NRA Smears Obama's Stance on Gun Ownership

http://www.ickypeople.com/2008/06/nra-smears-obamas-stance-on-gun.html

Obama's problem with the NRA was created by himself..

When he spoke of banning ALL, semi-automatics, and ALL handguns...

One day, the rest of us will learn, what Jim Webb, Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, and MANY MANY other Democrats have learned..

Protect the Bill of Rights, don't try to take them apart one at a time. That is what Republicans do.

*crickets*

It was WIDELY REPORTED...their is no audio..BUT, their is a paper trail, and his votes in Illinois speak for themselves..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Gun_control

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826

Why are you denying FACT?

Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."

I swear I do not know when you "Democrats" will get it. If you truly care about the economy, environment, war, education, health care - stop lying about our party's position on guns.

Go ahead...Back it up...

My statement, AND HIS STATMEMTS STANDS.

he sees the need for different laws in cities and rural areas. You know it but you'd rather run your NRA bullshit when we've never had a greater need to remove a President than Bush but all your NRA buddies were cheering for the criminal. That's your big bad anti-government gun toters. What A Joke.

Can you give us some examples of these votes? The ones you are referring to?

I disagree with that, most gun owners disagree with that, I hope the platform will be changed to remove that but I'm doubtful.

How is that ALL handguns and ALL semi-autos.

H.R.1022, on the other hand, would ban THOUSANDS of models of guns, including the most popular target rifles and defensive carbines in the nation.

Fuck the NRA. Self-serving asshats.

We could have the most pro-weapon Democratic in the entire world, and the NRA would still dismiss them with that half-clever pejorative of "gun-grabber", and the NRA supporters would follow. And even a few Democrats who feel that any regulation on any weapons is unconstitutional, an assault on all freedom-loving people, and any other bits of bumper-sticker philosophies they adhere to like flies to glue-paper.

Although the NRA may have once been an admirable organization, it has been reduced to nothing more than an ad-hoc GOP PAC.

I'm on my once a month cursing hiatus, so I'll just go with yours-- "Self-serving asshats."

You can do better than that.

NRA gives endorsement to Schweitzer

By CHARLES S. JOHNSON
Gazette State Bureau
HELENA - The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund on Tuesday endorsed Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer's re-election, citing his strong support of the rights of gun owners, hunters and sportsmen.

"He's just done a great job defending the Second Amendment, hunting, fishing (and) access on the part of the public to public lands," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in a phone interview after a press conference in Billings.

"He also had legislation that secured $10 million for public access. He ended the moratorium on the buffalo hunt after 16 years."

Schweitzer, a lifetime NRA member, received an A rating from the NRA.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/05/28/news/state/41-endorsement.txt


A far cry from dismissing Schweitzer with that half-clever pejorative of "gun-grabber", wouldn't you say?

O-kay, you're right... the NRA is a wholly non-partisan group of responsible individuals whose primary concern is educating the populace on gun safety.

Goodness-- I had a difficult time keeping a straight face while writing that one... :rofl:

They are just a GOP PAC". But I wouldn't expect you to know that they do in fact endorse democrats, just not democrats who fail their single-issue litmus test. If the Dem is running against someone more in line with firearms owners interests, than the dem is not going to get their reccomendation. Need I remind you that the ONLY reason that the NRA has become involved in politics is because certain members of the democratic party, along with some republicans, have driven them to it by proposing idiotic law after idiotic law in what looks like nothing more than an attempt to secure their place in the legal history books with laws named after them. The bulk of their budget is still slotted for their safety programs and classes, and competitions.

Bunch of fucking morons.

in New Orleans. I'm generally no fan of the NRA but I find that particular position worthy of praise.

Are you seriously concerned about Obama's stance on guns? Seriously?

It's an issue. And unlike cerebral issues like the economy or lobbying reform or deregulation, this kind of topic affects gun owners in a direct way, potentially reaching into their homes.

:shrug:

I'm a gun owner for Obama. I figure if I have a Democrat, I can focus all my bitching about changing their opinions on one issue. If I have a Republican, I have to spread my bitching out over a dozen or so topics.

The woods are lovely, dark and knee deep full of armor wearing dear...

That's because Kevlar soft body armor (NIJ Level II and IIIA) is specifically designed to stop handgun rounds only (for reasons of weight and comfort), NOT rifle rounds of any type. A softpoint hunting bullet out of a .30-06 deer rifle will blast through a half-inch thick plate of mild steel, and will go through Kevlar like Saran wrap. If you outlaw any ammunition that will penetrate body armor, you've just outlawed all centerfire rifle ammunition.

FWIW, I voted for Obama because I think he is smart enough not to go after people's guns again like the Clinton Administration did '94-'00. Support for new bans on popular guns didn't fly in the '90s, didn't fly in '00, and didn't fly in '04, so the party leadership would be idiotic to try it again now.

to living creatures than any other type of bullet in the same caliber. In order to punch through armor, real armor, not individual soft vests, bullets must have tough construction in order to hold together. Many calibers and bullet designs rely on the fragility of the bullet to cause wounds, since a bullet that hits a target and fragments inside it will inflict a more sever wound than a bullet of similiar weight, size, and speed that hits a target and passes through it without breaking up or deforming.

When hunting, the ideal is to harvest the game in such a way that the animal goes down and stays down. Wild animals, especially deer, get a MASSIVE adrenaline response when they realize they need to run, so if a bullet did not do enough damage to the proper vitals, the deer can potentially run for miles before lying down and dying in a bush somewhere, wasting the meat it was killed for. "armor-piercing" bullets would be especially unsuited for hunting, since they only leave a caliber-sized hole through and through the target, instead of dumping all their energy inside the target.

the NRA help to write the legislation banning armor piercing ammo. If we're going to complain about right wingers complaining about Obama let's at least do so accurately.

He supports an Assault Weapon Ban, I personally own what would be classified as assault weapons, and I'm sure a sizable portion of younger gun owners do aswell.

He is from Chicago which has the strictest gun laws in the nation so I'm sure he didnt grow up in a situation where it was not normal for law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, so I'm sure that has effected his views on them.

As such he has stated that he is against people carrying concealed handguns, which I do carry as I am licensed by the state of Texas to do so.

These positions of his arent the kind that will the votes of many gun owners, hopefully he will change his positions, or even better would be for us to elect more pro gun rights representatives to congress.

we can win without the gun nuts.Where else are they going to go? McShame? Hah!

if we do that we loose. period.

Is it something like a publishing nut?

Suppose you were an aspiring dictator, which situation would you prefer:
a) an armed populace
or
b) an unarmed one.

And the armed populace isn't much good if it's brand dead.

:eyes:

I meant the armed populace is apparently BRAIN DEAD. BRAIN DEAD. BRAIN DEAD. Thanks for the heads up, citizen! :hi:

"What is a gun nut, exactly?"

A fictional character like "gun grabber".

Or is that your intention? Calling them gun nuts, that a nice, smart touch too.

We all remember the wonderful work the Democratic-controlled Congress did during the past decade after they passed the AWB.

Oh wait, the Democrats LOST control of Congress to the Republicans for 10 years, and the country was run into the ground? No way!

"Where else are they going to go? McShame? Hah!"

Voting isn't an either-or proposition. If Obama were to come out with a AW ban/concealed-carry ban/handgun ban platform, a LOT of gun-owning Democrats would just sit at home and not vote at all. At the same time, otherwise apathetic gun-owning Republicans would vote just because of the gun issue. It's one of the hottest of the hot-button issues that can mobilize Republicans to get off the couch and vote. That could be more than enough to push McCain over the edge to victory.

The NRA is just a bunch of right-wing whackos who would shoot your grandmother if they thought she was infringing upon their "sacred" rights.

I've never joined it and I've owned guns for 58 years.

I did say that they were right-wing whackos, didn't I?

That doesn't mean that all gun owners are or that I am against gun ownership :D

Huckabee's apologized, but I don't recall the NRA saying anything about it. And it happened on their stage, at their convention.

and less about hunting and target shooting. In previous releases he's stated that is an individual right and he wants to protect hunting and shooting sports, but he needs to acknowledge and support self-defense or he'll lose votes from middle of the road voters.

He's a smart guy and I'm sure he won't be stupid about the 2nd Amendment. At least I hope so.

employees of the government should be the only ones with the right to have guns. That's awfully scary!

only government employees to have guns. How can this be? It's schizophrenic in the old sense of split personality. Helllloooooo, we've entered into a new era and reality.

If it was about self-defense against tyranny - why in the hell didn't the NRA kick these criminals out of the White House when they were ripping our constitution to shreds.

The 2nd Amendment is no different than the 1st. Every amendment has restrictions and there's no reason the 2nd should be any different.

You have the right to keep and bear arms, you could have used your arms if you thought that was the right thing to do.

The thing is alot of people have different opinions on what constitutes tyranny and for most people it isnt here yet, atleast not in a way that they are willing to take up arms to fight it. Thats not to say it couldnt happen some day but despite everything that has happened in the past 8 years the majority of people are still content enough that they arent willing to get off of their couch and risk their life to fight for something.

That being said IIRC the American revolution was started with a relatively small but very active percentage of the population at the time.

And I'm not the one making the assinine argument that the reason people need handguns is to fight a nuclear power. The NRA idiots are.

then wouldnt you need arms to fight for your rights?

Thats not the case now but if you have studied any history you can see that it has happened where democratic governments have been replaced. Do you think that could not happen here at some point?

You are not going to fight a nuclear power with hand guns.

other arms. You could perhaps use a handgun to assassinate an unawares opponent and take thier arms.

Chechnya defeated Russia in their first war. Russia did not drop nuclear bombs on them.

Only in the worst of its death throes might an tyrannical government start dropping nuclear weapons on areas it formerly used to control in a response to a popular uprising, however that certainly didnt happen when the Soviet Union fell why should we expect that to happen in some hypothetical future America.

The old expression "shitting in your messkit" comes to mind.


:eyes:

And India defeated Britain with... nothing but willpower.




"Only in the worst of its death throes might an tyrannical government" And at this point, we get to the hypothetical suppositions.

One might argue that since it's been not uncommon for governments to used a scorched earth policy on their own territories in times of conflict, they wouldn't be a reticent as you give them credit for to use nukes... the differences being only in degrees.

Just ask the idiots at freedom states alliance and their bunk buddies.

Quite the conundrum there.

they'd lived in the 1770s.

There is only so much they can do and stay within their charter.

And they did fight the Bush administration when they overstepped on 2nd Amendment issues.

Tyranny comes in many forms, Sandnsea, but certainly keeping law abiding folks from keeping and bearing the arms of their choice is the first step to larger problems.

eta: And saying that a nuclear power can't be fought it small arms is the stupidest thing you have ever said. See all around the world for examples of how its done. But I've come to expect such cowardly things from some people.

Nobody can fight a nuclear power if the nuclear power truly wants to obliterate the country. Nuclear powers have generally chosen not to.

The country's that regulate guns have taken the first step to less murder and less violence, in case you hadn't noticed.

And you wouldn't know anything about "cowardly". You don't need a goddamn gun to stand up to power.

Your nuclear obliteration is just as effective against a well-armed citizenry as your desired less-well armed citizenry. But if it did come down to a fight, its better to be well armed -- even you have to realize that.

Plus, you miss the point that tyranny comes in many forms and not just a nuclear threats.

Where there are military coups every other year. That's what your philosophy will get you. Talk about stupid.

civilians have been getting disarmed for a while now.

has served us well so far.

When they don't work, we get war. See 1861.

in the cold war- not even an insane dictator wants to be the tyrant of a glassed-over blast crater. Same principle would apply to our own government in a worst-case scenario, and besides, although people like to point out that the U.S. Military has a fantastic inventory of powerful weapons, there are human beings who are citizens of this country operating them. They will not be happy about being part of a large-scale operation AGAINST their fellow countrymen, and many would up and change sides. Not to mention that when given an order in direct violation of the law, such as an order to fire on civilians, it is the responsibility of the soldiers to not only refuse to carry out those orders, but to also ensure that the officer giving those grossly illegal orders is removed from command. Don't think the U.S. military would happily wipe out towns across America.

During the Vietnamese boat refugee crisis years ago, when fleeing Vietnamese were being preyed upon remorselessly by Thai pirates, I asked Vietnamese friends, "How could this be? So many Vietnamese had been trained soldiers, how come they couldn't defend themselves." They looked at me as though I were slow, "Do you think the communist government allowed civilians to keep guns." . . . Oh . . .

Passive resistance seemed to work for the Indians as they forced the Brits out in a peaceful manner.

I suppose historical anecdotes could be found to strengthen any side to any argument if one discounts context...

nuclear weapons are ordinance. crew served weapons, land mines, etc. Ordinance. shoulder fired rifles and handguns are arms.

But that is beside the point. Gun control is for the people to lazy to address root cause.

A quick look at Geneva and DC prove a stark contrast in laws and murder rates.

Guns control is cover for chicken shits who are afraid of discussing social, racial, and economic issues that make violence happen.

"Guns control is cover for chicken shits..."

Does that apply to regulation of any kind? Or regulation of any of the Rights?

Using handguns and semi-automatics against a tyrannical US government is a wet dream for a few gun nuts and completely far fetched from reality.

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

which one is used in more crime?

I think that the 2nd amendment grants the individual right to bear arms. I just don't like the idea of people running around with automatic weapons or armor piercing bullets.

Only the military is legally allowed to have AP ammunition...which makes me feel very very safe. :eyes:

Automatic weapons like the select fire rifle in that post are all but banned. This was done in 1938. $20,000 is the entry point if you want to purchase a machine gun, after a federal background check, and tax stamp.

AP rounds are banned. The little one, next to the scary looking one, is made to punch through body armor. It is banned.

The round used to kill deer will punch a hole through a vehicle and not slow down to much. The big scary one is the 50 cal. Useless shoulder weapon. The middle one is a deer rifle round 308 (also the choice of the military for snipers) and the little one is the 5.56 nato. The little one is used by the millions by infantry in Iraq and Afghanistan.



They play games with words so that a semi automatic rifle, becomes an assault rifle. More people are knifed to death than shot with rifles.

So the deer rifle becomes a sniper rifle to the anti gun crowd.

Gun control is easier than addressing root cause of violence. Why DC is so screwed up and Zurich or Tokyo is not.

See? Manufactured controvisery solved!

chey tac does what 50bmg does as does a 338 lapua. However not a great weapon for a drive by.

adopting the existing cartridge
would be my response, and I would make bank on stupid laws.

I can't think of one crime committed with a shoulder weapon firing 50bmg of M2 browning machine gun (they are NFA)

AP is already banned.

Gun control is a for people who refuse to address root cause.

i.e. all handgun calibers and all rifle calibers up through .308/7.62x51mm. Passed in 1986, and extended to rifle calibers in early 1994.

Until you get up to bulky Level 4 kevlar vests with ceramic inserts, you can't stop a standard deer rifle hunting round.

Body armor is by and large designed to stop HANDGUN rounds, not rifle rounds. Virtually any rifle can penetrate a police officer's vest, even ones that will stop a 9mm or .45 ACP.

:hi:

Wouldn't matter; a .30-06 deer rifle will blow through any Kevlar body armor.

Kevlar body armor (NIJ Level II and IIIA) is designed to stop handgun rounds, not rifle rounds. And even NIJ Level III rifle-resistant hard armor (which will stop rounds from an M16 or an AK-47) isn't rated to stop a bullet from a .30-06 or .300 Winchester Magnum. Only NIJ Level IV hard armor is rated to stop .30-06 (AP or not), and then only for one shot.

AP rounds are banned. Obama has not mentioned any ban on Concealed Carry or Semi automatic rifles. The things mentioned as good in this article are a sure bet for a loss in november.

This is ignorant shit published by really stupid people. Machine guns are strictly controlled, and not used in crime.

Gang bangers dont buy guns..

And an industrial-sized can of Lysol.

Let's begin, shall we?



18,000 of which are suicides, 11,000 of which are homicides, 600 are justifiable homicides (police and civilian) and the balance accidents.



Which definition of "armor piercing" are they using? The classical definition of "armor piercing" is bullets made with a hardened steel penetrator to increase penetration against light armor. I think the .30-caliber one can penetrate about a quarter-inch of sheet steel.

However, sometimes they defince "armor piercing" as being able to penetrate police body armor, which pretty much any decently-powerful deer rifle can do, even using soft-tipped expanding bullets of the kind mandated by law for hunting. Most body armor that officers wear during routine duty is designed to stop handgun bullets, not rifle bullets. Even comparatively light rifle rounds like the .223 Remington (fired by AR-15-style guns ) and the 7.62mm Soviet (fired by AK-47-style guns and SKS rifles) will blow through that body armor without much difficulty.

By changing the definition of the term without telling anybody, they are not arguing in good faith.



Gang bangers and criminals can't buy new guns, which are ONLY sold through licenced dealers, and they can't buy used guns from a licenced dealer, either. Background checks and all that.

Also, gun manufacturing, like all manufacturing in the US, is not a high-profit business. Smith & Wesson's profits, for example, about about 6% of their revenues. Sturm, Ruger, & Co. only made about a million dollars in profits last year, and lost money the year before.



If the gun owner can afford to replace the gun. :shrug: And guns already have serial numbers imprinted on them in several locations. Any gun recovered can be traced back to the first person that bought it new, and from there it can usually be traced from owner to owner (and to other gun dealers if it is re-sold as a used gun) until it is stolen or lost.



Convicted violent criminals, via due process, don't have the right to keep and bear arms, and nobody is saying they should. Furthermore, the "automatic weapons" argument is a flat-out lie, preying on the similar appearance of civilian semi-automatic rifles with their military, full-auto parents to confuse the casual reader. REAL automatic weapons are registered with the BATFE, and none have been legally sold to the civilian market since 1986, when the ATF's registry was closed to new sales. They also cost a minimum of 4 figurees to buy and requires the personal approval of the Secratary of the Treasury, and a $200 transfer tax.

"high hill rate ammunition"... :wtf: is that?



Um, sure, whatever. How many kids are we talking about annually? 10? 20? We probably have more kids dying of peanut allergies than caught in gang-war crossfire.

And of course it makes much more sense to disarm a nation of 260 million guns to keep them from accidently falling into the hands of gangs than to actually, you know, arrest and imprison gang members.



Neither the weapons nor the ammuntion is particulary powerful. In fact, hunters of deer typically use rifles and ammunition far more powerful than that used by AR-15s and AK-47-style rifles.

Those kinds of rifles have features that make them comfortable to shoot, such as detachable magazines that make them easy to load or unload, semi-automatic action makes repeat shots faster and easier while reducing recoil forces, protruding pistol grips are considered by some to be more ergonomic and comforable when shooting from the shoulder.

And since the preferred weapon of criminals is a handgun or a shotgun, there is no need for these types of weaopns to be banned, either.





Of course not. Any more than when Bush goes on TV and expains how all electronic communications must be read and filtered and cross-analysed by the government in order to curb terrorist deaths.


Yeah, they'll curb gun deaths like banning blue-painted cars will curb blue-painted car deaths. We could to much to lower the homicide and crime rates by simply sticking to our traditional liberal princicple like fair trade, unions, education, health care, protective tariffs, etc.



Firearm accidents are at an all-time low. Accidents are not any kind of problem.



"Assault ammunition"? :rofl: Man, the perjoratives flow like a fine wine, don't they???



Than they already are?



Yeah, sure, I believe that.

About 50% of this country, maybe a lot more, has never had to buy a gun from a licenced dealer and never will. More than half of the country doesn't own any kind of gun at all. A huge percentage has never handled a gun and never will.

I guess to those people, this stiff sounds like common sense.



What affects the pocket books of manufactures is junk lawsuits brought to court for the express purpose of driving them out of business because of legal fees. Suits like "my kid got killed by a gang member with pistol, so I'm going to sue the maker of the pistol".



The absolute LAST thing this author and his supporters want are Americans looking at facts, which is why they provide a palatable-tasting substitute whenever possible.

:toast:
Thank You.

Some of that stuff, including banning gun shops from operating within five miles of a school, is just idiotic.

Look at some facts.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/DocServer/gunrpt_revised06.pdf?docID=1761

Yes, as you say, a gun is already registered with the gun shop that sold it. So what in the hell is the difference if we require a record to track the damn gun if it's used in a crime.

There are laws about what kind of weapons you can use to kill the damn deer - but not to protect cops.

That's how assinine NRA thinking is.

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

I specifically said law enforcement can track the gun because it's registered with the original gun shop that sold it. Now isn't that right? Did you just skip over that in your zeal to launch attacks instead of dealing with A BABY A WEEK being killed by your fucking guns.

And YOU are the one carrying right wing NRA shit so don't try to turn it around with your fucking Brady lies. God you make me puke.

Registered with the gun shop?

LOL Shows how much you THINK you know..

Their is a paper trail that follows EVERY gun, from the day it was built or imported. It starts with the Serial number..

All gun dealers, to comply with FEDERAL LAW, must keep the forms that buyers must fill out.

Take a crime gun, take down the make model, and serial number, call up the "importer, or maker" and you will get the name of a wholesaler, call the wholesaler up, and you get the name and address of an FFL dealer, go to the FFL dealer, and you get the name and address of the buyer...

EASY!!!! Their is NO exception to this..

But too hard for Republicans to understand. So they keep calling for new laws. and some so-called Democrats are more than happy to follow alone, like cattle.

Why do you keep bringing up the NRA?? They gave money to Both my democratic congressman, and my Democratic Senator???

Why are you "hating"??

EDIT...How do you like my teenage daughter's M1 Carbine! See, I believe and "protecting the children" too! If it was good enough to stop Japanese banzai charges in WWII, it is good enough to keep her safe from predators.

Which is exactly what I said. The guns are registered with the gun shop, gun dealer, who sold them. And that's how they're traced. See, fool, the guns ARE ALREADY FUCKING REGISTERED. So what the hell is the difference if you require an official registration every time that gun is transfered AFTER it leaves the original gun owner - which you well know isn't required at all.

You aren't worth it. Ignore and I hope your guns don't kill any babies, not that I think you give a shit anyway.

Wow, how offensive can you be?? I do give a shit, that is why, my WIFE, daughter, and so, my young son. Are all, skilled in methods of defending themselves, and each other, with the most effective tools available.

Right now, that is modern semi-automatic firearms.

IMHO, to NOT defend yourself, and family with modern arms, is tantamount to
child abuse. After all, they look up to their parents, as the protectors.

If a parent is powerless, by choice, lets just say that they are not much of a parent.

After the buyer leaves the gun shop, he can sell it to anyone that has a legal right to own one and the paper trail stops. That gun is not registered anywhere. It's cash and carry in most states. only FFL holders(Dealers) are burdened by the paperwork.

Is that the first case usually involves an interstate transfer, which the federal government has the power to regulate.

Intrastate sale of a USED gun is not within the scope of federal power.

.

if it is being sold by a Federal Firearms Licenseholder, than used guns are treated exactly the same as new. It is only used guns that are being sold by private party that does not go through those processes.

Where is your hysteria over that? What are you doing about that?
Child deaths in 2004
All races, both sexes, 1–4 years
. . All causes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,858
1 Accidents (unintentional
injuries) . . . . . . . . . .(V01–X59,Y85–Y86) 1,641
2 Congenital malformations, deformations and
chromosomal abnormalities. . . . (Q00–Q99) 530
3 Assault
(homicide). . . .(*U01–*U02,X85–Y09,Y87.1) 423
4 Malignant neoplasms . . . . . . . . (C00–C97) 402
5 Diseases of heart . . (I00–I09,I11,I13,I20–I51) 165
6 Influenza and pneumonia . . . . . . (J10–J18) 110
7 Septicemia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A40–A41) 79
8 Chronic lower respiratory diseases . (J40–J47) 65
8 Certain conditions originating in the perinatal
period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (P00–P96) 65
10 In situ neoplasms, benign neoplasms and
neoplasms of uncertain or unknown
behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (D00–D48) 60
. . All other causes . . . . . . . . . . . . (Residual) 1,318


While heartbreaking and terrible, when put into context, your numbers aren't all that shocking or significant. They are certainly not worth invalidating the constitution over.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_05.pdf

edited to add references.

The number for 10 and under is over 100 and the number including teen-agers is in the thousands. This also doesn't account for the kids who were wounded, 3-4 times the number who are killed.

And of that 56 babies killed by guns, 49 were MURDERED.

Did you compare the deaths in Baghdad to the deaths in DC too? That's how stupid your argument is.

drug war, gang war, insurgent war. We know why people are dieing in Baghdad.

What do you propose for dc, they have a full handgun ban..

I've got nothing further to say to you except Virginia doesn't.

however our murder rate will equal ibc in just a few years. Put your effort to root cause.

and said that comparison was as stupid as comparing auto accidents to babies being murdered. I am putting my effort to root cause - the gun culture. It's actually also the root cause of the gungho mentality of "turning the ME into a sandbox" too.

between 16 and 32 is MURDER. 1 in 9 incarcerated. That is not the gun crowd. Not rednecks with black rifles. That is drug policy black on black (broke on broke) crime. Government policy

This topic makes people nervous. So talking about 50bmg and scurry looking rifles is a crutch.

Legalize drugs, see what happens to crime rates. Drug war has instilled a culture of death.

Banning drugs has worked oh so well.

Try again.

just one. Baby stuff is a joke of a red herring. You know it, I know it.

40 vs how many drug driven murders.

I'd say white babies are probably safer than other babies, going by that incredibly juvenile math. And did you not notice his statement of (I'll make it easier to read) BROKE ON BROKE? poverty is the driving factor behind most types of crime, not race.

Got any more "white babies" comments?

What are you planing to do about the menace that swimming pools offer our children??

According to the CDC..



Do you plan on restricting access to water??

These are facts as reported by the CDC.
I wasn't able to present car crash data for 1-4 year olds because it wasn't broken down that way.
The facts are what they are, whether you like it or not.

Where is your activism? Let's see it.

http://www.tobacco-facts.info/executivesummary-secondhand-smoke.pdf

But any damn idiot can take their 4 year old out to shoot a gun. :crazy:

If you're so concerned about the children....

The same goes for automobiles. They kill more people every year than guns in every age group. Sometimes by double. Driving is NOT a right. It's a privilege granted to you by your state. (YES, I KNOW there were no cars when the constitution was written)

What a ridiculous argument. Again, there are more regulations on the gun and bullet you can use to kill a deer than to protect a cop or a kid.

That is about as intentional as you can get. If you smoke around your children and they die because of it, you are just as much a murderer as if you had shot them. Unfortunately, our society is bought and paid for by many industries, tobacco being one of them.
You WISH my argument was "ridiculous", but it's all based on fact. Facts that will not change no matter how rude you are.

Unlike people who let their kids shoot guns at 4 years old. And maybe you better go back and read your own posts if you want to talk about rude.

I honestly have no clue what you are referring to.

Killing is generally wrong with a few exceptions like self defense.
Killing children is particularly heinous.
MANY MANY more children are killed by family members that deliberately take cigarettes out of the pack, light them, and smoke them, than are killed by any type of gunfire. Killed. Hell, the fucking flu kills twice as many as gunfire in your much vaunted 1-4 year old range. The facts don't support your sensationalism.

Are you really so dependent on your gun that you can't even see that clear difference?

So they can be as sure as possible that the hunters out in the woods KILL the deer they are hunting. That is why they regulate minimum calibers and restrict what bullet designs are acceptable for large animals. They aren't trying to save the poor little bambis from being massacred with "saturday night specials" or slaughtered by "high-powered assault weapons", they are regulating the weapons used because they do not want wounded animals wandering off to die. It is to protect the health of the herds, not because 'armor-piercing' ammunition is super-powerful and too much for deer.

Non hunting weapons are not regulated by Fish and Game, because they have no grounds to do so.

56 preschoolers, 52 cops killed with guns.

Except the DoJ disagees with you about the cops part.



So, 52 kids age 5 and under. So how many actually age 5?

And how many are drive-by shooting victims? Probably about as many Cadillac-driving welfare queens or family farmers destroyed by the inheretence ('death') tax. In other words, none. It's a talking point, a myth, an emotional story generated to push a point.



The difference between the gov't needing to get your cell phone's serial number only with probable cause, and your cell phone provider registering your cell phone automatically with a federal database that is available for searches by anyone for any reason, or no reason.

And back in ignore for you.

Hmmm, didn't know I'd made it the first time.

Well, I guess you can get the measure of a man by both his friends and his enemies.



Not that I ever said kids getting killed in drive-bys is a myth, especially when you define kids as "17 and younger", but don't let facts intrude, right?

And I also think that including high school students and dropouts who are involved in gangs isn't really an honest way to write it up, since their deaths are far more similiar to adult gangbanger deaths than they are to deaths of small children playing in their yards.

~fin

It's not his priority.

But I do believe that he is not well versed on the topic and I worry that he would with superb intentions and a major lack of judgement pass a piece of destructive legislation like H.R. 1022 (ironic it carries the same name as the most popular semi-automatic rimfire rifle in the country) without really understanding the consequences it would have on the shooting public. The effects would be major, but for people who don't shoot, they would never notice it, because it would have no benefit to public safety.

Obama is not going to have your guns taken away, so stop the bullshit.

Unlike Shrub, Obama will adhere to the Constitution and not wipe his ass with it.

But here's hoping that the party leadership (and Obama himself) realizes that the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is the issue, not hunting guns. More Americans lawfully and responsibly own "assault weapons" than hunt, and we'd like to keep them. Ditto for lawful handgun ownership.

If the NRA is against Obama, it's a point for him in my book.

it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001

only the desperate and delusional gun-grabbers in Congress will continue their silly crusade.

Chances are slim to none that any foreseeable gun control bills will even reach his desk.

Proposing to ban the most popular civilian guns in America is *NOT* a winning strategy.

Most of the stuff in that article, Obama has distanced himself from, I believe.


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

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Propagandists and other writers who abuse hyperbole deserve to be taken out and shot.

That should do it. Call for all Patriots to protect all ten rights.

And secondly, acknowledge that the Second Amendment concerns the inalienable right of individuals to an effective self defense. It is not about hobby shooting.

Outlaw the Brady Campaign, because, they was founded, and RAN by Republicans...