OK gun enthusiasts. Riddle me this

Hypothetical candidate A is for
- Universal health care
- An end to the Iraq war
- Marriage rights for homosexuals
- Pro environmental policies
- Diplomacy over military action
- Restoring Habeas Corpus
- Eliminating the "Patriot" act
- Ending spying on American citizens
- Shutting down Gitmo
- Ending torture as official public policy

BUT

Also supports reasonable restrictions on the ownership of firearms, possibly requiring a license and/or training for certain types, and, yes, maybe even a ban on other types.

Do you allow your single pet issue to affect your vote for this candidate, and if so, why is it not utter selfishness on your part, considering that the courts would probably strike down any gun laws anyway?

Believe it or not, guns are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to the important issues of the day. It would be nice if the propagandists weren't so successful at convincing a sizable chunk of the population that the so called "gun grabbers" are such a terrible threat.

It's the same old Republican technique of divide and conquer using fake outrage and you people fall for it the same way people fall for the gay marriage "threat" or the illegal immigrant "threat" or the "terrorists are going to kill you" "threat".

Open your eyes to the psychological manipulation by the powerful corporate interests. Wake up.

upholds the comstitution and the bill of rights. I don't see why I need to compromise on which rights. That said, it isn't my bottom line though it is for a lot of people I know. If you said the person above was for all but not prochoice, my answer is the same. Why do I have to choose?

...who's for everything listed in the OP and isn't for gun control in some form. In fact, I think Kucinich is the only candidate who supports that entire list, and I think he's also for some form of gun control. While Hillary, to take just one example from the current crop of corporatist suck-ups posing as Democrats, may oppose gun control, she also opposes a single-payer health care system, won't commit to getting out of Iraq by 2013, doesn't seem to give a damn about restoration of Habeas Corpus or repealing the Military Commissions Act, and so forth.

So if you think that list is a good one, as I do, then you're going to have to make some tough choices.

Personally, I've gone in a bunch of different directions on gun control since the 2000 Bush coup. Prior to that, I was vehemently opposed to the NRA's "slippery slope" straw man argument, believed that there are far too many bodies stacked up in homage to the 2nd Amendment already, and that reasonable restraints on gun ownership -- waiting periods, background checks, no under-the-table deals at gun shows, limits on clip capacity and so forth -- are no less harsh than those society imposes on the use of any other potentially lethal machine, like requiring a drivers license and at least minimal training to drive a car or requiring FAA certification, as well as ground school and many instructor hours, to fly a plane.

I still believe that those positions are valid and that reasonable people can agree on exactly what limits should be put into place, as well as how to enforce those limits. Problem is, there seems to be a serious shortage of reasonable people where limits on gun acquisition and usage are concerned. It's such a binary wedge issue that it's almost impossible to find any common ground, and equally hard to find anyone who's neutral on the subject.

But the rise of BushCo and their insidious brand of creeping fascism set off my alarms some time ago and got me thinking about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. And then came Katrina. I noticed that one of the first things the alleged relief organizations did was confiscate as many citizens' firearms as they could get their hands on. And of course, to avoid accountability for 2nd Amendment violations, they used Blackwater to do the deed. This got my full attention and caused me to completely reevaluate the validity of gun ownership in an alleged civilized society.

I now believe that this government is so inherently malevolent and dangerous that an armed citizenry is as necessary now as it was when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, and for the same reasons. I don't know what else besides armed opposition could possibly dissuade these thugs from simply invading a town or city, rounding up anyone they choose and shipping them off to some hellhole in the American gulag, never to be seen or heard from again.

So I'm now completely ambivalent -- or maybe just confused -- about gun control. On the one hand, my fear of the US government and its privatized "security" forces far exceeds my fear of my fellow citizens, even those who happen to be armed. On the other, I still believe that every school shooting, every incident of an disgruntled former employee "going postal," every kid killed by his kid sister because she thought the gun was empty -- every single one of those incidents, repeated hundreds of times over the years, points to our utter failure as a society to deal with the reality of the 2nd Amendment, and not just the mythology of it as the rugged individualist's answer to the powers that be.

However, in this time and place, I believe that the threat of BushCo turning the US into a national security state, with Cheneybush installed as Intergalactic Czar for Life, is a clear and present danger to each of us, not to mention the rest of the planet. I also believe that, since the administration is composed of brutal criminals who shed blood with as little concern as snakes shed skin, the best defense is a credible threat -- kind of a junior version of mutually assured destruction. And I believe that the best way to make that threat credible is through an armed and highly pissed off citizenry who will not roll over without a serious fight.

I also believe that, were such a scenario to take place, it would be the most horrible, bloody and tragic catastrophe since the Civil War and is therefore to be avoided if at all possible. But if avoidance were no longer an option because BushCo decided to activate all those dictatorial laws and presidential directives and executive orders that are already on the books and just waiting for implementation, it would be foolish to fail to recognize the inevitable.

Just my opinion, of course, and it's always possible that I've crossed the line into paranoid loonville. But that's how twisted life in America has become under BushCo, where paranoia's good name has been restored and where, if you're not on some sort of watch list, you're just not trying hard enough.

And that's how you turn two paragraphs into an endless essay. Hope I didn't bore anyone too much.


wp

and I am worried myself though that is not the original reason I own guns. I hope nothing like that ever happens but with my vision of the future with climate change, peak oil, etc and the fact that the govt is not addressing these issues and instead seems intent of creating a police state.....Well I don't see an easy transition into what the future holds on any front.

I think Kucinich is the only candidate who supports that entire list, and I think he's also for some form of gun control.

"Some form"? He's for banning civilian ownership of handguns. I'd call that "some form" of gun control.

What worries me is that plenty of people consider outright bans on handguns, or bans on rifles with safe handgrips, to be "reasonable" regulations...

RE: your posting in the Gungeon. You post reminded me of it.

he won't

-suspend habeas corpus (to root out gun owners)
-use military action (to arrest gun owners)
-create a new "Patriot" act (to use against gun owners)
-spy on American Citizens (to hunt down gun owners)
-open up Gitmo again (to torture and punish gun owners)
-use torture as an official public policy (on gun owners)

Selective Service is a form of a militia.

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.

Where did you pull this from? "well organized militia"?

Don't look at "well organized militia", look at "necessary to the security of a free State".

The Founders were writing this at a time when they just had to have raised an Army to overthrow what they believed a "tyrannical state".

In their frame of reference, they felt that only by having a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" could they insure such (note the word "necessary").

Also note the fact the this is the SECOND Amendment because the order in which the Founders placed them give you some idea of the importance of each at the time of adoption.

The paranoia that a lot feel about the BushCo regime is exactly WHY we have the Second Amendment.

I'd still vote for him vs. a Republican mind you (though whatever support I gave him would be highly critical), but I'm thinking back to when he voted against the bill to prevent illegal gun confiscations by authorities in New Orleans.

Here Kucinich really dropped the ball on civil liberties. Normally he's good on the Bill of Rights, excepting the Second Amendment, but in this case, in his blind hatred of all things gun-related, he essentially voted to uphold the practice of warrantless searches and seizures by the police and military. So while trampling the 2nd Amendment, he managed to stumble over the 4th and 14th as well. Bernie Sanders, far from a pro-gun Congressman, managed to "get it" and voted for the legislation, even if it was being pushed by the NRA and Republicans.

You only disagree on one issue with progressives but agree with the Republicans only on one issue. Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMM.

It is all or nothing....

You would figure we Democrats would have learned that by now.

I'm assuming the subjects you mention are a legislative/political priority for you?

How is that gay marriage is more important than the right to keep and bear arms?

Point is, replace "gun control" with anyone of the things you listed and people here will still vote based on their single issue in deference to all others...

"I wouldn't vote for xxx because they're against gay rights"...

"XXX will never get my vote because he/she voted in favor of the war in Iraq...

"XXX can go screw themselves for voting in favor of the "patriot Act".... etc.

Let's say that the current administration - or hell, a future one - goes full-bore police state / martial law. Or perhaps, say, China invades and occupies (with troops rather than toxic trinkets).

Will your stash of weaponry, however large, be at all useful against a better-trained, better-armed police or military force coming after you?

But... I'd rather take my chances armed than unarmed.

I suppose we could politely ask them to leave or cut it out, but I don't think that would work either. :smoke:

Seriously though, I'm not much of an 'Army of Occupation' doom sayer myself (my purpose is mostly target shooting and collecting), even so... it in no way should diminish my (or anyone else's), right to keep an bear arms.

Actually, I'm stockpiling and arming myself to the teeth for impending Zombie invasion.

:evilgrin:

Everyone knows guns don't work on zombies.

Gotta get yourself one of these babies:

Look at Iraq and you'll see just how useful typical firearms can be against a "better-trained, better-armed police or military force".

The overall tactics of Iraq explore the entire expanse of urban guerilla fighting. The guns being fired at the soldiers in Iraq are mostly small arms - handguns. Gats, not Gatling guns. This is because small arms are easier to conceal, have more accessible ammunition sizes, don't draw nearly the attention when fired, are easily cleaned, and easily replaced. These are not men with basements full of guns, unless they're holding them for further shipment.

However the most effective weapon in the Iraq arsenal is the bomb. Funny thing about the people who are "serious" about "Defending themselves" with their rec room full of seventy years worth of maiming devices... they all want to feel noble and manly and pop a stiff pecker from gunning someone down, but the actual, effective tactics - wound and retreat, disinformation, bombings for purpose of damage and confusion, the people so "serious" about the "future insurrection" refuse to even consider these tactics. Not macho enough.

1) "The overall tactics of Iraq explore the entire expanse of urban guerilla fighting. The guns being fired at the soldiers in Iraq are mostly small arms - handguns. Gats, not Gatling guns."

More Tokarevs there than AK-47's? Hadn't heard that one.


2) "Not macho enough."

Yamamoto didn't look at the spirit of the enemy (you and me),
he looked at the sheer numbers (you and me with guns).

;)

Armed resistance against a foreign occupier tends to be much more effective than against a domestic tyranny. In the first case, the rebels need only make occupation more costly than withdrawal, in the second the rebels must decisively defeat a domestic power, and do so without turning the people against their cause.

But ultimately the only difference is that the latter assumes you want to keep the nation united. How long until we see an independant Chechnya?

but the question of armed self-defense is a deontological matter to most supporters of gun-rights. Or, to put it another way, the fact that exercising a right will be ineffective or counterproductive does not negate an individual's claim on that right.

As many of the ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment do, and do happily, tells me that priorities are skewed.

The message I get is "I don't need any rights other than the one that allows me to have a useless chunk of metal"

1. It is not always ineffective to exercise the right of armed self-defense, I only stated that even IF the exercise of the right is ineffective, the right itself is not negated.

2. Yes, some gun-rights advocates focus on the right of self-defense/gun ownership even to the exclusion of other rights. I do not, and errors in tactics, strategy, ideology or program by advocates of a right should not diminish respect for that right or justify allowing others to abolish such rights.

...despite being better-trained and better-armed than the people trying to kill us.

Come to think of it, we lost that battle and had to hand the city over to the Sunni militias. The media focuses on IED's because they kill half a dozen at a time, but small arms fire actually killed more in my regiment than explosives did (IIRC the number is nearly at a parity overall). Also, fusiliers can't operate without small arms cover.

So, yeah, I think stashes of personal weaponry have shown time and time again to be pretty effective against large technologically advanced military forces.

i'll never utter ____________'s name again because they supported the IWR

:eyes:

That single issue is the US Constitution..

i agree with you.

:toast:

Without the 2nd, there would be no 1st.

The other side of the coin is that I wouldn't vote for a pro gun candidate who is for 86ing the 1st.

You can't cherry pick the constitution.

Kicked!

"Hypothetical candidate A is for
- Universal health care
- An end to the Iraq war
- Marriage rights for homosexuals
- Pro environmental policies
- Diplomacy over military action
- Restoring Habeas Corpus
- Eliminating the "Patriot" act
- Ending spying on American citizens
- Shutting down Gitmo
- Ending torture as official public policy"

If candidate A is for all of that, and we want that candidate to get into office, then we should all support dropping gun control and doing more to support gun rights. After all, it would be so narrow minded and stupid to risk all of those important issue just to push gun control, put apparently many won't open their eyes to the psychological manipulation of the corporate intersts.

So, if there is one thing we can all take away from this post, it is that we should drop gun control to improve our chances to get those other important issues passed!

Are you with me!!??

The thing is the way this will be used against him, doesn't take much to lead the masses where you want them to go, and thats the problem, education that emphasizes free thought is the solution, the answer.
And while were at it let's teach consciousness.
I'm just a gun packing tree hugging liberal
:shrug:

To late to edit my post.

How about a candidate who supported every one of those issues you suggest, but advocated for "reasonable restrictions" on abortions, including possibly government permission for certain types, and, yes, maybe even a ban on other types?

Most people are single-issue voters, it's just a matter of finding their issue.

Nut to answer your question, my answer is no. I would no more vote for a gun grabbing candidate than I would vote for an anti-free speech candidate or an anti-abortion candidate. I have no problem with background checks, waiting periods, or even licensing, but I will not vote for a candidate who calls for the banning of firearms.

I've always had a hard time voting for someone that fears my ownership of firearms.

and quit wasting ours on their fucking retarded gun wank, 'cause other than a handful of rust belt dinos that fellate them to get elected, most of the party and every progressive officeholder I can think of is in favor of reasonable restriction on guns.

Oh, and their constitutional argument is bullshit, and every supreme court decision, no matter how conservative or liberal the court that looked at it, has said so. The modern militia is the national guard. And they've got lots of guns (in Iraq.)

dennis kucinich for example wants a COMPLETELY UN-reasonable restriction- NO handgun ownership by private civilians.

that's not gonna fly in this country.

I agree that wouldn't fly, but I think very strict requirements about safe storage, competence testing prior to licensing and stringent reporting requirements for and investigation of theft (to prevent "theft" as a cover for illegal transfer,) and a ban on use or ownership by minors would be a good start.

a lot of people have handguns for self-defense, which means that "very strict requirements about safe storage" would not be followed anyway- or should someone tell a home intruder to "wait a moment while i get my gun out of safe storage?"

as to ownership by minors- in many rural parts of the country, that would would be an unacceptable restriction as well.

You don't have the right to endanger everybody to give yourself a false sense of security.

and remember- not all instances where someone uses a gun in self-defense, by scaring away an intruder- as my father himself has done on two separate occasions, are never actually reported to authorities,and as such obviously cannot be part of the statistics.

How many accidental home shootings took place?

Homosexuals are unacceptable as well. Shit, let all just carry guns, follow Jeebus, and watch Nascar 24/7 to appease the rural folk.

:shrug:

They disarmed, have cameras on every corner...all they need now is a few Patriot Acts.

have such restrictions, and last time I checked, they were doing quite fine. We have the most firearms, and also the most violent, unsafest nation anywhere. It's not working, so let's try something new...

:shrug:

the majority of nations don't do a lot of the things we do- it's always been that way.

Lets kick the REST of the gun owners out of the party completely...

Their are only 8,000,000 of them, and nearly all of them vote....yea, lets kick them out of our "big tent"

Look at the history of the democrats SINCE 1994...you will find that was the beginning of the decline in our power..

And realize, that since them, in EVERY ELECTION, the "gun rights" folks have elected more, and MORE, pro-gun folks...regardless of party...

Systematical, the anti-gunners, are being eliminated...one by one....

could be more than offset with the gains from concerned mothers. The definition of stupidity to to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Let's give disarmament a chance...

Didn't exactly have the desired effect.

Yeah, go ahead, disarm a family, who later on is murdered by intruders because they didn't have anyway to defend themselfs and it took the cops 20 minutes to arrive.

Way to go, you just helped the criminals...

That many of the concerned mothers, as you put it, are voting gun owners, that view their weapon as a way to protect the family...

And most of the rest, of the "concerned mothers" will not, (nor have they ever) made gun control a top priority, it is like #6 or #8 on their list of "important issues"...

I'm also getting tired of the DINO gun nutters hijacking our party only to run and go vote GOP over their phallic symbols. If ya want to keep your guns, join the pukes.

They always refer to the 2nd as if theirs was the accepted interpretation.

I did read or hear somewhere that this SCOTUS is going to address the issue again next year....should be interesting to see what happens.

we get a good liberal DEM into the WH, so we can replace Scalia, Thomas and the other fascists with people more commited to doing what's right as opposed to doing what the NRA tells them to do.

The pro-gun crowd includes some of the smartest, most thoughtful people on DU. They genuinely care about their issue and they know how to articulate it. They contribute a lot to DU and I'd hate to see them leave.

Not everyone in the world is going to agree with you on everything. We have a lot in common with our gun owners. They support civil rights, universal health care, a good environment, and responsible gun ownership.

So here's the question for your hypothetical candidate: is pushing for further gun control, which has diddly squat to do with anying of national importance, worth the electoral wedge it creates? Many of us will weigh the balance, and do what you hope. But there are others who won't. Your hypothetical candidate does no good at all, if he loses the general election.

:hippie:

A Democratic candidate who is stupid enough to hand the Pukes the gun control issue in 2008 deserves the blowback.

There's a little campaign-season dance that our resident guncentric "Democrats" perform, in both the DU Gun Dungeon and in gun-related threads in other forums, such as this one. During the campaign, they engage in vicious, non-stop trashing of the Democratic presidential candidates, solely because of their gun policies. They did it with Gore, they did it with Kerry, and you can rest assured they're at it again. After the election, they all claim that they held their noses and cast votes for the Democratic nominee. I think the vast majority of them are lying about this. As this thread demonstrates, the only part of the Constitution they really care about is the Second Amendment---that wishful-thinking version of the 2nd that they all envision. I don't think that most of them can resist voting Republican, because that's where their gun policy has been nurtured, supported and enshrined for decades. It might be different if they gave any real indication of caring about other issues---but how many of these people do you see turning up on non-firearms-related threads? Not very damned many....

their gun control policies?

Thanks!

.... I prefer to vote for people with half a brain.

If someone actually thinks things like the "assault weapons" ban accomplishes ANYTHING, well I have to think they are either pandering or stupid.

Does that mean I wouldn't vote for them? Not necessarily, I guess it depends on the details.

Anyone wanting to confiscate ANY exising legally owned guns or anyone wishing to make it difficult or impossible to purchase anything short of a fully-auto weapon, well I wouldn't vote for them if they had JC tattooed on their forehead.

There are several issues for me that, if a candidate is too far out of line with my views on any single one, will cost that candidate my vote. That's the way it is for pretty much anyone. You're just pissed that RKBA is on that list for many folks, including progressives like me.

but- if a candidate wants to ban civilian ownership of handguns- they have no business being on our ticket, because the nra would turn out HUGH numbers to vote against them.

if he/she planned to make more gun restrictions than already exist, for two reasons; First, there are too many rural Americans who hunt and collect guns that would vote against this person, so my vote would be mainly strategic. I don't believe anyone who plans to outlaw guns can get elected in this country. So, yes, that would be one issue that would blow it for me. But it would be more about electability than guns.

The other reason is this: If one can make the argument to legalize drugs, (and I believe they should be legal) then I can't see how one can make an argument to outlaw guns. It's very much the same set of circumstances. Both can cause harm to individuals and society but responsible people can do drugs or own a gun without harming another. I think we should all be treated as adults and be allowed to exercise our rights unless an individual proves that they are irresponsible. Outlawing all drugs or all guns because a few people are irresponsible is treating us all like children and infringing on our personal rights.

That said, if we're talking general election, I will vote for this person in a heartbeat over a Republican. :)

:pals: :hi: :yourock:

To the first amendment.

How would you feel about that? Just asking...

in the 2nd Amendment are "well regulated."

Just sayin'

that this country has been slacking in the training required to bring the citizens up to the standard of "well regulated" (which mean well trained at the time it was written).

Can you back that up?

Enough time has passed for this to become Common Knowledge in the debate. I don't recall the exact sites any more.

Admittedly, this is from a gun kook site, but it sounds convincing to me.

From: Guncite



however, even by the more broad definition of "well regulated", the Amendment is still referencing a functioning militia, as far as I can tell.

I buy that. But then why even waste text with the first phrase of the Amendment? What's the point of that?

Seems contradictory? :shrug:

the second amendment says :

"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

You will notice that many of laws written today start as "Whereas <fluff goes here>, <law text goes here>". Back then as well as now, the "whereas" part is unnecessary, not required to be relevant to the law, and often is not relevant to the law. However, sometimes the fluff is helpful in figuring out the intent of a poorly written law. In the case of the Second Amendment, it is poorly punctuated, unnecessary fluff.

It's what makes democracy here strong.

It's what makes Europe's democracies over there strong, that we have guns over here protecting our democracy in a country with a super-strong military.

It's what the REPUBLICONS took away from New Orleanians, showing their CONningly true color.

BUT,

stuck between a Dem who wants to take my guns and CON who wants to take my guns after lying that he wouldn't, I'll vote for the Dem.

That Dem would be wrong, IMNSHO. He'd win a fight the CONs would want him to win for them. And they are already ending America.

At least they have to do it slowly.

And no shots have been fired.

And why does he/she selectively support the Bill of Rights?

:shrug:

Most folks really don't like the thought of being unarmed.

Myself, I'd support somewhat stricter background checks and safety licensing, but a lot of criminal-used guns are unregistered or stolen. Dennis needs to focus on improving police seizure of illegal, unregistered guns.

If he ran on that as a way of keeping guns out of criminals' hands, he'd get a LOT of votes.

then, given the reality that tens of millions of people DO consider it a first-tier issue, why would you fight so hard to keep the gun ban du jour on the national agenda? Knowing that the that advocacy of new bans undercuts the very issues you say are more important to you?

What I am hearing from you from this and other threads is, "New gun restrictions are VERY important to me and other gun-control advocates, but ought not be important to you gun owners."

Would you support a firm leave-it-to-the-states, no-new-Federal-bans position if it would eliminate the gun issue as a wedge? Because Dean's 50-state strategy in 2006 did just that in heavily gun owning districts...and pro-gun-ownership Dems retook the Senate that had been thrown away over silly rifle-handgrip restrictions. Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Bob Casey, and Ted Strickland showed that defusing the gun issue isn't all that hard--just stop fighting for new bans, dammit...

I know from your other posts that you wish gun-rights advocates didn't view the gun issue as important. But given the FACT that it is a top-tier issue for tens of millions of voters, advocacy for a ban-more policy says that you do, in fact, view the gun issue as being as, or more, important than the other issues you list.

Almost any topic you pick you will find someone saying " I will not vote for X unless".

Its pretty clear to me that trading some freedoms for others is not the way to go.

...reasonable restrictions on the ownership of firearms, possibly requiring a license and/or training for certain types, and, yes, maybe even a ban on other types....

One could easily make a case that we already have that, and any appeal to "reasonableness" is really just a backhanded way of saying anyone who disagrees with you is not being reasonable.

I'd also like to know about my other choices on the ballot.

Poorly formulated question.

Heaven forbid we prevent psychologically disturbed young people from walking into a Virginia gun store, purchasing a weapon of mass destruction, and firing 200+ shots into fellow college students. I mean, that just wouldn't be fair. The sacrifice of 32 youngsters on the altar of the Second Amendment is the price we have to pay to be free.

Say, why don't we give Wayne LaPierre et al. our nuclear launch codes? The Constitution does not distinguish between types of arms. It follows that denying access to nuclear arms is a violation of the Constitution, no? If the NRA can argue that citizens should enjoy unfettered access to assault weapons of the kind that killed my daughter's friends and classmates at Virginia Tech, why stop there? I think Chuck Heston oughta look into it. The right of the citizens to keep and bear nuclear arms should not be violated.

Why doesn't the government set a good example by disarming itself first? Nukes AND small arms? You get the governments of the world to make a serious concerted effort to place restrictions on their own police and military arms caches and then I would be perfectly willing to start discussing the same restrictions/reductions of arms for private citizens...not that I really believe that will happen in my lifetime. Or how bout we just get the arms manufacturers to start making FEWER weapons, with price controls that equalize purchase price for poorer nations and for working-class individuals so we're all on an equal playing field? Sorry, but I'm not down with the monopolization of armed force by anyone. Instead of picking on the little guy, how about we demand the world's great powers start reducing the armaments held by adjuncts to the state? Our government kills many more people than some crazed gunman like Cho ever will.

Last I heard they support that. They also supported NICS checks to begin with.

Say, why don't we give Wayne LaPierre et al. our nuclear launch codes?

Straw Man.

...assault weapons of the kind that killed my daughter's friends and classmates at Virginia Tech...

I'm sorry for your daughters' loss, but those were in fact handguns.

The NRA, despite the risks to society at large, thinks the 2nd amendment right applies to machine guns and other types of weapons that did not exist in the 18th century. Why not apply the same "logic" to chemical or nuclear ones?

Whatever the killer used at Va Tech, they were weapons of mass destruction in my book and no civilized society ought to countenance their sale to private citizens.

You're running on bad assumptions, perhaps propaganda.

and the gun owning community as a whole to oppose so called "reasonable restrictions".

Why? Because there's nothing "reasonable" about them.

They shouldn't be appeasing the Brady/VPC/MMM... they should be putting a boot in their ass at every opportunity.

That's one of the reasons myself and 4,000,000 other gun owners pay them for.

I can live with background checks and prohibiting certain felons and the mentally unstable from owning firearms (within limitations).

On the negative side, the NRA could be doing more to repeal some of the existing gun control laws especially at the state level (God knows we could use their help here in MA). I'm also miffed that they tried to sabotage the Parker/Heller/DC handgun ban case from going to the Supreme Court.

"Weapons of mass destruction", indeed. "Assault weapon", indeed.

I would recommend you learn the lingo before you debate. Wikipedia is your friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

And we do prevent mentally disturbed people from buying guns.... WHEN the fucking state government enters the persons name in the fucking federal database of people that can't buy guns!!! Which, the Commonwealth of Virginia failed to do.

And thinking that guns cause violence, and/or an absence of guns causes peace is somewhere between wishful thinking and fantasy. Just ask a citizen of the UK how their bans on assault weapons and handguns is working out at a crime- and murder-prevention tool.

68% percent of non-governmental (military or police) firearms in the world are in the hands of US citizens. Interesting statistic, yes? Funny, then, how we rank 24th worldwide in homicide rate among surveyed nations and our homicide rate is as at a 40-year-low?

got to the self-righteous bashing of gun-rights advocates.

To answer your question directly, I would have to know the candidates position on a few more key issues, namely:

1. Do they support fair trade or neoliberalism?
2. Do they support organized labor and generally worker-friendly policies or corporations?
3. Do they support limitations in the power of the state or an expansion of state power?
4. Do they support a non-interventionist foreign policy* or a continuation of imperialism?
5. Do they support not just "universal health care", but single-payer or do they support keeping health insurance for-profit?
6. Do they want to start scaling back government intervention in our personal affairs or regulate and legislate individuals (not corporations) within an inch of our lives?
7. Do they want to put an end to the disastrous War on Drugs and reduce the prison population?
8. Do they support greater oversight over law enforcement?

*Not just direct military intervention, but an end to using economic leverage and arming proxies for imperial ends.

If they fell on the right side of those issues, yes, I would vote for them even if they sucked on guns. I would vote for Dennis Kucinich even though he's disappointed me on many things, including guns (that being said it would be highly critical and conditional support).

To respond to some of your other comments...

Also supports reasonable restrictions on the ownership of firearms, possibly requiring a license and/or training for certain types, and, yes, maybe even a ban on other types.

Poor way to phrase it, since those to whom you are addressing the question obviously don't believe those restrictions are reasonable.

Do you allow your single pet issue to affect your vote for this candidate, and if so, why is it not utter selfishness on your part, considering that the courts would probably strike down any gun laws anyway?

The courts have historically (and pretty consistently) supported restrictions on guns, not struck those laws down.

Believe it or not, guns are at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to the important issues of the day. It would be nice if the propagandists weren't so successful at convincing a sizable chunk of the population that the so called "gun grabbers" are such a terrible threat.

Believe it or not, guns aren't really the issue, rights are. I have the right to effectively defend myself, by lethal force if necessary. That's the issue as far as I'm concerned. If all the guns disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't care. What bugs me is the thought that some people will have them (legally or illegally...cops, "Pinkertons" or criminals), but a large portion of the law-abiding population will not, and thus be defenseless against armed aggression.

It's the same old Republican technique of divide and conquer using fake outrage and you people fall for it the same way people fall for the gay marriage "threat" or the illegal immigrant "threat" or the "terrorists are going to kill you" "threat".

Open your eyes to the psychological manipulation by the powerful corporate interests. Wake up.

Divide and conquer cuts both ways buddy, and the lefty "gun-grabbers" cut their own throats when they alienate people who agree with them on basic economic and/or socio-political issues, but not on guns.

That's what the primaries are for.

Your side says that these things are important, important enough that pro-gun persons should sacrifice thier votes for them:

- Universal health care
- An end to the Iraq war
- Marriage rights for homosexuals
- Pro environmental policies
- Diplomacy over military action
- Restoring Habeas Corpus
- Eliminating the "Patriot" act
- Ending spying on American citizens
- Shutting down Gitmo
- Ending torture as official public policy

My side says that yes, they are important, but you should drop the gun bans cloaked in the word "reasonable" if you expect the support of any significant number of persons that feel that rights regarding firearms are important.




Dealbreaker. Like it or don't thats the way it is. People value thier rights and thier personal property, and aren't about to willingly give either up because someone chose poorly and decided to ask firearm owners to choose.





Apply those statements to abortion and get back to me.





First, you presume to tell others whats important. Then you play down things like HR1022, which IS a serious threat, and important to many MILLIONS of people. Thats a good example of where the "dems are gun grabbers" meme springs from.





It may be an old republican tactic, but who is employing it? Are the republicans asking firearm owners to choose? It sure looks like you are to these eyes.



This is saying the same old tired things as the anti-gunners have for years. Sure, its dressed in some sparkly new rhetoric, and the words are different, but the message is the same.

Don't be selfish, stop valuing your rights.

I call bullshit.


How about YOU (and certain candidates) don't be selfish, and stop asking people to choose when its completely unnecessary. That has been a failing strategy for over a decade, what makes anyone with a shred of common sense think it will all the sudden start working now?

I won't compromise when it comes to any of my rights as an American citizen.

Gun-control activists have so many Democrats worked up over the fallacy that in order to achieve withdrawal from Iraq and restoration of habeas corpus, well by golly we just have to implement Clinton-style gun control which means we have to demonize all gun owners while passing sweeping bans on certain firearms that have legally been in private hands for over a hundred years now.

Wake the hell up, already. The Brady Campaign is run by Republicans, and the more people like buy into their BS, the more Democrats will be divided against each other because some Democrats have been sold on the lie that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means.

Whine about reasonable measures like waiting periods, background checks, mandatory training etc. Seems selfish that someone wouldn't be willing to go through sensible procedures for the greater good. The government regulating weapons doesn't infringe on the second amendment. Everyone believes in gun control to a certain extent. If you want to take it further, arms can mean practically anything, such as military arms, (rpgs, missiles, etc) and no one would argue that people should have access to weapons of that caliber. The government has the right to regulate arms within reason so get over it.

why people say things that are not facts as if they ARE facts.

"Seems selfish that someone wouldn't be willing to go through sensible procedures for the greater good."

Sensible is in the eye of the beholder, and restrictions need to be justified by those proposing the restrictions.


Last but not least, people DO have access to military arms, RPG's, grenade launchers, etc, under the NFA.


Please make an effort to actually know what your talking about.

Not everyone has the same ideas about what is reasonable or sensible.

By July, we may have a ruling that handguns are protected by the 2nd amendment, in which case it's a moot point, as it would take an amendment to override the SC.

Your mindset of continuing the endless quest to convince everyone that gun-owners are "at the bottom of the barrel" is exactly what fuels the "Dems are gun-grabbers" mantra that the Republicans constantly use to their advantage. Sadly, they don't have to raise a finger, you do it for them.

By the way, there IS a GUN section here at the DU.

who think they're still in the Wild West. :crazy:

Not only do they suffer from Wild West delusions, but they believe there are streets in the US that are navigable only by boat...due to the depth of the blood.

Pander to them or kick them back to reality?

A few streets might have the occasional snow accumulation, but none have been located ankle-deep in blood. Maybe they need to quit relying on Brady for weather reports.

it it dangerous enough trying to walk across one of your cross walks.

My question is this:

"Why is this Candidate A being so selfish, detached from reality, politically pandering, and blind to the Constitution to continue to advocate anti-gun positions?"

If it doesn't matter, if it's the "bottom of the barrel" as you say, then why not let it drop? If it's soley a Republican wedge issue that works for them, then why not let it drop?

Obviously Candidate A thinks it's very important, either personally or to his base, and is continuing his course on the issue.

If anti-gun people are so determined to get a good liberal progressive in power, why don't THEY, the anti-gunners, drop the issue? Why don't THEY make it a bottom-of-the-barrel issue?

Your hypothetical can be summerized like this: We're going to try to take your right to keep and bear arms away, but don't you dare allow what we're trying to do to influence your vote because it's crucial that a progressive candidate wins.


I'm voting Democrat regardless of the individual Democrat's position on guns. I figure it this way: it's much more effective to have a Dem in office and bitch about one thing (gun rights) than have a Repub in office and bitch about everything else except guns.



And speaking of manipulation...

One thing that fascists like is a disarmed population. Yet the fascist Republican party is pro-gun. Why is that?

Because the fastists have well-meaning but clueless Democrats to try to disarm the population for them. Democrats take the heat and political consequences regardless of whether they achieve their anti-gun goals, and Republicans just sit back and benefit. They get a disarmed populace, especially in states full of Democrats (e.g., CA, NY, NJ, MA, CT, IL) and they get the people that get screwed royally by their economic policies to vote Republican!

but i recognize that i'm not a constitutional expert.
and neither are most people here who advocate one and one only POV on the second ammendment.

that being said - i will always vote for gun control -- and that is my right.