MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 1 week ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 week ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 3 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Gun Shows Ban Loaded Guns, Magazines
By NCD on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 11:26am |Why? A gathering of 2nd Amendment unregulated gun nuts with loaded weapons should be the safest place on the planet, shouldn't it? A gun is as good or as bad as the person who has it, and these are good, Sarah Palin admiring Real Americans aren't they?Crossroads of the West Gun Shows regulations TAKE AWAY DOOMSDAY TYRANNY PREVENTING AMMUNITION and SECURES ALL GUNS! Yet.....If Gun Shows are safer without loaded guns, maybe the NATION WOULD BE TOO!
URL:
http://crossroadsgunshows.com/faqs.php
- Add new comment
- 2664 reads
Comments
The local cable TV news just did a hilarious short report on all three incidents (along the lines of "gun show afficianados can't shoot straight,") but then the station is run by prejudiced New Yorkers who just can't comprehend what's horrible about registering all firearms purchases and licensing all owners of firearms.
Myself, I'm wondering whether this happens all the time and that it's only being reported right now because the country is focused on the topic....
by artappraiser on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 2:45pm
Yes, it happens all the time. Think how often you forgot where you put your keys. Gun owners are constantly forgetting to check the chamber to make sure there's no round left there or forgetting to click the safety on. Then they clean the gun, or it bounces around in the glove compartment or backpack, or they're waving it around and showing off, or some kid picks it up, or it slips out of their pocket and hits the floor and it goes off. Someone gets wounded or killed but its just an unfortunate "accident." If you own a gun you have to be hyper vigilant all the time and how many people are?
We need laws removing guns from those fools every time there's one of these accidents even if no one is hurt. Zero tolerance for stupid and irresponsible behavior with guns.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 4:30pm
From the link
Q: Can I carry a loaded gun in the gun show? I have a Concealed Carry Permit.
A: We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the gun show. Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show.
LOL. So our streets and schools and movie theaters and churches and even bars can only be safe if everyone has a loaded gun but gun shows can only be safe if there are no loaded guns.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 4:09pm
Gun Shows are like Republican National Conventions or Congress, they support loaded guns everywhere, but around themselves, where they do business.
"If I were a psychopath, I would join the NRA or the Republican Party and take the Teabircher morons to the cleaners."
by NCD on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 7:23pm
First I thought: wow, you just wrote maybe the greatest talking point evah on gun regs. But then I thought again: maybe we should force gun shows to allow loaded firearms and let the "law" of the old Wild West take its course......
hey, you bastard, I was ahead of you in line.....oh yeah, what are you going to do about it with that little weenie thing, you wimp?.... continue the narrative with your imagination.....
by artappraiser on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 7:35pm
Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal
We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self...
by ocean-kat on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 8:15pm
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AA.
NO DOOMSDAY TYRANNY AT GUN SHOWS open loaded carry NOW!
by NCD on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 9:11pm
And may the worst shot injure the least number of people and win!
by Erica (not verified) on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 10:58pm
Maybe they should just ban guns. Oh but that'd be gun control.
by Orion on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 4:12pm
Tobacco use is banned also, should I explain to you why?
by Resistance on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 4:26pm
Yes Resistance, explain to us why tobacco is like a gun! Some might wonder if you have a few loose screws up there!
Tell us why tobacco is like a gun in your own blog!
As you have never written EVEN ONE in over 2 years!
Other topics you have touched on here would also be prime candidates for Resistance Blogs:
Your self identification, Resistance, with Australian aborigines. Weird but who knows....
This came up when I mentioned that Australia confiscated 700,000 guns in 1996 after a massacre, and haven't had one since. You then mentioned the absence of any aboriginal gun industry 250 years ago, presumably to posit that the history of that native group would have been improved if they had one. BLOG IT!!
You could expand on your comment on the history of Tombstone, Arizona (and most other 'Wild West' towns like Dodge City) and how the likes of Wyatt Earp threatened freedom and the American way of life with their 'no guns in town' approach to law enforcement. BLOG IT!!
Why in disaster preparedness, we all need to first and foremost cling to our guns and prepare to use it them defend ourselves from unruly neighbors. Presumably the gun would be more important than medical care, clean water, food and shelter. Or the gun would somehow provide all four of those. Tell us how-BLOG IT!!
What is 'Doomsday Tyranny'? If the 2nd Amendment is the Doomsday Tyranny preventer, than what's all that other stuff in the Constitution for, and why do we need it? BLOG IT!!
All your fans here are waiting for your first very own blog of your own!!
by NCD on Sun, 01/20/2013 - 7:17pm
No NCD.
The reason why tobacco products are not permitted is, ............ because there's the potential of a spark, leading to a fire and explosion.
No need to Blog that safety information, many people already know that.
by Resistance on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 2:26am
You must not be from the South. There's this thing called "dip" or "chewing tobacco"…
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 6:21am
But I am from the south; where I was raised to respect others and to have manners; We don’t appreciate people who spit sheet all over the place. Expecting someone else, to clean up the filth, especially at a rented convention floor. If you think chew is acceptable, you were raised differently ….
by Resistance on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 7:39am
I'm not a chewer (or dipper) myself, but I've been around plenty. I've seen the red solo cups that serve as receptacles for their spit. I've never seen any dippers spit "all over the place", except for out in nature.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 4:34pm
I've been places and seen the red solo cups left behind and get knocked over.
Who wants to clean up some ones spit?
Or the little ones thinking it cola. ICK!
Funny how some can pack it in, but can't pack it out.
My mother used to say "They were born in a barn"
PIGS!
Nasty disgusting habit.
by Resistance on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 5:27pm
Well, for what it's worth, I completely agree it's a disgusting habit, as is smoking.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 7:39pm
VA Its worth a lot more to me than you could ever realize.
The only time I was hearing from you, is when we disagreed.
Shame really, because I agree with you most of the time.
by Resistance on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 8:00pm
Resistance was raised where he was taught to regret that Australian aborigines didn't have a gun culture, where passing gun safety laws was 'waving a bloody shirt', and where a gun is believed to be the only guarantee of good government.
by NCD on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 9:50am
There's not much to blog - of course Tasmanian Aborigines would have been better off with guns, fighting against Australian orders to shoot on sight men, women and children, or against the "Black Line" where settlers created a cordon to march across the island and catch any remaining aborigines. A compassionate governor sent the remaining off to a squalid island where most died. 47 returned to the mainland in 1847, but by 1876, the last Tasmanian was gone.
Do you believe guns never protected anyone, or that Australian genocide doesn't count in this regard, or what was your point?
If you need more, here's a comparitive study of frontier genocide: http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/Madley.pdf
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 10:29am
The subject of the Aborigines was a diversion topic. It may be a worthwhile discussion in its own right but it wasn't begun in another thread that way. NCD asked a question about the 1996 Australian gun laws and the response was, if the aborigines had guns a couple of hundred years ago there wouldn't have been genocide. That really doesn't address NCD's question, its designed to avoid discussion of the 1996 Australian gun laws.
As I said, that may be a relevant and valuable discussion concerning our current conversation on gun control. It leads to other possible questions like, if the Lena Lenape had guns would William Penn have been able to create the state of Pennsylvania or if the Seminoles had guns how many elderly people on SS would retire to Florida?
Valuable as those discussions might be they would not be an answer to NCD's question about the 1996 Australian gun laws. They would be diversion topics to avoid discussion of the 1996 Australian gun laws.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 1:22pm
Stated that way, understand.
Didn't seem that NCD's response was that focused.
History of Australia's guns is interesting - states' rights and all that, though last actual use against gov repression seems in the 1800's, while I'm conflicted on the government crackdown on communists in the 1920's. But the main issue is the same - urbanization has changed the need and practicality of the former gun culture, and self-inflicted hurt seems to be the only real result these days.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 1:34pm
His statement is based upon a lie, I never stated it the way he implies.
NCD’ continual harassment, by spreading falsehoods and those who would join him in spreading the lie; they figure if they lie long enough, others will believe it too.
They continue spreading their lies, without presenting the evidence of the statement’s they claim I made.
I researched the information before responding to NCD, and felt it sufficient, for reasonable people to make further inquiries themselves, about the plight of modern day aborigines.
I was mistaken to think it was so simple, I thought even they and NCD could just as easily Googled “australian aboriginal persecution”
But it appears, it’s much easier to spread lies.
The site I originally found is below
The persecution was present hundreds of years ago and continues into the modern era
The Australian government wouldn't want the long abused "persecuted and degraded" to have guns now, would they?
by Resistance on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 2:20pm
Easy, take a breath - 2nd line was:
I didn't say *you* stated it that way. Your responses come out overwrought, even though I can usually figure out what you're trying to get to and sometimes agree.
There was another Aussie massacre in 2002, though only 2 people.
More to the point, gun shootings in Australia dropped 59% after 1996 - but gun shootings in the US dropped that much as well without confiscating weapons. Go figger - was it the lead in Australian cars? This 2008 Time article notes that Australian homicides and shootings just followed the decreasing trend they were on even before 1996 confiscations.
It pains me to see such sloppy argumentation.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 4:29pm
Thanks for the graph Peracles, a picture is truly worth a thousand words
I recognized your comment as a truthful statement, and I didn't mean to imply you had been misled.
NCD and his circle of friends has only one focus; to discredit me by any means, because I disagree.
If I responded directly to some of his circle of friends, we would have had to endure another rant about how he was called a liar by me.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll%20&page=2
14
troll
supposedly means someone who is disruptive , but now extends to anyone who is ever disagreeable or doesn't join in on the circle jerk.
Is it permissible to use this dictionary as a guide or not.
If not, I will desist.
by Resistance on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 5:23pm
Resistance, I am the first and apparently ONLY Dagger who supports your free expression so much, that I wish for you to consummate it with your own BLOG, in what would be your first blog here.
You have the courage and fortitude to arm and prepare yourself to confront Doomsday, and I am sure you have enough of what it takes to write your own blog.
I have never lied about your positions, I merely stated what they were as per my recollection of them. If you stated them in a blog they would be easier to refer back to.
I note Resistance, in your reference, that C. Hazel neither complained about an lack of guns among aborigines in the letter you quote, nor did he mention using them to attain better treatment from the government. I would assume that whatever rights they have now were not gained by guns. Do you have proof otherwise?
I would challenge you to BLOG about an indigenous population that achieved permanent, collective rights for all their people, mainly or solely through the use of firearms.
PerPl - I mentioned the gun confiscation in Australia to refute Resistance position that without proper guns Doomsday Tyranny will prevail. He calls the 2nd Amendment the 'Doomsday Tyranny' Amendment. Australia has no 2nd Amendment, and since 1996 they have had 700,000 less semi-automatic guns. The Australia issue was not about the rate of 'assault killings', important though that is to gun control and safety. Australia obviously has far, far less gun killings per capita than the US nevertheless.
I have suggested to Resistance to BLOG on why Australia is not now run by a dictator.
by NCD on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 6:27pm
Again you misrepresent my position
You coined the term Doomsday tyranny. I didn't.
The article I linked to said The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision,
Admit it NCD, you and your circle of friends, cannot guarantee this "exceptionally rare circumstance from occurring.
Our forefathers knew that some would deny that an occurrence could happen, so they made provision for it, in the rare case that it would.
Do you find it difficult to understand; being prepared for an emergency and stocking up with provisions, doesn't mean one will occur?
by Resistance on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 7:25pm
Resistance you said on Jan. 13th:
Your wording was 'Doomsday' 'Second Amendment' and 'Tyranny'.
I assume the three are connected, tyranny = Doomsday, and the 2nd Amendment is there to prevent it?
So we can't outlaw 100 round drum magazines and assault rifles because we might need them to overthrow a tyrant?
Yet, no other modern democracy has a 'Doomsday amendment' yet they are all still democracies?...? Are they at great risk? Is Australia on the brink?
BLOG on it so we can get it as straight! If convinced, we can all go out and buy the right guns to be prepared like you are!
by NCD on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 9:10pm
That is the problem NCD; you assume and twist the words in a particular order to fit your meme.
Then argue your inaccurate assumption.
NCD wrote "Yet, no other modern democracy has a 'Doomsday amendment' yet they are all still democracies?...?
PS.
That same comment of Jan 13, included the same opinion I sited above. Which you so conveniently ignore. BTW ; An opinion I agree with, so I included the opinion, in the hopes there would be no misconstructions.But evidently some would misconstrue.BUT I DID NOTICE, you failed to guarantee our rights would be protected (Reedited to add) if this "rare occasion" were to occur.
MANY AMERICANS WOULD NOT BE ASSURED WITH YOUR EMPTY PROMISES OR YOUR ABILITY TO PREVENT THE RARE OCCASION.
Your sorrys would be little consolation.
by Resistance on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 2:15am
Resistance, are we like aborigines or helpless unarmed post Weimar 1930's Germans?
If the poor German people were unarmed, how did they conquer France, Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia, parts of Russia etc? Were they unarmed or propagandized, sick and delusional?
I mentioned 'modern democracies' anyway, which mean post World War 2.
Should I buy a Bushmaster or not, Americans are cleaning the shelves of them? Does this mean Americans in their wisdom know that Bushmasters are the key to our freedoms? Or are they delusional sick consumers, saturated with pro-gun propaganda?
I repeat my plea for you to do your own blog on this topic.
by NCD on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 10:59am
There are too many family health issues at the present time, to devote the time responders deserve.
Besides, the current issues of our times are well covered by the mast head crew. As explained in the “About Us” section of daglog
They offer their opinions to get our attention and I offer mine in response.
If you NCD want to make stereotypical blogs, you will find I am very opinionated and won’t remain silent. Isn’t that the way we all should respond to bias and stereotyping?
by Resistance on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 12:16pm
This is another issue - people compare the US to Finland for education - completely different ethnic, wealth, cultural situation.
Australia is only 22 million (18 in 1996) somewhere around 85% from UK/Ireland with another bit Italian/German, and then a bit of a hodgepodge of world cultures. Level of ethnic tension aside from ageold with aborigines (who haven't been fighting back much) is small. Little overcrowding to deal with, always a beach nearby when you're upset...
We discuss the US as if it's the highest violence, but we don't talk about Jamaica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico with much higher, or Brazil with roughly the same. I don't know specifically what to compare there, but there's drug violence, government attacks against native peoples, differences in political views, etc. If Guatemalan indians had been well-armed, they may have been able to resist genocide in the last few decades.
What no one here seems to be addressing is here are the assholes that are supposed to be protecting us, and instead, slamming pregnant women to the pavement seems to be one of their M.O.s - 2 different links in case someone thinks this is a rare accident.
http://newsone.com/2033223/michelle-jordan-lapd-police-brutality-video/
http://www.infowars.com/pregnant-woman-hogtied-by-officers-gets-250000-s...
Not much different from casual tasering that now goes on, of 14-year-olds to grandmas to unconscious people to non-English-speaking Chinese visitors trying to buy too many iPhones to deaf or mentally ill people. All open to having a million volts shoved through them, and if they die after 6 shocks, well, their fault for having a weak heart.
And here a CVS store owner strangles a homeless man to death over a shoplifted tube of toothpaste. Unlike we have Trayvon Martin, we have video, and can't blame it on a heated one-on-one fight with gun fire - this is 6 guys piled on top of a prone guy on the pavement strangling him for a couple minutes until dead. Along with a few kicks. No charges filed, because we're just a motherfucking sick society and this is just one of the paybacks for living in that society. The guy was shoplifting, so deserved it.
None of the talk about gun control addresses this, and while I'm not a gun owner or much of an advocate, I'd happily give this homeless guy or the 2 pregnant ladies or the Chinese woman a .44 for a moment to even the odds.
In the US, having any sort of power over someone else gives us a massive superiority God complex. The nation's motto is "don't tell me what to do", so whoever has might does think he has right.
It's weird that the left's complaint is often (fairly) that the right/conservatives/law-and-order types often act like jack-booted thugs, but then when we talk about gun control, the left switches to "oh, how can you worry about the government so much? this is a democracy!!!"
In 1985, a mayor who was a pastor and ran a program for disadvantaged kids approved dropping a bomb on a tenement house, burning up 65 houses and police firing on those escaping (over 10,000 rounds fired in). No police went to jail for this. In America, anyone can be a crazy.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 3:02am
It's so sickening I hope others take the time to review your compilation.
by Resistance on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 7:37am
Serious question: what do you think would've been the outcome if those people had a gun? Tell me what you think is most likely, as well as what other possible outcomes you see, please.
Scenario 1 — just giving them a gun: I imagine that with the homeless guy, he still would've been killed, but maybe he would've reached for his gun and now people would be saying that those people were just heroes defending themselves. With the pregnant ladies or Chinese woman? Most likely they wouldn't have even reached for it.
Scenario 2 — giving them a gun and training: I honestly don't know what would've happened in this case. Maybe the homeless guy would've been able to defend himself and we'd have a dead shop owner and (not-so-innocent) by-standers. Maybe he would've gone straight to robbing the cash register instead of just the toothpaste. ("In the US, having any sort of power over someone else gives us a massive superiority God complex.") Maybe with the women they would've been able to turn the tables and kill their assailants. Maybe not.
Scenario 3 — everyone has a gun and training. Homeless guy pulls his gun, shop owner and bystanders pull theirs. Homeless guy is dead, but everyone agrees he deserved it. One of the bystanders is also dead. Collateral damage. Similar scenario with the women except people don't blame them.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 8:00am
They're not going to do shit about it, so 1) the homeless guy dies as he did, 2) the bastards get scared and run away and wait for a cop (who shoots the homeless guy dead), 3) the homeless guy takes a couple assholes with him, 4) the cop actually gets him to drop the weapon and he goes to jail, 5) homeless guy defends himself & runs for office and gets elected as a hero to homeless people everywhere.
Guns don't need training at point blank range. Pull the trigger and see what explodes. Note, there were no "bystanders" - all the people watching piled on the guy. Nice if at least they were playing Russian roulette - pop goes the weasel.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 9:18am
Good responses.
The kind of training I was thinking about, however, wasn't necessarily at a firing range but of the mental kind that prepares one to actually use a gun when necessary, and ideally only when necessary. I doubt most gun-owners get that kind of training, however. (None of the gun-owners I know did, and I have several in my family.)
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 9:25am
I would be happy if someday we have the equivalent of automobile driver's license testing for guns ( like Japan) The former is far from perfect, as every parent who fears letting their 16 year old drive alone after they just finished driver's ed and passed the state test can attest. But it's something, better than just letting them learn by doing by themselves, and the whole licensing system itself allows for rules of operation with consequences. Without automobile drivers licenses, we'd have a way smaller population and a helluva lot fewer cars to boot, lotta used car parts and junk cars maybe.
Licensing each and every gun and gun owner also gives you a national database of serial numbers that can be tracked when stolen. The same with automobiles does not prevent car theft or people using stolen cars in crimes, but the results are way better than nothing. It's very easy for law enforcement to track them when stolen and when used in a crime.
As to the Second Amendment argument regarding such a database strikes me as ridiculous: how long would take for a dictator government to take all the guns away? Before they do so, surely there would be the armed conflict Second Amendment nuts visualize. It would require obedience from every single law enforcement person in the country, highly unlikely. (Comes to mind it would of course be much worse if "they" tried to take all the cars away!)
by artappraiser on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 4:06pm
The current debate on gun safety does not seek to totally disarm Americans, only to limit magazine size and some particularly lethal weapons.
If cops in a region are brutal or corrupt, guns will not solve the situation, a better administration of the city or county is required.
by NCD on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 11:06am
What then, if another administration refuses to act any better, acting with impunity, as the opinion I offered before suggested could happen; a rare occurrence but a possibility?
THEN WHAT DO "WE" DO; NCD?
by Resistance on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 12:35pm
Your stand on gun control indicates that your prime motive is, like any rational non-maniac, making our country a safer place to live. Good luck. I share that desire. Even though I may be crazy, I assure you that I am not a maniac.
"The current debate on gun safety does not seek to totally disarm Americans,..."
I read that declarative sentence with heavy emphasis on the word 'current'. I have asked a couple times what situation strong advocates here for these regulations would ultimately wish to see. The question has been completely evaded each time. I suspect that is out of a desire among at least some not to make the honest response that they would like to see all guns removed from common access.
Whether that is correct or not here at Dag , it is believed by very many people around our country to be the case. Many honest, law abiding, honorable, tax-paying, family loving, patriotic, community minded, law abiding, honest, educated, intelligent people feel they have the 'right' to own a firearm as well as a good reason to do so and also believe that there is a push among many to deprive them of the legal protection to do so. Many of those people believe that they must defend against being pushed towards the proverbial 'slippery slope'. A cliche can refer to something correct.
Admitting a desire to remove all guns would sharply weaken current arguments about regulation. Agreeing that people have a right to own firearms for personal protection and for hunting and sport shooting, which makes them available to most any maniac, makes the argument that these regulations will measurably help protect us from maniacs very weak indeed.
If cops in a region are brutal or corrupt, guns will not solve the situation, a better administration of the city or county is required.
What is the word "if" even doing in that sentence?
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 1:10pm
I disagree with your contention that many here at dag would like to ban guns. I think those who would like to ban guns are a decided fringe element in American society and extremely rare here at dagblog. I generally take people at their word absent some clear indications they are being disingenuous. I wonder why you're here if you believe many here are disingenuous. I wouldn't bother discussing issues with people if I thought they were lying to me. For the record, since statements like this get misunderstood so often, I'm not suggesting you should leave, its just puzzling to me.
I tend to avoid broad questions like, what would you like to see done on gun control. Not because I'm trying to hide my true views but because such a broad question requires an equally broad and comprehensive answer, a blog. I don't have time to write a blog so I restrict myself to comments on some of the details on issues rather than the full and comprehensive analysis of a blog. Perhaps other's feel likewise.
Its true that many of the far right gun owners think democrats want to ban guns. I think they are being duped by the NRA and other gun organizations to increase the power of those organizations. I disagree that this is a broad belief among gun owners. I say that as a hunter and a gun owner. Polls show that a vast majority of NRA members, gun owners, and the public at large favor universal background checks and a ban on large capacity magazines. There is significant majority support for other legislation.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 3:40pm
If you look again at what I actually said I think you might agree that I did not paint the contributors here with such a broad brush as you suggest. Emphasis in the original except bold.
"I have asked a couple times what situation strong advocates here for these regulations would ultimately wish to see. The question has been completely evaded each time. I suspect that is out of a desire among at least some not to make the honest response that they would like to see all guns removed from common access. Whether that is correct or not here at Dag , it is believed by very many people around our country to be the case."
And,In case it seems otherwise to anyone, I want to say that I would describe, as a group, those in our country who would like all guns removed in exactly the same terms as I used above; Honest, law abiding, honorable, tax-paying, family loving, patriotic, community minded, law abiding, educated, intelligent, bla bla bla.
I don't accuse anyone of being disingenuous because they did not reply to my question. Besides the good reason you gave there could be a million other reasons besides the one I suggested only as a likely possibility and only to make a point about the whole gun control issue. Saying that nobody responded is certainly not an accusation that someone was lying.
I know just what you mean. Cheers.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 01/22/2013 - 11:58pm
Again I would yield to Peracles
Except to add: The Australian government wouldn't want the long abused, persecuted and degraded, to have guns would they?
by Resistance on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 10:54am
RE: Doomsday Tyranny et. al.
Just in case you missed it, Obama sez:
by artappraiser on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 4:40pm
Easily understood by some to mean; New responses to new government contrived challenges, means individual liberties are to become subservient and take a back seat to collective action initiated by those, the founding fathers warned us against.
They can't do it directly, so they allow an atmosphere to become, and the response is what they wanted to achieve.
The terrorists were the pawns, in the battle of who controls.
by Resistance on Mon, 01/21/2013 - 5:13pm