stand, and I can't quite figure out why. Meanwhile, I'm getting to the point where I refuse to get worked up over yet another shooting. If the gunning down of 20 six and seven year olds doesn't lead to strict gun control, will the gunning down of 50 four-year olds do it? What will it take? Because so far mass slaughter is a blip in the news cycle, and then it's back to covering some celebrity's sex change, or the latest clown to run for President.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Forced confiscation would be insane if you actually think about the practical implications.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Police can kick in your door now if they have probable cause or a warrant for various things. Why would guns being illegal make that big of a difference? Due Process would apply.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The wealthy middle aged white man with a large gun collection or the poor young black man who may or may not have any gun at all?
As for "Due Process" I suspect Sandra Bland's ghost might have something to say about that.
The War On Guns will turn out just like the War On Drugs, aimed almost exclusively at minorities and poor whites.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I don't. If unscrupulous police or unscrupulous informants want to fabricate probable cause to kick someone's door in, they have a myriad of reasons at their disposal, drugs come to mind. They don't need guns for a reason and it won't add anything.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Gotta have something to keep all those cops busy harassing the untermenschen with.
I just see the War on Guns as one more cure that will end up in the long run as worse than the disease it was meant to cure, God help us all.
At least guns make sense as being actually dangerous, unlike for instance cannabis where the government is finally after eighty something years getting around to telling us it has been lying about the dangers all along.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)One uncorroborated snitch is all it takes to get a warrant.
A war on guns would be just as shitty as the war on drugs. Or do you actually think incarceration/violence based social control actually works?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)snitch whether he says someone has drugs or guns?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)ten people die almost every day from guns is perfectly okay.
Look, I know I am stating an extreme position. Meanwhile the carnage continues, and I no longer tolerate any excuses for all the guns.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Including all known data from before guns were invented.
I don't believe in the fantasy that people are going to stop killing each other if you pass draconian gun laws. Especially when we know people murdered each other at higher rates before guns existed.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Around zero would be my guess
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Your response appears non sequitur
Gothmog
(145,942 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)a lot more innocent children will have to die before anything significant is done.
20 innocent children died and nothing was done.
If we can't do anything to protect wonderful small children......
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)reasonable measures to address gun violence were not even passed. I'm not in the mood to devote 10 hours to debating reasonable. Absolutely zero was done. I'm not ok with living in a country where we read about these fucking massacres every month, every week. I'm not going to arm myself to the teeth and sit in a dark theater with my finger on my trigger just to watch a fucking movie.
Sorry, you didn't deserve that rant, but I'm just OVER these massacres.
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)I'm sick of hearing that we have to do something about mental health (as that, not guns is the problem)...we do need to do something about mental health, but that doesn't top doing something about the guns. And nothing is going to be done about mental health either.
I'm sick (and this tops my list) of hearing that it wouldn't have happened if everyone in the ______________ (fill in the blank: theater, restaurant, school) had been armed.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)I seriously doubt the body count means anything to the ammosexuals. I know some of us are responsible gun owners but there are some people who should not own guns period! A buddy of mine lost his son two years ago and hasn't gotten his piece back to this date. Though he's gotten the help needed to overcome his depressing situation until he's mentally able he's not getting his Taurus back.
Its good to have friends who got your back but not all of us have such good friends. How can we guarantee that none of us are gonna go ape sh*t and do something stupid with our weapons?
Hekate
(91,025 posts)We'll get days of this massacre in the news, until the next one. And the next one, and the next one. There is a streak of insanity that runs through this country's character.
I'm kind of a polytheist. Hear me out. Sometimes people create a god in their own image and call it into being. There was Moloch, who demanded the sacrifice of the firstborn -- yes, actual human babies. There were in the ancient times quite a number of gods and goddesses who demanded human sacrifice.
So what do we have here? We do have one goddess, with an enormous statue devoted to her in NY Harbor, though she has been much neglected of late.
And we have, most assuredly, a god (not the only god; I'm a polytheist) who has grown mighty in our times. He is fed daily on the blood of our men, women, and children. His image is everywhere. He is worshipped mightily, and his worshippers demand that no god shall be before him, that he is the foundation of our nation and of all other gods. His altar can be constructed anywhere, and the sacrifice made anywhere: in our homes, our parks, our elementary schools and universities, our churches, our theaters.
And the blood runs and runs.
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)the almighty god of money. Bigger, stronger, more universally worshiped. Now, if we could only find a way to pit one against the other, our society might stand a chance.
Hekate
(91,025 posts)...by gun manufacturers, gun sellers, and bullet manufacturers and sellers.
Alas.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Was Hillary right about "tough on crime"?
Maybe we need to be "tough on Illegal gun possession"?
Do those in possession of illegal firearms belong behind bars?
If there was a MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCE
for illegal gun possession, would things change?
Since GUNS are for killing, shouldn't we treat
the possession of an illegal firearm same
as the intent to commit bodily harm?
It seems the only reasonable response it
to punish the offenders before they kill someone?
mcar
(42,469 posts)I just can't anymore. Nothing will be done, nothing will change.
lark
(23,199 posts)What that really means is more people dead and it's a total lie. Look at the number of people that died when a Marine based was targeted. There were plenty of people with guns and they still couldn't protect the others/themselves. Can't believe what a "death" society we have that thinks that every gun is sacrosanct, as long as it's used by white males. Guns in the hands of minorities or women often means they die. NRA don't care, they get paid by the gun companaies so there is no restraint that they would accept, no lives means more to them than the profit they make from their guns. Of course, there's also the loonies that have bought into this belief system. Even some people who are progressive about everything else froth at any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of anyone, even criminals, children.
DinahMoeHum
(21,835 posts). . .and unfortunately, it's not fit for public discussion.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)PufPuf23
(8,856 posts)Ammo might be a fruitful front on addressing the problem of gun insanity.
The OP is correct in that there is a repeated ugly pattern.
Too many Americans have a stupid gun fetish.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)moondust
(20,026 posts)Should have repealed or seriously limited the 2nd Amendment back when they started keeping a standing army for national defense--like 200 years ago.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Gun enthusiasts refuse to listen and there are far too many of them and they are supported by the NRA and other rich organizations.
malaise
(269,310 posts)We all agree
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)into their guns than anything else including whatever deity they worship. They get more offended at perceived attacks on their right to own a gun than they do if their religion is attacked.
No amount of lives is too many to sacrifice in the furtherance of gun worship.
On Edit: Even the danger that a family member will accidentally shoot themselves or another family member has no effect on these folks.
The guns are more important than religious denomination
The guns are more important than family safety.
What else is it other than a large death cult?
Hekate
(91,025 posts)malaise
(269,310 posts)PATRICK
(12,229 posts)unites us in victimology rituals and sets us back into angry divisiveness(or just good old jaded despair) on the issues. Never about the attacking the base problem no matter how obvious, never about accountability or reform. In fact if action is mentioned at all it defers to the same bent that creates our present corporate blathering. Emotional tripping sells news but avoids getting carried away into actual public service, no matter how obvious or simple or even publicly supported.
The media script leads, suddenly, a lot of the "civilized" anti-violent emotions and frames almost to keep it ineffectual and diverting from the open issues. If confrontation is raised it barely keeps pushing into a very quick repeat incident. Then you can almost make out the sound of screeching brakes drowning out the "civilized" public.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i heard someone say today that other modern countries do you not have this problem because they are not saddled with the language like having a militia, in other words the Second Amendment.
there's no denying that the US is different from other modern countries because of the Second Amendment. How that can be remedied without a full appeal I don't know. common sense gun-control would do it, but the nuts won't have it.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)I'd say interpreting the phrase 'well-regulated militia' literally would be how you'd remedy the insanity.
There's no need to appeal anything. The gun ownership of the national guard (aka 'the people' otherwise known as the states' militia) should not be infringed, and yet it should still be well-regulated. There is layer upon layer of controlling who has guns and for what reason even in the second amendment.
We need a couple more justices on the Supreme Court that know how to read. The other problem is that the modern day rebel without a clue that didn't have the guts to join the military wants to call himself and his drinking buddies a militia. They're not a militia, they're a gaggle of morons.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)we already have a well regulated militia in my view, it's called the national guard. The NRA has convinced people that there is no middle ground. Either be able to have every weapon imaginable, or the government will take them all away. Unfortunately they've convinced a lot of crazies of this. But there's no denying that other countries that do not have a second amendment do not have the same issues. Doesn't mean it has to be repealed but as you said we need to get people in government with a brain and an ability to read.
craigmatic
(4,510 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)With a standard drivers license, I can drive passenger vehicles. I can't drive motorcycles, 18 wheelers, or other Commercial Vehicles.
You grade weapons, and ammo. You can own anything, so long as you pass profeciency tests, designed by, law enforcement, military and sure, even industry folks.
You license gun ranges to hold the classes. Do the tests.
You want a rocket launcher ... no problem ... pass the tests. Prove you can not only fire it, but maintain it safely.
This is not hard. And it would be a very nice industry in which gun enthusiasts could PROVE their abilities.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I've seen this before, and it was as flawed and misleading then, as it is now.
The above license has nothing to do with ownership of any of the above vehicles. It has to do with public use of said vehicles.
Beyond that, YES YOU CAN drive motorcycles 18 wheelers and other commercial vehicles without a license. On private property.
A license to drive is simply a license to operate a vehicle in public.
An individual can OWN just about anything without a license. Cars, guns, planes, trains, busses, semis, etc etc.
Its a false and flawed comparison, because "like we do for driving" does not pertain to ownership.
Beyond that...
License a constitutionally protected right? No. Just no.
I understand some might see this as extremist on my part, however, these would be the same people that want the right magically transformed into a privilege, which is far far more extreme than my position on guns and gun laws.
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)Now there's a solution.
Thinking the only options are 'be super strict on guns to the point that the right becomes a very restricted privilege' OR 'do nothing'...
That's every bit as much a problem as anything else where this issue is concerned.
Gun rights supporters object to only one avenue. Turning the right into a privilege/gutting amendment 2 as a right.
The people that have a problem with that, are only interested in that single avenue, they tend to see it as only that avenue or 'do nothing'. Only one side of this argument sees the options limited to 'one or the other', and confirm it every time they project on to gun rights supporters 'they care more for their guns than dead kids'.
Nobody says 'do nothing', except those who believe its 'gun control or nothing', complaining that they're getting 'nothing'.
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)None. Zip. Nada.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I don't see you proving me wrong. Everyone here on both sides of the gun issue who read this exchange, know that if you could, you would.
I see no interest on your part in an actual solution.
None. Zip. Nada.
I see only an interest on your part in restricting guns, which will only apply to the people that generally aren't the problem in the first place.
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)Anyway I'm done. You know what they say about wrestling with a pig, and if the shoe fits...
beevul
(12,194 posts)It was an observation, and one which I'm quite familiar with and accustomed to, since the 90s.
People essentially interested exclusively in gun control.
With the rhetoric You lot use, 'military grade', you lot self-identify as being squarely and soundly in that camp.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)the life out of life.
whathehell
(29,111 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,559 posts)Thanks for the thread, malaise.
tblue
(16,350 posts)on a daily basis. Just like the casualties in Vietnam.
Logical
(22,457 posts)being realistic.
madokie
(51,076 posts)somewhere between the middle of June of '69 and the middle of October of '70. Closer to the June date than the October one.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)and probably not the most urgent or important one. It's not that I'm diminishing its importance, it's that so many of other problems are incredibly important. But carry on with the gun issue, I support you in it, personally I think the climate issues and working to get our elected representatives and our regulatory systems free from corporate capture are much more urgent on a system-level
AFAIK, violent crime is not in any kind of rapid escalation, but climate issues and corporate capture problems are absolutely spiraling out of control and need tremendous energy from us to address, we're heading toward some truly disastrous tipping points, leading to gloabl environmental catastrophe and to oligarchy.. The corporate capture issue is a root issue, attacking it will enable many more reforms. Nothing will fix everything, we have to have many efforts on different issues.
I do applaud your concern about gun violence, it is nowhere near such a probem in other countries not named Somalia, or whatever example you want to go with.
Also I agree that I am sick of the prayers, hugs, the emotional exploitation aspect of it all by the media, the heroism stories, all empty of system analysis to get the roots of the problem and fix it.
Part of it is poverty, part of it is racism, part of it is our warrior mentality and militaristic culture, part of it is a large gun lobby, part of it is the lack of public funding of elections that encourages candidates and elected representatives to take money from groups like the NRA, and of course there's the cowboy frontier history we have that makes this country more receptive to gun ownership than most other places.
What do you see as the best place to attack this issue?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And find a way to make each bullet traceable to each gun's owner. Neutron activation analysis or some such shit.
sgtbenobo
(327 posts)....if you want to keep a shotgun under your bed great. If your homeowners insurance will cover it. It is a risk after all. Want an AK47. Fine. Is it fully automatic? That is going to cost you. Maybe the insured should keep that under lock and key.
No one looses any "Right to bear arms," as long as they have the means to pay for the consequences of having them. In effect, people would have to take responsibility for what their shiny perfect things might do.
Carry on.
hack89
(39,171 posts)But not owning guns. The insurance companies understand the actual risk - it is a bog part of their job.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Events like this make you narrow your focus to a very specific issue, guns.
Every time an unarmed African American is killed by police, the focus of many African Americans narrows to a very specific issue too, social justice.
And so when anyone dismisses their protest on that point, we should not be surprised if they get pissed.
I'm confident that few will disagree with your OP. No one should.
The BLM folks are saying the same thing ... All I want to hear about is social justice.
No one should be disagreeing with them either.
malaise
(269,310 posts)but I also want gun control.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I did not suggest that you were against social justice in any way.
I was simply saying your post is almost template for folks to understand where the BLM folks are.
You feel pain, now. And it narrows your focus.
That is exactly how they feel. Except their pain exists all the time.
I'm white. I have a 22 year old son.
And in the last 10 years (since he was 12), I have NEVER worried about whether a cop might kill him while he was out. I have never been terrified when he was late coming home.
Your OP, hits on something. I never worry about being killed at the movies, even right after one of these events. I'm not keeping my kids from going to the movies.
This is what I am talking about.
malaise
(269,310 posts)By the way I am a black woman
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... I think I knew that, ... I've been reading your stuff (agreeing and also probably disagreeing too) ... although honestly, I did not think about that in this exchange.
Your OP was so simple in its statement of the pain. And that is what caught my attention.
malaise
(269,310 posts)This is madness - word is there is another live shooting right now in LA.
xocet
(3,874 posts)N_E_1 for Tennis
(9,804 posts)malaise
(269,310 posts)AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Jindal pissed me off last night, as he was going on about guns. Talk to your party about that, Bobby -- they're a HUGE part of the problem.
And also very sick of being told to "pray" for every damn tragedy that happens -- like that's going to help anything, but it seems that's what most conservatives think is being proactive.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)that we have to bury the dead before we can talk about gun control, I'm going to vomit.
malaise
(269,310 posts)That's straight out of the NRA 'let us prey' book.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)blm
(113,134 posts).
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)when he destroyed his home as it was foreclosed.
This is, once again, as much about fucked up dealing with clear presentations of a person willing to do criminal behavior as it is about guns.
malaise
(269,310 posts)he used to buy houses and flip them.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Somehow that just seems to exceed 'usual business practice'
I get the "if there was no gun this couldn't happen"
But I also get, "the clear signs of a problem were avoided"
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Why is our society so filled with violence?
malaise
(269,310 posts)foreign policy will come into play.
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)and has only superficially evolved from there.
KrazyinKS
(291 posts)First you deny them contraception, make them have too many kids-then you give them concealed carry permits, or open carry. Then you deny them benefits, then resources get strained. Then and of course after all that you deny them their benefits, health care, foods whatever then you sit back in your palace and think nothing is going to happen. Have they thought this over? I mean really.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)with the rising number of insane rwnutjobs, America is way behind in getting guns under control...
GeorgeGist
(25,327 posts)Mira
(22,382 posts)Initech
(100,146 posts)The Roux Comes First
(1,301 posts)Is that "dealing with the guns" also innately involves dealing with a huge lobby in the form of those who make money off munitions. From what I can tell, the NRA has devolved from being a sort of mom-and-pop gun-enthusiasts collective (that alone a bit disturbing)to a mega-lobby for the industry. The organization seems to have little real interest these days in individual gun-owners and their needs and concerns, just intent on riling up the usual narrow-bandwidth troops and routing lots of ka-ching to the folks selling those guns.
malaise
(269,310 posts)What needs to be done is to identify the gun manufacturers by name and call them out the same way people went after the cigarette manufacturers. The NRA is their mask.
C Moon
(12,226 posts)Vinca
(50,334 posts)I wondered to my husband why the media bothers reporting this in "breaking news," 24/7 breathlessness. It's not like it doesn't happen nearly every week. Same scene, different actors.
sellitman
(11,610 posts)Every member has blood on their hands.
EVERY SINGLE STINKING ONE.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)When the same words have been spoken too many times, the same grief has been expressed, the same coverage has been emitted via television, people want change.
Change isn't easy.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make the effort.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I am sick of hearing we can't discuss gun reform at this time
I am sick of politicians reading the NRA script
I am sick of hearing about acts of heroism and the "Amazing Grace" of the forgiving families
I am sick of hearing about histories of mental illness, social isolation (read: excuses)
All I want to hear about is dealing with the fucking guns.
JohnnyRingo
(18,696 posts)Although as a law abiding citizen there's little reason to do so, the fact that gun ownership has no single party affiliation will stymie any attempt to restrict the right to buy and own one.
While everyone agrees that criminals should not have the right buy one, the process for weeding out future acts of violence is less than perfect. Certainly, while I believe background checks and restrictions for mentally at risk individuals is a good idea, an across the board ban is unacceptable. That leaves handgun opponents with the onus of finding a way to stop criminals while preserving the rights of everyone else, including a good sized bloc of democratic voters, and that isn't as simple a task as a short DU post would imply.
I think Michael Moore said it best: "Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people". As a people, we're globally unique in our callousness and willingness to reach for a firearm to resolve issues. I believe it's more of a red, white, and blue social problem than a matter of sheer numbers of guns.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)that the wacko's say entitles them to owning and carrying a gun...any gun, anytime, anywhere. It really doesn't say that and those who interpreted willfully suggest that it does knowing full well that it doesn't.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Setting aside 'wackos' for a minute, since its subjective and pejorative...
Amendment 2 is a restriction on government. It grants no rights. It restricts government exercising power in a way that infringes on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the bill of rights in general, is to protect and shield enumerated rights, from governmental interference, and amendment 2 is no different.
But don't take my word for it. Take the words the framers penned in the bill of rights itself:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
http://billofrights.org
That first paragraph of the preamble above, says, in the language of that day, exactly what I said above.