Many have a problem with free thinking and opposing opinions.

It does not matter if it's guns, the internet, your body, what you drink or anything else regardless of their political stripe they want to control

favor banning the use of tobacco products - even, gasp! those pesky e-cigs?

Example, Michael Bloomberg's jihad aganst big gulps...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=269890

It has nothing to do with controlling things I dislike. I hate Justin Bieber and Brussel sprouts, for example, but wouldn't ever recommend banning either one. Whom do they hurt? Nobody.

I advocate banning firearms for no reason other than to decrease gun violence as much as possible.

Now I realize that you are more likely to die in a car crash or even through your doctor making a mistake, but I don't advocate banning cars and doctors because doing so would obviously be a detriment to society. On the other hand, I don't see any detriment to society in banning firearms, no matter how many hundreds of thousands - if not more - crimes that gun ownership is supposed to prevent every year. If those estimates were true, we should have the lowest rates of gun crimes - and of crime in general - in the industrialized world. Do we? Far from it.

No. You're a gun ban proponent, you don't get to hide under the guise of "pro-control".



What, the VPC isn't an anti-gun enough source for defensive firearms use, for you? Why not:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172191826



60 thousand defensive gun uses annually is supposed to equate to "the lowest rates of gun crimes - and of crime in general - in the industrialized world"?

That's your opinion, and a very empty justification to ban guns.

Canada, Germany, Iceland, Norway, US, New Zealand etc than places with complete bans like Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela. Heroin is banned, yet there are more heroin deaths than there are murders in the US.

When compared to the rest of the world, we do have a low crime and murder rate. "Industrialized" is irrelevant.

I can appreciate honesty even if I am firmly opposed to the viewpoint expressed.

I just want to do a quick cost/benefit of a gun ban vs increased crime. For simplicity I will use the 2014 FBI crime stats-

There were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement.

Aggravated assaults accounted for 63.6 percent of the violent crimes reported, while robberies accounted for 28.0 percent, rape 7.2 percent, and murders 1.2 percent.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015/september/latest-crime-stats-released/latest-crime-stats-released
I will use the low number, 500,000, for DGUs from the CDC report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence - See more at: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx#sthash.rifljO0n.dpuf

The potential cost of a gun ban is an additional 318,000 aggravated assaults, 140,000 robberies and 36,000 rapes.

The benefit is 7000-8000 less murders and 19,000 less suicides.

Of course this assumes 100% effect in each category. It can be expected that differences would offset so any change that only affects guns but not underlying violence means we have 71 additional violent crime for each homicide prevented.

That may be acceptable to you but not to me. 71 people should not be expected to "take one for the team". Gun control divorced from any plan to address the root causes of violence is placebo that merely shifts the victim pool.

Most people around me are extremely pro-RKBA, but they also have a mentality of 'who cares how gun ownership affects anyone else, as long as I get to go plinking on the weekend.' Are all gun owners like that? Of course not. But I'd also be lying if I said that mentality didn't affect my own bias.

Unlike many other progressives, I have plenty of experience around guns and don't think they are evil magic sticks that have supernatural powers over the person wielding them. I can even understand how some gun owners equate them to fire extinguishers; having them around the house is a good preventive measure that doesn't necessarily mean you're hoping for a fire to occur.

But I also find it difficult to believe all the pro-gun studies, because if gun ownership were as effective at deterring crime as they make it out to be, I still think we should have the lowest crime rates. Do we? Of course not.

Now, if one of those studies could convince me without a shadow of doubt that gun ownership prevents more crime than it enables, would I reverse my opinion and be in favor of gun ownership. I'd like to think so.

Many gun owners are quite reasonable. They like myself also find the current homicide rate unacceptable. Unfortunately the hyperbole of the arguments tends to push people to the extreme and it is hard to have conversations that meet somewhere in the middle

I do believe there is room still where we can balance people's rights and responsibilities, allowing gun ownership for any reason including the fence and reduce our homicide rate.

In my opinion suicide is a whole different subject and gun legislation is going to have little to no effect on that. We need to take a serious look at our mental health system.

I do.

And I have the Constitution on my side.

Done.

"OHMYGERD, THE CONSTITULATION!!!

It's an antiquated document written by people almost three hundred years ago. Jesus H fucking Christ, have an original thought.

not to be confused with the racist, misogynist, totalitarian mass murderer that happens to be your avatar. Che was a lot of things, but liberal and decent human being weren't among them.
BTW, it is a brilliant document, the one truly liberal constitution.

...enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

If you are willing, my platoon will be over your house this afternoon to kick in your door and take your computer.

By orders of a local politician, chief of police, etc.

Oh, and we may lock you up and question you for a few days if you piss us off.

You want to shred the Constitution??? Think about what you are saying before you say it.

There are people here, much braver than myself, who have been shot at defending the Constitution.

I'm not interested in shredding the Constitution but in reevaluating it. The problem is that some people treat it like infallible scripture. I don't even believe in the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God™ itself, so why should I give the same consideration to the Constitution?

Some people call me an authoritarian for my belief in banning firearm ownership or even in outlawing certain types of hate speech, yet I also believe in always questioning authority, including those who think the Constitution should never be questioned.

Are you willing to stack up in front of an innocent firearms owner's door?

Are you willing to 'take point' for a squad going in to a rural area to take the people's guns away?

Are you willing to destroy a family's property, and possibly take lives in the process?

OR WILL YOU SEND A LAW ENFORCEMENT PROXY IN YOUR PLACE TO DO YOUR DIRTY WORK?

Proposal:

We will meet, and I'll run a few scenarios for you - with harmless airsoft guns - and I guarantee that I take out you and several members of your squad every time. You will be exhausted - emotionally and physically - before you ever make it through a door 'alive.'

And once you are inside, you will be 'cut down' by people your laws turned into criminals.

You will leave the training exercise shaken to the core, covered in dry sweat, and emotionally barely able to drive home.

Conclusion:

You want to be responsible for even ONE real-life scenario such as I describe above, with real guns?

You are proposing - by saying you want to 'ban firearms ownership' - to turn law abiding citizens into criminals, and a few - very, very, very few holdouts - into cop killers.

How are you going to ban firearms ownership?

which is simply speech people don't like. I would call you a totalitarian. Hate speech is simply speech somebody doesn't like. There is an in group or out group. Hate speech directed at the in group bad, but use the same speech against the current out group is perfectly acceptable. Prime example is Cenk Uyger. Criticize Islam, you are a hateful piece of shit. Advocate putting Mormons in concentration camps, Cenk will be all for it.
Simply pointing out the fact that most illegal immigrant women are raped by the smugglers is called "hate speech" by some on the regressive left. Never mind that it is a documented fact. Speech control is thought control. Do you question authority, or simply want to replace one authority for another?

People are always pushing back on rights that restrict, or to gain more rights. It is not a static document, it is a living document.

every time SCOTUS hears a case.

In your desire to trample on the Bill of Rights.

What parts of the Constitution do you want to reevaluate, other than the First and Second Amendments? To be honest, I'd be ok with eliminating the Third, but the rest seem pretty good to me. I'd actually like to see more respect for the Tenth.

what is hate speech? is your criticism of the constitution hate speech? is burning the american flag hate speech? can i criticize our government without being charged with hate speech? what would the punishment be for spewing hate speech if it is outlawed?

Your math is off.

"OHMYGERD, THE CONSTITULATION!!! Have an original thought."

These are the laws of the strongest, most free nation in human history, laws which have been emulated worldwide. A nation (No thanks to people with your attitude) which has rescued humanity from it's darkest hours several times in the past century.

Perfect? No, certainly not perfect by any means, actually deeply flawed, as humanity often is. The constitution is the document which has been rigid enough to protect our rights, yet flexible enough to abolish slavery, give women (albeit still imperfectly) equal rights, and attempt to make up for many errors of the past.

Your disregard for the Constitution, which I and several members of my family have sworn to uphold, at the possible cost of our own lives, disgusts me.

Other rights enumerated in that antiquated document? I see quite a few good ideas them old dudes wrote down, even if I personally don't plan to exercise them.

with people who treat the Constitution as though it should never, ever be questioned, and if you do question it, you're an unAmerican enemy of freedom.

Maybe I'm a little sensitive to the subject because I see conservatives making this argument on a daily basis. Yet for them, the only right that matters is the Second Amendment. They're also plenty eager to add outlawing same-sex marriage and abortion to the Bill of Rights.

Changing the Constitution, as long as it expands people's rights. We should amend it adding gender identity to the 14th Amendment.

I am disappointed that Democrats only watered-down that travesty Bush gave us rather than eliminating it all together.

...on!!!

Who knew?

But hats off for the unorthodox tactic of mocking the idea of individual rights.
Bold move.

read the writings of paine, jefferson, franklin or any of the other founding fathers?

are the teaching and ideas of plato and socrates antiquated?

Society can get along just fine without any given religion.

If it was true that guns cause murder/suicides/violent crime then the USA should have the highest rate of those.
Do we?
Far from it.

If it was true gun restrictions prevented murder then California (ranked top state for gun control by the Brady group) would have the lowest murder rate in the nation.
Do they?
LOL. No. Even Texas has a lower murder rate.

"Its a good start".

There is it.