Which side of the great GD gun debate has won you over?

Assuming of course that you had a previous different opinion.

The anti-gun/anti-2nd amendment/anti-RKBA crowd?

The pro-gun/pro-2nd amendment/pro-RKBA crowd?

Which side makes the most most convincing argument?

Or are you still undecided/neutral on the issue?

For reference...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5405711

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5400404

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5372947

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=116084&mesg_id=116084

Pro-Gun rights and Pro-2nd Amendment. I never posted to those particular threads...as I'd already been involved in a HUGE thread about two weeks ago that was started by Walt Starr.

I already said my piece two weeks ago. I own firearms myself and I'm also for responsible gun ownership...there's NOTHING wrong with guns or with owning guns...it's all down to how you behave with your gun.

thermonuclear device. You know, literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment which doesn't limit or specify which arms. They're all arms.
If not, then you just support YOUR interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

And, of course, we could go on on that basis forever ....

There's no need for individual citizens to own a machine gun, a mortar, a bazooka, a thermonuclear device...a rocket launcher...or that sort of thing.

Handguns, shotguns...that sort of stuff is fine.

I did comment that I'm pro-gun and pro-2nd and for responsible gun ownership...running around with a machine gun is hardly being responsible. I didn't support the overturning of the Assault Weapons Ban, I support child locks, I support background checks.

Is this my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, maybe it is, but there you have it. There's nothing wrong with people owning firearms. I don't support the right to raise a Militia.

On Edit: I hate to add this, but it is correct, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

The one seen by the NRA, the one seen by the gun banners, which ?

It's not sufficient to deal with the problem by being "Pro-2nd Amendment".

A literal interpretation gets the open-ended absurdist position I posed. A highly constrained one which leans completely to the "militia" clause gets an unenforceable, non-respected set of laws that will look like Prohibition and its evil step-child the drug laws.

So we are left with defining and accepting a reasonable middle. I actually agree with the details of your position but merely labelling it pro-2nd doesn't cut it in terms of the political problem where assault weapons are the nexus at which the pro and anti- positions engage.

"Arms" can mean a whole lot of things from a slingshot to a fully automatic firearm to an anti-aircraft gun to a Minuteman missile.

But, lets be realistic about this... other than the most extreme RKBA supporters, none of us are advocating possession of nuclear warheads or other means of mutually assured destruction.

What I'm asking is that has anyone had a change of opinion or reevaluated their opinion regarding the 2nd amendment the past few years?

(for me at least) that the 2nd Amendment places no restrictions on the number, type, or size of "arms" that can be borne. It therefore was never meant to apply to John Q. Idiot stumbling out of a tavern in Muskokie.

arms are part of a well regulated militia.

and a well regulated militia, we have, it's called the National Guard. you want a gun, join the well regulated militia.

Under current circumstances, no reading of the original intent of the founders holds water. They either wanted a militia to defend against invasion, or they wanted people to have arms to keep the government in check. So either people can have arms as part of a well regulated militia, or they can have arms to keep the power of the government in check. The former is obvious, join the National Guard, or make all adults part of the Guard, like in Switzerland. The latter means people should have access to weapons capable of keeping the government in check, handguns ain't gonna cut it there, we need access to everything the government has.

in 1792, the difference between civilian weaponry and military weaponry wasn't that great, you could basically own a battleship, if you could afford it, and people did (they were called privateers). People could own cannon, and the same personal guns that soldiers had. Now the difference is much greater, the military has access to weapons that civilians don't. So really, handguns aren't going to keep the military in check.

there is nothing whatsoever, no possible reading, that allows arms to be kept for personal security. That is a simple artifice created out of the document. There is nothing in the Consitution or the documents about civilian use of arms, it was clearly intended for the security of the STATE. So maybe it was a compromise? but there is nothing in the Federalist papers, or the Anti-federalist papers, concerning the possession of weapons for personal protection.

now, to be fair, you could make a contextual reading that the real intention was to prevent a class-stratified society, where only the nobility could own weapons, like in England, and that would be revolutionary. but there is nothing in any contextual text that implies that, no letter, no handbill. It was an accidental impact, I think. The well regulated militia they refer to was led by upper class men, they would still be in control.

by the way, I think that line "well regulated militia" could lead to a legal draft, it could be used to justify the forced inclusion of the citizenry into said militia.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And welcome :hi:

Very few Dems want to limit anyone's ability to defend themselves, assuming the boundaries of "defense" are reasonable. There are many pro-gun Dems, especially in the southwest that are very successful.

I personally hate guns and think the second amendment is interpreted too liberally, but that's just me. If people believe they need guns to protect themselves in their homes and on their property, I say go right ahead.

This issue isn't a deal-breaker for me, and we should not cede the pro-gun position to Republicans. I encourage Dems to support gun rights if their constituency is steeped in gun culture.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"The vast majority of Americans are centrist in their political philosophy" - Prove it. Define "centrist."

"America isn't predominantly liberal." - Wrong! 99.99% of Americans are liberal... See, I can make up stuff too. :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm a Centrist Democrat...with a strong Populist streak.

However, even I'm going to tell you that what put Junior in office the first time was Katherine Harris and Antonin Scalia.

What put Junior in office the second time...well, that's a highly debatable point.

On Edit: My whole family are a part of that Centrist Majority you mention and they ALL voted for John Kerry...and my whole family own guns and are pro-2nd Amendment.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think that both in 2000 and ESPECIALLY in 2004, a HUGE part of the reason why Junior "won" was that the media were whoring for him 24/7, they pumped him up and propped him up, they hardly EVER criticized him, they IGNORED damaging information about him, they covered-up damaging information about him...it was endless.

They also played a HUGE part in pushing the Swift Boat lying campaign, and they knew that those Swift Boaters were full of horseshit and they let them on every TV show to rant and lie...they never invited John Kerry on or anybody from the Kerry campaign on to put their side across.

Media bias in all it's full disgusting and pimping glory.

The other part that the media DIDN'T play in 2004 was played by DIEBOLD. In 2000 the DIEBOLD role was played by Katherine Harris and Antonin Scalia.

By Mondale and Dukakis standards, the Kerry/Edwards campaign was pretty Centrist.

My favorite candidates for 2008 are John Edwards, Mark Warner and Wesley Clark.

Why did he move to Kerry's position on assault weapons, I wonder?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl:

"Do you think that a liberal majority put him in office?" - No, I think Diebold and voter fraud did.

"The centrist majority fused with the far right and elected Bush." - Prove it.

I'm still waiting for you to prove:

"The vast majority of Americans are centrist in their political philosophy" - Prove it. Define "centrist."

"America isn't predominantly liberal." - Hogwash.

There are, however, Red Commie Stalinists, wrapped up in their Chinese manufactured flags, praying to their x-tian war god, who CALL themselves "Americans," but most Americans believe in liberty, freedom, etc., - those are 'LIBERAL' concepts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Yes, but we sure could learn a lot from them.

Have you lived there? I have, as well as Central and South America. We should try to be a lot more like them, but I doubt most Americans are educated or experienced enough to realise this. Too bad... so sad.

"But I don't believe that a far left agenda will ever play with a huge percentage of the American populace." - You might re-think the use of talking points like this whopper.

I agree with you, though, that the GOP will be thrown out of power in 2006, for a very long time. As well, I think many will be brought up on war crimes charges... Hope Springs Eternal. :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Swamp Rat is a dear heart...I truly adore him and his posts and photoshops.

I assure you, he is NOT an "inane shit stirrer"

He's a sweetie pie :)

:* :loveya:

:9 :loveya:

Oh heck...I meant :* :loveya:

That other one gets me a :spank:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He is a hero in the literal sense... you can trust me, I like Milk Duds and cherry flavored lollipops.

Like I said in the beginning, "good luck!" :D

:popcorn:

Bordello "on the other side of the tracks" that time ;)

:popcorn:

Were you spying on me at the Kitty Kat House?!? :yoiks:

:D

Was I spying? Heck sweetie I was in charge of FILMING you...from behind the two-way mirror above the chaise longue. Big Bertha said you were her BESTEST customer EVER.

I'm keeping the film...until the National Enquirer gives me a good price ;)

:D

:wow:

anyone even vaguely apparently left of right on some issues is "very liberal."

But the whopper perpetrated on the Republicans is the myth that the Bush Administration is "conservative." It isn't. As some of the old real "conservatives" will aver.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And it does deprive others of their pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when, for example, people don't store guns safely and children access them; when spousal abusers and other violent people get them at gun shows or through "instant" checks that don't provide full information; when gun owners aren't trained in their use and storage; when manufacturers have no regulations on safety standards, etc...

that you would consider extreme? I don't know their positions on this issue, so please enlighten me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so I'm asking you what positions you find offensive. That's kind of how it works; you make an accusatory statement and back it up with facts. I have not heard anything from these people that would raise a red flag on this issue, hence, my need for enlightenment.

This poster has provided NOTHING to back up his/her statements. :eyes:

During the campaign last year, I had to walk by a car with a "Kerry Will Take Your Guns" bumpersticker on my way into my place of work, and this really raised my ire. What's worse is I think the car belongs to a guy that I work with and actually like.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Good luck!

:hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

we DON'T "live in an increasingly dangerous society", we simply live with an increasingly corrupt media which uses fear to boost ratings (and our politicians do the same).

Not a thumbsucking bed wetter here, so I don't feel the urge to cling to a false sense of security by owning a firearm. For those that simply love a long hard object that pumps other, smaller objects into another human being's body...well, hey, own what you want to own. Just don't be surprised if someday it is used against you or a someone you love (as happened to a friend's late four year old son).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't have one, but I will.

To be used in desparate self-defense only.

Should the people be allowed to have guns? Machine guns? Where do you draw the line?

Yes, no, and I don't know.

The problem is social, it doesnt have a single thing to do with guns. I dont think people can buy nuclear weapons or bazooka's, since they are not for sale to the general public they should be illegal to own. Gun control is taking away rights, it punishes the good gun owners who are the vast majority. The harder, yet vastly rewarding endeavor is improving our society.

to the point that people with guns don't kill people?

Until or unless that happens, I'm for gun control. I don't see it as "punishment."

should people be allowed to own bazookas? nukes?

of course not, such things should be illegal.

but our Consitution does allow the right to bear arms.


control is the key word

Enforce the laws that are already on the books. Catch and lock up the "bad guys". Before you start adding more meaningless "control" on paper, try to implement the rules already in place.

Stupid bumper sticker slogan but with a huge grain of truth: When guns are a crime only criminals will have guns.

Gun control doesn't necessarily mean "guns are a crime."

100 percent employment with living wages, national health care, improving education. Banning guns, and working towards banning guns accomplishes none of these. The fact is the vast majority of people are responsible gun owners.

You certainly wouldnt abolish abortion just because some people use it for birth control, nor would you abolish the welfare system just because a few abuse that system.

How long will it take for "100 percent employment with living wages, national health care, improving education"?

At least until or unless all that happens, I believe gun control is necessary.

Eddie Izzard: "They say guns don't kill people, people do....but uh, I think the gun helps. I think it helps, I think if you just went up to someone and went BANG!! That's not gonna kill too many people is it? You'd have to be real dodgy in the heart to die from that."

:D

By the way,

"... if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, German, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. You think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?"

Even rocks and sticks. It's the only way to true freedom and peace. Then we can all live in relative peace and not have to worry about tripping over rocks, and why, let's also get rid of trees!

the second ammendment guarantees the ownership of guns.Of course that only applies if you belong to a "well regulated militia"...We democrats do well with mixed feelings toward this rule...If it means all weapons at all times, it means your dippy neighbor (think the biggest whacko in ten blocks) can have nukes and should not be
hobbled, yet there must be some middle point between this and where 200 hours of training allows more than possession of an air rifle...I myself, as an ex-military type with good weapons training,yet having an Irish temper traded ALL my guns for a motorcycle when I came home.And it was good-some folks should not have weapons at home...In short..I believe that some gun control is common sense and that unfettered gun ownership will merely force me to match the nearest unfettered whacko to me...

as somthing thier not. And I will not listen to anyone who just insults people that disagree with them. This debate is far too important for that type of schtick. And it really takes away from the credibilty from the poster as well.As for me I am right in the middle of the debate and Ill be watching all sides closely.

I am pro gun control. I don't believe that makes me "anti-2nd amendment," though.

It's not gun "control," but "regulation," as required in the 2nd amendment. Gun owners should prove they are eligible to own guns under the law, and know how to operate them safely.

I want an "I don't care" option.

pro gun ownership and second amendment...:)

just hold your fire when you see me on the street:hide:

be it with hands, feet, elbows, knees, sticks, stones, or firearms...

Anything that deprives a law-abiding citizen the chance to protect him or her self, or others, cannot be tolerated.

Though I reserve the right to torment gun nuts. ;)

People have a right to their guns. People also must use trigger locks when storing guns.

I once read a book in which was recounted the story that occurred in the 30s in Germany. The jest of the story was that some liberal was assassinated one night, the next day the Nazis was joking that it was just like a liberal not to be armed and defend himself.

I don't intend to be like that person.

Everyone worries that it is the liberals that will take away the guns. In truth it is the conservatives, they cannot afford to let the oppressed be armed.

... other than a few valuable (nonfirable) antique rifles passed on to me by my old man, but I'm pro reasonable gun ownership. What I oppose are things like plastic guns, designed to defeat medal detectors, teflon ammo, designed to defeat kevlar, and cheap ass saturday night specials that make up a significant percentage of the guns used in the commission of a crime.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I own a plastic gun, it's orange in color...you fill it up with water and fire it and it soaks the person you're firing at.

I call my orange plastic gun...a water pistol.

We can make responsible laws for driving cars, operating machinery, interacting in the workplace, and so on. Each of these laws impacts many of our rights protected in the constitution, and yet we manage to find the right balance and have responsible laws for the safety and general wellfare of our society.

We can have some responsible laws about guns, and it will not be the end of civilization as we know it. I can't go into a crowded theatre and yell fire, but that law setting boundaries on my speech didn't destroy the first ammendment for me. Responsible gun laws will not destroy the second ammendment.

But endlessly debating this issue in the face of things so much more urgent and pressing might destroy the country so...


"... if you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, German, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. You think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?"

Nothing more than handguns, shotguns, or hunting rifles (no I don't hunt, but there's a lot of people who do) in civilian hands.