Repeal the Second Amendment

Bump this thread every time you feel like repealing the 2nd Amendment

or post any links/resources relevant to achieving this goal

since when do we pay attention to the Constitution? Take the fuckers' guns.

I knew I could count on your support

Karl Rove agrees

somehow I doubt he will support my new Repeal the 2nd Amendment lobbying group

Still think some billionaire should blanket the media with this ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0

take down the nra. take down the gun manufacturers. obliterate them like they did the cigarette companies. stop pretending this is just about people's opinions instead of paid corporate shills profiting off human suffering. flood the media with nra rhetoric coupled with pictures of mass killers from all over the world. why the hell should we let geraldo rivera do our talking for us?

this is one of those issues that makes me wish i was rich enough to matter politically

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment

so many factors involved in that "solution" - it's basically "let's wait until we have a better Supreme Court that may eventually rule on a hypothetical case that would allow the gov't to then enact crippling gun control laws in the face of overwhelming opposition from arguably the most powerful lobby in the country!"

Would rather be proactive and more direct about it and just go straight to amending the Constitution

yes there are only a small number of factors involved in doing that

^^ I've always appreciated your take on this issue fwiw

both are uphill battles but one seems to require more fortunate happenstance than the other idk

well the thing is if you propose an amendment that same unbelievably powerful lobby can then fight against it. god, look at what happened to the era, and schlafly was nowhere near as powerful as the nra is. if you want to do anything, you have to break the balls of the lobby first.

I mean it's not as simple as just adding an amendment saying the 2nd is no longer a thing. Any such amendment is going to end up being a "clarifying" amendment and who knows what kind of insipid sauce could wind up in that. So idk too. I mean idk either. whatever.

obviously the NRA has to be broken - I'm open to suggestions.

the constant-cowering-in-fear the Democrats currently resort to is obviously not a good strategy.

I did look up the history of the ERA a bit (interesting to note it was first written in 1923). Obviously there's some lessons to be learned there.

OBVIOUSLY I say

it irritates me to no end that the left is really disorganized and/or completely demoralized on this issue, it's ridiculous.

Inevitable baby talk from Democratic Party types "oh the ERA failed so.....we never reintroduced it. Because waaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh. Because if anything we do loses, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Let's sell out so we never have to lose again."

I apologize for characterizing Democratic Party types as people who emote in long vowels. Anyway:

HEY!!! I'd support "repeal the 2nd amendment." But absolutely nothing less than that. (That is, sure, I'd vote for gun control measures, but I think it's relatively dopey to invest a lot into them.)

When gun control laws get overturned judicially --- and they do --- it means all that investment of effort into making the gun control laws turned out to be a complete waste of time. So why exactly should the left not be "disorganized or demoralized" when this is the true situation?

But yeah. Go big. Go Constitutional Amendment. If you are going to do it, really do it.

The fundamental problem IMO is that the USA is basically flooding the entire world with guns and other weapons. The gov't is cozy as fuck with gun makers so why would they ever shut the party down?

Yeah, my endorsing repeal (or) redraw of the 2nd Amendment does not constitute endorsement of fantasy scenario where all the guns are rounded up, because wow is that ever a fantasy scenario, not to mention a bloody and totalitarian one.

I could easily imagine the first place everybody would go would be minority neighborhoods, while the suburban whites would be left alone. You know, like in the drug war.

because wow is that ever a fantasy scenario, not to mention a bloody and totalitarian one.

let's have it. All the gun nuts get to live out their fantasies of resistance, the army kills them all. it's a win-win.

even if the 2nd amendment isn't repealed, i think it's important for there to be a powerful voice (lobby) arguing for its repeal, since that establishes one pole of the conversation and would make those advocating for extensive gun control seem like...not the scariest bunch?

of course people will still say "but this reveals that they really want to take away out guns!" ... except that this is /already/ the argument that the NRA et al make, every day.

repeal or revision, i suppose.

have we talked about this?: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment

argues (as does my S.O.) that it's not about the 2nd amendment but about its interpretation. i'm a little incredulous at the argument that this radical interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a recent phenomenon, since the antipathy to gun control is pointedly /not/ a recent development.

but i'm not a constitutional scholar. (though i'm a little skeptical of anyone who points to a stevens dissent as the best place to find a legitimate constitutional interpretation. i thought his interpretations were generally thought to be fairly flaky.)

thoughts?

this article makes a similar argument. the idea that the second amendment protects an individual right to a firearm was rejected by most legal scholars until the '70s. the amendment basically means nothing at all anymore since state "militas" are not much of a thing these days.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

No, appoint justices who interpret it correctly (as per my former boss - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856).

Predicate: elect Democratic President next year.

The court being perhaps the biggest issue of the next election...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-enormous-unbelievable-stakes-for-supreme-court-in-2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliot-mincberg/why-november-8-2016-is-ju_b_8189702.html
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-685471-justices-supreme.html

xp

apparently the author of the politico article wrote an entire book on the second amendment -- anyone read it?

No, appoint justices who interpret it correctly (as per my former boss - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856).

Predicate: elect Democratic President next year.

The court being perhaps the biggest issue of the next election...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/the-enormous-unbelievable-stakes-for-supreme-court-in-2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliot-mincberg/why-november-8-2016-is-ju_b_8189702.html
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/court-685471-justices-supreme.html

― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Friday, October 2, 2015 7:06 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this reasoning appeals to me more than the "repeal 2nd amendment" argument even if i think the latter should be part of the conversation

radical move by ILXORS in "vote for whatever Democrat wins nom" plan

"It's a big shift, usually we'd just vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, and I do mean WHOEVER that is.....but this time if the dem wins.....eventually......maybe....if somebody dies or retires or something....we will help shift the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of gun control."

you say "radical move," dripping scornful sarcasm, as if we thought we were proposing anything radical. try playing chess with someone else.

also note your rhetorical move othering "ILXORS" -- as if you aren't one. or i guess you just aren't part of the hive mind, right?

radical!

radical move by ILXORS in "vote for whatever Democrat wins nom" plan

"It's a big shift, usually we'd just vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is, and I do mean WHOEVER that is.....but this time if the dem wins.....eventually......maybe....if somebody dies or retires or something....we will help shift the balance on the Supreme Court in favor of gun control."

― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 8:11 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

also...this is not a question of "eventually...maybe." the judges appointed to the supreme court have a direct effect on how laws are interpreted, passed, and enforced. that's been proven... all the time.

i'm not sure what your intimation of superiority is implying.... do you think we think the limit of political activity is voting in a presidential election?

actually i'm not sure you care what we think, so long as you can feel superior to this imagined ILXOR gradualist hivemind.

happy friday!

actually... why am i bothering to argue with some patronizing dipshit on the internet? sorry folks! off to the movies...

I feel like part of what's needed is some kind of really hard-edged stigmatizing shame campaign, like enough with the hand-wringing "OH WHEN WILL THE SADNESS END?" attitude. The question is, do you stigmatize ownership or just manufacture -- does stigmatizing ownership backfire, and otoh is stigmatizing manufacture not enough. But some kind of massive pushback on the "brand" of gun ownership is needed.

Juxtapose a guy saying he wants to protect his family with a couple of terrible stories about kids killed by handguns kept in the house, then show the stats.

ok fair points in the first couple posts.....lots of invective in the later posts. You are forgiven. I hope that didn't come off too patronizing.

Just want to say I'm all in favor of REPEALING THE 2nd Amendment and I don't care whether it's hard or not. I don't know why people pick political positions based on whether it will be hard or not. It's pathetic for anybody who is not a professional politician to do such things, does anybody get what I mean here or am I just totally out there for this crowd....wait, there are about 20 people logged in right now, this isn't a crowd....

But seriously, you were going to vote for whoever the Dem is anyway, right? If not, say so. I question whether adding "Supreme Court Justice Picking" to that basic default position constitutes "action", whether described sarcastically as "radical" by me or not.

I think voting for President MAINLY on the issue of "who the Supreme Court Justices the P would appoint" is just awful. Talk about low expectations: I'm gonna vote for somebody because maybe they will appoint somebody to some lifetime position where we have no control over them.........

I've heard people say vote based on the SC pick for 35 years so I'm extra cranky on that subject. And you know how cranky I am anyway, so we are talking extra cranky.

No hard feelings? REPEAL!

Do something to eat away at the "responsible gun ownership" myth. Make people feel more uncomfortable about owning guns.

go hard with TV ads juxtaposing mass gun violence with a politician or NRA spokesman subsequently making a "let's not be hasty"/"we can't cut back on guns"/"banning guns will accomplish nothing" or something similarly tone deaf, show the date, show the number of deaths, show faces, pile one quick segment on top of the previous, show the callousness and just shame them hard.

xpost yeah show the actual FANTASIES bandied about by the right and libertarians about the government taking advantage of a more unarmed populace, or the fantasy of how many "bad guys" have been stopped by "responsible" gun owners. show the reality of the blood on the ground vs the paranoia.

I don't know why people pick political positions based on whether it will be hard or not.

there's a difference b/t positions and actions, though. you can think "x" is the best position in the abstract but "y" is the best strategy for achieving something closer to it.

i mean that's just... life. you can't always get what you want, etc. i don't know that to acknowledge this basic truism of life is necessarily to be defeatist or whatever.

I definitely think the left could learn from the right about persistence in just plugging away at a position that seems "unrealistic." I feel like they're a little more adept at moving the center, although maybe I'm not giving the left enough credit for what seem to be recent swings back in the other direction on some issues.

"I've heard people say vote based on the SC pick for 35 years so I'm extra cranky on that subject."

when has it been untrue? and when has it been inconsistent with your choice?

did the supreme court not give us the george w bush administration?

Basic truisms of life include "the possibility of losing." For example, you try something and it doesn't work, so you try something else.
You apply for a job you might or might not get. You write a book that maybe nobody will read.

With politics, suddenly everybody is a fucking outcomes specialist. Oh dear, this might not work? Let's not then. Hey, let's try something that will slowly crush our souls and make us not want to keep going --- many pundits say it would work though!!!

was a majority of that court not appointed by reagan, bush pere, and nixon?

You know, the saddest thing about the lost Gore administration is that VP pick of his, who was that again. He was awesome.

"I've heard people say vote based on the SC pick for 35 years so I'm extra cranky on that subject."

when has it been untrue? and when has it been inconsistent with your choice?

― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Friday, October 2, 2015 8:45 PM (3 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

srsly I'm tempted to go dig out all the 5-4 decisions that went our way that would not have with republican apointees in lieu of Kagan and Sotomayor. Gay marriage is an obvious one that comes to mind but there are probably dozens.

"For example, you try something and it doesn't work, so you try something else. You apply for a job you might or might not get. You write a book that maybe nobody will read."

this is about as applicable as the gop bullshit about balancing your checkbook being equivalent to balancing the budget. you don't get a second option here, the first one goes for 4-8 years, and it has secondary effects that can last for four decades.

You know, the saddest thing about the lost Gore administration is that VP pick of his, who was that again. He was awesome.

― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 9:49 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the saddest thing about this post is... nah, i'm off to the movies too

With politics, suddenly everybody is a fucking outcomes specialist. Oh dear, this might not work? Let's not then. Hey, let's try something that will slowly crush our souls and make us not want to keep going --- many pundits say it would work though!!!

― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 8:48 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well maybe a better way to think about it is cost/benefit. The political process for amending the constitution is SO difficult in today's political climate to begin with, and until a pretty recent Supreme Court case, the Second Amendment wasn't the main barrier to effective gun control anyway. So I think it's REALLY not worth the kind of expenditure and effort it would take to try to repeal the second amendment, in part because even if we win it doesn't actually mean we get effective gun control!

Heller v. DC was only 7 years ago. Our gun problem is much older.

And meanwhile, yes, I literally think it's a better strategy to "sit around waiting" for a majority liberal court, which could easily be within 5-10 years, then to go through the circus of trying to amend the constitution. And if that court does materialize, you don't actually have to then "wait around" for the right case to come along. All that has to happen is a state or municipality passes a law that appears to violate Heller, and some chump takes the bait and challenges it in court.

*than to go through...

"So I think it's REALLY not worth the kind of expenditure and effort it would take to try to repeal the second amendment, in part because even if we win it doesn't actually mean we get effective gun control!"

Never mind the defeatist first bit.....what do you mean by the second part of the sentence?

Are you saying that gun control measures would have to be implemented by, say, Congress, along with the repeal? I believe President Obama said something to the effect that Congress should be involved in such measures yesterday.

no shit i will give all my bernie sanders money to this

xp The second part of that sentence was self explanatory. You realize that until 2008, the Second Amendment was effectively neutered, right?

"For example, you try something and it doesn't work, so you try something else. You apply for a job you might or might not get. You write a book that maybe nobody will read."

this is about as applicable as the gop bullshit about balancing your checkbook being equivalent to balancing the budget. you don't get a second option here, the first one goes for 4-8 years, and it has secondary effects that can last for four decades.

― it's not a tuomas (benbbag), Friday, October 2, 2015 8:51 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You have excessive faith in the principle of safety of supporting the "least offensive candidate," while having excessive fears of what happens when your party doesn't have the presidency. Your party doesn't have the presidency quite often. Well, specifically, half the time, with one 4-year exception quite awhile ago.

But the main terrible thing that happens when your party doesn't run things is a sudden resurgence of interest among all the people who previously didn't really care. This groundswell of energy leads of course to your party running the White House for an....equal length of time.

American politics is a see-saw. Precisely 1 presidential election since 1952 didn't follow the 8 years for one party, 8 years for another party dynamic. It's a remarkably consistent pattern.

Expecting the Democratic Party to just win all the time and therefore contribute all the people you want to the Supreme Court? This is the big plan?

To use the biggest criticism this way of thinking could produce, this is "not realistic."

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I'm sleepy too. Yet I don't hide behind it when I'm losing an argument.

G'night.

also

Precisely 1 presidential election since 1952 didn't follow the 8 years for one party, 8 years for another party dynamic.

lol this is wrong

actually sorry it is technically correct, but there was a democratic white house for 20 years straight just prior to the year you arbitrarily chose, and it's not exactly a large statistical sampling.

AH HA. I didn't go to sleep. I read a bad article on the Guardian instead. So there!

the surprise year was: 1980. Interestingly, this was one of the more historically significant political shifts ever, so there is that.

How exactly you claim that 60 plus years is "not exactly a large statistical sampling" ... I mean what do you think elections are, flipping coins? We're talking about millions of individual decisions leading up to each election outcome, and still it is almost always....8 years for D, 8 years for R.

Pattern getting more entrenched, rather than less, by the way. We are about to have 24 years with 3 presidents. I'll give you a hint on the last time that happened: one of them was Jefferson.

And this is not to say we couldn't just chuck it in 2016! Beat the pattern. The grass is always greener on the other side. So why not throw away your history and take the ride. (that's a quote......to bring it back to an ILM kind of place where I'd rather be anyway)

Wow that lyric (from 1983) is apparently so obscure it is not even available via a google search. If there is some kind of prize for being underrated and ignored...

you know, you can do a lot of things politically. you can have short and long term goals. in the short(er) term, you can think that electing a democrat will potentially allow for shifts in the supreme court that will in turn help to alter the way the constitution is interpreted for the better. hey, it's worked that way before (in that direction, and in reverse). i don't think this obviates some longer-term goals of making democrats more accountable to their base. or at least it doesn't necessarily obviate it. and even if it does... well....

things could always be worse. much worse. through most of human history, in much of the rest of the world, they are much worse. i'm really, really averse to the whole "things are gonna have to get worse so they can eventually get better" argument. for reasons i've explained many, many, many times on this board. above all, history just doesn't work in a predictable fashion. the dynamics of social and political change can't be mapped out decades in advance. we are never guaranteed the outcome we imagine or desire. to think otherwise is... i was going to write "hubris," but i don't think it's quite hubris, it's more just... deluded?

sorry i don't mean to say that anyone here's "deluded" per se.... just that given the choice between an option that will almost assuredly result in something better in the medium term and some other option that offers some faint hope in a very long term (but not before some serious harm is done).... i guess i'd pick the first one. if that makes me overcautious or whatever much more negative epithet you might cast, i guess the shoe fits.

Punctuated equilibrium happens in politics too. I tend to think 2008 might end up being a year that we look back in history as being the beginning of a new age for (certain) social democratic / progressive reforms in US government, so I honestly won't be surprised if the mass gun murders (and accompanying attempted gun murders) of the last few years, plus the pretty excellent efforts of that guy we elected in 2008 to put as fine a point on it as he thinks he can (he is sayin' what everybody else is thinkin'!), plus the pretty unbelievable efforts by the NRA et al. to be totally unacceptable in public outside of their little Charlton Heston echo chambers, turn into something like actual hard gun control and buy-back measures over the next few years.

We banned fucking booze in this country, that one time. When these things happen they happen all at once.

IMHO, and IANAL, and I Am Definitely Not An Elected Official, but it seems easier to turn the ATF into a regulatory juggernaut and gut the states' rights to regulate their own firearm-trading regimes than to enact a new, improved version of anything in the Bill of Rights.

Back to thread topic. If we want to do it.....How do we make this happen? Even if you don't think it's possible, let's handle it as a thought experiment shall we?

The only amendment ever to repeal an earlier amendment is the 21st --- 1933, the one that undid Prohibition. This is also the only amendment that was passed using the unusual method of "state ratifying conventions" rather than state legislatures.

fun fact: the 35th state to ratify the end of prohibition, and thus make it happen: Utah. That's right, bi-coastal urbanites, you can just knock the fuck off with the Utah jokes. I'm drinking to Utah as we speak, and I invite you to join me.

So this history provides clues as to political movement, yeah? I'm guessing that state legislatures are strictly for the well-connected. A bastion of bastards.

But the internet is letting me down on the details here - I may need to find an actual book or three to get to the bottom of this. I'd love to know the thinking behind the move to the state ratifying convention method rather than the state legislature method - it was obviously pretty innovative and probably involved some risk.

one, the idea that gun control advocates have nothing on their side is ridiculous. mass shootings are not acceptable to the people of america, and there is only so long they are going to take this whole "learned helplessness" thing. if there weren't gun massacres in america on a regular basis, then yes, there would be zero incentive to overturn the laws.

regarding state legislatures, the issue is that the entire principles of bicameral government have broken down in a number of states. whenever the republicans lose an election the democrats like to sneer at them as a "regional party", but being solely a "national party" is just as bad. "red states" or "blue states" are defined less by their political ideology than they are by the significant lack of political organization of one party or another. this is a pretty recent undertaking. the texas democratic party, for instance, completely imploded. so state legislatures tend to have poor legislators who do things like text videos of them cheating on their wife to their entire contact list and put terrible laws in place. and then they gerrymander to keep the other party weak. this isn't just a republican thing- look at maryland.

regarding a repeal of the 2nd amendment, i would argue that this structurally more closely resembles the 18th than it does the 21st. both movements are driven by moral outrage backed up by, well, hard facts. alcohol is a vice which claims the lives, in america, of many more people than guns do, and as much as we sneer upon the people who wanted to regulate it, they had very sound principles in wanting to do so. like guns, alcohol is also used, extremely effectively, to oppress minorities- case in point, native americans. according to the ken burns documentary on prohibition, one of the key failures of prohibition was a bait and switch effect- many people who supported it did not imagine that a law as draconian as the volstead act would result from the amendment. early advocates of the temperance movement suggested people drink beer, rather than gin.

which is to say, i would construe gun ownership as being somewhat similar to alcohol consumption or marijuana use- a vice which, in general, does more harm than it does good.

i don't wish to be defeatist here, only prudent. an outright ban on guns, particularly in this day and age where you can 3d print your own firearm, particularly given the massive number of guns already in existence in the us and in the hands of the drug cartels, seems unlikely to be particularly effective. (it will be interesting to see how this affects firearm violence in europe over the next 20 years.) sound and prudent regulation would treat firearms like americans treat cigarettes, like americans ought to to treat recreational drugs- as a vice to be taxed and controlled through regulation, rather than something we seek to totally eradicate.

incidentally, regarding the intent of the second amendment, most of the bill of rights historically deals not with the conflict of rights between the individual and the state, as we construe it today, but with the conflict of rights between the nation and the states which make up that nation. this can clearly be seen in, for instance, tocqueville. the 1937 constitutional revolution completely upended that paradigm, however, and since that time the second amendment has not been particularly meaningful in its original sense.

sorry, for "bicameral" i meant to say "two-party". the us states individually have never had meaningful bicameral legislatures like america has on a federal level.

I was trying to think yesterday how Repeal2 would actually play out. Repeal would allow the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed, but I don't think it would automatically, on its own, do the infringing. I wonder how likely it would be for the fed govt to stay out of the infringing part and leave the matter for states to decide -- more liberal states banning all guns (except maybe for extremely tightly-regulated hunting weapons), gun-crazy red states allowing the gun-craziness to continue. Maybe a ban on full-auto fire at the federal level so ultra nutty states could not legalize machine guns. The more I think about this the unlikelier it seems...

I don't think it would automatically, on its own, do the infringing

If enough votes could be mustered to refer the amendment that repealed or modified the 2nd and for state legislatures to pass it, then by definition there would be plenty of political will to implement it, too.

well, i mean would the new amendment just be "the second amendment is cancelled" or would it say something like the Congress shall have the power to regulate the private ownership of firearms and other weapons of deadly force? and possibly further language (likely, compromise language) establishing whether there are limits to said power, etc. i get that removing the "it's a constitutional right!" defense would go a long way, but even in the very hypothetical universe where this amendment passes, there would be states ready to stall it out for years, decades, or forever with dubious work-arounds to whatever law the feds actually enact. look at all the bullshit anti-abortion legislation since roe v. wade, or the age of post-brown segregation.

apparently the author of the politico article wrote an entire book on the second amendment -- anyone read it?

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, October 2, 2015

Yeah, last month. Good, but not as impeccably researched as the book published a couple years ago analyzing the Heller case. I liked, though, that Waldman gently criticized Stevens for legitimating Scalia's originalism by himself reviewing historical documents.

I'll retract that point: it IS well researched but the tone is that of a smart magazine article expanded.

the surprise year was: 1980.

which isn't much of a 'pattern.'

http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/george-bush/george-bush-tough.jpg

No, 1988 is right on schedule, as was 1984 and 1992. The sole aberrant outcome is 1980.

One extra 4 year period for the Republicans - and that's it. Enough to freak out Democrats into becoming shadows of themselves, but really. That's it.

Somebody said 1952 was an arbitrary beginning. Well, the Roosevelt-Truman run was historic in its length, so....after that unusual event ends.....we then get 15 out of 16 predictable election results based on R or D.

Clip this Coupon: "Who cares" and "Fuck you" are both appropriate responses to what I've pointed out: this could stop any time, I agree. You're welcome.

"No pattern exists" though? Sorry about that.

whoa wow im woke af now thanks

If enough votes could be mustered to refer the amendment that repealed or modified the 2nd and for state legislatures to pass it, then by definition there would be plenty of political will to implement it, too.

― Aimless, Saturday, 3 October 2015 17:02 (2 hours ago) Permalink

That's it, exactly.

Dems won election in 00 as well, so. It goes.

8
8
8
4
12
12
4
8(+)

Another way of looking at it:
20-32 Reb Dominance
32-52 Dem Dominance
52-68 No dominance
68-92 Rep Dominance (only one loss to Dems)
92-2024 Dem dominance (only one loss to Rebs)

Seeking patterns in so little information is a fools errand. It can always be interpreted differently.

I'm sleepy too. Yet I don't hide behind it when I'm losing an argument.

G'night.

― Vic Perry, Friday, October 2, 2015 10:26 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

uhhh

lol

hahaha

luckily vic perry is never loses arguments so it's not really a problem

for the rest of us, though

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr05/2013/4/7/12/enhanced-buzz-15983-1365353313-1.jpg

whenever i'm winning arguments (which is all the time) i usually just insert extra words and scramble everything up to make it a puzzle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOLhQ6puoS4

Putting aside the pretense that people vote for parties rather than individuals at the decisive margin, can you all learn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system#United_States before talking about "Democrats" and "Republicans" over such time scales?

Sorry, first period should have been:
1896-1932: Rep Dominance (Only one Dem win: 1916, in 12 Roosevelt and Taft split the vote, combined they had a majority)

Counterfactual "not stolen election" Gore 00 administration among best ever. I understand in some versions of this one 9/11 didn't even happen, or if it did, the USA acted in this totally rational non-warlike way. Lieberman didn't even become Republican. No really.

Still, it's not as good as the counterfactual "not assassinated RFK 68 administration", nor as longterm useful as "not stolen election" Nixon 60 administration. But it is indeed a real good one.

and now.....back to repealing the 2nd amendment?

fwiw attempting take on the gun companies via the courts a la big tobacco isn't an option thanks to congress passing a law shielding gun companies from any liability lawsuits. guess who wrote that law? i'll give you a hint - he's running for president and he's the leading male candidate for his party's nomination right now.

or back to ending BUSH'S WAR in Afghanistan

(remember, if Hillllary <3 is bombing Doctors Without Borders in 2023, it's still BUSH'S WAR)

Trump wrote a law?

Xp

I know you cant be referring to the PCLAA cuz that was Larry Craig's baby.

One of the debate questions from here on out should be: "how many mass shootings would there have to be in this country before you agreed to pass any new gun control laws? Cite a number."

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/k_gwwnq-30i8vmypp8fkag.png

I would guess this is due to a. political polarization (you don't get to be a real republican if you support gun control in 2015) and b. crime going down. but unlike gay marriage, pot, there's really no sign that the political support for this is going in the right direction.

do you understand what a trendline is

oh n/m I am apparently terrible at understanding shades of green

but unlike gay marriage, pot, there's really no sign that the political support for this is going in the right direction.

it involves selling fewer things instead of more of them

but unlike gay marriage, pot, there's really no sign that the political support for this is going in the right direction.

that’s my sense too
nb there’s difference here qualitatively, in principle
extending rights vs curtailing rights
the latter will always be more difficult (in this country)

(and tbh-- this issue aside-- generally speaking, good thing too)

have we talked about this?: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment

argues (as does my S.O.) that it's not about the 2nd amendment but about its interpretation. i'm a little incredulous at the argument that this radical interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a recent phenomenon, since the antipathy to gun control is pointedly /not/ a recent development.

but i'm not a constitutional scholar. (though i'm a little skeptical of anyone who points to a stevens dissent as the best place to find a legitimate constitutional interpretation. i thought his interpretations were generally thought to be fairly flaky.)

thoughts?

― wizzz! (amateurist), Friday, October 2, 2015 7:58 PM (Yesterday)

it absolutely is. if you want a couple of very good, very long papers to give you some good history on the subject, try justice stephens' dissent in DC vs heller or this essay by garry wills in the NYRB

because wow is that ever a fantasy scenario, not to mention a bloody and totalitarian one.

let's have it. All the gun nuts get to live out their fantasies of resistance, the army kills them all. it's a win-win.

― Οὖτις, Friday, October 2, 2015 7:00 PM (Yesterday)

lol shakey i love you

everybody likes fantasies

Vic, your posting style is obnoxious. You wanna start coalitions? Start with this thread.

Alfred, I respect you.

The second amendment never got in the way of towns in the Old West banning guns in the city limits:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/even-tombstone-had-gun-laws-047366#comments

I'd love to see a city and/or state prohibit guns within it's borders and then stand ground all the way up to the Supreme Court to force the issue.

This is worth reading:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41EVAkSxpdL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

The second amendment never got in the way of towns in the Old West banning guns in the city limits:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/even-tombstone-had-gun-laws-047366#comments

I'd love to see a city and/or state prohibit guns within it's borders and then stand ground all the way up to the Supreme Court to force the issue.

― Elvis Telecom, Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:49 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

hasn't that more or less happened e.g. in chicago... and the result was not what we would have hoped

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/us/mass-murderers-fit-profile-as-do-many-others-who-dont-kill.html?ribbon-ad-idx=16&rref=homepage&module=Ribbon&version=origin®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Home%20Page&pgtype=article

I would guess this is due to a. political polarization (you don't get to be a real republican if you support gun control in 2015) and b. crime going down. but unlike gay marriage, pot, there's really no sign that the political support for this is going in the right direction.

― iatee, Saturday, October 3, 2015 8:18 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the drop from the early to mid-90s is the result of the passage of the brady bill in late 93 and assault weapons ban in mid-late 94. the brief bump back up in 99 was columbine. i'd guess that the decline that begins in about april 2000 was probably related to the Presidential election (and the Federal agent seizure in the Elian affair?) of that year, after which things leveled off and started rising in the wake of the brutality of the Iraq war and as the AWB approached its sunset in mid-late 04. fear of a black president probably drove the decline from 2007 to the present, punctuated only by the huge bump caused by sandy hook.

everybody likes fantasies

― Vic Perry, Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:08 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You're doing a very good job of talking to yourself

FactCheck on Gun Laws, Deaths and Crime. Won't necessary sway anyone's opinion, but worth a read:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

that factcheck piece proceeds from the possibly willfully stupid standard that gun control laws are only successful to the extent that they reduce gun deaths or violence below the rate extant in places without gun control laws and not, you know, below the rate that would obtain in the very same place in the absence of gun control laws. places with less gun control have less gun violence for the same reason that people who live in them are more accepting of weak gun restrictions - people in those very rural places are much fewer and farther between such that, among other factors, violent gun criminals are far easier to catch and recreational gun use is far less likely to injure or kill bystanders (to ignore suicide rates, accidents among gun users, etc.).

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/us/to-curb-gun-violence-hillary-clinton-has-a-plan-for-possible-executive-action.html

xp there's also always the problem of gun flow from neighboring states. E.g. DC, which (at least pre-Heller) had fairly strict gun laws, used to see a lot of guns come in via Virginia, which had very laxed gun laws. One of the biggest myths that I don't think gets challenged often enough is the "illegal guns" myth -- this is basically the flawed thinking behind "if owning a gun is a crime, only criminals will have guns." Illegal guns virtually always start as legal guns, so more barriers to legal access = more barriers to illegal access.

yeah isn't that one of the Mayor of Baltimore's big complaints, that there's a "gun corridor" that flows up and down the east coast, regardless of local gun laws

Alfred tweeted this, obviously for lolz but otm:
https://humanizingthevacuum.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/guns.png

Not saying it's a solution, but as a method to force government action.

Otherwise, we're just going to go through this again and again.

Why don't the families of shooting victims picket gun stores, gun shows, etc.?

photos of dead children on placards while they're at it

Uh yeah far be it from anyone who hasn't had such a tragedy happen to them to tell them what to do. Can imagine some of them do. Can also imagine trying to not allow it to completely dominate their lives. Can also imagine not wanting to be around guns alot when you are kin to victim. Also not everyone is political and/or extroverted. There are a bunch of reasons. A better question is why aren't the people supposedly in charge (politicians) doing anything?

Why don't the families of shooting victims picket gun stores, gun shows, etc.?

because they might get shot?

just guessin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8MyMKkjEaw

well at least my city's on the right track: https://www.yahoo.com/news/san-franciscos-last-gun-store-closing-doors-good-150556274.html

This reminds me of when a gun shop suddenly opened in Jersey City when I lived there, and within a few months of its open (1) the owner accidentally discharged a firearm in the store and (2) someone stole a handgun from an unlocked case during business hours

Gawker otm:

In order to achieve a realistic outcome, the anti-gun movement needs to fight, passionately and vociferously, for an unrealistic goal. Don’t campaign to expand background checks. Fight like hell to ban all private gun sales, and watch as expanded background checks becomes a politically palatable compromise.

Nothing is worse than a gun nut's smug smile when he explains that the weapons used are semi-automatic, legal, bought legally, and that the assailants passed background checks. Might as well repeal the Second Amendment.

yup, the argument makes it itself

as has been mentioned numerous times already - gun rights supporters already assume the left is 'coming for their guns' so the left may as well start trying to come for their guns.

what is there really to be lost in this proposition

Watching Ben Carson (of all people) tell me how he would have gone all superhero in a shooting situation has got to be one of the more sickening things I've seen lately. I would like him to explain tome how Obama going to Oregon is "politicizing the situation," while pretending to be Rambo on the talk show circuit is not. While we're busy arming and training kindergarten teachers, I hope all brain surgeons are open-carrying in the operating room.

i have to remind myself that carson et al are grown men and not 8-year-olds on the playground. his statement was worthy of the latter.

makes sense, given his grade school-grasp of evolution and other scientific issues

Repeal the Second Amendment everybody!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/10/09/1-dead-in-texas-southern-u-shooting.html

"According to KTRK, this is the third shooting on the TSU campus in the past two months, and the second at this apartment complex."

jfc

apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere but man... wtf is this bullshit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/carson-suggests-that-gun-rights-might-have-prevented-the-holocaust/2015/10/08/99a82d9e-6df2-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html

xp good thing tx universities are permitting gun carry on campus starting next August! we will never have to hear about another mass shooting at a tx school again!

xp not sure what else there is to say abt this except fuck ben carson truly and sincerely. this idea is as absurd as it is completely and utterly offensive

conflating gun rights and ownership with one of the most pathos-inducing acts of institutional violence in history is hucksterism of a sort that few would stoop to. Takes a special brand of scum is what I'm saying

What kind of firearms were even realistically available for civilian ownership in Europe in the 1930s? I assume mostly hunting rifles?

Campus carry becomes legal on the University of Texas campus on August 1st, 2016... the 50th anniversary of the Charles Whitman Massacre.

The more Carson opens his mouth the more he's revealing himself to be a profoundly unintelligent person. Even just within the context of Republican presidential candidates.

He reminds me of a lot of people I've worked with who seemingly excel in the very narrow parameters of the specialized role they hold but who otherwise seem to be incapable of feeding themselves or crossing the street.

seems like the medical analog of the silicon valley type who thinks all problems related to anything from professional basketball to governance of the state can be resolved through application of their 'unique' logic and creative problem solving skills. the alternatives to current practice they suggest are usually similarly absurd and short sighted.

if you're smart one way, you're not guaranteed to be smart any other way, that would seem to be the lesson carson has not yet learned.

I get in FB spats all the time with a friend-of-a-friend who is an engineer, and like so many engineers is a libertarian/gun nut/right winger. She always says that doctors and engineers are conservative because they "specialize in the practical application of theory" whereas liberals are "still stuck on theory." And it's like, none of them has the tiniest sliver of insight into human nature or history or logic or how the world actually works. At all.

guess I work with a different kind of engineer than you do

thank god the engineers and doctors are around to keep the rest of us theoretically minded naifs on the straight and narrow.

guess I work with a different kind of engineer than you do

― Οὖτις, Friday, October 9, 2015 2:35 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Choo choo! All aboard!

haha um no

lol

I think handguns kill the most people, according to FBI or government stats I saw a couple weeks ago. That's why we need to amend the Second Amendment.

Professional Asshole Charles Krauthammer agrees the only way to stop gun violence is to repeal the 2nd Amendment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/another-massacre-another-charade/2015/10/08/e45d0004-6dec-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html

which is funny, because while he acknowledges that it would be the only surefire way to stop gun violence, he doesn't actually advocate it... with the implication being that he is actually in favor of mass gun killings? I guess? lol this fucking clown.

The reason the debate is so muddled, indeed surreal — notice, by the way, how “gun control” has been cleverly rechristened “common-sense gun-safety laws,” as if we’re talking about accident proofing — is that both sides know that the only measure that might actually prevent mass killings has absolutely no chance of ever being enacted...As for the only remotely plausible solution, Obama dare not speak its name. He made an oblique reference to Australia, never mentioning that its gun-control innovation was confiscation, by means of a mandatory buyback. There’s a reason he didn’t bring up confiscation (apart from the debate about its actual efficacy in reducing gun violence in Australia). In this country, with its traditions, public sentiment and, most importantly, Second Amendment, them’s fightin’ words... In the final quarter of his presidency, Obama can very well say what he wants. If he believes in Australian-style confiscation — i.e., abolishing the Second Amendment — why not spell it out? Until he does, he should stop demonizing people for not doing what he won’t even propose.

the idea is that this is the price of freedom and mature adults recognize it's worth it

the problem isn't mass murderers w guns it's... Obama not saying we should repeal the 2nd Amendment! Meanwhile I have absolutely no opinion about whether repeal is a good idea or not, let's just be sad about all these dead people.

god I hate this fucking guy so much, he should be run over with a steamroller

and, most importantly, the Second Amendment.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-roseburg-shooting-armed-protesters

Can't believe I even have to share a country with these people.

let's confiscate all their guns, dump them into the ocean so that they form a giant island, and invite them all to move there

Of course, rising sea levels will soon proceed to drown them on their gun island.

we can just add the guns to the pile of plastic in the pacific

and, of course, the Second Amendment.

is totally indestructible, could alternately be used as a sail or a raft or a blanket

Fuck'em. Let'em sink.

Speaking as an engineer, that coworker was fulla shit.

However, intelligence ain't shit in blocking dumb-ass beliefs. There are plenty of technolibertarian types who are very good at their particular subject matter area, but heavily socially damaged in many others. There was a great bit awhile back talking about either gamergate or MRA/Red Pill types having a very particularly screwed sense of hyperrationality, as if only they saw the world clear and clean and free of those nasty human feelings clouding everything.

There's a particularly epistemic closure that happens, and you don't know you're in it because you lack the perspective or cognitive mechanisms to be aware of your own limitations. People with very high numbers in their Intelligence stay but straight nil in Wisdom or Perception.

Always be aware that you are the figure in the portrait, and those can't tell what frame you've been mounted in. Something like that.

Intelligence stat, rather

I have just read about an idea that could assist the gun-control movement without the necessity of repeal of the second amendment. Call it the "well-regulated militia" movement.

It would require every owner of a gun to be enrolled in a state-regulated militia. The regulation of that militia could be a fruitful ground for making gun ownership a much less casual affair and for placing a large number of responsibilities on every gun owner. Failure to enroll in this militia would be a felony, and failure to comply with its regulations would require forfeiture of one's guns.

This seems much more politically possible than repeal and opens whole vistas of possibilities in those states where the gun owners are not politically in the driver's seat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/02/what-liberals-dont-want-to-admit-about-gun-control/

i agree with this; most of the measures proposed by (mostly democrat) lawmakers wouldn't really do much. if we really want to reduce gun violence significantly we need to do what australia did: have a mandatory "buy back" of almost all handguns and assault weapons. or confiscate them.

'I need to protect myself with as much ammunition as I can get...'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/02/what-liberals-dont-want-to-admit-about-gun-control/

gonna re-post this b/c i think it's really important. stupid click-bait headline, as usual, but the points it makes are sound, i think.

successful prosecution of gun stores = one step closer to prosecuting gun manufacturers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/14/an-unprecedented-jury-verdict-orders-gun-shop-to-pay-nearly-6-million-to-injured-police-officers/

do you understand what a trendline is

― BRAAAAAAMETHEUS (El Tomboto), Saturday, October 3, 2015 8:25 PM (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yup

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/this-chart/gallup-gun-control-spike

this is exactly the wrong approach: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gun-control-movement-retreats-to-revitalize-itself/2015/10/27/cabf918c-7ce4-11e5-afce-2afd1d3eb896_story.html

feel like our nascent lobbying group needs to give these guys a talking-to

has it been repealed yet

shakey, have you actually done anything besides starting this thread to move forward your goal of repealing the amendment?

lmao

I'm working on it

need some deep pocketed donors to get our lobbying operation off the ground, does anyone have a few million lying around

have you considered wearing a sandwich-board sign on a busy street corner?

or protesting gun shops w/ placards showing bullet-ridden dead bodies? it seems pretty clear to me that activist opposition to the second amendment doesn't come anywhere near the passion of activist opposition to abortion.

there are no gun shops in my city to protest against, unfortunately

but our lobbying group endorses this tactic

no gun ranges you can protest? i'm skeptical.

there are no gun ranges either, altho I think there must be some in the south and east bay...

There is a shooting range in South San Francisco, I believe.

yeah it's right off the freeway

yes, several. Also the big gun show they do at the cow palace several times a year.

yeah I've been to that one

Oddly a bunch of archery ranges. I'm less concerned about them though.

kinda don't think "activist opposition to abortion" is much of a model btw since most of that seems to consist of (a) blatant intimidation, harassment, and various forms of assault, (b) cynical application of misinformation, especially when seen in illustrated sandwich boards, and/or (c) getting the people on your side really riled up and pumped about the Enemy, rather than actually winning anybody over who doesn't agree with you.

kinda don't imagine you'll get a really great conversation going at the gun range but who knows. i'm kinda most interested in the idea of passing federal legislation requiring all gun owners to register with a set of newly reorganized and exceedingly well-organized state militias held to extremely brutal federal guidelines. gotta honor that second amendment! oh yeah and no assault or automatic weapons are required by militias so those have to be traded in. and all the ammo needs to be kept stored at the armory, since it's only going to be used in the event of ground invasion by the british.

Advocate for repeal, accept militia-based regulation as compromise

Is there actually a plan to do anything beyond advocating for gun control on ILX?

I plan to visit my in-laws next week but I don't think that's what you mean

Is there actually a plan to do anything beyond advocating for gun control on ILX?

well I already have a dayjob and 2 small children, so the degree to which I have time and money to commit to a massive national political lobbying operation is a little limited, but I'm open to suggestions

I mean I've signed up for newsletters and donated money to various people but I assume that's not what Mordy's talking about

run for office or stfu shakes

not sure my repeal the 2nd amendment platform would guarantee me a win for local elected office, p common position around here

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Protest at Walmart

I don't even know where the nearest Walmart is

is there one in Emeryville?

shakes have you considered taking some hostages

Shakey and his buddy behind Target:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_845ywsAF1Oc/R14KltELALI/AAAAAAAAAF0/hG8T6VV0uy4/s320/jonah_goldberg_in_car.jpg

c'mon I would never wear cargo shorts + sweatshirt combo

Enact every measure conservatives and pro-gun people have proposed to reduce gun violence, with the caveat that if there is no reduction in it in 7 years the 2nd A will be repealed.

Caveat: sell no guns to disheveled men in cargo shorts.

is there one in Emeryville?

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:06 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no

Repeal the 2nd amendment everybody!

repeal everybody!

there's still time to repeal the 2nd Amendment, let's do this

got anything actionable yet?

still looking for initial funding for my repeal effort

have you tried gofundme?

https://twitter.com/igorvolsky

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/12/02/hours-before-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-doctors-were-on-capitol-hill-petitioning-congress-to-lift-ban-on-gun-violence-research/

Repealing the second amendment still leaves the problem of differing state laws on gun control, which is exactly what we had pre-Heller (2008), as I said upthread. So you still get people buying guns where control is light and bringing them to states where control is heavy.

i hate to be a gross cynic but we have all seen the tremendous impact of scientific research on climate change :/

i hate to be a gross cynic

no you don't

but yeah

i don't relish it! didn't u see my kip science advancements thread? i want to feel good about the future.

If research didn't matter they wouldn't be suppressing it!

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12316059_10208148052442922_4660408513214774226_n.jpg?oh=42190ac107485454ba5524cbd7ba6afb&oe=56E2032A

what's sad is that the number of marks on that scoreboard (~580) only covers 2-3 weeks of murders using guns (over 30 a day) if you count suicides/accidents (around 80 per day) the scoreboard only covers about a week.

the crazy thing is that despite how prolific gun violence is in the US it's still not in the top 20 causes of death afaict (excluding 'suicide' which is #11 but isn't subdivided by means).

like you're still much more likely to die in a vehicle accident which isn't to say that's an argument for why guns should remain legal but i do get into a car every day without any anxiety that i might die in it god forbid

im down for banning cars too. they kill too many people.

Cars are coffins. Make no mistake about that.

and yet i can use them everyday w/out worrying. maybe it's like dropping drones on weddings. if the death is accidental it doesn't bother the psyche as much as if its an intentional murder. i am more worried about being shot by a psycho w/ a gun than being in a car accident. this is obv not a reasonable or rational state of affairs.

ugh im not. ban cars and guns

i think with cars you feel like you have some control. mass shootings seem random and uncontrollable.

cars are made to get you places guns are made to kill things

#repealthesecondamendment

not that it really matters in my state where the right to bear arms is written into the constitution

the other thing is that AFAICT the things that are in the top 20 causes of death are all things we try to do something about. nearly all of them are cancers or heart disease. all of them are things i think we should do more about, a LOT more. but it's assumed that you can do things about them, as opposed to the totally insane situation with guns where, as has been noted many many times, the deaths tend to get naturalized as some sort of inevitable result of living in the 21st century.

like, dying in a traffic accident - well, cars are not that safe, BUT... cars have seatbelts and airbags and all this shit they did not have in 1960. it is at least POSSIBLE to manipulate speed limits and redesign roads to reduce driving speeds and it is possible to have public (if contentious and inevitably limited-by-politics) conversations about this (e.g. the "vision zero" business in new york).

huge sums (though again imo not near enough) are spent on cancer research, and as far as lung cancer goes at least, the rate of adult smoking is dropping though here also we should do a lot more. a multi-decade intermittent war on the entrenched and similarly super defensive tobacco industry is saving lives. the gun people should not be immune to this. we need something much, much bigger and more drastic than some tighter background check deal. ultimately, at some point, we are going to need to get rid of the guns. if we had started down that road thirty years ago, we would not be looking at hundreds of multiple-shooting incidents a year.

all v otm

where is moneybags to bankroll anti-gun initiatives, is the problem

like a *lot* of money needs to be raised

the NRA has membership fees and huge donors, what have we got.

I can paypal a dollar, dawg

the other thing is that AFAICT the things that are in the top 20 causes of death are all things we try to do something about. nearly all of them are cancers or heart disease.

heart disease from sitting on your but in a car 2 hours each day to/from a job where u then sit on your but all day

ok yeah but also: diet, exercise. these are emphatically not solved problems and some of them are structural, but we recognize them as up for solving even within the unexamined and problematic background assumptions of daily life in postindustrial capitalist societies etc. guns need to be forcibly detached from ''way of life'' and ''rights'' narratives, and revealed as weird, optional add-ons. hashtag repeal the second amendment.

the crazy thing is that despite how prolific gun violence is in the US it's still not in the top 20 causes of death afaict (excluding 'suicide' which is #11 but isn't subdivided by means).

― Mordy, Thursday, December 3, 2015 11:24 AM (2 hours ago)

regarding this, if you break down the data by actual causes of death, firearms jump up to #7. for example, one actual factor (poor diet) can lead to death in several ways (stroke, heart attack, kidney disease, other complications of diabetes). tobacco (an actual cause) can lead to death via COPD, heart disease, etc

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=198357

cars are still 6th tho

We are trying to do something about cars. Tons of safety enhancements over the years, safer construction, mandatory insurance, self-driving technology, and increasing transit options / trying to make transit more palatable. We're trying to do something about cars ALL THE TIME.

The auto industry is regulated like crazy! The idea that we need to tackle this car problem first is so profoundly stupid it's pretty clearly nothing more than contrarian affectation - otherwise known as trolling

Just to clarify, my point was not that "cars are just as dangerous and you don't see anyone trying to ban them." My observation was simply that cars are more dangerous and yet I find myself far more worried about being shot than I do being in a car accident.

maybe you should outfit your car with guns, that'll safetify ya

i think we feel about cars the way people who carry guns around itching to prevent a shooting feel about guns: on top of it

Cars are not more dangerous. Cars are just everywhere all the time.

Although I did check on per capita rates and guns, at 112.6 guns per 100 people, are more prevalent now than cars, at 809 cars per 1000 people.
But most Americans can leave the house without a gun. The same cannot be said for cars.

self-driving cars with self-shooting guns

Cars are not more dangerous. Cars are just everywhere all the time.

Actually now that you mention it:

Motor vehicle deaths in the US: 32,719
Gun deaths in the US 2013: over 12,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/president-obama-gun-control-push

No that i think cars need to be regulated before guns in this case. But it's good to keep in mind bc we have normalized mortality to an extent.

Not.

Cars are regulated. There are over 60 regulatory bodies regulating cars and the people who drive them.

no shit sherlock.

before you blow my mind w the revelation that guns are regulated too, i already know that.

an unlikely fellow traveler:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/geraldo-rivera-nra_565f89fce4b072e9d1c4b53e

Lennon buddy

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/s960x960/12239216_945562982182354_3900654855168197761_o.jpg

written in the first person by the people who posted that. but links to all the actual news stories on their facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/ParentsAgainstGunViolence/photos/a.416647195073938.95672.413407645397893/945562982182354/?type=3&theater

what is wrong with these people there must be something in the water

i am normally willing to at least half-assedly defend a right to gun ownership but those stories, i mean, jesus wept

i assume you've all seen this article going round fb in light of recent events:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

where guns are mostly banned. shotguns are available to the public but this is the process to acquire one:

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you’ll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don’t forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

But it's good to keep in mind bc we have normalized mortality to an extent.

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau)

it's called "death," right?

i would call it murder. death is something that happens naturally.

i am normally willing to at least half-assedly defend a right to gun ownership

tbh it's people who equivocate on this issue -- liberals who should know better -- who are as big of a problem as any of the NRA people. there are a lot of people who you would otherwise think are smart who say with a straight face that having guns around to shoot gophers in their backyards or "protect their family" outweighs the enormous costs guns have on society at large

http://www.terrierman.com/kerryhunt.bmp

love the hayseed in his bro's mouth

tbh it's people who equivocate on this issue -- liberals who should know better -- who are as big of a problem as any of the NRA people. there are a lot of people who you would otherwise think are smart who say with a straight face that having guns around to shoot gophers in their backyards or "protect their family" outweighs the enormous costs guns have on society at large

― k3vin k., Friday, December 4, 2015 2:40 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

enh so. i'm british? and every time something of this sort happens i end up having variations of conversations like:

'man, americans are stupid and dumb and hilarious, aren't they? with their guns.'
'well, actually there's some weird historical reasons and you can see why people would not see gun ownership as an unmitigated evil blah blah blah'
'no, you're wrong, americans are stupid and dumb and hilarious with their guns.'

there are plenty of reasons why many people still cling to idealized fantasies of gun ownership, they're just dumb reasons

^^^

So in terms of what would actually prevent gun violence, short of making guns disappear, it seems like the best thing would be to make them much harder to get, right? Like basically we need to (1) massively increase the difficulty of the process to get guns legally and (2) choke off the avenues like gun shows that enable black market dealers to easily get guns to sell illegally?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVZIHHLUwAI2gqF.png

kinda sold out with 'happy holidays' tho

The fetishization of "gun rights" has taken such bizarre turns. I love the first amendment but you don't see me making family holiday cards with us gathering around a printing press.

why are the babies unarmed?

how does santa get in and out unharmed?

xpost they have hand grenade in their diapers

grandma's the only one ready for action, though the li'l tyke at center has the right wariness, checking the perimeter like a pro. stay frosty, snowman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=0

the NYT runs an editorial on its front page for the first time since 1920, but takes a pretty weak stance. banning assault weapons is obviously necessary, but it's not going to put a dent in firearm deaths

yeah "assault weapons" is a bit of a red herring. Everything needs to be much harder to get.

i really love weird quaintly formal times writing in general but it is kind of unbearable that they went to the effort of making this gesture & left it so limp & indirect. to refer to other countries reducing massacres to like once-every-twenty-years outliers as "at least they tried" is so confused & unhelpful. frustrating.

and the times' last front-page editorial (inveighing against the nomination of warren g. harding for president) was so seismically effective!

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/12/gun-activists-are-planning-stage-mock-mass-shooting

Gun rights activists in Texas are planning to stage a mock mass shooting at the University of Texas this weekend in protest of both gun-free zones and President Barack Obama's continued calls for tougher gun control legislation.

According to the website Statesman, gun rights supporters will begin the day by marching through Austin with loaded weapons and conclude their walk with a "theatrical performance."

A spokesman for the two participating gun rights groups, Come and Take It Texas and DontComply.com, told the site the event will involve using fake blood and bullhorns to mimic gun shot noises.

what could possibly go wrong

lol exactly what my facebork source said

wait, is the the mock mass shooting to be mock stopped by mock heroes?

doesn't say but i guess that would be the 'most sensible' thing???

y'know if I was planning a mass shooting in Texas and was having trouble deciding on a venue...

bush-cheney family christmas gathering?

hey now, I'm not lookin to get shot in the face

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/13/3731412/mock-mass-shooting-by-pro-gun-advocates-drowned-out-by-farts/

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/11583034/story.html?__lsa=ac17-42c5

this vigilante law enforcement shit is why I fear gun ownership. this lady's response to being sentenced is gross too.

guns are for self-defense, not vigilante law enforcement!

guns are for shooting people

well, yes, and I guess that's the problem. giving itchy-triggered finger civilians the right to decide when shooting at people is appropriate.

buns are for pooting people.

farts, not guns

Saying "Guns are for self-defense" is like saying "Landmines around my house are for self-defense", in that it requires a very narrow construal of self-defense, & a willingness to regard the unintended harmful consequences of one's choices as unforseeable & unavoidable accidents, rather than predictable probabilities to whose weights should be factored into the process of making decisions about the best way to protect oneself & one's family, community, etc

I'm anti-gun btw. was just pointing out that she was irresponsible in using the gun in that scenario in that she was shooting at criminals that didn't put her in harm's way in an attempt to 'help' somebody that didn't ask for it, in a scenario that was solved without her help days later anyway.

the claim that they didn't know civilians were in the area is kinda hilarious. they tend to be in shopping centers, that's how commerce works.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/11583034/story.html?__lsa=ac17-42c5

this vigilante law enforcement shit is why I fear gun ownership. this lady's response to being sentenced is gross too.

guns are for self-defense, not vigilante law enforcement!

― Neanderthal, Monday, December 14, 2015 8:54 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this person should go to prison for attempted murder IMO

promising development: http://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Sandy-Hook-suit-against-gunmakers-lives-7248610.php

I kind of hate Newsom but stopped clock etc.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Strict-state-gun-control-measure-close-to-making-7382147.php

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court says people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Thursday.

The panel says law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or otherwise have a good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel.

Opinion here as a PDF: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971%206-9%20EB%20opinion%20plus%20webcites.pdf

oh wow

damn straight

what are the ramifications of this (assuming it is upheld on appeal)?

NRA kills everyone

Only appeal is to SCOTUS. We all know how the SCOTUS stands these days, with 8 justices, frequent 4-4 splits and the next president to fill the vacant seat. Odds are mighty good atm that any appeal would not overturn!

Hard to say. The opinion notes that the 2A may or may not protect a general right to carry openly in public but that that wasn't the question before them and that Heller did not go that far.

that was an xp to Mordy.

what are the ramifications of this (assuming it is upheld on appeal)?

― Mordy, Thursday, June 9, 2016 1:23 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think they're that significant, necessarily, except in the sense of maybe halting or slowing a further progression toward expanded gun rights.

But first of all Supreme Court appeals are not as of right, they have to take cert (i.e. you have to petition them to take the case and they have to decide to hear it). When they don't hear a case, the decision stands as the law within that circuit but doesn't bind other circuits.

If the Supreme Court takes cert and holds that the decision is broadly correct, it looks like that would simply mean that things remain as they are, i.e. states are permitted to have laws restricting or banning concealed carry of firearms. There's only a real change in the state of things if (1) the Supreme Court takes cert AND (2) the Supreme Court reverses and holds that concealed carry bans or restrictions somehow violate the second amendment (or that they do in certain circumstances).

I think that's correct, anyway, I didn't do a careful read of the opinion or survey other recent cases.

Are there circuits that have held that concealed carry restrictions are unconstitutional? There's usually a much greater chance of cert being taken if there is a "circuit split," i.e. a conflict in the interpretation of law between two circuits.

yeah this is good but I'm not sure it's a big deal

xps There are dozens of states that would never dream of limiting concealed carry, or letting cities within that state limit cc either. Still, it is a rare loss for the NRA.

Of course there are, but this decision has no impact on those states. The NRA only "lost" inasmuch as it didn't gain.

I guess it's good inasmuch as *maybe* it will discourage challenges in other circuits. But I doubt it, especially since the 9th is on the liberal end.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/11/the-voice-singer-christina-grimmie-is-critical-condition-after-gunmans-attack/?utm_term=.cc82559be512

article limits are why people don't bother to read news outside of facebook anymore

Ugh, sorry about that. Heard about this from my daughter. Some finalist from some season of the Voice reportedly shot dead at a fan meet and greet by a dude packing multiple weapons.

not blaming you, just the dying media

hurry up on this imo

Bump

nra terrorists kill another fifty. fuck guns so much.

Or, you know, you could just do what Bernie Sanders doesn't want to do and put the industry out of business

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-gun-control_us_56dcea34e4b0000de405063a

shut the fuck up

eat my ass

But don't let me stop you from trying to accomplish something that will never happen in the alternative to something that could

Stay classy, gun owners of Facebook...

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13442118_1060458774037036_5720019541464103867_n.jpg?oh=30dd73984cae0c6f686c7c33bfa22b88&oe=57CABD48

that is genuinely fucking sickening

no more sickening than "gun rights" themselves, but yeah.

might be time to institute a reading comprehension test in order to vote. our "conservative" friends can never seem to understand that "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment, even though it starts the whole thing, no matter what anyone tells them

that's a really dumb idea, and it wouldn't work the way you want it to anyway

you might also google this thing called "jim crow"

This may have been posted previously but I just saw it today and it seems like a pertinent thing: http://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-roberts-court-undermined-sensible-gun-control/

Or, you know, you could just do what Bernie Sanders doesn't want to do and put the industry out of business

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-gun-control_us_56dcea34e4b0000de405063a

― normcore strengthening exercises (benbbag), Sunday, June 12, 2016 1:01 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you realize that merely getting rid of an immunity provision would not mean that anyone would actually succeed in these lawsuits, right? I'm sure you actually do understand that if you graduated from an accredited law school.

it was the one that advertised in the back of TV Guide

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkzE0-pWEAE26zj.jpg:large

RT h/t to lagoon

best-case scenario out of recent tragedy imo is some hugely wealthy LGBT political activists start bankrolling legal challenges to shitty gun laws, challenge the NRA etc.

lookin at you Peter Thiel

(lol not really)

they should be bankrolling legal scholars and judges who can revise the reigning interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that is ultimately the strongest hope for long-term change on this.

yup

Electing a Democrat in November who will nominate judges and justices will help.

that too. the prospect of having a SC that strikes down prevailing interpretation becomes more likely.

amateurist and Alfred otm

http://dealbreaker.com/uploads/2010/06/animated-siren-gif-animated-siren-gif-animated-siren-gif-drudge-report.gifBREAKINGhttp://dealbreaker.com/uploads/2010/06/animated-siren-gif-animated-siren-gif-animated-siren-gif-drudge-report.gif

Kim Kardashian calls for stricter gun control after Orlando shooting

aw that's cute

This, from the article posted in another thread, seems key:

From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a “right of revolution,” of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called “The War Between the States.”

The NRA, and the changing of the meaning of the 2nd amendment, culminating in Heller, is from it's inception tied to confederate revisionism, and, basically, ultra right-wing racism.

it's not just the NRA--they're just the most visible group. there are a bunch of other groups exerting pressure on both right-wing legislators /and/ the NRA itself.

The five justices in the Heller majority were all nominated by presidents who themselves were NRA members.

Such a weird coincidence.

Amateurist, that's kinda what I mean. I think that the fight against guns needs to focus on how much the pro-gun movement is intertwined with ultra-right wing racism. Focusing on the NRA turns it into a question for and against guns. The National Rifle Association likes rifles, we don't, but that's an honest disagreement. I think a good strategy would focus on how much the reason the NRA likes rifles is due to racism. Which seems pretty clear from the way the movement began, I think.

It's just a suggestion :)

how much the pro-gun movement is intertwined with ultra-right wing racism

I have never been to a more multi-generational, multi-cultural event than an NRA-sponsored gun show fwiw. Every demo (men, women, rich, poor, black white brown purple lol) well represented.

Folks from every walk of life coming together in their shared vision of a world where every man, woman, and child has the opportunity to accidentally shoot a stranger in the face.

Or possibly even a loved one! Dare to dream!

it's true! It was deeply disorienting.

and everyone so excited to be there

I think a good strategy would focus on how much the reason the NRA likes rifles is due to racism. Which seems pretty clear from the way the movement began, I think.

It's just a suggestion :)

― Frederik B, Wednesday, June 15, 2016 9:24 AM (14 minutes ago)

makes about as much sense as the attempts to paint planned parenthood as fundamentally racist. intellectually dubious but politically expedient.

Frederik hasn't found an American political issue yet which can't be solved by acknowledging America's inherent racism

some good news

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369

Was just about to post that!

I emailed my Senators to support the filibuster - this has long been one of DiFi's pet issues so maybe she'll do it, much as I dislike her.

The terror watch list aspect of that is a really bad idea unless they completely overhaul the watch list.

I'm cool with restricting everybody's access to guns, so doesn't bother me a bit

are you seriously worried that someone badly needing a gun that is erroneously on a watch list is a significant problem because I am not

@jeremyscahill
When HRC and Obama try to link gun sales and the terror watchlist, that is politics--plain and simple. It is just a talking point w no teeth

Restrict anything deemed a "right" based on an arbitrary lost with no due process whatsoever and you open the door to same for other rights.

Also agree with scahill. Pure grandstanding.

the no-fly list ban works as a metaphor. the republicans are so psychotically committed to gun ownership for all that it even takes precedence over their scaremongering about terrorism. in terms of useful policy it seems like reviving the assault weapon ban is a more likely progression at this pt.

that's how it's felt after every major shooting in the past several years. and yet...

I understand the rhetorical value but I dislike that kind of rhetorical bluffing. Maybe I'd be bad at politics for that reason.

It's also a potential example of democrats inadvertently ceding the center. I mean that happened a long time ago with "terrorism" rhetoric, but still not a good thing.

What's the Luntz quote about how when you use my terms I win?

Restrict anything deemed a "right" based on an arbitrary lost with no due process whatsoever and you open the door to same for other rights.

― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:28 PM (56 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^ my fear too. Like I said yesterday, SCOTUS has said owning a handgun is a protected right. It would need an act of Congress amending it or SCOTUS to say otherwise. Elect Democrats to Congress and the White House if you want to make headway.

Not to mention you are kind of validating the "terror watch list" as a meaningful thing rather than just a crude investigatory tool.

What if we restricted access to guns based on a "communism watch list"?

"SCOTUS has said owning a handgun is a protected right."

it doesn't say how many though, right? how about just one!

i guess i just don't get why the right to own a gun has to mean a right to own ALL the guns.

"About three out of four household property crimes involving stolen firearms occurred in households headed by white non-Hispanic persons.
From 2005 through 2010, the majority of household burglaries (56 percent) or other property crimes (59 percent) involving stolen firearms occurred in the South."

"About 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)."

at the very least, white southerners should be banned from owning guns because they apparently can't hide them well enough.

i'm kidding. don't shoot me, white southerners!

ok you guys have convinced me

xp

Careful, them's shootin' words.

whoa, I persuaded someone on the internet, crazy

I am susceptible to well-reasoned arguments based in precedent and evidence, unlike most of the American public

You're a flip flopper, is what you are! Socialist!

This Maddow segment goes into the possibility that the FBI could at least receive a special alert when someone who is or was on the terrorist watch list tries to buy a gun. They might then be able to check in on the person and see if there's been any other recent change in their patterns. I don't know if this happens to any extent already.

white house fact sheet has stuff on it. about things that would be good maybe. if you haven't read it. and if you want to see thru the eyes of a helpless president.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

This Maddow segment goes into the possibility that the FBI could at least receive a special alert when someone who is or was on the terrorist watch list tries to buy a gun. They might then be able to check in on the person and see if there's been any other recent change in their patterns. I don't know if this happens to any extent already.

― jmm, Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:52 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This seems like less of a bad idea. I'm sure someone would raise a privacy challenge, but I think it would be easier to argue that there's a compelling reason for having the system, the burden is minimal, etc.

Right now I have no idea what kind of infrastructure is in place -- is there any kind of national or even state system that tracks who is buying guns/notified law enforcement when certain individuals buy guns?

the answer to that last question is on the fact sheet.

killer loophole by the way:

"The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014."

Everything seems to be in order here. Carry on.

Good reminder that we also need reform of LLC anonymity.

so we aren't talking about the filibuster?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369

i guess what is there to say except it's a pleasant surprise to see democrats take a stand for anything

some good news

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, June 15, 2016 10:00 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this happened after newton -- big legislative effort, blocked by the usual fuckers.

we need a new supreme court majority.

if the supreme court were more amenable to gun control, states and municipalities could pass their own restrictions and not see them overturned.

Clint Smith just tweeted this:

Clint Smith ‏@ClintSmithIII 17 min.17 minutter siden
To place gun ownership in historical context, it's worth noting that the Second Amendment was ratified in large part to preserve slavery.

Clint Smith ‏@ClintSmithIII 15 min.15 minutter siden
Slavery could only be maintained in a police state & in many states men were required to serve in armed militias to prevent slave uprisings.

and uprisings by meddlesome peasants like Shays Rebellion

and to keep what was left of the Native American population in line.

xxpost that sounds like an oversimplification. the militias were also preserved to avoid the need for a large permanent standing army, which most of the framers were opposed to.

all these articles coming out today about ppl going into gun shops and buying AR 15's in 5 minutes are just O_O

also they're like 1200 bucks!! that's a lot of money for a useless death machine.

you could have so much more power just saving that money for rent or w/e. people are so fuckin hateful and stupid.

The usual point I see in these articles is that booms in sales after major shootings come in response to the fear of a crackdown, but is that the major factor? It isn't that a shooting is incredible advertising for what a gun can do?

i'd like to believe that only a minuscule percentage of our population is getting excited by the number of civilian casualties the AR 15 can inflict in a small space in a short period of time and rushing out to buy it on that recommendation. i may be wrong but if i am i don't want to know it.

I've worked around construction workers and oil men for over 15 years now and I hear garbage all day every day. Usually I'm able to steer the conversation somewhere else or just tune out. But now after what has happened, the Homophobia, racism, and gun talk has been raised to a level that for me is unbearable. I almost yelled at one guy today. But it's everywhere at work, coworkers on Facebook, all day at work. Today a guy had to leave early so he could go purchase more AR-15s. He already owns more than one, he is buying more! If anything, on a very basic human level, as parent, there is no excuse for not feeling sympathy for what happened and to desire change. I cried sunday feeling exhausted with how heartless this all feels to me. Sorry to interrupt this thread, I don't have much to add to gun regulation except that I feel hopeless knowing so many avid gun owners.

I feel like you go to a store to defiantly buy an AR-15 simply to flout your right to have one after a mass shooting where 49 people died and people's emotions are raw....that you're pretty much a rotten piece of shit

like I mean if your whole reason for going out and getting em is 'FUCK THEY'RE TAKIN MY GUNS' y'know maybe save your tone-deaf protest for a later time like after people have had a chance to bury their dead.

even if nobody knows you bought it, it's like - good on you, you wasted more money on a horrible instrument.

i'm sorry you have to work with thugs, jacob.

Is this thread googleable?

I'm sure we could make it ungoogleable if it isn't

can you call them on that shit or are they gonna throw you down an oil well if you do? because sometimes a little cold water on racist/dumbass talk is a really effective deflation device. you would be surprised how how often tough talk crumbles if you put a few incredulous questions out there. but i don't want you to get thrown down an oil well.

some people are obviously impervious to questioning/logic/argument though.

hugs to you, jake

The worse that could happen would be losing my job or being blacklisted from my line of work. I honestly care about what I do, it's constructive and I'm very good at quality control/inspection. But man, it has it's price.

it's kinda like being in the military. or being a cop in a lot of places. i dunno, ultimately it's up to you and how much you can take. i mean you've been doing that kinda work for a while, right?

Is this thread googleable?

― JacobSanders, Wednesday, June 15, 2016 10:27 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I've deindexed the thread, but it may take a few days for it to filter out of search results. From a few cursory searches using combinations of your name and gun-related keywords though, this thread doesn't turn up in the first few pages. Hope it helps, anyway.

woo just saw the news: https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/743320464408248325

Good analysis of the "quiet" pro gun control trend in federal courts.
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/2016/06/13/federal-courts-are-quietly-allowing-gun-control-and-scotus-is-letting-them/

estrict anything deemed a "right" based on an arbitrary lost with no due process whatsoever and you open the door to same for other rights.

There's no right to board commercial flights. Nor have the Federal courts supported an individual right to possess firearms.

I don't have a problem with repeat visitors to the ISIS web magazine <i>Dabiq</i> being placed on anti-terror watchlists. I do recognize the slippery slope of curtailing freedom of speech by making readers fearful of accessing controversial viewpoints. I'd draw the line at websites advocating violence, for example, those with "assassination lists" of abortion providers. And provide some means for individuals to appeal their placement. Journalists, for example, should be able to visit <i>Dabiq</i> without repercussions.

Nor have the Federal courts supported an individual right to possess firearms.

There's this obscure federal court you might want to check out called the Supreme Court

I would 1000% rather have domestic violence abusers unable to buy firearms than people on the FBI watch list, in whatever form that takes (which they can neither confirm nor deny).

Also p sure even the constitutionality of the no-fly list is an open question.

I didn't know the filibuster was pushing for universal background checks. That seems like a real step forward, much more than the watch list restriction.

Yeah, that's great. And, naturally, it's completely insane that it wasn't already a thing.

My number one gun ban of choice atm would be the 'attended a Trump rally in the spirit of anything other than protest' list.

universal background checks are a much better idea and more likely to be found constitutional imo

Joe the Biden weighs in

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/response-your-petition-banning-ar-15-civilian-ownership-0

My number one gun ban of choice atm would be the 'attended a Trump rally in the spirit of anything other than protest' list.

― Manspread Mann (Old Lunch)

now we are all ratfuckers

You gotta admit, that's one fuckable rat.

(One would hope that my occasional 'defeat fascism with fascism' asides are taken in the pessimistically-facetious manner in which they are intended.)

OK, what the hell is going on...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/alejandro-fuentes-the-voice-dead-1.3642512

gun ppl are so weird

http://i.imgur.com/JitTLuY.png

guns don't kill people, power asynchrony curves kill people

(also there were armed people in the bar but whatever)

that asynchrony post makes me want to own a gun for different reasons

Last few days have really (further) underscored the racist bullshit hypocrisy of the NRA. So a man, legally carrying with permit, gets shot in his car in cold blood while following protocol, and where's the NRA defending the rights of permitted concealed carry citizens? Then after months and years of bullshit we-need-guns-to-fight-tyrrany arguments, gunmen in Dallas apparently do just that, and no way does the NRA accept responsibility for fostering that kind of attitude. Fuckers.

Pointed out by a friend. It is obvious, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. Texas is one of the most lax states when it comes to gun restrictions. So many armed people, more or less anything goes. And yet a person or persons with an assault rifle was able to murder several police officers and injure several more. What are guns rights people going to say? That there weren't enough guns? That this would not have happened if even more people were carrying assault rifles? Total fuckers.

Then after months and years of bullshit we-need-guns-to-fight-tyrrany arguments, gunmen in Dallas apparently do just that

i was thinking the same thing!! in these people's minds they were fighting tyranny. sounds like the system is working just like it's supposed to,right?

No, silly libtard, the only people authorized to fight tyranny with their arsenals of weaponry are white rancher-type guys in big hats. They wear camo and they forget snacks. Try to keep up.

Pointed out by a friend. It is obvious, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. Texas is one of the most lax states when it comes to gun restrictions. So many armed people, more or less anything goes. And yet a person or persons with an assault rifle was able to murder several police officers and injure several more. What are guns rights people going to say? That there weren't enough guns? That this would not have happened if even more people were carrying assault rifles? Total fuckers.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, July 8, 2016 9:41 AM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes, this is a point very much worth reiterating but it's also a point that will fall on many deaf ears, largely because the NRA's agenda is not exactly logically watertight.

yeah, but can you just imagine how quickly the shooter would have been taken down if there had been just /one/ person there with a gun? oh, wait...

in all sincerity, yes, this week just underscores (several times) how much the NRA's agenda (and its members) are motivated by racial hatred and paranoia, not by any principled (that should be in scare quotes!) concern for the constitution.

i.e. it's an institution of white supremacy.

All aboard the chutzpah express: GOP rips Obama after Dallas shooting

Worth reading if only for Ben Carson Ben Carsoning it up.

If we are weak at home, we are weak around the world and this is an example of a weakness when our president goes overseas and has a terrible tragedy like this is an idea why we've got to solve ourself.

cool story bro

"I think all of us in public life, the president included, should reexamine everything we’ve said, everything we’ve done up to this point to see if in our public discourse we’ve contributed in any way," Rubio told reporters in Washington, adding, "I think all of us need to reexamine constantly in this country and whether it contributes to the nation moving forward or whether sometimes we're unnecessarily pitting people against each other. And I hold myself to that standard as well."

Yeah, Obama, I'm looking at you, you Divider in Chief.

why in god's name does anyone in the press interview ben carson for anything? he's a retired neurosurgeon with no political experience or expertise who mounted an unsuccessful campaign for president. leave him alone.

god forbid obama be out of the country when anything happens. wouldn't want our heads of state go to other countries for any reason ever.

fuck these people.

xpost Because he's an adult who entertainingly answers questions like a precocious four-year-old who watches the news with his parents?

our democracy is totally fucked.

if they go this ham on obama, whose every word is measured to the utmost, imagine what they will say with hillary clinton, who is much more ham-fisted and less articulate, in office. oy.

"All those protesters last night, they turned around and ran the other way expecting the men and women in blue to protect them. What hypocrites!" an audibly emotional Patrick said.

this is a perfect example of the kind of gut-level, nonrational response to things that seems to govern the right-wing mindset. it makes a kind of brute emotional sense, and it helps consolidate a vision of us-vs.-them, so let's just go with it.

it's also an example of the precise sort of thinking that people with authority are supposed to resist and dispel.

It's also a crazy "us vs. them" because it assumes that BLM protestors are all agitators, are all anti-cop, and in reality most of them are people just like my neighbors, peaceful people, active in their community, church-goers and the like, just looking for some way to stop the violence.

So goddamned sick of the reflexive IF YOU BAN FIREARMS CRIMINALS WILL JUST GET THEM ILLEGALLY argument. Where do these morons think illegally-obtained weapons come from, the Illegal Gun Fairy? The only reason they're "readily" available is because they're either bought legally, moved across state lines and resold; stolen in shipping; or stolen from "law-abiding gun owners'" cars, homes and purses, for the most part. Dry up those three areas of supply and the market for "illegal guns" would become much less prolific.

(I say "readily" in scare quotes because most people don't need to go to the trouble, whatever gun they need usually being available at Wal-Mart, Dicks Sporting Goods or a local dealer; and if they were somehow not able to buy what they wanted there, the average person would have no idea who to go to to get one illegally.)

new inquiry runs a critical history of the AR-15

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/recoil-operation/

This week in Responsible Gun Ownership, local meth-head runs stop sign, crashes into woman's car, pushes her into intersection, exits his own vehicle and shoots her dead with a rifle.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/08/twinsburg_woman_identified_as.html

http://www.cleveland.com/solon/index.ssf/2016/08/solon_police_identify_man_char.html

http://www.pressunion.org/2016-toddler-now-shot-person-every-week-us-two-years-straight/

I saw that yesterday and was thinking of posting it to the "I am considering buying a gun" thread but couldn't find it

So crazy it reads like straight satire.

I am considering buying a toddler a gun.

I'm sure there's someone out there batshit insane enough to argue that maybe toddlers are the real problem.

How often do dogs shoot people?

Mind you, in America, they do

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/10/3d-print-a-serial-free-handgun-at-home-with-the-latest-ghost-gunner-update/

tbf the second amendment says NOTHING about bench top machine tools

the founding fathers knew 3D printed guns were coming and wanted everyone in the future to know that the second amendment is not to be modified or reinterpreted NO MATTER WHAT.

Shakey, you've got a friend:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html

there's a truck parked here with a decal on the back window of an AR-15 superimposed onto an American flag
also a bumper sticker that says "REGISTER LIBERALS"

this fucker should be pulled over every day of his life

This circular appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer yesterday. Right next to the comics section insert.

https://i.imgur.com/lbdC88W.jpg

Those suckers are pricey. It's funny in a way what a bourgeois pursuit it is, all the "working class redneck" stereotypes notwithstanding.

Hey, you sell enough Oxy . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

https://www.breakingviews.com/considered-view/exclusive-fedex-drops-nra-deal-by-snail-mail/

I'd like it to become a liberal talking point that the need to own more than, say, five guns is a sign of mental illness.

long way to go

if your gun discourse doesn’t start and end with the fact that the most marginalized of us all should be armed then i’m tuning out lol. gun ownership as revolutionary praxis is where it’s at.

— diasporic shawty 🅴 (@cybermarxisttt) June 14, 2019

dumbassery doesn't discriminate

all the twitter marxist kids are v into that kinda take right now

https://socialistra.org/

all the twitter marxist kids are v into that kinda take right now

― she carries a torch. two torches, actually (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Saturday, June 22, 2019 12:38 AM (twenty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

as someone who has recently entered his thirties I can condescendingly say that “I get it”

If they were equally armed, I'd put my money on Twitter marxists to win a civil war vs alt-right maga chuds

guns vs. nuclear weapons on drones, wonder who will win

For the majority of lefty gun ppl it's not about "winning", it's about not disarming if cops won't.

it's the position that serves gun companies the best, so there's at least one winner

yup lol

"it's about not disarming if cops won't" is basically indistinguishable from the right-wing case for private citizens owning guns (except their version is "it's about not disarming if the government won't")

at my brother's house while his fam is on vacation, feeling a certain kind of way about a certain kind of amendment

had to clear out the downstairs guest room for myself, clear it of what you may ask? fucking ammunition is what, so much fucking ammunition, boxes filled with boxes full of bullets (that redundancy is not a typo), literal kegs of shotgun shells, i pick up a shoebox and bullets spill out, i take a mug down from a shelf and it's brimming with bullets

and rifle scopes, and tripods, and nra-branded rifle bags, and heaps of stinking camo clothing, body armor, game bags

"game", ugh

and i pile it all onto the piles of the same shit that fill up the rest of the basement

i've probably handled tens of thousands of dollars' worth of this trash in the past couple days and i feel dirty

i go to wash my hands and bullets pour out of the faucet

i look around and realize i'm in a log cabin made of bazookas

repeal the second amendment

some of us take our childhood trauma and turn it inward upon ourselves and some of us buy barrels of ammo i guess

yikes! i guess he goes hunting a lot? or the firing range?

or maybe he wants to murder us all!? *ducks*

he wants to finally feel safe, and i also want to finally feel safe, and the ways in which we try to make ourselves feel safe are exactly opposite, and did i mention that his house stinks? the whole place smells like ass and dead things. i go out to the porch for fresh air and it smells like rotting meat because there are jars full of squirrel tails lined up on the rafters.

and there's this, it's like there's, my brain isn't putting it together right but all this killing equipment is haunted. cursed. i keep feeling like it isn't far off from mountains of child porn.

Would be pretty funny if all he had was ammo but no guns.

if i felt like opening up any of the many gun cases, storage lockers, etc., i doubt i would be met with a cloud of butterflies

but that would be pretty funny

"his fam"

He has kids?

he has a teenager, a happy and well-adjusted kid thank all that's holy. but if our family goblins of alcoholism and mental illness pop up when the boy's older, or if he gets radicalized, or the right kind of brain tumor, he'll have been trained and provisioned to kill the fuck out of lots living things.

i was there when he got his first rifle on christmas morning when he was 8, even had the honor of being one of the first people he ever accidentally pointed it at

yikes! i guess he goes hunting a lot? or the firing range?

Paranoia that there won't be any ammo at some indeterminate point in the future because of the government/cost/etc.. After 2008 ammo prices pretty much doubled (or was unavailable) so gun nuts buy it up like shopping addicts just because it won't be any cheaper tomorrow by god.

xp What could possibly go wrong?

dang i'm parched, gonna get me a cool cup of

https://i.imgur.com/bauZ6VJ.jpg

The atomic clock has stopped.

hey has anyone seen my xbox

https://i.imgur.com/HbhkifH.jpg

is that the sweet smell of freedom?

https://i.imgur.com/Bu4jjxI.jpg

No offense, your brother's a fucking slob lol

u r preaching to the retching choir