Columbine Father Challenges Cheney on Guns

compassionisim!

The right is cruel. When we had an antiwar demo here on March 20, pro-war Freepers heckled the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq.

Okay so he wants teh Assualt Rifle Ban to go on longer?

Were any of the weapons used in Columbine, legally classified as assualt rifles?

If they were, what effect would continuing the assualt rifle ban have if after all it didnt help stop columbine from happening.

I don't understand why we keep going after gun owners - when what we need to emphasize are well-paying secure jobs, properly funded schools, and an end to some of the global adventures we've gotten involved in.

millions more. The NRA is just as much a terrorist organization as Al Queda. American gun nuts kill tens of thousands of Americans while Al Queda hasn't killed a single one this year in America.

I believe if you reflect on your statements, you'll realize that they aren't particularly helpful.

...you'll see that they're all true.

They are uninformed opinions based on lies and hatred of legal gun owners.

Since the majority of Americans who die each year due to being shot deliberately take their own lives in acts of suicide, I guess you're against something like physician-assisted suicide, too....

....gun-related stories in the news are posted. I'can't remember the last story that concerned a suicide. It's usually someone with a gun shooting someone else.

aren't suicides?

But I believe more gun deaths are caused by kids finding guns and playing with them, drive-by shootings, armed robberies, and the like.

In 2001, according to the CDC WISQARS website, there were 16,869 suicides committed with firearms in the US. During the same time period, there were 11,348 homicides committed with firearms in the US. There were 802 accidental firearms deaths in the US during that period.

I'll not ask you to trust my figures, you can find them for yourself at http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_fy.html

You can check it by year, by type of death, and by manner of death.

US: 11,000 firearms homocides per annum
Britain: ~200 per annum

population corrected, the US has approximately 10 times the annual rate of firearms homocides. More guns on the streets = more dead people, it really is that simple.

V

I did a quick yahoo search and found this.

This link has suicides and homocides for 1999.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsuic.html

This link has accidental gun fatalities for 2000.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

1999 Suicides = 16,599
1999 Homocides = 10,828
2000 accidental deaths = 600

I'm going on the assumption that the year 2000 accidental deaths is similar to the 1999 ones (I have no reason to believe that they would be really different).

As such we can add the gun homocides and the accidental deaths.

That would give us 11,428. That number is about 5,000 less than the number of suicides. Your premise was wrong.

However if you want to find some better data and form a rebuttle feel free to.

And let's leave it at that.

and you can't assume much, or it will come back and bite you in your nether regions.

...WHY are there so many suicides each year with guns?? Is it because guns are so prevalent that those who want to kill themselves can easily get one??

Which begs another question....

Would reasonable gun control measures (including mandatory waiting periods) prevent a substantial number of these suicides? I believe they can.

do we WANT to make it impossible for people to end their own lives?

Personally, I don't. I firmly believe that people have the right to die, and die with dignity. If we want to end gun suicides, we need to put an end to the moratorium on physician-assisted suicide. I'm sure that most people who kill themselves with guns would rather die by less messy but equally quick methods. Those methods are currently unavailable legally (although you can always deliberately overdose on heroin, I suppose).

I don't believe the State has a right to tell people they must create life if they get pregnant. I also don't think the State has a right to tell people who want to end their lives that they can't.

People who commit suicide with guns aren't making a "cry for help", they're the people who REALLY want to die. Many of them have valid reasons for wanting to do it. For instance, a friend of mine committed suicide with a gun. He killed himself after his lengthy battle with leukemia was unsucessful, and he knew he was going to die within a matter of weeks, and wanted to make it as quick and painless as possible. I'm sure he would have preferred to just get a lethal perscription, but that wasn't an option, so he shot himself.

...while your friend seemed to make a deliberated decision to end his life (and I can appreciate his sufferring, since my father died from leukemia), I believe that many suicides are more spur-of-the-moment actions. And if a gun were not available, many of these people might be able to think thing out and not kill themselves.

there's generally a difference that can be drawn between suicide methods and the intention of the people trying to commit suicide.

Somebody standing on the roof of a building threatening to jump to their death is making a cry for help. Somebody who locks themselves in a bathroom and shoots themselves in the head with a shotgun WANTS to die.

You suggest that if people didn't have access to guns, they'd "think thing out and not kill themselves." Mentally competent people have a right to make medical decisions for themselves, right? They can refuse treatment, even if it means their death, right? So there's a right to die, right? Now I have to ask.....What POSSIBLY gives YOU (and the State) the right to tell somebody they can't do something they want to do with their own body when they have a RIGHT to do it? That's a reprehensible, vile argument. It's reprehensible and vile when the Government tells a woman that she can't abort an unwanted fetus. And it's reprehensible and vile when a person decides they want to die to try to force them to go on living.

eom

Its going to happen anyway. Might as well make it legal. Right?

Don

bank robbery and child molestation hurt people.

Owning a rifle with a pistol grip, detachable magazine, collapsable stock, bayonet lug, and flash suppressor does not inherintly hurt anyone.

Using such a rifle in a crime would hurt people, owning it and not commiting a crime with it does not.

Lets punish people for hurting others, lets not punish people for owning something.

not tools people use for bad conduct and other, legal and productive things.

Assault weapons are weapons of war. Period.

People don't need to be tossing grenades suburbia and neither do they need to be playing Rambo with assault rifles.

As to your point, that argument only suggests that the regulations and definitions should be tightened, not loosened.

Any rifle, or rifles of certain calibres?

Not that I want to use freerepublic as a source but it was the easiest thing to find when I did a search for "weapons of columbine."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a372093907160.htm

"—One TEC DC 9, modified, semi-automatic pistol

—One sawed-off double-barrel shotgun

—One sawed off pump action shotgun

—One 9 mm semi-automatic rifle

—More than 30 homemade explosives, including pipe bombs, crude hand grenades and a propane tank (similar to those used on gas barbecue grills) with explosives attached."

So there you have a Pistol, two shotguns, and a rifle that fires pistol ammo.

Nothing that I would classify as an assualt rifle.

All of those ought to be illegal weapons.

Sawed off shotguns are, I believe, already illegal based upon barrel length.

Beyond that, I'd classify anything semi-automatic as unnecessary for non-military use. I'd particularly categorize as military weapons anything that can be converted to fully automatic.

No, I'm not a gun epxert. This is one of my favorite ploys always used by people wearing their pro-gun blinders. They're obviously gun enthusiasts themselves and so they know the subject matter well. Those who oppose the Wild West shoot-em-up world are generally not gun enthusiasts and so they naturally do not have handy technical details regarding guns.

If you want a gun to go hunting, good for you. If you want a gun because you like to shoot at targets or skeet, good for you. If you want a gun for "protection," well good for you too. For none of these legitimate purposes do you need anything that can hold more than just a few rounds fired at a relatively slow rate.

For anything else, I'd recommend that you visit your doctor and get a prescription for Viagra instead.

You self profess that you are not a gun expert, yet you would like to deny the right of your fellow citizens to use the tools that they deem to be most effective for the protection of their lives and those of their loved ones despite your admitted ignorance of firearms.

Thanks, but no thanks.

It's a typical right wing argument, as put forth most spectacularly by the anti-women's reproductive freedom crowd, when they're not bombing abortion clinics.

"For anything else, I'd recommend that you visit your doctor and get a prescription for Viagra instead."

Sawed off shotguns are legal in most states, just as short-barreled rifles are legal. They're regulated and taxed in the LAST true "Jim crow" law still on the Federal books.

BTW, the last time the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment, they said that only guns that could be shown to have some MILITARY use are protected by the Second Amendment. Absent a showing that a gun has military use, a gun isn't protected by the Second Amendment. That's in US v. Miller, from 1939. So you can ban guns that have no military usefulness, but if it's militarily useful, it's ownership is constitutionally protected. The Second Amendment has NEVER been about hunting.

The argument from the Miller case is based upon the spurious notion that the entire population (or at least the male population according to Miller) constitutes a "well-regulated militia." That's self-evidently ludicrous.

It is my opinion, and that expressed throughout nearly the entire history of federal court cases, that the 2nd Amendment pertains to state regulation of arms, not constitutionally protected individual rights.

Nevertheless, people own guns just as, for example, people own automobiles. Both have legitimate use and both can be, if used incorrectly or inappropriately, deadly.

We regulate what we allow on the roads and we regulate who can drive and under what conditions. Further, we do this without the torrent of hysterical predictions of the imminent demise of western civilization that far too often accompany any discussion of gun regulation.

We don't allow Indy cars off the racetrack and there's no reason to allow military weapons outside of the military.

"We regulate what we allow on the roads and we regulate who can drive and under what conditions. Further, we do this without the torrent of hysterical predictions of the imminent demise of western civilization that far too often accompany any discussion of gun regulation."

that as long as someone keeps it on their own property they should be able to own whatever guns they want?

eom

Useful, but not perfect.

that there's no constitutionally enumerated right to drive a car, while there is a constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

That's a pretty big difference.

Miller was legally excluded from being in a militia due to previous felony convictions. If a person's second amendment rights were based upon being in a militia, that fact alone would have been dispositive to the case, but was not.

Excerpts from Miller (1939).

This first quote is a statement regarding the ruling for the specific case:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

This second quote is a portion of the long discussion regarding the inclusion of the word "militia" within the 2nd Amendment:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

As I said, Miller points directly to the 2nd Amendment being centered upon the militia and further purports to maintain the notion that the militia is made up of all able-bodied men. Thus, yes, Miller has to do with weapons suitable for military use and says nothing at all with regards to hunting or self protection. It is towards the ludicrous maintanence of this militia noiton that I referred.

but you're neglecting the fact that (A) Miller wasn't in a militia, and (B) that Miller was legally precluded from being in a militia because of his previous felony record.

If Miller is all about the Militia, then the fact that Miller wasn't legally able to be in a militia would have been dispositive in the case. All they would have said is "Miller wasn't legally able to be in a militia, so he has no Second Amendment rights."

They emphatically DID NOT SAY THAT.

Guns are the only subject that I've encountered here on DU where people think they have an informed opinion while at the same time admitting they know nothing about them. And when asked to demonstrate why the hell we should listen to their admittedly uninformed opinion label that request a "ploy".

Obviously if they could use these other less lethal weapons for the carnage at Columbine... more serious arms could do more damage in such a situation.

You remind me of Terry Nichols:

Moore: Well, what about nuclear weapons? Should I be able to have a nuclear weapon?

Nichols: unnnnh, no, that stuff should be restricted. There are some whackos out there!

But hey, why not go for chemical, nuclear and biological weapons as well... since they "inherently" do not cause damage themselves. Only the people that own them.

I can't believe anyone would even bother to spout off such nonsense.

"Obviously if they could use these other less lethal weapons for the carnage at Columbine... more serious arms could do more damage in such a situation."

Its already illegal to murder people. Once you have people murdering people like this I think they should be given the death penalty. What point would there be in charing them with a "firearms violation." What are you going to do? Execute them twice?

Most firearms laws are just there to hassle law abiding citizens. Murderers dont care about gun laws.

That being said your statement shows how little you actually know about the Assault Rifle Ban, which is what the real point of this whole thread is.

The Assault Rifle Ban (AWB) doesnt have anything to do with the "seriousness of arms."

Okay I guess I might have been wrong, and that Tek-9 does violate the AWB. Lets assume for the moment that that 9mm rifle they used was some supped up rifle that they custom built after the AWB came into effect. Lets assume that it had a detachable magazine, collapsable stock, pistol grip, flash supressor, and bayonet lug, and that it even had a bayonet.

Okay so these kids who did the Columbine Massacre used two weapons that violated the AWB, and they used two illegal shotguns (lets assume they sawed the shotgun barrels down past the point that it becomes illegal).

So these kids conducted a massacre with banned weapons, despite the fact that these weapons were banned what was being used ended up being two 9mm weapons and two shotguns.

They could have probably done the same crime with 2 legal 9mm handguns and two legal shotguns. So where is your AWB? What did it really help?

They probably could have commited a worse massacre if they used some other legal weapons.

Instead of using 9mm weapons had they used fullsized 5.62mm rifles and shotguns. They probably would have killed more people.

So once again I ask how does the AWB help any? Its entirely possible to commit worse crimes and be AWB compliant, and its possible to commit lesser crimes and violate the AWB.

"You remind me of Terry Nichols:"

Yes because I'm a retarded white Midwestern Redneck. :eyes:

"But hey, why not go for chemical, nuclear and biological weapons as well... since they "inherently" do not cause damage themselves. Only the people that own them."

You can own and use a Machine Gun without causing harm to anyone. The same cannot be said for NBC weapons.

If you use a nuclear weapon chances are someone is going to get hurt.

As in "firearms". Historically, "arms" are what can be wielded by one man. Currenty, the legal definition would be calibers of .50 or less. Cannon, bombs, including NBC weapons would not be considered "arms" and has been soundly reinforced in the courts. A Howitzer is not a firearm.

they're classified as "Destructive Devices" under federal law, but can be owned legally as long as the owner has jumped through the appropriate legal hoops. When was the last time somebody who owned a legal grenade tossed one in suburbia? Hell, when was the last time somebody tossed an ILLEGAL grenade in suburbia?

an assault weapon?

If it was a fully auto one then it would be classified as a machine gun.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the one used in Columbine was semi-auto only. So for all intents and purposes it was a pistol.

take a look at this article, it taks about one of the guns used in Columbine and another murder. I dont much about guns but maybe you can make sense of this.

http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/03_06_06_assault.cfm

which can be converted to full-auto in 15 minutes with hand tools.

I've never seen one that hadn't been converted. Gangs and the drug business love them.

The one in the article seems to be semi-auto but with a special trigger to fire faster than normal but still not full-auto.

this article was written with media exageration in mind. Not about the killing but by the weapons used.

the guy had two tek-9s and a .45cal pistol of some sort (maybe 1911 style).

I dont know what a "hell-fire" trigger system is but later the article states, " Ferri fired his TEC-DC9s as fast as a hundred rounds per minute."

The article doesnt explicitly state that these were fully-auto Tek-9s, so I'll assume that this "hell-fire" trigger is one of these kits you can buy to put in the trigger of your weapon. I dont know exactly how they work but something like you hold you trigger finger in place after you fire and you let the gun move loosely in your hand and the gun will move back and forth with the recoil and the trigger will keep hitting against your finger. It sort of simulates full auto fire, except its alot less accurate since you are pretty much letting the gun move around on its own in your hand.

Also the Black Talon Bullets, they arent "explosive" as most people think of explosive. They dont have any explosive charges in them. They are just like any other hollowpoint bullet in that they flatten out and expand when they go into someone. They just have a bad reputation.

Semi-auto Tek-9s are pretty much just 9mm handguns. I suppose the only real advantage to them is that you can get a larget capacity magazine for them.

However if I wanted a large capacity 9mm handgun I would get a Glock.

The Intratec DC-9 is classified as an assault weapon. The Columbine shooters used an Intratec AB-10, which is NOT an assault weapon legally, since it doesn't have a barrel shroud or a threaded barrel.

Reporters are generally startlingly ignorant about guns. If you see a reporter talk about things like a "semi-automatic revolver" or a "semi-automatic machinegun" or a "Semi-automatic AK-47", it's an excellent indicator that they're clueless, since such things simply do not exist, they're a contradiction of terms in and of themselves. It's like a car reporter talking about the "Honda Edsel". There ain't no such beast.

http://www.vpc.org/intrtec.htm

The section of the law banning particular models and copies of those is unenforceable and stupid to begin with. The section that bans high-ammo-capacity just forces manufactures who want to sell to a high-ammo-capacity market to support some widely available pre-existing magazines.

If you could truly ban copies and make new guns incompatible with old magazines, then you just force people to aim, watch their ammo usage and learn to better change out small capacity magazines. In the case of Columbine the shooters might have been a bit more likely to use the pipe bombs instead of the guns in some cases. If you could eliminate all guns, then they would show up with an axe and a few gallons of gasoline.

a sane society? What is wrong with Americans and this Wild, Wild West mentality. Yee Haw!

Is quite a sane mentality. Not everyone can afford personal, public paid armed bodyguards like the legislators who draft the gun control laws.

Alot of assault rifles are good rifles.

Would this rifle be more "evil" if it had a bayonet lug?

http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m1a-stan.shtml

I live in Texas and people are gun-crazy around here. It is extremely disturbing to me to know that anyone could be carrying a concealed weapon. Vigilantes cause more problems than thay solve. We live in a fairly safe society. The idea that we all need to protect ourselves from a "bad" guy is mostly a product of the news media which tends to emphasize all the bad things that happen and make it seem like you will be assaulted just be walking down the street. Some streets that is probably true. I do not not want to be surrounded by a bunch of gun nuts. That simple. I will not have them in my house. period. There are some laws that would have prevented the Columbine shootings- closing the gun show loophole for one. I also believe that all guns should be registered aand background checks to prevent felons from getting guns legally. Having said that, all these laws would not prevent a lot of crimes but they might stop the random workplace or school shootings. Plus paying more attention to other problems- bullying, alcohol or drug problems in workers etc.

Prevent Columbine from occuring?

If society is so safe to not need guns for protection, why do we need to ban them? Assault weapons aren't evil in and of themselves. They require a brain behind the trigger.

people scream "THERE'LL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS!" and "It'll cause shootouts over parking spaces!" That hasn't happened, and the "shall issue" CCW movement is over 20 years old.

How long do we have to wait until the blood is running in the streets? Please keep in mind that something like 46 states have some form of legalized CCW law in place already, some of which go back 200+ years.

I keep waiting for the slaughter that the anti-gunners promise will be caused by CCW reform to start. How long will it be?

"It is extremely disturbing to me to know that anyone could be carrying a concealed weapon."

Whats so disturbing about it?

"Vigilantes cause more problems than thay solve."

Are you talking about the theoretical? Or are you saying that because Concealed Carry is allowed there have been some vigilantes that have caused more problems than they solved? I havent heard anything lately in the news about vigilantes. Do you have a story to share?

"I also believe that all guns should be registered aand background checks to prevent felons from getting guns legally."

You realize that its usually the felons that get guns illegally that are the problem.

"most voters don't know that (Bush and Cheney) are standing against major police organizations and breaking their promise to renew the assault weapons ban — which helps keep military-style assault weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists."

Criminals can still get military "style" weapons.

Unless you thinking taking off the bayonet lug makes it no longer look like a military weapon?

If its got the bayonet fitting and a flash suppressor it's illegal?
Or other combination of 2 from a list of features.

I don't see how either got into the law. It's like they took a pile of weapons, pulled out the ones they didn't like and then found a way to restrict all of them even though some of the features had no bearing on the misuses they were looking to prevent.

So if you file off the bayonet fitting and flash suppressor fitting then the same gun becomes legal? Or if the manufacturer stops putting them on?

Actually its 3 features from the list. If you have 2 or less then it isnt an assault rifle.

A typical rifle would be an AR-15 (pretty much a civillian semi-auto M-16). New ones would have the pistol grip, and detachable magazine.

If it had the Bayonet Lug it would become an assault rifle. Because then it would have 3 features: pistol grip, detachable magazine, and bayonet lug.

If it had a flash suppressor, then it would be the same as above. Same goes for if it had an adjustable stock.

That being said, the Assualt Rifle "Ban" didnt really ban anything.

Any "Assault Rifle" made before the ban is still legal, it just means that manufacturers have to make sure thier civillian rifles only have two of the features now.

So if you wanted to you could go out and buy a brand new AR-15 but it would have the above limitations, or you could buy a used "pre-ban" AR-15 with none of the limitations.

For a while the price of pre-ban rifles was a good deal more than post-ban rifles simply because collectors liked them. But now that it seems likely that the assualt rifle ban is going to go away the prices are coming closer to parity.

There is another big thing that the Assault Rifle ban brought. It also limited the ammo capacity of civillian magazines.

Before manufacturers had no limit to the ammount of rounds that a magazine could hold. So people could buy the same 30rnd magazines for thier rifles that the military and police had, or even the bigger drums.

Also a pistol like the Glock 17 could hold a 17rnd magazine comfortably withing its well. You could also get a 30 round or more magazine for it, but those kind stick out from the bottom.

Anyways the Assault Rifle Ban limited all new magazines made for civillian use to 10rounds.

It didnt ban the older larger magazines, all previously made ones were still legal and could be bought or sold, it just meant that manufacturers could sell newer ones to civillians.

As a father myself, I understand the pain that this father feels.I just pray that my son (14 yrs old) never has to face a Columbine.

and fuzzy. Shame on them for telling that man to get a life. Those same people are part of the "Guns and Jesus" crowd that claim to be Christian and want to carry hand grenades inside a church.

WWJD

eom

A man lost his son, and people are having gunspeak group sex.

Pathetic.

Enough to make me want them outlawed just based on the losers that worship these weapons and all their minutae.

Get a life.

"Get a life."

is people's inability to hold a rational discussion on this issue without introducing asinine inuendo that bears no relation to the subject. That's pathetic.

has every right to go and state his opinion. I hope it brings him some peace.

So far as guns go. I think there is room to compromise so that they can have their guns and yet there could be some sort of accountability involved. I don't understand why they can't keep records of who bought what gun, and when it is sold something should be recorded at the county courthouse. We had to do that with the canoe we bought and a canoe is hardly a lethal weapon. And I don't understand why there can't be a waiting period for a background check. I don't know, maybe a person could apply for the background check and have it on file at a certain web site so if they wanted to buy a gun at a gun show it would have been done and they could do so without waiting.

And maybe with assault weapons, I guess that people like to fire these at target practice or something. Maybe make the bullets illegal unless you purchase them at a shooting range and when you leave pay for what you used. It really is stupid to let people have free reign so far as guns go. And aren't hunters usually very responsible and tend to be family men/women. I wonder how upset they would be to have to register their gun. But, I don't know, just sort of was thinking out loud after I saw all these angry posts.

give something up and get something in return. It seems to me that gun owners are the ones doing all the compromising. When they started regulating machine guns, silencers, and short barreled long arms in 1934, what did gun owners get in return? When they stopped the importation of all kinds of arms and ended buying guns by mail order in 1968, what did gun owners get in return? When Reagan banned further civilian production of machine guns in 1986, what did gun owners get in return? When Bush banned the import of 43 weapons in 1989, what did gun owners get in return? When they passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 taking away our precious bayonet lugs and flash suppressors, what did gun owners get in return?

laws restricting firearms ownership. With every law that gets passed they lose a little more of that right. What have they gotten in return?

Despite the fact that he eventually lied and broke his promise, when we was trying to get the Allies to compromise he alteast said something like "if you give this, I wont ask for anything else."

It seems like the people who want more guns laws and want us to compromise or right to keep and bear arms, arent willing to state what their final goal is?

They want us to give away our right piece by piece and say we need to compromise, but they dont say to what end?

There is never a promise of "this will be the last gun law that we will ever ask for."

:wtf:

I certainly dont want to follow down that path. I would hate for us to end up like the UK? They also have to register thier TVs and pay an annual tax on it.

I dont want to go down that road when one day in the far future every part of my life will be registered and regulated.

As FeebMaster says in his post, in order for there to be compromise both parties must give up something.

I'm perfectly fine with the registering and taxation of fully automatic weapons. So how about we just keep that one and you guys let the Assualt Rifle Ban sunset, after all does banning bayonet lugs really help reduce crime?

the registering and taxation of fully automatic weapons and keep the AWB. Well actually I'd rather just get rid of both.

:)

I am a wild and crazy reble. I don't know why you have such strong feelings about owning a gun and not feeling a responsibility to register it or allowing a background check or whatever compromise you suggest. Registering a gun does not mean that every part of your life will be registered and regulated. Guns are a whole lot different than owning a canoe or a car or a tv. And i'm not going to get in an arguement over guns cuz people start down a path of what ifs and Hitler that just seem so far fetched and over the top to me that I realize there is something more to this than simply registering the damn gun. I was suggesting ways to compromise that I though were reasonable. And what do you suggest that as a gun owner you get from a compromise? Are you allowed to shoot one living thing per year? Or for every three guns you get one that you need not register? Owning a gun is a great responsibility and what you get in return, I think, would be knowing that your gun is registered and you are responsible for it.

I'm sort of teasing you, but I realize you are very serious about this. I'm not the person for you to argue with cuz I was just putting something out there for discussion. My experience with guns was shooting at rats with a 22 at the dumps and going hunting up north. It is not one of the top ten issues I write my congress person about. I suspect I will be more attentive after this discussion, but I will not be carrying a petition to ban them anytime soon. I just was offering some suggestions, if they are no good, fine, but I did not mean to torment any gun owners. But I am curious what you would want in return. That I can't figure out.

"I don't know why you have such strong feelings about owning a gun and not feeling a responsibility to register it or allowing a background check or whatever compromise you suggest."

I already passed a background check when I bought my handgun. I passed it and I was able to take it home right then and there?

So why should I have to register my gun now?

The NRA convention isn't a public forum, and the NRA had just as much right to kick out a disruptor as Skinner and the mods have to tombstone disruptors here.

If it's out on the street, that would be wrong. It wasn't, it was in a convention hall rented by the NRA for their purposes.

The bullets used in assault rifles are indistinguishable from the bullets used in a regular rifle if both are in the same caliber. We banned possession of pot and cocaine, and how hard is it to find pot or cocaine? Registering guns is a required first step to confiscating guns. Without registration, there can be no effective confiscation. Before you say confiscation based upon registration records would never happen here, it HAS already happened in the US, most recently in California, where they confiscated a bunch of SKS rifles after people registered them in accordance with the law.

The problem is all about defining "reasonable gun control". I'm all for reasonable gun control. I support gun control which criminalizes felons, the insane, and certain other people from having firearms. That, to me, is reasonable. Requiring private individuals to conduct background checks on people is not reasonable. Neither is registration. Neither is one gun a month. And neither is banning the "gun de jure", whatever gun the media is screaming about at the time.

To hell with assault weapons. Only a small nukular device can guarantee the safety of me and my family. The U.S. Constitution says I can keep and bear arms and it doesn't mention anything about what kind of arms or how many.

So where I can get a couple designer nukes? Any spring clearance sales on right now?

We're talking about firearms regulation here let's try and keep the nuclear weapons strawmen to a minimum.

What firearms law regulates nuclear weapons? While you're at it why don't you point out which federal laws, firearms or otherwise, regulate nuclear weapons?

let me know your price range, and I'll see what I can find you. ;)

Saddam Hussein had a country, had billions in disposable assets, and still wasn't able to afford one. Are you richer than he was?

BTW, I don't know where to find you a nuke....i'm just pointing out that they're expensive enough that nation-states have trouble getting them, so your average yuppie ain't gonna be able to afford one.

It is bullies, sanctioned by the schools, encouraged by parents.
The boys that did the shooting were also victims, they had endured almost 13 years of torture at the hands of their class mates, teachers and parents overlooked it and sometimes encouraged it either directly or by not acting. Until this country understands that and deals with it there will be more school shootings.

I never heard how that came out. The current ban obviously didn't stop them. What new provision would have been needed?

It's why we need to close the loophole.

Your closing of the so-called "gun show loophole" would not have done a damn thing.

In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used three guns purchased from a gun show in the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado. According to Harris and Klebold's friend, Robyn Anderson, the two walked around a gun show "asking sellers if they were private or licensed." Anderson eventually purchased the three guns from a private seller because she did not want to undergo a background check, saying later, "I would not have bought a gun for Eric and Dylan if I had had to give any personal information or submit any kind of check at all".

--- Office of Senator Carl Levin

If you think any gun control law could have dissuaded those two sick individuals from commiting this awful crime, you are simply deluding yourself.

and you say I'm deluded. This is why I don't waste my time in the Gun Dungeon anymore.

Go ahead and find an independent source that has no ulterior motive in its findings that another gun control law would have stopped these wicked individuals from committing their murders.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/1214col1.shtml

"If they wouldn't have f------ helped us out, then we would have found someone else," Harris bragged. "We would have gone on and on. We would have found some way around it, 'cause that's what we do."

Care to reflect on this quote?

purchases may well have prevented Columbine. The guns that ACTUALLY did the killings were bought from unlicensed dealers at a gun show and the straw purchaser said she would not have bought the guns if she had to undergo a background check. Those are the facts.

where waiting periods were operative, a person in danger bought a pistol for personal defense, and they were murdered before the waiting period was over. How many people are you willing to kill on the off chance that a waiting period MIGHT prevent a crime, rather than simply push it off a few days?

That was a direct quote from Harris stating that they would have found someway for them to commit those crimes no matter what.

The guns that ACTUALLY did the killings were bought from unlicensed dealers at a gun show and the straw purchaser said she would not have bought the guns if she had to undergo a background check. Those are the facts.

Gee, and all this time I thought Harris and Klebold did the killings. I was wrong all along. It was the guns that did it!

And I posted a quote from Harris saying nothing would have prevented them from doing their deeds.

What do you think of that quote?

And that "question" was posted by a new pro-gun poster.

And yet you continue to avoid the Harris quote.

Or is it that you "will never admit to being wrong, even when confronted with direct, irrefutable proof."

On edit: And BTW, those weapons were not "assault" weapons either.

You find one quote where the shooters brag that they would have gotten the guns somehow and that's supposed to change the fact that they got the guns at a gun show from an unlicensed dealer? Thin, really thin.

They would have gotten their weapons one way or another regardless of whatever gun control law de jure you or and others think up of at the time.

Can YOU show me proof that:

3 were straw-purchased FROM DEALERS, WITH BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED, at gun shows, while the fourth, the Intratec AB-10 (and the gun with the highest magazine capacity) was purchased illegally "on the street".

That your gun control law would have prevented Columbine.

How about background checks - should anyone be able to walk into a gun shop and walk away with a gun just as easy as buying a candy bar?
Convicted felons? The clinically insane? Where do you stand on that?

Unconstitutional. We would be better off ensuring violent criminals are not allowed out of prison before they are truly rehabilitated and ending the futile, costly, and damaging war on drugs.

Where? I haven't seen one yet.

Yeah, let's just ignore the fact that the killers bought their weapons illegally MONTHS before the shootings. A waiting period surely would have helped there.

There is speculation that this statement from Anderson may have been coerced.

http://www.freecolorado.com/2000/01/anderson.html

3 were straw-purchased FROM DEALERS, WITH BACKGROUND CHECKS CONDUCTED, at gun shows, while the fourth, the Intratec AB-10 (and the gun with the highest magazine capacity) was purchased illegally "on the street". The seller was put in jail.

The only gun purchased without a background check conducted was the AB-10.

How would "closing the gun show loophole" have prevented straw purchases, which are already illegal?

Show me one link from a reputable source that says Robyn Anderson underwent a background check.

then why didn't they buy the guns themselves?

It's because they weren't able to pass the background check, and she was able to.

then why didn't the shooters just buy the frigging guns?

about 50 mainstream press references that show that she didn't undergo a background check.

Prove that I'm wrong when I think that a gun advocate will never admit to being wrong, even when confronted with direct, irrefutable proof.

because the shooters were prohibited from buying a gun, and apparently the private individual was demanding ID. Either way, she still committed a federal felony by making a straw purchase.

After the fact, she CLAIMS she wouldn't have done it if it required a background check. Of course, since she committed three felonies by making 3 straw purchases, what difference would a background check have made, since she wasn't a prohibited person?

The only reason to own a gun in these modern times is to KILL something or DEFEND against something. We obviously do not need to KILL anything for food: we have plenty of that. There seems to be some kind of obsession with DEFENDING ourselves,...against "something",...and I wonder what the "something" is which infiltrates out existence.

When my life was threatened, I was immediatly encouraged to get a gun and learn how to shoot it. I said, "NO." I had a child in my home and refused to take the risk of "curiosity". I faced the fact that, a gun would work no better than a bat in face of violent circumstances. I weighed the costs,...and have survived, to this day, without any advanced arms.

But many others, including myself, have used guns for defense. And I didn't even have to shoot mine. It was enough to have it.

does not mean that it's a requirement.

My concern about guns comes from 2 instances in which 2 different responsible gun owners came dangerously close to succumbing to the heat of the moment. Fortunately neither incident ended in tragedy; but it was clear to me that even the most rational people are still human; and the temptation to unwisely use a weapon can be overwhelming in certain instances.

I know, there are plenty of gun advocates who will say they weren't responsible gun owners; but my questions to them are:

How do you know that someone is not going to be a responsible gun owner?

and

How can you be so sure that you will always be a responsible gun owner?

we should restrict civil liberties for everyone because SOME people will break the law at some point in the future.

Down that road lies the Police State.

Why not let people have nukes?

Sorry...I do understand your concern. I just don't understand how the family arsenal is going to protect anyone from the Police State.

Please do elaborate...

Hell, that area is completely pacified by the Occupation troops now, right? They don't have small arms to resist with, so they're just SOL, right?

Would you care to mention the names of the US Citizens who are rich enough to own their own nuke? Saddam Hussein had billions of dollars, and still didn't manage to buy one. Can you say "straw man"?

I understand that you're saying people aren't wealthy enough to have nukes; but that doesn't explain whether or not you feel they should be able to have them.

As to "straw man" and the bit about Fallujah; I really am not deciphering what you're saying except that it has a sarcastic tone.

I'm being serious here, and I'm talking about America.

I'd like to know how the family arsenal is going to protect us from a police state better than any peaceful means.

Our government is one of checks and balances. There are checks and balances inherent in the three branch system of government, but those are not the ONLY checks and balances to keep the government from becoming despotic. The founding fathers realized that unrestrained government, if left to it's own devices, becomes tyrannical. To prevent this, they set the three branches against each other. They also enumerated certain rights that the people retained to serve as a check on government as a whole. These include all constitutionally protected civil liberties, and these are there to balance power between the government and the people. The right to free speech and the right to free assembly are not there to let the people view porno in groups. They're there so that people can organize and criticize the government. The group porno parties are just a fringe benefit.

The absolute LAST DITCH defense against a despotic government is armed insurrection. That's the American People's absolute trump card....that if the government becomes despotic and strips all of our rights away, we have the tools to overthrow the government. That doesn't mean we can ignore the other means for redress of grievances, they're equally important to see to it that it doesn't come down to another revolution.

For me, at least, every action that the government takes must be viewed through a prism of "what effect in the balance of power between the people and the government"?

I HATE abortion. I think it's an abomination, and wish that abortions were never, ever necessary, because nobody ever had a fetus that was malformed and no woman ever got pregnant when she didn't want to. Yet I VEHEMENTLY support the right for a woman to choose what to do with her body, INCLUDING to have an abortion on demand and without apology, no matter what the reason. The underpinning of my position on this is that it's none of the government's business what a woman does with her body and when a woman reproduces.

Sounds pretty Libertarian, doesn't it? Yet I'm not a Libertarian. I BELIEVE in things like voluntary social programs, funded by taxpayer dollars. I WANT the government to provide needed services to the people, and am willing to pay for the services people NEED. The term "services" is telling. The purpose of the government is to SERVE the people, not the other way around. Services...not dictatorial decrees. That's what fascism is all about....with fascism, the people are there to provide service to the State, instead of the State existing to provide services to the people. People need the opportunity to get an education, but I don't think education should necessarily be compelled past a certain point, and if people don't want a government education, fine. Still, we should pay for a government education, and we do. I think people who WANT a helping hand to deal with their problems should have the helping hand extended to them. I don't think they should be forced to take the help, and I think the help should come WITHOUT strings attached.

The bottom line all comes down to this. Freedom is a good thing. Civil Liberties are good things. Maintaining a balance of power where the People are not literally at the mercy of the Government is an excellent thing. That means that people can do what they want, when they want, with whom they want, as long as they don't hurt other people. If they hurt people, THEN deal with them. If they don't hurt people, let the people alone. And you have to remember that ultimately, power flows from the barrel of a gun. A disarmed populace no longer has the ability to overthrow a despotic government that really wants to keep them down and has a monopoly on the use of force.

Now there are, of course, costs associated with freedom and the maintenance of civil liberties. There are a lot of things out there that I don't like, and that I think are bad. Take, for example, the American Nazi Party, the KKK, and Operation Rescue. I don't like the message they spread. But the civil liberties that the most extreme, lunatic fringe groups have are EXACTLY the same civil liberties the rest of us have. For example, look at the "First Amendment Zones" that came about because of the actions of the nutjobs in Operation Rescue. When that ruling came down, a lot of pro-choice people celebrated, because it kept them away from clinics. I didn't, because I saw the writing on the wall, and I was right. The restrictions on their civil liberties became restrictions on OUR civil liberties, and we ended up herded into "First Amendment Zones" which degraded our ability to seek redress of grievances through what previously had been one of our most effective means, public, loud, "in-your-face" political protest. That decision moved us much further down the road to a police state than we had been previously. The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions. There will ALWAYS be misuses of civil liberties. But getting rid of civil liberties and our constitutional protections because some people will invariably abuse them is stupid in the extreme, because when we have to "wear the shoe", it sure as hell pinches.

as did King. You forget that for African Americans the US was, for the better part of the 20th century, a police state.

Native Americans used guns to attempt to free themselves from the police state inflicted upon them to no avail...Like Iraq, it only resulted in the massacre of innocents.

The bottom line is there's nothing...not even guns...that will keep us from becoming a police state if we allow ourselves to be duped into $supporting$ and voting for the wrong guys. We must learn to arm ourselves with information, intelligence, and the gift of persuasion to give power back to those who truly have the World's best interests at heart.

make a clear differentiation between oppression in a so-called "free" society with a free press, and a totalitarian regime run by a dictator?

If Ghandi had been in, say Communist Romania, he'd have ended up with a .32 in the back of his skull, and no reform would have resulted.

Remember Tiananmen Square?

Passive resistance doesn't work in a police state where the State is willing to use their monopoly on force to supress dissent. If it had, Hungary and Czechoslavakia would have been free in the 1950's.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of it's arms as the blackest."--Ghandi

to running away or accepting injustice, he believed that standing and fighting with the sole use of non-violent methods was best and required the most courage. Perhaps it's because public outcry for people who fight and die this way is louder and more widespread than for those who choose to use firearms.

Here are some other Gandhi quotes you might find of interest:


"The power of unarmed nonviolence is any day far superior to that of armed force."

"Reliance upon the sword is wholly inconsistent with reliance upon God."
"
"History is replete with instances of men who by dying with courage and compassion on their lips converted the hearts of their violent opponents."

"The sword is too much in evidence among the Mussalmans. It must be sheathed if Islam is to be what it means: peace."

"Nonviolence is the summit of bravery."

"Active non-violence of the brave puts to flight thieves, dacoits, murderers, and prepares an army of volunteers ready to sacrifice themselves in quelling riots, in extinguishing fires and feuds, and so on."

Non-violence is not a weapon of the weak. It is a weapon of the strongest and the bravest."

"India's acceptances of the doctrine of the sword will be the hour of my trial."

"If India takes up the doctrine of the sword, she may gain momentary victory. Then India will cease to be the pride of my heart."

"The essential part of your message to the country is not how to wield the sword, but to cease to be afraid of it."

"To answer brutality with brutality is to admit one’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy."

What, if by some quirk of fate, Ghandi had been born and lived in Stalinist Russia. What result?

These people who want gun control are going to love the upcoming fascist state.

are making it easy for a potential "fascist state" to exist. As long as the private militias power up, the government's going to be many steps ahead of them in the arms race they conduct here in the US.

Consider the Native Americans who were slaughtered for their "insurrection" (which was really nothing more than a rebellion against the European invasion). This was not mere suppression...This was a police state. Most of us have a hard time viewing it that way, because we were the beneficiaries of the invasion.

If there is indeed a fascist state forthcoming, guns and violence will not stand against it. They will only serve to magnify the slaughter.

"The people who don't want any gun control are making it easy for a potential "fascist state" to exist."

The government already has whatever weapons it wants. You know all those gun control laws we have? There are exceptions written into them exempting government agencies from them. What arms race?

The fascist state --Like the chimp in Iraq will have trouble fighting its way out of a wet paper bag

Read the Book Mila 18

Fascist thugs gunned down like so much scum

just a gun. :eyes:

and somebody sticks a 12 gauge shotgun in your face, you'd be pretty fucking stupid to demand to see that it is loaded before running away, wouldn't you? After all, the easiest way to demonstrate that a gun is loaded is to pull the trigger...

According the the NVCS conducted by the Department of Justice, most defensive uses of firearms do not result in a single shot being fired, and result in no injuries. Actually shooting an attacker is the exception, not the rule, since most criminals will run when confronted with an armed victim.

...perhaps you didn't really need to have it to be safe.

that's like saying you had sex with a condom and didn't get pregnant or a STD, so maybe you didn't need the condom in the first place.

...the standard "logic" of the pro-gunner.

Check this thread out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=501872&mesg_id=501872

prozac and a good shrink

Just don't try to force your values on me.

we just want to be free to own them if we choose to.

People who are pro women's reproductive freedom don't want to MANDATE abortion, we just want those who want to have the option to have it.

Don't like abortion? Fine. Don't have one.
Don't like guns? Fine. Don't own one.

Where do you all live? In a city or rural America? And don't consider a town a city, please.

in a urban city, in the suburbs, and now reside in a rural area. I felt the need for a gun the most when I was in an urban environment, since the environment I was living in is consistently in the "top 5" as far as crime rates nationally. In fact, the city I lived in is the "poster child" of how gun control doesn't work.

Corpus Christi, Tx