I have been a democrat all my life,

was born into a democrat family in a coal mining town where everyone was a democrat. I don't understand why democrats are against guns and republicans are for guns. It would seem to me to be the other way around. Democrats want to have guns to protect their rights and republicans want to take guns away to control you. What is the reason for the Democrat anti guns and republican pro guns position on guns.

I was also born into a Democrat family in a PA coal mining town and everyone there was a hunter, had guns. I grew up with those wonderful people, and I don't think it's quite true that Democrats are anti-gun. I'm not in favor of the NRA, and I hold with tighter controls on guns - like the Brady Bill should be reinstated because who the hell needs an automatic weapon?

I think there's a spectrum of views about guns in the Democratic Party.

Like the man said, the best way to win is to have your opponent do something stupid

And they don't want us to be thinking too hard about the facts:

1. Plenty of GOPers want gun control, they merely tolerate gun owners
for the votes they represent. Go research the stated positions of William
Bennett, John McCain and other people of that ilk. Bobby Rush's House Resolution #45
mandating licensing would suit them just fine, only the "good" people
with the right (pun intended) connections would get licenses.

And the marksH^H^H^H^H GOP base voters still think their Second Amendment rights
would be safe with a Repub controlled government.

2. The Brady Bill never affected any automatic weapons. It was semi-automatic rifles
they were (and still are) after. They conflate the two in a consumer fraud that would
make the Fuchs Brothers blush.

You may or may not know this, but plenty of people in other states just like the ones you grew up with
hunt with semi-automatic rifles- yes, AR, AK, and SKS variants as well.
(For you non-Pennsyvania folks, you can't hunt with a semi-automatic rifle in PA)

They hear "assault weapon ban", they start thinking "There they go again, you can't trust those
Democrats"

And Republicans just smile, with the calm assurance of a Christian holding four aces.
(to quote Mark Twain)

I meant "semi-automatic," but screwed it up.

Nice catch.

"and I hold with tighter controls on guns - like the Brady Bill should be reinstated because who the hell needs an automatic weapon?"



Really? Did the Brady Bill sunset? Was it repealed?

News to me!

Using that faulty and underdeveloped logic, one might ask how many Corvettes have killed people in the United States last year.

Considering the number of traffic related fatalities in the US, I would not be surprised if that number was in the dozens or hundreds...but we don't blame the car when somene dies, we blame the operator. Double standards are funny, aren't they?

The 1994 AWB sunsetted in '04, the NICS system is still alive and well.

Frankly, there are relatively few deaths caused by so called "assault weapons" (for some reason, no one can really define what they are...but I'll go by the definition from the '94 ban). ALL types of rifles account for less than 4% of "crime guns." A ban, even if it was effective in removing illegally owned firearms (and actually banned currently owned ones--which would likely violate the Constitution on several levels), wouldn't make a big difference in crime rates.
What it would do is ban the most popular center-fire rifles in the United States, piss off several million people, and likely be a causal factor in the loss of both houses of congress.
Basically, if you are a gun-hating Republican politician, AWBs are absolutely GREAT for you. They screw over pretty much everyone else.

Not "traffic related fatalties," but "Corvettes".

You laid down the comparison, so stay with your own premise.

Since I do not have stats on corvette related fatalities, I made an assumption (dozens to hundreds out of 40,000+ traffic fatalities). If you know of stats on Corvette related deaths, let me know.

Since it is politically and legally useful, the FBI does compile data on deaths involving rifles. Since "AWs" are a subset of that group, it would be better to compare rifles to sports cars in our little analogy. Then, we could compare something like a DPMS carbine to a Corvette (since we are getting really specific on make and model). In all, this isn't a very useful analogy unless you want to compare data on specific types of rifles and cars. (I really don't see the point of comparing deaths involving cars with Wankel rotary engines to deaths involving firearms with bayonet lugs, but you can if you want.)

and it wasn't I who threw in that ridiculous Corvette comparison.

I just remembered an old college buddy of mine whose first job out of school was selling cars. Chevys. He sold some guy a Corvette, and laughed about people who bought (how long was this?) "a thirty-five-thousand-dollar Chevy."

Anyway, welcome...................

though in a slightly roundabout way.


Corvettes don't kill people, idiots/car thieves/drunk drivers etc with Corvettes kill people.


Substitute "firearms" for Corvettes in the above and maybe, just maybe you'll start to wake up.

If you have to work so hard to make a point I already defined as specious, you're wasting your time.

automatic weapons?

Automatic weapons have been tightly controlled since 1934 under the National Firearms Act which, I would point out, passed due to strong support FROM the NRA.

with an AK-47:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-bn-0123-miami-shooting,0,1132877.story

Frankly, given, the press' inability to tell one firearm from another, and since the firearm used was not recovered, I'm a bit curious how they KNOW it was an AK-47 at all....are they sure it wasn't an SKS, a Czech VZ58, a Hungarian AMD-65, a Saiga, or an M1A?

suggests you've taken one too many rocks shot by a slingshot into your head.

Seriously, that was funny. I'm sure you're not that stupid, but you have put it into question....................

unless TLB thinks humans are impervious to 30.06 rounds.

DC sniper killed 10 (maybe 3 others in LA. and AL.)Cho used a handgun to kill 30.



But wait, there's more!




Neither one used an AK-type weapon.
(OMFGNOEZ!!!1!)

it took the DC sniper and Cho more time.

An AK-type weapon is so much more efficient at fast murders. That's a fact.

"An AK-type weapon is so much more efficient at fast murders. That's a fact."


I am but a newbi-jedi, maybe I'm not using "the force" properly during trigger application?

In case you didn't know, and that's rapidly becoming apparent, both the DC sniper and Cho used semi-auto weapons. They fire at exactly the same rate as an "AK-style" weapon, ie: as fast as you can pull the trigger.


DC sniper could've killed scores from one spot, chose not to. Cho could've done the same.

I'm curious.

Do you think you're making some kind of point with me by exhibiting your absolutely funny scenarios?

Do you think I'm impressed by your alleged "reasoning" or the facility of your thinking?

If you do, you're wrong about that, too. Being wrong seems to be comfortable for you.

And immensely entertaining for me.

Oh, that the sniper had just hurried up and done the job, right? That's rich.

The reasoning is pretty accurate. You can only fire a semi-auto firearm as fast as you can pull the trigger. This applies to semi-auto Glocks and Walthers like Cho used, the armalite derivative the DC snipers used, or to any of the US-common semi-auto Kalashnikov designs. In practical terms, the sustained firing rate is determined by the location and accessibility of spare magazines and the skill of the user. Some people will take over ten seconds to reload, but practiced users take under a second (search youtube for "fastest gun reloader" for some impressive videos from the Army Marksmanship Unit).

A little off-topic:
There is absolutely nothing funny about real life examples of criminals murdering large numbers of people. These events are traumatizing, heart-breaking, and leave vast amounts of pain and suffering in their wake. The only funny thing was the rather humorous memory a victim's father mentioned at the memorial service...just funny enough for some people to stop crying for a few seconds.

Quoted for posterity, too busy laughing to post at the moment, can't see the keyboard for the tears.
:rofl:
In the meantime........You should really try and study up on how firearms work, the laws pertaining to them, and the Constitutional rights associated with them.

It's not rate of fire, because U.S.-legal civilian AK's fire at exactly the same rate as a Smith & Wesson. It's not speed of reloading, because AK's are slower to reload than pistols are. It's not capacity, because other guns have the same range of capacities, and capacity is more or less irrelevant if you have a pistol with lots of spare magazines (as the VT shooter did).

I think you've been spun.

And yes, I know what I'm talking about; I shoot competitively with a non-automatic civilian AK.



What's your experience with them? Or are you just repeating what CNN and the repubs at the Brady Campaign told you to think?

...that although the DC sniper was using an AR15 pattern rifle, he was shooting deliberate, single shots. He would have been equally or more deadly with any number of hinting rifles.

At least when it comes to guns.

Then we continue to surround ourselves we even more anti gun retards, which ultimately hurts us as a party.

There are varieties of the gun experience within the Democratic Party, but all you hear is the anti-gun folks. I wish that weren't so.

You nailed it, ranger, and welcome to DU!

:hi:

n/t

...was the waiting period and background checks. You're thinking of the AWB (assault weapon ban). It had nothing to do with automatic weapons (machine guns) as they have been tightly regulated for years.

So, maybe you mean, who needs a semi-automatic weapon?

Well, who needs a penis? I don't, but it sure is fun to have. Feel the same way about my Bushy (that's a gun).

gun control is an urban issue. Nobody really cares much if people outside the cities and suburbs are shooting everything in sight, but gun related violence in metropolitan areas is a real problem. Democratic constituencies tend to be urban.

we should relegate gun control to states and municipalities. There are plenty of progressives and liberals in rural areas who the urban leadership in our party routinely alienate with this issue. As was demonstrated with this last election it is impossible to win a national election without winning a good share of these rural areas. Allow the party to pass stupid ineffectual gun control laws and watch those votes dissipate in the next election cycle.

and Florida is very gun friendly. I lived in the Tampa Bay area for 37 years. Most of the people I worked with or knew were gun owners.

My daughter stopped an intruder who was breaking into our home by forcing a sliding glass door open by pointing a large caliber revolver at him.

I have a concealed weapons permit and many of my co-workers also had permits.

Did Florida's pro-gun laws reduce crime?

In 1987, Florida Gov. Bob Martinez signed a bill entitling any citizen who clears a fingerprint-based background check and passes gun-safety classes to receive a permit to carry a concealed handgun for protection. Since then, a number of states have adopted concealed-carry laws modeled on Florida's. Has this movement made America safer or more dangerous?

In research conducted for an article in the Tennessee Law Review, historian Clayton Cramer and I found that in Florida, following adoption of its concealed-carry law, the murder rate started an immediate, steady decline. Before the law, Floridians were about 36 percent more likely to be murdered than other Americans; after a few years, the Florida rate was equal to or slightly less than the national rate. As for other violent crimes, Florida was the worst state in the nation both before and after the new law. Florida's overall violent-crime rate, however, rose much more slowly since 1987 than did the national violent-crime rate.

When we examined violent-crime data in California, where permit policies vary widely by county, we found that counties that issue concealed-carry permits liberally had lower violent-crime rates than counties with restrictive policies; restrictive counties had lower rates than counties with prohibitive policies.

A comprehensive study by University of Chicago law professor John Lott and graduate student David Mustard examining crime data for 3,054 counties found that while concealed-carry reform had little effect in rural counties, in urban counties it was followed by a substantial reduction in homicide and other violent crimes such as robbery. At the same time, there was a statistically significant rise in non-confrontational property crimes, such as larceny and car theft. Apparently many criminals concluded that the risks of encountering a victim who could fight back had become too high.
http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Kopel/oped1.html

Now I'm not going to say that the way to reduce violent crime is allowing more citizens to legally buy firearms and with proper training to carry concealed firearms in public. The solution to violent crime is far more complex then that. In some instances a firearm CAN stop a crime. If you are the good guy in such a situation, the right to own or carry a firearm can save your life or the life of another individual.

Forbidding citizens the right to own a firearm for self defense merely enables the criminal element to act with impunity.

Of course, there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue.

If you live in an urban area with a high violent crime rate, I would, at the minimum, insist that your local government severely punish any person caught illegally carrying a weapon. You can pass all the laws you want restricting honest citizens from owning or carrying firearms, but criminals by definition don't obey laws. Laws are mere words on paper and without enforcement merely make citizens feel the politicians they elect are really trying to address the problem.

Remember that honest citizens aren't the problem, criminals are.

If you don't like firearms and don't want them in your city and the majority of the citizens in your city agree with you, that's fine. Personally, I really don't care. If you want to live in a "gun fee zone" good for you. I will just choose to never live or visit there.

My advice to you is to invest in a safe or panic room. When you hear glass breaking at 3 am and you dial 911, you'll have a really secure room to hide in until your local police arrive. Some advice on safe rooms can be found at his link:
http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/How-to-Make-a-Safe-Room/461453

just like them regulated...after all they kill and so do automobils...one we have to take tests in order to use and the other we don't..

that there is a right to a gun in this country. this does not mean regulation and this right are mutually exclusive but regulation has to be consistent with a right.

Regulations like background checks and on machine guns can be held constitutional. Its when you get into regulations like NYC. to possess a handgun in NYC you need to pay $440 for the license- which is good for only 3 years- and $340 every 3 years. Not to mention it takes a year for your license to process (and if you do get approved that year of processing is considered your first year having your license (so in reality you pay for only 2 years). This regulation isnt consistent with a right....its cost prohibitive (there is talks about making it good for only one year and making it $300/yr).

the problem is that NYC's regulation is what is being held as "reasonable". its easier to own a gun in D.C. then it is in NYC

You don't need a license, or any testing, to own an automobile. You simply can't drive it on public roads without a license.
This is VERY similar to laws in 46 states. You need a permit to carry a concealed firearm in 46 states. Alaska and Vermont do not require a permit. Wisconsin and Illinois completely outlaw carrying concealed (although Wisconsin allows Open carry...more or less).

You would think that they would want more control.

just like abortion - they know that wedge issues will gain them favor with some groups. they have been successful at painting themselves as "pro-gun" and tricking rural hunters and others into thinking the Dems will "take away their guns". they are just trying to win votes.

they know that wedge issues will gain them favor with some groups. they have been successful at painting themselves as "pro-gun" and tricking rural hunters and others into thinking the Dems will "take away their guns". they are just trying to win votes.

Moreover, they throw the ignorant a bone with firearms all the while secretly increasing the powers of the state and whittling away our liberties. You ask your average gun owner about the suspension of Habeus Corpus and most will say, "huh?" You ask them about the particulars of the NSA's pervasive surveillance programs and most will say, "huh"?

The sad part of being a "god, guns and guts" voter is that too many people ignorantly believe that if their politicians talk a good game about god, guns, and guts, then they must be fine, upstanding people that share their kinds of values. Most people are too wrapped up in the flag and the cross to look very deep into the issues to see that though the Republicans tend to be pro-gun, they are growing the power of the state at the expense of our liberties, and thus pushing us closer to the day when guns may be used for their intended purpose. They don't see that though the Republicans tend speak highly of "god", after they are done the go right back to their hypocritical behaviors of page boys and wide stances. They don't see that though the Republicans talk a tough "guts" game, the wars they fight have nothing to do with securing or protecting liberty and everything to do with profiteering and protecting monied interests and growing the power of the state.

The Republicans have learned exactly what camouflage to wear to appeal to these kinds of voters.

cost us the 2000 election. Things in the country were pretty good. The only thing causing a problem was the Clinton ban. I really think that was the cost of the 2000 election. When things are good, we tend to forget the bad !

Well, aside from what another poster pointed out about the urban/rural thing Republicans like to claim they are self-reliant and more true to the values on which this nation was founded. They like to claim they want less government intervention. They cling to this false idea that things were so much better in the "good old days."

They say they want less control because they don't want government passing all these annoying regulations to restrict business. Why should the federal government tell states they can't or they must do something.

The right to bear arms is the Second Amendment to our constitution. It is a horribly worded and tortured sentence. We can't agree on how the comma was meant to be used (or if it exists).

It is true that sometimes there seems to be little consistency in either of the two major parties with their platforms. One might think Democrats should be Pro-Life because we want to stick up for the defenseless and vulnerable in our society and who needs protection more than an "unborn child"?

"One might think Democrats should be Pro-Life because we want to stick up for the defenseless and vulnerable in our society and who needs protection more than an "unborn child"? I was really looking for defining answers on the gun issue. Abortion is the same type of issue. As you pointed out, it might appear to an uninterested observer that Pro Life and pro gun would be democrat stands. I didn't ask that question because I did not want to appear to be starting a fight. And it would have. As I said I have been a life long democrat. I was an elected official of Local1784 of the UMWA. My AvATAR IMAGE is of me giving a speech at a teamsters demonstration in Cleveland OHIO. I have been involved in many non official labor activities in the coal fields of W va and Ohio. You were never without reach of a gun, Slept with a gun and traveled with a gun. Guns are an important part of the labor movement. The labor movement was hurt by the clean air movement also. It put hundreds of thousands of coalminers out of work. Sometimes a stand in principle does more harm in it's execution. I am getting more vocal and am going to make more of a presence. I just want to figure out the reasoning behind these positions. Thanks for your answer.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. To succeed in politics, some people change a position they have on an issue like guns or abortion. George HW Bush used to be Pro-Choice. Al Gore used to be Pro-Life. They changed. Perhaps these changes are a matter of convenience to advance their career, or maybe the milieu they inhabited for their career helped to reshape their views.

The Democratic party's support of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s chased large numbers of Southern Democrats into the Republican party. The South was more rural than the North (and we have already commented on the rural/urban differences on guns). So, the Republican Party became the "Pro-Gun" Party because their base was more likely to support it.

As for abortion, it's also part of the struggle for gender equality. The same people who supported equal rights regardless of race were likely to feel the same when it came to gender. Many Feminists feel that they only attain real equality if they can control when and if they have children.

Our political system (the US) does not encourage real dissent. I'm not talking about whether or not we need to fear criticizing our government, I mean within our parties. For Republicans, guns and abortion are the bully issues (there was no way McCain could pick Lieberman or Ridge as his running mate). As for Democrats, we may be a little flexible on guns and abortion (although I can't imagine a Pro-Life candidate on a national ticket), but not so much on organized labor. Of course, while Democrats must claim to support Unions, I don't know that there's always accountability for it.

I see a lot of democrats exhibiting conservative values in executing their own life styles. I think most people are unwilling to recognize the virtues of different systems. For instance everything that benefits us is socialistic. Schools, highways, Post Office, Armed Forces and more are all forms of socialism. Yet all you have to say to kill an idea is "better dead that red". I guess that I know that party affiliation is just that. Both Democrat and Republican. Social organizations that deny socialism. Do you happen to know the origin of the anti gun position in the party.

First gun control laws pushed by Democrats were to disarm newly freed slaves.

See the Klan was tired of a "fair fight" = 20-50 Klansman killing/raping/burning a single Black family.

The man of the house likely had a firearm and that means that before the Black family was murdered one or two Klansman could get hurt.

So Democratic controlled legislatures began pushing laws to disarm freeman and restrict firearm access to the "right people".

You would think it would be a Chapter the DNC would want to end forever by giving up this pathetic "war on guns" which is little more than a "war on civil rights". Sadly old habits die hard.

I think the top of the washington monument should have more windows added to it. The way it looks now it looks with the two eye appearing windows looks like a hooded KKK.

Thanks for the insight. Seems contradictory now to try and restrict guns. I know that any legislation that is passed will have seemingly harmless amendments added to it that will enhance further gun control.

at the following web site:

www.georgiacarry.org

Do a local search for "Heller Brief" and you will find an excellent summary of gun control laws, from colonial days into the 20th century. Theses various state and local laws are founded on the worse examples of racism and ethnocentrism. It is hard to believe that some modern so-called "liberals" not only are ignorant of this history, but turn the record on its head, saying the opposition to gun-control laws is nothing more than white men trying to preserve their dominant position in society.

Actually, its modern "liberals" who are fighting for the last vestiges of Jim Crow.

Who says that Democrats are anti-gun? I would argue that Democrats are for sensible discussion on responsible gun laws. I think many Republicans are too - at least the ones that aren't scared of not having a 100% NRA rating.

IMO - As far as political philosophy - yes Democrats are traditionally more in favor of personal rights. They are also more society or community focused and not handcuffed by ideology. If there is a pattern in society of disturbed people making a hand gun purchase immediately before they commit a suicide or a crime, perhaps a 24 hour waiting period before such a purchase could address such an issue or benefit society without taking away a person's individual rights. That is only one example... but when laws are passed to regulate gun purchases or types of guns allowed it is in an attempt to address situations. I'm sure not all gun legislation has been the best solution but that is why we need our congress to hear from grass roots and debate issues and come up with best solutions.

We are so sick of war.

I hear a lot of paranoid ravings here about how Obama is going to take all our guns away. I've been hearing these same ravings for thirty fucking years. I just went and counted the guns in my safes. I collect antique firearms and I have more than twenty more guns than I had thirty years ago. And nobody has even made an attempt to take even one of them away from me.

But you know what? If they want to take them, from me, or you, or anyone else, they (whoever "they" are) are gonna get them. Because they will bring with them sufficient force to get them. Even if they have to pry them from your cold dead hand. So you aren't going to stop any attempts to "grab" your guns and you may as well quit worrying about that. Believe me there are a lot bigger problems in this country than gun ownership. You just have to stop listening to the whining of the arms manufacturing lobby.

They have your name from the 4473 you filled out when you bought your gun, even if they say they don't keep those records. But I'd be a lot more frightened of the big government authoritarian repubs having that information than the Democrats.

They most certainly keep those 4473's!!!!!

An FFL is required to maintain all his 4473's to justify any audit of his "bound book". When you give up your FFL, you have 14 working days to get all your 4473's to the ATF. under penalty of a felony charge.

The ATF diligently scans these records into a database, as publicly proclaimed by several directors.

stereotype.
I know many many many urban dems who have guns. And many reps who don't. So.
The party platforms are based on hot air.
The reps are not in favor of guns, just the 2nd amendment. The dems are not in favor of taking away guns, just the unnecessary assault weapons, etc.
But the rhetoric (most on rep side) is to stir up fear and paranoia.
And get votes.
dc

We own several guns. Everyone around here has guns.

This is not a political party issue. It is a rural vs. urban issue. Urban areas have many more reasons to worry about gun control. Of course people in urban areas have guns for protection, but many more people there have guns for criminal reasons. People in the country commit crimes, too. But there are fewer of us and more people here have guns because they hunt.

I think if anyone is going to take your guns, it would be the republicans.

I'm trying to figure out who these Democrats are who want to take our guns. I have never met any of them.

I know John Kerry hunts fowl.

I was born into a DemocratIC family, myself.

A lifelong Dem whose family hunts and fishes. Though they fish more than hunt these days.

Ate some great venison jerky this past week, by the way (from a friend's harvest).

I don't think we need assault weapons. And banning them doesn't impede on anyone's right to hunt.

So, I really think the entire argument is a strawman set up by those now out of power.

Just my 2 bits.

once and for all show me where in the text of the 2nd, or for that matter in any of the writings of the men who penned it, the "right to hunt" was what the founders were angling for and wanted protected? And while you're perusing these writings maybe you could further elaborate on this statement of yours:

"I don't think we need assault weapons. And banning them doesn't impede on anyone's right to hunt."

by showing me where the benchmark of "need" must presumably be met before one can exercise this particular right.

"I don't think we need assault weapons. And banning them doesn't impede on anyone's right to hunt."



Spears!

That's all hunters need!

And fishermen too, I mean, that's what they use on "Survivor" huh?

concluded that the second amendment had an enforcable self-defense component....so its not all about hunting

and the whole assault weapon thing has been brought up in these forums time and time again. "Assault weapons" is a term to describe semi-auto long guns in a way so that you ban almost all semi-auto long guns without actaully banning semi-auto long guns

its like saying you are banning drag racing cars and then define a drag race car as any car with a transmission, and 4 tires. So you can say that "we dont ban cars, only drag race cars" when you'd be hard pressed to find a car with no wheels and without a transmission

its sneaky and it uses feel good public opinion to fuel its passage. The simple truth is that semi-auto long guns are in common use for all facets of legal gun ownership. And as the second amendment protects weapons that would be/are used by the public for lawful purposes these weapons would fall under those protections

I am a Democrat and not against gun ownership.

But why the heck anyone would want to own an assault weapon is beyond me.

I think it's stupid. And that is simply a personal value judgement on my part.

I'm not trying to take anyone's rights away.

And I am not so threatened that I think I need to own one.

That's all.




http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/24/miami.shooting/index.html

I don't like having to work the action after every shot. That would severely reduce my competition scores, since they are based on TIME and accuracy.
I also really like the ability to choose what I can and cannot purchase with my own money.
Also, I don't like laws that restrict what law-abiding citizens can do but fail to make society any safer.

Hey-o!

Almost all deer rifles are far more lethal and powerful than all assault weapons.

Except that "subversive speech" is just a loaded phrase to get you to uncritically accept whatever restrictions on free speech are being suggested, isn't it?

Replace "assault weapon" in your sentence with "small- or intermediate-caliber, non-automatic civilian rifle with modern styling" and I think you'll see why they are the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, and why "feeling threatened" has absolutely no bearing on the choice to own one.

They are ergonomic, many of them are supremely accurate, they kick less than full-power rifles do, they are easier to accessorize with flashlights and optics than traditionally styled carbines, they are economical to shoot, and they look like they actually belong in this century instead of the 19th.

Hunters comprise at most 20% of the nation's civilian gun owners. Whether one hunts or not is a poor place to begin a discussion of "rights."

Whether or not you "think" we don't need "assault weapons" (please define) is a poor place to begin a discussion of rights. Further, the Constitution did not place before us much a buffet of guns we "need." In other words, we are no more bound by the constraints of a "free press" when we use a computer than when we choose a semi-auto carbine over a flintlock for self-defense or potential militia duty. I would also point out that some 15,000,000 American civilians now own semi-auto carbines (AKs, AR 15s, AKSs, etc.) such that this class of weapon is now the most popular center-fire rifle in the nation; further, some of these rifle types are being re-configured into hunting weapons and calibers.

Concerning straw men. When there is a push to ban "assault weapons," it usually occurs when there is some mall or school shooting. Most of these shootings are carried out with handguns. The GENUINE article (politically speaking) is when a major party (the Democratic Party) places within its platform a call for enacting a PERMANENT ban on "assault weapons," and the standard bearer of that party (Barack Obama) has a track record of calling for the same legislation.

I would suggest that the issue -- straw or otherwise -- is kept alive by the Democrats, including your own calls for a ban.

They look for the cultural symbols, the high emotion 'values' icons, and slice and dice us.

That's why they hate Obama so much- he is post-partisan, if we will rise above the baloney that we're sold. Abortion? Guns? The far right doesn't want Roe v Wade overturned, because they'll lose their organizing rallying cry. Same deal w guns.

My .02

Divide and conquer works most of the time.

I know lots of Democrats and some super progressives who have guns and will fight against anyone who would try to keep them from owning guns.

Although I know some Democrats who spew gun control, I think it is just spin that Democrats are "all anti-gun." More Republican scare tactics.

rule of law! Just kidding. Seriously, I'm not a fan of hunting or guns. I go to the grocery store, and farmers market. raised in the city. Just don't understand this whole deer hunting thing. I love the deer that come into my yard to eat the apples off my tree.

I make Ted Nugent look resonable. Course I use movie guns (fires blanks) BUT STILL Its the Principle of the thing. No one will take my carbide cannon while I live.

Where do you get carbide? I have been trying for years to get some and can't find it anyplace. Please help. I have some carbide lamps and homemade carbide cannons and no carbide. Please help !

If the government can have an F-16, why can't I? Although I must add, that I absolutely despise the bigoted, fearful, small-balled, hateful, divisive, suckup Ted Nugent.

except at restaurants. Many rural Democrats are avid hunters. The GOP wants to frame the argument their way. Along with their ally, The NRA, they have convinced millions of rural voters that The Democratic Party wants to take our guns away. And this is also the ordinance manufacturers speaking.

consider just a couple of examples:

Kirsten Gillibrand (just appointed to the U.S. Senate to replace Hillary Clinton)

She is an outspoken advocate for gun rights and has a 100% positive rating from the NRA,<26> but has also worked to strengthen such legislation as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Act to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand

Bill Richardson (who ran in the Democratic primaries for President)

`I'm the only Democratic candidate who's been given an `A' rating by the NRA, Richardson told officers of a pipefitters and plumbers union here. ``I'm a sportsman, like you,'' he added.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/10/richardson_tout.html

In 2003, Richardson backed and signed legislation creating a permit system for New Mexicans to carry concealed handguns. He applied for and received a concealed weapons permit, though by his own admission he seldom carries a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson

The Democratic Party seems to be moving away from draconian gun control laws.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful arm of the gun lobby, has noticed the shift in positions of Democratic candidates. The percentage of money donated by the NRA to Democratic House and Senate candidates has more than doubled, from 6 percent in the 2002 election cycle to 14 percent so far in the 2006 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, said the group has ''seen a marked change" in Democratic behavior.

''Certainly, we support more Republicans than Democrats, but we've seen in the last few years an increasing number of Democrats actively seeking the NRA endorsement and actually winning it," Arulanandam said.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/17/democrats_recast_gun_control_image/



For a list of the NRA ratings for politicians in the House and Senate visit: note the number of Democrats with high NRA ratings.
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=82
(note this list is from 1993-1994, but is still eye opening. There may be a more recent list, but I couldn't find it quickly.)

Whenever anyone brings up the 2nd Amendment I always bring up the Battle of Blair Mountain. Things like that are exactly why Republicans really don't want anyone but their own kind armed.

positions. There has to be a rational way to manage access to guns. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves, but that right can't be absolute.

I certainly don't like some of the positions the NRA takes. I don't like their knee-jerk reaction to and slippery-slope argument against any and all forms of gun control. I don't like that they are one of, if not the most, powerful example of lobbyists having sway over politicians.

I really hate their newsletters asking for funding. It's sad how "end of the world" they always are...then try to play to patriotism. Blech!
However, the "slippery slope" argument is a valid one. The Brady Campaign, VPC, and other anti-gun groups have, at various times, admitted the gradual diminishment of gun-rights is their goal.

Get rid of the Democratic Party's platform plank that calls for a beefed-up and permanent ban on "assault weapons" and other unproven gun-control measures, and convince the President that he should as well. Poof. One issue gone with the wind.

But the gun-controllers keep the call for bans IN PLACE TO THIS VERY DAY. It's like trailing around a bad fart and trying to blame it on someone else.

"I'm not against guns I just think that (insert capricious laws here)"

As a life long democrat and NRA member for as long as I can remember I'm troubled by the democratic anti-gun bias. It should be obvious that the democrats have been in the process of trying to ban various guns. They want to take your AKs, ARs, FALs, and 50 cals. If they can't take them directly they will ban your ammo, ban importation, ban CCW, ban all variety of things in the most capricious and arbitrary manner possible. I'm stuck either voting for someone I believe in 95% of the time but thinks I'm a criminal or someone I believe in 5% of the time like Bush, McCain, or whatever turd they stack up next.

Could we at least be honest? The people who support banning guns and harsh restrictions can just admit it. I'm so sick of the tired lies about supporting "reasonable restrictions" or "common sense solutions" being used to support the most restrictive gun control policies ever in America.

..you oppose any and all "reasonable restrictions" or "common sense solutions"? Machine guns? How 'bout surface-to-missiles? They should be made available to all citizens just as long as said citizens are "law-abiding"? As for "They want to take your AKs, ARs, FALs, and 50 cals.", this is the sort of extreme rhetoric that only serves to alienate the fence-sitters. A better and more accurate argument is that such laws, as written, are cosmetic and/or ineffective.
Tell me, when the first AWB went into effect, how many of your guns did "they" "take"? No government, Republican or Democratic, will be confiscating our guns. Why would they bother? The slippery-slope argument appeals only to the already paranoid. And as for me, if they want to ban the sale of .50 cals, I won't feel any less "free". Sure, it'll be a dumb thing for them to do, but freedom and liberty cannot be measured by how many or what types of weapons you own. Ask any Canadian, Brit, Swede etc. if their country's gun laws make them feel "oppressed". They would find the notion laughable.

I oppose fools applying the meme "reasonable restrictions" or "common sense solutions" to capricious rules and all out bans. Which is exactly what many propose under those and other guises. Machine guns and SAM are already highly regulated so no one advocating "reasonable restrictions" or "common sense solutions" is advocating anything about them. They are only used to push gun bans and capricious laws.

The AWB specifically banned several of my guns. They didn't show up to take them, but I wouldn't have been able to replace them if they broke or buy new ones when technology changes. Why would they bother to take them, just ban new ones and wait. They couldn't get them even if they wanted them because we have fought gun registration successfully, and they were private transfers.

Not to mention that there have been several attempts across the nation at gun confiscations like in Chicago, DC, and San Fransisco. What is paranoid about being concerned that the people active in gun confiscation are going to push gun confiscation?

No background check, then, of course. Good thing the seller knew you were a "law-abiding citizen". Fine, but don't ever claim that you're in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, please.

Don't you find it curious that equating the lofty ideals of liberty and freedom with the owning of a particular tool is a uniquely American affliction? And as for "What is paranoid about being concerned that the people active in gun confiscation are going to push gun confiscation", well, NAMBLA is active in pushing for legislation friendly to NAMBLA's agenda, but they too haven't a chance in hell of succeeding. And neither group has the power to make me paranoid.

Just because I don't think we should have capricious gun laws that create an undue burden on everyone, doesn't mean I want the fractional minority who are criminals to have guns. You are using a very intellectually dishonest tactic. Making laws that stop transfers between individuals only effect the regular people and not criminals at all. Criminals are not "taking advantage" of the system. Straw purchases are just that for a reason, so they can avoid the NICS, which is why only regular people will suffer an undue burden. So yes I do want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we just need things that both are going to work and don't create undue burden on the vast majority of people who own guns and are not criminals.

NAMBLA doesn't have even close to the following the gun ban lobby has. So isn't comparing them irrelevant at best, and intentionally misleading. The gun ban agenda has followers all the way to the top of the federal government.

Fortunately, they were only at the local level, and usually the confiscating party was legally reprimanded. Not much comfort when you have been robbed of several thousand dollars worth of property!

There is nothing hypocritical about trying to keep guns out of criminal hands and fighting to keep private transfers legal. I see no effect on crime by my neighbor selling me his rifle.
Do you expect felons to register their firearms? They don't have to, since it would be self-incrimination. Yes, that actually was a court ruling.

and because you are a criminal, wouldn't that failure to register be self incrimination? Would you get a "get out of jail free card"?

Somehow, I'm sure you would go to jail while the criminal would go free on the technicality. I also realize that my question involves convoluted reasoning.

The ruling you referred to:

A recurring question that we are asked, not only by gun control advocates, but even by a number of gun owners is, "What's wrong with mandatory gun registration?" Usually by the time we finish telling them about the Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Haynes (1968), they are laughing -- and they understand our objection to registration.

In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. <1> His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." <2> The Court concluded:

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. <3>
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

By the way, in Florida we don't register our firearms.

edited to add further comment

So because you disagree with him, you say he wants to arm criminals. It has been proposed here by the "gun nuts" many times that the NICS system be opened up to citizens for private transfers. Anyone who was actually interested in having an honest debate, wouldn't accuse everyone who opposes the "Gun Show Loophole" as being in favor of arming criminals.

David

If so, please explain this drivel:

"Don't you find it curious that equating the lofty ideals of liberty and freedom with the owning of a particular tool is a uniquely American affliction?"



Not curious at all, this country has a heritage and a history of tradition associated with firearms, so quit acting like firearms magically appeared at WalMart last week.

So does every other nation on Earth. The "drivel" is self-explanatory. If I were to proclaim, "this country has a heritage and a history of tradition associated with turkeys" it would make as much sense as your "scathing" retort.

to own non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed civilian (NFA Title 1) firearms under .51 caliber, plus over-.50 shotguns and sporting rifles? Is that a radical position?

Because that is what gun owners are fighting for, and what the gun-control lobby is trying to take with the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch and whatnot.

been a shooter since the age of 10. I am very confused by the vitriol and absolute rage that some people can work up knowing that a lot of Democrats are gun owners. I see it as a choice. I certqainly would never force anyone to own a gun who didn't want to, and I respect the rights of others to have that opinion. I do expect the same in return, but I seldom se a post here without some real hatred of gun owners expressed by some rabid anti. I have taken to insulting them in return, which is fun for a while, but serves no purpose - I know I won't change their opinions, just as they will never change mine.
FWIW, the Brady organization and many other "gun control" groups are run by Republicans who blame the anti-gun movement on Democrats.

mark

If a robber comes into your house and kills someone. That is one person dead. If you kill the robber that is two people dead. Some people object to the second killing. They say that now you have two people dead. Just like radical and vocal "reasonable laws" people really want no guns at all. Just like radical "clean air people" want no industry at all. I am never without at least one gun and never without reach of one in my house. All the suspense movies wouldn't be if the victim had a gun. If you are anti gun then you should be anti door lock. The lock just makes the crook mad and may upset him to the point of doing personal harm. The authorities tell you to remain passive in a robbery to try and avoid violence. I want my guns for my protection. I want anti gun people to tell me why they don't want people to have guns.

Almost every deer rifle is more powerful than any assault rifle.There are deer rifles that have semi-automatic actions like assault rifles. Hunters choose bolt action rifles over semi-automatic actions because they are more accurate. Some people choose semi-automatic weapons because they are fun to shoot. Any automatic deer rifle can have a large capacity magazine. Any deer rifle can have the cosmetic changes to make it look like an assault rifle legally and cheap. An assault weapon differs from any other semi auto rifle in cosmetics only. A ban on assault weapons is essentially a ban on all similar rifles, including target rifles and hunting rifles.

Some hunting rifles would fit the '94 AW definition if the hunter added a flash suppressor. (The Remington R-25 comes to mind.)

If assault weapons are banned there's no reason for the R-25 to be excluded simply because Remington's name is stamped on the side.
It's made by Panther Arms and branded by Remington, iirc.
It's nothing more than an AR series rifle that fires the much larger 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge

Armalite AR-10 (Armalite invented the M16, AR10, and AR15 series of rifles):



DPMS LR308 (Panther Arms' copy of the AR-10):



Remington R-25 (Even uses DPMS brand magazines)

...issue. It is a Statist issue. Those who believe and promote the power of the State above that of the citizen are the ones who favor gun control. You'll find a number of conservative republicans who would deny a citizen the right to bear arms. Many of these are senior LE officials, and military officers. It's those who want citizens subservient to the State, rather than the other way around, who would take away our arms.

as pointed out by this brief to the Supreme Court. It's well worth reading the entire document



In The
Supreme Court of the United States
--------------------------------- ♦ ---------------------------------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND
ADRIAN M. FENTY, MAYOR OF
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Petitioners,
v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER,
Respondent.

********snip*********



SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Petitioners recite a selective portion of the
history of gun control laws in the District of Columbia,
but omit portions of that history which demonstrate
that the Petitioners’ laws are deeply rooted in a
racist attempt to keep arms out of the hands of the
politically and economically disadvantaged. This brief
will explore the racist history of gun control in the
District of Columbia and throughout the country. It
also will show how the principles of black oppression
via gun control laws of yesterday are used to oppress
the politically weak today via those same, and additional,
laws.

************snip**************

The history of gun control can be summarized as
consisting of four time periods: 1) pre-Civil War bans
either non-existent or applying only to slaves or free
blacks, accompanied by widely-held beliefs (and
appellate court opinions) that all (white) people had
the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms; 2)
immediate antebellum and early Reconstruction-era
civil unrest associated with armed, black self-defense
incidents, and court opinions reversing earlier expansive
views on the right to keep and bear arms; 3) late
Reconstruction/Industrial Age legislation that was
facially race-neutral, ostensibly restricting gun rights
for the first time for the population generally, but
with those restrictions commonly applied only to
black citizens; and 4) mid-20th Century expansion of
application of gun control laws to all citizens, accompanied
by stricter laws generally.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/07-290/07-290.mer.ami.resp.gc.pdf

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

...originated has little bearing on who advocates banning firearm ownership today. Like I said, it is a Statist position, rather than a liberal/conservative position.

And pretty much everything else.

Authoritarians are against guns.