Silly Americans. Be more Canadian!
Focusing on this small part of the gun murder pie seems stupid.
As a registered Democrat, I sincerely hope that guns aren’t part of the Democratic primary. Everyone will be running towards Hentor’s position and they will lose every swing state in the general election. And then, with our luck, all the liberal justices will get get into a car accident and we will have a supreme court full of Scalia’s.
Our party does best when it doesn’t mention guns (with or without bibles). Just leave it to the states and hope the supreme court doesn’t strike down the NFA.
.223 is reasonable around here. .22 is still being rationed.
If he is, both he and you are missing the points I was making.
If you mean that you were making additional points as well as that one, I was purposefully limiting it down as much as possible to provide the maximum evidence for **Airman’s **“everyone keeps shouting this idea down for this reason!” suggestion.
If you mean that you weren’t in fact making that argument at all, then I guess **Airman **is entirely incorrect in his comprehension of the situation rather than just mostly incorrect. Airman, do you have any other cites of threads where this idea was shouted down for this reason?
Jesus Christ Kable, you’ve no idea how big of a fucking idiot you really are. :smack:
Why do you say that?
No thanks, hate their bacon.
Maybe he thinks that it would be a good idea for Democrats to run on a gun control platform, particularly gun confiscation. That or maybe he doesn’t like having his nose rubbed in the fact that its a lost cause.
Or maybe I’m of the opinion that the American gun fetish is intellectually deficient. And maybe I’m equally disgusted with the right’s penchant to fellate guns at every opportunity as I am with the left’s impotence to lead (morally and politically) on the subject of effective gun control.
The idea isn’t shouted down per se, but it is often mentioned as a concern when talking about mental health and guns. Here is a thread from last January that has similar notions as the one **Airman **mentioned. In it, **DrCube **and artemis take the position against mental health reporting, though I don’t think they were in the majority. That’s one I remember off the top of my head, but there have been others.
I am not asserting that the Newtown or any other mass shooting is the proximate cause for certain guns and ammo being unavailable, but there are many that are and the argument can be made that sensational crimes have lead to various restrictive legislation. This in no way lessens the tragedy of any murder, especially children.
Off the top of my head, I am prohibited from (in my state of CA):
[ul]
[li]owning a fully automatic weapon[/li][li]purchasing or possessing a suppressor.[/li][li]purchasing or manufacturing a magazine with greater than 10 round capacity[/li][li]carrying a concealed firearm of any kind, and a concealed knife of anything greater than 3 inches. (ironically the penalty for the knife is a felony and the penalty for the firearm is a wobbler but could be a misdemeanor)[/li][li]Can not mail order ammunition in various counties[/li][li]Can not own or purchase a .50 BMG rifle[/li][li]Unable to purchase an XD-45 .45 ACP in bi-tone (two colors, black and green), however the exact same model in black *or *in green are legal.[/li][li]Cannot purchase any handgun the state of CA has not approved[/li][li]Cannot purchase any new handgun manufactured that does not have non-existent microstamping technology[/li][li]Cannot purchase or possess any rifle with an overall length less than 26" or a barrel length less than 16"[/li][li]Cannot purchase more than one pistol in any 30 day period, even though I may already own several[/li][li]The DROS fee for purchasing a pistol must be paid again when purchasing a long gun, even if purchased at the same time[/li][li]Cannot purchase imported antique M1 Garand semi auto rifles from South Korea[/li][/ul]
There’s probably more, but those are just the ones I’ve run into.
In addition, there has also been recent legislation that would make all ammo purchase subject to background checks, prohibit 100% of mail order ammunition, and make illegal any center fire rifle that can accept a magazine illegal. This legislation actually passed both houses in the State and were vetoed. That means that these ideas that were all pushed recently in response to Newtown could have been made into law had our Democratic governor not vetoed them. The concern that restrictive laws are right around the corner and what is necessary to defeat them is constant and persistent vigilance is not unrealistic.
And if the Sandy Hook kids were all black, Hispanic, or Muslim, being raised by their 40-year-old grandmothers because their bio parents are in prison or addicted to drugs, and had names like “Sharqueenzia” or “Marquavious”, it would have disappeared from the news faster than that story about the UFO over O’Hare Airport.
I hope we never find out if I’m right. We almost did a few months ago in Atlanta.
Someone on another website did a search to find out if anything like this had ever happened and been covered up or not reported, and all she got was a lot of racist blogs. :rolleyes:
Wanna bet? I found out that one of my Facebook friends, a woman who attends a meetup I belong to, did indeed believe this! :eek: She’s currently in the midst of a career change, and the posts about this stopped abruptly. I’m guessing that someone told her that they could impair her ability to get a job a couple years from now.
Srsly, this woman believed that any day now, Obama himself would send out marauding hordes to break down doors without a warrant to search houses for guns.
(Plus, if you really do have a large unregistered arsenal, it’s really not a good idea to brag about it online.)
Talk about a small world: My pastor’s BFF is the pastor for Nancy Lanza’s BFF. He told us, with the permission of all parties, that after her divorce, she amassed a huge arsenal “because I no longer have a man in the house to protect me” and ordered her boys to shoot on sight anyone who came to the front door. :eek: I wonder if her own mental health issues contributed to her divorce, and eventual estrangement from her other son. 
Like I just said, 20 white middle class first-graders (with a token black/Hispanic tossed into the mix, but she was OK because she had a “normal” name and educated parents who are married to each other).
I post on a website that has a small but militant right-wing faction, and some of them said “It’s starting!” because they were having trouble buying ammunition. 
Why? Because people like them are stockpiling it. (headdesk)
One of the kids who died had a twin in another class. You can imagine what their parents were probably told.
:mad: :dubious:
Gun nuts are a different breed. They fantasize about being the staunch defenders of liberty, ready to take down a tyrranical government. They spew nonsense like “the second Amendment protects the others.” Wrong on both counts- tyrranical regimes in Poland, East Germany, and the former USSR were overthrown without the need of a single pistol. The industrial world enjoys freedom, without any of their citizens packing heat. They’re paranoid little fuckers who think they will someday need to mow down legions of savages hell bent on taking the hubcaps off their mobile homes. Every time Diane Feinstein farts, they flood the gun shops and clean the shelves, convinced they need as much firepower as Seal Team Six. When one of their maniacal brethren commits the mass shootings they can only dream of, their reaction is “OH MY GOD! ARE THE GUNS GOING TO BE OKAY?” They’re sick little puppies and deserve our contempt.
I’d agree with you that both DrCube and artemis take a position against, but only DrCube, so far as I can tell, holds the position that Airman describes on the discriminatory nature of the concept. artemis seems to be arguing, similarly to Terr in the thread Airman cites, that the negative aspect isn’t the discriminatory point per se, but that it would have a practical effect of mentally ill people not seeking help.
So it’s not just not shouted down “per se”, it’s not shouted down. Well, I don’t think it seems reasonable to characterise two people in two threads as shouting down opposition, especially when there seems to be as much agreement as disagreement when opinions are expressed and what disagreement there is seems fairly rarely overall to be of the form that Airman declared it did. I don’t find it surprising that some people would advance such arguments, just that it happened in the manner and proportion that Airman stated it did.
In those particular threads, anyway. I have to say i’m not a big participator in the gun control threads, so it’s easily possible i’m missing many threads where what Airman suggested is true. Though him citing a specific one as evidence which doesn’t actually work too well seems like a potential black mark against the idea, i’m happy to look over any other examples that might be suggested.
And the Rwandan holocaust was mainly committed with machetes.
Some of them have even advocated MANDATORY arming of teachers. Oh, get real. How would that be enforced, and by whom? As for teaching schoolchildren about guns, which some of them also advocate, the extreme fringe seem to advocate that all lessons be taught in that context - i.e. 1 gun plus 1 gun equals 2 guns.
As for armed guards at schools, the one school I’ve encountered that was on perpetual lockdown with a guard and metal detector at the door (IDK if they were armed or not) was a K-3 elementary school in a middle-class neighborhood in a city of 40,000 people. It was the school attended by children that age who lived at the domestic violence shelter, and the guard was contracted by that agency.
I don’t think anyone is interested in attempting to satisfy your curiosity in this regard. The point is that there are those that are against mental health reporting. That and the issue of gun control advocacy is complicated. Many very staunch gun rights advocates would be in favor of controls designed to actually limit gun violence, rather than those designed to limit guns.
That seems like a reasonable and understandable summation. My original quoting of Airman was to highlight what was seemingly an unreasonable and surprising summation; that staunch gun rights advocates suggest methods of curbing gun violence, but wouldn’t you know it, such reasonable arguments just get shouted down by people who fear discrimination against the mentally ill.
I just had particular issues with Airman’s, what appears to be hyperbolic and inaccurate, characterisation of those on the other side of his position. If indeed Airman, or anyone who might agree with him, doesn’t care to back up those statements, then of course they are under no obligation to fulfil my curiosity. But he and they would have to retract statements they couldn’t prove. So long as you’re not standing by his words, and you seem have a much more reasonable position backed up by those cited threads, then I don’t see any reason why you’d have to go looking to back the guy up.