...because they're in the tank against Obama.

to the Dems because I couldn't find any way to justify my voting for a Repuke again.

I have seen quite a few shooters her on DU and I believe the NRA needs to
face up to the facts that the GOP is a dead party. They are offending just about
everyone this time around.

It seems that guns are accepted or not based on how you are raised.
Either you shoot or you don't.
Here's a twist - I shoot and my father was a Quaker.

I think the NRA is going to miss the boat if they don't loosen up a bit
and reach out to the Dems who are members.

...they know who butters their bread and it isn't the Democrats.

Supporting the NRA is supporting the Republican Party.

If nobody ever spoke up and tried to crack the ice we'd never make any change.

The NRA wants members and there seem to be quite a few here on DU

Having gun-friendly members here in DU makes for some spirited discussions
wouldn't you agree?

Assault weapons regulation? Stand-your-ground laws? Toting in public buildings/political events?

To think the NRA-type view on firearms ownership and use is nuttery.

How can you say that their beliefs are nuttery and the say you're not anti-gun?

O.K. - you're pro-gun to an extent, right?

I apologize for not using the exact words you need to hear.
Please just take my post as an opinion trying to make a
point from the middle of the road.

...they are protecting an extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I'm not pro-gun, I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-responsible firearm ownership. Apology accepted.

"Stand-your-ground laws? Toting in public buildings/political events?"

These laws are local. The NRA didn't put these into effect.

The assault weapon ban - that was fought against by the NRA.
Th ereason was that this was initiated by the Brady Bunch and
had to do with banning gun ownership for rediculous reasons
like a rifle with a bayonet and pistol grips. what difference does
it make if you have a rifle with or without a knife on the end?
They were trying to chip away at gun ownership.

Next we can talk about gun registration. Why don't you expound
on gun registration and WWII. You should be familiar with the
negative repercussions...

The NRA is a national organization with national reach.

Explain to me why government can't and shouldn't regulate the mass sale of military-style firearms - "a well-regulated Militia" - even Antonin Scalia doesn't agree with the position for unlimited firearm ownership rights:

You seem to want to imply that "military weapons" or "assault weapons" are more dangerous than
the weapons we should be "allowed" to own.

If someone kills with a .22cal or a .45cal are you more dead?
People have collected military guns for a long time. I don't see people wandering the streets with
M1 Garands and military rifles. You said you were in favor of responsible gun ownership but it doesn't seem like you will allow anyone the trust to be responsible.

As far as Scalia's writing:
" Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"
"in common use at the time" - where the hell is that line in the constitution!
Besides - people had muskets at the time and they were the rifle in common use at the time. Therefore we should be able to carry muskets but not "modern" guns? We can only own guns from the 1770's? I think not - So, going back to the previous statement, if people owned muskets and muskets were the military rifle of the time then, we should also be able to carry the military rifle of our time. Before you go off on your rant - I am not saying that we should own automatic weapons - what I am doing is using the logic you gave me from your Scalia quote and used it for the current day.

Tell us now, you really don't want anyone to own a gun, do you? Because, I'd say that the people who presenting logic about legal gun ownership are sure a lot less emotional than the people who are throwing out all this "responsible ownership" stuff.

You should probably refrain from ascribing positions to people that they do not hold

""The .50 caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage....." As does every other firearm in existance. So what?

Pardon me for pointing out the right-wing cabal that governs yours.

You're not on-topic, there's nothing to respond to in your post other than insults

If that's insulting, try getting them educated or have better judges picked.

Not my problem, except that such irrationality may spread.

And for the record, I'm only in Arizona as a guest, curtesy of the USAF. My home of record and voting place is Vermont. We don't seem to have problems with .50 caliber rifles. Perhaps Californians just aren't as trustworthy as Vermonters? Makes as much sense as any of your flights of fancy...

You don't have problems because your home state has a small percentage of the population of my state.

Also:

Has there been a spate of long-range snipings that we haven't heard about? (Note: the offended sensibilities of certain members of state government
don't count)

Heated rhetoric and arguments from authority aside, Vermont doesn't have problems because almost no one has problems with .50 cal rifles.

This is a public security argument.

Maybe you ought to have access to yellow cake since no one has set off a dirty bomb.

And maybe you shouldn't have access to gasoline because you might kill 87 people with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

I'd also note that oh-so-wise lawmakers of California find the following firearms and cartridges perfectly acceptable for use in the Golden State.
Most of them are more accurate at long distances than the the .50 caliber. Seems the CA Legislature exhausted their supply of FUD, as none of these seem to
be any more of a problem than the .50s were:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum

The purpose of gun control isn't crime control...

...the argument could be made that more and better gun control has contributed to decline in crime.

Moreover, there is a very clear public safety argument to be made from the Constitution beyond what is stated in Heller, which is very clear, as the Constitution is clearly designed to and is evident from the preamble to the Ninth Amendment. But then again, I suppose you object to the idea of that there is a right to privacy too.

You will note that cases like Roe v. Wade, Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, and Lawrence v. Texas were all decided against state governments that claimed an interest in banning actions they claimed were a threat to public safety or order. The Supremes rightfully told them all "nunya bidness". Griswold,Roe, and Lawrence all explicitly upheld a right to privacy- a truly progressive idea.

BTW, what's your take on United States v Jones? (The disinterested observer will note that Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in a 9-0 decision...)

...the disagreement is over how that is weighed against the supposed individual right.

I think they ought to get a warrant, but at the same time, like with the various provisions of the Patriot Act there is a national security exception. My position isn't the popular one, but ultimately, it's the logically consistent position. The Constitution isn't designed to enable criminality or terrorism in the face of legitimate law enforcement efforts. Speaking of other current events, I don't know why Holder failed so badly at making a Constitutional argument for Anwar Al-Awalki strike, simple, same Constitutional category as a "pirate."

If they are legit, the cops can and should get a warrant. If they don't, they damn well better have a good claim of 'exigent circumstance'
ready to present in court...

You said: Ironically the argument could be made that more and better gun control has contributed to decline in crime.

Except that gun control has been in retreat for almost 20 years. Dozens have states have greatly loosened their gun control laws, either voluntarily or have been forced to by court decisions. You have NOT had MORE and better gun control, you have had LESS and better gun control.

and caused the corresponding decline in violent crime?

So what recent gun control acts do you think have significantly impacted crime?

As stated above, you have not proved that there is a problem.

If you can cite to a legit, safe use of yellow-cake for the average Citizen, I'll argue that it should be legal to have in one's garage.

I concede the point, we should be allowed to have the stuff as long as we do no harm with it.

For something like that, however, merely having it could actually indicate harm. Radioactive and toxic. A gun can't kill someone just sitting inertly on a table.

Bottom-line: government being by, of, and for the people can impose restrictions in the interest of public safety and such restrictions are Constitutional.

because their rhetoric COULD cause someone to do something nasty which is a first amendment application.

I guess you're good with that restriction, right?

Simply saying you want to restrict 2A in the public interest

I'm asking if you're ok with restricting the 1A in the public interest. Nothing more, nothing less.

It has always been restricted according to common law...

Would you shut conservatives up if you could?

And I resent your implication as such...

Why restrict one right for the public good/interest

And not other rights?

Try read the Bill of Rights objectively and not through an ideological lens sometime, it's informative.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

You are asking me to prove a negative. I'm sure you know better.

The burden is on you to prove that these items are a problem and are actually used criminally in enough numbers to warrant restriction. That's how it is supposed to work in this country, California's governmental retailing of fear and hysteria not withstanding.

Case in point. The NRA is a lobbying wing for right-wing views on gun-ownership, that won't become a Democratic Party policy.

You are saying that gun ownership is "right wing"

There are a bunch of people here in DU that are liberal and believe in gun rights.

Just because gun rights have been a right wing issue in the past does not mean that
it can't transition to the left because of philosophical evolution.

...here are specific NRA policies that I disagree with because they are right-wing: .50 cal rifles for all, gunshow/private sale loophole, firearms industry shield law, no limits on bulk sales and more.

"A well-regulated Milita"

What is wrong with ".50 cal rifles for all"?

Take a look at the Barrett price list:

http://barrett.net/pdfs/Price-List.pdf

These are several-thousand-dollar rifles. They weigh around 30 pounds. The cartridges for them cost $4 a shot.

Rifle crime in the United States is very rare. .50 caliber rifle crime is probably non-existant.

....what a load crap... Empty rhetoric + technical incompetence = .50 BMG "control".

...agree with extrajudicial murder - so yeah...

...will you be calling them out, as well?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/holder-explains-threat-that-would-call-for-killing-without-trial.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Note the non-response to the Mirkarimi case in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117221689

.50 cal rifles for all. Are you against all .50 cal rifles? Or just a few of them?

gunshow/private sale loophole. This has to do with private sales and the NCIS. It is also a problem that has to be addressed by each state, as the Constitution prevents prevents the Feds from doing anything.

firearms industry shield law. You want to sue firarms manufacturers for each death caused by the misuse of firearms? Pass the Law, but make no exemptions for ANY manufacturer of anything. You do believe in equality under the law, don't you?

no limits on bulk sales . Fine, but again it is a state law that must be passed. Once a product is in the state then the Commerce Clause has no more teeth. Get each state to pass your law, and again, NO exemptions, musn't be unfair.

As for the others, get your laws passed in all 50 states, then we'll talk more.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

they do not have access to ATF trace data. That means, they make shit up.
Check out their score card for each state. If they were honest, each state would have at least five points because of federal laws including one that passed in 1938. The other five has little or nothing to do with trafficking.

answering questions from a Mud Marine.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

The fear, you can smell it!

"using 2009 data collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)."

This is what MAIG claims about the amendment

...which is that the MAIG numbers are cooked. I would gather that if even more information was included it would confirm the trend in the MAIG data.

because how could they have obtained the numbers in 2009 when there was no legal way for MAIG to obtain them. Would you like to discuss the other examples of MAIG's dishonesty?
Also, MAIG claims or implies that there is large scale straw purchasing and trafficking in places like Wyoming. There is no evidence of that, at least not that the ATF has found. The typical crime gun is 11-14 years old. Eighty percent of them have been reported stolen.

...conspiracy theory territory. I just showed you proof that that MAIG had access to the data they claim to have had access. Your only logical option is to concede the point: I guess the data is from the ATF, is substantial, and has correctly been analyzed.

nothing I said was "conspiracy theory" territory. Everything I said can by verified by looking at current federal laws. It is demonstrable fact the number of MAIG felons vs everyone else.

No, it is not logical to "guess it is correct" because they reached the conclusion before the data, and the demonstrated dishonesty in general. If the NRA or SAF made a claim about anything you did not take at face value, would you be in "conspiracy theory territory?"
In other words, it is up to them to show their work and to propose ideas that deal with trafficking instead bitching about shall issue and complain about states not having redundant state laws, when federal laws already exist to deal with the issue. I also notice you looked over another lie, that the amendment hinders local law enforcement, when it reads

ranting/whining

you are and not willing to admit it.

Some things are just too important to let quaint notions like factual accuracy impede them.

The idea I am trying to point out is that there are a lot of Dems here on DU that support
gun issues.

As you have sited, there are quite a few Democrat congress people who support the second ammendment.

It's just another reminder that generalizations usually have their limits.

Democrat gun supporters are not necessarily any less liberal... they just
support guns rights. To what extent probably varies with each individual.

Republicans primarily use Democrat as an adjective and not a noun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29

Sorry ell but there comes a time when the logic gets lost....

A Democrat is a person and therefore, is a noun.

As before REREAD the statement

You have lost:rolf:

...hey guys it's democrat party not Democratic Party to GD if you're serious.

that in these cases you really need to write the NRA.

I also find myself in rare agreement the member who felt that the railing against President Obama is essentially an endorsement of the GOP candidate. More that a little disenchanted with that. If the NRA endorses neither candidate it will appear to me to be a transparent ploy to both eat and have cake.

ETA: I'm too broke right now to even consider non-essential spending - so it's a moot issue for me when it comes right down to it. I've been a member because I agree with those Dems who believe change in the organization can only come from the inside.

I think he signed it into law less because of a deep and sincere concern for the people of Massachusetts, but more of a deep and sincere concern for the political career of one W.M. Romney. Rhetoric aside, the guy has done more against the stated goals of the NRA than President Obama has.

That's why I'm holding off- I want to see if they hold to their stated principles, or will Mitt's power to cloud men's minds work on them as well.

They were made in America by Americans but because they are semi-auto military rifles he is against it. Sorry, but Obama is anti-gun.

In terms of rhetoric, Obama is more anti-gun than Mittens- but Mittens is more anti-gun in terms of actions taken.

I've no doubt Mitt will lay on the charm offensive to try and get NRA members to vote for him, but there's a saying here in Mass about him:
"Mitt used to pretend he was from Massachusetts, and now he's pretending he isn't". The guy is a real-life Milo Minderbinder!

Obama voted against the PLCAA of 2005 and for the Kennedy Amendment to that same act. Kennedy designed the amendment to outlaw common hunting ammunition, specifically naming the .30-30 cartridge as a "cop-killer". For those not familiar with cartridges the .30-30 is the most common deer hunting cartridge in the U.S., and was designed in 1893. It is used in lever action rifles such as this one:



Romney signed a MA AWB which I don't like either.

Neither of the two have recanted any earlier gun positions.

Not been as bad as your type were predicting!

So you're voting against him in November?

Last edited Tue Mar 20, 2012, 01:26 PM - Edit history (1)

Thing is, the President has been more pro-gun in action (as opposed to rhetoric) than Mittens.
So a single-issue pro-gun voter would have to 'go Obama'!

I reserve the right to gripe about positions he has taken, while agreeing with other ones.