What gun control measures do you support?

[TurtleDude]

I see nobody with any power to do so doing anything to weaken or diminish the rights of Americans under the Second Amendment.

The gun culture attempts to do just what you and Federalist and LA and many others here do: divide America into two camps and that in and of itself is harmful and damaging to us as one people and one nation.

I call BS On that. Let me give you a history lesson

1) in the early 60s the dems had complete control of government. They had the courts, the presidency and the congress. But we also had the increasing scourge of street crime. the LBJ welfare state was accentuating social pathologies among the inner city denizens and street crime was getting worse and worse.

2) the GOP seized on the dems mollycoddling of criminals. YES, there was an appeal to white fear of black crime in that strategy since black street crime was rampant. Nixon was a master of this tactic

3) The GOP saw crime as a way to attack the dems. So they went after the dem reluctance to punish criminals, the warren (albeit a GOP appointee) court etc. It was effective

4) At this point in time, there was no real anti gun movement to say of and pro gun groups were mainly pro shooting sport groups like the NRA which sponsored the major target events and selected our olympic shooters

5) so the dems came up with a strategy to thwart the GOP Soft on crime attack. It was fueled by the assassinations of John and later Robert Kennedy and Dr. King GUN CONTROL

Gun control could be used by the dems to claim WE ARE CRACKING DOWN ON CRIME-without really hurting their constituents who tended to often be people who had a soft spot for the "unfortunates" who ended up being robbers and burglars.

This culminated with the gun control act of 1968

6) this nonsense awaked gun owners and the pro gun shooting sports organizations. They noted that these gun control schemes were not going to stop crime and were nothing more than a feel good movement. The GOP strategists took note and accentuated that attack not because many of them were hard core shooters but because the soft on crime approach was effective and they didn't want the dems' shield against that attack to prosper

7) the dems were upset at the pro gun groups that blew the whistle on their strategy. This is when the country started to become divided over gun rights. The dems counterattacked in an effort to cost the pro gun groups resources and so forth Some dem sponsored laws were clearly designed merely to punish pro gun voters such as the Hughes Amendment or Schumer's idiotic suggestion of forcing gun collectors to have an "arsenal license" if they owned more than 20 guns (since criminals cannot lawfully own even ONE gun, his suggestion was merely designed to hassle honest gun owners)

SO haymarket, it was your party that started the divide

 

[haymarket]

WOW!!!!!! Who would have thunk it!!!!! And all this time I thought it was in those old Western towns that had you check your guns at the city limits or the saloon door!!!!!

but don't just take my word for it

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/scholarship/guns.html

Pioneer publications show Old West leaders repeatedly arguing in favor of gun control. City leaders in the old cattle towns knew from experience what some Americans today don't want to believe: a town which allows easy access to guns invites trouble.
What these cow town leaders saw intimately in their day-to-day association with guns is that more guns in more places caused not greater safety, but greater death in an already dangerous wilderness. By the 1880s many in the west were fed up with gun violence. Gun control, they contended, was absolutely essential, and the remedy advocated usually was usually no less than a total ban on pistol-packing.
The editor of the Black Hills Daily Times of Dakota Territory in 1884, called the idea of carrying firearms into the city a “dangerous practice,” not only to others, but to the packer himself. He emphasized his point with the headline, "Perforated by His Own Pistol."
The editor of the Montana’s Yellowstone Journal acknowledged four years earlier that Americans have "the right to bear arms," but he contended that guns have to be regulated. As for cowboys carrying pistols, a dispatch from Laramie’s Northwest Stock Journal in 1884, reported, "We see many cowboys fitting up for the spring and summer work. They all seem to think it absolutely necessary to have a revolver. Of all foolish notions this is the most absurd."

Cowboy president Theodore Roosevelt recalled with approval that as a Dakota Territory ranch owner, his town, at the least, allowed "no shooting in the streets." The editor of that town's newspaper, The Bad Lands Cow Boy of Medora, demanded that gun control be even tighter than that, however. Like leaders in Miles City and many other cow towns, he wanted to see guns banned entirely within the city limits. A.T. Packard in August 1885 called "packing a gun" a "senseless custom," and noted about a month later that "As a protection, it is terribly useless.”

Old West cattlemen themselves also saw the need for gun control. By 1882, a Texas cattle raising association had banned six-shooters from the cowboy's belt. "In almost every section of the West murders are on the increase, and cowmen are too often the principals in the encounters," concurred a dispatch from the Texas Live Stock Journal dated June 5, 1884. "The six-shooter loaded with deadly cartridges is a dangerous companion for any man, especially if he should unfortunately be primed with whiskey. Cattlemen should unite in aiding the enforcement of the law against carrying of deadly weapons."

and even more in the way of evidence that your story is not all you make it out to be

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html

In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check." A check? That's right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you'd check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

In my new book, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, there's a photograph taken in Dodge City in 1879. Everything looks exactly as you'd imagine: wide, dusty road; clapboard and brick buildings; horse ties in front of the saloon. Yet right in the middle of the street is something you'd never expect. There's a huge wooden billboard announcing, "The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited."

While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public. When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? A gun control law. They declared that "any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law." Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona--the site of the infamous "Shootout at the OK Corral"--also barred the carrying of guns openly.

It must be tough when the actual historical record blows your fictional account all to smithereens Turtle.

And please take note of what I just did.... using other sources of information and not just my own plethora of personal pompous pontifications.

 

[TurtleDude]

I ignored the power grabs by western lawmen and the Klan's desire to disarm the freed slaves or the New York Irish Mobs attempt to shake down Italian Longshoremen because those acts were not really the foundation for the modern gun control conspiracy

 

[haymarket]

I ignored the power grabs by western lawmen and the Klan's desire to disarm the freed slaves or the New York Irish Mobs attempt to shake down Italian Longshoremen because those acts were not really the foundation for the modern gun control conspiracy

You ignore anything that does not come from those who prostrate themselves before the same altar as you do and declare themselves to be fellow True Believers.

But it is American history just the same.

And more importantly, it proves your fairy tale is a work of your own invention based on your own skewed perceptions and unique personal belief system.

And even more for you going back even further --- this one from the Fordham Law review no less. Yeah Turtle - I can hear it in advance... its not YALE - but then what is? :roll:

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...QtGZSYZ5OA#search="gun control early america"

 

[TurtleDude]

You ignore anything that does not come from those who prostrate themselves before the same altar as you do and declare themselves to be fellow True Believers.

But it is American history just the same.

And more importantly, it proves your fairy tale is a work of your own invention based on your own skewed perceptions and unique personal belief system.

And even more for you going back even further --- this one from the Fordham Law review no less. Yeah Turtle - I can hear it in advance... its not YALE - but then what is? :roll:

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...QtGZSYZ5OA#search="gun control early america"

I ignore nothing. the racist motivations for the klan gun laws and the sullivan laws were not the same motivation is what drove your party to adopt gun control as a shield against the GOP attack on your party for being weak on crime.

and that article does not disprove my argument as to why the dems adopted gun control as a major agenda in the 60s

so try again

btw Saul Cornell is a bit of a joke in this field since most of his funding at OSU comes from major anti gun foundations. what he is trying to do is try to explain why gun control has a sound foundation in US history

which again does nothing to disprove what I said

 

[blackjack50]

So it will be YOU who will explain how an inanimate object can have rights?

Excellent!!!!! Lets hear it.

Again. A lame misdirection. You have nothing to say regarding the 2nd Amendment, nor any argument for worthwhile gun control. So now you are resorting to the lame and overused semantics debate. I mean I could go on and on about how the English language uses numerous idioms, and how this is yet another example of one of the idioms. I could also make fun of how you do not know what an oxymoron is. But let's face it man...we both know you are feigning ignorance here because you can't pick apart the ACTUAL argument. Give it up man.

 

[TurtleDude]

I want to know how those who think all honest people over a certain age ought to be able to own the guns of their choice is DIVIDING America at all

the real problem are the jerks who want to disarm honest people

 

[haymarket]

I ignore nothing.

I provided you with three separate pieces of evidence - one form a prestigious Law Journal to show you that your 'version' of history was

Not
Really
Accurate.

All you gave us what your own plethora of pompous personal pontifications. Which stand for nothing, mean nothing and say nothing of substance.

 

[haymarket]

Again. A lame misdirection. You have nothing to say regarding the 2nd Amendment, nor any argument for worthwhile gun control..

You seem to labor under the self imposed delusion that I am advocating gun control laws.

Which I am not.

 

[blackjack50]

You seem to labor under the self imposed delusion that I am advocating gun control laws.

Which I am not.

Then what is the point of your poorly worded attack upon the English language? Come on man. Why did you bring it up?

 

[Federalist]

You seem to labor under the self imposed delusion that I am advocating gun control laws.

Which I am not.

Then why is it that you constantly seem to be bickering with gun owners?

 

[ecofarm]

Then why is it that you constantly seem to be bickering with gun owners?

Better question: why does he refer to the victims of shooting rampages as "martyrs of the 2nd amendment"?

 

[lizzie]

Better question: why does he refer to the victims of shooting rampages as "martyrs of the 2nd amendment"?

Emotional effect.

 

[ecofarm]

Emotional effect.

Would you say it is pro gun rights?

 

[Federalist]

Emotional effect.

Why would a person who opposes gun control laws try to elicit an emotional effect by using a term like "martyrs of the 2nd amendment"?

 

[lizzie]

Why would a person who opposes gun control laws try to elicit an emotional effect by using a term like "martyrs of the 2nd amendment"?

Not sure why as far as a specific individual, but a reference to martyrdom is being used for emotional effect, and I would say is probably not actually supporter of the 2a.

 

[TurtleDude]

I provided you with three separate pieces of evidence - one form a prestigious Law Journal to show you that your 'version' of history was

Not
Really
Accurate.

All you gave us what your own plethora of pompous personal pontifications. Which stand for nothing, mean nothing and say nothing of substance.

sadly for you I am familiar with Saul's attempt to prove that gun rights should be regulated (its what the Joyce Foundation pays him to argue) but it in no way discounts, contradicts or negates my historical comments about the democrat party's adoption of gun control as a shield against the "soft on crime" charges the GOP used effectively to loosen the DEM strangle hold on congress in the 60s.


Can you point to something in that article that contradicts what I said?

 

[haymarket]

Then what is the point of your poorly worded attack upon the English language? Come on man. Why did you bring it up?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you?

 

[haymarket]

sadly for you I am familiar with Saul's attempt to prove that gun rights should be regulated (its what the Joyce Foundation pays him to argue) but it in no way discounts, contradicts or negates my historical comments about the democrat party's adoption of gun control as a shield against the "soft on crime" charges the GOP used effectively to loosen the DEM strangle hold on congress in the 60s.


Can you point to something in that article that contradicts what I said?

What you said was your own opinion and dates gun control efforts back to the 1960's.

YOU LIED.

Americans have been controlling guns going back to the early days of our nation more than one hundred years before your fanciful fairy tales starts. And the articles I provided for you are ample evidence of it. I notice that you did not dispute of fact in them. Not one.

So once again we have you Turtle going up with only your own pompous pontifications against the historical record and claiming that history is wrong and you are right.

Its sad.

 

[haymarket]

Emotional effect.

Thank you Mister Spock.

 

[haymarket]

Then why is it that you constantly seem to be bickering with gun owners?

I was wondering why you seem to be bickering with me when I never have advocated taking away anyones Second Amendment rights?

 

[TurtleDude]

What you said was your own opinion and dates gun control efforts back to the 1960's.

YOU LIED.

Americans have been controlling guns going back to the early days of our nation more than one hundred years before your fanciful fairy tales starts. And the articles I provided for you are ample evidence of it. I notice that you did not dispute of fact in them. Not one.

So once again we have you Turtle going up with only your own pompous pontifications against the historical record and claiming that history is wrong and you are right.

Its sad.

YOu misstate my position as usual and given I have constantly talked about the RACIST nature of the Klan gun laws and the Sullivan law
s attempt to disarm Italian immigrants only someone who is dishonest would pretend that I think gun control started in the 60s

Here is what I said so the rest of the readers can decide who LIED

I call BS On that. Let me give you a history lesson

1) in the early 60s the dems had complete control of government. They had the courts, the presidency and the congress. But we also had the increasing scourge of street crime. the LBJ welfare state was accentuating social pathologies among the inner city denizens and street crime was getting worse and worse.

2) the GOP seized on the dems mollycoddling of criminals. YES, there was an appeal to white fear of black crime in that strategy since black street crime was rampant. Nixon was a master of this tactic

3) The GOP saw crime as a way to attack the dems. So they went after the dem reluctance to punish criminals, the warren (albeit a GOP appointee) court etc. It was effective

4) At this point in time, there was no real anti gun movement to say of and pro gun groups were mainly pro shooting sport groups like the NRA which sponsored the major target events and selected our olympic shooters

5) so the dems came up with a strategy to thwart the GOP Soft on crime attack. It was fueled by the assassinations of John and later Robert Kennedy and Dr. King GUN CONTROL

Gun control could be used by the dems to claim WE ARE CRACKING DOWN ON CRIME-without really hurting their constituents who tended to often be people who had a soft spot for the "unfortunates" who ended up being robbers and burglars.

This culminated with the gun control act of 1968

6) this nonsense awaked gun owners and the pro gun shooting sports organizations. They noted that these gun control schemes were not going to stop crime and were nothing more than a feel good movement. The GOP strategists took note and accentuated that attack not because many of them were hard core shooters but because the soft on crime approach was effective and they didn't want the dems' shield against that attack to prosper

7) the dems were upset at the pro gun groups that blew the whistle on their strategy. This is when the country started to become divided over gun rights. The dems counterattacked in an effort to cost the pro gun groups resources and so forth Some dem sponsored laws were clearly designed merely to punish pro gun voters such as the Hughes Amendment or Schumer's idiotic suggestion of forcing gun collectors to have an "arsenal license" if they owned more than 20 guns (since criminals cannot lawfully own even ONE gun, his suggestion was merely designed to hassle honest gun owners)

SO haymarket, it was your party that started the divide

I noted there was no real anti gun MOVEMENT at that time

So tell me where I lied

the klan was not against people owning guns-just blacks-that was ANTI BLACK

same with the rich new yorkers-they didn't want "PAPISTS" having guns

but there was no national movement per se trying to limit guns for all citizens

 

[Federalist]

I was wondering why you seem to be bickering with me when I never have advocated taking away anyones Second Amendment rights?

That's an excellent question.

I think that fundamentally it's because you give the impression that, despite your protests to the contrary, you are indeed in favor of gun control, and that is a position with which I disagree, as I feel it would be an infringement of my natural right to liberty and property, as well as in violation of the second amendment.

Also you appear to me to be very vague, almost to the point of being deceitful, about what your true stance and aims are. In one breath you claim you don't want to take away anyone's second amendment rights, but then in the other breath you make argue that a person who is forbidden more than one gun can still be said to be enjoying his second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Goshin would never make such an argument, TurtleDude would never make such an argument, Bob Blaylock would never make such an argument, nor would Lizzie, LaMidRighter, ecoform, or stonewal. And guess what? I never bicker with them about gun rights.

Hell you even bristle at the term "gun rights" and think it is part of some grand conspiracy to twist the language for nefarious purposes.

Frankly, in the short time I have known you, I have formed my own opinion of you. I have come to believe that you would be perfectly happy with many restrictions, limitations, and infringements on our right to keep and bear arms, but, unlike some of the more honest hoplophbes, you seem to feel the need to mask your true beliefs. I can't venture to guess why, but you seem to think that is you keep saying "I support the second amendment" nobody will notice your actual position.

So, yeah, maybe that's why I always seem to be bickering with you.

If you truly support the 2nd amendment, and if you truly want all of us gun people to stop bickering with you, all you have to do is stop saying stuff like: "Americans have been controlling guns going back to the early days of our nation more than one hundred years before your fanciful fairy tales starts. And the articles I provided for you are ample evidence of it. I notice that you did not dispute of fact in them. Not one."

If you want to stop bickering with gun people, all you need to do is say something to the effect of there should be no restricting on sales, numbers of guns, magazine size, mail order sale of ammunition, etc. You know, all the stuff all the rest of us pro-2nd amendment folks are saying. But I guarantee you will NEVER EVER come out and say such things.

That is why you are always bickering with gun folks.

EDIT - Oh yeah, and maybe another reason is when you say sh*t like this:

Thank you Mister Spock.

to lizzie. WTF? Why would you say that to a fellow 2nd amendment supporter?

 

[TurtleDude]

And as you can see from my post that I reposted, He lied about what I said. I was accurate in saying there was no real anti gun movement on a political level until the dem party adopted it

Here is the starting years for major gun hate groups

National COALITION TO BAN HANDGUNS (now known as Coalition to Stop Gun violence) 1974--btw they want to ban most private ownership of Pistols and "assault rifles". It is made up of many Democratic Party supporting groups

1Handgun Control INc (Now the Brady Campaign) 1974

Those are the two major anti gun groups in the USA. their founding fits perfectly with my point about the left's backlash against the NRA opposing the DEM Party agenda of pushing gun control in the late 60s (the Nixon Era)

 

[haymarket]

and not one thing in that post 273 from Federalist is any evidence of me taking any position against anyones Second Amendment rights.