We need to abandon gun control and embrace gun rights

We lose on this issue before we are ever able to explain what we mean.
And it all begins with the word CONTROL. Nobody likes that word. It suggests heavy-handed government interference.

Instead of emphasizing what people cannot do with firearms, we should emphasize what they can do -- what rights people have in relation to firearms.

If we just try to tweak our party's position on guns to neutralize Republican criticisms, we'll be seen as shallow and valueless, which will be correct.

Instead, we should set forth a bold, new initiative on firearms.

Let's issue a challenge to the NRA -- let's repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with a new amendment that drops the references to militias, spells out an individual's right to bear arms and designates certain powers to regulate firearms to the states.

Challenge the NRA to join us in writing this new amendment and pledge not to introduce it in Congress unless the NRA is willing to support it.

If they reject the idea, they will lose their hold on the political center and paint themselves into an extreme RW box. If they accept, the issue becomes ours.

and abandon common sense positions that are favored by a majority of voters, just to placate a handful of paranoid crazies who are beating their meat over assault weapons?

"Instead of emphasizing what people cannot do with firearms, we should emphasize what they can do"
So instead of saying the gun industry shouldn't be able to sell assault weapons to loonies and thugs, or sell guns without background checks at gun shows, we should cheer each shooting in America?

"f they reject the idea, they will lose their hold on the political center"
Who in the wide world of sports thinks the NRA is anywhere near the political center? Even Poppa Bush called them extremists and publicly dropped his membership.

I think they are only as paranoid and crazy as anyone who supports the seperation of church and state. Or anyone who supports free speech.

The separation of church and state and free speech both have Cosntitutional and legal precedent behind them. "Gun rights" is an outgrowth of a bunch of right wing loonies in the 1970s, and its central tenets are all horseshit.

Funny how you left off that they're beating their meat over assault weapons.

Gun rights is just as Constitution based as are free speech and seperation of church and state.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

The Bill of Rights contains the Second Amendment which says that states have the right to have a well regulated militia...as every court decision ever handed down on the matter affirms.

"Gun rights is just as Constitution based as are free speech and seperation of church and state."
Sheer horseshit...and you'll notice the gun rights crowd is virulently opposed to both free speech and the separation of church and state. Take a look at the fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus...not just all Republicans but shi'ite Republicans.

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

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

and don't care what the Courts and the Founding Fathers said, or what the word means.

Don't you understand?

arte YOU trying to ignore?

and not the NRA's version for idiots, with just the last half.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

is the part they get hung up on.

Militia

mi·li·tia Audio pronunciation of "Militia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.





Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Militia

\Mi*li"tia\, n. 1. In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.

The king's captains and soldiers fight his battles, and yet . . . the power of the militia is he. --Jer. Taylor.

2. Military service; warfare. --Baxter.


n 1: civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army 2: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution

It's astonishing to see the dishonest hoops gun nuts jump through trying to pretend that "well regulated" doesn't mean regulated by the state.

I always thought it meant a state side military or for citizens to have arms for defense of tyrannical governments including our own.

"The right of the people to bear arms in their own defense, and to form and drill military organizations in defense of the State, may not be very important in this country, but it is significant as having been reserved by the people as a possible and necessary resort for the protection of self-government against usurpation, and against any attempt on the part of those who may for the time be in possession of State authority or resources to set aside the constitution and substitute their own rule for that of the people. Should the contingency ever arise when it would be necessary for the people to make use of the arms in their hands for the protection of constitutional liberty, the proceeding, so far from being revolutionary, would be in strict accord with popular right and duty.<38>"
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

You know when certain FANATICAL people take over our government against the will of the majority and against the people's Constitution and try to change our Republic into a dictatorship. That sort of thing.
I also don't have a problem with responsible people who choose to own guns for protection or sport. I don't think anybody does.

"I'll shoot those other Americans for our glorious revolution" fantasy....of course, every once in a while one of these charmers doesn't realize that it's just blowhard rhetoric and does something like shoot-up a Jewish kindergarden in LA, or kill the postman, or blow up a daycare center in Oklahoma City.

for personal protection and against forces in our own or outside governments who would want to take over the republic against the will of the majority of people. Our forefathers wanted us to be able to defend ourselves against tyranny. I do have a antique gun cabinet, no guns though. I put shelves in it and use it as a curio. I don't like guns personally but if it would become necessary for me to get one, I would.

as the courts have ruled again and again and again.

Or did he run a car through it?

"Furrow, an alleged white supremacist, entered a Jewish daycare center in Los Angeles in August 1999 and opened fire, shooting four children and one teenager. He left the center and later that day shot to death a Filipino-American mail man."

http://securitysolutions.com/news/security_jewish_day_care/

"The shooting rampage in a Los Angeles Jewish day-care center draws attention from around the world, but does little to soften the resolve of gun supporters.
It scarcely seemed possible that Furrow, 37, had missed the blitz media coverage on television and radio, and the news that he had not in fact killed anyone when he walked into the North Valley Jewish Community Center in the San Fernando Valley and fired about 70 shots from an AR-15 Bushmaster. Incredibly, only one of the five people who were shot, a 5-year-old boy, was critically injured, with four bullets in his stomach and leg. Four others -- two boys, a 16-year-old student counselor and a 68-year-old staff member -- were treated for injuries and listed in good condition by Wednesday."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/12/shootings/

Benchley,
The term "well regulated" doesn't mean regulated in the modern sense of commanding legislation,(which wasn't even being considered during the writing of the US constitution). "Well Regulated militia" means simply "well trained group of civilians". The term regulated in olden days of military terminology meant to be able to drill, shoot and march. That is the meaning of that and you know it...If it meant regulated in the legislative sense, they would have spelled those regulations out.

The term, "free state", means "free country". The word state is synonymous with country when dealing with constitutional and procedural issues. Colin Powell was "Secretary of State", not "Secretary of Country".

I have read your militant posts about this issue over the last year or so,(even before I registered). I have never answered you, but I will this time. The militant Schumeresque ideas you hold about personal firearms ownership are, as you say, "a pant load"

Nevermind you were posting to someone else.

"That is the meaning of that and you know it"
I know no such thing....well regulated means well regulated. If the Founding Fathers meant "well trained" they would have damn well said it.

And even if they did mean just well trained, there's no way today's gun crazies meet that by any stretch of the imagination. Ted Nugent is barely housebroken.

"militant Schumeresque ideas"
Hahahahahaha. Remind me again, what party does Chuck Schumer belong to? And how big was his margin of victory in the last election?

Embraced and cherish your 2nd amendment rights, because soon, it will may be the only right you have left. Of course, you will wave your little signs and chant your little chants and the vast right-wing agenda will just laugh in your face, because they know you are too cowardly to fight for your freedom

I am a leftist, I own guns, and I practice regulary.

Read the posts where pro-gun people are called "looneys, freaks and nuts," and then try to imagine yourself as a regular blue-collar guy who has been hunting with his father and grandfather since he was a little boy. He has been around guns all his life and he has never thought of them as evil. Why would this man ever vote democrat?

As for the founding fathers arguement, these were men who started a revolution with guns; how could they be anything but pro-gun?

The main arguement for the well-regulated militia language as argued by the NRA and the gun lobby, has turned out to be absolutely right. It is impossible to occupy a country against the will of the people when private ownership of guns commonplace; Iraq is an excellent example of this thesis in action.

Say, for instance, the Christian Right succeeds in its mission to lead this country towards theocractic rule with the cooperation of the elected leadership; in violation of the constitution. It is very appropriate for a well-regulated militia (the founding fathers formed a well regulated militia, which in today's parlance is "rebel guerilla or insurgent) to use firearms to defend the constitution.

But it also says "the right of the PEOPLE."

So you lose. Case closed.

and get back to us. HINT: They have never declared gun control (including handgun bans) as unconstitutional.

in its entire history, the National Rifle Association has never sued to overturn any gun control law on Second Amendment grounds, although they've been quick to sue on other grounds.

Shows they know the difference between what the Second Amendment actually says and the crap they ladle out to their paranoid ignorant members.

I'd say much of the gun rights crowd is made up of extreme Right-Wing Republicans, but not entirely.

An example would be myself. I am most definitely not a Republican, nor am I really a traditional Democrat but am more of a social libertarian (No affiliations with the wacky LP) with a fiscally conservative side (In terms of keeping a balanced budget and not wasting tax money). Hell I was even banned from a firearms forum because I challenged many of the loony Republicans on their ignorance and bigotry.

IE: I support legalization of drugs, I am completely in support of gay marriage (The events in several of our states this past election on this issue disgust me), I believe the poor should get a helping hand from the government, and I would also advocate a constitutional amendment saying that the Federal Government MUST run with a balanced budget except in times of declared war. No tax cuts when our National Debt is ballooning to huge levels. Oh, and I also am a huge supporter of gun rights.

Based on these issues where would you say I fall on our silly American black and white political spectrum? I agree with the Democratic party on so many things so it saddens me that so many like minded people similar to myself are driven away because of their idiotic stance on gun control. So horse shit, I think not.

I believe if it wasn't for the gun issue, George W. Bush would be preparing to hand over the White House keys to John Kerry. But because we picked Kerry over say Dean whom I believe would've destroyed Bush, we are now stuck with 4 more years of the Chimpy the Moron and his religious freak administration.

I'm new here, so don't hurt me too much for this post. Hehe.

so does the sexual references? Let me guess, the next one is the pistols == penis references.


RegexReader
$USA =~ s/Republican/Democrat/ig;

as watching the gun nuts screech like castrati over any reasonable proposal to regulate their murderous little toys.

The governed have elected representatives who have written and passed legislation that restricts certain aspects of gun possession and sales .... ALL per constitutional requirements and protocols ...

There is nothing 'ANTI" Constitutional about gun regulation .....

After all, who cares about that 1st Amendment either.

doesnt provide a 'right' to own guns outside of the purview of an association with a 'well regulated militia', of which language explaining this was placed within the body of the Constitution itself .... There is no such explicit language qualifying the freedom of speech in the Constitution ....

Your's is a non sequitur fallacy ....

the 2nd amendment does not limit gun ownership to militia members, regulated or otherwise.

Kerry should have hit pResident Turd on the assault weapon ban lapsing every damn speech...nothing brought the issue into sharper focus than that.

You'll notice even Chimpy and his Republican crazies couldn't come out and say in public they thought loonies and thugs ought to be able to stroll into stores and gun shows and buy assault weapons....they had to pay the ban lip service but hide behind procedural bullshit.

It was a joke-- totally cosmetic and it cost us the House and many Senate seats in '94.

"Gun control" is a loser issue on the Federal and State levels. Leave it to cities.

to over turn it and made keeping it from coming to an open vote its legislative priority--because it was so ineffective.

In fact, the gun industry itself showed what a pantload this "the ban did nothing" line is...when they were trying to push their disgraceful "You can't sue us nyah nyah nyah" bill through Congress, Kerry and the Democrats attached a renewal of the ban (and a rider to shut the gun show loophole)...and the NRA promptly killed its own bill.

The gun industry is one of the most corrupt bunches on the planet...

Gun mfgers shouldn't be held liable for how their product is used-- only for design or manufacturing defects if the product is unsafe to use.

Should people be allowed to sue Ford if an Explorer is used to run down a crowd on a sidewalk?

"Gun mfgers shouldn't be held liable for how their product is used"
Sez you.

"33 cities and counties have filed suit against the gun industry for wrongful conduct that harmed citizens and resulted in large financial expenses to taxpayers. The lawsuits are a response to the terrible effect that gun violence has had on these cities and counties. In addition to the severe personal harm suffered by shooting victims and their families, gun violence has substantial economic costs. For example, it costs more than $14,000 to treat each child wounded by gunfire - enough to pay for a full year at a private college. The average cost of a gun-related crime may be as high as $268,000. The American College of Physicians estimates that, in the aggregate, the direct cost of firearms injuries is more than $4 billion per year, with $19 billion in additional harm such as lost potential earnings. Local governments pay millions of extra dollars for items like medical care, emergency services, police protection, courts, prisons, and school security because of wrongful conduct by the gun industry that resulted in injury and death.
Of the 33 government entities that have sued the gun industry so far, 18 have won favorable rulings on the legal merits of their claims and continue to move ahead through the courts, five have not yet had a decision on a motion to dismiss, and four have had their claims dismissed but are challenging those rulings in appeals. Only seven cases have ended without success. Numerous private cases have succeeded in court.
Robert Ricker, who worked for decades within the gun industry as both an NRA lawyer and the head of the major handgun manufacturers' association, has filed a sworn affidavit on behalf of the California cities that have sued the gun industry, laying out a pattern of negligent and irresponsible conduct by the industry. Ricker states that the gun industry has long known that corrupt gun dealers have fueled the illegal market by providing guns to gun traffickers who were illegally reselling them on the street to criminals and that the gun industry deliberately avoided doing anything that would have stopped such conduct. Gun industry lawyers actively prevented discussion of steps the gun industry could take to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals. Furthermore, the NRA and the gun industry went to great lengths to silence anyone within the gun industry who urged a more responsible approach to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The industry's conduct resulted in a surge of gun sales - unfortunately many of those sales were to the criminal market."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=immun_state

Why don't those cities and counties just enforce the laws against people under 21 and felons possessing guns? That would solve their gun problems.

The plain fact is most guns in the cities come from outside the cities, from gun shows in places like Georgia and South Carolina.

for resale. Again, why don't you just enforce the laws?

The plain fact is, those l;awsuits are valid...whether or not you want to piss and moan about them. And I for one think the corrupt gun industry deserves to get sued...and that Congressional hearings should be held to investigate its marketing and sales patterns...

"The plain fact is"

Is this some type of authority?

"those l;awsuits are valid"

Most courts have held they are not.

"And I for one think the corrupt gun industry deserves to get sued"

You are entitled to your opinion, even though it's wrong.

and if you don't like it, tough titty.

The gun industry itself showed what a lie that line was.

Colt had to saw the bayonet lug off its AR-15 to keep selling it.

Most sane people saw that as a reason to strengthen it.

By the way, tell us who owned that company that sold the modified AR-15, please. And tell us what political party he supports. And tell us what pair of famous killers use the resulting product. And what gun shop didn't have paperwork to account for how that gun ended up in the killers' hands. And how many other guns they had "lost track" of.

(Here's a hint: He had to step down from being the state chairman of his state's Dumbya campaign when his name became known)....

They could have used a bolt action hunting rifle with the same result.

It is appalling what gun nuts will excuse for their phallic toys.

By the way, I guess this means you're going to duck all those questions. For the record...

Bushmaster, which skirted the ban and continued to sell assault weapons to loonies and thugs is headed by Richard Dyke, who was the finance chairman of George W. Bush's campaign for the presidency in Maine in 1999. Dyke had to run and hide when another Bushmaster customer, white supremacist loony Buford Furrow, shot up a Jewish kindergarten and killed a postman in Los Angeles, and his ties to the campaign became public.

The Bushmaster became synoymous with the Beltway Snipers, who got their weapon from the Bullseye Gun Shop in Tacoma, Wash., who, amazingly also sold Furrow a gun (they have just the nicest customers). If you're wondering how the Beltway Snipers and Furrow got past background check, keep wondering. The Bullseye Gun Shop turned out to have no paperwork of the sort they were required to keep on that weapon or nearly 250 others...and lamely claimed the gun had been stolen after it was traced back to them.

Amazingly, thanks to the GOP and the gun lobby, the store is still open.

It could still legally sell the rifle under the ban. Gee, that was sure worth losing the House and several Senate seats in '94.

Also, thanks for acknowledging the two famous killers could have done the same thing thing with ANY hunting rifle.

Funny how if you're so concerned, you didn't join the effort to strengthen the ban, did you?

"the two famous killers could have done the same thing thing with ANY hunting rifle"
And again, this makes it okay exactly how?

regular semi-auto hunting rifles in the way they function. They only 'look' like military weapons. The only part of the ban that made any sense was the high capacity magazine (detachable thing that holds the bullets) ban. If the bill's proponents cared anything about reducing the lethality of guns, they would have simply agreed to drop the gun part of the ban and kept the magazine ban. That would have passed.

And the Beltway shootings were terrible. My point was obviously that psychos who want to do that sort of thing can't be stopped. It would have even happened in Australia.

"They only 'look' like military weapons."
And of course, they can be converted to full auto pretty easily...

And if they're no different than ordinary hunting rifles, then YOU DON'T NEED ONE.

"If the bill's proponents cared anything about reducing the lethality of guns"
Funny, the gun lobby and the GOP seem to be totally uninterested in that goal, eh? Wonder why?

"My point was obviously that psychos who want to do that sort of thing can't be stopped."
So why not let the gun industry cash in, eh?

Why do you think differently?

There's no better indication of how effective it was than that.

"In the five year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act, assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime - a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate. "

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=aw_renew

"According to the most recent statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms:

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

http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/awb1034.htm

gun banning website. Second, if the statistics did 'drop', it's probably because the guns were no longer classified as "assault weapons" due to minor alterations of the guns, which were still being sold. However, the pre-1994 statistics that I have seen showed that assault weapons were used in only 1% of all crimes.

" Joseph Constance, deputy chief of the Trenton, New Jersey, Police Department, told the Senate Judiciary Committee in August 1993:

"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming .026 of 1 percent of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets." "

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0396d.asp

evidently....

"for well over a century, the American people said "No" to such anti-free-market government policies as income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, immigration controls, economic regulations, drug laws, gun control, public schooling, and foreign wars....FFF has published eight books on various aspects of freedom: Four of the books have been edited by Richard M. Ebeling and Jacob G. Hornberger and consist of essays from Freedom Daily: The Dangers of Socialized Medicine;
The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration; The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars; The Tyranny of Gun Control; and FFF’s newest book, Liberty, Security, and the War on Terrorism. The other four books have been authored by Sheldon Richman: Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State.. "

http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/index.asp

Get a clue.

I linked it for the deputy police chief's quote about NJ's statistics. I see you quoted the looney Sarah Brady site.

"I see you quoted the looney Sarah Brady site."
Be sure and tell us what specifically is "loony" about that, Mike...other than that they don't pimp for far right wing causes, racism and the confederate snotrag.

Over the past three election cycles the Brady Center has given more than 97% of its money to Democrats...and pro-choice, pro-environment Democrats at that.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q12

"FFF is a bunch of far right wing shitheads..."

Of course it is. As I said, I linked the page for the quote. Now, if you think the quote or the statistic are false, feel free to research it.

"Over the past three election cycles the Brady Center has given more than 97% of its money to Democrats"

Yes, anti-gun Dems who have hurt the Party overall with their attempts to restrict gun ownership.

You got a bogus quote from an obscure cop in a small town in NJ that's being pushed by a bunch of dishonest right wing screwlooses....

"Yes, anti-gun Dems who have hurt the Party overall"
Sez you. Of course, you were also trying to pretend Ted Nugent isn't a bigoted piece of shit.

University of Dayton Law Review
Symposium, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,
vol. 20, no. 2, 1995: 557.

EXCERPT from section k:

On June 20, 1993, the New York Times, long a vigorous advocate of assault weapons bans, reported that the two-year-old New Jersey ban has had little effect on crime. The report, by Iver Peterson, noted that "Although New Jersey's pioneering ban on military-style assault rifles was sold to the state as a crime-fighting measure, its impact on violence in the state, two years after it took effect, has been negligible, both sides agree, and debate over its impact is colored more by opinion than by fact." The Times reported that until the ban was imposed, the police were not required to keep statistics on the number of crimes involving assault rifles. In the years since, the statistics show them to be a tiny fraction of the total.

Even though Governor James Florio claimed that there were once 300,000 of these firearms in the state--guns they claimed had only one purpose, for killing people--and later revised the figure down to 40,000, only about 2,000 have been registered or otherwise rendered inoperable. This means that there are still tens of thousands of the targeted guns still in private hands, yet they account for .026 of 1 percent of guns used in crime.

Frederick DeVesa, first assistant attorney general, told the Times: "We're ready to concede that there is not a really high percentage of crimes committed with assault firearms." And then he added, "And we're going to make sure that number does not grow."

Joseph Constance, deputy chief of police in Trenton's capital city force, termed the assault weapons issue "pure nonsense, political pap." Constance, who has always opposed the state's ban, said: "Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for twenty-five years and I haven't seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used against police officers."

The Times quoted Dominick Polifrone, head of the New Jersey bureau of ATF, as saying, "I've never encountered an assault rifle. The guns we have been dealing with are mostly 9-millimeter handguns, .38-caliber pistols and 25-millimeter handguns, because they're easier to conceal."

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm

Nor is there any sign New Jersey is going to end its ban on assault weapons anytime soon...despite the pissing and moaning of a handful of gun loonies.

By the way, nice to see you've dredged up that fuckwit Alan Gottlieb and his SAF....don't you ever get tired of diving into right wing cesspools and dredging up this shit?

"Gottlieb is a buccaneering entrepreneur with a remarkable knack for cashing in big on right-wing causes. "I am," he says, "the premiere anti-communist, free-enterprise, laissez-faire capitalist," He is also:
* President and founder of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, which in 1988 launched the Wise Use Movement, today the most powerful anti-environmental force in the country. Wise Use Movement groups are now active in every state, indeed, in nearly every county, in America. Wise Use's clout in Congress has grown so much in the past year that it has been able to halt all pending environmental legislation in this session.
* President of two non-profit corporations which form the most potent pro-gun force in the country, outside of the National Rifle Association. The two non profits are the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens's Committee For the Right to Keep and Bear arms.
* A master fund raiser for conservative causes and candidates -- the most successful one outside Washington, D.C.
* A member of the board of governors on the powerful and ultra-secretive Council for National Policy. Front Lines Research, a Planned Parenthood magazine called the CNP, "the central leadership network of the far right in the United States." Membership is secret but is known to include such familiar right wing stalwarts as CNP president, Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, Paul Weyrich, founding president of the Heritage Foundation, Jerry Falwell and Oliver North.
* Sole proprietor of a profitable right wing publishing complex which writes, edits and distributes conservative books and magazines.
*Owner of KBNP, a business radio station in Portland, and Chairman of the Board of the Talk America Radio Network which has 196 affiliated radio stations across the nation. In Seattle, the Talk America affiliate is King-AM.
* A convicted felon. In 1984, Gottlieb pleaded guilty to underpaying income tax returns by $17,000 and served ten months in Federal prison. "

http://www.sweetliberty.org/mof.htm

You have strange standards, MrBenchley.

I HAVE standards, Mike. You clearly don't seem to have any.

on the web. It didn't write it. And it didn't write the NYT article either. It surely didn't create the facts in either. You attack the messenger because you can't successfully attack the message. That proves you have lost the arguement.

"It didn't write it. And it didn't write the NYT article either. "
And you know that because certainly a right wing loony who went to jail for tax fraud would never lie? Ask me next if I share your faith in right wing scumbags like Nugent and Gottlieb.

"It surely didn't create the facts in either"
What facts? The bit you quoted had a bunch of people's opinions supposedly cherry-picked from a New York Times article.

"You attack the messenger because you can't successfully attack the message."
The messenger is a lying piece of shit and one of the scummiest people around, an apologist not only for the corrupt gun lobby but for polluting industries. And the "message" he brought was that he supposedly found some obscure bozo who didn't agree with the Assault Weapons Ban....which is wildly popular and which NJ has no intention of repealing, because we are a largely Democratic state.

SAF wrote the Dayton Law Review article? SAF feigned the NYT story? hummm......

"some obscure bozo"

Assistant Attorney General Frederick DeVesa an obscure bozo?

Dominick Polifrone, head of the New Jersey bureau of ATF, an obscure bozo?

Hummm......

on anything but how to pry nickels out of right wing pinheads qualifies as a paranoid loony.

"Assistant Attorney General Frederick DeVesa an obscure bozo?"
Tell us, please, who are the CURRENT asssistant attorneys general of the state of New Jersey? (For that matter, tell us how many there are?) What's Frederick DeVesa up to those days, anyway?

"anybody trying to trot out Alan Gottlieb as an expert"

You're the only one mentioning him.

"What's Frederick DeVesa up to those days, anyway?"

I guess you need to hear it from Janet Reno to believe.

You're the one trying to pimp his dishonest "foundation" as a source for fact, Mike.

""What's Frederick DeVesa up to those days, anyway?"
I guess you need to hear it from Janet Reno to believe."
Now what does that mean, Mike? Is there something wrong with Janet Reno? Or are you just babbling as usual?

And your non-answer confirms that DeVesa is indeed an obscure bozo.

Why do you insist that I cited the SAF as my source?

Here-- I couldn't find a link to the NYT article, but I found a copy that someone manually re-typed and posted on the web. It's a good read.

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Government/States/New%20Jersey/New%20Jersey%20Gun%20Ban

The next link references the NYT article, which proves that it wasn't feigned in some sinister plot by SAF:

http://archives.cjr.org/year/94/1/bang.asp


"Is there something wrong with Janet Reno?"

Ugg.....Is there someting wrong with citing the head of the New Jersey BATF for NJ firearms facts? Why would you question her statement?

So ask me next if I care what gets that bunch in a moist heat.

And from your retyped Times article (assuming it isn't falsified), it seems the NJ law is neither tyranny, nor ineffective.

500 replies.

:D

To convert an AR-15, you need a mill, a drill press, a fire control parts set for select fire, and you need the knowledge on how to do it. The ATF defines easily converted or manufactured being a process that takes less than 8 hours to complete. No semi-auto firearm on the market meets that definition.

Who are you to declare what one of us needs or doesn't need? If you are willing to step into that arena, be prepared to also take the responsibility for our well being financially, morally, and physically.

Personally, I think that "reducing the lethality of guns" is a pipe dream. It's never going to happen. Why? You can't uninvent technology without total across the board de-evolution of technology. Case in point being the "Dark Ages" where a great deal of technical knowledge was lost.

The solution to the violent crime problem is not banning guns but finding out why the criminals are doing these things and fixing the root cause, not putting a bandaid on the problem.

We lost big beginning in 1994 due to the AW ban. Until we abandon gun control, we will not win the Whitehouse or control of Congress again. We not only have to stop promoting gun control, but we must encourage safe and proper storage, education, and we must not give lip service on the issue but really mean it. Any Democrats we elect to run for office must be pro gun. And they must have a record to back it up. The NRA tore Kerry up in Ohio over the "hunt" he did. His record reflects the exact opposite of what he stated during the campaign. I firmly believe that was a major contributing factor to John Kerry losing in that state.

Do you guys think that the NRA and other chimp supporters won't check voting records?

Jason

This sounds just like the Repubs argument when we bring up the debacle that is the Iraq war: "So, you WANT Saddam Hussein to still be in power???"

Spare me. A guy in China just killed a bunch of little kids in a school with a knife. You're not going to stop the crazies with bans, just like you won't stop drinking through prohibition laws.

The Swiss are required to keep a loaded rifle in every home as each head of household is considered a member of the militia. Their murder rate is drastically lower than ours. There are millions of guns in Canada. They average about 60-70 gun murders per year. The US averages something like 12-14,000.

One thing we Democrats and liburrrls in general have in common is that we like to get to the root of any problem and actually solve it. Contrast this with Republicans and neocons who look for the easiest person/thing/country to blame. The problem is FEAR, and G.W. Bush, Inc. is marketing it to us every minute of every day.

"The Swiss are required to keep a loaded rifle in every home"
All of those guns are registered, and the Swiss are also required to account for every shot fired in writing. I'll take that gun law.

"we Democrats and liburrrls in general have in common is that we like to get to the root of any problem and actually solve it."
So tell us, what politicans does the gun lobby support...and what do those scumbags stand for?

...you'd keep a loaded gun in your house?

I'd be happy to see all guns registered, all gun owners licensed, and ammunition tightly controlled. Wouldn't you?

Registration is not the magic bullet that solves gun crime. I don't have stats at my fingertips, but a substantial number of gun crimes are committed with guns that were stolen or otherwise obtained illegally. Someone could break into your house and steal that weapon you have safely locked up.

How would you solve that problem?

and gun owners want the guns but not the responsibility....

"a substantial number of gun crimes are committed with guns that were stolen"
Guns are a helluva deterrant to crime then, aren't they?

"Someone could break into your house and steal that weapon you have safely locked up. How would you solve that problem?"
I've solved it quite elegantly now...I don't have a fucking gun.

and use their service rifles regularly.

They are required to have a minimum amount of ammo available for their service rifle.

You made the claim that the Swiss are required to account for every shot fired.

BS. Prove it.

Why do you want to alienate most gun owners for an ineffective piece of legislation? Most gun owners see it as a "slippery slope" whereby the "gun banners" will keep coming back for more restrictions-- which is probably true. Extremists like Feinstein and Schumer would like to see all handguns banned.

"Most gun owners see it as a "slippery slope""
Not even close to true...."According to a poll released Monday by the National Annenberg Election Survey, two-thirds of Americans want the ban extended – including about 57 percent of those with guns in their home. "

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2004/09/09_504.html

"Extremists like Feinstein and Schumer"
They're called liberals, buddy. What is the name of this place again...

"would like to see all handguns banned"
So would a sizable chunk of the public.

I would think that James Madison knew a little bit about the Constitution. If you read what he had to say about guns, it is abundantly clear that the Constitution does protect the right to keep and bear arms.

or quotes wrenched out of context by right wing loonies and used to prop up a corrupt industry.

Exactly what do you mean by “corrupt industry”?

Anyway, I am going to make an assumption about you. I suspect that you live in an urban environment, probably in the northeast or the far west. And like most folks who live in those areas, your opinions with respect to gun ownership are based on emotions rather than logic.

As far as “quotes wrenched out of context by right wing loonies” goes, let me say this: It is impossible to apply logic and reason to Madison’s Federalist # 46 and not realize that Madison believed in the right to keep and bear arms. To reach any other conclusion, one must apply emotion.

So, it’s not about the Constitution, it’s about how you feel—isn’t it, sir?

"Exactly what do you mean by “corrupt industry”?"
Tell us, how many gun factories does the Reverend Sun Myung Moon own? How many NRA board members have criminal convictions? How many have ties to white supremacist or militia groups?

Frank Lautenberg has spelled out many instances of scummy practices by the gun industry. And you might look at this for further evidence:

www.gunlawsuits.org/pdf/docket/review.pdf

"your opinions with respect to gun ownership are based on emotions"
No, they're based on facts.
--The courts HAVE ruled again and again and again that the --Second Amendment grants no individual right to gun ownership.
--The gun rights movement DID arise in the 1970s when extreme right wingers could no longer flaunt their racism in public and needed code words.
--The majority of voters DOES support gun control.
--Gun control DOES work to cut gun crime and bloodshed.
--John Kerry was NOT "anti-gun" and the gun lobby DID lie about him.

Now show me anything about the pro-gun movement that isn't based on right wing extremist idiocy or paranoia.

"It is impossible to apply logic and reason to Madison’s Federalist # 46 and not realize that Madison believed in the right to keep and bear arms."
And even more impossible to read it and pretend that Madison doesn't do so in the context of a well-regulated millitia such as the state National Guard...unless one wishes to be totally dishonest. In fact, the title of Federalist 46 is "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared" not "Why every oaf ought to have a gun".

"So, it’s not about the Constitution, it’s about how you feel—isn’t it, sir?"
Not even close to true. Now tell us what about this claim by chinless gumps that Democrats are going to take their guns that's not based on what they feel....and what about that feeling isn't simple-minded, dishonest and neurotic.

"And even more impossible to read it and pretend that Madison doesn't do so in the context of a well-regulated millitia such as the state National Guard."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
US Code

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes


Release date: 2004-03-18

(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.

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As you see, the "militia" consists of more than the National Guard.

Now I know why I remained a lurker so long...

Benchley,
After reading your many posts on this issue both before and now after the election, I have come to wonder if you are really working for the Republican party?

Why would anyone so consistently tout a losing issue SO loudly and SO vehemently? You don't strike me as unintelligent nor do you seem uninformed. Virtually everyone has agreed from Bill Clinton to the most right-wing of the right that guns and the continued talk of limiting their ownership in one form or another HAS hurt the Democratic party. Why not just admit that your position is BULLSHIT and you are wrong? It is absolutely killing us in rural states and even with many suburban voters. I can GUARANTEE you that Kerry would have won the popular vote in the US if he had a string Senate record of supporting gun owners rights. Instead all he could do was pose with a dead goose and new camouflage and hide from his horrendous gun record which the NRA used against him HEAVILY in Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

I don't give a tinker's DAMN if 75% of the country answers that they are for some form of gun control in a poll. You misunderstand and are completely oblivious to voter intensity in rural states on this issue alone. I am baffled as to how people cannot see it.

STFU about guns, STFU, STFU, STFU....Say nothing, no "waiting periods", no "reasonable restrictions", no "common sense". If that stuff plays in NY, then let the NYC mayor make that case and let it be an issue for that city to decide.

Do you not understand this and if so, why still support an issue that is killing the party?....Unless you really don't care about the party and just care about guns.

Explain this to me Benchley...Why continually tout this one losing issue as something you say we need to continually embrace when hundreds of us on this forum KNOW it is something we need to run so hard AWAY from? Explain it concisely, nicely and to the point please.

The NRA and the Republican party are tied together, they wouldn't support democrats even if their gun control position was more right wing. They will spin it as "taking your right to own a gun out of the constitution". It's hypocritical because unless they support a convicted felon being allowed to own a tank, a grenade launcher, and a fully automatic m-16, then they don't truly support the second ammendment's unlimited restriction on the right to bear arms.

In this congressional election, some democratic candidates were supported over republican candidates. The NRA is fairly good about supporting candidates based on position and not party.

I could use a laugh.

Here is a link to a post by jkupski in which an article is cited about TN. In TN, the NRA endorsed 4 democratic candidates.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=90921&mesg_id=90921

I'd be willing to bet they're to the right of Zell Miller....

I have no idea what the position of those democrats are, except I do know they support the 2nd Amendment.

a mistake and risks all of our basic civil rights. If we are to deal with the right wing we have to be simple and straight forward.
Even though we may have a million variances and are open to all arguments we have to speak their language and listen to their fears and desires. They may be different than ours but they do exist. I say, know what to serve them and they will come sit at your table.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

And a far right wing GOP organization at that....just a step above the KKK.

Apparently this is another DU poster who enjoys losing Presidential elections.


Tell me, at what NRA rally were the crosses burned? What group of people were lynched by NRA members wearing hoods?


Not only are you insulting gun owners, but you are also insulting minorities who were the victims of the KKK's hatred by making your ridiculous comparison.

Who's got openly racist shitheads like Ted Nugent on their board? Who put every civil rights organization that can be found on their "enemies list"?

"you are also insulting minorities who were the victims of the KKK's hatred"
What a steaming pantload. What's insulting minorities is trying to pretend that this bunch of bigoted right wing crazies is anything but that.

and nary a word of complaint about him from any NRA member can be found....

Read and learn:

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=11835

who has stuck up for apartheid. He's one of the most disgraceful scumbags around.

"Anyway, Nugent got his concert canceled because of comments he made on a radio show back in May (see Idiots 109) - nothing major, he was just explaining that the words "Jap," "Gook," and "Nigger" weren't offensive. Unfortunately a lot of people found this, um, offensive, and now it seems that The Nuge is having some difficulty getting a gig. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/03/123.html

Here's an excerpt:

"The following is Ted's official statement regarding the Denver incident:

"Let's get one thing straight first and foremost: I dedicated my last record, 'Craveman', to Rosa Parks, the Civil Rights pioneer. I did that because she is one of only a couple of heroes that I have ever had.

"A bit of advice — Never take too much serious that you hear on any FM morning radio show & be sure to have your sense of humor plugged in. The sole purpose of these programs is to entertain you with often over-the-top, irreverent, shock humor, the king of which is Howard Stern, right behind me. If you want serious radio, turn the dial to the AM channel.

"Because of my very public pro-hunting and pro-gun lifestyle, I have been the butt of many jokes on these FM radio programs across the country. Instead of becoming upset, I laugh hysterically, much like I did when 'Saturday Night Live' made fun of my hunting lifestyle in a widely entertaining parody. Only an uptight, politically correct idiot would get upset over a 'SNL' skit.

"Recently, on one of the world's best and certainly funniest morning radio shows, the FOX's 'Lewis & Floorwax' morning show in Denver, I made the comment that you can't play real, authentic, soulful, tuneful blues on a Jap guitar. My use of the word 'Jap' has obviously upset some people. Get over it. British people are commonly refereed to as Brits. Swedish people are known as Swedes. Americans are Yanks, even damn Yanks. I then went on to quote by name, my favorite record of all time, Richard Pryor's 'That Nigger's Crazy!' Tho funny as hell, I was dead serious. I then stated that the best name ever for a band was NIGGAS WITH ATTITUDE. I meant that, too. I then shared a wonderful story from my rock-n-roll youth in Detroit (live in person on 'Bob & Tom' radio to tens of millions on my new DVD) when my band THE LOURDES won the Michigan Battle of the Bands in 1963, and was rewarded with the privilege of performing on the same Cobo Hall stage with the gods of R&B, the mighty FUNK BROTHERS of Motown. In one of the most moving experiences in my musical career, the biggest, baddest Funk Brother of all, sashayed over to me and my band, put his strong black, genius hand on my trembling white shoulder, looked down upon me, and stated, 'Boy, you keeps playin guitar like dat, youz gonna be a nigger when youz grows up.' I shook in awe and reverence, and stuttered, 'Thank you sir.' I meant that, too. For these amazingly simple statements of humor, respect and honesty, I have been attacked as a racist."

Are you through defaming Nugent?

He's been attacked as a racist because he's a bigoted piece of shit.

"Even better, it's light on the racist rhetoric old Ted usually subjects his audiences to. "

http://www.canoe.ca/JamAlbumsN/nugent_ted_nugity-sun.html

"He would fit right in. He likes guns and hates black people.

Lamenting a changing South Africa, in 1990 rock musician and NRA board member Ted Nugent told the Detroit Free Press magazine that "apartheid isn't that cut and dry. All men are not created equal. The preponderance of South Africa is a different breed of man. I mean that with no disrespect. I say that with great respect. I love them because I'm one of them. They are still people of the earth, but they are different. They still put bones in their noses, they still walk around naked, they wipe their butts with their hands.... These are different people. You give 'em toothpaste, they f---ing eat it.... I hope they don't become civilized. They're way ahead of the game." In the same interview, Nugent expounded on his racial views, "I use the word n----r a lot because I hang around with a lot of n----rs, and they use the word n----r, and I tend to use words that communicate....""

http://articleonline.net/blog/archives/000361.shtml

"On the Confederate Flag:
" Those politically correct motherfuckers can take the flag down but I am
going to wear it forever."
--The Fort Worth Star-Telegram"

http://www.nraleaders.com/ted-nugent.html

There are definitely two ways to look at his SA comment. One is your way. The other is that he was talking about the culture of some of the people. He even said, "I say that with great respect. I love them because I'm one of them." The last comment you quoted is not racist in the context he used. Apparently, according to you, someone must be Eminem to say the N Word without being racist.

On the Confederate battle flag, many people who aren't bigots view it with respect due to non-racist reasons. Unfortunately, it has been abused by racist groups and some politicians. It should never have flown over any state capitol, due to offending African-Americans. However, there are two sides to this issue.

Nugent is a wildman and a rebel (he has always been that), but he's not a bigot.

"There are definitely two ways to look at his SA comment."
One is to acknowledge what a bigoted dimwit he is...and the other is to try desperately to spin away his racism...

"Apparently, according to you, someone must be Eminem to say the N Word without being racist. "
Be sure and show us where I mentioned Eminem, Mike.

Hell, David Duke and Trent Lott also claim not to be racists...and that doesn't fool anyone either.

Defending this prick for these statements?

tactic-- not.

I quoted the scummy nutcase's own words. Ted Nugent deserves all the abuse that decent people can heap on his ugly head.

to defend those statements. Not attacking, just making an observation. I know people feel strongly about gun ownership, democrat or republican, but defending those statements show your true colors IMHO.

Credibility=0

Would I have made the SA and Confederate battle flag statements? No. Were they right? No. Is he a bigot? Only Ted knows for sure, but I don't think so. I've read several of his articles about spirituality (Native American type), hunting and nature and I can tell you that he doesn't express himself like an average person. He hunts with a bow and says a Native American prayer of thanks over each deer he harvests. Some of his articles are more like a new form of poetry. He is an artist. When talking, he doesn't worry about how he expresses himself or being PC. He just lets it flow.

Here's an example of it flowing:

{"There's so much transparency in music," he says. "Though I love some of the music of the grunge maneuvers, it doesn't have all the goods. Are you familiar with The Hives? The guys rock how you're supposed to rock, without all the negativity and squawking and complaining and excuse-making. They just fucking plug in and rip dick. There was all of a sudden an easy-breathing sigh of outrage that we felt when we first heard the Beatles, the Stones, the Yardbirds, and what they did, spring-boarding off of Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley inventions. It's alive and well in my music, and I believe in all the best music out there. Not to mention the patriotism in my new songs. You know, I see all this 'united we stand' masturbatory silliness. We're not united. We're still vandalizing and burglarizing and breaking and entering and raping and murdering and turf-warring and drug-dealing. We're still the stupid assholes beating each other up like no other society in the history of the world. I'm on a projectile American Dream Jihad. The truth is a beautiful fucking thing."}

http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/072502/buzzlead.html


I can understand someone thinking he's a bigot by only looking at a few statements he has made, but you must go a lot deeper than that to get the true picture, IMO. Of course, some people with an agenda will call him a racist simply because he's pro-gun and pro-hunting.

>"He hunts with a bow and says a Native American prayer of thanks over each deer he harvests. Some of his articles are more like a new form of poetry. He is an artist. When talking, he doesn't worry about how he expresses himself or being PC. He just lets it flow."<

I find the humble and solemn hunter bit hard to believe.
Currently, he is sticking his nose in a controversy regarding deer hunting and heard thinning near Chicago(where I live). While I find his on-air statements about how he is going to, quote:"rack em and stack em, kill em and grill em" funny and a nice poke at the stuffy suburbanites, it makes it a stretch to believe that he is this "spiritual hunter dude". I can't imagine the Native American hunter gleefully taunting people and rubbing his views in their faces.

Regarding the other inflammatory statements, He kind of reminds me of a Lindon LaRouche or a Farrakhan. You know the drill. Say something completely crazy and inflammatory like "Hitler was a great man" or "the Queen of England is a drug dealer" and then back it up with some version of twisted logic to justify the statements.

Like you said, I don't know his mind or know if he truly is racist but if it walks like a duck......

Anyway, I DID enjoy your spirited debate with MrBenchley.

Peace. :-)

BTW. I AM a gun owner. I even keep a handgun in the house in violation of a very strict local ordinance. Being a gay man, I sometimes think I should stock up on a couple AR-15s and a couple thousand rounds of ammunition. It really does cross my mind sometimes with all the shit going on in this country.

I don't believe guns should be outlawed but we have a real problem with guns being imported to Chicago for the gang bangers. A Chicago Policeman friend of the family was shot and killed a couple years ago by a handgun imported from a suburban gun store. The store was acting as an arms dealer to the gangs by selling to a couple "straw men" with clean records. It just doesn't make sense that someone should be able to purchase 20 handguns in the period of a year and not be questioned about what war he is intending to start. The store was eventually shut down after a bunch of guns used in crimes were traced back to the store. Unfortunately, the damage is done and the guns are in the hands of the gangs.

...scroll down to my post near the bottom of the thread and you'll find a link to an interview with the Chinless Wizard of the Inbred Knights (not his real title, but...) of the Ku Klux Klan in which HE denies he's a racist...in terms reminiscent of Nutsy Ted...

P.S.: Great handle...

Not sure where Kingshakabobo came from. My mom used to use it.
As in: Who do you think you are? Kingshakabobo?

Nice job.

:)

If you're interested, here are some of his hunting articles:

http://www.tednugent.com/news/100112001.shtml

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/article/article_read.asp?aid=149142&sid=85&htl=%2Fcolumn%2Fcolumn_feature.asp%3Fsid%3D85

http://www.edersbow.com/publication/1998/December/bb/default.cfm

Take Care.

ON EDIT:

I feel like a character from Sartre's "No Exit". I'm outta this thread.

hunters. I remember when Australia had a shooting involving several deaths in the mid or late '90s. Australia had no strong gun lobby. The Parliament knee-jerked and banned all semi-auto and pump shotguns and rifles (ALL of them, including hunting rifles). Australians can now only own single barrel and double barrel shotguns and bolt action rifles.

This is what keeps the NRA popular with hunters and sports shooters.

and the GOP.

"Australians can now only own single barrel and double barrel shotguns and bolt action rifles."
So? What the hell do they need with more than that? In fact, the gun control laws in Australia are quite reasonable and supported by all but a handful of extremists who have ties to the US gun industry.

"This is what keeps the NRA popular with hunters and sports shooters."
Lies about Australia?

It's obvious that you are out of touch with hunters, gun collectors, and gun sportsmen/women. Semi-auto (one shot for each trigger pull) and pump shotguns and rifles are owned by most hunters and gun sportsmen/women. No wonder Democrats have been losing votes.

When you try to ban these long guns the Dems will hold about 20 seats in the Senate and maybe 100 in the House. The same would happen if you tried to ban handguns.

Give it up. This is a LOSER issue.

So why can't you answer the question?

the gun control issue. It's laughable from a political perspective. It doesn't matter whether hunters and sport shooters "need" more than double barrel shotguns and bolt action rifles. The fact is that they own them and want them. I guarantee that ANY state or federal politician in a purple or most Blue states who is stupid enough to try to ban them will lose his/her election.

Now, to actually answer the question, semi-auto shotguns are used by quail and duck hunters to harvest more game when they have the chance to shoot (they miss a lot). Deer hunters also use semi-auto and pump shotguns to get more shots at deer. There is absolutely no way to ban semi-auto shotguns. Deer and duck hunters use different chokes (things that screw into the end of the barrel to tighten the pattern of the shot) and these can't be used with double barrel shotguns. Deer hunters in the North use pump rifles to get off more shots at deer they track and jump up. Deer hunters also use semi-auto rifles to get a second or third shot at deer.

There are people in hell who want ice water too.

And I hardly think the entire nation should be endangered just because the dwindling six percent of the country that hunts can't hit their targets.

elections this year. Make that a 12% swing. Kerry 54%, Chimp 45%. Sounds good.

So there are people who are willing to piss away the entire country for their selfish hobby...and we ought to get on our knees and grovel to them?

And bear in mind, most of those folks haven't voted Democrat since Strom left the party...and hate blacks, Jews, gays and uppity women as much as they love killing animals for fun.

voted for Clinton.

I'll wait right here. But so far the gun nut crowd is long on blowhard rhetoric and exceedingly short on anything remotely resembling fact.

"Gun owners can be forgiven
if they failed to fathom the
danger of a Clinton White House"
Yeah, they really were in grave danger getting the best peace-time economy in US history, advances in racial justice, improved public education, and a lower crime rate. good thing they dodged that universal health care bullet--there's no telling what trouble they'd be in THEN.

I supplied it.
You wanted proof that Clinton was supported by gun owners. What better source for that than the NRA itself?

"You wanted proof that Clinton was supported by gun owners. What better source for that than the NRA itself?"
In other words, you got no proof at all.

Don;t you get tired of peddling dishonest right wing propaganda?

I voted for Clinton in 1992, I was so disgusted in 1996, I didn't vote.

My issue? Gun control.

I'm a social liberal but many of my friends consider me very conservative on the gun issue. It creates many problems for me when I weigh in my pro-choice leanings.

Jason

In Michael Moore's controversial film, "Bowling for Columbine," he noted that Canadians have a very high gun ownership per capita, but when compared to the USA, Canada enjoys a far lower violent crime rate as regards to gun violence. M. Moore thought raised a good quesiton.

So, I think you're displacing some anger at a symptom, and not the cause. The question is WHY are Americans more violent-prone when compared to our ("gun owning") Canadian neighbors? I would speculate that our nation has a history of armed conflict, and our society has a larger gap of social equity (ie. lack of safety net compared to Canada, etc.), and thus a higher level of intrinsic violence. I looked at the pictures on the website "weresorry" vs. "werenotsorry" and I noted that many right-wingers had their guns on display as a sign of...well, I would guess low self-esteem... and some bottled up anger resulting from within...? They and the rabid NRA types are not representative of the majority of gun owners.

(fyi: I am a gun owner. A target shooter, not at hunter, and I suppose I like the precision of the mechanics and the sport, just like some people like bowling, some like fishing, some like motorcycles, some like my father enjoy flying a private airplane, and some people even like NASCAR racing. To each their own - as long as everyone abey the laws, and those who don't are addressed in the judicial system).

Regardless, I would only point out to you that millions gun owners in the US (like our Canadian neighbors) are decent, moderate people and are not representative of the *small but vocal/rabid* "gun nuts." Likewise, most Christians and Muslims are decent, moderate people and not representative of the *small but vocal/rabid* "fundamentlists." My point? Please do not stereotype.

The more important question is what if anything can we do to slowly change our societal plague regarding this propensity for violence? Blaming those with certain tools (ie. guns) is not the answer, just like blaming all Muslims for the 9/11 tragedy is not the answer.

Secondly, I am leaving after this post for several hours, but I would simply ask that you review my 2 posts #95 and #116, just food for thought. Lastly, while I do not care for the NRA, I must mention that the civilian gun industry is rather small, and it is not the source of societal conflict. However, what is TRUELY corrupt and IS the source of geopolitcal conflict and violence/destruction on a broad-scale is the Military-Industrial-Petroleum-Banking Conglomerate. The power welded by that group is what is deserves EVERYONE's scutiny and criticism. Thanks for your consideration.

"I think you're displacing some anger at a symptom, and not the cause."
Um, tell us, which group is it that's peddling gun rights AND blocking any legislation that might provide a Canadian style safety net (universal health insurance for example) AND pimping for the Military-Industrial-Petroleum-Banking Conglomerate. Here's a hint, Grover Norquist is on their board of directors, as is Ted Nugent.

"I noted that many right-wingers had their guns on display as a sign of...well, I would guess low self-esteem... and some bottled up anger resulting from within...? They and the rabid NRA types are not representative of the majority of gun owners."
You know, I've heard that line for years and years...but if you go to any gun owner forum on the web, all you find is the same extremist dittohead right wing nonsense....and you can look in vain for any murmur of complaint anywhere at the excesses of the NRA or other gun groups.

I myself think a majority of gun owners favor commonsense gun control...and that the only people opposed are those using the issue to mask another agenda.

What have you been smoking?

You'll notice even pResident Turd couldn't come out and say he thought assault weapons ought to be back in the stores...he and the scumbags in the GOP had to hide behind some lame procedural bullshit to put them there.

Do you know of any credible poll that shows a majority of gun owners favor "sensible" gun control?

You didn't ask that...you only made a snide remark pretending I was stoned.

"Following a series of highly publicized shootings by children, big 3-to-1 majorities of the public favor stricter gun control in general, and stricter control of hand guns. Substantial, but smaller, majorities of gun owners favor stricter controls. Also, gun ownership appears to be declining.
A 69% majority, two-thirds of all adults, favor "stricter gun control," while 23% favor "less strict gun control." Among gun owners, a smaller 57%-32% favor stricter control.
By 76%-19%, an even larger majority, favors stricter control of hand guns. Among gun owners, a 66%-25% majority supports stricter hand gun controls. "

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=182

I take back the stoned remark.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the silliest and most ignorant statements i've ever read.

It's obvious that the gun control issue is killing the Democrats but people rush to jump off the cliff like lemmings over it. I give my thanks to you for giving Chimpy the Moron four more years in office over this issue. Democrats, please drop it. It's killing us. Stop, please.

And anyone who thinks THAT is silly clearly doesn't know dick about the recent history of the NRA, or about the peculiar specimens on its board, or about its outreach to white supremacist groups.

If it involves anything (guns, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) that has to do with cultural issues, they want to read you out of the party. Every election there are less "blue" counties and they still refuse to look at what is killing us as a national party. If you disagree on any of these issues, you can't be a Democrat according to them, so they should not act surprised that fewer and fewer liberals are voting for Democrats.

including my former congressman from Ulster Co. NY, Maurice Hinchey. A lot of those liberals may have lost their endorsement since then (I know Bernie Sanders has) over votes for the Brady Act and/or assault weapons ban (which was seen by the NRA as treachery).

Their endorsements are issued on the basis of a formula - basically, past record, current positions, electability, and points for incumbency. The formula makes no reference to party.

And though it certainly appears at times that the NRA is all right-wing, that's not true. I can even tell you what division of the NRA harbors the most liberals (the NRA-ILA) -- I had some fantastic conversations with a bunch of my fellow NRA liberals all working for the ILA at an NRA convention a few years ago.

because he passed common sense gun control bills? Ho-kay....

"I can even tell you what division of the NRA harbors the most liberals (the NRA-ILA)"
Yeah it shows (snicker):

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=4327

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=4291

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

If you believe like Howard Dean that there is no reason for law abiding citizens in rural areas to be denied the right to posess a gun, I don't think that makes you to the right of Zell Miller. I believe if you check on Congressman Dingell's (MI) record (and it's a VERY long one) you will find that not only is he a "posterboy" for the NRA, but he is also a very liberal member of the Democrat party in good standing in the caucus who seldom votes with Republicans except on gun issues. (He's no Trafficante!) My former congressman, Ron Klink, a Democrat endorsed by the NRA, had an excellent liberal voting record with the exception of gun issues just like most of the PA Democrats serving in congress from W. PA. Klink was pro-life like many of the representatives from my area because they represent the views of the people of this area (mostly practicing Catholics.) Do you remember Governor Casey who was not allowed to speak at the Democrat convention in '92?

"If you believe like Howard Dean that there is no reason for law abiding citizens in rural areas to be denied the right to posess a gun"
Please show us where John Kerry or any other Democrat ever said there was such a reason.

For that matter, tell us where Howard Dean stood on the Assault Weapon Ban (he was for renewing and strengthening it) or closing the gun show loophole (he was for that, too).

"Do you remember Governor Casey who was not allowed to speak at the Democrat convention"
Here's a hint: if you want to pretend to be a Democrat, you ought not to dredge up old lies from Rush Limbaugh...or say things like "Democrat convention."

The best thing John Kerry did in my opinion was to ignore the gun issue and his voting record of being a "gun grabber" in favor of photo-ops of him hunting.

Howard Dean did NOT vote on the AWB or on closing gun show loophole. In the primaries he said he was for them, but at that point he was trying to please all you people who think nobody should own a gun so he could get the nomination.

I have been a registered Democrat since 1964. I now live in PA and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and local TV stations said that Casey was not allowed to speak at the convention because of his pro-life stance. Since I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or talk radio of any kind, I don't know what Limbaugh said. What am I supposed to say except "Republican or Democrat convention?" Is there some secret term that wasn't mailed to me so that I can identify myself to head honcho Democrats like you?

"Howard Dean did NOT vote on the AWB or on closing gun show loophole"
But he supported both of them.

"at that point he was trying to please all you people who think nobody should own a gun"
Like I said, feel free to show us where any Democrat ever said anything like that.

I would just call everyone who doesn't agree with you derogatory names and keep insisting that there is no room in the party for anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with you. It has been SO productive of late. Keep it up and PA will probably join W. Va. as "red" in the next election; maybe MI too.

And unlike them, we "gun-grabbing, bible-stealing, baby-killing, gay-marrying libruls" don't have to lie to show what ignorant shitheads are waving the bogus "gun rights" banner.

I couldn't find a better example of a close-minded, intolerant bigot if I tried.

Further up the thread we've got one of you trigger-happy gumps trying to pretend that Ted Nugent ISN'T bigoted, and down here you're trying to pretend that pointing out in public what sort of scummy folks (like Ted) are pushing this "gun rights" crap, or mentioing how utterly bogus and dishonest it is, IS bigotry.

and tell me that you aren't just a name-calling intolerant bigot. If you are unable to understand that you are the kind of person who is making my party smaller and smaller every election because you simply refuse to tolerate any opinions or ideas that are not carbon copies of your own, the party will continue to shrink. How many other views like gun rights do you demand that everyone agree with you on? Abortion? Gay marriage? Anything else? Somebody who agrees with your views more than 50% of the time is NOT your enemy. You just think that they are.

and I'm not the one pimping here for the bogus "gun rights" position espoused by Trent Lott, Pat Buchanan, Ted Nugent and David Duke.

"you simply refuse to tolerate any opinions or ideas that are not carbon copies of your own"
Geeze, I'm not the one demanding that we have to adopt the Republican position on guns AND abandon the position that a clear majority of the country agrees with.....

"Somebody who agrees with your views more than 50% of the time is NOT your enemy. You just think that they are."
Gee, I'm not the one yelling STFU, posting crap from neoConfederate websites, and chortling with glee over Bernie Goetz, either. And it's hilarious to hear that pointing out what the Constitution and the Courts actually say, or what voters actually want, or what sort of politician actually pushes this bogus doctrine, suddenly makes me your enemy. Especially when what I am espousing is exactly what every Democratic candidate in the primaries, the Democratic ticket, pretty much every prominent Democrat, and pretty much every liberal organization and pundit around advocates.

Geeze, I'm not the one demanding that we have to adopt the Republican position on guns AND abandon the position that a clear majority of the country agrees with.....

If Democrats were in synch with American public opinion on guns, we would be celebrating the re-election of President Gore right now. Gun owners voted for Bush in 2000 by a 61 percent majority (only 51% of gun owners voted for Dole). The gun issue is the reason Gore lost West Virginia and probably Ohio.

You, on the other hand, would rather see the Democratic Party go down in flames as long as its purity on this issue is maintained.

The two states the NRA threw most of its money at were Michigan and Pennsylvania....and Gore won both. Furthermore, both Colorado and Oregon had referendums closing the gun show loophole...and despite millions of dollars worth of "they're going to take away our dicks guns" propaganda in both states, both referendums passed by huge margins.

"The gun issue is the reason Gore lost West Virginia and probably Ohio. "
Says the NRA...but they're lying pieces of shit.

"The NRA beat him (Gore) in Arkansas. The NRA and Ralph Nader stand right behind the Supreme Court in their ability to claim that they put George Bush in the White House. . . . If I had known how big the NRA problem was, could I have gone down there and spent three days calling people on the phone and hollering people in and talking to them and turned it? Probably. . . . I think the NRA had enough votes in New Hampshire, in Arkansas, maybe in Tennessee and in Missouri, to beat us. And they nearly whipped us in two or three other places."

...you'll see named two Democrats who are quite comfortable with the notion of gun owner's rights.

BTW, I think they've missed you down in the Gungeon lately.../snicker

an\d the gungeon is still chock-full of trigger happy right wing trolls and idiots who can stew in their own rancid paranoia.

and dishonest folks--like the scummy bigots in the NRA.

plus plenty of PA Democrats from all over PA (Klink used to be my Congressman until he ran for senate and lost and he was a Democrat)and I bet you the NRA backed Howard Dean when he ran for governor of Vermont. There are 3 states above the Mason-Dixon line since you seem to have a problem with "bigots" like those southern rednecks. Also the NRA endorses my state senator (Stout - Democrat) and my state representative (Victor Lescovitz - Democrat.)

think I found it on alt.binaries.pictures.sportsbike of all places. It's titled "ammo" and is a minute and a half of bozos (and female versions...no idea what they're called) firing automatic weapons in a desert area somewhere in the US. Some of the guns were tripod mounted, belt fed, military hardware.

I have no quibble with owning hunting rifles or shotguns - I live in the heart of game country - but WTF are these idiots allowed to own military autos?

EDIT: for rong speling

because they arent illegal.

Anything that isnt illegal is legal.

They they are allowed to own those weapons because they are legal.

I bet the republicans are all for "sensible" limits to the rights of democrats.

So using the same logic, we should ban gay sex because it occasionally causes AIDS. would only be sensible

There are all kinds of "sensible" things we could do to help protect everyone's health and safety.

That is assuming you think its sensible that the health and safety of people should trump the rights and freedoms of people.

I posted this response in another thread elsewhere, but it does more justice here. The people that think by being a "hunter" then makes them OK with gunowners at large, doesn't understand one thing about dedicated gunowners, thousands of whom own guns for a myraid of reasons besides hunting.

Let me explain to you how this works. John Kerry and his supporters think that by posing with a shotgun and a dead goose that he is then inoculated from the gun issue. Here's a clue to all hardcore gunbanning liberals:

"HUNTING" AND SIMPLY ADVOCATING HUNTING DOESN"T MEAN SQUAT TO 85% OF ALL GUN OWNERS.

Gun owners are inherently distrustful of people like John Kerry especially when advocacy groups present voters with their voting history. For anyone that thinks that this issue was not on rural folks minds...Read S.B 1431 that Mr. Kerry sponsored this last session. If passed it would have been the most Draconian gun law to ever have hit the books. The NRA made voters aware of the specifics of the bill, what it said and who advocated its passage, (in this case John Kerry). The Kerry and Gore methods of thinking,(in their minds), that by doing some hunting, that they are safe from the "anti-gun" label, shows their lack of understanding of the gun culture and rural and some suburban voters. They are RABID in their defense of their right to keep their guns. Many people DO NOT HUNT. These people may collect guns, like to target shoot, combat shoot, plink, trade, be amateur military historians, be an advocate of self defense, etc, etc..

Many, many thousands of voters don't give a damn about hunting, but love guns. Right away when they see Kerry hauling a goose out of the woods in his new camouflage, they think, "Fake bullshit, he's trying to look like one of us, but he's far from it". Show me a Democrat that likes shooting and talking about his H&K MP5 and has a Senate record to back it up, and I'll show you a Democrat that will cut DEEPLY into the Republican ranks during an election.

When northeastern and California liberals can stop attempting to read rural voter's minds, then the issue can be resolved.

Here's the key to winning the white house. Shut the Hell up about guns PERIOD. The party should disown the issue nationally and thoroughly discourage anyone with the shitty record,(like Kerry's), on guns from winning the nomination. Shut the Hell up about "reasonable restrictions". That may sound moderate to some. Most rural people here that and say "bye-bye".

Drop gun control totally and if you don't agree, then at least STFU about it, or I can promise you that we will lose more and more of the elections. Every election, more and more gun owners realize that Democrats= gun control. The more that realize that, we will NEVER get those people back.

Take it from me, I have saw this happening over the last 20 years and I have been screaming for someone to listen, but all the while, liberal people keep thinking that they mean well by moderating their tone with "reasonable restrictions". It's a loser folks, trust me

You may not agree but what he wrote is right on the mark, trust me, TnDem is telling you exactly how it is in the Red States.

yeah, low post count here too, but i'm just a lurker most of the time. you summed it up exactly in the manner i've been trying to explain it to fellow democrats i know who buy into the guns-for-this, but not guns-for-that argument. and i mean EXACTLY.

i'm just a crazy democratic voting, western PA dwelling gun enthusiast who hates laws that dictate what people can, and can't do. just because someone is pro-gun doesn't make them a freeper. for the record, i've NEVER voted republican -- around here, we remember what reagan did to the steel and coal industries, and unions.

cheers.

i read DU everyday...just don't post much. this is a damned good thread, thanks for starting it.

cheers!

Trying to explain this to people is almost impossible to do. You would think a man like John Kerry who is otherwise highly intelligent would somehow be ble to get in America's mind and understand this issue and how and why American gun owners feel

The amount of blue-collar support that Democrats would gain would simply boggle the mind if they adopted our advice. I cannot count the union support that the Democratic party lost during these elections past because of this issue. Being the great politician that he is, Bill Clinton was one Democrat that somewhat understood this. I personally cannot think of another one save maybe a Yellow dog representative like US Rep. Lincoln Davis and a few key others like him. That's the only reason that they survive here.

You have to remember one KEY thing folks. The issue of gun control is one of the FEW issues that the Democrats are advocating TAKING something from the American people as opposed to giving something. That's an eye opener if you really think about it. No other issue has been such an albatross to us...and for no reason.

you're dead-on in terms of the amount of blue-collar votes that the democrats could gain by giving up on the gun issue. so far, i've managed to convince my wife as well as a few friends - all democrats - that guns aren't as "scary" as they have been made out to be. it all boils down to handling them with common sense and personal responsibility.

two things that seem to be dying a quick death in america, sadly.

edit: subject line

The NRA is the largest membership organization in America. It is highly organized and has a very experienced political arm. All the NRA has to do is say the word and it can generate millions of letters almost overnight, a million or so individual donations, and hundreds of thousands of volunteers.

Support gun control, and all this is what you will be up against.

Support gun ownership, and all this will be at your back, gently filling your sails, powering you toward your goals.

And oh yes: I can confirm that Dean did indeed have the NRA endorsement as VT governor.

"The NRA is the largest membership organization in America."
Not even close to true...AARP has more than 35 million members....

http://www.hoovers.com/aarp/--ID__40003--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

NRA claims three million members, but lies publicly often. Audited criculation of its member magazines shows circulation DROPPING, not increasing...

http://www.mediainfocenter.org/magazine/size/avg_circ.asp

"all this will be at your back, gently filling your sails, powering you toward your goals."
Which is why they have folks like Grover Norquist on their board...because they support liberal goals.

"I can confirm that Dean did indeed have the NRA endorsement as VT governor."
And tell us, where did he stand on the Assault Weapons ban? (Why, he was for it). And where did he stand on shutting the gun show loophole? (He was for it.) And if he could get all the NRA support you claim to "gently fill his sails and power him toward his goals," why did he finish no better than third in any major primary? (The answer to that is pretty fucking obvious.)

" we remember what reagan did to the steel and coal industries, and unions."

And I remember what those bastard Republicans have done, and will continue to do to my home state of Nebraska.

TNDem has it right. Get off this issue, and discuss what's really going on. This Grover Norquist playbook is the only issue that really matters.

If the McKinley era comes back in this country, you might need a gun. ;)

"Read S.B 1431 that Mr. Kerry sponsored this last session. If passed it would have been the most Draconian gun law to ever have hit the books."
By "Draconian" read mildly effective and popular. The US is an armed sewer, with more gun dealers than McDonalds....and a multi-million dollar lobby that figths every day to keep you and yours right in the line of fire.

"Many, many thousands of voters don't give a damn about hunting, but love guns."
And almost all of those specimens hate blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays and uppity women as much as they love those guns. And that's why gun shows are filled with Nazi memorabilia and hate literature.

"The Kerry and Gore methods of thinking,(in their minds), that by doing some hunting, that they are safe from the "anti-gun" label, shows their lack of understanding of the gun culture"
On the contrary....the "gun culture" is a malignant bunch of right wing crazies, and most gun owners want nothing to do with them. Tim McVeigh wandered around the "gun culture" for years and didn't stand out even a bit from the other extremists. The "stars" of the gun culture are openly racist idiots like Larry Pratt, Ted Nugent, Randy Weaver and Bo Gritz.

You're right that "many, many thousands" of voters would embrace other changes in the Democratic party's platform, as well; as I'm sure others have pointed out, it's a slippery slope (to "move right"), and it doesn't work.

I think that this is another issue where we do not need to "move right" because more voters actually agree with the Democratic position. The assault weapons ban was widely supported, for example; and when Chimp was asked in the debate why he hasn't pushed the ban's renewal, he didn't say "They'll have to pry assault weapons out of our cold dead hands!" No... He said he believed in the ban, and went on to say he approves of closing loopholes regarding background checks at gun shows. Why would he have taken those positions in the debate if he thought they were unpopular?

Like many other such things, I think this is an emotional issue for gun owners. You can see the emotion in these threads. Something is triggered (pardon the pun) by the mention of 'gun control' and there are long-standing stereotypes that say no Democrat *really* likes to hunt, while a good ol' boy like Chimp surely does... I suspect that there are many other things that go along with that stereotype that make voters who subscribe to it unwinnable anyway -- Democrats are weak, dislike the military, care too much about spotted owls, wouldn't defend the nation, would appease terrorists, would seek a "permission slip" from the UN, aren't tough enough on crime, aren't tough enough on welfare abusers, aren't sufficiently masculine to protect us from the scourge of the "homosexual agenda," etc. etc. etc... Seems to me that's all one big package and it has much less to do with stated policy positions than larger stereotypes and 'frames.'

pResident Duh didn't DARE tell voters he wanted to put assault weapons back in the stores, even though that's exactly what he did. He should have been hit hard with that every damn day of the campaign, because it would have shown him as the extremist he really is.
And you'll notice that those gun nuts on forums like these who claim that the ban is "ineffective" NEVER say it ought to be strengthened....

"there are long-standing stereotypes that say no Democrat *really* likes to hunt, while a good ol' boy like Chimp surely does"
Just as there are long-standing stereotypes that say Democrats support the rights of Jews, blacks, gays, etc...while a good ol' boy like Chimp is a bigot down deep. Or that Democrats are "tree huggers" while a good ol' boy like Chimpy will let business dump waste in the groundwater and wink afterwards.

"Seems to me that's all one big package and it has much less to do with stated policy positions than larger stereotypes and 'frames.'"
And it seems to me the way to get out of it is to project your own strength, not give in on your principles.

I agree.

This "which principle should we jettison so we can be just like Republicans" babbling from some Democrats is disgraceful. As Harry Truman said, "Give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, and they'll pick a Republican every time."

As Lakoff says, when asked why people should vote Democratic, we tend to start talking about policy. That's not what works; in fact, most are already with us on policy. It's all about that larger "frame" or vision, people's self-identification, a host of stereotypes, etc...

There are many who will simply never vote for a Democrat (the bigots and corporate criminals you mentioned earlier) and others who won't be swayed by a change on gun control. But I think there's a segment that can be persuaded, and I don't think it has to do with changing positions on policy issues.

which discovered that on a number of issues, those voting for pResident Duh were UNAWARE that he opposed issues they supported (the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocols, etc.)....

Sadly, I suspect we have to go more on the attack...it appears swing voters get a visceral thrill from negative campaigning. And you will recall that the GOP ran negative ads almost exclusively (something like 94%)...by contrast, the Democrats ran something like 88% positive and just 12% negative ads. There was a post-election study by somebody that toted up spending (both by party and 527) positive and negative...I'm roughly remembering the numbers, but I'm damned if I can find that study right now.

On the contrary....the "gun culture" is a malignant bunch of right wing crazies, and most gun owners want nothing to do with them.

Nonsense. I am a democrat, and a member of the "gun culture." I do not hunt. I own guns for fun, self defense, and the defense of my country. You are the malignant crazy, and as the previous poster said, you simply do not understand. Your misguided lecturing does not help your cause, and you make me ashamed to support democrats.

Here are some stars of the "gun culture":
Larry Pratt
John AshKKKroft
Randy Weaver
Bo Gritz
Zell Miller
Trent Lott
Marilyn Musgrave
Larry Pratt
John Lott
Wayne LaPierre
Tom DeLay
Dick Cheney

"I am a democrat, and a member of the "gun culture.""
You're welcome to their company.

What the Democrat Party needs to realize is that old cliche "All Politics is local" should be rewritten to reflect the glaringly obvious "All GUN Politics is local."

Owning or carrying guns in many rural states is perceived entirely different from owning or carrying guns in urban states (ie. NY, CA, etc.) This is also a distinctly cultural/political issue that I have witnessed firsthand. (Try moving from Texas to Maryland, and purchase a firearm in both states - and you will note the difference in both culture and laws/paperwork.) I'm a law-abiding citizen and sometimes target shooter, but the difference in laws and culture is regional (at the state level).

In Maryland you fill out more paperwork, and that's fine. Afterall, nobody wants people buying guns who have personal histories that would cast doubt on their suitability for ownership of a tool that requires a requisite amount of personal and civil responsbility.

In fact, unlike most Democratic candidates, Howard Dean was not attacked very heavily by the NRA (he had an "A" grade/rating from the NRA). Why, because all GUN POLITICS is LOCAL. To those who might be uninformed, Vermont has one of the most open/liberal "concealed carry" gun laws in the United States(!) The "gun crowd" simply refers to it as the "Vermont Carry," and even people in TEXAS wish they had a "Vermont carry" type of law...and I'm not kidding. (Unlike Vermont, under the "carry laws" in Texas you have to take a course on gun safety, a skills test where you shoot your pistol, plus the associated fees. None of that is required in Vermont, its strange but true). So, why do the citizens of Vermont, a liberal bastion of voters not have gun laws similar to New York, another bastion of liberal voyters? Simple. Its demographics, or in other words - All GUN Politics is LOCAL.

Vermont has a very low population density, and a very low crime rate, so any old 18-year old can "pack a gun" assuming they have not been prohibited due to mitigating issues (ie. domestic violence, mental disorders, drug-addictions, etc.) Of course NY has a much higher population density, and New York City is of course the largest city in the US. So, guns are not carried by folks in NY or in Washington DC for that matter (unless they are law enforcment/security types). Note: In Washington DC you can not own a shotgun with a barrel less than 22" (forget about owning a pistol).

Here's some important info re Vermont I just pulled from a website "packing.org" re the question of the liberal "Vermont carry" law and vehicles:

"In Vermont, the carrying of a handgun unconcealed/concealed is regulated by a 99 year old State Supreme Court ruling. It is legal, carrying a loaded pistol in your car is also legal. Some localities have "banned" the wearing of arms, but it violates the state supreme court ruling and every prosecutor in the state is aware of this. But the answer to your question, YES you can carry a pistol loaded in your car and on yourself with no permit as long as you are 15 years old and you are not prohibited form possessing a gun."

(Note: Federal law preempts that until you are 18 years of age)

We need to face the facts that many, many Americans are "single-issue voters" - who vote for Republicans over either 1) abortion or 2) guns. The first issue is a deeply personal issue that is not subject to much change from either perspective, but the 2nd issue is addressed in the Bill of Rights and should remain a LOCAL issue. Their are already sufficient Federal Laws re various "destructive devices" and Class III/automatic weapons, and any further FEDERAL laws are simply a complete loser for Al Gore, John Kerry and any other Democratic politician who wants to run on a NATIONAL campaign. I concur with the below statement:

"Here's the key to winning the white house. Shut the Hell up about guns PERIOD."

If the Democrats changed only ONE item on their national platform, it should be the issue of guns, and IMO - states like TN and West Va would quickly become "blue states."

If they are proving to be useful, I'd like to see a gun-control proponent explain how DC ranked in the top ten of most dangerous cities in the U.S.

The gun control policy of DC proves that in the end that criminals will obtain guns anyway while the ordinary citizens who live in the areas most hurt by crime are denied the same opportunity.

The NRA (and Republicans) lied about that bill claiming that it would ban all semi-auto shotguns and rifles. They relied on the "pistol grip" provision of the bill, claiming that a regular shoulder stock would qualify as a "pistol grip". They even took the photo of Kerry holding a shotgun that someone had given him and claimed that that shotgun would be banned by the bill. Anyone reading the bill who knows what a "pistol grip stock" is knew this was a lie, but few gun owners actually read the bill. (Note to Kerry: pistol grips don't make a gun more lethal anyway.)

The solution is to not stupidly give the gun lobby any 'ammo' like this to use. Kerry even came to South Carolina during the primary and said, "I will not be the candidate of the NRA." What an idiot.

Personally I'm a fence sitter on gun control--I don't lie awake nights worryign that a bureaucrat might write a law that'd infringe my Constitutional rights. Nor do I fret about people I know who own guns.

But this issue IS hurting us, and at bare minimum, we have to stop saying "But we're ok with hunting!" as if that will innoculate us against the charges made by 2nd amendment hawks.

If I were running for President, I'd take a cold hard look at all the local ordinances out there and declare them largely ineffective. I'd propose that a 3-day governor's conference be hosted at Camp David (or someplace like that) where the different states would have an opportunity to speak out about what is and isn't working, and promise to review any and all Federal regs based on what we'd learned.

I'd stop demonizing the recreational gun owner, the one that simply enjoys shooting a weapon at a target, who sees a value in having a gun for defensive purposes.

We don't need to "drop gun control," so much as we need to stop acting like there's one reg that's a must-have. This, I think, would be a truly sensible middle ground.

gun lovers.

I am adamantly opposed to gun ownership, and would hate to see the issue dropped, but TNDem is right, any talk of gun control turns these folks off. They can be quickly turned into one issue voters. It is THE issue!

Can the Democratic Party just decide to have no position on this? That wouldn't help candidates with a pro gun control history.

I don't think there is an easy answer.

We sold dies for everything from .17 hornet to .50 cal and larger (20mm). The people we sold relaoding dies to were sportsmen who simply liked to shoot neat things. They loved the science and fun behind guns.

Folks I dealt with (the Ohio militia included) loved the sport and the weapons. Not for hurting people, not for hunting, but just simply for shooting. Yeah they read the spotlight, they don't trust the government, and the book "unintended consequences" was more than fiction to them (in fact, I knew the author on a professional basis and my boss was a character in the book). Overall the people who like such weapons like them for fun and sport. The only bad thing I even knew to come out of it all was a 12 yr old girl I knew who was killed when shooting a 50 cal electric gun, which came loose from it's base and flew back and crushed her skull. She was a wonderful young girl who had shot the gun many times before (and I had met her a few weeks before this occured but had known her dad longer).

I think some things go back to *, et al, and fear. We do not understand why some people like to do some things and we fear what they 'could do' with such weapons. The people out there killing folks are not gun lovers and sportsmen, they are idiots who use guns or other things to acheive their desires (a childhood friend of mine killed a guy, he used his car though. He owns guns and hunting bows but the car was his choice).

The majority of folk using these weapons are not the problem, the ill in society are the problem. I shoot guns of all flavors for fun, never aimed a gun at a person. The tool is not the problem here, the person using it is - but herein is a valid argument and question (ie, why not let the avg person own nukes?). The FEAR we have is that when we allow people to own things which can have a broad impact on a large group that we are giving too much power to them with which they can destroy on a larger level. It IS a valid concern but to me in the case of bullets and their delivery there is not a whole helluva lot of difference between a 22 and 30-06 (or 50 cal). A well placed bullet will do the job on a human usually no matter which caliber one chooses (although a 20mm lahti can do more damage to a helicopter than a 22).

Perhaps at the core is - how much do we trust our fellow humans, and that can extend to how much do we trust other countries (ala saddam). If we think that the avg person is 'evil' then perhaps we need to look anew at our beliefs. If we are afraid of the potential they can do then we need to look at other areas where a similar potential exists (ala pilots of large planes).

There is much to think on.

I was talking with my history class today about the proliferation of firearms throughout the developing world during the Cold War. I told them that in Africa one could buy an AK-47 for about $50 because the former USSR had saturated the market. Then I digressed and told them about how I knew someone who inherited his father's collection of firearms (his father was a gunsmith by profession). This individual was always trying to sell me a military weapon because I am a veteran and needed something with which to remember my time as a Marine. He offered to sell me an M-16 for $500 or an M-14 for $1200; for either, or both, purchases he would include 500 rounds of ammo and three clips. I declined. I decided to purchase a guitar once owned by John Lennon (please do not ask the price).

My students were amazed that I would choose a guitar over two military assault weapons, both of which could have been purchased for the price of the guitar.

What I wonder about is the fascination Americans seem to have with firepower. And, here is something strange: two-thirds of these students were female, but we are in South Carolina. Go figure...

However, in reference to your proposal, I think that inviting the NRA to join in a re-writing of the second amendment to meet today's standards and realities of gun ownership is a reasonable idea. However, I think they would try to go overboard and legalize everything. The NRA does have more than its fair share of nuts.

This person did NOT offer to sell you a legal, class 3, fully-automatic/selective fire, original, registered M16 or m16A1 rifle for $500. He MIGHT have offered to sell you one of a million semi-automatic clones for that price. However, even at $500, that wouldn't be a rifle in pre-ban configuration.

Hell, $500 wouldn't even cover the postage and insurance on a legal M16 rifle, which would easily fetch $8500-$12,000. An original M14 rifle of the same genre would be $15,000 easily. He MAY have offered you the civilian version of that rifle made by "Springfield Armory". That would be in the $1200 range. What he offered you were NOT true military weapons, but were civilian knock-offs and were semi-automatics. If he offered to "cash and carry" some illegal full auto rifles, then he comitted a federal felony and a violation of NFA 34 and 37.

Not to be disrespectful, but this is the very thing the silly media does when they aren't sure of the facts...Fill in the blanks as needed.