Gun Control: another reason why legal abortion got kicked in the nuts...

...so to speak.

I've heard the comment at least 10 times since Monday morning: "Gun Control hurt Gore as a Presidential Campaign issue."

Any you know what? THEY'RE RIGHT.

Around here in "Li'l Jesustan, Michigan," they STILL aren't talking about religion; but I did get at least 4 new people around here who heard they had a "Token Democrat" and wanted to hear my Gun Control position. When I tell them I think Gun Control is stupid, they say "HEY, you're ALL RIGHT," and then they LISTEN TO ME.

When we abandon the issues that will NEVER have any traction like GUN CONTROL, THEN we'll get support for our CORE ISSUES, like women's rights, health care and Social Security (not to mention opposition to that damned WAR).

Are you sure it was not that a butterfly flapped her wings in Belize?

People keep missing the biggest point of all in having the presidency: YOU GET TO APPOINT THE JUDGES AND JUSTICES.

I would have thought that the recent US Attorney debacle would have made that very clear to you.

If we had ONE MORE Supreme Court Justice on the Left, then this would not be happening.

If you think one of the reasons Gore "tanked" way out west WAS NOT because "...those Democrats want our guns..." then we have no common basis.

That's what I think.

That's what I cite as a poorly constructed clause.

This is my OPINION. There. Is that OK with you?

Waste of time.

But then again Liberals have not been good at picking their battles (and yes that includes me).

I get so sick of it all. And people wonder why I'm a closet Socialist and play "THE INTERNATIONALE" on my laptop whenever I get the chance.

But none of them are so stupid that they let fantasies of "Democrats Taking Our Guns" govern their votes.

Small vocabulary correction: I'm not really offended when I hear that a Democratic woman has "balls." But most of those truly concerned about Legal Abortion definitely lack "nuts."

(I could explain how "nuts" is more correct when discussing Gun Control Foes. But some people might take it wrong.)

I heard several of my budies say they would have voted for Kerry if the democratic party laid off gun control. It is a big issue with many in the rural south.

We hear lots of music in Houston. Just not the theme from "Deliverance."

who would make your head explode listening to his logic. He's 100% anti-Democrat because they want to take his guns away.

They exist everywhere in the south, even in urban areas.

Why cater to idiots?

And why do so many who say "they won't vote Democratic becuase of any possible hint of gun control" seem to be threatening to withhold their own votes?

Its not a fantasy.

Here is the link to the text of the bill, but the site is temporarily down.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

Will they actually kick down the doors & grab them?

These are some of the guns on the list to be grabbed.

Here is a list of some of the named rifles:
AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
AR-10;
AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70;
Calico Liberty;
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
Hi-Point Carbine;
HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
M1 Carbine;
Saiga;
SAR-8, SAR-4800;
SKS with detachable magazine;
SLG 95;
SLR 95 or 96;
Steyr AUG;
Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
Tavor;
Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz)

But others will not be able to add these cuties to their collections.

Let me express my concern:

No I don't admit that I'm wrong. You're just defining "gun grabbing" very narrowly while I define more broadly.

Of course you know that but still you cling to your ridiculous notion that banning guns from being sold isn't gun grabbing. If the gov said no more political speech on the internet in the future, would you not make the claim that they were violating your right to free speech?

And I've got a wonderful arrangement of "My Heart Cries For You." ("Happiness Is A Warm Gun" is a bit more difficult.)

Sorry, not allowing the sale of certain guns is NOT the same as "grabbing" them.

I see my free speech argument didn't resonate. oh well.

in 2008, then don't cry and wring your hands and wonder WHY WHY WHY..

You mean Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan? I don't think so. What the hell is your purpose on this message board? In the time I've seen you post the only songs you seem to know are: "Fred Thompson would make a super neato President", "Guns are good, guns are great, guns make my little rural corner of red state murika go round", and "Will those urban dwellers ever learn?"

Really what's the point? Why can't folks like you accept the fact that live and let live is a two way street? What's right for rural Tennessee, isn't necessarily right for a more urban location. NOBODY is trying to take your guns, why do you buy into this NRA paranoia? I don't want to ban guns, I just think municipalities should be able to decide the right law for their citizens.

It prohibits the purchase of those weapons, unless you get proper authorization.

It doesn't take anybody's weapons away.

Just like the last AWB, there is nothing there about confiscation or forced surrender of currently owned weapons.

is "gun grabbing". Its an ambiguous term at best, but this is what gun owners are talking about.

You may define it differently, but that won't convince people when it comes time to vote.

... simply don't get it. They are every bit as stupid as they accuse the right of being.

Restricing "partial birth" abortions is a heinous intrusion into their rights. But telling you which gun you can buy isn't.

They are flaming fucking hypocrites, period.

Any mention of ANY ban, registration, confiscation, limiting ability of a SINGLE SOLITARY weapon and you will be viewed with distrust.

Unles we learn to totally and utterly keep our mouths shut about domestic guns, we will always struggle winning 30+ states in a national election.

In a BLUE STATE Michigan Factory think the Democrats in NY want to take away their guns.

Sorry. It's true, and it's MASSIVELY true in Oklahoma.

Or ignorance.

HR 1022 is from Carolyn McCarthy D-NY. Five Democratic co-sponsors from NY.

Look for co-sponsors from MI. None.

All states are not the same.

Anyone who votes for any Republican at this point in time is stupid and/or ignorant. The gun thing is just an even more brain-damaged excuse.

As a Texan, I know all states are not the same. Gun control is far from my #1 issue. But Texas women don't take kindly to men who tell them to "shut up."

I keep trying to tell these folks on here and for some reason the Berkeley gets in the way..

What is true for Sacramento is not true for Chattanooga..

If they keep this up, they will lose the next election for us.

Did you just pull a random California city out of your ass? Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, and the entire central valley for that matter are more "Tennessee" than "California". I guess it would help if you knew what the hell you're talking about?

I have many wing nut co workers and when I showed them the Dem platforms from past years which supported sensible gun control, banning Saturday night specials and assault rifles, the still believe the Dems want to take their guns away.

What wing nuts believe about us is myth but you can't change what they think. So, it is not our fault the vote against us because of the gun issue.

the real wing nuts believe what they've been told to believe by their Leader's propaganda. Seriously. According to them - and yes, I know several like this - we're all tree-hugging, pot-smoking, communists, poor-yet-somehow-rich-elitists (?) who want to stab Jesus in the face, take away guns and rap music, and make everyone wear uniforms and give away everyone's money to poor black people while we turn everyone gay.

I'm barely exaggerating here, sadly. I think it boils down to mindset: I would venture that the majority of conservatives by definition see the world in strict binary black/white fashion. Everything is good or bad, no grey area - which is something they complain about us; that we're moral relativists. Most progressives/liberals I know, on the other hand, try to accept nuance and understand that most things in life are not simply good or bad.

Yes, I realize I am grossly generalizing, and I also know people who do not fit that ironic dichotomy (there are three kinds of people in the world, my friend: those that can do math and those that can't. lol), and I honestly feel that most people - when pressed about specific issues fall somewhere in between, but I still say that we tend to fall into the 'open minded' side of the spectrum - which would explain why we're not as ready to fall into lockstep authoritarianism as the Right is.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.

:rofl:

(DAMN, we're funny!)

But unfortunately, there's no practical way to sort them out from other citizens who deserve their right to guns, so the only answer is strict gun regulation for everyone.

He actually admitted recently that Bush is "kinda dumb". But in the next breath he says he'll never vote for a Democrat because---wait for it---

"Democrats want to take our guns away".

I could dispute that 'til I'm blue in the face and he'd never believe me. :banghead:

And you'll understand why..Pugs never sit around and even mention what guns should be banned and which ones should be registered..It's a non starter and a non-issue 100% of the time.

HOLY SHIT what a cultural astral plane DU is...Clueless...

Read these comments on this thread and you'll understand why your brother feels the way he does.

Because they want zero regulation of weapons? That's insane.

AS well as are many rural Democrats...Theirs is a very comfortable truce right now that if carefully tendered, could be the basis for something big in a national election.

They are not automatons. People are more complex than the black and white view that "many" expouse.

Remember Columbine? Remember the HUMONGOUS push by Clinton and NBC to pass the so-called "gun show loophole" and other such silliness?

Gore thought that he would really make hay on it during the campaign. I knew he was committing suicide in the south...Sure enough, he lost WV and his home state of Tennessee BECAUSE OF GUNS.

Translation, the only talk among anybody that it will hurt will be us as Democrats. The pugs know they won't propose anything draconian and the rural voting public knows that.

That's why we need to totally shut up about guns.

So a gangster from a state with firearms restrictions can just drive to Ohio on the right weekend and buy whatever he wants?

If we would just SHUT UP and stay with what we have, this issue would GO AWAY.

What is that matter with you? Are you some kind of "single issue voter" on the Control Guns side? Don't you SEE what happened in the Supreme Court because our party couldn't even carry the HOME STATE of our candidate, largely because of issues like this one?

Law enforcement and political leaders in my area did *not* think the best action was to "lay in the weeds" and pretend it was not happening. In life you don't get to choose your responsibilities.

BTW, the 2000 election swung on coal in WV.

You could walk in with a .22 rifle and walk out with a .44 automag. All you needed was the cash.

Do you think for one second that I LIKE this situation? I don't. But WE LOSE this one the moment we open our mouths, and in losing it, we lose states. This is no longer an option, unless we have decided to permanently surrender to Bush and his descendants.

What you imply is already against the law unless the buyer has a valid Federal Firearms License....

An out of state buyer cannot buy guns from a licensed dealer in a state outside his own state. The dealer would not sell the weapon(s)to him.

being the NRA, tells them so. No matter how stupid the premise, they've been told it so they believe it.

What kind of army would be necessary to confiscate 250 MILLION GUNS?

Never gonna happen, but that won't stop the gun nuts from believing it. Kind of a faith-based thing, you know; rationality has nothing to do with it.

Then you have opened the floodgates for distrust among rural voters..For some reason people just cannot grasp the mentality of the rural voter..

Again, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT GUNS....Forever, always never to be mentioned again..

Then you'll see us become a truly national party.

Nothing quite like stereotyping people. You cannot claim that rural people are of one mind.

I have followed and studied this issue...

You have not.

And I know what I know and what I have studied. So I hope that you can appreciate that I am not going to concur with the blustering pronouncements of some anonymous pissy guy on a keyboard in another area code.

truly national party.

Currently HR 1022 is a more draconian Assault Weapons Ban than the one that expired.

as sensible at all. And these are blue collar and should be supportings us but won't on this one issue. They have said it to my face.

why they own them, how they use them, and what they shoot them at. As a serious, honest question, I'm curious - the only purpose I can see to them is crime.

a noisy, but surprisingly calming past-time, almost like meditation. Concentration on position, sight, target, and breathing.

And if what I'm shooting looks like an AK47 (but without full auto) and has a 30-round magazine, so what? If it has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug, so what?

All rifles, including assault weapons, are used in about 3% of all crimes.

(I think I have that right)

Why do people own fast cars or motorcycles? And I do know of two who hunt with them. AR-15 for coyotes, and M1A for hogs. I myself may go hog hunting this summer with my M1 Granand.

You said they still believe Dems want to take their guns away like it isn't true. Dem platforms which support "sensible gun control", banning Saturday night specials and assault rifles. Ummm....Banning assult rifles and Saturday night specials is taking away their guns, is it not? I'm not sure what sensible gun control is. Maybe somebody can explain what that is exactly? I almost...almost switched parties in 2000 from all this gun control madness.

"We support all American citizens for the right to keep and bear arms and literal interpretation of the second ammendment to the USC. We support a right to self defense and support a nationwide training program for eligible persons wihsing to apply for a Federal Concealed Carry Permit which will be valid in any US state or territory"

Make a big splash and make friends publicly with the gun rights groups. Then you have stripped the pugs of one base of power.

Now THAT would bring the voters back in.

If you support "supported sensible gun control, banning Saturday night specials and assault rifles,". Gun bans are NOT sensible.

Get this through your head:

There ate 85,000,000 guns owners in this country. Only 15,000,000 of them hunt. Gun ownership is not about hunting or target shooting. It is about owning guns for whatever purpose an individual feels they want to own one for. Mainly home defense.

"Assault Rifles" are machines guns and are controlled under the National Firearms Act of 1934. The Assault WEAPON Ban "banned" semi-automatic NOT full automatic guns and was nothing more than a piece of feel good legislation that did nothing.

Saturday Night Specials comes form NIGGERTOWN Saturday Night, http://hematite.com/dragon/bans.html also http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SATURDAY+NIGHT+SPECIAL

Which means only rich white men should be allowed to own guns. ANYTIME Dems start talking gun bans then they are loosing votes from WORKING CLASS people whom they claim to support.

Want to win and hold onto political offices in this country? STFU about "Sensible" or "Reasonable gun control" because all that means is banning guns.

Assault rifles? Ahem. Assault rifles have been tightly controlled since 1934, through the NFA (national firearms act)

What your talking about is "assault weapons". As in the assault weapons ban. These rifles are used in aproximately 3% of all crimes. Calling for a ban on guns used in 3% of all crimes, on its face, is hardly sensible, let alone to gun owners. Not to mention, the guns in question ARE NOT automatic weapons, nor are they military issue, nor are they a gun that shoots a more powerful round that a common hunting rifle. The guns in question are modern designed firearms that may or may not have a military appearance.

Without understanding of these things you can't convince anyone your not going to try to take guns, in the literal sense or the sense of eliminating them in the future, because bills like HR 1022 do exactly that. they go after guns. Not machine guns. Not assault rifles. GUNS PEOPLE OWN. And the bill in question has 30 or so democratic sponsors/co-sponsors.


Do you really think that most gun owners will see the above as sensible? How could a gun owner come to any other conclusion than what you describe as a "myth"?

The easiest solution for us nationally is to SHUT THE FUCK UP about domestic guns...

Make them a non-issue...They don't exist as far as us wanting to tinker with new laws.

Any other method and we lose states and blocks of states that we cannot afford to lose.

:eyes:

;-)

:crazy:

It just needs a little ice cream and hot fudge, and we'll be all set.

When you abandon issues like child molestation that will never have any traction with them, then they'll listen to you on other issues.

No thank you -- I do not choose to abandon issues that are of life-and-death importance to our society, even if it's only 33 lives at a time, so some fanatic might listen to my discussion of a different issue.

Complain and bitch on election night about Fred Thompson or McCain so-called "stealing" a few hundred votes in some state and winning the next election..

We should win the next one with 15 states to spare, but instead it will be a real struggle...And with the anti-gun statements made by most of our major candidates, these will be played over and over and over on TV ads right before the election.

Have it your way though...

in numbers.

These are the people have passion, the anti gun side does not.

Could it be, perhaps, that the NRA is claiming credit for shit they have nothing to do with? A liberal, who has a reasonable gun control platform, goes down to defeat and the NRA is there trumpeting their victory - never mind that the the liberal was also not anti-gay, was pro-choice, was anti-corporatist, etc. The right is an amalgam of single issue voters, and you will see each of those single issues claiming credit for defeating someone, even if that person was being pounced on by several of them.

So, was Gore defeated by the gun lobby? Or, no, it was the Pro Life groups. Oh, no, it was the pro-business (anti-environment) lobby. No, wait, it was the Religious Right!

And in response we have strategists saying we should not talk about guns, or religion, or the environment, or gays, just so we don't alienate this or that wingnut interest group.

Sheeesh.

So many issues to pander to lest we "lose" votes.

Most gun owners do not belong to the NRA...I have several times, but again, this shows a cultural bias on many poster's part.

The NRA is simply a national voice for a much HUGER group of people that are not members and never have been members. Most of these people do not hunt, but love to shoot.

There is nothing like getting a vintage M1 Garand out on a crisp morning and shooting huge 7 foot icicles off the 40 foot bluff walls of a local abandoned rock quarry. If you cannot grasp that, then there is the problem.

The NRA makes a nice boogeyman for clueless people but is not the problem or really that relevant...It's the unspoken majority of gun owners who silently agree with the NRA but you never know who they are...

And they are legion...

If I'm not mistaken, would be banned in the new AWB.

M1 Garand clip is limited to 8 rounds, so I think it would still be ok. 20 round and 30 round magazines are normal for the M1 Carbine, so it would be banned.

Oddly, the M14 is not on the list of the banned in 1022. It's just an updated M1, but it normally has a 20 round magazine.

The M14 is capable of full automatic fire. Prohibitions against that weapon are covered under other U.S. Codes.

coming out of Springfield & Norinco

(by the way, none of the M14's I was issued could do full auto. No switch. The full-auto ones were rare & mostly unmanageable by the average soldier)

I think the desire to shoot things with guns is juvenile and regressive. I think people who like "shootin' stuff" are unhealthy.

I will never own a gun, never shoot a gun, and refuse to hang out with people who enjoy guns.

But the government should never, ever try to pass a law confiscating guns (not that one was ever proposed, but...), nor should there be a ban on them. You should be able to own whatever weaponry you think you need to sexually gratify yourself, or whatever the fuck happens to you when you shoot a gun.

Based on my experiences, very few.

Most people are poorly informed about what gun controls are in place now.

And without getting into specifics (i.e. what kinds of controls), the results are IMO meaningless.

Without a hint of validation other than he heard some people say..

Perhaps you're hearing things.

If it wasn't for the abortion lobby costing us the white house, the Assault Weapons ban would have not been allowed to expire!

When we abandon the issues that will NEVER have any traction like ABORTION, THEN we'll get support for our CORE ISSUES, like gun control, health care and Social Security (not to mention opposition to that damned WAR).

That was pretty clever.

I want you to take your stand for draconian gun control with someone whose female friend/relative/loved one DIED from a back alley abortion in a couple of years because you had to be a freaking PURIST.

It's happening AGAIN already, in countries other than this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3028820.stm

which is why we have hardly heard anything about it since we started having razor-thin elections. Even the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire with only a few token protests.

So.

We should just abandon our stand on gun control.

So we can get support for our "core" issues.

Tell that to Mrs. James Brady.

Tell that to all the mothers whose children have been killed -- right here in the USA -- by guns.

"Core Issues" -- indeed!

You seem to want to make gun control like gay rights -- ANOTHER issue for Democrats to abandon for EXPEDIENCY.

After we abandon all those peripheral issues, we won't have ANY CORE ISSUES left!

by around 500,000 votes.

He should have been President, with that I agree. In the future we need much more solid margins. We cannot afford to alienate millions of voters on this one.

because I didn't realize the incompetence and right wing appointments made by the white house the last 6 years were his.

Oh wait -- he didn't win. If not for gun control, the supremes wouldn't have had the ability to sway the election (TN would have gone for Gore). Clinton and Gore both knew it when it passed.

FLORIDA would have been irrelevant.

more than likely -- kerry won.

so by your reasoning gun control won.

one that the Dems should drop like a hot moldy maggot-filled potato.

We do lose votes because of it. And it doesn't matter at this point what the Dems have *really* done for gun control; the meme is out there that dems want to take all guns away. And until we get this country back on its feet, we need to shut the fuck up about guns. Every time we make a little progress with the middle and the conservatives, some Dem jackass brings up gun control, and then the headway we made disappears.

It should be on the democratic platform until 2012 that the word "gun" will never be uttered by any dem for any reason whatsoever, unless they've actually gone out hunting and are talking about how much they enjoy it.

Give it a rest, people. Gun Control is a loser issue, it's too divisive, it's not worth fighting about, and it's costing us votes. Other things are worth fighting and losing votes for: women's rights, abortion, industrial regulation, the environement, health care, our natural resources and national parks, and fixing up our deteriorating infrastructure.

On the list of things that are worth worrying about, "guns" comes in at about number 72,000.

In that case, absolutely nothing you can say has any credibility for me. Nothing. On a day when misogyny on the Supreme Court runs at peak level, in a week still fresh from the incredibly misogyny and racism of a Don Imus, this is just another kick in the stomach for me.

You're going on ignore.

I'm getting very bored with people who cut off their nose to spite their face. I was a NOW member likely before you were born.

I'll probably say "nuts" or "balls" at some point in the next few months, so I'd like to just get this out of the way early.

:crazy:

I have no desire to have a gun, shoot a gun, or hang around with people who are into guns at this stage of my life. I also grew up knowing people who came from families who hunted and it was just a part of their lives and culture. (I could sidetrack into how hunting is more humane than commercial agriculture, but that's a sidetrack.) I happen to believe the gun violence that occurs isn't as much about the guns, but about things very wrong in our collective culture.

Gun control is not worth giving up my rights as a women, having leaders that have about zero insight in terms of foreign policy (ok, bloodbath in terms of foreign policy), and an economy in the shithole.

Most Dems talk about raising taxes for "the top 1%" but the problem is 30% of Americans think they are in the top 1% (no link, just my hunch).

I agree with most of what you are saying about guns.

Richardson would probably be the candidate that could win over the most of the guns and taxes voters (since he was able to accomplish a lot in NM without raising taxes, gun owners seem to like him even though he isn't a raving gun nut) though OBVIOUSLY there are many of these voters that will NEVER vote Dem.