Which liberal has the best gun regulation theories and policies

will be the first.

Are any listed on their websites?

Here's the gun lobby take on John Edwards

"On March 2, 2004, when John Kerry staked his campaign on a high-profile appearance in the Senate to sabotage S. 659 at every opportunity, Edwards was making himself rather somewhat scarce. He surfaced only to vote in favor of continuing the Clinton gun ban and in favor of the amendment to ban gun shows. On all other recorded votes during the day, including the vote on final passage of the bill, Edwards was nowhere to be seen. Was Edwards unwilling to offend his fat-cat base of trial lawyers, or did he simply prefer not to cast votes that might undercut the credibility of his down-home country boy routine?

Most likely both factors were in play. We have to look earlier in his record to see his true leanings on the issues, before he began to apply the filter of his national aspirations to his true positions on the issues. What we see helps explain why North Carolina voters are unwilling to give Edwards majority support.

In the early years of his Senate career, Edwards voted to "commend" the Million Mom March, to end private sales at gun shows, and to maintain long-term federal registration of gun buyer records. He voted for national registration of all gun show vendors, and voted to ban importation of ammunition magazines. There wasn`t much in the way of gun control legislation that Edwards didn`t support."
----------------snip-----------
<http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=142&issue=014>

Then there's Biden
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9aIb-IplqY>

and one of the reason's Micheal moore endorsed Wes Clark

5. On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"
--------snip------------
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0116-12.htm>

The NRA is nothing but a ridiculous propaganda machine.

Keep your guns and reinstate the assault weapons ban. Unless, of course, the assault weapon you wish to purchase is classified as an antique. In that case, have at it. :hi:

The DC sniper stole the gun from a gun shop, so there goes that theory.

And the Columbine massacre wouldn't have been prevented if the kids didn't have their friend buy a Tec-9 from someone, the other guns they used were not acquired through the "loophole" of private sales.

Obviously intended to make Michael Moore appear like he doesn't know what he's talking about. :smoke:

It doesn't follow that guns were being stolen from his shop. He just flat doesn't know who he sold them to because he didn't keep records. I have never heard of any evidence that he reported any guns stolen from his shop. He settled with the plaintiffs because he knew how wrong he was. He was charged with not filing taxes for 5 years too. He should have been charged and had his atf license revoked long before the DC incident took place.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/sniper/090904_suit_ap.html

There's no such thing as "best gun regulation theories and policies".

and the advanced nation with the highest gun death rate, highest murder rate, highest prison rate is the "winner". It seems the gun lobby wants to drag the USA into third world anarchy so they can sell more profitable guns, check this statistical comparison.
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop>

Where have I read this before... it all sounds vaguely familiar.

Except you're obsessed with banning RIFLES, and all rifles combined account for less than 3% of murders--a fact that the gun-control lobby has done its best to bury, since banning a bunch of small-caliber rifles is Priority One for you guys.

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20)

BATFE Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Survey, General Findings (Tables 2 and 4 are especially pertinent)

Your choice of priorities shows that you're not after criminal gun misuse, so much as you're after the guns in the gun safes of nonviolent people with squeaky clean records, i.e. me.


----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

You keep forgetting, not everyone here agrees with you.

Quite true. But one cannot objectively paint any rifles as widely used in murders, or make the claim that even a total rifle ban would have a noticeable effect on homicides. Bill wishes to ban rifles because he idealogically opposes their ownership (for reasons I do understand, FWIW), not because they are commonly misused (they aren't).

Every bit helps. The biggest reason is that rifles can do more damage, these guns can actually be actual weapons of mass destruction. Why make them more common place?

Weapons of mass destruction, eh?



Funny, I've fired thousands of small-caliber rifle rounds at my local range, and the target has never looked like that afterward. It just has little holes in it.

Think Timothy McVeigh could have done this with a small-caliber rifle?



I'm sure the city of Hiroshima was actually leveled by a single U.S. soldier with an M1 carbine.

Copy and paste. copy and paste.

I'm sure the fact that we choose to imprison more people than any other country in the world, turning prisons into universities on crime, has nothing to do with our rate of violence.

But not in the way you're talking about.

But, as long as we're going choose from others not listed in the OPs hand-picked poll, I'd have to go with Jon Tester...

"Jon Tester strongly believes in our Second Amendment rights. As a gun owner and custom butcher Jon made his living with a gun for 25 years. As a legislator Tester voted repeatedly to protect gun rights. In the United States Senate, Jon will stand up to anyone — Republican or Democrat — who wants to take away Montanans’ gun rights".

http://www.testerforsenate.com/issues

Try to stay on the same issue.

Why don't you stay on topic.

nt

Richardson can't even tell the truth about his baseball record.

Richardson, followed by Edwards, who appears to have backed away from the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch.

Banning the most popular civilian target rifles in America, when all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides, is both silly and politically counterproductive.

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20)

U.S. BATFE Youth Gun Crime Interdiction Survey, General Findings]

But the poster is right. Furthermore, if the 2nd Amendment secures anything it protects the right to possess a military-type firearm.

Finally, going after rifles is probably at the top of the list of the most politically damaging things we can do while having the least potential to lower the annual slaughter of 12,000. We ought to concentrate on handgun control at the local and state level, insist on better screening and the retention of records and other such commonsense reforms.

from the muck of the gungeon? :scared:

Bad billbuckhead... :hi:

They'll come crawling up out of the oooze and rhetorically shoot you... :hide:

Biden has said that he plans to reinstate the assualt weapons ban and not allow guns to be sold at shows. He also wants to have applicants screened for mental illness. Biden has worked exstensively throughout his career against domestic violence. He was repsonsible for the Violence against Women Act and Reducing the crime rate in the 90's by getting more cops on the street. And the crime rate went down until Bush took over and slashed everything to shreds. Biden wins this category- hands down.
He also plans to put more cops back out there ( at least 50,000) as soon as he gets elected. And how would he pay for that? By reversing Bush's tax exemption for those who make over 1 million a year. Which in turn would create 60 billion in revenue and also pay for the Homeland Security recommendations by the 911 Commisssion. All that and more. With all of our ports properly inspected we wouldn't be getting as many illegal weapons into this country either- so it all comes full cirlce.

when all rifles combined account for less than 3% of murders, is a bit counterproductive.

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20)

The rifles Biden wants to ban are almost exclusively in the gun safes of people like my wife and I, not "on the street." Maryland (highest murder rate of any state, AFAIK) had 551 murders in 2005; all rifles combined accounted for only 4 of them. Illinois had 448 murders, 4 by rifle. Massachusetts had 171 murders, 1 by rifle. New York had 868 homicides, 10 by rifle. My state of North Carolina had 566 homicides, 20 by rifle. Washington state had 205 homicides, 8 by rifle. You tell ME if rifles are a crime problem.

Over the last 20 years, around 46 of the 50 states have considered and rejected bans on small-caliber rifles. Pushing for a national ban makes no sense whatsoever, not from a crime standpoint and not from a political one.

assualt rifles. I grew up w/ my Dad and Gramp having hunting and target rifles. I learned how to shoot a 22 at 12 yrs old. I have no problem w/ guns used for hunting, target shooting, etc. What Biden wants to get rid of is the serious weapons like machine guns, etc. that people really shouldn't have access to. He was asked this question in a prior debate and he replied that he would like to see those kind of weapons banned. He has no problem w/ recreational rifles. He also wants better screening for gun permits so shit like the VA Tech tragedy doesn't happen again. People who lock up their shotguns are the responsible ones and are not the problem. You have the right to bear arms.

No, Biden wasn't talking about machineguns; those have been tightly controlled since 1934 by Federal law (possession without Federal authorization is a 10-year felony). He was talking about civilian rifles, shotguns, and pistols, including several of the guns in our family's gun safe.

The AR-15 (non-automatic, .223 caliber) is the most popular civilian target rifle in Americaand dominates a lot of organized rifle competition in this country, and the SKS is the single most common centerfire rifle in the homes of Americans. Millions of people own Ruger mini-14's, Springfield M1A's, M1 carbines, and full-size 9mm pistols.

Here are some guns that H.R.1022 would ban as "assault weapons"; these are all civilian guns, not automatic weapons.


My Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, all-purpose farm/utility rifle, suitable for hunting small game up to coyote sized; caliber .223 Remington.


Benelli turkey hunting shotgun, 12-gauge.


Springfield M1A National Match, target rifle, caliber .308 Winchester.


M1 Garand, caliber .30-06, highly collectible and also sought after as a hunting and target rifle.


M1 carbine (1940's design), highly collectible.


Hammerli international target competition pistol, caliber .22LR.


My SAR-1 target/competition/utility rifle, shown in hunting configuration (no, this is not an AK-47).

H.R.1022 would also ban every civilian shotgun on the market that holds more than 5 shells; the AR-15, the most popular civilian centerfire target rifle in America; civilian rifles and pistols that hold more than 10 rounds; and civilian rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out

You're talking about affecting probably half of America's 80 million gun owners, around half of whom are Dems and indies. If you run the numbers, an "assault weapon" ban would affect about twice as many gun owners as a hunting ban would, since far more people own guns for defensive and target purposes than hunt.

I being a girl and not actually owning a rifle could be wrong on this one. So you win the arguement. If Biden did indeed mean all of these hunting and competition rifles he's gonna piss off alot of people! I still agree though w/ the screening for mental illness to get a permit.

Many US voters view the ability to buy firearms for hunting, self-defense, etc. as a civil right.

I still agree though w/ the screening for mental illness to get a permit.

I am a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, and I agree with you on the need for mental health screening. People who have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as incompetent are already disqualified from buying firearms. That has been the (federal) law since 1968, it's a provision of the Gun Control Act.

Here's how I look at the bigger picture: Mental health screening should be part of basic healthcare services available to all citizens. Solve the problem of tens of millions going without health insurance, and we'll see a side benefit of more people with serious psychiatric problems getting identified and flagged before they are old enough to buy guns. It's very rare that an adult with no history of mental problems suddenly goes off the deep end. We wouldn't need to even bring the subject of a permit system into the discussion, thus avoiding a big political negative.

working in the medical field and dealing w/ patients everyday- I 100% agree with you on including mental health screening in basic services.
You don't want to know how many whack-jobs I have to scan that you know need help and don't get it. And the system fails them.

:toast:

so maybe I shouldn't have replied.

If you favor more gun control, you are a liberal.

The more gun control you favor, the more liberal you are.

Anyone who doesn't favor more gun control is something other than liberal, i.e. an NRA stooge, whore for big business, etc.

:rofl: I just get to laugh when you bring it it up.

How many DUer's are happy with these "blue dogs"? Sometimes DINO's can be worse than real Republicans in stopping progress. Zell Miller and his ilk really didn't do us any favors.

By humanism do you mean the philosophy that rejects supernaturalism, values the individual, liberty and self-determination, and seeks self-realization through rational thought and logic? That would be a pretty good description of how I see things. (All the more ironic since every "liberal" choice in your poll at least claims to be a practicing Christian.)

Or are you just making another broad-brush attack against gun owners, suggesting that they are less humanitarian than gun control zealots like you? Or less human?

Call me a pedagogue, I won't even frown.

Ronald Reagan

Karl Rove

Barbara Bush

Donald Rumsfeld

George Lincoln Rockwell

J. Edgar Hoover

Timothy McVeigh

Ann Coulter

Jesse Helms


Take your time, I know it's hard to choose.

This poll is meaningless because there is no alternative to people that think we need to ban and regulate weapons used in one or two percentage points of homicides. Not ones used in 50% of homicides... 1 or 2%.

Where's Bill Richardson? Where's Howard Dean? Where's anybody that might have a different opinion than gunguys.com?

Or is your opinion just so right that it does not even warrant debate?

Instead you gun guys couldn't win him a SINGLE state outside Vermont. :rofl:

Furthermore, you guys can't even find an acceptable Republican this time. It's laughable that all you have is Big league baseball Richardson and washed up actor Thompson. The gun lobby's biggest asset are crooked conservative judges.

We should be going after our prison and health care system instead. If we can heal people with out financially destroying them, and if we can quit putting people in prison over stupid shit (where they learn new crime techniques and become even more anti-social from being locked in cages and subjected to homosexual rape) we just might start to shoot each other a little bit less.

Guess that says it all.

This issue is a loser for Dems in too many areas of the country with the pukes framing it to their advantage. In rural areas you are trying to change their basic culture and social structure, gun ownership and use for them does not present a problem so leave it alone.

At some point rural voters will be overwhelmed as they are becoming more and more a minority. The freaking electoral coillege can't protect them forever. In fact without electoral corruption they would have lost this fight a long time ago.

Someone without a Federal Firearms License cannot legally buy a gun in a state other than the one where he or she lives.

There are different rules for long guns and handguns.

From BATFE FAQ page:

(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

<18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30>

And our great national shithole the District of Columbia does not allow its residents to purchase any type of firearm in any state.

That doesn't change the error in your statement above. I just wanted to clarify. You can (under correct conditions) legally buy a gun (long gun) in another state.

I am well aware of the law but try to keep things as simple as possible in these discussions. Frankly, the ability of people in some states to buy long guns in other states is quite unrelated to the problem of violent crime.

The suggestion by billbuckhead that the only solution is nationwide gun control that is much stricter than we already have does not hold water. He has a long history of barking up the wrong tree.

Here's a link to two posts in which I spell out how I think gun laws should be adjusted and the problem of violent crime addressed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1543559&mesg_id=1545150

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3433996&mesg_id=3438966

:rofl: