For anyone who doubts how big guns are to voters, read THIS!

I was just reading the discussions about Howard Dean over at Free Republic. This is what one Freeper had to say about the gun issue:


Maybe I am to "single issue oriented" but IMHO elections in the last 10 years or so have been won on the swing margin of gun owners. Just as "all blacks vote Democrat", all gun owners have been voting Republican. This has become just as engrained a reality that the political advisors know. As the other poster pointed out about how long it has been since a Dem. won Ohio. Blue collar guys and their families are voting gun rights. How many blue collar types that would otherwise have probably voted Dem. have voted Rep. for this reason? Hard to say, but the NRA has some 4 milion members. Just guessing but anywhere from 2 million to 20 million voters fit the description. The Dems. have a Golden Opportunity here. I don't know if they have manufactured it purposefully or just stumbled into it, but if they can engineer a "Brady type" bill to put on Bush's desk just before the next election, he has already said he would sign it. That gives gun owners a choice between a candidate who SAID he supported gun rights but has just signed an anti-gun bill and a candidate who says he supports the 2nd and has not yet shown he doesn't. If gun owners get split, President Dean just may be a reality. When the Democrats wake up to this, if they haven't planned it all along, it could happen. Heck, I am as conservative as anybody, and I AM a physician, so I am not particularly interested in seeing "Hillarycare", but I gotta say, if W signs any gun bill, I vote Dean myself.


If a Freeper would abandon Bush over signing a gun control law AND vote for Dean instead, just think how many swing voters would vote for Dean over Bush JUST because of his stand on guns. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...guns are THE biggest issue that Dems lose votes over.

and it is not an issue we can win on, except with machine guns, in our lifetimes. It's a dead issue except in individual communities.

Most people vote their pocketbook. The economy. It's the economy stupid. And unless there is a war, that is the only real policy issue. We currently have both, and Bush is vulnerable on both. Bush is starting to talk up the economy, but the economy is going to be stagnant as long as we have troops overseas on two fronts, no matter what Greenspan does.

I grew up in Maine and everyone I knew had a hunter in their family and at least one gun in their home. NH and Vermont are just about the same way. Any rural area is like this. Hunting is a huge part of rural life...it's part of rural culture. A lot of people depend on it to feed their families. When rural people hear "gun control" they feel like their way of life is being threatened. These voters' interests are not best served by Republicans. Their interests are best served by Democrats...except for this one issue...their way of life. Hunters will vote against anyone they don't trust on gun rights. Howard Dean's position on guns is consistent with getting the huner votes, which combined with the Democratic vote would make for a decided victory for Democrats in 2004. If you take the gun vote away from the Republicans it only leaves them with the votes of the religious right, die hard conservatives and the wealthy. That's not enough to even be competitive.

Close but no cigar. People like me who have spent 30 some years holding a union office of some kind or other, will tell you that, yep, we can't win on the gun issue, but we sure as hell can lose. Good union democrats that agree with me on every issue voted for Bush because they thought Gore would take there guns. We still carried Michigan for Gore and we will for the next democrat. Let us put this issue away. So far I have found that Deans position on gun control seems to be ok with people like the ones I speak of. There are more issues like this that just kill our canidates. Abortion is another. If you don't like Dean, thats fine, but his gun position is our answer, and would go along way toward helping us get rid of Bush. The democrats who are anti gun need to decide which they hate more, guns laws like we now have, or Bush.

Uh...

That has already been won. No new machine gun in civilian hands sinc ce 1986

ALL OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS IMPORTANT.

A politician who says that they care about people's right and turns around and tries to limits or take away one of those rights is a hypocrite.

I don't own a gun and I would rather not have to own a gun. I still prefer to have the option to own a gun.

which proposes to take away your right to own a gun.

I'm a bit of a guns rights person. I won't vote for anyone who even mentions gun control in a favorable way. I'm going to be quite frank and honest in telling you why, too. All it takes is hearing ONE radical person go on one of those "ban all guns" rants and set forth on a preachy diatribe about how gun control is a wonderful thing and that's it. As it is I don't typically trust a politician as far as I can throw them. Let me try to put this in terms the more liberal folks can understand.

Democrats talking about "gun control" to hunters and gun rights people is the equivalent of Republicans talking about "regulating abortion" to pro-choice people. It goes over about as well as an elephant pissing on a flat rock...and they DON'T TRUST YOU! There you have it.

Pawn the goddamn issue off to the states, let people vote for what THEY want in their state and win elections already! I'm telling you, it would be BLOODY BRILLIANT for Democrats to do this because if they did it's unlikely very many Republicans would win anything! End of story!

How's THAT for honesty? This issue loses more elections than you can even begin to comprehend! I'm serious!

Thanks for saying it!

AND, I'm happy to announce that there is a Bloody Brilliant candidate who's on it. You know the rest. ;-)

Eloriel

Thats disengeious and you know it.

The goal of the Gun control zealots IS to take away everyones gun.

And we should interpret every single provision in our favor: irreducable, personal rights

And why should the democratic party cater to ignorance? Why is it such a horrible idea to demand background checks for all gun buyers?

PS... Rendell won Pa without caving on this issue. I say we educate the NRA voters, not cater to them.

Ches: who does believe in the 2nd ammendment

I know many NRA member who think background checks are a good idea, and some who think buyers should be made to demonstrate gun safety knowledge or take a course before buying a gun.

Some, however, do hear only the more strident voices that call for a ban on all gun sales. They don't know they're the minority because the saner voices don't get that much attention.

But even people who support background checks and the current laws still don't tend to trust anyone who talks favorably about gun control. I support the background checks and even the gun safety thing...but I still would be very hard pressed to vote for anyone who is gun control happy...especially at this point. We don't need anything else. So if a candidate lists gun control as one of their issues, or even brings it up I get mighty suspicious.

Personally I don't trust any politician who caters to the NRA or to those who have the misguided belief that DEms want to take away all your guns. I think you are exaggerating the importance of this issue to the average voter. You have claimed that elections have been lost because of this issue, how about some evidence to support that assertion?

I won't vote for someone who's crappy just because they are against any additional federal gun control...but I won't vote for anyone who even remotely hints they want to add more.

I'm not exaggerating the importance of the gun issue at all. And it has nothing at all to do with the NRA. None of my realtives (this includes Aunts, Uncles, cousins, neices, nephews, siblings, etc) belong to the NRA...but almost all of them own guns and hunt and the mere mention of gun control causes a lot of annoyed and angry faces. However many members there are in the NRA, you can safely multiply that number by at least 5, probably a lot more to get the number of hunters and gun owners who don't belong to the NRA. You ask any low to middle income gun owner why they voted for Republicans and you'll get the same answer..."I don't trust Democrats with the 2nd Amendment". It doesn't matter if it's a justifiable opinion for them to have or not...because that's what the opinion is. If the gun control debate is taken off the table, Democrats will get well over half of those votes. If Democrats get well over half of hunter and gun owner votes...the Republican is going to get slaughtered in elections.

If you want some evidence, find a popular hunting forum and go ask them about it. If you haven't lived in a place where hunting is a way of life you don't realize how big this issue is. Most hunters don't have any interest in the NRA's politics...they just want to hunt and defend their 2nd Amendment rights. If someone tells them a candidate is a threat to those rights...they would cut off their own leg with a hack saw before voting for that person.

the truth! Well said.

Simply ask Maine Mary. She's an elected officeholder, and her Democratic credentials are beyond reproach. Ask her how she and her constitutents feel about additional gun control legislation.

That's where I grew up and most of my family still lives there. I pity the fool who tries to infringe upon the rights of Maine hunters. ;)

You must be a man who wants the rethugs to remain in control. You sound like a man who is locked in and not open minded at all. You are going to change the NRA people, that is the dimbest thing I have ever heard anyone say on this forum, and that is covering some ground.

Would you care to explain why there's a Republican governor in Maryland now?

If you don't believe in the Second Amendment, what other parts of the Bill of Rights are you willing to scrap?

...liberally just like all the others in the Bill of Rights. The more freedom, and more we can keep the gov't out of our business the better.

This would not be just good for blue collar, consevative dems, but also libertarian republicans who many are skeptical of the war and very uncomfortable with stuff like 'the patriot act' and Ashcroft in general. There are many live and let live type republicans who are willing to vote for the right kind of dem if they feel he's the lesser of two evils. They're never gonna buy into the tax and spend stuff, but hell Bush isn't much better on the budget, except he's borrow and spend. The gun issue could be a good signal to these voters.

I wish Dean or somebody would take on the gun-grabbers and make a strong stand on this issue. It would pay big dividends, imo.

- The premise of this thread is based on the ramblings of a FReeper? Not exactly a mainstream point of view.

- It's strange that the 2nd amendment is debated to death...while the rest of the Bill of Rights becomes extinct.

Indeed.

Which is why we should be defending each and every Amendment strongly--they each illuminate one or more of our personal rights as citizens.

...the rest of the Bill of Rights as long as no one touches their guns.

- Free Speech is practically dead in the US...and the church and state grow ever closer. The Patriot Act(s) are seldom discussed in the context of the many other rights that are disappearing right before our eyes.

- The gun issue is unimportant compared to these other issues essential for freedom and democracy.

period...even the ones you or anyone else might not like. That's just the way it works.

I can't even call it ignorant, it's *stupid*.

It's truly regrettable how many people seem unable to connect the dots and unwilling even to try. They think in slogans, and imagine that they understand everything. Fodder for the demagogues.

A few years ago, in a forum populated largely by what I'll have to call right-wingers for want of a better term, I ran my finger down the Bill Of Rights pointing out how damaged and threatened our rights have become. I got back a chorus of 'yeah' and 'that's right'. Then I made the point that socialists strongly believe in the whole BOR and perhaps there was some common ground. Eeek! Evil! Evil! Begone Foul Fiend!

Some of the right-wing RKBA folks rightly point out that the Second is the one that allows us to defend all the others. Pity they can't seem to find the energy for doing the actual defending.

we just had that huge battle (and debate) on the 1st Amendment down in Alabama?

not freepers who've fallen in love with Dean, Dean people who now feel they have to take over every forum to defend Dean at every chance. I've seen this in other threads there, like when they were calling his wife ugly

Any repulbicans who would vote for Dean that you can point to are huge red herrings. He has put himself out there as the most liberal-left serious democrat running and that is what he's accepted as.

I wouldn't be amazed if these 2 different posts were from the same Deanocrat

So no, that's not me.

See my avatar?? It says DEAN. You see the star by my name? I gave money to DU. You know that I was a moderator for 2 months this year? I think you have a lot of god danmed nerve calling me a freeper lover. My ignore just added another brain dead disrupter. You have nothing to say about you canditate, just more anti-Dean spew. Bye troll

I am a Dean supporter who has been here since October 2002, have donated to DU, and have over 1,000 posts, and I am sick of people accusing Dean supporters of signing up here just to promote Dean. Even if they do, isn't that good for DU? Aren't we competing with Free Republic for who has more members? If that is the case then all the campaigns should be encouraged to get their supporters to sign up here.

"He has put himself out there as the most liberal-left serious democrat"

He, Dean, has never labeled himself as a liberal, and certainly not the most liberal. He has said over and over again he is a centrist, and if you have done any amount of research on him you'd see that his history as a governor shows him as exactly that. Don't buy into the media's bullshit spin of him, just because he has a few liberal stances.

You are making wild accusations both about Dean and about DU posters. It's a bit insulting.

you'll always scrape the bottom of the barrel to find some way to smear Dean. Your hatred of him is more idiotic than the Freepers' hatred of Clinton.

How about your state?

there are a lot of one issue voters out there, even here at DU. Abortion is a great example, unless some people here have changed over the past year there is a decent number of voters who will not vote for an anti-choice candidate no mtter what his stances are on other issues. So your example of a freeper using guns as his one issue isn't surprising although claiming to vote for Dean over Bush is unusual

When someone votes primarily on the 2nd Amendment, they will cross party lines to vote for the most gun friendly candidate every time, providing they aren't an absolutely horrible candidate.

The gun thing seems to be the latest symptom of the rural/urban split that this country has had from the beginning.

I'm from the city, lived in cities most of my life, and I like living in cities. Guns, to me, are associated with criminals and cops. I have been out hunting, but it's not my favorite pasttime. I'm not alone in this, and most people I know from around here really just don't think about guns unless there's been a shooting somewhere. It's just not a big deal. Personally, it would not make a bit of difference in my life if every gun disappeared later this afternoon.

That there are people who grow up with guns and take them seriously is as difficult for me to empathize with as it is for them to think of riding the subway daily. There is a huge divide there, and I suspect many Northern Democrats, being largely from urban areas, don't understand the depth of feeling on the other side.

What urban Democrats do understand all too well is the amount of destruction caused by guns in the cities, and now suburbia.

There is a certain dynamic that happens when you cram a large amount of people in a relatively small amount of space. If it weren't guns it would be some other implement used for violence. Violent crime is always going to be a problem in the city, with or without guns. Nothing is going to change because if someone wants to harm or kill someone, they're going to do it anyway...whether with a gun or a baseball bat.

Everything would change if there were no guns in rural areas. Poor families would have less to eat, trying to have a garden would be a total nightmare because the deer would wipe your garden out if they were too heavily populated. Roadways would be treacherous with an overpopulation of hunted species...and car accidents would rise dramatically, and people could die from those accidents, especially if they hit a moose. Urban life would not suddenly be without any crime if there were no guns. Rural life would change dramatically, though. You're right, this is an urban vs rural issue...and it has absolutely nothing to do with the NRA.

the candidate of the NRA." Kerry said today in his speech aboard the USS Yorktown.

writing off a block of voters like that.

No Democrat will get their support. No Democrat.

to win a general election. He can no longer win. Dumb move on his part, very, very dumb. He will now be portrayed as a gun grabber, and post 9/11 that's the equivalent of putting the nails in the coffin of any chance at the presidency.

It's all the swing voter votes I'm talking about who will hear it all over the place that Kerry is a "gun grabber" (thanks to the NRA). These people aren't NRA members, but ARE influenced by their ads. These are voters who would vote Democrat over Republican if not for this ONE thing.

Sorry, but Kerry is toast thanks to that comment. There's no way he can win now, none at all. Especially not after 9/11...gun owners are more defensive about their gun rights then ever. Bad move on Kerry's part and any dream he had of being president just went down the toilet.

of the NRA, and not a reflection of the mindset of so called "swing voters."

Saying that the NRA is not going to support a Democrat, meaning any Democrat, is just plain fact. It's highly unlikely that any gun owning voter who panics just from reading Kerry's factual statement, was going to vote for a Dem anyway.

" Saying that the NRA is not going to support a Democrat, meaning any Democrat, is just plain fact."

What's Dean's rating from the NRA again? When did Dean become a Republican?

At losing elections.

Thanks to gun control the publicans have control of the presidency, house and senate.

Gun control loses elections quite frequently, while it rarely, if ever wins them.

Banning guns will be like banning drugs. It won't work. It will just create another dangerous black market, and even if you wanted to there is no way in hell we can get rid of the guns currently in circulation without trampling on the rest of the bill of rights in the process. It's just not going to happen. I've looked into the arguemnts from both pro and anti-gun people and they are both full of holes and dishonest arguements. I just don't trust them.

We have to have early intervention in children who are at risk, and we have to have programs to fight poverty and give people who live in crippling poverty hope for the future other than working working in fast food or retail the rest of their lives. Dean's success by six program seems to be addressing that in part, and it will have a great effect if nationally implemented. Treating drug abuse as a medical problem rather than criminal will help as well.

That's why I like Dean. Keep the current gun laws, Close the gun show loophole, but leave the rest to the states and drop the issue so we can get real progress done instead of symbolic battles that won't accomplish anything.

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers.
Please explain what you believe to be the "loopole" at gun shows is.

The people who run the checks don't want to work on the weekend. That's the problem. Basically, if the office is made to stay open 7 days a week it wouldn't even be an issue.

That's about it.

The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer for the fact that background checks are not usually performed on sales of used guns by private (unlicensed) individuals.

The problem is that the system is not AVAILABLE for use by private citizens. Only when sales are done by consignment, i.e. through a federal firearms licensee (as ALL private sales are handled here in California) can a check be performed. Making NICS available for private citizens would close that "loophole" without creating a gun registry, which is many gun owners' worst nightmare.

Here's my proposal stated as briefly as I can:

- Make NICS available for private gun sellers for a very small fee, say $5.

- Make use of NICS for private sales OPTIONAL. You don't have to run a background check on your son before you give him his first .22 rifle.

- However, if you sell to someone who later is discovered to have been a prohibited person (convicted felon, etc.) at the time of the sale and you did NOT make use of NICS, you are guilty of selling a gun to a prohibited person and can be prosecuted criminally.

- To prevent misuse of NICS, anyone who gets checked gets a snail-mail notification providing the name and address of the person who requested the check.

If I lived in a normal state where private gun sales are still allowed and I had a gun to sell and NICS was available as explained above, I'd sure as hell use it.

Because people would abuse it to check for criminal backgrounds of their neighbors. That's too much pissing on people's "Right to Privacy". You can't do that without taking a huge old dump on the Constitution. It won't fly.

In case I didn't make it clear, using NICS for anything other than a private gun sale would be a crime.

Do you ever read your spam emails? There are services AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC that allow you to check up on anyone for a fee. I personally know a private investigator who does that all the time for a living - Most of his clients are people trying to find a long-lost lover or someone who skipped out on a debt.

As long as the people who get checked out are notified, there has been no violation of their Constitutional right to privacy.

Here is just one example of background check services available to anyone to be used on anyone:

http://www.800ussearch.com/search/start.cgi?adID=1050012285&

There will never be enough support for something like that to make it happen. Any attempt to pass such a thing would be dead in the water.

I disagree with your belief that my idea is unworkable. Certainly any proposal to require registration of all firearms or licensing of gun owners would be shot down.

:D

Personally if I had a gun to sell I would welcome a way to ensure that I was not selling to a prohibited person. The issue is moot here in California, but I think people in other states ought to have some kind of optional verification of a buyer's status.

All I'm saying is that it won't fly.

The NIC’s system for instant background checks for firearms purchases is open from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m seven days a week.
Many people do not realize that background checks are conducted by every licensed dealer at gun shows regardless of the day of the week.
You are correct in the assumption that no loophole exists, but many people attempt to use this argument as a means to justify their pro-ban agenda.
Many people take personal firearms to gun shows in order to sell or trade them to dealers.
Occasionally individuals sell to other individuals at the show.
This is a legal transaction of personal property.
Many people will claim that an average of 20% of gun show booths are unlicensed dealers, and this is true.
However, that number is always calculated by comparing the number of “dealers” vs. the number of booths at the show.
What is never mentioned is that the 20% in question are not selling firearms; they are instead selling cloth cases, holsters, optics, leather goods, crafts etc.
The term “gun show loophole” is constantly thrown out there as an attention getter, or “vote grabber”, to people who are unfamiliar with the facts.

Like I said, not trying to ruffle feathers, just trying to dispel rumors.

When someone sells a gun to another person and they aren't a dealer. It seems like they should have to register the transactions somewhere and make sure that person is not a criminal.

I know most guns used in crime don't come from this, but it seems like common sense to have that stopped.

however, if you sell your car, how do you know the person buying it has not been convicted of DWI 3 times in the past?
Significantly more people are killed each year by vehicles than by guns.

Would this not be the same as selling a gun to a criminal?

It's personal property, and I would not like to be forced to "check" with the goverment before I sell something.

Why should we insist on pursuing this issue so adamantly?
We as a party are losing votes over it when it has been blown completely out of proportion.

And if I sold a car to a person who had his licence taken away for DWI's, or if it was illegal to sell to the guy for some reason, I would have no problem with that. Although I think in most cases it would be legal for the guy to drive on private property and own cars so long as he doesn't go on public roads.

Gun owners would never allow the type of registration and licensing involved with cars, unless it's for concealed carry or something, so I think that's a bad analogy.

I don't think the issue is important enough to push, I just think it should be addressed eventually.

Personally, I'd rather spend more efforts at poverty reduction and changing the drug war than trying to pass gun laws of dubious merit.

That's not saying that sales aren't stopping after that time, though. From what I understand, there are times when no one is available to perform the checks at times when they really should be. And you're not going to stop individuals from selling their guns privately. It's going to happen and it can't be controlled or stopped. You also aren't going to be able to stop black market sales either.

Dealers cannot make "private" sales. Every transaction must have a NIC's approval number on it. The dealer can be charged with a felony for failure to comply.

Should an individual be prohibited from selling personal property?

Nothing will ever stop black market sales.

the NICS system already runs 7 days a week.

The "gun show loophole" involves private individuals who want to sell a personal gun at a gun show. They're allowed to sell personal guns without background checks, be it at their house, through a newpaper ad, or at a gun show. Sales of guns made by dealers at gun shows have to have background checks conducted on them, just as if they were at their shops.

The "gun show loophole" is about making non-dealers into dealers.

I was under the impression that NICS wasn't operating during all hours gun shows were open. I see no problem with people selling guns to dealers at shows, and frankly, no one is going to stop private sales regardless of what it done. No point in wasting time, money and resources. Those are better spent going after those using guns to commit crimes.

it runs from 7 AM to 10 PM, 7 days a week. That doesn't mean it's always working, the computers go down regularly. When the computers are down, it no longer operates.

The proof is in his point:

The Dems have a Golden Opportunity here. I don't know if they have manufactured it purposefully or just stumbled into it, but if they can engineer a "Brady type" bill to put on Bush's desk just before the next election, he has already said he would sign it.

Now, one question remains:
How the fuck are they going to do that without control of either part of congress?

Sorry, I'm not at my regular computer(darn blaster virus), so you'll have to do your own googling on this one.

But in poll after poll, survey after survey Americans have said and shown that they want some sensible gun control. They want the background checks, they want the ban on both semi and full autos. This includes polls done by everyone from Time to the Washington Post to CNN and on and on. THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WANT SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL!!

They don't want to take your guns away, they don't want you to give up hunting, but they also don't want guns so easily available to anyone and they don't want to live next door to somebody with an arsenal in their basement that would put the Pentagon to shame. And you know what? I agree with this majority.

Look, I have no problem with somebody having a long rifle for hunting, been there, I've done it myself. I have no problem with somebody having a gun for home defense. I've got the highest rated home and self defense gun there is(even according to the NRA), a twelve gauge pump shotgun.

Where I(and apparently the majority of people) have problems are with two classes of guns. The autos/semi-autos and handguns. First off, the autos/semi-autos are made for one thing, and one thing only;
The quick and indiscriminate killing of large quantities of people. People are tired of these drive by shootings where many innocents are shot or killed by some fool with a semi auto or auto. I've seen the results in my own town, on my own block. Are you willing to pay me for my shot up car, or my neighbor's shot up kid?

Handguns, the most likely gun to kill it's owner, the most likely gun to be pulled out in a moment of stupid rage and be put to use. Why do you even want one of these things around? It is more likely to be used against you or your family than any other gun. It is the number one gun in this country that gets stolen(and then comes down to my 'hood, yippee). It is the number one gun to be used in crimes of passion or domestic abuse(damn, those extra few minutes spent finding a long gun and loading it sure can calm things down). What, do just like the feel of it tucked into the waistband on the small of your back?

I(and apparently many others) are simply tired of those of you living in that vast wasteland of Suburbia who feel so threatened, so scared by that big bad world out there, that you go out and load up on guns. This makes a gangbanger's week, because out he goes some day while you're at work and poof, your tidy little arsenal now becomes front line material in inner city crime. Where it will cost innocents untold millions of dollars(if their lucky) or their lifes. Which is more valuable, your right to fire off your 9mm Glock when your libido is feeling down, oe the right of a 5 year old child to grow up without getting shot? The less guns that are available to the public in general means the less guns make their way down the pipeline to the urban warfare zones. If you want security in your house, get a big dog and train it properly. It can't be turned against you, and is always on duty.

So here you are, pushing out this blantantly false propaganda that the Democratic Party shouldn't touch the issue of gun control for it will backfire on us. Nice going, way to put false messages out there. BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL, THEREFORE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN WIN ON.

Any time you scream in all caps about how "a majority of Americans want sensible gun control" and then provide a laundry list of controls you THINK they want, you have insulted anyone who disagrees with any subset of your list. You are implying that anyone who disagrees with you is not a sensible person.

They want the background checks,...

We've already got background checks on all sales by licensed dealers.

...they want the ban on both semi and full autos.

This is a ridiculous statement. No survey has ever shown that a majority of Americans would ban semiautomatic firearms. Fully automatic firearms have been strictly regulated since 1934, and they are NOT a problem at all - There have been only one or two crimes committed with legally owned (registered) full autos. Unregistered ones are already banned.

So you have just managed to piss off a subset of the voting population without making any constructive, workable suggestions for improved gun controls, and you presented it in a manner that strongly suggests you have no idea what you are talking about.

Nice work.

And chiding me about using all caps to make a point. And implying that I don't know what I'm talking about. Boy, talk about ad hominem attacks!

Well, despite what you think of me, it is true the majority of Americans want sensible gun control. Think not? Well, check out this.
<http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=195>
<http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/12/poll.guns/index.html>
Like I stated at the start of my post, I'm not at my regular computer, so I don't have all of my resources to give you, you're going to have to do a little research. As far as semi-autos, yes there are polls out there that state that the majority don't want semi-autos around. And as far as full autos, yes, you're right, they aren't legal here in the US. But with a couple of pieces of metal, a few special parts easily procured at a gun show and some filing, presto change-o you make a semi-auto into a full auto.

As far as pissing off a subset of the voters, damn! I mean I like DU and all, but I don't give this board that much influence in affecting policy in this country. And even if this board has the kind of influence that you think it does, all I can say to that subset of voter is tough shit. Apparently the majority of people in this country agree with me and want sensible gun controls.

So by continuing your crusade to rid the world of gun controls, your pissing off a majority of the people, including those who vote Democratic.

Nice work!

The word "semiautomatic" doesn't appear in either article you cited. I stand by my claim that no reputable survey has ever shown that Americans want to ban semiautomatic firearms.

As far as semi-autos, yes there are polls out there that state that the majority don't want semi-autos around.

Then cite one, for crying out loud. :eyes:

And as far as full autos, yes, you're right, they aren't legal here in the US.

More evidence of your ignorance of current gun laws! They ARE legal, but heavily regulated. I personally shot FIVE different fully automatic, privately owned, perfectly legal firearms at a gun shoot in Nevada last weekend.

But with a couple of pieces of metal, a few special parts easily procured at a gun show and some filing, presto change-o you make a semi-auto into a full auto.

You've been reading way too much anti-gun propaganda. Any set of parts that would allow that simple a conversion from semiauto to full auto would constitute a "machinegun conversion kit" and be illegal under present BATFE regulations.

Your facts are in error. Try some real information straight from the source:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter37.txt

"But with a couple of pieces of metal, a few special parts easily procured at a gun show and some filing, presto change-o you make a semi-auto into a full auto."

When was the last time you saw a full auto conversion kit for sale at a gun show or anywhere else? What about ATF's control over design? you DID know that all new designs are submitted to ATF's technology branch, and that they can rule them to be too easy to convert to full-auto and bar their sale to the public, right? Why can't you buy a new-manufactured semi-auto open bolt gun now?

I would bet you that they are polling people in cities and suburbs since it's easier to poll in places where there are more people.

Riddle me this...If having more guns means having more gun crime, then how do you account for the fact that there is virtually no gun crime in my state and a huge percentage of the population has a gun in their home?

You're also going on the false assumption that rural people want guns to feel safe if it's anything other than a hunting rifle. False. Some people like to collect guns just like many people collect swords, shot glasses, coins, stamps or Beanie Babies. Others just really like to shoot at a bullseye. It's like people who like playing darts, archery or bowling...mastering the ability to aim for something and hit it.

Oh, and in regards to that scenario about getting a dog to guard your home. A dog isn't going to do much to protect you when the person coming after you shoots the dog, now is it. It's people in cities who view guns as protection against criminals. Where I come from, a gun is seen as protection for when you go out hiking in the woods and a bear or fisher cat chases you. Out west it's about protecting yourself and your family from mountain lions. In Alaska you can add big, mean ass grizzlies to the list.

You know, where a pollster asks X percentage of rural folk, X number of urban folk, etc etc. Thats how polls are done, they don't just grab a phone book and start dialing.

And you seem to be oh so worried about what rural folk think. Well my question to you is are we a democracy where the majority rules, or are we to be subject to the tyranny of the minority? If you think we shouldn't have gun controls because a minority of people dislike them, then I suggest you find another place to peddle your wares, for this country IS a democracy where the majority decides!

And comparing gun collecting to stamps and Beanie Babies is disingenous at best. A stamp can't kill you, a Beanie Baby can't put a hole through your head from a mile away. I've seen reports in the papers where an entire gun collection gets stolen, then winds up in the hands of a criminal at a drive by. Try doing that with a shot glass.

Now if you're in the country, and want a long gun for the varmints, etc., like I said I have know problem with that. Just don't make it an AK-47 knockoff and it's all good. I've never said that I want to do away with all guns, just autos, semis, and handguns. Those serve no real purpose except for killing people.

And I do know a great deal about polls...and that the one you are referring to is most likely corrupt. You see, the groups who do these kinds of polls do them to support their arguments, so they intentionally poll people who are most likely to support their same views. Non profits do this all the time to justify requests for funding and in the grant writing process. My home was chosen for a national drug abuse and awareness survey done by a National Health Organization. I happened to be living in a shit hole apartment at the time. The lady showed up at my door and informed me that our address had been selected for the survey. So she pulls out a little handheld computer and starts asking about our household memebers...to see if anyone QUALIFIED to take the survey. They age was from 13 to 25 or maybe 27 at the highest. So, the survey specifically targetted those MOST likely to be using drugs. It wasn't a fair, even and widespread survey...it was stacked to show the results the group doing the survey wanted them to show. I never trust polls.

"I've never said that I want to do away with all guns, just autos, semis, and handguns."

Leaving what, exactly???? Why not just say "I don't want to ban all guns, just the vast majority of them." That'd be much more acurate.

"BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL, THEREFORE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN WIN ON."

Then please explain the 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 election cycles.

How many seats and how much control have we lost since the Brady Bill and AW bans were passed? Wasn't losing the Presidency and BOTH houses of Congress enough for you?

Missouri, Montana, West Virginia (between this and the fact that his environmental proposals threatened coal workers) and his home state of Tennessee...and I would guess it did not help much in New Hampshire either, because they are very anti-government in general there (if the libertarians go through with their plan to collectively move to a state and take it over, NH might be their best bet) and it is a pretty rural state...and Gore lost New Hampshire by such a narrow margin that I think it belongs on the list as well. Plus, Larry Sabato thinks Dean or Kerry could probably carry New Hampshire in addition to all the Gore states...which would have made the difference last time but thanks to reapportionment we now need New Hampshire and another state. But I think the gun issue will be a major plus for Dean if he makes it to the general, because if Gore lost those states primarily because of it then just neutralizing the issue will go a long way.

One of his supporters just posted a quote he made that will set all 2nd Amendment voters into a tizzy. NH will NEVER elect him now. He's screwed in the South and the West for the same reason. I know his supporters are going to get mad at me, but that's how it's going to be. It's not intended to be a bash...he was just VERY stupid to make the comment.

his anti-gun stance.

WJC was the most anti-gun pres in history and he won twice...

He keeps making some very careless mistakes, and this one is going to be costly. It's like he keeps shooting himself in the foot. I really get the impression that he just doesn't want the job, to tell you the truth. It's as if Kerry is running because he wants the title and image while Dean is running because he wants the actual job. That's just the impression I get from the way they both behave. Kerry just seems more interested in "looking cool" than anything else. Dean's interested in listening to what people think and feel, and addressing their concerns. It's such a stark difference.

FDR and LBJ were both much more anti-gun than Clinton was.

but I would like to see some research that supports that theory. If that theory is wrong it doesn't help Dems to subscribe to it.

Clinton carried all those states and he was arguably as anti-gun as Gore.

earlier today and he confirmed this about himself. He's a Union electrician, and pretty narrow minded re social issues IMO, so I was surprised he said this, but he did.

They're worse than the lowlifes in the NRA leadership.............

And quite honest in his comments. You have to learn to separate the NRA from gun rights. They only represent a small portion of gun owners. I said this elsewhere in this thread, but it bears repeating....

Democrats talking about "gun control" to hunters and gun rights people is the equivalent of Republicans talking about "regulating abortion" to pro-choice people. It goes over about as well as an elephant pissing on a flat rock...and they DON'T TRUST YOU! There you have it.

"If a Freeper would abandon Bush over signing a gun control law"
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrre.....

If the Democrats hop in bed with the NRA on guns, then there will be a new party to crop up.

The Humane Society of the United States has more members than the NRA and the NRA opposses almost every piece of legislation the HSUS promotes.

So to the NRA? I saw FUCK em...I flip them off everyday I ride by the going home on I-66.

as conservative as anyone but willing to vote for a dem over bush?

ya know, DUers occassionaly play in freepvile.......hehehehehe

the fallout from Bush Sr's 1989 executive order. Pro gunners felt totally betrayed, and voted third party to show their displeasure. That's how Clinton got in office in the first place. If we gave them a genuine pro-gun candidate, why WOULDN'T they vote for us?