The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

A quote for the ages:

"I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country's founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history."

okay what the hell

Have a feeling the guy just heard about slavery the other day when he saw Django Unchained.

i think he's mixing up his black civil rights leaders

just a bit

If Lincoln hadn't watched Our American Cousin that fateful night, I would have married my college crush.

But your college crush was Mark Wahlberg.

"I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country's founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history."

Priceless

If Martin Luther King Jr. had a gun when someone with a gun tried to shoot him, and knew where and when that shooter was going to strike, then maybe he could have shot that shooter first before someone else shot MLK for shooting someone, and the entire country erupted into an armed race war.

someone send this link to TNC please...

If Sharon Tate had had a gun etc etc etc

if only the millions of free Africans who chose to emigrate to the USA had been given guns on arrival

if only the native Americans had had the foresight to spend their money on firearms instead of cholera-riddled blankets

If only Buzz Aldrin had had a gun he could have been the first man to walk on the moon not Armstrong

If only every foetus was given a firearm upon conception

if only Elvis had had a gun

if only guns had guns when obama banned all of our guns

If only Randy Weaver had had a gun

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html

I'm glad this lady had an assault rifle and was able to defend herself. Oh wait it was a revolver? Nevermind.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/nra-app-practice-range-86174.html?hp=f3

ahaha. my crappy local FOX affiliate (WNYC) just reported on an attempted burglary of a home on that was on that interactive gun owners map. the entire story was on how criminals can use that map to find homes with guns, and at the end of the story they say, "it's too early to know if the criminals actually used the map in choosing this residence." what the hell is that.

sounds like local news

The gun map (two counties in NY): http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

The commenters at NPR enter the debate: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/26/168075748/n-y-website-posts-map-of-people-with-gun-permits-draws-criticism

xxp local news with a fox attitude, i.e, right-wing fear mongering paranoia. i miss the days when fox attitude meant al bundy flushing a toilet to wild hooting and hollering.

Gawker also released a list: http://gawker.com/5974190/here-is-a-list-of-all-the-assholes-who-own-guns-in-new-york-city

I'm still not sure which part I feel more creeped out by: that someone can just release all this information publically, or that I'm surrounded by LOADS of people with handguns who I was blissfully ignoring until now.

it's weird because I thought one strand of the gun rights movement was that owning a gun increases your personal safety since criminals will know not to fuck with you, so why wouldn't you want criminals to know your address? after all they'd know you have a gun and wouldn't come rob u rite??

someone can just release all this information publically,

This information is already public. Just because you have to look for it doesn't mean you can't find it.

xp: They might come and steal your guns.

I'm not with the NRA, but I'm definitely with the privacy advocates. Publishing these names is not journalism.

sure it is

Michelle Malkin and other conservative bloggers have published names and addresses, using publicly available records. And just shrugged it off when people got harassed.

Charming.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/this_man_helped_save_six_children_is_now_getting_harassed_for_it/

Jesus. I realize there's a conspiracy theory for everything, but these people are a special kind of horrible.

wow. i'm speechless. some people are dangerously unhinged. and they're armed.

A pro-Second Amendment group in Georgia has partnered with a gun shop in the state to give away a free AR-15 assault rifle -- like the one used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown last month -- in an effort to oppose new gun control legislation.

Jesus. I realize there's a conspiracy theory for everything, but these people are a special kind of horrible.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:37 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Otm. I was genuinely shocked to read this stuff today. Shouldn't have been, I know, but ... people can still surprise me, I guess.

A pro-Second Amendment group in Georgia has partnered with a gun shop in the state to give away a free AR-15 assault rifle -- like the one used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown last month -- in an effort to oppose new gun control legislation.

― mookieproof, Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:44 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

My God. It's completely one thing to oppose gun control (also the completely RONG opinion, but hey, I'm trying to meet halfway)...another to insult the survivors by essentially saying "the weapon that killed your kids should still be legal and we're going to give one away as part of our pro-gun promotion".

This gets passed off as Patriotism in 2013, folks.

I'm not with the NRA, but I'm definitely with the privacy advocates. Publishing these names is not journalism.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:23 AM (9 hours ago)

so what's your beef, that the records are being kept or that they're being published?

A pro-Second Amendment group in Georgia has partnered with a gun shop in the state to give away a free AR-15 assault rifle -- like the one used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown last month -- in an effort to oppose new gun control legislation.

― mookieproof, Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:44 PM (7 hours ago)

i'm gonna enter this just so i can put it toward my retirement

so what's your beef, that the records are being kept or that they're being published?

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:21 PM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That they are made public and that they are being published. A lot of personal information on private citizens is made available. Publishing that information takes it one step further. I guess I feel the same way about this as I do about a right-wing blog publishing personal info: http://crooksandliars.com/2007/10/09/graeme-foster-what-would-you-do-if-this-was-snooping-around-your-house

On a related note, this privacy advocate is publishing public records that contain social security #s: https://acluva.org/5594/state-may-not-stop-privacy-advocate-from-publishing-records-found-on-government-websites/

Richmond, VA –The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that privacy advocate B.J. Ostergren may post public records that contain Social Security Numbers on her website, despite a 2008 Virginia law prohibiting the dissemination of such information.

Today’s ruling reaffirms a June 2009 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robert E. Payne, who found that the law, commonly referred to as the “anti-B.J. law,” violated Ostergren’s First Amendment rights. Payne ruled that Ostergren had the right to post the Social Security Numbers of Virginia legislators, Virginia Executive Officers and Clerks of Court whenever the numbers were obtained from a government website accessible to the public.

Is it just me or is the most obviously stupid argument ever made in the history of American politics:

The group released a a tough TV ad that calls Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for having daughters with armed guards while he expresses skepticism at the NRA’s call for armed police in every American public school.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2013/01/nra-obama-ad-01-15-13-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/nra-unleashes-hounds.php?ref=fpa

The NRA ad is titled, "Protection For Obama's Kids, Gun-Free Zones For Ours?"

Fair share of security? WTF does that actually mean?

obama wants to take your guns so he can use them for his own security and be even more safe, when he is already so safe

Pope-mobiles for the masses!

so what's your beef, that the records are being kept or that they're being published?

― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 7:21 PM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That they are made public and that they are being published. A lot of personal information on private citizens is made available. Publishing that information takes it one step further. I guess I feel the same way about this as I do about a right-wing blog publishing personal info: http://crooksandliars.com/2007/10/09/graeme-foster-what-would-you-do-if-this-was-snooping-around-your-house
On a related note, this privacy advocate is publishing public records that contain social security #s: https://acluva.org/5594/state-may-not-stop-privacy-advocate-from-publishing-records-found-on-government-websites/
Richmond, VA –The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that privacy advocate B.J. Ostergren may post public records that contain Social Security Numbers on her website, despite a 2008 Virginia law prohibiting the dissemination of such information.

Today’s ruling reaffirms a June 2009 decision by U.S. District Court Judge Robert E. Payne, who found that the law, commonly referred to as the “anti-B.J. law,” violated Ostergren’s First Amendment rights. Payne ruled that Ostergren had the right to post the Social Security Numbers of Virginia legislators, Virginia Executive Officers and Clerks of Court whenever the numbers were obtained from a government website accessible to the public.

― for the relief of unbearable space hugs (Austerity Ponies), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:46 PM (Yesterday)

yeah i mean i'm not sure publishing the list of gun owners has any value, but you think it should be illegal?

it could be useful for people buying houses etc

not saying that it's good that this is public, but someone should cross reference that with sex offender databases.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm