So what do we do?

Since the gun/anti-gun topic is so heatedly debated here, or should I say, so wide eyed, spittle sprayed, everyone shout at once without listening kind of calm debate. How do we go about making everyone happy? Is it time to split the country and allow each side to have their own place where they can live in their own utopias? We do have plenty of room to do it. Do the antis get the cities, and the pro gunners get the country? North/South, East/West? How do we work this out? I dont care who has what polls or statistics, they dont matter, at least no one on an opposing side seems to believe the others, so why bother. Seems like the only way to settle this is to each go to their seperate rooms and play by themselves, or with those that they can play nicely with. This way everyone gets what they want and all the tension would be gone. I think if we did this, it would reveal in a short time just who was right, without much doubt. Both sides really get to prove their points. What do you think? Or is it really all just about the rambling, wide eyed, spittle spraying, insult who you can atmosphere in Justice/Public Safety what its all about? :)

The extent and style of the anti-gun crowd here (with notable exceptions) is such that I have to wonder what has become to the party that sought to protect civil rights and liberty. It has been interesting trying to defend the Bill of Rights here and finding such strong opposition to it.

If, in fact, this site is really the voice of the democratic party, I may never vote for another democrat again.

and against the racist scum that make up groups like the National Rifle Association.

"It has been interesting trying to defend the Bill of Rights here and finding such strong opposition to it."
There's no opposition to the Bill of Rights here...what there is, is rejection of the NRA's totally dishonest revisionist view of the second amendment.

What do you mean revisionist view? The Bill of Rights isn't open for revision. It's not open for interpretation. It states clearly that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say what types of arms or when and where they may have them. The 2nd Amendment isn't a collective right like many anti-gunners want you to think. It's an individual right. If you read thru the other 9 original amendments they are all clearly individual rights. So why on earth would our founding fathers have chosen to make only one of the 10 a collective right and on top of that why would they have chosen it to be the 2nd Amendment? I'm a member of the NRA and to be honest I don't always agree with how they handle things but they have been forced to defend themselves and the 2nd Amendment in the same way in which they have been attacked by the anti-gun lobby.

saying? i do not believe in dividing to conquer, the conversation must go on and on till we learn to communicate... only the right wing refuses to discuss cooperative resolutions, the reason we bother is WE LOVE OUR COUNTRY !!!!...how many countries are trying to fence off an entire region because a chosen few have a better way or a better god, and pretty soon it isn't big enough and the heathens or the infidels or the different color skins aren't worthy of their share and war is inevitable, genocide is inevitable...is that what you are suggesting, what do you think, i would like a reply....

I don't want any "cooperative solutions" that further erode my constitutional rights. Frankly, I've lost enough of those recently and I'm not keen on losing more.

In an ideal world, we could work this out, but too many people genuinely want to get ride of handguns or all guns for compromise to be possible.

I was suggesting to divide so as to stop all the fighting. Since both sides want their way, and compromise appears to be out of the question, all I'm asking is how do they both get what they want? I'm not suggesting a choosen few have a better anything, or anyone be fenced off from anyone, simply a choice as to where they want to be and do as they wish, since they cant do that without a fight when together now. Pick your side and live as you wish. I know its simplistic, but what do you offer that can make both sides happy?

Hey, far be it from me to offer suggestions for solving whatever problems any of you perceive your country as having. I maintain a non-intervention stance, unless things turn so nasty as to qualify as crimes against humanity or that sort of thing, y'know.

I'd just say that it's plain *to me* that some of what's been said so far in this thread is what the actual problem is.

"How do we go about making everyone happy?"

It may be that this is the root of the entire problem -- this bizarre notion that it is even possible to "make everyone happy", let alone desirable, prima facie, to do so. Any society that operates from, and directs its efforts toward achieving, this ludicrously utopian notion is destined to fail as a society.

One of the things it leads to is suggested here: "Is it time to split the country ...?" Once a society splits, it has failed, by definition.

It can also simply lead to internal disintegration. If no "universal happiness" solution can be found to problems, then nothing is done. The problems simply mount, in numbers and intensity, and all social cohesion is lost. This is when the society is ripe for fascism, of course; the imposition of one vision of "universal happiness" by force.

"Making everyone happy" is not what liberal democracy is aobut. Here's a rather better statement of what it is about, from another post in this thread:

"the conversation must go on and on till we learn to communicate
... only the right wing refuses to discuss cooperative resolutions ... ."

On the other hand, we have this vision:

"I don't want any 'cooperative solutions' that further erode
my constitutional rights."

-- which completely fails to recognize that the whole process of liberal democracy involves balancing individual and collective interests, and that the pursuit of individual interests must be subject to protection of collective interests all the time, and is made subject to that every minute of every day of our lives.

And this means reaching solutions that are designed, not to "make everyone happy", let alone to "make ME happy", but to ... well, far be it from me to define the goals of liberal democracy, actually, but heck, maybe they are something that more people ought to give some more thought to.

.

We've discussed this bill before but my summary of sponsors suggests that those from California, New York, and Massachusetts are doing their best to prevent independent voters from voting for a Democratic presidential candidate.

H.R.2038
Title: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

Among other things, the bill would:

Ban all semi-automatic shotguns. Bans Remington, Winchester, Beretta, Benelli, and other shotguns commonly used for hunting, trap, skeet, sporting clays, and self-defense. Bans them by banning their main component, called the "receiver" (Sec. 2(a)(30)(J)), and bans them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip" (Sec. 2(H)(ii) and (b)(42)). Any characteristic.

Bans all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip." (Sec. 2(a)(30)(D)(iii) and (iv), and (b)(41) and (42)). Any characteristic.

Bans target shooting rifles. Bans the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand."

NUMBER BILL SPONSORS BY STATE
CA (25)
NY (16)
MA (8)
IL (7)
NJ (7)
FL (4)
MD (4)
CT (3)
PA (3)
TX (3)
HI (2)
OH (2)
RI (2)
AZ (1)
CO (1)
DC (1)
GA (1)
IN (1)
MI (1)
MN (1)
MO (1)
OR (1)
VA (1)
WA (1)

BILL SPONSORS BY STATE
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. AZ
Rep Becerra, Xavier CA
Rep Berman, Howard L. CA
Rep Capps, Lois CA
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. CA
Rep Farr, Sam CA
Rep Filner, Bob CA
Rep Harman, Jane CA
Rep Honda, Michael M. CA
Rep Lantos, Tom CA
Rep Lee, Barbara CA
Rep Lofgren, Zoe CA
Rep Matsui, Robert T. CA
Rep Miller, George CA
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille CA
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. CA
Rep Sanchez, Loretta CA
Rep Schiff, Adam B. CA
Rep Sherman, Brad CA
Rep Solis, Hilda L. CA
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete CA
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. CA
Rep Waters, Maxine CA
Rep Watson, Diane E. CA
Rep Waxman, Henry A. CA
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. CA
Rep DeGette, Diana CO
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. CT
Rep Larson, John B. CT
Rep Shays, Christopher CT
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes DC
Rep Brown, Corrine FL
Rep Deutsch, Peter FL
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. FL
Rep Wexler, Robert FL
Rep Lewis, John GA
Rep Abercrombie, Neil HI
Rep Case, Ed HI
Rep Davis, Danny K. IL
Rep Emanuel, Rahm IL
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. IL
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. IL
Rep Lipinski, William O. IL
Rep Rush, Bobby L. IL
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. IL
Rep Carson, Julia IN
Rep Capuano, Michael E. MA
Rep Delahunt, William D. MA
Rep Frank, Barney MA
Rep Markey, Edward J. MA
Rep McGovern, James P. MA
Rep Meehan, Martin T. MA
Rep Olver, John W. MA
Rep Tierney, John F. MA
Rep Cardin, Benjamin L. MD
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. MD
Rep Hoyer, Steny H. MD
Rep Van Hollen, Chris MD
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. MI
Rep McCollum, Betty MN
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy MO
Rep Andrews, Robert E. NJ
Rep Holt, Rush D. NJ
Rep Menendez, Robert NJ
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. NJ
Rep Payne, Donald M. NJ
Rep Rothman, Steve R. NJ
Rep Smith, Christopher H. NJ
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. NY
Rep Bishop, Timothy H. NY
Rep Crowley, Joseph NY
Rep Engel, Eliot L. NY
Rep Israel, Steve NY
Rep Lowey, Nita M. NY
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. NY
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. NY
Rep Nadler, Jerrold NY
Rep Owens, Major R. NY
Rep Rangel, Charles B. NY
Rep Serrano, Jose E. NY
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh NY
Rep Towns, Edolphus NY
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. NY
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. NY
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs OH
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. OH
Rep Blumenauer, Earl OR
Rep Brady, Robert PA
Rep Fattah, Chaka PA
Rep Hoeffel, Joseph M. PA
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. RI
Rep Langevin, James R. RI
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. TX
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila TX
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice TX
Rep Moran, James P. VA
Rep McDermott, Jim WA

Who but the totally insane want MORE assault weapons on the street?

The idea that we should pander to the sort of scum who want assault weapons is reprehensible.

Neither therapist that i have seen has identified any disorders in me. Thereby making me apprently sane. But then again, I'd love to see more so called "assault weapons" around. Specifically the ones made by heckler and koch, those buggers are expensive!

I love the catch phrase "on the street". As if the only place "sport-utility rifles" are found is "on the street" with all the hoods and gangmembers. Please. The only place there are "assault weapons" "on the street", is in Robocop! (They have .50 BMG's on the street in robocop aswell, just FYI)

The "brady campaign to prevent reasonable discourse" likes to throw around the terms "uzi" and "ak-47".
Hoping to conjure up pictures of gangsters leaning out of cars and riddling playgrounds with 900 rounds a minute from their full auto uzi, or terrorists running around terrorizing with their full auto assault rifles.
Please. A legal, semi auto uzi, is at least 26 inches long. Not something you stick in your pocket. Plus they'll cost you at least $1500.
Yeh, i am sure they'll go to gunstores and pay that, rather then just buying a cheap handgun from their drug dealer and snorting the rest up their nose. For a legal full auto Uzi, you're looking at at least $4000. But criminals obviously dont care about doing things legally. Thats why they're criminals. So the assault weapons ban didnt really bother them did it? (Or have you failed to note, that all the really nasty shootings happened after the ban passed?)

Ak-47's are cheap, but just to damn big to be of intrest to your common street thug. I'm sorry, but there are a lot more AK-47's sitting in collectors gun cabnets then floating around on the streets.

Hell, I'd rather get shot with an ak-47 then a hunting rifle if you want the truth. But i dont imagine either would be to much fun.

Anyways, all this talk about ak-47s and uzi's, well, it just sounds bad. Why dont they ever talk about all the other guns they banned?

Like the Steyr AUG, or the, or the Ar70 or the AR-15 or the FAL or the Galil? Arent these assault weapons just as deadly as the uzi or ak-47? Or is the truth that they just dont sound as "scary"?

Death to the 94 crime bill, next on the agenda, the poison pill in the 1986 FOPA.

Damn it's good to be on the offensive for once.

Peddle this rubbish elsewhere.

another BIG laugh

form the Bureau of Justice statistics:
"During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun."



2% of the criminals in the study used assault type weapons. I can see why this is such a BIG problem

More people get killed by baseball bats, rolling pins, and other blunt objects than by "assault weapons."

Them scary looking assault weapons are dangerous, man! You don’t have to be an expert to know they kill, man! Them black evil guns scary, man! We don’t want no high-powered rifles on the streets, man! Every shot makes a big hole, man! Not like nice looking hunting shotgun, man! That’s the gun, man! No black, nice wood, low power, man! When you shoot it, it makes only 8-9 holes, man! Its safer for the kids, man!

But you do have to be totally insane to want to put more on the street.

to know it's made of shit?

"shit knowledge" in the gun debate?

about the first time I encountered a gun nut arguing the rubbish they post...

This one goes into my top ten favorites responses list!

It is a selective fire (auto and semi) rifle that shoots an intermediate rifle cartridge Since the gun control act of 86 people cannot buy new automatic weapons. So there are very few real assault rifles in the hands of private citizens. Before the the 86 ban the only full auto gun used in a murder was committed by a cop. And of course cops aren't affected by the 86 ban.

but then they claim it doesn't exist...

You just can't buy it.

Assault rifles, i.e., select-fire rifles (defined as machine guns under federal law) can be bought by non-felon US citizens willing to pay the $200 transfer tax and undergo an intensive background check.

Do not confuse the term "assault rifle" with "assault weapon." An assault rifle is a techincal term from firearms lexicon which is by definition a machine gun. The term "assault weapon" on the other hand was invented in 1988 by Josh Sugarman to describe essentially any scary-looking weapon. The term was then condified in federal law to refer to semi-automatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine and which also had two or more "evil" features. "Assault weapons" are by definition semi-automatic. No "assault rifle" is an "assault weapon."

Kinda like "gateway drug." The terms didn't exist until someone wanted to ban them. In other words, they are propaganda terms.

And how does it differ from a Remington 7400 "deer rifle?" Oh, that's right. It's black instead of "wood color."

The only people that have so called "assault weapons" on the street are criminals that would have them with or without a ban. I own several so called "assault weapons" and none of them are on the street.

their state constitutions before they try to take away the "inalienable rights" of the citizens of other states?

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
UNQUOTE


QUOTE
Article CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:-
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.
UNQUOTE

According to the FBI report, "Crime in the United States, 2001":

Law Enforcement committed 368 justifiable homicides with firearms of 370 total and 311 (84%) were with handguns. (Table 2.16)

Private Citizens committed 176 justifiable homicides with firearms of 215 total and 136 (77%) were with handguns. (Table 2.17)

Criminals committed 8,719 murders with firearms of 13,752 total and 6,790 (49%) were with handguns. (Table 2.10)

Neither criminals nor law enforcement officers have an inalienable right to bear arms as a condition of their status, note a law enforcement officer's right to bear arms is granted by government. Handguns are the tools of choice for criminals and law enforcement officers.

Given that "potential victims" as citizens have the inalienable right to defend self and property, i.e. to "oppose crime", as a condition of their status, they should be allowed the same tools used by those without that inalienable right.

"Given that "potential victims" as citizens have the inalienable right to defend self and property, i.e. to "oppose crime", as a condition of their status"
They have the right to control the sale of guns. Which the gun industry spends millions each year trying to overturn..

So what you're saying is only people who support gun control have a right to any sort of "control"... and the millions upon millions of the Rocks fans...uhr....I mean, gun owners in the united states have no say whatsoever? Please.

The gun industry my ass. To use your own words, Go peddle that gun lobby crap to someone dumb enough to believe it. We're not a lobby. We're voters. unfortunettly, for every gun owner that knows the issue and votes, there are several that dont, but the more you try to push your little agenda, the more that are waking up and taking back their rights.

:toast:

from knocking your head up against a brick wall? :)

from knocking your head up against a brick wall? :)

"We're not a lobby. We're voters."
Yeah, and there is no gun show loophole,there's nno such thing as an assault rifle, yadda yadda yadda....

"the more you try to push your little agenda, the more that are waking up and taking back their rights."
Ple-e-e-ase...what the gun nut crowd struggles to do is let the gun industry continue arming criminals unfettered.

O' Holy Shit, you're right, there is no gun show loop hole. The same rules that apply at a gun show apply every where else. Period.

Oh Sure, there are assault rifles alright, but they dont depend on pistol grips and bayonet lugs, they are defined by select fire features. Anyone that tells you differant is A: Ignorant, or B: A liar. You dont want to be an ignorant liar, do you?

"Ple-e-e-ase...what the gun nut crowd struggles to do is let the gun industry continue arming criminals unfettered."

Right. All of us gun nuts love to see schools shot up. I especially like it when terrorist use .50 caliber sniper rifles to shoot airplanes right out of the sky! wheee!
Please. Criminals are already barred from having firearms, if you can prove the "gun industry" is dealing m16's out their back door to felons tell it to the ATF. Instead of whining on an internet forum without any proof at all to back up your claims.

You know, Three months ago, I had never owned a gun. Had little to no intrest in them. Got one because i had money to blow. It took me about a month to look at the politics of what gun ownership entails. And all the crap that people like you spout is what woke me up. It took me less then two months to go from "Eh, who cares" to an all out 2nd ammendment "gun nut" zealot. Thanks to people like yourself.

The more you try and take our rights away, the harder we're going to fight, and you aint seen nothin yet.

keeping the gun show loophole propped wide open. Gun nut lies to the contrary....there is a loophole, and a corrupt industry that wants it that way.

"You dont want to be an ignorant liar, do you?"
Of course not....that's why I reject the RKBA bullshit..

"It took me less then two months to go from "Eh, who cares" to an all out 2nd ammendment "gun nut" zealot."
You, and Ted Nugent, and Orrin Hatch, and John Ashcroft, and a whole bunch of scummy people. Enjoy the company.

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

including gun sales to criminals.

"Show me some proof that backs up this non-sense about a gun-show loophole"

Happy to: Here's the NRA trying to strong-arm Arizona's governor into keeping it propped open.

http://www.nraila.org/NewsCenter.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=2602

"The proposal is a reaction to a court ruling that said Tucson could require background checks for people buying guns at shows using city-owned property. The Tucson City Council rescinded its policy in December."


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0502bcapitol-briefs02.html

"show me some proof that the industry is corrupt."
Let's start with the Tiahrt amendment, Kahr Arms and the Bullseye Gun Shop and go on frrom there.

Here is the complete text from your first link:
"Legislation to keep cities from restricting gun shows held on city property has passed in the House and now moves to Gov. Janet Napolitano for consideration."

Where is the strong arming going on?

You are using Khar and Bullseye to paint the whole industry as corrupt? Two ezample out of thousands od dealers? If Khar broke the law, why were no Federal charges filed against them? Bullseye has lost thier FFL.

If lawsuits were not filed against the manufacturers for a third patys actions, the Tiahrt ammendment wouldn't be on the table.

"You are using Khar and Bullseye to paint the whole industry as corrupt? Two ezample out of thousands od dealers?"
No, I just started with two of the most egregious

I have said it before but its easier to repost than to find where I wrote it orignonaly.

1. The Gun "Loophole" is properly called a private transfer exemption because forcing everyone buying and selling firearms to go through a liccenced dealer may deter transfers to innelegable persons but provides a very high regulatory hurdle and isn't worth the trouble of 'fixing'.

2. Firearms manufacturing is tighly regulated. Take an oppertunity to read the federal and state codes. I trust you can use Google.

3. Firearms tech is stagnant and has been since the 50s. Simply put the metalurgy and machining processes have improved but with a few exemptions (like polymers) fundamentaly anything that could be built today could have been built then. As a mature technology pattents and trade secrets protect very little and as a result there is a low barrier to entry (into the bussness of firearms manufacturing) and as a result low profit margins.

On a more persional note, if I were to ever own a gun (I see no point in it at the pressent), just because of people like you, I would get the evilist looking "assault weapon" just to anoy you.

Don't use straw man arugments where leftists are compared to lower primates like Nugent, Hatch and Asscroft. Don't attack the person making the argument but the argument itself. Otherwise, the poster looks like a raving irrational loon.

On the other hand posters like CO Liberal and Iverglas may support stricter gun regulation than myself but bring up valid points in the discource that occurs here.

"Don't attack the person making the argument but the argument itself."
Hand us a BIG laugh...

to this statement?

"Ple-e-e-ase...what the gun nut crowd struggles to do is let the gun industry continue arming criminals unfettered."

Or is this your opinion?

Just look at the rubbish posted by gun nuts.

Want to cut down on criminals getting guns? Closing the gun show loophole and policing gun dealers more closely would be a quick way to start.

But what's the bullets for brains crowd's response? "There is no gun show loophole yaddayaddayadda." That, despite the fact that the industry spends millions each year keeping the gun show loophole wedged open.

and Democrat voter/supporter.

However, I find no issue in American politics today that rates as high in my book as the right to keep and bear arms.

That is not to say that I am not open to debate. Maybe I'm dead wrong, who knows, but comments like "what a pantload" and "cry us a river" sure aren't going to change my mind anytime soon.

What will change my mind are arguments that show that my actions as a voting citizen, by owning numerous firearms, causes crime, well, then maybe I'll listen.

What the J/PS forum has become over the last 2+ years since I've been a member shows me that the RKBA issue will remain a crux issue in this party and could cost some valuable votes.

B

gun-grabbers are giving aid and support to the opposite party. Karl Rove is ROFLHAO at how predictable the Democratic Party is.

This time, we'll make it a real-world analogy.

People who support abortion choice "are giving aid and support to the other party". Voters who would otherwise vote Democrat (hmm ... how do we know that?) are voting Republican because they believe that abortion should be, if not illegal, very narrowly available.

So. Should the Democratic Party adopt an anti-choice platform? There are lots of people in the party now who are anti-choice, so it wouldn't be any more inimical to the party to do this than to adopt, say, the NRA's stance on gun control. I say that there's a good chance the Democratic Party could win some elections very handily if it did.

What are your thoughts? ... Or will you just evade the question as it has been evaded so far?

.

I do not have an intelligently-thought out position on abortion. (My knee-jerk response is pro-choice.) I'm still reading and discussing with partisans on both sides of that question, but I can tell you one thing. Anyone who personally attacks me because I do not see things their way gets immediately tuned out.

"... but I can tell you one thing. Anyone who personally attacks me because I do not see things their way gets immediately tuned out."

... that this was somehow relevant to the question *I* asked.

...