If the assault weapons ban is popularly supported. then........

why are the Repukes who voted (with a few Dems actually) in 1996 to repeal it still in firm control of the US House of Represenatives?

After all the House of Reps repealed it.

I think the AWB is not a huge voting issue.

Opinions?

One wrongful death from any firearm is one too many, but time has proven that criminals by definition refuse to obey gun control laws. It's like another drop in a cloudburst for them to be charged with a weapons charge which is usually the least of their worries.

IF gun control truly works, please explain to me why Boston, NYC, LA and Washington D.C, followed closely by Chicago, all cities that have near total bans and controls on firearms have the highest gun crime rates in the country. Criminals by definition are lawbreakers. Breaking gun control laws is no big deal.

I know whereof I speak. I was a supervisor in a penitentiary for several years. I checked files and listened to the inmates.
Gun bans mean nothing to the violent criminal.

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

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

I'm much more interested in keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, such as felons and the criminally insane.

What cost ratio benefit are you willing to make us endure?
1 to 1?
1 to 1,000?
1 to 1,000,000?

Let's take for example the AWB renewal (assuming that you are in favor of the renewal):

How many crimes will it stop? I can't think of a single criminal that would be detered by it myself. They will just substitute a different weapon for committing their crime. So why extend it?

If it saves ONE life, it's worth it IMHO.

Evidently we are supposed to let dangerous weaponry back on the streets until there IS a bigger problem...then listen to the RKBA crowd wring their hands amd lie about "feel good legislation."

There's no reason not to renew and strengthen the ban.

...to carry that out?

Seriously, you would be willing to enact a law that would save one random life somewhere even though it would inconveinence millions of law abiding gun owners?

.....compared to the inconvenience of having your life cut short??

"law-abiding gun owners" seem unwilling to abide with this very sensible law, isn't it?

...but just how far are you willing to go to carry out this 'if it saves just one life' stuff?

We could save countless thousands of lives by reducing the national speed limit to 50 MPH. Thousands more if we drop it to 25. How many people are you willing to let die for the conveinence of going faster?

If it save ONE life it is worth it.

aren't cars registered and drivers licensed. And doesn' t the Department of Transportation regulate their manufacture and distribution? And aren't car makers liable for damages caused by their products? And is there a problem caused by cars being sold to unqualified people without any sort of required paperwork?

<sarcasm>Of course, who can forget how licensing and registration was just the first step to the government seizing all cars.</sarcasm>

and use it on my own property it is not required to be licensed registered or insured. If I want to move the car to a friends property and use it I can put it on a trailer and use it on his property legally also without registration or licensing. The current legislation to protect firearm manufaturers from frivolous lawsuits does not prevent lawsuits based on a defect in the product. I can purchase a car without a background check a waiting period and I can purchase as many cars as I want when ever I want as long as I have the money to do so. I do not need to show a "need" to purchase or own cars.

the image of you tooling around your front lawn in an SUV is one I think all students of the absurd ought to savor. Watch out for the garden gnome!

Wonder how many cars are never driven anywhere but somebody's own property? Five? Six?

"I can purchase a car without a background check a waiting period and I can purchase as many cars as I want when ever I want as long as I have the money to do so. I do not need to show a "need" to purchase or own cars. "
Yeah, and it's such a long way from the birdbath to the hedge....

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

You may not see much of it in the Garden State, but in rural areas it is quite common.

And heap well deserved ridicule it is too.

:puke:

....you're dragging out that old, worn-out "driving my car on private property" argument. It's totally unrealistic, because hardly anyone drives solely on private property.

And driving is a priviledge, which can be revoked for cause.

was in response to the "tired old argument that guns should regulated like cars".
A license is not required to drive on private property. Driving on public roadways is a privelege and can be revoked with cause. Carrying a concealed weapon in Arizona is licensed and the license can be revoked with cause also.

:scared:

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Unlike guns.

I guess I'll have to stop driving that unregistered, non-street-legal '70 Bronco on the family farm, seeing as it's unrealistic.

So you are willing to toss aside hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives in order to 'save one life'.

Hmm.

Interesting logic.

Sure getting rid guns out of the hands of the non-criminals will saves lives.

But keeping guns in those same hands also saves lives.

Which set of lives saved is more important?

...since the AWB went into effect whose lives would have been saved if someone had access to an asault rifle?

Unless you can answer that question, your point is moot.

...would not have been committed with a subsitute gun?

I can't imagine a criminal thinking "I can't get the gun I want so I just won't commit the crime". Can you?

unless there was someone who died of frustration because he could not satisfy his fetish...

My point cannot be empirically proven, and you know that or else you would not have made your ultimatum.

But I am sure there are many people whose lives could have been saved if they had had access to a weapon with which to defend themselves.

People who would have made that choice if their government (be it a city, county, state, or higher) had not disallowed them from legally possessing such a weapon. People who were put at the mercy of the criminal because of the ignorant, misguided few who want to enforce their own personal fear of weapons upon all.

"I am sure there are many people whose lives could have been saved if they had had access to a weapon with which to defend themselves."
And not just any weapon but an assault weapon? Yeah, surrrrrrrre....

"People who were put at the mercy of the criminal because of the ignorant, misguided few who want to enforce their own personal fear of weapons upon all."
Gee, seems more like people are being put at the mercy of a criminal because of the corrupt gun industry and the scummy GOP pandering to an ignorant misguided few.

...that the assault weapon ban has saved lives.

The lives of a criminal cut short because of a citizen using a weapon to defend themself, or the lives of citizens cut short because they are barred from having a weapon with which to defend themselves against the criminal?

I choose the citizen, you seem to be choosing the criminal.

What criminal would stop committing crimes because his, supposed, first choice in weaponry wasn't available?

If you make it harder for a killer to get his hands on a killing machine, you have fewer killings.

...how does banning one group of guns stop a crime from being committed?

...and explain the logic to me.

....and can't obtain a suitable weapon for that purpose, then he can't be a sniper.

you want to ban hunting rifles so people can't get "sniper weapons"? Is that what you're saying?

...practically any rifle could have been used in the DC 'sniper' shootings.

whew!

This reply was and is flame-bait. There is not one possible way the AWB has saved a life and there never will be. I know and you know it. If you are still gonna disagree atleast give me a scenerio of how this peice of shit feel good legislation could have saved a life.

...you usually think things out quite well before responding.

What I'm hearing is if you think there is the slightest chance of a law saving one life somewhere you could care less how it affects law abiding people.

I've heard that cats sometimes smother sleeping babies. I would like to propose that all cats be turned in and put to sleep so this can not happen again.

"I've heard that cats sometimes smother sleeping babies."
Do they smother 8.2% of sleeping babies, roe?

"According to the most recent statistics made by the ATF, in 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes; By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and by November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent."

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01706.html

to see the difference when someone says assault weapon vs. assault rifle. An assault weapon by law could be a pistol that holds more than 10 rounds in the magazine. Don't believe me? Read the law for yourself. For example, if I use a Glock pistol with a 17 round magazine in a crime then by law I used an "assault weapon". Now if I use the same pistol but instead of the 17 round magazine I use a postban compliant 10 round magazine then that is not considered an assault weapon and will not be recorded as such. Actual "assault rifles" such as the AR-15 and the AK variants are used in less than 1% of all gun crime. When you change the phrase to assault weapon then obviously the percentage increases being as it now encompasses more guns. It is very simple logic.

AR and AK variants are "assault weapons" under the definition and not assault rifles. An M-16 or a true AK is an assault rifle.

but you have to speak in terms so some of these idiots can understand better. When they hear "assault weapon" they automatically think of AK's and AR's and such and forget that there are probably more pistols out there that fall under the definition "assault weapon" then there are rifles.

I've had it up to HERE with pro-gunners bitching and moaning about the thought of it getting harder to get acces to guns, while thousands ar dying on our streets each year.

And my position bacame firmer after seeing "Bowling for Columbine" a few weeks ago. There is no need for all the killing in this country. We have a BIG problem that needs to be addressed. And gun control is part of the solution - not the entire solution, but part of it.

(BTW, that thing about cats and babies is a old wives tale.)

or someone you know the victim of gun violence? Just curious.

John F. Kennedy - killed by a gun.
Martin Luthur King, Jr. - killed by a gun.
Bobby Kennedy - killed by a gun.
John Lennon - killed by a gun.

I could go on, but you get the idea.......

...gun banner. Have you changed your mind?

I simply believe that some weapons are unsuitable for general circulation (such as machine guns and Uzis), and certain people need to be kept as far away from ALL guns as possible.

..you would support any law that would save one life.

Can you tell me what an Uzi even is? Machine guns including Uzi's have been heavily regulated since 1934. Way before the Uzi was even created it was highly restricted. In order to legally own a machine gun you have to register it with the ATF and forfeit your 4th amendment right on the spot. Also, no civilian can purchase a new machine gun that was manufactured after 1986. Only pre-1986 machine guns are available for legal purchase. So this heavily limits the number available to the civilian market as it is. I certainly hope you don't think that an "assault weapon", as defined by law, is a machine gun. This is the whole misconception that the public already has.

...too many Miami Vice reruns!

Hollywood makes everything sooo dramatic. Tell you the truth, if I were to ever have the misfortune to get in a gunfight, I hope the sucker has one of these "hollywood assualt weapons"! You know, the kind that fires full auto and never needs a mag change!
All it takes is one well placed shot. As the D.I.'s at Parris Island used to say, "one shot,one kill."

Now what was the advantage of these so called "assualt weapons" again?

most of the badguys used Stens? What self-respecting badguy would use a Sten?!?!? That's like using a yugo as a getaway car... ;-)

Also, no civilian can purchase a new machine gun that was manufactured after 1986.

I am a civilian, and I can.

he's an 07/02 SOT...

Some here would say that such a fact would make him a "master criminal" since he has evil machineguns...

you apply to BATFE for an 07 manufacturer's license, pay the 02 SOT, and become a manufacturer of machineguns. You can then legally make post-sample machineguns from scratch. Costs around $1000 a year for the licenses.

how many legally owned machineguns have been used criminally?

Two by cops, one by a govt employee while off duty.

I've heard since 1934 that only one legally owned machine gun was used to kill someone and it was a cop who pulled the trigger.

and the last two were during the 1990's by SWAT cops. One I think was in Rhode Island and one I think in NJ.

actual civilian owned machine guns or department owned?

and your right- I believe the other two were department owned.

But they were all done by GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES and not Joe Schmoe the ex-Marine collector.

I'd love for you to produce ANY evidence of any Republican RUNNING for office who said "Let's put assault weapons back on the street."

The first one's easy.

Ron Paul. He's got to run every 2 years
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst042103.htm

I will see if I can find some more.

Even the GOP has been trying to ditch Dr. No for a while.

In New Jersey, the sorry sumbitch Forrester who lost to Lautenberg had to run around the state denying he had ever promised to repeal the ban.....but nobody believed him.

We're supposed to run the country by what the craziest Republican in one of the most backwards states thinks? Uh-uh.....

while most congressmen from Texas from EITHER PARTY have yet to endorse any ban bill.

in case you hadn't noticed.

another easy one

Don Young of Alaska.

http://www.house.gov/donyoung/press/p19960322_1.htm

Let me see if any of the reps in close races in 2002 said anything about the AWB.

Both Young and Paul recived more than 2/3s of the vote in their districts in 2002.

" I now find myself relating to, agreeing with and supporting Ron Wyden, Paul Wellstone, Dick Durbin, Mark Udall, John Kerry and even Bernie Sanders - all the while believing clowns like Tom DeLay, Don Young, Larry Craig, Helen Chenowith and Rush Limbaugh are a bunch of jack-booted psychopathic thugs. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/08/09_once.html

"SEPTEMBER 11 TOOK everyone by surprise, but what has struck us most forcefully is how quickly right-wing mainstream extremists in the U.S. moved to capitalize on the World Trade Center atrocities.
The day after the attacks, U.S. Representative Don Young (R-Alaska) announced that there was a "strong possibility" that "eco-terrorists" based in Seattle had hijacked the airplanes that brought down the twin towers in New York. "If you watched what happened in Genoa, in Italy, and even in Seattle, there's some expertise in that field," Young told the ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS. "I'm not sure they're that dedicated but eco-terrorists --which are really based in Seattle -- there's a strong possibility that could be one of the groups," Congressman Young said."

http://www.ericfrancis.com/issues/0305/extremist.html

"A year after a Texas administrative law judge dashed hopes for a just resolve to a years-long campaign to hold corporate raider Charles Hurwitz responsible for the collapse of a Savings and Loan he controlled, Hurwitz has been billed $206,000 in restitution....Hurwitz ally right-wing Alaska Republican Don Young even convened a special Congressional task force that harassed citizen groups by subpoenaeing records of any communications with activists and organizations who supported a Debt For Nature swap to resolve the issue."

http://www.jailhurwitz.com/hurwitzSettlement.10-29-2002.html

"House Resource Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, conducted the hearing to launch his bill, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, which requires congressional approval before the U.N. can designate any American site under either of its international resource conservation programs. ...Then-Rep. Bill Richardson, D-N.M. (now U.S. ambassador to the U.N.) satirized Young's bill last year as "the Black Helicopters Prevention Act," a reference to beliefs of some right-wing groups that foreign troops are training over U.S. soil in black helicopters."

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1997/Jun-11-Wed-1997/news/5528080.html

"As inappropriate as Stark’s conduct was, Republicans are habitually rude. The night before the incident, Don Young of Alaska interrupted Nita Lowey of suburban New York while she had the floor and told her “you don’t know what you’re talking about.” "

http://www.liberalslant.com/bst073003.htm

Wow, sounds like the scum of the earth support lifting the ban, all right!

attacking the person not the persons views/argument.
:hurts:

Where was another DUer attacked?

I meant to point out the tactic of pointing to some individuals and labeling them as right wing loonies etc. is a fallacy and does nothing to refute the argument/position presented.
Certain posters like to trot out references by the KKK to the rights guaranteed by the Second Ammendment and dismiss the claim based on the fact that the KKK is racist. However the fact that the KKK is racist has no bearing whatsoever on whether the Second Ammendment is an individual or collective right. This type of falacious argument is called Ad Hominem.
See the explanation here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

You don't like the idea that right wing loonies be identified as right wing loonies?

What was the name of this place again?

"does nothing to refute the argument/position presented."
Yeah? It certainly shakes my confidence in the sanity of someone to learn they sponsored the Black Helicopter Prevention Act...just as it shakes my confidence in their honesty to learn about their scummy association with an S&L bandit.

"Certain posters like to trot out references by the KKK to the rights guaranteed by the Second Ammendment and dismiss the claim based on the fact that the KKK is racist. "
Gee, certain people like to pretend that the Second Amendmennt confers an individual right to own guns...a LIE promoted mostly by folks like John AshKKKroft and the KKK.

"However the fact that the KKK is racist has no bearing whatsoever"
Gee, and yet the RKBA crowd here keeps piping up every five minutes to assure us that gun control is racist...which is total horseshit.

" on whether the Second Ammendment is an individual or collective right."
If you want to settle that, ask yourself why the NRA never sues on Second Amendmennt grounds to prove its individual rights argument isn't the horseshit the rest of us know it is...

In the abusive form of the ad hominem, instead of attacking the assertion the person who made the assertion is attacked. Just because the KKK believe a certian position does not make the position false on its face. For example, it is a fact that members of the KKK believe drug use is bad, and they oppose drug legalization. Does this mean drug use is good? Just because the KKK opposes drug legalization does that mean I should automatically support legalization to spite the KKK? No, of course not. Attacking the person distracts from the question at hand. It changes the subject by talking about the person who makes an argument, not the argument itself.

People do these things when they want to draw a relationship between someone who asserts the second admendment is an individual right and those who hold prejudicial beliefs. This is essentially guilt by association, insulting and fallacious, and has no place in polite debate. This being an internet message board kind of shoots that in the head, but it's nice to dream about polite discourse all the same.

--
Edit for typos.

"People do these things when they want to draw a relationship between someone who asserts the second admendment is an individual right and those who hold prejudicial beliefs."
You mean like John AshKKKroft? Ted Nugent? Larry Pratt? Grover Norquist?

"This is essentially guilt by association"
Remind us again, which group is it that has an enemies list on its website?

I think you know very well what you're doing when you post insults and distractions. You certianly seem smart enough to know better.

This is exactly the same as if I said that anarchism is wrong because Ted Kaczynski was an anarchist.

For example:

A. Kaczynski is bad
B. Kaczynski advocates revolution to overthrow capitalism
therefore
C. Advocating the overthrow of capitalism is bad

This is the same as:

A. Ashcroft is bad
B. Ashcroft opposes gun control
therefore
C. Opposing gun control is bad

The fact that Kaczynski is a murderer, does not mean that his political beliefes are discredited solely and particularly on his violent actions. I am sure that there are people on this very message board that would strongly disagree judging anarchism by Kaczynski, or communism by the Weathermen, and so on.

I see gun nut logic is as shaky as ever....

"The fact that Kaczynski is a murderer, does not mean that his political beliefes are discredited solely and particularly on his violent actions."
But nobody considered Kaczynski a leading figure in the anrachist community..indeed, he was unknown to all but the members of his family. Nor do anarchists hold him up as a shining light to follow..

With the rotten and corrupt gun rights movement, the actual leadership is racist. John AshKKKroft, the leading legal "scholar" built his career keeping Kansas City schools segregated as long as he could. John Lott, the "brains" of the outfit, is currently pimping for Rush Limbaugh's bigotry. The board of directors of the NRA, the largest gun rights group is riddled with racist imbeciles like Ted Nugent and Grover Norquist. And the next largest group, the Gun Owners of America, is headed by a guy so racist that Pat Buchanan had to back away from him in public.

I don't do this, but there are some unscrupulous people who do.

I have heard people say the same thing about communists. Joseph Stalin styled his dictatorhip as communist, and contemporary communists are tarred by the stalinist brush. To say communism is wrong because Staling killed millions of people is the same fallacy, guilt by association. Certianly he committed vast crimes against humanity, but the argument is whether that is really communism after all and I don't think it is.

I don't care for either John Ashcroft or Rush Limbaugh either, but that does not mean that all of their political positions are necessarily the wrong ones. (I happen to disagree with them on most things, and personally think Ashcroft suffers from the broken clock syndrome when it comes to the second amendment.) One must explain why such positions are wrong, not point to someone who holds the opinion and conclude that it is wrong on its face. That is exactly what you're doing when you claim people who believe the second amendment describes an individual right as racists.

It's a cop out, frankly, and so was when you whined about your thread being locked. You know, the one in which you called those who hold the individual-right view as being racists. I've had threads locked before, but I don't cry about it as being an orchestrated attempt to censor me. I find it rather pitiable that you're reduced to calling people racists and Nazis to get your points across.

I call Godwin's.

The RKBA crowd themselves selected specimens like Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt to leadership postions...

"One must explain why such positions are wrong, not point to someone who holds the opinion and conclude that it is wrong on its face."
Well, Koresh knows I've done that too....so strange that this sort of pious objection of yours doesn't pop up whenever we get those horseshit "gun control is racist" threads from the RKBA crowd.

"That is exactly what you're doing when you claim people who believe the second amendment describes an individual right as racists."
No, what I am doing is reporting the actual views of individuals who lead the movement to pretend that he second amendment describes an individual right. It's not me pretending Ted Nugent is in the board of directors of the NRA...the NRA put the racist shitheel on its board themselves.

"I find it rather pitiable that you're reduced to calling people racists and Nazis to get your points across."
I find it even more disgraceful that the RKBA crowd is actually following racists...or denying the actual existence of REAL Nazis in their midst..

And when someone's position is shared with a group like the KKK.....

pretty much every other group of people decent people might support is on a list of enemies drawn up by the gun nuts.

is made up of Nazis and pedophiles because they share the same position on the First Amendment?

RKBA "logic"...no wonder you guys think Mary Rosh is a scientist.

Please show us where the ACLU says it shares the views of those it represents.

and the ACLU agreed with them. That's certainly as much of a convergence of beliefs as you suggest exists between pro-gunners and the KKK...

I don't think Mary Rosh was a scientist, I thought she was the last person you dated.

The ACLU supported the Nazis right to march...they did not endorse the Nazis repellent views.

Or are you trying to pretend the American Nazi party is only a marching club, like the Mummers?



"I don't think Mary Rosh was a scientist, I thought she was the last person you dated."
Sorry, it's the racist RKBA ccrowd thatt spend their time romancing this turd.

on one very very narrow issue.

But maybe you can sell that to the right winng loonies at highroadrage.com.

Huh? Then why represent them?

but you're still full of crap on this...

The ACLU argued that the Nazis had a right under the first amendment to march....the Nazis themselves don't believe their opponents ought to have such rights.

haven't you ever heard of the legal concept of "standing" or a case called "Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife"?

The ACLU and the Nazis had to be IN AGREEMENT to bring the case. the ACLU couldn't bring it on it's own, they had no standing.

you're 100% full of it....

But I'm sure you can find some statement by the ACLU in FAVOR of Nazism to show me wrong...

And when someone's position is shared with a group like the KKK.....

I like pizza and I'm sure the KKK likes pizza that doesn't fucking mean I like the KKK.

It's really pretty damn simple so that big fat paintbrush can just go back into the closet.

Yeah...almost all the politicans who support so-called "gun rights" are racist, the leaders of the associations supporting so-called "gun rights" are racist, the leading scientist supporting so-called "gun rights" is racist, and a huge chunk of the crowd yowling for so-called "gun rights" are racist.

racist racist racist blah blah blah..

Do try and come up with something good sometime would you?

but the plain fact is that the LEADERS of the gun rights movement are all racist.

Supporting documentation, please?

Please tell us what position Dean holds with any gun rights organization...

running for the highest office in the land. If that doesn't make him a pro-gun leader, WTF does????

He doesn't lead any gun nut group....

Howard Dean on Federal Gun Laws
"Here's what my position is and what it would be as president. Keep the assault weapons ban. I favor that and it ought to be renewed. Keep the Brady bill, close the gun-show loophole, and then let every state decide for themselves what additional gun control they need."
National Public Radio's Tavis Smiley Show, January 28, 2003

a right wing Republican nutjob because he IS a right wing Republican nutjob...as the evidence amply demonstrated.

What was the name of this place again?

Look at Maryland. Erlich said he supported NOT going the whole hog on an exapnded state AWB and guess what?? HE WON!

IS essentially a vote to put assault weapons "back on the street".

That was 7 years ago!

who really gives a crap?

The Repukes still control Congress and one of the reasons is our stance on gun control.

But thenn you're also trying to pretend that there isn't widespread support for the assault weapons ban...which is horseshit.

Long Island, NY?

It darn sure isn't my neck of the woods in NC/TN.

Let's see your poll results that say otherwise....

are already against it. I go by the voting booth for my polling and the AWB doesn't fly in most of America.

Only 7 states have bans.

And for a stronger ban than there is now.

Nuff said.

They don't get up and say the AWB will be a major reason to vote for candiate X.

However we gun owners do.

Face it. The public may nominally support an AWB but it doesn't make them run to the voting place.

"However we gun owners do."
It's called a fetish.

a fetish for something than be a scared little bitch over something for no apparent sane reason.

it's not like there's anything else to this argument by the RKBA crowd....

never on the street in any great number in the first place. I own pre and post ban versions of military style firearms and they have all been in my safe before and after. This would also apply to the millions of others who own them (the majority).

Did a Democrat or Republican even bring up the assult weapons ban in a close congesional race? Its easy to speak for it or against it when your winning your district by 30+ percentage points.

Doug "Dr. Who" Forrester spent his campaign unsuccessfully denying he had ever promised any such thing...but his statements for the primary (and a piece he wrote for the newspapers) killed him on it.

Lautenberg beat him like a red-headed step-child.

Let's see it's New Jersey. It has't had a Republican for senator since the 70's. Plus you have got 1.2 million registered Democrats vs. 900,000 registered Republicans. That race totaly swung around once Torricelli was replaced. Torricelli would have been the reason we would have lost that New Jersey seat. The AWB was not going to make the slightest difference in the race compared to Torricelli. I belive Torricelli was also a strong supporter of the Ban.

Try peddling that to somebody who wasn't there....

"October 7, 2002 -Lautenberg inches ahead in Jersey Senate race; 54% say Democratic candidate swap was unfair"

That was a popular theme by Rush and his right wing blowhard comrades like Hanntiy and Grant...although Forrrester had earlier got on the ballot the EXACT same way when GOP frontrunner Trefinger was busted on bribery and corruption charges. (You may recall that no charges were ever brought against Torricelli.)

By October 22: "Former Sen. Frank Lautenberg has opened a  52 - 43 percent lead over  Republican Douglas Forrester among likely voters in New Jersey's U.S. Senate race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.  "The large gender gap in the race, with Lautenberg the heavy favorite among women, suggests Forrester is being hurt by his abortion views and his position that current gun control laws are adequate..."

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x702.xml


But although Forrester's stated position was that the assault weapon ban ought to be renewed, nobody believed him, due to crap like this:

"Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Frank Lautenberg yesterday called Republican nominee Douglas Forrester "the consummate hypocrite" for saying Forrester supports a semi-automatic weapons ban.
Lautenberg cited a 1992 newspaper column written by his opponent that states he opposed the laws.
"He changes positions so fast it looks like a dance contest," Lautenberg said at a campaign stop in Neptune's Veterans of Foreign Wars lodge.
In the 1992 piece, Forrester said he opposed New Jersey's ban. Last week, Forrester pledged to vote for the federal ban when it comes up for renewal in Congress in 2004, and contended that his current position is "consistent with what I said." "

http://www.cpanj.com/capitalreportpages/campaigncorner/october2002/LAUTENBERG%20ATTACKS%20FOE%20ON%20WEAPONS-BAN%20STANCE.htm

"On the issue of gun control, Lautenberg continued his attack on Forrester's writings in his hometown newspaper in the early '90s, alleging that the Republican nominee was opposed to the state's assault weapons ban.  Lautenberg has made Forrester's columns a major issue in his campaign.
Frustrated, Forrester lashed back at the former senator: "You haven't been in this campaign ten months -- I have."
But Lautenberg dug in, repeatedly asking Forrester, "Did you write it?"
Lautenberg's prodding prevented Forrester from issuing a complete explanation, though he did suggest that he
would now object to anyone using assault weapons because they are illegal under the current assault weapons ban."

http://www.politicsnj.com/kornacki110202_nbcdebate.htm

"BETTY ANN BOWSER: Lautenberg has played it up with this commercial that criticizes Forrester for opposing the New Jersey ban on assault weapons.
COMMERCIAL SPOKESMAN: Forrester even opposed a ban on military style assault weapons. Forrester actually said: "It isn't any of my business whether my neighbor likes to shoot semi-automatic weapons or not." Really?
DOUG FORRESTER: I've said from the outset of this campaign nine months now, up and down the state, talking with tens of thousands of people, I'm in favor of enforcing our existing gun laws, which includes the ban against semi-automatic weapons, assault weapons. There's going to be a renewal up in 2004. I'm going to vote for that renewal. "

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec02/newjersey_10-28.html

So why did drop out Torricelli then? Clearly his record on gun control should have gotten him elected.

And it's clear that his gun policies were not a hinderance to his previous election to the Senate, or any of the elections that put him in the House.

Forrester had to adopt a "me too" pose and deny his earlier statements...which didn't fool much of anyone.

You mean you don't know about the right wing smear campaign? But wait....you even alluded to it before.

for those of us who own weapons that were banned/will be firther banned. Does it seem foolish to think that this issue means nothing to other owners/future owners as well?

public safety should go out the window because a handful of neurotics want assault weapons....

cause public safety to go out the window. I don't live in fear of gun owners, why do you?

"I don't live in fear of gun owners, why do you?"
Because everybody I've ever met who HAD TO have a gun was a nutcase or a lowlife. Because I've seen nothing from the "law abiding gun owners" here to change my mind.

Every one I've met who is totally dead set against guns are either ignorant of firearms in general, or afraid of their own shadows.

Aren't sweeping generalizations fun?

Now tell us, exactly what knowledge of firearms do you need to know to get shot?

or killed by a lightning strike.

Good thing we've got licensed drivers and registered cars...

Meanwhile, lightning kills 300 Americans a year.....guns kill 30,000 Americans a year.

You better start looking at the sales numbers Benchley. Between 1995 and 2000 close to 1,000,000 AR-15's alone were sold to the law-abiding American public. This doesn't include the millions of AK's, HK's, Uzi's that were also sold during this period. Handful? Please. Wake up and smell the facts for once. I think it's funny how you have to lie to yourself to make yourself feel better about your sick agenda.

"Between 1995 and 2000 close to 1,000,000 AR-15's alone were sold to the law-abiding American public."
Yeah, surrrrrrrrre.....

"I think it's funny how you have to lie to yourself to make yourself feel better about your sick agenda."
Gee, the only lies are on the RKBA side.

I think it's even funnier that you guys line up with the scum of the earth, and then scream like banshees when anyone notices the ugly company you keep..

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

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

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

"I dare you to prove me wrong."
Oh, you already did quite a fine job of proving yourself wrong there.

"Must be fun to be as miserable as you are."
Gee, I'm laughing my ass off at the RKBA crowd most days.

"I can't even imagine being as fearful as you."
Jeeze, I'm not the one here mewling and puking because he NEEDS an assault weapon...or the one pretending that any minute "home invaders" are going to leave me unable to speak from terror.....that would be your RKBA crowd.

"You are the exact reason I continue to contact my Reps and Sens and you will continue to feed the fire for myself and others to continue the fight against freedom haters."
Yeah, let's not forget who the gun nut crowd considers freedom haters:
American Bar Association
American Civil Liberties Union
American Medical Association
National Education Association
Common Cause
Children s Defense Fund
American Association of Retired Persons
American Ethical Union
American Federation of Teachers
College Democrats of America
Congress of National Black Churches, Inc.
Congress of Neurological Surgeons
Consumer Federation of America
Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
League of Women Voters of the United States
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Center to Rehabilitate Violent Youth
National Council of La Raza
National Council of Negro Women
National Council on Family Relations
National Education Association
National Political Congress of Black Women
National Parent, Teachers Association
National SAFE KIDS Campaign
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
National Urban Coalition
National Urban League, Inc.
Women's National Democratic Club"

Wow, what a ruthless freedom-hating bunch of despots...NOT.

But then for the RKBA crowd, THESE are the sort of folks defending "freedom"....

"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

for EITHER set of "facts" hahahahahahahaha....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

who is actually trying to pretend the KKK is not racist.

How many ar-15s were made before the ban? Did the ban increase its popularity?

the ban did increase their popularity. The ban stirred up a hornets nest of people. It made people aware that military style firearms were available to the public. I will try to dig up some numbers for you. Regardless, these types of firearms are in heavy circulation with law-abiding Americans and for the most part they are not "on the streets" as some would like to believe.

How thats for being widespread support Mr. Benchley?

But then look at the scum trying to end the AWB...DeLay, Hastert, Lott, Hatch....

I'd rather stand with decent people than wallow in the gutter with that scum.

So try to spin the "widespread support" angle.

Last time I checked their were 50 states in the Union plus DC.

Anti-gun activists are complaining that they can't convince Congress to bring the up the AWB for a vote.

Face it: the Dems are going to use the AWB as an issue against Repukes and they will not renew it until after the 2004 elections.

They won't offer a discharge petition and they will blame the Repukes for not bringing it up for a vote.

You anti-gunners are screwed either way.

and you're cheering them on...

Really, is anybody fooled by THIS poster?

nationwide...and the numbers are the same in most regions, rural and urban.

"Last time I checked their were 50 states in the Union"
And last time I checked, a huge majority of voters in all of them wanted assault weapons off the street.

we should take the 2004 election by something close to 70%, right? After all, if 79% want to ban assault weapons, then failure to renew the AW ban should cause the Repukes to lose the election, right?

Why don't you hold your breath until that happens? ;-)

The economy is melting down, we're stuck in another Viet Nam over in Baghdad, we're as much in danger from terrorists as we were on September 10, 2001, Halliburton is stealing everything that isn't nailed down, and they've got the pry bar in their hands for the next round.

The sort of nutcase for whom assault weapons is the PRIMARY issue is the sort of shitheel buying Nazi crap at the gun show, who's creaming his jeans over them...and he's NEVER going to vote Democratic because he hates brown people as much as he loves guns.

There's no reason to allow these weapons on the street. Even your tin jesus Dean supports the ban. It's going to be one more club to whack the corrupt GOP with.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

as a gun rights leader...although that turned out to be hooey.

Huh. That weak old current ban has remained unchanged since 1994.

I'm just waiting for the Democrats to make more news on the AWB.

So far just one press conference on October 1st.

Once again, a thread has degenerated into a series of personal attacks, veiled and otherwise.

Feel free to discuss this topic in a new thread.

FlashHarry
DU Moderator