http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/02/january-13-march-against-gun-violence Comments On: January 13: March Against Gun Violence by Cienna Madrid en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Fri, 24 May 2013 23:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Then what are you in such a tizzy over? Worried that laws you think the voters all oppose will pass? Laws which you say are meaningless anyway? You seem pretty worked up over purely cosmetic laws that won't pass.

You need to act a lot less desperate if you want to peddle that line.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:00:47 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:29:42 -0800 The Stranger
And there you have it. Finally a tiny bit of honesty after all these lies.

Gun nuts don't believe in democracy. They don't believe in the Constitution, or the constitutional process. They don't believe in America. They're nihilists who love only one thing: their guns.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 22:16:29 -0800 The Stranger Even if the voters repealed the 2nd amendment it would not take away the right to keep and bear arms.

It is a natural right that exist regardless of government.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:09:56 -0800 The Stranger
Survey says!... 90% want to close the gun show loophole. Even the majority of gun owners want background checks at gun shows. Over 60% want to ban high capacity magazines. Only the assault weapons ban is near a wash; close to the margin of error.

But wait. What is this about? The Second Amendment? Or the will of the voters? Because we all know which direction the will of the voters is trending.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:51:09 -0800 The Stranger
Loche was very influential , his work was even lifted for the declaration of independence. However I do not recall Loche being one of the founding fathers. The founding fathers were pretty sparkling clear on how they felt about the correlation between firearms and liberty.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison

As for 42
5280 already nailed it.

Besides the FBI already collects data on gun violence, as does every law enforcement agency in the nation, we don’t need a UW pet project to do it.

@53
The ATF is an antigun law enforcement agency that is corrupt to it’s core and needs to be dissolved.

Here is our local ATF head agent, who enforces gun law despite not knowing how to insert a magazine into the rifle, confiscating toy guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEuTwYAL…

Well at least he hasn't matched the ATFs usual incompetence that leads to murdering civilians.


Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:04:00 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:51:45 -0800 The Stranger
All things considered, barely 4 million dollars in 2012 was spent, which does not put this issue even close to the middle rankings for national lobbies. So either this is the most vicious, efficient, and well-run lobbies in history, or there is something else at work.

Politicians do not touch this issue becuase it is a losing issue come election time. It is a losing issue because people stop caring about it until the next massacre, and then stop caring a week or so later. Older, rural people always vote, and rural, older people tend to like guns more.

Blaming the "gun lobby" is just a redirect so that we do not have to blame ourselves for our refusal to demand real gun control and hold politicians accountable. It is nice to blame dark, evil figures for our own failings, but it does not get us anywhere.

I am not trying to say that the money spent does not help the gun industry, but 4 million dollars is complete peanuts, and does not have anything against the will of the voters, which is apparently very weak on this issue.
Posted by Theodore Gorath]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:43:27 -0800 The Stranger
I'd really like to know.
Posted by CPN]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:39:02 -0800 The Stranger
@Cascadian Bacon, Do you agree that the Supreme Court nominees should be beholden to the NRA's approval? The NRA seems to think so: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201…

Posted by Just the facts, kids]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:01:17 -0800 The Stranger
First we're told how the NRA is so reasonable, always offering compromise. Then when we see evidence that they won't budge on even the most distantly related gun issues, you walk it back and blame Congress, not the NRA. If you think the NRA's lobbying and campaigning have no influence, then why do you guys give them your money?

The point is that the gun nuts of America use their powerful Washington lobby to add teeny little riders go great big bills that attack the foundations of every common sense response to gun violence.

They claim that they support enforcing the law, yet use their influence to cut off the ATF at the knees. They oppose every new law, and if that doesn't work, they pull the teeth from the bill before it sees the light of day.

I guess if you want to shift the blame to Congress, then we need to talk about how cowardly they are under the threat of NRA vote scoring. If you're saying the NRA is a paper tiger and it's time to call their bluff, then we can agree there. The NRA has been a powerful force in Congress, but only because of an illusion, a pack of lies.

Ninety-nine percent of NRA candidates failed in the last election, after all. Further proof that the NRA's extremist views and their reconstituted interpretation of the Second Amendment are alien to mainstream America. They're a fringe group that hijacked the Republican Party. They've failed to win the support of a democratic majority so instead they try to leverage the power of money in the back rooms where politicians cut deals out of sight of the voters. Their enemy is the truth, so they try to censor scientific research and use gag rules to prevent doctors from talking to their patients about guns.

It's disgusting to see you twist left and twist right, trying to squirm away from the consequences of this disastrous flood of guns and loony gun culture.

Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:37:14 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Knat]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:25:39 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:19:03 -0800 The Stranger
A measure I would support: opening NICS to private individuals wishing to sell their firearms and verify that the person they are selling to is disallowed. I'd still make it an optional step (as I'm personally of the thought that making it mandatory is registration and registration to exercise a fundamental right is fundamentally wrong), but it would certainly provide incentive for those of us who want to do the right thing. Those who want to do the right thing are who laws tend to affect, and it's frustrating that the only way I can get a NICS check on a person is to go through an FFL, which results in a 20-50 dollar fee and at least 20 years of registration in their bound book.
Posted by Tawnos]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:16:13 -0800 The Stranger
But I hope you're having a nice day in your fantasy-land anyway.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:07:37 -0800 The Stranger
The NRA's campaign to censor science is some of the very best proof that the gun lobby has gone off the rails and is actively working against the interest of the American people. They are nihilists who think this whole country is their enemy.

You could almost make the case that one rouge scientist needed to be reigned in. If you had proof, but let's not even go there. You're seriously fucking paranoid if you believe the only way to stop "fabricated" data is to cut off all funding for gun violence research at the federal level.

You're asserting a vast conspiracy that says nowhere in America can the government find one honest scientist to gather data on guns.

And they added a gag rule saying wellness programs can't even ask about gun storage in homes! The NRA doesn't want anybody to know about how many gun owners shoot themselves and their own families. Or how many of your toys that you leave lying around end up in the hands of criminals. They're working to bury the truth.

It's because there is nothing they love more than guns. Nothing.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 07:41:40 -0800 The Stranger Posted by The More You Know]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 07:40:37 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 03:52:27 -0800 The Stranger Posted by doceb]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2013 01:32:50 -0800 The Stranger Leisure Suit Larry games or The Guy Game (hell, even Custer's Revenge, for the older ones) as games that teach kids how to have sex. Specifically: form your hands into two curled sets of claws, then rotate your thumbs, while twitching your first two fingers on each hand seemingly at random. Yes, do that and the ladies will love it. But these same hand motions are also how you murder people with guns, so be careful, kids!
Posted by Knat]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 23:43:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by gloomy gus]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 23:41:32 -0800 The Stranger
Others have noted here on Slog that you're full of shit. Your "Yay, guns R great" attitude certainly seems to be loaded with the usual jingoistic wingnut shit.

Tell me, "Cascadian Bacon", what do you have to say about this editorial, which points out how noted trauma surgeon Fred Rivara was stymied by the goddamn NRA when he just tried to collect data on firearm violence?

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/2012122…

See, "Cascadian Bacon", the first steps to addressing a problem involve collecting hard data about the problem. That data will then lead towards a solution. That's the scientific method that rational people follow.

The NRA, the organization you affirm is full of compromise, in this case forced legislation that blocked research, thus blocking even attempting to gain understanding of the problem.

This is the NRA figuratively sticking their fingers in their ears, and going "Naa naa naa, I can't hear you!"

Only unfortunately we all suffer due to the stupidity and cowardice of the NRA. How do you feel about that, "Cascadian Bacon"? Tell us how the NRA suppressing even studying the problem is in any way "compromising".

Oh, right, you're so cowardly you can't even do your job unless you're holstering your peni-- er, sidearm.

Piss off, you coward. Your opinions are worthless.
Posted by Dr_Awesome]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:09:59 -0800 The Stranger
The only thing you have ever suggested is a laughably unrealistic "blah blah mental health check" that can't possibly mean anything. What standard of mental health would Nancy Lanza not have passed? Yeah, I'd support that too -- it's ten times more "gun grabbing" than anything I have ever suggested, but you say it because you know it doesn't mean anything. It's not going to happen, which is how you like it. All of your "proposals" are like that: sheer fakery.

You're a liar, and lying like that has served you well over the years to deflect attention from what's really happening. But maybe not any longer. Maybe now we'll be able to get a teensy bit of "cosmetic" protection from people like you. And once the hold is broken maybe we can have a real conversation about what guns are for and who should have them.

You won't be a part of that conversation because you're not part of anything constructive, ever. You are an enemy of civilization. Are guns legal? Supreme Court says yes. Are guns necessary? The foundations of American liberty say "no, fool, the whole point of America is to make guns unnecessary for freedom". Read your Locke. Or don't; go polish your precious guns instead.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:54:23 -0800 The Stranger
So, when I read your comment I'm led to believe that you support outlawing private gun sales, and then some sort of mental health evaluation whenever guns (or ammo) are purchased?

I'm not very clear, because the existing law as written is effectively unenforceable. It essentially requires people to know if another person is lying to them at the point of sale, in the case of private sales, and relies an a crazy mishmash of healthcare law to establish mental health. Yes, enforce the intent of existing law - but make it effective. The existing state of background checks is clearly insufficient for the public good.
Posted by Action Slacks]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:43:25 -0800 The Stranger Posted by jt]]> Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:37:08 -0800 The Stranger