Democrats: Give up on gun control

Just stop it. Stop it. Support the 2nd amendment fully, and take a proactive citizen stance on the issue. State completely and without reservation that the 2nd amendment is about individual citizen ownership of firearms for personal use and personal protection.

You have no idea how many single-issue voters would change sides in a heartbeat if given the chance.

In addition, do yourselves a favor. Go out and buy a gun and keep it in your own home. Learn to be a safe gun owner.

One of my friends, and Green Party supporter and gun control activist is on the other side of the issue and is totally in favor of gun control, whatever that means. I think it means using both hands, he thinks it means taking my guns away.

Take your friends to the range and teach them to handle firearms responsibly.

One of the reasons the Japanese army was very reluctant to attack the mainland US territory was because the US population was heavily armed. A rifle behind every blade of grass indeed.

Fuck gun control. Let it flow! Arm yourself and allow your fellow citizens to arm themselves.

I'll tell you something else. The gangbangers can't shoot skeet worth a shit. They recognize when someone else can knock 50 out of 50 clay pigeons out of the air. I embarass the hell out of them on the range, and they know it.

Give up on the assault weapons ban. Stop it. Support the Bill of Rights. Make me stop giving money to the NRA by allowing citizens to arm themselves! Join the responsible gun owners today and support your fellow law-abiding citizens!

I'm never going to give up on something I believe in. That's exactly what you're calling for.

...given us our current political situation thanks to your "purity" on this bogus issue of "Gun Control." Are you proud of yourself? :eyes: I'll just bet you are...

You're one of those so-called "Democrats" whom <whom??> has...
...given us our current political situation thanks to your "purity" on this bogus issue of "Gun Control."

... I thought it was the bleating feminists, and/or the whining gay and lesbian types ...

So many people to blame. So much nonsense.

"Are you proud of yourself? :eyes: I'll just bet you are..."

Are you going to say what you mean? I'll just bet you aren't ...


(phormatting phixed)

:silly:

gun control is racist, and anti-freedom. It removes from the citizenry the power. Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot were all big supporters.

...who wish to restrict individual freedom...whether they know it or not.

This is the worst approach to an argument I've ever seen. What are you, 12? If you have some good reasons to oppose gun control, fine. Present them. Just saying "Stop believing what you believe!" Has that EVER worked?


And by the way, there is strong bipartisan support for reasonable gun regulation. What you are advocating would result in a net LOSS of votes.

exactly.

1) "gun control" costs us many, many votes

and

2) "gun control" has accomplished little or nothing and it never will

If you don't agree, ask yourself just how well the "war on some drugs" has curtailed drug use.

Democrats are supposed to be about our rights and whether you like it or not, gun ownership is, at worst, a defacto right in this country.

Just look at Kerry and his goose hunt a few days before the election. He has been adamant about gun control issues. For starters, he is a co-sponsor of a Bill that would have banned almost every single center-fire rifle cartridge made in America. He once mention in a speech that he once hunted with a Winchester 30-30 caliber rifle. That caliber is over 110 years old, is one of the most popular deer hunting round in existence, and the Bill he sponsored would have banned it.

Nobody believed he is a real hunter. They just figured he was doing another "Flip-flop". "I hunt with ammunition I want to ban", is what he seemed to be saying.

I've been doing research since the Election. One State, Pennsylvania was interesting. If it wasn't for Philadelphia, there Electoral Votes would have gone to the Bush Leaguer. There are, according to some E-Mail's I got, more hunters per capita in Pennsylvania than any other State in the Union. And if you can say that for a Northern State, how many voters in Western and South Western States? California was relatively close if you look hard at the numbers. Get rid of LA's and San Fransisco's votes and how would have California gone?

Oh, yeah. Hunters didn't vote for Bush as much as they voted against Kerry.

...that's partially responsible for the mess we're in now. Where it not for this bogus "gun control" nonsense, President Gore would now be entering his second term, and the Democrats would still control Congress. What in the world does it take for common sense to drip through and take hold in the real world for the gun-grabber wing of our Party? 55 Senate seats--and two lost Presidential terms--obviously hasn't done it. Will it take 60 GOP Senators? 70? Abandon this nonsense "gun control" line, and the Democrats would control the Senate, at the very least, in the next election. And after that, the White House. Wake the fuck up.

Gore supported gun control laws and more people voted for him.
There is nothing wrong with sensible gun control.

and it also cost the democrats seats in the Senate, House, and White House.

The AWB was a simple device to placate gungrabbers and piss a lot of gun owners who think gun ownership is more than hunting.

Here is what I would like to see:

If you are not a felon, crazy, or other proven dangerous person,

If you are an adult US citizen,

then you should be able to arm yourself with any gun without a registration whether the purpose be for hunting, self-defense, target shooting, or even just for the unlikely day the State become tyranical.

This would a progressive agenda for the democrats.

How about a hydrogen bomb? What's the limit?

There is not reasonable use for the weapons proscribed by the assault weapons ban. There are plenty of other legal weapons to choose from, more than in most advanced countries, I might add. If the selection available is not enough for you, you might be a bit of a fanatic- and thus do NOT represent the vast majority of the electorate.

any claim that there is not a "reasonable use for the weapons proscribed by the assault weapons ban" is obviously ignorant about the issue and what was defined as an assault weapon by the ban. additionally, the claimant would fit neatly into the "authoritarian" box, as he wishes rights to be granted by the government, not to the government.

"How about a hydrogen bomb? What's the limit?

There is not reasonable use for the weapons proscribed by the assault weapons ban. There are plenty of other legal weapons to choose from, more than in most advanced countries, I might add. If the selection available is not enough for you, you might be a bit of a fanatic- and thus do NOT represent the vast majority of the electorate."


The limit is what it has been for almost 100 years. Centerfire and rimfire small arms. As far as the assault weapon ban, do you have any idea what it entails? How does a pistol grip make a weapon more dangerous? How a flash suppressor make a rifle any more dangerous? They are cosmetic differences. Who cares? What, because they look scary no one should be able to own one?

And if the differences in the weapons in the AWB are "cosmetic" then why all the whining?

And yes, I would favor a complete ban on ALL handguns for civilian use. Let the police have them. You want to mount a rebellion against a tyranny (we have one now, but nobody cares enough to fight it) do it with a rifle, you don't need to conceal in a revolution. Besides, to win a revolution, you'd need a lot bigger stuff and you wouldn't really care about the law, would you.

that I should not be allowed to do so?

Sure, those parts are cosmetic, but I collect for authenticity. The only difference between the M16 that the military uses and the AR15 I have is that the military one is capable of fully automatic fire - mine isn't.

Collecting military style arms is a hobby for me. Why do you think I shouldn't be able to participate in this benign hobby?

do you oppose freedom?

we should support the assult weapons ban but leave it at that.

It's totally cosmetic, and therefore meaningless. Why exactly are you for the AWB? What does it ban?

I have an SKS rifle. It does not have both a flash supressor and a bayonet lug, and is therefore legal.

Tell me something. What does that combination of features mean to you as an AWB supporter? Are you afraid of a flash suppressor? WTF is a flash suppressor, and what exactly does it do? Why would you ever care? The rifle is still a semiautomatic rifle that will send a 7.62x39 round in the exact same trajectory the same distance.

The AWB is without reasoned support. It's a knee-jerk reaction. It's legislated ignorance.

Legalize it, don't criticize it!

Once again, what exactly is it about Assault Weapons that you dislike? Please be very specific.

protection! Hey just think....if your kids and I are in the 7/11 and a bad guy walks in and tries to hold the place up, I can ejaculate 5 pounds of 00 in about 4 seconds! Who cares if your kids catch a couple of rounds....Heck maybe one or two loads blows through the front window of the store then the windshield of the car your wifes waiting in and splatters her brains all over the upholstry...ah but no matter, I protected myself! What's a little collateral damage when your shooting badguys, right? I mean, my heart was in the right place, eh?

Is that clear enough for you? Jesus fucking christ....the ignorance of some people.

RC

Ain't no such thang, pardner.

Buckshot doesn't have the velocity to go through a storefront plateglass window, an auto windshield safety glass *and* kill a person in the front seat. It's that kind of over-the-top argument that kinda loses people like me - gun owners in favor of say, mandatory range and written testing before someone can take home a gun, harder to get dealer permits, etc.

( Buckshot doesn't have the velocity to go through a storefront plate glass window, an auto windshield safety glass *and* kill a person in the front seat. )
Have personally seen the results of a 12GA with 00 buck hitting the front windshield of a GM pickup killing the driver. He tried to run a blockade, was shot by a state trooper.

To bad the apperant majority of "abandon gun control" set quite obviously doesn't. Sort of frightening really....that in and of itself is proof that there should be gun control.

RC

Heck, you added it to your post. The operative word was and. Heavy shot from a powerful load will go through a thick window. It is extremely unlikely to go through three. The first poster's point is taken, but the example was flawed.

And no, I don't assume you are being dishonest, just maybe not looking closely enough at the post.

and since we're talking about a weapon like those outlined in Post 168 I'd say it's highly likely that a gun capable of firing over 200 rounds of 00/000 per minute wouldn't have a real difficult time pounding it's way through 10 windows....in matter of seconds.

RC

See post #168 read up, watch the videos....you know educated yourself a little....and get back to me pardner.

This discussion is about the abandonment of gun control. No gun control means no range, no written testing and no necessity for dealer permits. It means anyone with enough money can buy and carry any weapon he or she damn well cares to....and her or she can make that purchase from anyone who has a weapon to sell.

RC

Are both sellect-fire/full-auto.

I want one because they're a hoot. But it's not really practical. And, they're illegal. (Unless you can find a pre-ban SPAAS available somewhere, but I doubt you can.)

Both short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, and automatic firearms, are covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Is that clear enough for you? Jesus fucking christ....the ignorance of some people.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating that you don't understand the issue.

Not a friggin thing. The Firearms act of 1934 is gun control pal. Any law dictating what sort of fire arm can be purchased and who it may be purchased from, who can carry that fire arm and when and where it can be carried is gun control.

The isseu is the abandonment of gun control.....ALL gun control....and I understand it more than I suspect you could possibly realize.

RC

RapidCreek (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-12-04 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
41. I want a full auto short barreled shotgun that I can carry for personal protection! Hey just think....if your kids and I are in the 7/11 and a bad guy walks in and tries to hold the place up, I can ejaculate 5 pounds of 00 in about 4 seconds! Who cares if your kids catch a couple of rounds....Heck maybe one or two loads blows through the front window of the store then the windshield of the car your wifes waiting in and splatters her brains all over the upholstry...ah but no matter, I protected myself! What's a little collateral damage when your shooting badguys, right? I mean, my heart was in the right place, eh?

Is that clear enough for you? Jesus fucking christ....the ignorance of some people.

RC


Talk about ignorance. There is no full auto shotgun. If you choose to talk about gun control for imaginary guns, you will make us look stupid.


However, if you want to talk about collateral causulties from the use of legally owned guns for self-defense, then you should really provide some data on whether or not that happens much. But maybe you don't really care about data, perhaps imaginary accidental deaths from imaginary guns is what you'd rather talk about.

full auto/select fire shotguns. One at the Shot Show and one in a special training seminar, the origins of which I can't share. Both are listed below. I suggest you not assume that those who advocate gun control know nothing about guns.

To address your remark concerning my thoughts on what you describe as "collateral causulties from the use of legally owned guns for self-defense", Have you forgotten that this thread is a plea to abandon gun control? If there is no gun control I can own and carry any weapon I choose....and so can anyone else. ALL firearms can and WILL be owned by the general public. Since such a scenario has thankfully not come to pass it would be pretty difficult to provide the facts, figures and data documenting the highly probable blood baths which would ensue.

Oh and by the way....I don't need to make you look stupid...you do a fine job of that yourself, bigmouth.

Auto Assault 12

Auto Assault 12 (AA12) Select-Fire Combat Shotgun for Mil/LE Special Operations

Video of an Auto Assault 12 being fired.

USAS-12 with 20 rounds drum magazine

Information on USAS-12 Assault Shotgun

A-12 MKII Select Fire 12Ga. and A-20 MK1 Select Fire 20Ga Tactical Shotguns

Here is a video of an A-12 MKII Select Fire 12Ga. and an A-20 MK1 Select Fire 20Ga. being fired. Sorry I don't have a photo of the gun.


There are a few more I could list but I have more important things to do with my time than educate you and your "expert" buddies.


RC

Yeah, I'll bet that there are just a ton of folks lining up to slam down thousands of bucks each for a full-auto shotgun. :eyes:

I think that gun-liking people may be forgiven for not realizing that anyone had actually gone to the trouble of crafting a fully-automatic shotgun. I'm guessing that this strange implement is useful only as an illustration of the principle that you can always find at least one of anything in this world.

I remember a particular news story that was posted here in the gungeon once; the bad guy in this story supposedly had been armed with "a semi-automatic revolver". Filled with new-found knowledge, I quickly objected that there are no "semi-automatic revolvers": revolvers work on a different principle.

Turns out, as one person evidently delighted in telling me, there are semi-automatic revolvers: two of them, in fact. Almost no one has ever owned one, or even seen one. It's highly unlikely that the criminal in the story was toting one of these rarae aves. And the person who wrote the story almost certainly knew even less about guns than I do.

But it's very satisfying to know something that no one else knows, which I suspect is why the full-auto shotgun entered this discussion in the first place.

Well, alrighty. Ya got me. Some fool actually made a machine-shotgun. I never would have believed it.


:shrug:

You might care to check this
post out.

Seems the fascist thug in the picture you'll find there knows about them....In fact he's holding one up! How about that? When you consider the inspiration behind the thread the above mentioned post is in, you may come to understand that the scenario I've illustrated in post 41 isn't quite as far fetched as you insist...in fact, it or something along the same lines, would be happening on a fairly regular basis in the absence of gun control. So you think about that for a while ok?

And understand this....just because you and your pals don't know about something hardly makes it generally unknown. You all seem to believe that anyone who advocates the control of weapons in this country couldn't possibly be as big an expert as you are on the subject....when in fact, the very reason I advocate control is because I know a hell of allot about weapons (quite allot more than you and your "expert" buddies it would seem) AND the mentality of stupid fuckers who dream of walking around with them sans any sort of regulation.

And understand this....just because you and your pals don't know about something hardly makes it generally unknown. You all seem to believe that anyone who advocates the control of weapons in this country couldn't possibly be as big an expert as you are on the subject....when in fact, the very reason I advocate control is because I know a hell of allot about weapons (quite allot more than you and your "expert" buddies it would seem) AND the mentality of stupid fuckers who dream of walking around with them sans any sort of regulation.

Um... most of the gunners haven't weighed in on the full-auto shotgun, so this whole affair gives you scant opportunity to judge their expertise.

Now, if you wanna judge my expertise, then go right ahead. But I'll tell you myself that I haven't got any.

Seems the fascist thug in the picture you'll find there knows about them....In fact he's holding one up! How about that? When you consider the inspiration behind the thread the above mentioned post is in, you may come to understand that the scenario I've illustrated in post 41 isn't quite as far fetched as you insist...in fact, it or something along the same lines, would be happening on a fairly regular basis in the absence of gun control. So you think about that for a while ok?

The picture didn't display when I went to look at it, but never mind. I understand it depicts some chickenhawk brandishing his ludicrous machine-shotgun.

Look, if people like that had any real balls, they'd be over in Eye-Rack, actually fighting the war they so loudly support with their mouths. I'm aware that they would like to be viewed as fearsome; I'm just not sure I can oblige them under the circumstances.

and frankly select-fire shotguns aren't really the issue here, nor are any other respective sorts of firearms....what is the issue is the mentality of a large segment of our society....a segment that is depicted quite clearly in the thread I referenced.

Coming from a long line of veterans....and being one myself I couldn't agree more with the sentiments you expressed in your last paragraph. The fact is however, that this sort is NOT in Iraq...they are here....and like you said, they are predominantly big mouthed, cowards who get a hard on from talking shit and behaving in an anti-social fashion. Most of them haven't got the nuts to act on the shit they talk unless they are armed with people killers/penis enlargers....and generally the level of irresponsibility, sociopathy and insanity they display is directly related to the level of lethality they perceive, rightly or wrongly their weapons possess. This is why the firearms act of 1934 was enacted and passed....and subsequently the AW ban. It is not because guns are bad...it is because a large segment of our society seeks to use firearms as a set of nuts. Obviously a weapon that has the appearance of a people killer...and generally speaking is intended to be used to that end, is going to appeal to this type quite a bit more than a firearm that's design lends itself to hunting. So it makes sense guns which increase these idiots perceptions of invincibility should be heavily regulated.

Therein lies the rub....Truly responsible owners of firearms refuse to understand that the above mentioned segment of society exists. That said, the gun control they fight against with such vigor protects their own wives, kids, husbands from the irrationality of that sort. Do they want their families walking around in a world where we afford such morons the tools they require to inflate their warped idea of manhood to a degree that scenarios like the one I illustrated a few posts ago become highly likely?

I find it so odd that haters of gun control insist that efforts to legislate the illegality of certain weapons is a precursor to taking all their beloved weapons away. They speak with such authority about the Firearms act of 1934....though strangely they still have their weapons. If gun controls ultimate purpose was to take their weapons away....then I have to wonder why they weren't taken away in about 1935.

Let's face it...if there were no gun control, no Firearm act of 1934 we'd be living our day to day lives in an environment like the Iraqis, Afghanistanies and a good portion of Africans do....and frankly I'd prefer not to live in an environment like that. Would you?


Most of the gunners here have wieghed in on gun control. They've made quite clear they are entirely against it....and that's truelly a sad state of affairs. It belays the fact that they've created their own little fanciful world in which to live....one which enables them to deny the results a complete lack of gun control would clearly yield....results to which they strangly believe, they and their families are imune.

Oh and if you'd like to see a whole bunch of proudly posed for picture, pictures of the morons our "reponsible" gun owners have to blaim for that which they hate so much...click on the link below....check out the photos listed at the beginning of the thread....and consider what our country would be like if the segment of society represented in these photographs were given unfettered access to any sort of weapon they cared to have.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2669339&mesg_id=2669384

RC

best thing to do with a dodge caravan, shame he didn't have a couple pounds of tannerite hooked up to it as well.

"full auto short barreled shotguns" (whatever the fuck they are) have been legislated since the National Firearms Act of 1934. The assault weapons ban didn't do ANYTHING to ANYTHING full auto OR short barreled.

Why do I have a feeling I need to write "A Dummies guide for Guns and Gun Control Laws for the Left"?

It's gun control....no different than the AW ban.

RC

what does that have to do with the assault weapons ban? nothing. full auto firearms are covered under a law from 1934. the funny part is that you are claiming others are ignorant. get the facts and get a grip.

so what the hell are you talking about? Read what the fucking assault weapon ban entails. It only affects SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles. READ. READ. READ!!!! KNow what you are talking about. You would be able to make your case a lot easier.

It appears that many otherwise intelligent people lose their
ability to think logically when it comes to a discussion
about firearms.

What rational liberals are up against are two irrational groups:

1. Anti- gun fanatics in the Democratic party.
2. Evangelicals in the Republican party.

I agree with you completely.

EXPLAIN to me responsible assault weapon ownership.

Come on, I'm here, waiting to be sold. EXPLAIN it to me.

An assault weapon is any semiautomatic rifle with both a flash supressor and a bayonet lug. I have one in a rifle case in my closet right now. I don't shoot it inside my apartment. That's pretty responsible, don't you think? I also have a loaded 12-gauge next to my bed. While it's not an assault weapon, it's my first choice in home defense.

What is it exactly that you think an assault rifle is? Go ahead, define it. Tell me what an assault rifle is, as opposed to a semiautomatic rifle. What's the difference?

You tell me. What is an assault rifle, and what is a semiautomatic rifle? What is the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle? And why should you be more afraid of an assault rifle than you would be of a .38 snubby tucked into my waistband?

Cars are used to kill many times more people in the US than ALL firearms related deaths. And these deaths often involve alcohol. Why aren't you hot to ban cars and booze? Think of how many thousands of lives you could save.
If we could make cars as safe as guns, we'd REALLY be doing some good.

"Assault" weapons are exactly what the Second Amendment is all about. Think the 2nd Amendment applies to the National Guard, the NG wasn't even around when it was written. Look up the definition of militia in your home State's statutes. There is a good chance that definition includes YOU.

Think the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to "assault" weapons because they weren't around when it was written? Then the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to this forum because there were no computers when IT was written. Nor does the 1st Amendment apply to radio or TV or high speed printing presses And the 4th and 5th Amendments don't apply to your cell phone conversations because there were no cell phones around when they were written. Nor do they apply to typewritten documents in your home or place of employment. Heck they wouldn't even apply to documents hand written with a ballpoint pen, only those scratched out with a quill.

I have read so many posts here at DU where folks accuse the Govt of abusing their rights and infringing on their civil liberties, and yet so many of these same folks INSIST on giving that same Govt a total monopoly on force and power. People rant about being pushed around by cops whom they claim have no respect for their rights, but then try to tell me that those same cops are the only ones who can be "trusted" with guns! Hunh?
Your own disaffection with the status quo is the single best reason to support the 2nd Amendment. In the wake of the election, Democrats and liberals have screamed about being disenfranchised, but were you really? were you kept away from the polls by Govt troops with rifles and fixed bayonets? What would you do if you were? Throw dirty looks at them? The 2nd Amendment is the KEYSTONE of the Bill of Rights. If Dubya really wanted to herd you all into cattle cars and ship you off to the camps, what would you do? Hold hands and sing defiant songs until the gas choked the life out of you? 56 MILLION people were MURDERED in the 20th Century by rogue GOVERNMENTS! The NAZI Holocaust didn't start until AFTER Adolph Hitler took over the German Government from INSIDE. I've seen and heard Dubya equated with Hitler. If that is a true comparison, do you really want to give him a TOTAL MONOPOLY on force? Do you remember what happened at Waco Texas? Maybe the Branch Davidians were just a bunch of nutjobs, but try the shoe on the other foot. What if YOU were the one inside the compound and Dubya's storm troopers were beating down the door?

Freedom isn't free, for every "right" there is an equal and opposite "responsibility".

There are too many RWs running around now who are crazy and can be instructed to do just about anything by talk radio. It scares me that they all have guns. They actually believe that if perceive their rights are being violated they have some God given right to shoot people. These people aren't lawyers and have no idea whether their rights are being violated or not.

The wingers base most of this on the idea that the constitution envisioned a right to rebellion. Rebellion wasn't intended. Shortly after the Constitution was enacted Washington led three state militias to put down a tax rebellion, the whiskey rebellion. So, we know that the founding fathers had no intent to allow armed people to take matters into their own hands.

If you are afraid of Fascism, I suggest you convince as many of your friends as possible to stop believing RW propaganda like Hannity or Limbaugh. Fascism is growing right now. The people who are falling for Fascism have been convinced to trust no other source of information but Fascist propaganda. If the propaganda told the wingers that the left was trying to steal an election, the RWs would cheer if the government stopped voters at gunpoint. RW guns aren't protecting us from Fascism. They are probably going to enforce Fascism.

creeksneakers2 said:
"RW guns aren't protecting us from Fascism. They are probably going to enforce Fascism."
So how are YOU going to protect YOURSELF?
creeksneakers2 also said:
"They actually believe that if perceive their rights are being violated they have some God given right to shoot people. These people aren't lawyers and have no idea whether their rights are being violated or not."
I have heard folks on the LEFT side of the street talking about shooting people too.

By relying on the better judgement of the American people in the long run. Its fallen, but not failed. It would be pointless to take part in armed force against a winger insurrection. Most of them are well armed and have served in the military. The best way to stop them is to appeal to reason with the people who aren't totally sucked in yet.

I haven't seen any lefties advocate shooting people, even in the worst circumstances and I've been reading this board for years. I think you like to think that lefties would shoot people, because you have been led into an us versus them manner of thinking. Believing lefties would shoot you allows you to hate them, and it will allow you to shoot them.

I'm not going to shoot back. Now, how do you live with yourself?

"By relying on the better judgement of the American people in the long run. Its fallen, but not failed. It would be pointless to take part in armed force against a winger insurrection. Most of them are well armed and have served in the military. The best way to stop them is to appeal to reason with the people who aren't totally sucked in yet."

That didn't work too well in the 30's in Germany, did it? You are basing your trust on the "people" who just elected * to a second term?

All able bodies men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not part of the national guard are in the "unorganized militia" ...

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
10 USC § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Well now, that would be a perfectly reasonable question ... if the person you were speaking to had proposed to ban firearms. I didn't catch it, if s/he did. So it's quite beyond me why you'd ask. Why do you ask??

Funny, though, how cars & drivers (let's leave booze aside, since aiming one's gin bottle at someone and pulling the trigger/stepping on the gas isn't too likely to result in a fatality) are subject to all sorts of restrictions.

Registration of ownership of the thing and licensing of the user, after s/he passes a knowledge/skill test, are required. Just for starters.

Liability insurance is required if the user uses the thing in public.

In many places, it's an offence to fail to secure the item (i.e. to leave the keys in the ignition), leaving it vulnerable to theft and the risk that stolen cars and their drivers often lead to for the public.

Those are a few things that it might be advisable to apply, mutatis mutandis, to firearms, eh?

"Maybe the Branch Davidians were just a bunch of nutjobs, but try the shoe on the other foot. What if YOU were the one inside the compound and Dubya's storm troopers were beating down the door?"

Yeah, but if we stick to reality, what if YOU were the one whose kid was inside the compound being abused by a delusional cretin? *I* am just not likely to be doing that, myself.

"Freedom isn't free, for every "right" there is an equal and opposite 'responsibility'."

No, actually, there is not. That's just right-wing horseshit.

Even *if* you could make a coherent statement of what this "equal and opposite responsibility" is for whatever the hell right you think you're talking about.

In point of fact, for every right there is some point at which some interest, of other people or of society, outweighs the individual's interest in exercising the right, at least in certain ways and in certain circumstances. And that applies to the right to do, or to own and use, anything, including firearms.

*That* is how it works in a liberal democracy.

And a full basis load of ammo too. And rifle shooting is a national sport. The young men are in their army reserves and are issued a REAL ASSAULT RIFLE and are required to keep it at home with the ammo. So if they are ever attacked, the basic weapons are not at an amory that can be siezed.

It doesn't seem to have caused them any problems.

The USA assault rifle ban DID NOT outlaw assault rifles. They were already illegal. It outlawed cosmetic look alikes. It outlawed rifles that looked like military rifles but had regular internal workings. It outlawed ugly guns.

Every home in Switzerland has an assault rifle? You mean that Gretta, the 80-year-old retiree is packing heat? Nope. Many homes have assault rifles, but those are the homes of members of the Home Guard, which excludes a significant percentage of the population (foreign nationals, female households, those over fifty-five years of age, etc.)

Assault Rifles weren't illegal before the AWB. Fully automatic weapons were (and still are available) for those who can pass the rather stringent background checks. Pre-Ban assault weapons can still be sold (even during the AWB). I'm not sure of the ballistic definition of "regular internal workings," but the ban applied to semi-automatic weapons with large ammo clips and specific external features.

Assault Rifles, by definition, are fully automatic weapons covered under the 1934 NFA. They were Tightly controlled from the moment of their inception at the late 1940's.

The "Aassault Weapons Ban" has absolutely nothing to do with Assault Rifles, it was merely a moniker used to incite fear in the general voting public. The ban was strictly about cosmetic features on rifles, period. Semi-automatic weapons "With large ammo clips" (You mean Detachable Box Magazines perhaps?) that did *NOT* have a black matte finish, Bayonet lug, and Flashhider, were exempt, even though they operated in the exact same way, and used the exact same ammunition. Ruger's Mini-14 is a good example of this - There are 20, 30, and even 40 round magazines available for it, but because it has a wooden stock, and no pistol grip, it was exempt.

If you mean fully-automatic guns (machine guns) by assault weapons, then its easy to show you responsible assault weapon ownership.

In the last 70 years are so, there have only been one or two incidents where someone who Legally owned a machine gun used it to kill someone.

Non-criminal, noncrazy US adult citizens are not the people you need to worry about and thats who is affected by gun control.

I just advocate responsible gun ownership. I will not sell that out.
What exactly do you need an assault weapon for anyway?

What do I need an assault rifle for?

Bottom line is that I don't need a semiautomatic rifle with both a flash suppressor AND a bayonet lug for anything. Frankly, the bayonet is a meaningless addition at this point in history. I serously doubt that I would ever use a bayonet under any circumstances. You have a good point there.

Nevertheless, it remains to be said that a bayonet lug is a public danger. I think it's anachronistic to ban a bayonet lug. Who cares if I have one or not? Are you really afraid of me more if I have a bayonet lug AND a flash suppressor rather than whether I have either a bayonet lug or a flash suppressor?

I'm more afraid of unresticted advertising of McDonald's hamburgers than I am of bayonet lugs or flash suppressors. In my humble opinion, McDonald's hamburgers are more harmful to the general population than bayonet lugs are.

that while I was sitting on my ottoman one night, a .45 caliber slug imbedded itself in my wall five feet from me. The police claimed it was stray (true enough given the trajectory) but damned straight, I believe in responsible gun ownership and I don't buy the whole paranoid notion of protecting yourself from the government. There is no reason for assault weapons to be in the hands of average citizen.

...heck, in DC they've got plenty of stray bullets and guns are completely illegal. In the end, the only people who obey the gun laws, are people who obey LAWS. Banning guns in every state wouldn't help either...because as easy as it is to smuggle humans into this country, you can imagine how easy it is to smuggle drugs and guns. At the point that we ban all guns...we'll have the same problems that Britain is having...only the criminal element is armed.

This is probably the only issue I diverge on with the far left in this country. I feel strongly that I should be allowed to defend myself.

at least real ones, would never, ever, shoot skeet. Even better, most of them wouldn't know that crazy white people shoot at clay "pigeons", and if you told them that was the case, you would prolly get a blank stare.

This guy is probably from downtown Hicksville!

Whatever.

I stand right next to them about once a month. They have tattoos that identify them as members of the 18th street gang. For example, one of the guys I saw at the Angeles Range had an 18 tattooed on his chin.

This is Los Angeles, definitely not hicksville.

"The gangbangers can't shoot skeet worth a shit. They recognize when someone else can knock 50 out of 50 clay pigeons out of the air. I embarass the hell out of them on the range, and they know it."

You go to a range with gangbangers using assault weapons to shoot skeet? Do they have special badges? When shooting at clay pigeons with assault weapons, and attempting 50 out of 50, do you only get 50 bullets?

You don't shoot skeet with bullets.

Consider yourself banned from the range.

...and I'll consider my opportunities for socializing severely curtailed. I just found your claim that you "shoot skeet with gangbangers" completely laughable. I don't have a dog in this particular fight, so I frankly don't give a shit.

Read, people, read. Check what I've said. Justify yourselves! This one guy has disagreed with me, and he's resorted to aligning me with the LAPD as someone who shoots skeet with gangbangers. I guess I'll have to curtail my socializing with w13rd0. Oh no! I'll hang myself in the closet tonight.

Not a single goddamn one of you has refuted my position on the AWB and refuted it. None of you. Not a single one of you. Think about that for a while. There is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AWB. The collected wisdom of DU can come up with a decent justification of the AWB. This is the third time I've done this thread. Check my history, it's there. There is no good reason for the AWB. It's costing YOU votes. This could possibly have cost the Democratic movement the election. I'm a hardcore Democrat. I believe in the idea that the power is in the hands of the Citizens. The government serves at our pleasure.

Believe in yourselves! What are you afraid of? Gun grabbers are afraid of their own shadows! Stop being afraid. Read the AWB and see what it bans. It's bullshit. Cut it out. Get the votes of the people who oppose this nonsense. Read it for yourselves! Look at how many of my posts are not responded to. The gun grabbers have nothing to stand on! Don't take this sitting down, fight for your rights!

I will not be bullied by people who have no idea what they're aruging about.

Just for a moment, imagine that Kerry had been elected had he stood next to me on this issue. What would you have lost? Nothing. Nothing. NOTHING!!!!!

Gun banning is stupid. It's a house of cards built on sand!

Enough is enough. Stop grandstanding on bullshit. Forget the AWB, and stand up for the 2nd amendment. Support your right to bear arms. You might need it some day!

I stand in defiance of the anti-gun lobby. Come and get me! Give me a good reason to destoy my SKS and I will do it publicly and on film. Further, I will film it and post the film anywhere you choose. I'm about to hit the sack, but I will check this thread in the morning.

If any DU'er can convince me that the combination of bayonet lug and flash supressor is more dangerous to the public than the separate features of either flash supressor OR bayonet lug, I will turn my rifle in to the LAPD and post the film to any website you like. Give me numbers and statistics. Give me anything worth listening to, or CHANGE YOUR TUNE!!!

You composed a rather lengthy "response" to my stating "i don't give a fuck". Perhaps no one has bothered to take the opportunity to "refute you" because as with many wedge issues, there are extremists on either side of the divide that make reasoned discussion an impossibility. Keep yelling, it makes us all feel SO MUCH MORE CONFIDENT that you are capable of responsible ownership of weapons with a high "kill per minute" count.

What have you gained? Nothing. Nothing. NOTHING!!!

I don't consider gun owners the problem. I consider people that own guns and like picking fights and yelling the problem.

SKEET SKEET SKEET!!!

ON EDIT: Don't we have a gun dungeon or somewhere this shit is supposed to go?

but didn't emphasize your point.
It is the high cartridge capacity that makes this type of weapon
more deadly, not the flash suppresor and bayonet lug.
During the ban on this type of firearm, several manufactures removed
the offending flash suppressors and bayonet lugs and proceeded
to legally sell the same weapon with its' high cartridge capacity
and rate of fire.

During the ban on this type of firearm, several manufactures removed
the offending flash suppressors and bayonet lugs and proceeded
to legally sell the same weapon with its' high cartridge capacity
and rate of fire.

Magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds could not be made during the Scary Looking Gun ban, except for military or law enforcement.

I guess all those police don't want to be limited to 10 rounds. A civilian that needed to defend themselves would NEVER need more.

But how does one persuade the emotionally possessed?

What are you afraid of? Gun grabbers are afraid of their own shadows!

That would explain why we sleep with a loaded shotgun next to our bed.

Oh ... wait ... that's you. Guess you're the coward in this conversation.


P.S. While I honestly do suspect you are a complete wuss -- unless, say, you're a drug dealer in which case your living in such fear would seem rational -- I do not support the AWB for all of the reasons you have stated. Flash suppressors and bayonet lugs are, as you say, not particularly dangerous. I haven't read this whole thread yet, but down to this point I have yet to read one person respond to your simple question. Instead they argue about something else.

About a woman who was so proud of her anti-gun stance that she but a sign up saying something like "gun-free house" ... wouldn't ya know it, that was the house that was broken into. She took the sign down. What was the lesson learned?

Uh ... not to pay any heed to moronic apocryphal tales told on internet boards?

One of the things commonly sought by persons breaking into homes (particularly nice middle-class ones in the US, but also rural homes in the UK, regulars here will recall) is firearms. A home posted as firearm-free would logically be LESS of a target than a home suspected of having or known to have firearms.

I mean, given that persons wishing to break into homes really do commonly attempt to do so when no one is home ...

-- So, was she home when the break-in occurred?? And if not, what the hell difference did either the absence of firearms or the signage stating that fact make -- or would a firearm in the home have made?

Fuckin' duh.

Of course, I'm kinda funny that way...

I think we should drop more gun control efforts and focus on rebuilding impoverished communities.

I doubt it will gain many followers in LA ot NYC. How dare you inflict that on these people.

If people want guns, they'll find a way to get them.
Especially in this country. If we actually managed to ban them the measures we'd have to take to confiscate them all would be worse than anything caused by gun violence.

This country is a lot bigger than just LA and NYC. If we act as if what is good for LA and NYC is good for the rest of the nation, we will lose more elections

what difference does it make? Considering how "blue" NY and LA already are, how many converts do you think there are to to be had?

Coming at it from the other side... Where are they gonna go? They certainly aren't going to vote Republican. As another poster put it in a different threaed (a long time ago in a gallexy far, far away), "name one state that Kerry lost because he wasn't liberal enough." Pushing further left isn't going to get us anything right now.

Time and place for everything.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Let's focus on building up communities with responsible citizens rather than banning cosmetic features on rifles.

And speaking for those of us that live on urban streets, lemme be the first to tell you what a horrible idea this is.

New York, for one, benefitted enormously from local gun control ordinances.

Until then it had one of the highest crime rates in the country.

Despite the halo placed firmly on old Rudy's head after 9/11, he doesn't deserve credit for all of the changes that have taken place in the city since the 80s. In fact, the crime rate reduced more as a result of socioeconomic changes in residency than as a result of Giuliani's hamfisted (and at times disastrous) law-and-order policies. Read "The Tipping Point" for more info on this trend.

Yup, once that ole Sullivan law went into effect and all the guns were taked away from the niggers, kikes, wops, harps and spics, NYC became a crime free paradise on earth. A veritable YOOtopia where you could sleep out in Central Park all night long and leave your wallet layin' right out in plain sight. Why even a pretty girl could walk through that ole park any time o' the day or night wearin' the skimpiest cloths and be safe a a pit in a prune. And the subway? Safe as a church on Sunday.

That rattling sound you hear is the tens of thousands of NYC crime victims rolling over in their graves.

You can't be serious.

<support the 2nd amendment fully . . . the 2nd amendment is about individual citizen ownership of firearms>

I do support it. I support the National Guard. However, I don't support uncontrolled citizen ownership of firearms.

<how many single-issue voters would change sides in a heartbeat if given the chance>

I'm sure anti-abortionists would flock to our sides if we suddenly declared our oppposition to abortion. However, it just ain't so.

<In addition, do yourselves a favor. Go out and buy a gun and keep it in your own home>

Hell no. No guns in my house. Uh-uh.

<One of the reasons the Japanese army was very reluctant to attack the mainland US>

Noone's threatening to attack the mainland US in any way that personal gun ownership would mitigate. They're thretening to blow up ships in the harbors, fly planes into skyscrapers, poison water sources, etc., etc. Personal ownership of guns are useless against these threats.

<Fuck gun control. Let it flow!>

Umm, Fuck no.

<gangbangers can't shoot skeet worth a shit. They recognize when someone else can knock 50 out of 50 clay pigeons out of the air. I embarass the hell out of them on the range, and they know it.>

And their embarassment is going to prevent them from doing what? Shooting skeet with you? It sure as hell won't stop them from knocking over the local 7-11, or spraying innocents on the street with gunfire because one of their enemies is standing in a crowd.

<Give up on the assault weapons ban . . . responsible gun owners>

There is absolutely zero "responsible" use for an assault weapon outside of a SWAT operation or a war zone. Truly responsible gun owners will have nothing to do with assault weapons.

So yeah, I recognize you as a troll or a provocateur, but I still spent 10 minutes writing this response. Not sure why, but there you have it.

a responsible citizen of the US. You tell me something. What does a SWAT team do with an assault rifle? Is there some special function of a flash supressor or a pistol grip that magically functions differently than a sporter stock or a muzzle break? You have no idea whatsoever what it is that the AWB bans.

I suggest you do some research on what it is that the AWB bans. You are ignorant. Educate yourself before you embarrass yourself further.

This is meant to be inflammatory. You are talking out of your ass. Stop it.

I have some further news for you. My girlfriend works for a company that sells landmines. She makes no less than 5% of her paycheck as a direct result of the sale of landmines. If you want to ban something, ban the sale of landmines. Landmines are pure evil. I am seriously considering picketing her workplace for this reason. I'm not totally in favor of indiscriminate ownership of weapons. I'm against uninformed (ignorant) banning of weapons.

the intent of the founders was personal protection and hunting. Now I personally believe it was also concerning militia not individuals, especially considering NONE of the amendments obligated the states until the last century INCLUDING the 2nd, and since the 2nd has yet to be incorporated, a state today could STILL ban guns if it wanted to.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that its an individual right, there are it would seem lines, you yourself draw the line at landmines. Now that's fair, we can mostly agree that landmines are bad, but why? Because they are indiscriminate? So's an AK-47.


Someone else could argue that they have every right to line their house with landmines, that no one has the right to trespass on their property and theyre just exercising their right to defend their property and themselves.

So where is the line drawn? Clearly there is one, you seem to be saying that the line is easily found and Democrats should just get on board, but I suspect that EVEN if the Left did as you said the line would move, because one suspects the NRA is not going to simply say mission accomplished and disband merely because we moved their way, they will want to move the line further.

Why is an AK-47 different from a landmine?

Two separate reaons. An AK has to be aimed at an enemy, and a trigger has to be pulled in order for ordnance to be fired at the enemy. By contrast, once a landmine has been armed and deployed, any mobile being can be killed or maimed by it.

Check google for results for searches on landimes and casualties.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=landmines+casualty&btnG=Search

This is an evil practice and I will not stand behind it. I'm seriously considering picketing my gf's workplace because they make at least 5% of their profits from selling landmines. Again, I'm not in favor of indiscriminate ownership of weapons. I have, however, researched the AWB and found it stupid. Landmines, however, are totally evil and without redeeming features.

Someone else could argue that they have every right to line their house with landmines, that no one has the right to trespass on their property and theyre just exercising their right to defend their property and themselves.

Or dig a moat and stock it with crocodiles, as I always suggest.

But enough of the funnin'.

but I suspect that EVEN if the Left did as you said the line would move, because one suspects the NRA is not going to simply say mission accomplished and disband merely because we moved their way, they will want to move the line further.

Egg Zact Ly.

That's exactly the case for reproductive rights too.

THEY DON'T WANT "compromise", or common ground, or something everybody can live with. (Even if that were permissible in an area like abortion, since one cannot compromise someone else's rights.)

They want their own way. And they will go after it inch by inch, and by any means necessary. And it's an idiot who doesn't see them for what they are while they're doing it.

First, The Second Amendment doesn't need "incorporation" because the Amendment is not restricted to "Congress." Furthermore, incorporation is brought about by the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, and the right to bear arms doesn't really fit a "due process" mold.

Second, you say that the founders' intent concerned "personal protection and hunting" ... and then you turn around and say it concerned "militias." That's inconsistent. Which is it? And define the "militia."

Third, the Amendment specifically refers to "the right of the people" ... not the right of the militias ... and it seems rather odd to suggest that the "people" referred to in the First Amendment is somehow different than the "people" referred to in the Second Amendment. Or, do you mean to suggest that the "people" in the First Amendment means something like "the state" instead of "individuals"?

...I do support it. I support the National Guard
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with the "National Guard": the first "National Guard" unit was not formed until 1903, 114 years after the 2nd Amend. was written. It does, however, have everything to do with the same individual rights that animated the 1st Amendment: the rights of the people. I'm sure you've heard of those, huh?
You're a prime example of why our Party is out of power right now: a combination of arrogance & ignorance that sneers at an important constituency. God help us if you're the kind of attitude and prevailing voice that guides us in the years to come: we'll never claw our way back to power on such elitist terms.
Karl, is that you?

But I'll keep mine, thankyouverymuch.


(And that goes for the "scary" ones, too.)

... how the same group of people can whine about "rights" and not get this.

Gun ownership in this country is a right that is cherished by a large portion of the population. I might not have much in common with a lot of these people, but one thing I understand - you try to take away folks' rights and it pisses them off. And justifiably so.

The fact is, gun control has had little if any real effectiveness. The kinds of people who want a gun to use for criminal purposes have ZERO FREAKING PROBLEM getting one. They are EVERYWHERE, and there isn't jack-shit anyone can do about it.

The AWB is a case in point that the thread starter has already explained. It is a useless piece of feel-good legislation that accomplishes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than to lose Dems votes.

Don't want to throw gays under the bus? I'm with you. Don't want to take away a woman's rights to choose? I'm right there (in spirit, tho' IMHO we've already lost that battle if Bush** wants us to). But with a scant 1% of the vote we could have had the white house.

I'm tired of losing elections over bullshit. And the "liberal" position on guns is mostly bullshit IMHO.

AWB is stupid. I'll stand next to you and defend the rights of gays to do whatever they want. Abortion? Well, I have mixed feelings about it, but I'll support it to an extent.

Let's stop splitting the Democratic vote over bullshit.

This is a time more than ever we need to arm ourselves, you know the far right is armed to the teeth. If all the bushies have guns and we have none we will have no defense. We could be on the bring of Civil war.

But I know some relatives that do. Personally, I don't like guns, I don't like the thought of guns and frankly people who like guns make me a bit nervous. But I support somebody's right to own them. I just think they should store them responsably. If they have kids in the house, they must keep them locked up.

The AWB is mostly an ineffective measure. Flash suppressors and bayonets have nothing to do with real-world lethality of a gun. If a hobbyist wants to have one, I don't see the problem.

IMO, a better way to "control" guns would be to target companies that make cheap "saturday night specials" that gangbangers, hoodlums, and criminals buy. Put a tax on handguns. If owning a gun is that important to you, you should be willing to pay 500 dollars for one. We tax alcohol and cigarettes, why not a higher tax on guns? I can go down to Wal-Mart and buy a handgun for less than 100 dollars. That's ridiculous.

Magnulus said:
"I can go down to Wal-Mart and buy a handgun for less than 100 dollars."
Would you mind telling us where this Wal-Mart is located. FWIW, Wally World dosen't stock handguns and only a few will even order them.

And why do you hate poor people so much? Don't they have the same rights as other folks? Granted Niggertown Saturday Night Specials( the ORIGINAL NAME for cheap handguns) aren't all that great, but a poor woman shouldn't have to be raped just to suit your high moral standards.

I worked in a gun shop and we sold hundreds of Raven 25 Cal. automatics for under $50.oo new, and not ONE was ever used in a crime! And TWO were used to keep their owners from being raped.

" I can go down to Wal-Mart and buy a handgun for less than 100 dollars. That's ridiculous."

Not only ridiculous, but about as accurate as the claim that OK schoolgirls are having Lesbian orgies in their school restrooms.

Bet I can buy a "date" for the evening at this wonderful Wal-Mart of yours, too, can't I?

It's obvious to me that you know little about guns, with your "$100" statement, and even less about Wally-World....

They want the good stuff, Colts, Rugers, S&Ws, etc. They don't want RGs. The reason is that guns are to them a tool of their trade, and like any workman they want good tools. Cheap guns are made for people who intend to keep it loaded and rarely use it. They are made to be able to be put in a dresser drawer and still be there ten years later when needed. They are for people who can't afford a good gun, but need something.

Edit: typo

but nobody noticed. That's no great surprise, since the media
decided that Democrats should be seen but not heard.

Please don't give money to the NRA in any case.
They are part and parcel of the Republican party.
Your guns are not in nearly as much danger of being taken away
as we Democrats are.

Why do you post this? Doesn't the NRA support the candidate who is most supportive of the 2nd Amendment, no matter what the party affiliation?

Didn't Democrats endorced by the NRA do pretty well in Congressional elections?

I believe had the approval of the NRA.
Vermont is the only state in the country that does not require a
permit to carry a handgun.
Vermont also was the first to recognize civil unions.

this whole election cycle was about Republicans lying their asses off non-stop.

They'll take yer guns!
They'll take yer bible!
blah blah blah

Just months before the election, Feinstein and many democrats were pushing to renew the ineffective AWB. Kerry voted to include the extension as an amendment. Gun owners remember that.

--however I could care less about the registration and all that. If guns are all that useful (by themselves) for overthrowing or resisting tyranny, why is it that Saddam had no trouble controlling his population despite the fact that most people in Iraq are armed and there have NEVER been any gun control laws? Organization is far more important.

of hearing people say they won't vote for Democrats because they will "take their guns away." It makes me want to punch them in the face.

These people are morons. It's late. I'm inarticulate.

I think people have the right to own a firearm. However, firearms are deadly. So are cars. You don't let just anyone drive a car, right?

"Gun Control" is a terrible term and needs to be replaced with "Gun Safety." If you want to own a semi-automatic rifle, you need to show people you are responsible with it. If you want to own a handgun, you need to demonstrate you know how to properly store it. I don't care if someone owns a gun, because responsible gun owners will be safer IMO than scared folk.

People need to be properly educated about firearms. Everyone should be required to take the same type of safety courses for firearms as they are for automobiles. I'm sorry that I don't think regular morons who use glocks as can openers should have that right.

I hope that made sense. I'm going to bed.

""of hearing people say they won't vote for Democrats because they will "take their guns away." It makes me want to punch them in the face.""


If prominent Democrats had not said that they wanted to ban all private ownership of guns, this would not be a problem.

I want to see a link of a prominent Democrat saying the want to ban all private ownership of guns.

And a news link, not a link to someone claiming to quote a prominent Democrat.

And I want it from a "prominent" Democrat. Not some Chicago City Alderman who wears funny hats.

And I want a news link quoting this prominent Democrat saying they want to ban all private ownership of guns, not saying something like "wouldn't it be great if nobody owned a gun?". Saying "wouldn't it be great if the world were a perfect place" is a far cry from claiming one can MAKE the world a perfect place.

And after you find ONE such quote from a prominent Democrat from a legitimate media source, you will need a whole lot more before it starts to sound like something supported by the Democratic Party as opposed to just a handful of radicals out on the fringe. Otherwise this is, as everyone else was saying on this particular sub-thread, NOT the Democratic Party's position and instead a case of everyone believing the Democratic Party's position is what the Republican Party tells them it is.

If you'd like to know, my first post on this board was on this topic. Same fallacies, same propagandazing, same illogic.

Just stop it. Stop it. Support the 2nd amendment fully, and take a proactive citizen stance on the issue. State completely and without reservation that the 2nd amendment is about individual citizen ownership of firearms for personal use and personal protection.

This is blatantly hilarious. Own whatever you like, I agree. But the Second Amendment is not about ownership- it says there is no individual _right_ to bear arms of the kind, no matter what you or I propose to like.

You have no idea how many single-issue voters would change sides in a heartbeat if given the chance.

Yes, we do. Zero. They'd find some other pressing excuse to vote for the Stupid Party. If they believe half the things you do, their schooling has hopelessly failed them to function in the modern world anyway.

In addition, do yourselves a favor. Go out and buy a gun and keep it in your own home. Learn to be a safe gun owner.

And up the risk of getting yourself shot sevenfold? That's in the undisputed statistics.

One of my friends, and Green Party supporter and gun control activist is on the other side of the issue and is totally in favor of gun control, whatever that means. I think it means using both hands, he thinks it means taking my guns away.

So, is something actually wrong with him, or are we supposed to care?

Take your friends to the range and teach them to handle firearms responsibly.

That would be about the last place to learn the 'responsibly' part- surrounded by the Cultists, no actual danger to learn to assess. That's like learning about war by playing video games.

One of the reasons the Japanese army was very reluctant to attack the mainland US territory was because the US population was heavily armed. A rifle behind every blade of grass indeed.

Hardly true- they simply weren't out to enslave illiterates five thousand miles away if there were plenty enough within two thousand miles. Why bother with slow learners. Most of them with squirrel guns and bad shots overall. (Check the stats.)

The Gun Cult really began in Texas after the Civil War. The ex-Confederates were into lynchings and intimidating blacks and Indians, knew wartime guns, and were scared of federal troops being sent in to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments they were doing all they could to suppress.

Fuck gun control. Let it flow! Arm yourself and allow your fellow citizens to arm themselves.

Also to be regarded as a scene of Fools with weapons beyond their level of moral and technical competence to use wisely.

I'll tell you something else. The gangbangers can't shoot skeet worth a shit. They recognize when someone else can knock 50 out of 50 clay pigeons out of the air. I embarass the hell out of them on the range, and they know it.

This is a wonderful canard. The AWB comes out of gangbangers upping the firepower because of their bad aim- streets started getting shot up with 500 and 1,000 rounds by 17-year-olds using shitty mechanisms unworthy of the label 'gun', e.g. Tec-9s. That misapplication of technology and overkill amounts of ammunition started killing 3-5 bystanders for every gang member or drug dealer.

Give up on the assault weapons ban. Stop it. Support the Bill of Rights. Make me stop giving money to the NRA by allowing citizens to arm themselves! Join the responsible gun owners today and support your fellow law-abiding citizens!

Ever the comedian, aren't you?

You know, I posted that first time on the Second Amendment because the gun nut had lied about the Second Amendment. It was the day I went to the nearby museum and saw all the public records involving the weaponry the Minutemen had at Lexington and Concord. The public records show that the _town meetings_ of Lexington, Concord, and other towns in the region had raised taxes and bought guns (and ammunition, clothing, and some small cannons) with the money, and issued them to their town-chartered militia ('Minuteman') units. When the Siege of Boston was over the towns had all the militia members turn in their guns and other 'public property' (yes, that phrase is used) and all the apparel was sold to the State of Massachusetts. The State outfitted its state-chartered militia units (later National Guard) with them for the duration of the Revolutionary War.

That is the context of the Second Amendment. Farmers then, and until the Civil War, had guns that were used to kill birds and cows at short ranges and were pretty bad for use on the battlefield. War-capable weaponry was special order.

The Supreme Court has not accepted individual right-to-bear-arms lawsuits since the 1930s. In the USSC decisions there are, it's clear but (intentionally) not explicit that the individual ability to bear arms is a privilege, Constitutionally. The choice is simply, as in other aspects of the Constitution, to phase in explicit meaning of the parts as it becomes the right sociopolitical situation to do so. As it stands, the Supreme Court decided in the 1930s that too much of the country was too poorly policed and generally too uncivilized in its social norms and behaviors for the kind of rule of law necessary for personal lethal weaponry to be unreasonable. Sadly, in 2004 I still think that's valid as an assessment. But when the society chooses to become a civilization- and lets go of the vanity called Empire- personal lethal weaponry will no longer provide any benefits, and only costs, to society. In the wildest parts, of course weaponry will always be a reasonable part of life, but why Utahns should desire or 'need' to have concealed carry rights into churches and government buildings _as groups_...that makes a mockery of them as an advanced society, makes them lower than gangbangers. Gangbangers at least have the pride of not demanding to have the rules changed to fit their brand of stupidity.

As for the Gun Cult-ism...I call it that because folks of your general propaganda line are not pragmatists about guns. You believe that they are magic wands, able to stop the Bad and create the Good by having them in possession and by the wielding while uttering some spell/mantra. You should have to wear the pointed hats and black robes too. He who has a gun is Omniscient and All-Powerful, in this occult religion, and in the absence of one feels as naked and cursed as the day s/he was born. It does your Will, this holiest of instruments, and It Must Be Praised on online forums. There must be more Believers, and more Power Rushes, more Shazzam! and poof! small furry creatures lie dead because they annoyed you. Oh, the Ecstasy!

I think it was Heschel who said that the creation and emergence of life was a miracle, but killing only a skill. That seems to be the most mature attitude I've come across about lethal weaponry.

"This is blatantly hilarious. Own whatever you like, I agree. But the Second Amendment is not about ownership- it says there is no individual _right_ to bear arms of the kind, no matter what you or I propose to like."

Would you mind telling me what other Amendments to the US Constitution deal with collective rights, rather than individual rights? As far as I know, all the other ones are about rights of the individual citizen. It would seem pretty out of character of the Founding Fathers to write this one Amendment as a collective right, wouldn't you say? For example, I have never heard anyone try to argue the First Amendment is a collective right only given to state-run media, have you?

"Yes, we do. Zero. They'd find some other pressing excuse to vote for the Stupid Party. If they believe half the things you do, their schooling has hopelessly failed them to function in the modern world anyway."

Wrong. I make at least one voter, and I know of many others. Yes, I admit it: I voted for Bush in 2000. The one issue I based my decision on? Guns. I've been kicking myself ever since for this stupid act, and this year tried to make right by voting for Kerry. You have no idea how many single-issue voters out there vote Republican based on gun control, as you've made abundantly clear here.

"And up the risk of getting yourself shot sevenfold? That's in the undisputed statistics."

Would this be from the same author of the study that first stated that there was an UNDISPUTED 43X greater chance of getting shot, then revised it down to an UNDISPUTED 12X, and finally today an UNDISPUTED 7X? And the same researcher who included suicide as firearms-related homicide in his study, when gun ownership and suicide rates are very, very hard to correlate?

"The Gun Cult really began in Texas after the Civil War. The ex-Confederates were into lynchings and intimidating blacks and Indians, knew wartime guns, and were scared of federal troops being sent in to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments they were doing all they could to suppress."

And the first gun-control laws were passed to prevent newly-freed slaves from exercising their right to own firearms. Does that mean we can also link the Gun Control Cult supporters to racist ex-Confederates like you seem to be doing to gun owners?

"This is a wonderful canard. The AWB comes out of gangbangers upping the firepower because of their bad aim- streets started getting shot up with 500 and 1,000 rounds by 17-year-olds using shitty mechanisms unworthy of the label 'gun', e.g. Tec-9s. That misapplication of technology and overkill amounts of ammunition started killing 3-5 bystanders for every gang member or drug dealer."

The AWB was meant to combat gang members firing 1000 rds a night? Well then, why did it in no way, shape or form ban fully automatic weapons? Why did it ONLY ban primarily cosmetic features like bayonet lugs and flash hiders? BTW, the Tec-9 was, and still is, perfectly legal to buy and own, even throughout the 1990's AWB. The manufacturers simply removed a few small features, like a barrel shroud, renamed them, and kept on selling them. What a smashing success the AWB was. *sarcasm*

"Farmers then, and until the Civil War, had guns that were used to kill birds and cows at short ranges and were pretty bad for use on the battlefield. War-capable weaponry was special order."

If you read up on early firearms used in the 1700's and 1800's, you'll come to learn that pretty much EVERYTHING was only capable of short-range usage. War-capable weaponry was little different in general form and function, as all muzzleloaders of the day were inaccurate beyond ~50 yds.

"The Supreme Court has not accepted individual right-to-bear-arms lawsuits since the 1930s. In the USSC decisions there are, it's clear but (intentionally) not explicit that the individual ability to bear arms is a privilege, Constitutionally."

The Supreme Court case you cite, in it's statements, mentioned that US citizens don't have a constitutional right to NON-MILITARY firearms as it's prevailing reason to rule against the defendent. The case was made by the prosecution that the owner of the sawed-off shotgun had no right to it because it had no military applications, not that he didn't have an individual right to own firearms. The ironic thing is that sawed-off shotguns were used to great effect in trench warfare of WWI, and at least one of the justices fought in WWI.

Would you mind telling me what other Amendments to the US Constitution deal with collective rights, rather than individual rights? As far as I know, all the other ones are about rights of the individual citizen. It would seem pretty out of character of the Founding Fathers to write this one Amendment as a collective right, wouldn't you say? For example, I have never heard anyone try to argue the First Amendment is a collective right only given to state-run media, have you?

The political status of slaves.

And that "out of character" bit is a nice way of saying "I wish they didn't do it the way they did". Look at the laws in force in e.g. Britain at the time for the logic to their writing it the way they did.

You have no idea how many single-issue voters out there vote Republican based on gun control, as you've made abundantly clear here.

Well, consider your behavior in context. There is little hope for these voters as a group, although individuals like yourself will test it. You were honest and decided to find out whether the claims about Democrats being 'gun grabbers' is true, and were apparently in substantial agreement with the Democratic side before that. Can you honestly say this is true for the other people out there? Are they genuinely 'single issue"? I remain a skeptic.

Would this be from the same author of the study that first stated that there was an UNDISPUTED 43X greater chance of getting shot, then revised it down to an UNDISPUTED 12X, and finally today an UNDISPUTED 7X? And the same researcher who included suicide as firearms-related homicide in his study, when gun ownership and suicide rates are very, very hard to correlate?

Nice try with all the illegitimate lumping. We don't have John Lott's numbers here. In fact, do you consider any statistics trustworthy that are around in this business? Do you think there aren't any? Do you think it's "impossible"?

What a smashing success the AWB was. *sarcasm*

The sabotaging done on the bill, and inability to pass corrective modifications, was always the key political feature of it all. The fallacy of the gun extremist crowd is the assertion that this example "proves" that no such law could ever work. The reply is that an AWB is like genuine Christianity: it hasn't failed- because it has never actually been tried properly.

If you read up on early firearms used in the 1700's and 1800's, you'll come to learn that pretty much EVERYTHING was only capable of short-range usage. War-capable weaponry was little different in general form and function, as all muzzleloaders of the day were inaccurate beyond ~50 yds.

Amusing technical diversion and beside the point. (You fellows never learn.) The distinction of the military weaponry was in relative rate of fire as well as semi-standardized powder/projectile, with a roughly normalized accuracy to every major batch of them. Individual/private weaponry had a far greater standard deviation in accuracy, necessarily.

The case was made by the prosecution that the owner of the sawed-off shotgun had no right to it because it had no military applications, not that he didn't have an individual right to own firearms. The ironic thing is that sawed-off shotguns were used to great effect in trench warfare of WWI, and at least one of the justices fought in WWI.

Again, you're not making the distinction between private ownership and situation in which (the proposed) right to bear on an individual basis is to be regulated (or not). For some reasons you equate the two. You assume private ownership implies individual right to bear. The distinction is easily made in other countries, e.g. Swiss reservists who keep Army issue semiautomatic guns in their homes (and they do) do not have individual right to bear. Likewise your ownership of a car or truck does not entitle you to drive it everywhere at any time- you have to stay on the road or private property you are permitted on, obey traffic laws and property laws and insurance laws, registration laws, excise taxes, speed and exhaust regulations, not have certain medical conditions, etc. Car ownership is a right, the 'right' to drive is a privilege.

Clearly the assumption by the prosecution under the circumstances of that lawsuit was that that gun was intended for criminal/illegal uses only.

Btw, don't you agree that 'gun afficienados' treat them like magical instruments? :-)

Gun laws are supposed to be passed locally - AND THEY ARE!

In rural areas it's actually fun AND a comforting feeling knowing that you stand a chance against someone who decides to mess with you when your neighbors can't even see your house.

The poster is right - forget this issue. There are ALREADY strict gun laws in Massachusetts and other places with lots of urban sprawl - same as we can "Live Free of Die" in NH where it's much more rural - but the cities still have the right to create laws locally. THIS IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE! Stop losing votes for us unnecessarily - I saw one lost this election cycle on this issue alone and it seemed SO unnecessary because this person was an outdoors-man who HATED * due to his terrible environmental policies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for legal assault weapon ownership? No way.

The Democrats caved into Handgun Control Inc. and the Million Mommies and look at the results: we lost the presidency and the Federal legislature. Face it; both of these groups are far outside the mainstream of American opinion and it cost us. Right now, the Million Mommies can't even muster enough supporters to stay solvent or keep holding meet-ups. There are over 80 million gun owners in the USA and the Democrats can't afford to sacrifice that consituency with the narrow margins that keep us from winning.

The AWB was nothing but a misguided piece of feel-good legislation that didn't address the core issues concerning violent crime. A ban on some cosmetic features did nothing to lower violent crime. I happen to own a Yugoslav SKS that has a bayonet and a grenade launcher/compensator and yet neither of these features make me want to engage in criminal activity.

The Democratic Party needs to officially drop gun control as an issue and we'd get back more of the blue collar labor vote.

The majority of people in the US - a significant percentage more than supported Bush in the election - supported an extension of the assault weapons ban. Violent crime has decreased since the ban has gone into effect. Crimes with guns decreased since the ban went into effect.

The problem is that you and lots of others like you are more than willing to have people gunned down in the projects just so that you can get your rocks off shooting your toys on the weekend. I wouldn't be as insulting if you hadn't included that line about the NRA. Any organization that protests the restriction of armor-piercing ammo is lunatic fringe. There are no Kevlar deer. Hang it up, bud. You'll get no sympathy from the sane.

And even if it were, the NRA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican National Committee. A Democratic candidate could come to a debate armed with pistols and bandoleros and the NRA would still support the Republican candidate. So kow-towing to the gun lobby is a pointless exercise.

That said, we ought to come out squarely in favor the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Regardless the anybody's interpretation of the Second Amendment for a moment, you have a right to own a gun just as surely as you have the right to own a car. The point of contention is that society in general has a right to walk down the street reasonably free from the fear of violence.

The "gun control" issue represents the collision of the rights of two groups of people. The question should be framed as, how much gun control do we need without infringing too heavily upon the rights of gun owners? Gun registration and licensing is not unreasonable (you have to do it for an automobile). Restrictions against the sale of certain types of weapons are reasonable, provided they present a clear and present danger to law enforcement.

It boils down to a matter of common sense and what's best for the community, and if the gun lobby can't live with that, then they deserve each one of the lawsuits filed against them.

The NRA is single issue and will not hesitate to support a pro-gun Democrat over an anti-gun Republican. The problem is that pro-gun national Democrats are hard to find.

Since the 2000 Election, the NRA has given more than $7 million to Republicans -- 93% of its total contributions. The only organization more lopsided in its political giving is National Right to Life. The NRA gave more than a half million dollars in soft money to the Republican National Committee in early 2004 -- and the RNC was then free to use that money to oppose Democrats regardless of their position on gun control.

And I should point out the one of the Executive Directors of the NRA is Grover Norquist -- THAT Grover Norquist. The RNC uses the NRA as a grassroots organization program to defeat Democrats regardless of their stand on the issues. If you think the NRA is unbiased in this regard, you probably thing that Fox News is fair and balanced.

... and get our own paws on some of that money by supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

""the NRA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican National Committee. A Democratic candidate could come to a debate armed with pistols and bandoleros and the NRA would still support the Republican candidate. So kow-towing to the gun lobby is a pointless exercise.""


Your post would be more believable if it was factual. Democrats endorsed by the NRA in this election did quite well.





""Restrictions against the sale of certain types of weapons are reasonable, provided they present a clear and present danger to law enforcement.""


I have to disagree with this, as the whole point of the 2nd amendment is so that citizens can present a clear and rpesent danger to a police state.

Better yet - name two.

Feinstein: ""Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."



Another poster in another thread named Pagan____ (I apologize as I forget the rest of the poster's name) had a far more comprehensive list. I do not have authorization to do searches on this forum.

Feinstein endorsed by the NRA? In what parellel universe are you living?

Thanks for remembering. Here is a short list of quotes:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (1993):
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (1995):
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

How about a little dose of "good enough for me, but not for thee"? Sen. Dianne Feinstein was a California concealed handgun permit holder, and routinely carried a handgun in her purse. On April 27,1995 she said, "I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

Sen. Joseph Biden (1993):
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (1993):
"Until we can ban all of them we might as well ban none."

Sarah Brady (1994):
"We must get rid of all the guns."

Molly Ivins (1995):
"Ban the damn things (guns). Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

And a little tidbit for those of us who respect ALL of our rights:

President William Jefferson Clinton, quoted in USA Today on March 11, 1993:
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

It's the dianefeinstein dance all over again.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (1995):
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

You DID mean it to be understood that Feinstein was talking about ASSAULT WEAPONS AND ONLY ASSAULT WEAPONS, as defined in the legislation she was discussing at the time -- right?

Sigh, as we've promenaded around this so many times before ...

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them ... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."

(If you ask google, you'll find all the sources for that one you need.)

You see, even the NRA fills in the blanks thus:

http://www.clintongunban.com/Articles.aspx?i=59&a=Articles

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban <on "assault weapons">, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it."

I do hope you weren't, like, accidentally claiming that Diane Feinstein said that she would have banned all firearms in the US if she could have. You weren't claiming that, were you??


How about a little dose of "good enough for me, but not for thee"? Sen. Dianne Feinstein was a California concealed handgun permit holder, and routinely carried a handgun in her purse. On April 27,1995 she said, "I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

Well maybe how about a little dose of "let's not pretend history didn't happen"?

Happen to remember how Feinstein became Mayor of San Francisco, at which time she applied for and was issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm?

Does the fact that the person who had actually been elected Mayor was SHOT DEAD at city hall (along with another council member) by a political opponent ring any bells?

Do you suppose it's just possible that the next person in that position would have had quite decent grounds for being regarded as at rather elevated risk of a violent attack? She wasn't just talking about any old random "somebody" trying to take her out; she was living in a context in which she was only in the position she was in because the previous occupant HAD been taken out.


So ... didya assemble all those things all by your lonesome?

If so, I'm sure you can give us a brief description of the context in which each of the others was spoken. Context just does seem to matter sometimes; without it, some people might get a little confused.

If not, maybe you can provide your secondary source(s) so we can just verify that each of those things was actually said and actually meant what it appears to mean as given by you (which, I have to say, in some instances just is not at all clear anyway).

Oh, hey, look; even this outfit http://www.rrv.net/mlra provides this (emphasis added):

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles ... that we are unable to think about reality."
-- Bill Clinton

And it would be even more fun to know what that ellipsis stands for. Since you were doing the quoting, I'm sure you can tell us.

But oh look, my curiosity got the better of me. This is special delivery for you:

http://spazmo.peacedividend.com/archives/002725.php

What Clinton actually said, in a discussion with national service volunteers on March 1, 1993, was this (emphasis added):

I think -- you know, we can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles -- it's something I strongly support -- we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation -- no other nations -- has permitted to exist. And at some point I still hope that the leadership of the National Rifle Association will go back to doing what it did when I was a boy and which made me want to be a lifetime member because they put out valuable information about hunting and marksmanship and safe use of guns. But just to know of the conditions we face today in a lot of our cities and other places in this country and the enormous threat to public safety is amazing.

BOY, IS YOUR FACE RED! Right???

Somebody duped you good. I'm sure.

- Gun 'control' is only an issue because the RWingers use it as a wedge (like you're doing now) to divide and conquer. And they can only use it as a wedge if they distort the facts surrounding the issue. The same people who say we're going to take away their guns also claim we're going to take away their bibles. I'd say these arguments are more 'faith-based' than having anything to do with reality.

- And isn't it strange that we hear such passionate arguments for supporting the second amendment when we hear little or nothing about support for the rest of the Bill of Rights?

- King George* II has literally invalidated every other amendment...but we hear nothing from the gunhuggers about that. The free press now works FOR the government and the wall that separates church and state torn down. Free speech zone pens have replaced the right to assemble and peaceful protests are becoming a thing of the past.

- The Bill of Rights is useless unless all the amendments are in place and honored by the government. That the Right seems only interested in keeping the 2nd alive shows how truly out of touch with what it takes to maintain a free society.

Q asks, "isn't it strange that we hear such passionate arguments for supporting the second amendment when we hear little or nothing about support for the rest of the Bill of Rights?"

Hear, from whom? I'm an ardent civil libertarian. I cringe at many of the exceptions the courts have carved out of the first amendment's protection of free speech. I want Jefferson's wall between church and state to be made higher, and topped with barb wire. I think federal siezure laws should be tossed out on due process grounds. Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist fright me precisely because they read the Consitution so narrowly with regard to civil liberties. I think the ACLU deserves a hell of lot of credit for its long defense of civil liberties, in the face of usually ignorant criticism from the right. I think those who don't find protection for birth control and abortion in the Bill of Rights simply aren't reading very well. I believe that Constitutional liberties should be interpreted liberally -- a word that I'm proud to use in this context -- and that there is plenty of reason in the Constitution itself and its history for doing so.

Yes, the right wing-nuts prove their hypocrisy when the second amendment is the only civil liberty they find in the Constitution.

But, I also find it hypocritical when those on the left read the rest of the Bill of Rights liberally, then read the second amendment so narrowly. And it does significant damage to the cause of civil liberty. It's important to realize that American civil liberties derive from a particular historical context. A modern liberal, living in New York city, thinking on what civil liberties deserve paramount protection, might not put gun rights second only to freedom of thought, speech, and religion. The liberals who founded this nation did just that. If we want to change that, we should amend the Constitution. (I would oppose such a move.) Barring such a change, we should want the courts to be just as ardent and expansive in interpreting that part of the Bill of Rights, as we want them in interpreting the remainder. Failure to do so endangers our other civil liberties in several ways. It weakens our arguments about how the courts should approach Constitutional civil liberties. Narrow interpretations beget more narrow interpretations. It also weakens our claim to be for civil liberties. We know it is a lie when people like James Dobson try to wrap themselves in the Constitution that they would try to destroy. But unless we want to be tarred with the same brush, only the colors reversed, we need to be consistent in how we frame our support for the Constitution. How can a group argue for expansive interpretation of Constitutional civil liberties, and then argue against the second amendment? And how does that make them look in the political battlefield?

The modern GOP has declared war on civil liberties. They deny that, of course. But it's easy to see through their words. I think it would be a good thing for the Democrats to declare themselves the party that defends Constitutional liberty. But to make that stance more than partial, to make it a real lever between the parties, Democrats will have to become more consistent in their reading of the Constitution. There is no way to work to frame that, if you append the words "except the second amendment."

""The same people who say we're going to take away their guns also claim we're going to take away their bibles. I'd say these arguments are more 'faith-based' than having anything to do with reality.""



If that belief is faith based, why is it grounded in reality. It does not help the Democratic cause when prominent Congressional Democrats have stated they want to ban all private ownership of guns.

I will give up on gun control if you will go down and live in my old neighborhood for a couple of years. The kicker is that you cannot flee screaming, you cannot shoot somebody, and you cannot become a gun control advocate. If you comply with all of those stipulations successfully for two years, I will drop all of my objections to guns.

Let me tell you about my old neighborhood. I lived there up until a year ago, for about ten years. It is a marginal neighborhood, perpetually on the edge of being rennovated, or falling down into the ghetto. It is a working class neighborhood, where most of the people are decent folks. It is close by the ghetto 'hood, and has lots of, shall we say, interesting traffic coming through. We have had dueling(and I mean that literally) crackhouses up and down the street, though that problem has gone away after some serious persuation from our neighborhood association to the more unsavory landlords. My car and house have been shot up, as have my surrounding neighbors. You can hear gunfire somewhere close twice a week, more in the summer. Police patrol once in a while, but don't really do anything unless absolutely neccessary. I've had drive bys and walk throughs. I've had to deal with the injured and mentally unstable. All in all, an interesting place to live, though one does have to have a bit of fortitude to deal with it all.

Now let me tell you about the gun dynamic that effects this neighborhood. Joe Whitebread out in the 'burbs sees some fear mongering piece on the TV about crime in the inner city. In a paraxism of fear, inadequacy and bigotry, he goes out and purchase another gun, the biggest, baddest he can afford, and places it in the closet or gun safe(the same thing, for all practical purposes to a serious thief) with all of the other bright and shiny guns he has never used. His fear and loathing assuaged, he takes the wife and kiddies out to dinner and a show, congratulating himself on being big and tough with his new gun.

Meanwhile down in my neck of the woods, there is a job to be done, and tools are needed for that job. Rather than go out and buy these tools at full face value, the contractors decide to go out to the 'burbs for a little discount shopping. So, while Joe and his family are out, their fine place in the 'burbs are hit, and by by goes that fine new shooting iron in the closet, along with all the ammo for, the shotgun sitting next to it, oh and that shiny unused .357 sitting in the dresser drawer. Joe comes home and discovers the theft, and outrage at how his manhood has been violated, he gnashes his teeth, then calls the police and then his insurance agency. After all, he must replace his precious guns, they're the only thing standing between him and his family being violated.

Meanwhile, those stolen weapons are making their way back to my neck of the woods. They're going to be used to settle scores, even odds, and get the job done. Along the way the might also be used inadvertantly(or maybe not) to shoot up unintended targets like cars, houses, pets, children, adults, whatever gets in their way. And the people in this neighborhood that is really trying hard to become respectable suffer. They are the ones who have to patch up the bullet holes, suffer the injuries and loss. And none of this would have occurred if the hyperparanoid people in the 'burbs wouldn't have had these guns in their house. Because there isn't enough money to purchase most of those guns retail, the singular reason they show up in such great quanity in my neighborhood and others like it around the country is because such armament is stolen from the 'burbanites, who don't really need them, since their neighborhoods are perfectly safe, excepting the gun thiefs who look upon such places as an open air market.

So, again, come live in my old 'hood for a couple of years. I think you will be changing your tune quick. For if this is what is happening with our mild mannered gun controls we have in place now, imagine the chaos that would happen with unlimited guns being funneled in from the 'burbs. Scary scary, turning a neighborhood into a full auto war zone friend.

Crime rates began declining in the early 1990's, BEFORE the AWB went into effect. Additionally, the AWB only covered a small section of all guns used in crime, and didnt really ban any guns, just a few removable features. More AK's, SKS's and AR's were sold after the ban than before, as the ban was simply free publicity to the manufacturers. What did happen was that the economy boomed under Clinton. You want to reduce crime in your neighborhood? Vote into office a President, a Senate, and a House of Representatives who will get the economy going and get new life and new jobs injected into that community. Give people a choice other than crime to get by, and by and large they jump for it.

Even the most stringent gun control laws proposed would do nothing to combat crime in your old neighborhood. What gun control laws would you propose to stop theives from stealing property from homes? Nothing short of full-scale confiscation would put a dent in guns available for crimes today, and as we all know, confiscation would be a very, very stupid thing to try. Using gun control to address crime and poverty is akin to using a thimble to put out a fire, when you should be using a bucket.

Just wanting to repeat stats out of context. Let me put it to you quite simply then. You lower the supply of guns out in the burbs through gun control measures, that means that there are fewer guns making their way back shooting up my old neighborhood. Quite simple, easy to understand.

And don't gloss over the AWB with "didnt really ban any guns, just a few removable features." One of those features was the grenade launcher, something that I'm glad I don't have to experience in my old neighborhood.

It isn't that I'm against all guns, I do believe that people have the right to hunt and the right to defend themselves. But the proliferation of guns in our society is insane. The best gun for home defense is a twelve gauge shotgun, either double barreled or pump, and the gun that is most likely to be turned back and used on it's owner is the handgun. Since it is not optimal for defense, and is deadly to it's owner, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of handguns?

As regards to hunting goes, assault weapons are the least effective guns to be used for hunting. The best are your ordinary long guns, in their various calibers. Since the first shot is the best shot, the second a wish, and the third shot a laugher, why is there insistence on having semi auto with high capacity mags? It is foolish, for these weapons often turn up in major crimes, shooting up police and bystanders. Control the supply, you lessen the chances for death and injury.

But no, it seems like many people would rather keep their penile compensatory units, with utter disregard for the dangers they pose, both to themselves and others. Thousands of innocents are killed or injured every year with guns that were stolen from scared, overcompensating suburbanites. This escaltion and proliferation must stop sometime, but seemingly the good suburbanites, both 'Pug and Dem, have little concern for the inner city brothers and sisters. Gee thanks. It must be nice not to suffer the penalty of having these guns in our society, only the testosterone fueled macho rush of putting it in the closet of your safe, suburban home. Are you willing to pay me the compensation for the damage done by your stolen gun? Are you willing to tell the mother of a dead child how sorry you are that you bought an assault weapon, only to have it stolen and turn up killing her child? Are you willing to live in my old neighborhood for a couple of years and deal with the madness that stolen suburban guns bring? Until you are, I don't think you have much room to talk friend. You haven't been through that kind of hell, you haven't seen the damage wrought. You talk blithely about how a better economy will help ease crime, tell me this then friend, WHEN HAS THERE EVER BEEN AN ECONOMY GOOD ENOUGH IN THE PAST FIFTY YEARS TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATE CRIME IN THE INNER CITY?! Get a goddamn clue friend, no matter what politicians do, no matter what policies are enacted, inner cities are always coming up sucking hind tit. Thus there is always going to be crime, thus there are always going to be criminals going out to the 'burbs ripping off guns that are useless to their owners, and returning with them to shoot up the 'hood. The only way to control this is to control the supply. Until that happens, the inners cities across the country are going to continue to pay the price for the suburbanites' privelge of having needless guns just to stroke their egos and soothe their fears. Gee, thanks friend.

Get a clue. Criminals, by definition, break laws. with something like 11,000 (probably a low number) of containers entering the LA docks daily, how tough do you think it will be for crrooks and gangbangers to but illegal arms imported from other countries? That's just one way to get them into the country. I'm sure that you can think of others.

Yes, criminals could buy the guns overseas, smuggle them in, etc. But, it would make such weapons much more expensive, decreasing the criminals profit margin. Instead, they would resort to shotguns and other less lethal firearms. Law of supply and demand friend.

... he would take you up on that deal. Two houses directly across the street from his were taken over by gangs. You know what that means: 30 to 40 teenagers hanging outside, inside, on the roof (really) etc partying, dealing drugs and intimidating anyone who walked by. They generally left me alone when I came to visit despite the fact that as a white man I "glowed in the dark" as my former father-in-law used to say. I suspect my differentness actually protected me as they had to worry why the hell I would be somewhere like that.

Most people reading this probably think the above description is an exaggeration. Most people have never seen anything like that and don't understand how it could be allowed to continue. Why the cops couldn't just bust it up if nothing else (it gets complicated). But it sounds like you know what I'm talking about.

And, yes, my father-in-law wished very much that he could legally carry a firearm. He and a lot of the other adult males in the area wished they come together with their firearms (and there wasn't a one of them who did not illegally own at least one) and retake their neighborhood.


But, of course, even if they had been able to do so legally, they would run into the racism aspect. A black man using a firearm to defend himself brings out immediate suspicion of it being a gang/drug related issue where a white man would be most likely cheered as a hero.

I live in Echo Park in Los Angeles. The neighborhood directly south of me is Rampart. That name ring a bell? This is gangland. There have been at least three fatal shootings on MY BLOCK in the last EIGHTEEN MONTHS. The guy that lives across the street from me is a pornographer and features his wife in his films. You bet your ass I have a loaded 12-gauge next to my bed. There are 21 apartments in my building, and there are three heavily armed indivuduals in this building. We are very vocal about the fact that we are armed, and we clean our guns on the sidewalk in front of our building. We collectively make sure our security doors are closed and locked. This is a dangerous neighborhood, and I pack when I walk around my neighborhood. I have good reason to.

There is no trouble in our building. The gangbangers in my neighborhood stay away from us.

I don't live next to a ghetto, I live IN the ghetto. This is the hood. When I tell people where I live they blanch. Suburbia indeed.

Today I brought a friend with me to shoot skeet. It took two trips to the car with both of us carrying as much as we could just to load gear into his car. I am extremely grateful that the Constitution states that I have the right to bear arms, and I would be pissed off indeed if the LAPD decided to try to take that away from me. I would become a criminal instead of a law abiding citizen.

Gun laws are supposed to be passed locally - AND THEY ARE!

In rural areas it's actually fun AND a comforting feeling knowing that you stand a chance against someone who decides to mess with you when your neighbors can't even see your house.

The poster is right - forget this issue. There are ALREADY strict gun laws in Massachusetts and other places with lots of urban sprawl - same as we can "Live Free of Die" in NH where it's much more rural - but the cities still have the right to create laws locally. THIS IS NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE! Stop losing votes for us unnecessarily - I saw one lost this election cycle on this issue alone and it seemed SO unnecessary because this person was an outdoors-man who HATED * due to his terrible environmental policies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

actually those would get us MORE voters than the gun issue.

Why don't YOU read the 2nd amendment, bearing arms is specifically in the context of a "well regulated militia." Which militia do you belong to?

BTW: You need to take lessons and prove competence to DRIVE A CAR, why should guns - which can me more lethal - be any different?

There has been a lot of discussion about the wording of the 2nd amendment, and most constitutional scholars seem to think that 1) it's an individual right ('the people') and that the first phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is giving a reason why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Look for "The Embarassing Second Amendment" by Sanford Levinson.

See also "The Amazing Vanishing Second Amendment", by Eugene Volokh, at
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/amazing.htm

And, if you can find it, Vol. 62, No. 3, Spring 1995 issue of the Tennessee Law Review has an extensive discussion of the 2nd Amendment.

(And yes, I'm a noobie here. A strong supporter of ALL of the Bill of Rights. I do think that the Democrat party could steal a LOT of support from the republicans by changing the position on firearms ownership.)

I think this is a rotten idea. The public is woefully undereducated about the 2nd Amendment and needs to be disabused of the notion that it only contains the phrase "right to keep and bear arms." There's a first half to that sentence, and some of these so-called strict constructionists should read more carefully. The existence of a standing army would seem to nullify the need for a militia. And "State" probably refers to the national government, since everywhere else in the text where the framers meant the individual states they indicated as much.

I realize these arguments won't fly with many on the right, but regardless, we shouldn't abandon the issue. Gun control today doesn't mean "taking your guns away." It means putting common sense restrictions on highly dangerous weapons. That's all. And further, if the NRA had their way, even those restrictions would be gone. That's why we need to fight the NRA and that's why we can't abandon the issue. Just as you wouldn't want your Green Party friend to get his way and get rid of all guns, the opposite extreme offered by the NRA is just a unworkable.

.... with "disabusing the notion".

It doesn't matter one whit what the framers really meant, because an interpretation has been used for centuries and it is a popular interpretation.

You can "disabuse" people all you want, all you will do is LOSE VOTES.

The country is awash in guns and in drugs and there is no law in the world that is going to change that. Expend your energy and political capital on something that might yield fruit.

But as a practical matter, the right has successfully convinced people that "gun control" is code for "ban all guns," which is untrue. Sensible control and regulation of highly dangerous things is something that most people can agree, upon. If we give up on this, the gun lobby will work to eradicate all restrictions.

The better strategy is to recapture the terms and the frame of the debate, by convincing people that gun control is just like the regulation of other dangerous items like cars.

.... with a thing you've said. But I will quibble with the gravity of the task of re-educating the masses about what we mean when we say "gun control".

Personally, I think that the damage has been done and no amount of PR is going to undo it. Reasonably or not, the people who cherish gun rights do not trust Dems one bit with respect to guns. And probably half of that is because of effective Rep spin, and half is because of the really stupid stance some Dems have on gun control.

Take the AWB for example. People who know guns know it is nothing but a nuisance, but people who don't might have actually believed it was useful. Which side are we trying to convince? We alienate more gun owners and get another vote we already had. Great calculus.

I think that people can be convinced. Which side? I think this thread makes it clear that there are about a dozen sides out there. I am not a gun owner, but grew up around them and hunted when I was younger. My views are colored by that experience but I also think for myself. I have faith that others can be convinced as well.

The nuisance comment is strange to me, though. I mean, traffic lights are a nuisance, but I can see why they're necessary.

""The existence of a standing army would seem to nullify the need for a militia.""


Historically, the militia and standing armies co-existed. How does one nullify the need for the other?

At the time the Constitution was drafted we did not have a professional standing army. One was created by the Continental Congress acting under the Articles of Confederation, but until the Constitution was penned, the U.S. did not technically exist. It was not clear that the army would be permanent at all.

Historically? Where and when? If you're talking about conscription, then perhaps, but otherwise I'd disagree.

You are right, the Continental Congress created the standing army at time and militia co-existed. Having grown up in the south, most of the Civil War history I learned was from what happened in my home state of VA. But didn't militia still co-exist with standing armies at this time period?

then why the Article 1 Section 8 funding provisions?

i believe in the 2nd amendment, and I dont own a gun. more people should have guns, the way this nazi govt is going.



Hitler, Stalin and Mao and the Caption: Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

It's foolish for liberals to be against firearms now the way this country is going.

Just exactly how many voters hate the idea of any gun control at all? How many think that some gun control is good? (I thought "moral values" was the new black.) Hint: the validity of the source will be noted.

Hey, some of my best friends belong to the Montrose Beer & Gun Club.



www.montrosebeerandgunclub.com/join_our_club.htm

As Senator Chuck Schumer(D-NY) stated (paraphrase): we cannot try to contain the 2nd amendment in a teacup, while extending the interpretation of freedom of speech expansively.

If we try to interpret the 2nd amendment as only applying to militias or the National Guard, we should, IMO, also have to narrowly interpret the "freedom of press" clause only to words that are created on "printing presses," i.e. not TV, radio, internet, etc.

...and never the Republicans? Someone care to give a shot at answering this?

ever want to see this scene out of my front window

so you never want to see Palestinian men outside your window?

Hehe I suppose I wouldnt want to see them outside my window either, I wouldnt mine owning a few of thier weapons though.

This could be radical fundies here in the US coming to burn evolutionists, abortionists, lesbians, sodomites, humanists, and anyone else who doesn't agree with them. Wouldn't you rather have a chance to shoot back or perhaps make an armed exit?

Don't know if you noticed, but we've lost the presidency for 4, going on 8 years, and the house and senate for a decade now.


Btw, that decade started with the gun grabs of 1994.

You're voting the wrong ticket my friend. Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre are your pals. The dark side awaits you.

A vast majority of people who are going to purchase firearms are not going to use it in a criminal manner. BUT with every firearm that is purchased and stored in someone's home, there's another firearm likely to be stolen, sold on the streets and then used in a crime.

I think the only reason that gun control measures were enacted is because people felt legitmately threatened by gun violence and wanted something done. But what could be done? The only viable method of appearing to give a rat's ass about gun violence is to bring about bills that just serve to regulate legitimate gun purchases, not purchases made out of a closet in some guy's bedroom.

Hypothetically, if I wanted to rob a bank or mow down a business park, I wouldn't go to a gun store, pawn shop or some other vendor that kept records -- I'd go to some random illegal gun supplier downtown and pick up a bunch of pre-ban supplies for dirt cheap.

If a criminal wants a gun, they'll get a gun.

If we really want to curb gun crime, it has to be on a behavioral level. America can't brandish the virtues of capitalism and accumulation of ridiculous wealth to purchase goods and then act shocked when someone uses a gun to reach that end. America is all about the quick and easy way of getting things done, so how can we be surprised when someone wants an immediate end to a situation by usage of a gun? -- IE People who shoot up a school because they think it's an immediate resolution to getting bullied. Gang shootings and the immediate resolution for revenge, expanding territory, or for being disrespected/getting respect. These aren't gun supply issues, these are behavioral issues.

So if you boil it all down, here's my point:

Pros:
- It's an attempt to due something about gun violence
- Proves that you can still protect your belongings from some perceived threat and shoot deer WITHOUT an AR-15 with a flash suppressor.

Cons:
- It really only affects legtimate gun buyers.
- Doesn't keep illegal guns out of criminals' hands.
- It only affects supply, not demand.

Just my $.02

edit: spell am good

only because I don't think the party should break into warring factions.

But I PERSONALLY will never, ever support gun-ownership.

I've never known a single person who has protected himself from an attacker or intruder by using a gun, but I do personally know:

-- a fourteen year old child who accidently blew his head off

-- a depressed young man who went into the woods and shot himself

-- three or four other suicides

Yeah, the suicides might have found some other method, but they might have chosen a less lethal one, been thwarted and gotten some treatment.

And yeah, the kid's father shouldn't have let the kid have access to guns. But he fucked up, and now the kid's dead.

I've never known guns to bring anything but heartache.

So, fuck no.

I know several people who thwarted thefts on their farms through the use of firearms. I know at least two who protected themselves from bodily harm through the use of firearms.

While I know nobody who was killed accidentally or through suicide by firearms. I know one whose death was ruled a suicide, but that was a case of turning a blind eye to a stalker getting herself murdered by the stalkee's wife (whom I did not include as one of the two who protected themselves through the use of firearms).

The only anti-gun anecdote I have would be the one guy I know who shot off his leg while climbing a fence when out hunting.

Therefore, if I based my opinion solely on personal experience as you appear to have done, I would have no choice but to be strictly pro-gun.

The term "well-regulated militia" does not appear anywhere in your screed.

Buy a dictionary, look up the word "militia," "regulate," and "well."

with it.

Politically, guns is just a horrible issue for the Democrats. Awful.

I don't own a gun, I don't want to own a gun, I've never needed one and want to live in a country where I never will need one. I despise the rabid pro-gun ideas that gun ownership is essential to democracy, it is not.

However millions of Americans already do own guns, and 99% percent of them do so responsibly. Millions of Americans hunt, it is part of the culture for many people. The guns are out there and no amount of legislation is going to change that. The sooner the Democratic party comes to grips with that fact the better.

Potential supporters are being turned away by this issue. The NRA and other extremists use the issue to the Right's advantage, they scare hunters into thinking that a Democratic President will take away their deer-rifles and shotguns even though no Democrat has ever come anywhere near proposing such a thing. But Democratic gun control provide fuel for the right's propaganda fire.

Urban voters generally only experience guns in connection with violent crime. No anti-gun law will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, so there is no point in trying to even ban handguns. There are laws that provide for strict penalties for anyone committing a crime while possessing a gun. Those laws should be rigorously enforced.

and buying a gun?

And possibly the city. Maybe even the county, though I'm not aware of any such situations.

Also, the gun. If, for example, you want a machine gun you have to get a FEDERAL permit. It is very expensive, and I imagine it takes awhile.

Most states do not require a permit to purchase a rifle or shotgun. I don't think most states require a permit to purchase a handgun either, but they do to carry it around with you.

Illinois requires a permit for everything, even ammunition. In Indiana you have to go to the State Police to get a carry permit for handguns. That's all I know about state laws.

We should give up on all the issues, become republicans, and go around chanting "Bush is the greatest president US ever had".
:eyes:

to take a poll and see where DU stands on this issue

but as I've gotten older I've become less idealistic. I do support strict laws for punishing morons who allow their guns to injure or hurt innocents (you left a loaded gun under your bed and your son shot his best friend? you go away for a long time).

but thats as far as I go, as for the idea that we need guns to protect ourselves in the coming revolution I am of 2 minds, the first can be illustrated by an old (old, old) joke from national lampoon, "If guns were outlawed only POLICE would have guns" - Thats a scary thought.

Unfortunatly as a realist, I tend to have the view of Kurt Vonnegut, - A gun isn't going to stop a tank - "the only person to ever stop a tank is John Wayne, and he was in another tank". So it doesn't really matter how many guns we have, if the government wants to they can roll right over us.

I do support strict laws for punishing morons who allow their guns to injure or hurt innocents (you left a loaded gun under your bed and your son shot his best friend? you go away for a long time).

And the best friend will go six feet under.

Is there a reason you don't care?

Loaded question? You might think. But me, I can't think of how anyone who did care could possibly think that "you go away for a long time" is an appropriate response to a COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE DEATH -- since NO RESPONSE SHOULD BE NECESSARY, because the death should not have happened and the risk of it happening would have been reduced if measures that DO EXIST to reduce the risk of the death happening had been implemented, and virtually eliminated if those measures had been complied with.

You left a loaded gun under your bed? YOU GET YOUR GUN TAKEN AWAY. And some other bad stuff. Even if nobody got hurt at all.

An awful lot of people don't seem to give a shit about their kids shooting their best friends, but apparently (as we're constantly told) give quite a big shit about the prospect of having their guns taken away.

Hard to enforce? You bet. Especially if nobody knows you have a firearm in the first place. But even without a registration requirement, laws do have instructive value, and some people do obey laws. Some compliance now, and rising rates of compliance over time as the instruction sinks in (think: seat belts and child safety seats in cars), just looks better to me than no compliance at all.

And you?

Union democrats in my own family who absolutely never vote democratic because of this issue. They're in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. There are many like them. They are aware that a portion of their dues are used to fund democrats, but in the booth where it counts, they are convinced that the democrats are trying to restrict a right they belive only acknowleged by the Constitution, not granted by it. By many in this Country, that right is believed to be imparted by Higher Authority. If the Party would just drop the issue, I believe the number of votes that could swing our way would really make a difference. This is one of the reasons for the huge red swath accross the country on thoat damn electorate map. This could be done without giving any ground whatsoever on gay rights, abortion rights, foriegn policy issues, various advocacies for the less fortunate, or any other core planks in the democratic platform. Just MHO.

yes that is the dems position, they not being perfect, i would be the first to stand up for your right to own gun, keep laws we have on books, prosecute the offenders and trust you in your desire to use gun. as much as i hate them, so dont share this stuff with me, go to your dad, or grandpa or uncles and do your male thing.

yup

i agree

We're gonna need our guns to protect ourselves from tyranny in the government--because there really are tyrants in charge now! Clinton and Reno were no tyrants, believe me!

Living in the city gives one a different outlook on gun control, IMHO.

This is a case where people are not willing to look at the way others live. Disarming people who live in the country would leave them prey to any creep who comes along. Too many urban Democrats fail to appreciate the reality of that fact.

Likewise, too many rural Republicans fail to appreciate the reality that no law will ever make it possible for a black man in the city to protect himself with a gun. If he does, the police (and the people) will immediately assume it was a gang/drug related shooting. That's why every African-American male I know wishes he could own and carry a firearm legally, but most still oppose making it legal.

Lynching laws weren't inherently racist either as the law technically applied equally to blacks and whites. In practice, it proved very much otherwise. The right to carry a firearm would likely be the same.

I lived in San Antonio for a while, my position on Gun Control didnt change.

Many city dwellers arent even allowed to own or carry a weapon to defend themselves.

That experience made me value owning and carrying a weapon even more.

and it seems, from reading these posts, that support for gun control among Dems is fairly weak. I'd love to see a poll on this topic.

My own experience is this: I grew up in a rural area where everyone hunted. (Ohio, by the way.) Many of the guys I grew up with were Democrats but they have been frightened away from the Dems with this one, single issue. They aren't worried about gays, they couldn't care less about abortion. Ok, maybe they don't understand all the details fully. It doesn't matter. In their minds, gun control the closest thing to cutting off their balls. They aren't going to listen to any reasonable arguments.

I look at this issue with the same logic I use with the drug issue. Drugs are not the problem...the abuse of them is. Responsible drug users should not have to give up their recreation because a few morons misuse them. So drugs should stay legal but with strong penalties for crimes committed under their influence. In the same way, I favor supporting the second amendment liberally but increasing penalties for gun-related crimes and improving and promoting gun safety.

carefully each one of these posts and I have come to one inescapable conclusion. This issue will continually divide the Democratic Party while it brings the right wing together.

This petty infighting amongst the party and ourselves has got to stop. Gun control has and will in the future be the death knell for most of those candidates running for office. If anything learn from history, its right there.

To those hardliners against guns, face it. Your obstinance on this issue will continue to lose more seats in the Senate and the House and ultimately the Oval Office. Again, and again.

Gun control like socialism is a grand experiment that doesn't work and never will.

Gun control is the most ridiculous issue to ever be taken up by the left!!! We've lost a LOT of votes because of this idiocy. Liberals and Leftists need to embrace the Second Amendment just as much as the First.

hopefully it will be dead soon.

Gun control is linked to several other issues that revolve around personal responsibility. I believe that if someone engages in reckless behavior with a gun or a car or under the influence of drugs or alcohol that they need to bear tesponsibility for their actions. Prohibition on alcohol failed. The war on drugs is a failure. Attempting a firearms ban would fail. However, I do believe that reasonable regulation of all of the above is not necessarily a bad thing. My own experience of gun control in NH has been positive. For example, if I go to gun store and want to purchase a hand gun I got to fill out a form, show positive id and wait while the shop keeper ran a background check with the FBI and state police while I waited. Simple. I felt that the steps required were reasonable insofar as that I felt that the public interest was being served without infringing upon my civil liberties. As with any other poetentially lethal device, I find education and training to be the best antidote for accidental death and injury. Being in a relatively rural area I don't have the same problems with criminals breaking in looking for weapons.
One other thing I'd like to mention is that I think Michael Moore made a very valid point in Bowling for Columbine when he compared ownership of guns in the U.S. with Canada. It confirmed my belief that the problem isn't with the guns in and of themselves, but with our culture and society at large.

I agree. In CA we also have a cooling off period, and other restrictions upon the limits of things that can be sold, but we also can't buy firecrackers. That's California.

However, I stand by my earlier statements regarding gang members not shooting skeet. I've never seen one when I've been at the range, but I do see a lot of rednecks with spit cups. :)

This is the only gun control we need.

Get rid of existing bans and dont renew any others.

Democrats in 2006 and 2008.

I have, and am having a hard time warming up to the RTKBA crowd.

...but I still want to have a gun to defend myself even if you don't.

Will someone please quote for me exactly what Moore said about firearms ownership in Canada? Do I really have to dig out the DVD and watch the whole damned thing again to see whether he is being misquoted or really did fuck it up that badly?

This dates from 1998, but things really haven't changed that much, relatively, since then:

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/other_docs/notes/canus/default.asp

There are more than 30 times more firearms in the United States than in Canada.

There are 9 times more people in the US than in Canada.

There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns).

That's about 1 firearm per 4 people in Canada, and less than 1 handgun per 25 people.

In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.

That makes pretty close to 1 firearm per 1 person in the US, and 1 handgun per 5 people.

There are, proportionately (per capita), about 7 times more handguns in the US than in Canada.

From 2001:

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/news_releases/quickfacts-01252001.asp

17 percent (two million) of Canadian households own at least one firearm
There are 2.46 million firearm owners in Canada
One-in-three Canadian rural households has a firearm
Just over one-in-ten Canadian urban households has a firearm

There has been a decline of more than one-quarter of the percentage of households that have firearms. The average calculated from 11 surveys between 1989 and 1998 indicates that 24 percent of Canadian households had firearms compared to today's figure of 17 percent

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt.asp

Firearms Ownership Rate/100,000
Canada - 24,138
US - 85,385

The firearms ownership rate in Canada is less than 1/3 what it is in the US: 5 out of 20 people in the US, 17 out of 20 people in the US.


There simply is no similarity between firearms ownership rates and characteristics in Canada and the US.

There are vastly fewer firearms per capita in Canada.
The proportion of households in which there are firearms is vastly lower in Canada.
The nature of the firearms owned (overwhelmingly long arms and not handguns) and the purpose for which they are owned (hunting, sport and rural/farming purposes, not personal defence or protection of property from crime) are vastly different in Canada.

It goes without saying that the cultures of the two countries are also vastly different.

But there is simply no basis for attributing the differences in rates of firearms death/injury/crime *exclusively* to cultural differences, any more than there is for attributing those differences *exclusively* to the far lower rate of firearms ownership and the far lower prevalence of the kinds of firearms most often used in deaths/injuries/crimes in the US (handguns).

If Michael Moore actually claimed that Canada and the US were similar in terms of firearms ownership, he was entirely wrong as regards both the comparability of the numbers and the comparability of the types of firearms and the purposes for which they are owned.

...depending on facts has never been his strong suit. ;-)

I'm not sure how he come to say that US gun ownership was comparable to canadian gun ownership.

right to keep and bear arms

...or even a good idea. Persuasion works better.

I believe the 2nd Amendment was for OUR protection; protection from a tyrannical government whose aim it is to take away our freedoms. I believe Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton had our best interests at heart.

Folks, if you don't want to own a gun, don't buy one. If you are afraid of people who own them, get to know some responsible gun owners. Hell, go out and shoot some targets and see what it's about. Then I recommend going to see "Bowling for Columbine." If you've seen it already, see it again. The film makes it clear: FEAR IS THE PROBLEM, not guns.

Thing is: you give any random crazyass a gun, and shit's gonna hit the fan. In theory it's good but there's some really insane people out there, and gun control IS needed, unless you want some lead in your flesh.

of criminals, and the criminally negligent.

When I see some serious movement along those lines, I'll give up on gun
control.

How should gun owners get more serious about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals? Its already a felony to knowingly sell a weapon to a felon or sell/give it to someone for a crime.

The gun owners who sell to felons or would-be felons need to be prosecuted.

Gun owners can't be blamed for thieves stealing their guns anymore than you should be blamed for someone stealing your car and using it in a crime.