Pushing Gun Safety Laws Plays Into Conservative Hands
That being said, I am an outlier among most liberals. I don’t think we should spend nearly the amount of effort we do on gun control. I actually think the laws we have on the books are doing a good job and that pressing for even more laws is a political stunt to make it look like politicians are doing something. I also think it is counter-productive. This is not on constitutional grounds. It isn’t just on political expediency grounds. This is about how our arguments on this issue actually embolden conservatives (but not in the way you think) and are a major mis-allocation of our resources.
Every time the issue of guns comes up it plays into the conservative narrative that we live in an unsafe world. This narrative is used to justify an endless number of conservative objectives. We militarize our police force. We continue incarcerating the highest percentage of our citizens of any civilized country in the world. We erode civil rights. It’s an endless cycle: the media hypes violent crime, the American people get scared and the prison-industrial complex gets rich.
The fact that violent crime is at its lowest point in forty years somehow gets overlooked in this narrative.
Why? Because the truth doesn’t sell guns and it doesn’t sell prison cells. By focusing completely on guns we liberals are doing the conservatives dirty work for them.
In fact, the majority of deaths from guns aren’t from homicides or accidental shootings. Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides
If I may be allowed a personal note, I lost my twin brother (and best friend for 43 years) to suicide in February of this year. He didn’t use a gun. He hung himself.
The suicide rate is spiraling out of control. This mental health crisis gets swept under the rug in the gun debate even though last year more people died by their own hand (38,364) than in automobile accidents (33,687). In cold hard facts 19.2 people per 100,000 in the US committed suicide while 9.2 per 100,000 died of gun related violence. More than twice as many peoples’ lives can be saved if we can make any headway this public health crisis, and yet when I open any of my favorite blogs the focus is on the latest gun violence related death.
Inevitably when I broach this subject I get response, “Tell the families of those children at Sandy Hook that gun deaths are almost half what they were in 1991 and see what they think of your ‘statistics’,” or some variable of that.
That’s fair. Equally fair would be to ask said good liberals to tell the people at my brother’s funeral (including me) why his life was so much less worth saving than victims of gun violence that we should spend over 150 times as much on gun laws as we do on mental heath issues? While you’re at tell the families of the 2.3 million people (716 people per 100,000) we keep incarcerated in this country under the false narrative of runaway crime why their lives need also be forfeited on the altar of gun safety?
I get the emotion behind gun safety. I really do. I truly think my brother would be alive today if he hadn’t been told his whole life he wasn’t good enough and hadn’t stood up to the same bullies who now stage open carry rallies and press the “good guy with a gun” narrative.
He made it very clear in the last years of his life that the bully-ocricy (as he put it) had made his life such a living hell that he saw no point in living it. I would love nothing more than to melt down their precious phallic replacements into bongs or ornaments for gay weddings just to see them cry.
Ah, but, revenge fantasy is not good public policy. This is a public heath issue. He and the almost 34,000 people who joined him last year are jarring examples of the atrocious lack of help for the mentally ill in this country. When some asks why I am lukewarm on the gun debate my answer is that keeping people like my brother alive is simply a higher priority than pushing the conservative agenda of scaring America to death.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Eric Trommater
A liberal living in Northern Virginia. Father of Two great kids. Former sports writer and movie critic.
115 responses to Pushing Gun Safety Laws Plays Into Conservative Hands
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
M A G July 28th, 2014 at 06:55
Very nicely written. It must be tough to share such personal items about your brother. I’m terribly sorry for your loss.
I don’t think we need multitudes of new gun laws either, though I must insist on closing that background check loophole. I think every purchase needs a background check.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:25
I tend to agree in the abstract however I questions the logic of strengthening any laws and putting anymore people in prison while we already keep such a huge percentage of our population behind bars.
M A G July 28th, 2014 at 13:11
Agreed, our prison population is too bloated. Perhaps a non-prison punishment could be found, like house arrest or the like?
I won’t even bring up that we have oodles of non-violent drug offenders behind bars.
MIAtheistGal July 28th, 2014 at 06:55
Very nicely written. It must be tough to share such personal items about your brother. I’m terribly sorry for your loss.
I don’t think we need multitudes of new gun laws either, though I must insist on closing that background check loophole. I think every purchase needs a background check.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:25
I tend to agree in the abstract however I questions the logic of strengthening any laws and putting anymore people in prison while we already keep such a huge percentage of our population behind bars.
MIAtheistGal July 28th, 2014 at 13:11
Agreed, our prison population is too bloated. Perhaps a non-prison punishment could be found, like house arrest or the like?
I won’t even bring up that we have oodles of non-violent drug offenders behind bars.
Linda1961 July 28th, 2014 at 07:04
So sorry to hear about your brother. Great article, and I think that Mag is right – close the background check loophole.
Linda1961 July 28th, 2014 at 07:04
So sorry to hear about your brother. Great article, and I think that Mag is right – close the background check loophole.
edmeyer_able July 28th, 2014 at 07:21
My condolences to you Eric for your loss. My feelings are that to ignore either issue is a mistake.There are too many easy solutions that could prevent needless deaths and injuries from guns, a simple trigger lock would prevent so much heartache.
I do hope that some progress is made on both fronts
edmeyer_able July 28th, 2014 at 07:21
My condolences to you Eric for your loss. My feelings are that to ignore either issue is a mistake.There are too many easy solutions that could prevent needless deaths and injuries from guns, a simple trigger lock would prevent so much heartache.
I do hope that some progress is made on both fronts
JassieJackson July 28th, 2014 at 07:32
Sorry about your loss. Suicide is tragic, it leaves those closest to the victim wondering why and filled with remorse and guilt.
Unfortunately, suicide is also committed by many other ways than a gun, yet the gun becomes the object of anger when pushing a agenda.
Can we ban rope, knives, pitch forks, cars bridges, cliffs, bath tubs, electrical appliances, food, water, or any other object that can be used to commit this tragedy? Would banning those objects stop those who are so full of despair that they must kill themselves?
Think about it.
NW10 July 28th, 2014 at 07:42
Can we ban
That is the biggest lie of you gun loons. No one rational is calling for a ban of any kind of gun regarding the gun control debate. What a lot of us are saying is that reasonable regulations need to be in place to keep guns out of the hands of maniacs.
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:23
There are too many videos to count on Pelosi and Feinstein calling for an outright ban on firearms, along with confiscation. But I guess you could say neither one of these women are rational, along with the people like them.
edmeyer_able July 28th, 2014 at 07:55
Sorry mandating a gun lock or insurance on your gun is NOT a ban, the same way an ignition lock or insurance on your vehicle is not a ban on your car.
Feel free to respond when you can argue the subject with truth and intelligence.
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 09:00
A mandate of insurance will never happen. Like it or not, Owning a firearm for self protection is guaranteed under the constitution. As far as mandating gun locks, I dont see that happening either. When something goes boom in the night, the last thing you want to be doing is looking for a key, or juggling a combination. Or as the same, if you are not home, and your loved one needs access.
What I would suggest though is, tougher laws if a person was found to be negligent and a child was able to access the firearm. But that also falls into the category when is a child a child? What I mean. I was taught at a very young age firearm safety. And knew had to use one. Just like many families. At some point, you are old enough to be left alone in the house. What if your 16 year old daughter needs to protect herself in the event of a break in??
And yes, I am fully aware of the argument that what if your 16 year old daughter, decides that her BFF stole her boyfriend and needs to be killed. I get it. Not sure what the right answer is, but i dont think neither of what you attest is the right answer either.
edmeyer_able July 28th, 2014 at 09:03
If you’re going to debate “when is a child a child” you’ve already lost the debate.
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 09:06
Not really, it is a legitimate question. That same child who is 16 living in suburbia who has never been exposed, the same 16 year old child who was raised on a farm, hunting and shooting from a very young age. One with experience, one with out. Yet they are both the same age,
Margie Bateman Osgood July 28th, 2014 at 11:24
A child is classified as someone under the age of 18. If you buy alcohol for an underage individual, you are contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If there were stronger laws about kids under the age of 18 legally owning or using a handgun or keeping them locked up period, Sandy Hook might never have happened, seeing as Lanza’s mother kept them lying around. I know he was 20, before you point that out. And as far as insurance goes, yes it is viable to have accident insurance in case someone gets shot accidentally by YOUR weapon, unless you want to be sued by the injured party…….
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 11:59
The legal age to purchase a handgun from a dealer is 21. Persons under the age of 18 are not legally allowed to own a handgun.
The context of this conversation was about requiring mandatory gun locks. Where as my comment refers back to when is a child a child. We can both throw different scenario’s at each other, and we both would probably be right. And your still wrong on the Insurance. first, it boils down to be a “Poll Tax”, but interesting enough, How do you determine what “Granny” pays who keeps a shotgun in her home in rural america versus, the young single mother who lives in a bad neighborhood because that is she can afford. Or do you do it like the car insurance, and charge young men higher rates then younger women??? Or because I live in the Northeast where it is more congested versus somebody who lives on a farm in kansas ???
Sorry, but it not a viable option, no matter how many times you want to say it.
Margie Bateman Osgood July 28th, 2014 at 12:04
Sure it is. And the single mother in a bad neighborhood probably can’t afford a weapon and most single mothers I know don’t want a gun near their child and I know several single mothers, some in bad neighborhoods, that won’t even consider a weapon because they have children. I was the same way when my children were growing up. Common sense and awareness of surroundings have always served me well. And before you ask, yes I own a weapon, yes I owned it when my kids were small, yes I kept it well hidden, they did not even know we had one until they were in college.
Margie Bateman Osgood July 28th, 2014 at 12:05
But I digress, if we can have car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, all to guard against accidents and death, then you should have liability insurance on guns. At way over 30,000 accidents a year, it should be necessary.
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 13:44
We have very different groups of friends. =)
“But I digress”, whether the single mother in a bad neighborhood can afford it or not. Or the Granny on fixed income. Or the rich kid in a good neighborhood. The question still stands, How do you determine who pays what? Is it based on the individual? Is it based on the Gun? Is it based on the amount of Guns? is it based on risk of where you live? High Crime/low Crime? Is it based on experience? What are the determining factors?
Then, how do you regulate it? With an approximate 80 million gun owners in the United States. Does this become a federal project, a state by state project? what are you actually insuring against?
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:21
Its not accidents, over 19,000 are suicides and 11,000 homicides. Accidents due to firearm discharge are among the lowest recorded deaths the CDC has on record.
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:19
There is a difference in the eyes of the law for a child, and a minor.
NW10 July 28th, 2014 at 09:17
Owning a firearm for self protection is guaranteed under the constitution.
Actually, no it’s not. Show me where the word “firearm” is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution says “arms,” not “firearms” or “guns.”
And no right in the BOR is without limits. The limits keep me from standing on your sidewalk at 3AM in the morning yelling “GUNS SUCK!” through a bullhorn, and from performing human/animal sacrifices in my backyard to express my religious liberty. Similarly, there are limits on the Second Amendment, which is why I’m not allowed to possess nuclear warheads or predator drones. I also can’t carry a gun anywhere I want to, otherwise explain to me why you’d automatically be arrested if you carried a gun into a police station or a federal office building.
The next part of your argument is defeatist. How come we require car owners to carry insurance to drive a car, and if they get into an accident irresponsibly but we can’t require the same of gun owners? How come we can hold drunk drivers accountable for getting behind the wheel and have them arrested when they end up killing somebody, but when we attempt to regulate guns in anyway shape or form, it’s “taking away the rights of law abiding gun owners”?
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 09:25
first and foremost, Firearms are considered a “Arms”, and yes, it is. No matter what you want to think, Heller and McDonald solidified that. And after this weekends ruling in Palmer vs Washington DC, will certainly send your heart into palpitations.
You like to bring up the car issue, well, driving is a privilege. Which is why it is called driving privileges. But for the same argument that you will give me about requiring a government issued ID in order to vote, and to be eligible to vote, you need to pass a civics test, is your answer. Because it is a right guaranteed under the BOR’s.
NW10 July 28th, 2014 at 09:32
Heller also solidified that regulation of firearms is Constitutional.
Nukes and predator drones are arms too, yet you’d not hesitate for one second to call the authorities if you had any knowledge of me possessing them. The reason you would, is because you’d agree that I shouldn’t be in possession of those kinds of arms. IOW, there’s already a line drawn regarding what arms we are/aren’t allowed to have.
The second part of your argument is irrelevant because again, no right in the BOR is absolute and without limitations. Undocumented workers cannot vote, and when you become a convicted felon, you forfeit that right. You also have to be of legal age to vote and as of now, there are more right wingers passing more laws to make it more difficult to vote, yet they complain that any law that makes it more difficult for gun loons to get guns, that it’s infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 10:27
Yes, Heller did say that it is not without limit. Where as McDonald also solidified weapons in common use. And considering we already have the National Firearms act of 1934, which was modified into the Gun Control act of 1968. So there already has been significant restriction of what a person may own. And there are procedures in place if you are wealthy enough to be able to afford a class III firearm.
In regards to your second part. The door swings both ways.
bahlers July 31st, 2014 at 18:44
And a poll tax, voter id, and competancy test to ensure you are smart enough to vote do not significantly impact anyone’s right to got either. Considering most people own a gun for protection, mandating the use of a trigger lock or similar method, as used in DC has been found to be unconstitutional.
Carla Akins July 28th, 2014 at 08:45
The difference is in all other methods there is a better chance of survival, a better chance for for time to pass between the decision and the act, time for someone to reconsider.
bahlers July 31st, 2014 at 18:41
Sorry, it might be due to the deletion of the above comment, but what gives you the best chance of survival?
NW10 July 28th, 2014 at 07:40
My condolences for your loss.
Here’s some Milt Shook articles that you hopefully read. We need gun control, and it’s unfortunate that liberals like you want to throw in the white flag of surrender and let the gun loons win:
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/why-we-need-gun-control-period/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/how-gunloons-unwittingly-make-the-case-for-gun-control/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/commonsenseguncontrol/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/gun-defenders-always-lie-to-make-their-point/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/why-so-many-gun-incidents-its-not-hard-to-figure-out-why/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/shooting-down-the-gunloons-biggest-arguments/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/just-look-at-numbers-the-us-has-a-severe-gun-problem-no-matter-what-the-right-says/
mea_mark July 28th, 2014 at 09:04
It’s not throwing in the white flag, it is being practical and achieving results slowly and incrementally without stirring up the opposition.
NW10 July 28th, 2014 at 09:10
I don’t care what the opposition believes regarding gun control. Their only goal is to get us to do nothing, and effectively give up. The title of this article is defeatist and the article is cynical, defeatism and cynicism are not practical methods of achieving any goal, let alone gun control.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:43
The title of this article points out that over hyping the gun issue as we have over the years is having disastrous consequences.
The body of this article points out that their is less and less gun violence every year and making it our number one issue is allowing other issues that that are costing more lives to get swept under the rug.
Allowing that to continue would be defeatist
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 14:41
Mark has a very good point about how change is made in this country and I am sorry I missed it earlier when I was going through the comments.
Why is everything about winning and losing? Shouldn’t our long term goal be good public health policy?
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 28th, 2014 at 07:40
My condolences for your loss.
Here’s some Milt Shook articles that you hopefully read. We need gun control, and it’s unfortunate that liberals like you want to throw in the white flag of surrender and let the gun loons win:
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/why-we-need-gun-control-period/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/how-gunloons-unwittingly-make-the-case-for-gun-control/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/commonsenseguncontrol/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/gun-defenders-always-lie-to-make-their-point/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/why-so-many-gun-incidents-its-not-hard-to-figure-out-why/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/shooting-down-the-gunloons-biggest-arguments/
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/just-look-at-numbers-the-us-has-a-severe-gun-problem-no-matter-what-the-right-says/
mea_mark July 28th, 2014 at 09:04
It’s not throwing in the white flag, it is being practical and achieving results slowly and incrementally without stirring up the opposition.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 28th, 2014 at 09:10
I don’t care what the opposition believes regarding gun control. Their only goal is to get us to do nothing, and effectively give up. The title of this article is defeatist and the article is cynical, defeatism and cynicism are not practical methods of achieving any goal, let alone gun control.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:43
The title of this article points out that over hyping the gun issue as we have over the years is having disastrous consequences.
The body of this article points out that there is less and less gun violence every year and making it our number one issue is allowing other issues that that are costing more lives to get swept under the rug.
Allowing that to continue would be defeatist
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 14:41
Mark has a very good point about how change is made in this country and I am sorry I missed it earlier when I was going through the comments.
Why is everything about winning and losing? Shouldn’t our long term goal be good public health policy?
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 28th, 2014 at 07:42
Can we ban
That is the biggest lie of you gun loons. No one rational is calling for a ban of any kind of gun regarding the gun control debate. What a lot of us are saying is that reasonable regulations need to be in place to keep guns out of the hands of maniacs.
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:23
There are too many videos to count on Pelosi and Feinstein calling for an outright ban on firearms, along with confiscation. But I guess you could say neither one of these women are rational, along with the people like them.
Tommy6860 July 28th, 2014 at 07:54
Sorry for your loss and I liked your article. It was well thought out and I see a different point of view because of it.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 08:59
Thank you Tommy that means a lot to me.
Tommy6860 July 28th, 2014 at 07:54
Sorry for your loss and I liked your article. It was well thought out and I see a different point of view because of it.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 08:59
Thank you Tommy that means a lot to me.
edmeyer_able July 28th, 2014 at 07:55
Sorry, mandating a gun lock or insurance on your gun is NOT a ban, the same way an ignition lock or insurance on your vehicle is not a ban on your car.
Feel free to respond when you can argue the subject with truth and intelligence.
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 09:00
A mandate of insurance will never happen. Like it or not, Owning a firearm for self protection is guaranteed under the constitution. As far as mandating gun locks, I dont see that happening either. When something goes boom in the night, the last thing you want to be doing is looking for a key, or juggling a combination. Or as the same, if you are not home, and your loved one needs access.
What I would suggest though is, tougher laws if a person was found to be negligent and a child was able to access the firearm. But that also falls into the category when is a child a child? What I mean. I was taught at a very young age firearm safety. And knew had to use one. Just like many families. At some point, you are old enough to be left alone in the house. What if your 16 year old daughter needs to protect herself in the event of a break in??
And yes, I am fully aware of the argument that what if your 16 year old daughter, decides that her BFF stole her boyfriend and needs to be killed. I get it. Not sure what the right answer is, but i dont think neither of what you attest is the right answer either.
edmeyer_able July 28th, 2014 at 09:03
If you’re going to debate “when is a child a child” you’ve already lost the debate.
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 09:06
Not really, it is a legitimate question. That same child who is 16 living in suburbia who has never been exposed, the same 16 year old child who was raised on a farm, hunting and shooting from a very young age. One with experience, one with out. Yet they are both the same age,
Margie Bateman Osgood July 28th, 2014 at 11:24
A child is classified as someone under the age of 18. If you buy alcohol for an underage individual, you are contributing to the delinquency of a minor. If there were stronger laws about kids under the age of 18 legally owning or using a handgun or keeping them locked up period, Sandy Hook might never have happened, seeing as Lanza’s mother kept them lying around. I know he was 20, before you point that out. And as far as insurance goes, yes it is viable to have accident insurance in case someone gets shot accidentally by YOUR weapon, unless you want to be sued by the injured party…….
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 11:59
The legal age to purchase a handgun from a dealer is 21. Persons under the age of 18 are not legally allowed to own a handgun.
The context of this conversation was about requiring mandatory gun locks. Where as my comment refers back to when is a child a child. We can both throw different scenario’s at each other, and we both would probably be right. And your still wrong on the Insurance. first, it boils down to be a “Poll Tax”, but interesting enough, How do you determine what “Granny” pays who keeps a shotgun in her home in rural america versus, the young single mother who lives in a bad neighborhood because that is she can afford. Or do you do it like the car insurance, and charge young men higher rates then younger women??? Or because I live in the Northeast where it is more congested versus somebody who lives on a farm in kansas ???
Sorry, but it not a viable option, no matter how many times you want to say it.
Margie Bateman Osgood July 28th, 2014 at 12:04
Sure it is. And the single mother in a bad neighborhood probably can’t afford a weapon and most single mothers I know don’t want a gun near their child and I know several single mothers, some in bad neighborhoods, that won’t even consider a weapon because they have children. I was the same way when my children were growing up. Common sense and awareness of surroundings have always served me well. And before you ask, yes I own a weapon, yes I owned it when my kids were small, yes I kept it well hidden, they did not even know we had one until they were in college.
Margie Bateman Osgood July 28th, 2014 at 12:05
But I digress, if we can have car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, all to guard against accidents and death, then you should have liability insurance on guns. At way over 30,000 accidents a year, it should be necessary.
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 13:44
We have very different groups of friends. =)
“But I digress”, whether the single mother in a bad neighborhood can afford it or not. Or the Granny on fixed income. Or the rich kid in a good neighborhood. The question still stands, How do you determine who pays what? Is it based on the individual? Is it based on the Gun? Is it based on the amount of Guns? is it based on risk of where you live? High Crime/low Crime? Is it based on experience? What are the determining factors?
Then, how do you regulate it? With an approximate 80 million gun owners in the United States. Does this become a federal project, a state by state project? what are you actually insuring against?
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:21
Its not accidents, over 19,000 are suicides and 11,000 homicides. Accidents due to firearm discharge are among the lowest recorded deaths the CDC has on record.
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:19
There is a difference in the eyes of the law for a child, and a minor.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 28th, 2014 at 09:17
Owning a firearm for self protection is guaranteed under the constitution.
Actually, no it’s not. Show me where the word “firearm” is mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution says “arms,” not “firearms” or “guns.”
And no right in the BOR is without limits. The limits keep me from standing on your sidewalk at 3AM in the morning yelling “GUNS SUCK!” through a bullhorn, and from performing human/animal sacrifices in my backyard to express my religious liberty. Similarly, there are limits on the Second Amendment, which is why I’m not allowed to possess nuclear warheads or predator drones. I also can’t carry a gun anywhere I want to, otherwise explain to me why you’d automatically be arrested if you carried a gun into a police station or a federal office building.
The next part of your argument is defeatist. How come we require car owners to carry insurance to drive a car, and if they get into an accident irresponsibly but we can’t require the same of gun owners? How come we can hold drunk drivers accountable for getting behind the wheel and have them arrested when they end up killing somebody, but when we attempt to regulate guns in anyway shape or form, it’s “taking away the rights of law abiding gun owners”?
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 09:25
first and foremost, Firearms are considered a “Arms”, and yes, it is. No matter what you want to think, Heller and McDonald solidified that. And after this weekends ruling in Palmer vs Washington DC, will certainly send your heart into palpitations.
You like to bring up the car issue, well, driving is a privilege. Which is why it is called driving privileges. But for the same argument that you will give me about requiring a government issued ID in order to vote, and to be eligible to vote, you need to pass a civics test, is your answer. Because it is a right guaranteed under the BOR’s.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 28th, 2014 at 09:32
Heller also solidified that regulation of firearms is Constitutional.
Nukes and predator drones are arms too, yet you’d not hesitate for one second to call the authorities if you had any knowledge of me possessing them. The reason you would, is because you’d agree that I shouldn’t be in possession of those kinds of arms. IOW, there’s already a line drawn regarding what arms we are/aren’t allowed to have.
The second part of your argument is irrelevant because again, no right in the BOR is absolute and without limitations. Undocumented workers cannot vote, and when you become a convicted felon, you forfeit that right. You also have to be of legal age to vote and as of now, there are more right wingers passing more laws to make it more difficult to vote, yet they complain that any law that makes it more difficult for gun loons to get guns, that it’s infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners.
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 10:27
Yes, Heller did say that it is not without limit. Where as McDonald also solidified weapons in common use. And considering we already have the National Firearms act of 1934, which was modified into the Gun Control act of 1968. So there already has been significant restriction of what a person may own. And there are procedures in place if you are wealthy enough to be able to afford a class III firearm.
In regards to your second part. The door swings both ways.
bahlers July 31st, 2014 at 18:44
And a poll tax, voter id, and competancy test to ensure you are smart enough to vote do not significantly impact anyone’s right to got either. Considering most people own a gun for protection, mandating the use of a trigger lock or similar method, as used in DC has been found to be unconstitutional.
NW10 July 28th, 2014 at 07:57
I’d also add one more point: by throwing in the white flag of surrender, you allow the same gun loons who were carrying their guns on the Grassy Knoll where JFK was shot to do so without consequences. Is that something you’re happy with?
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 09:01
White flag of surrender? It seems very illiberal of you place a litmus test on beliefs. “You allow the same gun loons who were carrying their guns on the Grassy Knoll where JFK was shot to do so without consequences,” seems to me very typical of the rhetoric that over-hypes gun violence and continues to feed the right wing fear machine.
NW10 July 28th, 2014 at 09:09
The title of your article is effectively a white flag of surrender.
“Pushing Gun Safety Laws Plays Into Conservative Hands,” no it isn’t, doing nothing plays into conservative hands. We need to continue to talk up gun control and get it done, it’s how MADD have been effective in establishing effective laws against drunk driving and how the tobacco lobby ultimately lost regarding the marketing of cigarettes to the youth. Do you think those groups cared about what the right wing believed? They fought until they achieved results. By asserting that any talk of gun control measures enables the right wing, you’re being defeatist and allowing them to control the narrative.
mea_mark July 28th, 2014 at 09:13
Focus to achieve results, one step at a time. Talking about all the options is just confusing and diluting the energies and nothing is getting done except to stir-up the opposition.
NW10 July 28th, 2014 at 09:19
I don’t care what the opposition believes. If we don’t stand up to them, they win and we all lose.
R.J. Carter July 28th, 2014 at 10:52
When did you become a Republican?
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:38
Republicans aren’t the only ones who parrot talking points RJ, it’s a non-partisan issue.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:36
Shouldn’t it be about saving lives? Shouldn’t we be rallying around saving as many lives as possible.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:35
Shouldn’t the argument be about saving lives instead of guns? Where in my article did I say anything about caring what the right wing believes. What I said was that by making the issue solely about guns we are preponderating the myth that America is an unsafe place and excusing keeping a huge percentage of our population imprisoned.
Nowhere do I say guns don’t kill people. I point out they kill a lot less people than things which are being blindly ignored by my fellow liberals. Where is your passion for these people? Why is the argument only about guns? Where are the hundreds of articles on pages like this about suicide and the high incarceration rate among American citizens? Where is your dog in that fight? Guns are a problem, my point is they are not the problem.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 28th, 2014 at 07:57
I’d also add one more point: by throwing in the white flag of surrender, you allow the same gun loons who were carrying their guns on the Grassy Knoll where JFK was shot to do so without consequences. Is that something you’re happy with?
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 09:01
White flag of surrender? It seems very illiberal of you place a litmus test on beliefs. “You allow the same gun loons who were carrying their guns on the Grassy Knoll where JFK was shot to do so without consequences,” seems to me very typical of the rhetoric that over-hypes gun violence and continues to feed the right wing fear machine.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 28th, 2014 at 09:09
The title of your article is effectively a white flag of surrender.
“Pushing Gun Safety Laws Plays Into Conservative Hands,” no it isn’t, doing nothing plays into conservative hands. We need to continue to talk up gun control and get it done, it’s how MADD have been effective in establishing effective laws against drunk driving and how the tobacco lobby ultimately lost regarding the marketing of cigarettes to the youth. Do you think those groups cared about what the right wing believed? They fought until they achieved results. By asserting that any talk of gun control measures enables the right wing, you’re being defeatist and allowing them to control the narrative.
mea_mark July 28th, 2014 at 09:13
Focus to achieve results, one step at a time. Talking about all the options is just confusing and diluting the energies and nothing is getting done except to stir-up the opposition.
(((NW10,PATRIOT! ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ))) July 28th, 2014 at 09:19
I don’t care what the opposition believes. If we don’t stand up to them, they win and we all lose.
R.J. Carter July 28th, 2014 at 10:52
When did you become a Republican?
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:38
Republicans aren’t the only ones who parrot talking points RJ, it’s a non-partisan issue.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:36
Shouldn’t it be about saving lives? Shouldn’t we be rallying around saving as many lives as possible.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:35
Shouldn’t the argument be about saving lives instead of guns? Where in my article did I say anything about caring what the right wing believes? What I said was that by making the issue solely about guns we are preponderating the myth that America is an unsafe place and excusing keeping a huge percentage of our population imprisoned.
Nowhere do I say guns don’t kill people. I point out they kill a lot less people than things which are being blindly ignored by my fellow liberals. Where is your passion for these people? Why is the argument only about guns? Where are the hundreds of articles on pages like this about suicide and the high incarceration rate among American citizens? Where is your dog in that fight? Guns are a problem, my point is they are not the problem.
Carla Akins July 28th, 2014 at 08:45
The difference is in all other methods there is a better chance of survival, a better chance for for time to pass between the decision and the act, time for someone to reconsider.
bahlers July 31st, 2014 at 18:41
Sorry, it might be due to the deletion of the above comment, but what gives you the best chance of survival?
mea_mark July 28th, 2014 at 09:03
Small steps are more productive and less likely to stir-up so much passion on the gun debate. Focusing on one small thing like background checks would probably prove to be a more productive use of our energies. I really think focus is the key. Push where there is little push-back and let the rest go for now. Eventually technology will make guns smarter and they will do less damage. Technology can do a lot of the work for us if we give it time.
edmeyer_able July 28th, 2014 at 09:19
Unfortunately tech for safety is being ignored, witness the demise of the smart gun in New Jersey while tech in firearms increases. I also should point out that only an idiot would fire into a concrete block at such short range.
http://youtu.be/ZYLxUKMrjVk
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 09:30
Ask me about the “Smart Gun Law” in New Jersey. I am a NJ resident and am very familiar with it. And why this law is hampering the development.
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 09:37
If you are really interested on how a National Background check could work and you want to discuss this. I am more then willing to go over some ideas that have been tossed around. I would be happy to discuss.
R.J. Carter July 28th, 2014 at 10:51
Plus, focusing on background checks will garner much more bi-partisan support. After Sandy Hook, there was support on both sides, but one side started to throw the kitchen sink into the bills, and it killed it.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:51
Adding more laws on the books that will put more people in prison will always get bi-partisan support. It’s is always safer to appear tough on crime and not do anything about it than to actually solve problems with ideas that can’t fit on a bumper sticker.
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:56
But failing a background check doesn’t land you in jail. Is that why it failed?
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 23:03
Restricting anyone’s access to anything puts more people in jail. Drugs, alcohol, you name it. It just creates a larger black market and this leads to more crime not less blah blah blah if you read my article you already know my opinion on this.
mea_mark July 28th, 2014 at 09:03
Small steps are more productive and less likely to stir-up so much passion on the gun debate. Focusing on one small thing like background checks would probably prove to be a more productive use of our energies. I really think focus is the key. Push where there is little push-back and let the rest go for now. Eventually technology will make guns smarter and they will do less damage. Technology can do a lot of the work for us if we give it time.
edmeyer_able July 28th, 2014 at 09:19
Unfortunately tech for safety is being ignored, witness the demise of the smart gun in New Jersey while tech in firearms increases. I also should point out that only an idiot would fire into a concrete block at such short range.
http://youtu.be/ZYLxUKMrjVk
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 09:30
Ask me about the “Smart Gun Law” in New Jersey. I am a NJ resident and am very familiar with it. And why this law is hampering the development.
Pistol-Packing July 28th, 2014 at 09:37
If you are really interested on how a National Background check could work and you want to discuss this. I am more then willing to go over some ideas that have been tossed around. I would be happy to discuss.
R.J. Carter July 28th, 2014 at 10:51
Plus, focusing on background checks will garner much more bi-partisan support. After Sandy Hook, there was support on both sides, but one side started to throw the kitchen sink into the bills, and it killed it.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:51
Adding more laws on the books that will put more people in prison will always get bi-partisan support. It’s is always safer to appear tough on crime and not do anything about it than to actually solve problems with ideas that can’t fit on a bumper sticker.
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:56
But failing a background check doesn’t land you in jail. Is that why it failed?
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 23:03
Restricting anyone’s access to anything puts more people in jail. Drugs, alcohol, you name it. It just creates a larger black market and this leads to more crime not less blah blah blah if you read my article you already know my opinion on this.
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker July 28th, 2014 at 09:28
Sorry to hear about your brother.
You’ve made me rethink my position on gun proliferation in America.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:27
Thank you. My hope is one day the issue won’t be about any singular issue like guns or mental heath but simply what can we do that will save the most lives in this country without having to keep such a large percentage of people behind bars.
fancypants July 28th, 2014 at 11:43
the first thing they need to do is trash the mail order weapons and ammo Then invoke a ZERO drug and alcohol tolerance if you carry a gun.
This may be asking too much already with the cons
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:25
As far as I know, you cannot legally have a gun while under the influence if you have a CCL in every state. As for mail order weapons, you cannot legally purchase a gun through the mail. Private party transfer that takes place through the internet is different, but no more illegal then two friends having a transaction. Ammo you can buy, depending on where you live through the mail, and what is wrong with that.
fancypants July 28th, 2014 at 22:31
Whats wrong with ammo through the mail ?
Seriously
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:38
Seriously. It is shipped by ground only. And is ammo somehow safer while being shipped to the store to be purchased instead of the door of the customer? All they check at the store is your id to make sure you are of legal age (and most times this doesn’t even take place). So how is it safer for the customer to buy ammo at a store and not safe for them to do so on the company’s website?
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:38
And if I’m not mistaken, it is shipped UPS, not USPS.
fancypants July 29th, 2014 at 21:43
Its very silly and risky given the past record of our mail service and ups is on the same level. besides ive posted info on this site pointing out how there is a gun shop ( most likely with ammo ) within 10 miles of each town in the usa
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker July 28th, 2014 at 09:28
Sorry to hear about your brother.
You’ve made me rethink my position on gun proliferation in America.
Eric Trommater July 28th, 2014 at 11:27
Thank you. My hope is one day the issue won’t be about any singular issue like guns or mental heath but simply what can we do that will save the most lives in this country without having to keep such a large percentage of people behind bars.
fancypants July 28th, 2014 at 11:43
the first thing they need to do is trash the mail order weapons and ammo Then invoke a ZERO drug and alcohol tolerance if you carry a gun.
This may be asking too much already with the cons
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:25
As far as I know, you cannot legally have a gun while under the influence if you have a CCL in every state. As for mail order weapons, you cannot legally purchase a gun through the mail. Private party transfer that takes place through the internet is different, but no more illegal then two friends having a transaction. Ammo you can buy, depending on where you live through the mail, and what is wrong with that.
fancypants July 28th, 2014 at 22:31
Whats wrong with ammo through the mail ?
Seriously
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:38
Seriously. It is shipped by ground only. And is ammo somehow safer while being shipped to the store to be purchased instead of the door of the customer? All they check at the store is your id to make sure you are of legal age (and most times this doesn’t even take place). So how is it safer for the customer to buy ammo at a store and not safe for them to do so on the company’s website?
bahlers July 28th, 2014 at 22:38
And if I’m not mistaken, it is shipped UPS, not USPS.
fancypants July 29th, 2014 at 21:43
Its very silly and risky given the past record of our mail service and ups is on the same level. besides ive posted info on this site pointing out how there is a gun shop ( most likely with ammo ) within 10 miles of each town in the usa