Well all the talk has made it too the NRA...

[virginia mountainman]

Many of you cheering for "confiscation" you are just playing into the NRA's hands.. Congratulations.. This is going to be an interesting election year

You just proved them right

[onehandle]

1. NRA Cheerleading for Republicans at Democratic Underground.

Lovely.

[leftofcool]

2. Oh for crying out loud!

The NRA would be saying this if we were talking about simple background checks! Every time the subject of any type of gun control comes up the NRA scares the shit out of their members by saying libruls want to confiscate their guns.

[branford]

13. Except we're not just talking about "simple background checks."

The discussion is actually about matters like bans and confiscations, or are the President and Clinton lying when they state that they want to model gun control after Australia?

If you don't want the NRA to be right, don't do exactly what they accuse you of doing.

[leftofcool]

22. I don't give a fuck what the NRA thinks!

[virginia mountainman]

25. But you better give a fuck what the general public does...

They have spoken many many times in the past on this subject....Be wise to listen to them..

[rockfordfile]

29. The general public is not the nra

[GGJohn]

33. No shit.

But the general public will read what the fucking NYT wrote and get firearm owners fired up and to the polls.
Best to remember what happened in 94.

[rockfordfile]

50. Not all firearm owners care what the nra has to say.

I'm a firearm owner. I could give a rats ass what the extremist group the nra says.

I think most firearm owners are tired of the nra crap.

[GGJohn]

55. 80-100 million firearm owners in this country,

you'd better care about getting firearm owners fired up and to the polls.

Remember, according to many here, it's mostly RWNJ that own firearms and I also urge you to remember what happened in 94.

[Snobblevitch]

118. In Minnesota, a lightweight republican

was elected to the U.S. Senate because of gun control. The DFL candidate said she was in favor of the AWB and ban on the sale of new 'high' capacity magazines. Fortunately, he was defeated by our now Minnesota governor in the 2000 election.

The Minnesota 8th (NE MN) went for the republican in a distict that was previously dominated by democrats.

[Jim Beard]

157. I own STANDARD guns - Low bullet load and shoulder fire rifles.

and I'm not worried about what the Democrats are proposing. I live in God and Gun Texas, and what Obama will not change the vote one damn bit from what it has previously been.

Wasn't the 1994 election about Taxes?

[GGJohn]

160. Not according to Pres. Clinton.

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

[Jim Beard]

166. BTW, that "Intelligent god and guns Texas district" later elected Steve Stockman.

[MineralMan]

203. Yes, and I'm one of them. None of mine

are semi-auto, military-style weapons, either. I also don't support anything having to do with the NRA, which has evolved into a right-wing hate group. People who support the NRA's tactics of threatening people to get their way are people I oppose entirely. I don't need any "warnings" about how the NRA feels about some newspaper editorial.

Screw the NRA and those who use their tactics to attempt to influence my vote or the votes of others.

[GGJohn]

204. I'm not attempting to influence anyones vote,

I'm just saying it was not a very good strategy on the NYT's part to rile up firearm owners who are known to GOTV and to remind people of what happened in 94.
That's all.
I'm a long time firearm owner also and I plan to vote for the Democratic Party nominee, no matter who it is, but you can bet all the RWNJ will come out and vote if this nonsense talk of bans and confiscations keeps up.

[MineralMan]

205. Here's the deal: Get busy with GOTV work to get more Democrats

to the polls, if that's your concern. The NRA uses vague threats to stimulate voters. How about you and the rest of us using actual hope and plans for change to do that?

As far as I'm concerned, the NRA and other right-wing firearms organizations are a major part of the problem with firearms we currently have in this country. Like you, I have owned firearms all my adult life. I used to hunt with them. I no longer hunt, but they're still in my home. I understand people's need for self-defense, too.

Firearms and ammunition need regulation. That's very obvious just now. It has been obvious for years. I find it alarming that I, or any other non-felon and everyone else who has not been hospitalized for mental disorders can walk into the local Fleet and Farm store or any sporting goods store, hand over their credit card and walk out with any long gun that store sells. They can also buy as much ammunition for that or any other firearm they own as the store has in stock.

I find that alarming, to say the least. I don't like it one damned bit. I want better controls over firearms and ammo, along with modifications that, psychologically, turn some rifle patterned after a military assault rifle into something that looks and feels just like one, missing only the select fire lever and function. I don't want "tactical" to be the operant word used to sell those accessories.

Yes, I own firearms. I could use them for defensive purposes, too. The 12 ga. Remington pump-action shotgun leaning inside my closet has five rounds of 00 in the magazine and the action is already released. In the extremely unlikely event that someone was breaking into my home in the middle of the night, it might save my life and my wife's. It's an ideal defensive weapon for that rare situation.

I have no desire or need, though, to carry a firearm around as I go about my normal affairs, though. I know the odds of ever having a need for such a thing, and I'm not concerned.

I specifically do not need a military-looking semi-auto rifle equipped with high capacity magazines. I have a .30-06 scoped rifle locked in a gun cabinet, just in case I ever decide to go deer hunting again. It's based on an old Springfield military action. I doubt I will ever fire it again, but I have 20 rounds available for it, just in case this country is invaded and a need for a sniper rifle exists. I sort of doubt it will be needed for that purpose, though.

I have an expert marksman ribbon from the USAF, earned by firing a perfect score with an M-16 in basic training. I can't imagine why I'd want a civilian version of that rifle. I can't think of any useful function for it. I don't feel the need to own a quasi-military firearm for any reason at all. If I did own one, I certainly wouldn't dress it up with "tactical" accessories to make it look more military or be capable of firing more rounds than the standard magazine holds. Useless waste of money, it seems to me. I don't have fantasies of being some sort of super soldier. I'm not interested.

You may have other ideas. I don't give a damn, frankly. Others (not you, of course) might enjoy the super soldier fantasy. Those folks can kiss my grits. I don't like people with war fantasies. Not one bit, and I'd rather they weren't armed in that way. I don't know them, and have no idea of their mental stability or lack of same.

The NRA can threaten and warn all it likes. My opinion remains the same. We need better firearms controls. Period.

[GGJohn]

207. Agree with just about every thing you say here,

except that I do own an AR-10 chambered in .308 with an AZ compliant 5 roung mag for hunting deer/elk, I had a custom upper made for it chambered in .223 for smaller game and predators in our neck of the woods.

Like you, I have no desire to be a super soldier, been there, done that, no more.

Anyone with war fantasies are nothing more than wanna be warriors with visions of some sort of glory, someone who's never seen death close up and personal.

I plan to urge all my friends and family to GOTV for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is, anything less would be gross negligence on my part.

You have a good day my friend.

[Hoyt]

136. Why don't you stand up in your area of the country and say you've seen the ight and will destroy you

stockpile of gunz and ammo. Quit telling the majority of citizens to cowtow to gunslingers.

[GGJohn]

141. My firearms have never injured another human being, so I think I'll pass on your

advice.

[Hoyt]

155. Your beliefs on gunz and gunners have hurt people. Folks like you sponsored Zman

for all practical purposes.

[GGJohn]

158. LOL.

You really are getting more and more ridiculous on the firearm issue every day.

[Jim Beard]

170. Conservatives are on the wrong side of this as they

were on Nuclear arms reduction with the Soviets. Smarter people tromped the ignoramuses that want more nuclear weapons. May the ignorant ones sleep in the ant beds.

[GGJohn]

172. Yet they keep winning elections,

[CajunBlazer]

165. And here you are again!

Is this the only kind of discussion you get into?

[GGJohn]

171. And here you are also,

the one who believes in the Bush era secret govt lists, you know, the ones that the ACLU, the NRA, and just about every other civil rights org are opposed to.

Wanna get into a pissing match? Let's have at it.

[CajunBlazer]

198. That would be like getting into a butt kicking match with a one legged man

[GGJohn]

199. You only have one leg?

My condolences.

[branford]

47. You (and I) don't necessarily matter.

However, many millions of voters, Democratic, Republican and independent, care very much about the firearm issue, often take their cues from the NRA, and always vote (and get all their friends and family to vote). These people also often reside in some of the most politically contested, and very important, states.

Have you seen the political maps recently? The Republicans control the Senate, have their largest majority in the House in generations, and control a clear majority of state legislatures and goverorships. It makes the passage and implementation of progressive policies all but impossible. If you want to change this unfortunate political state of affairs, you better "give a fuck" about what groups like the NRA are advocating.

[rockfordfile]

52. yeah the nra is employing a terrorist tactic

Not surprised.

[virginia mountainman]

54. What?!? HOW?!!?

By posting what the NYT actually said?? Have you been paying attention at all? This is so bad it's making me blush with embarrassment.

[GGJohn]

56. So if I post what the NYT wrote today,

I'm employing terrorist tactics?

[branford]

60. You're hatred of the NRA does not change the political realty (nor their rights under the 1A).

I and most others refuse to bury our heads in the sand while Democrats lose elections and progressive policies become harder and harder to achieve.

[virginia mountainman]

79. yep, hit the nail on the head with that one. EOM

[840high]

113. ...+1

[Duckhunter935]

66. how?

By quoting an oped by the NYT?

[rockfordfile]

26. I don't care what the right wing extremist group like the nra says

[6000eliot]

77. Why do people need fucking assault weapons?

Ban them and confiscate them. Fucking right!

[branford]

94. What you feel people "need" is irrelevant.

Despite the fact that AWB's have been generally proven to have no effect on crime or gun deaths (and with respect to the recent shooting in San Bernadino, CA already had a strict AWB), if you want to ban and confiscate "assault weapond," you are free to advocate and lobby as much as you wish.

However, whether you like it or not, strict gun control, no less anything with the words "ban" or "confiscate," has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a big fat political loser for the Democratic Party, and thus all progressive priorities, to say nothing of problems with the constitutionality of many of these proposals and the abject lack of political support for such policies.

[GGJohn]

101. It's not up to you to decide what I need or want.

Keep calling for bans and confiscation and be prepared to lose next Nov.

[Jim Beard]

159. You mean a landslide for Donald Trump.

Last time I looked, there are more people in the cities than in the red god and guns area.

[GGJohn]

161. Last time I looked, the voter turnout for the cities are not as great as the urban

and rural areas.

[Duckhunter935]

102. what's an assault weapon

The terrorists in SB did not have any as they are outlawed in California. The Sandy Hook murderer did not have one as the AWB was still in effect in Connecticut.

[Eleanors38]

36. left, have you noticed that the controller/banners are now talking "confiscation"...

in these threads? Seems to be an escalation in the arm chair rhetoric, and maybe a little lurid attraction to the prospect off kicked-in doors. Hell, there's even less talk about Penis© and Ammosexuals this time around.

[virginia mountainman]

61. Yep, EOM.....

[patsimp]

182. exactly - there are no more whiny, scared, emotional hypocrites than the nra.

[linuxman]

3. Well the important thing is that people talked tough and ruffled gun owners.

I mean, who could have predicted talk of a ban motivating NRA rebuttals and increased support?

[Chan790]

6. Don't give a fuck.

Want real permanent non-reversible action. Willing to pay for it at the ballot box.

Don't give a fantastic flying fanny fuck on Friday if it ruffles gun owners or draws rebuttals from the NRA.

[linuxman]

8. Lol, clearly.

Made a lot of progress these past 30 years, have you?

Keep on keeping on.

[virginia mountainman]

9. Ok, you want to be a regional party?

Fine, don't drag me down with you.

[Eleanors38]

24. We know you don't.

[branford]

31. "Non-reversible action?" What the heck does that mean?

Any law, even the constitution can be changed, and even changed back again, just like Prohibition.

However, considering UBC's couldn't pass a Democratic Senate, despite claims of 90% public support, pictures of dead children, and the Democratic president practically begging, no demonstrable gun control, no less something like repealing the 2A, is forthcoming any time soon.

More importantly, advocating draconian gun control has electoral consequences, and they're usually very bad for Democrats, both nationally and at the state and local levels. For instance, Clinton himself attributes losing Congress to the Republicans because of the Assault Weapons Ban, and Al Gore is believed to have lost his home state in the presidential election over the issue, all this when gun control was more popular in the 1990's. If Gore won TN, FL would have been irrelevant, and Bush would never have been president! Gun control is an electoral loser, and its advocacy risks the entire of the progressive agenda.

You are free to not to "give a fantastic flying fanny fuck on Friday if it ruffles gun owners or draws rebuttals from the NRA," but I and many other Democrats most certainly do. Whether you like it or not, these people and their supporters get out and vote, and I would like our Party to keep the presidency, retake the House, Senate, and majority of state governments, and maybe start implementing liberal policy.

[Chan790]

48. Holding offices is meaningless if we don't do something with them when we have them.

Things like combat the epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence in America.

Now is the time. Not after the next time or when it won't cost us offices in the South. Now. Now we want gun control. We tried it your way and the NRA's way. It didn't work, tough shit, time to try actually doing something, even if it makes the gun-hugging weenies cry.

[GGJohn]

63. Yeah, great fucking strategy,

let's piss off the firearm owners who'll go to the polls and elect a repuke, say goodbye to the ACA, women's reproductive rights, climate change remedies, more endless wars, etc.
Yeah, that's the ticket.

[virginia mountainman]

64. You do realize in the last election cycle.

NRA backed candidates won over 90% of their races...

[branford]

74. Your "we" is far smaller and far less motivated to vote on the issue that you want and suggest.

Also, take a look at some of the political maps. Gun control costs us elections in far more than the South.

I would additionally remind you that all crime, including gun violence. has been nearly halved in the last couple of decades, all while many millions of more firearms entered circulation and gun laws have largely liberalized across most of the country. Your perception is not reality.

[virginia mountainman]

39. That add isn't even a rebuttal..

It is just pointing out what they are saying.

[linuxman]

68. Maybe not the right word,

But I'm on a tablet, it's the end of shift, and I'm tired.

[virginia mountainman]

73. Actually I misplaced a post...

I hate posting from tablets and smartphones ..

[Squinch]

4. Oh, NO! The NRA found out that some people don't like weekly massacres! We're in TROUBLE!

[Thinkingabout]

5. This is an example of the NRA pushing the confication. It is one of their

Scare tactics. What in the hell is the NRA doing to curb gun violence?

[virginia mountainman]

7. How is it a scare tactic?

When the New York Times actually said that.

[Duckhunter935]

11. and many here

I guess some are blind

[Thinkingabout]

14. Are you thinking they are going yo confiscated your guns. If this is an ad

In the times it has NRA in the ad. It does not mean the times said but run an ad for NRA. Difference.

[virginia mountainman]

23. But, you fail to grasp..

They are ONLY POINTING OUT WHAT THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID ON SUNDAY.... They DID say it, go to their website and read it for yourself.

How is repeating, or pointing out what someone actually said (or printed) is a scare tactic? You have totally lost me on this one.

[Thinkingabout]

75. I looked at the photo provided in the OP, it is an ad, has NRS at the bottom

An ad is just an ad, written and agreed by NRA for publishing in the Times. It does not mean the Times is saying this, it is the NRA.
I heard after Obama was elected "they gonna take your guns away". I worked for the census in 2000, went to one home to collect information, a friend visiting told homeowner not to give the information because "they gonna take your guns away". This was fifteen years ago. This ad is to scare some in order to collect more money and get some to buy more guns. The NRA doesn't care about people, just send them more money and get them to buy more guns.

[virginia mountainman]

78. Ahh.... NO they did not pay NYT, please read this link to the NYT, so you can read it for yourself..

And you will find this direct quote in it...

it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0

[Thinkingabout]

87. Your link is an editorial, I read it and at the top it said editorial.

[JonLeibowitz]

142. So what? It is the opinion of the editorial board, apparently.

[GGJohn]

149. It's a big deal,

it'll stoke the fears of firearm owners and motivate them to go out and vote, remember what happened in 94.

[JonLeibowitz]

153. I am in full agreement with you. I was pointing out that it being an editorial

doesn't discount its importance to the gun lobby, as Thinkingabout was trying to do.

The NRA, in this particular case, I happen to agree with.

[GGJohn]

163. Ahh, my bad.

I read your post wrong.
My apology.

[rockfordfile]

32. The nra is nothing more now but a far right extremist group.

[GGJohn]

38. What you're failing to grasp is the NRA is just repeating

what the fucking NYT wrote.

[rockfordfile]

59. They are still a right wing extremist group.

Just as bad as the climate change deniers or the conservative christians who get upset for the fact that they can't pray during class time in a public school.

The nra is nothing more than a 700 club for right wing idiots.

[GGJohn]

69. I never said otherwise, but that doesn't change the fact that this isn't an NRA

talking point, it's what the NYT actually wrote.

[Thinkingabout]

90. An editorial.

[GGJohn]

93. It doesn't matter,

it's on the front page for all to see and the NYT is still widely read.
Why give firearm owners more incentive to come out and vote?
It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Thinkingabout]

98. See, just more scare tactics. What I did not see was a suggestion for a solution, wonder why

This was missing.

[GGJohn]

104. What scare tactics?

IT'S WHAT THE NYT PRINTED ON THEIR FRONT PAGE.

If you think the American people will ever agree to bans and confiscation, then I can't help you.

[branford]

99. The NYT is considered by some to be the foremost newspaper in the world,

and often the voice of or reflective of liberals and Democratic and progressive policies.

If the NYT is effectively advocating for the confiscation of firearms, why shouldn't people believe that they, and many other liberals. agree with what the Times actually wrote?

Referencing the fact that it was an editorial changes nothing, and certainly not the accuracy of the NRA's allegations.

[Thinkingabout]

106. I could write an editorial.

[branford]

112. I think you're missing the point.

The Times wrote an editorial advocating effective confiscation of guns, this opinion is considered to be reflective many other liberals and much of the Democratic Party, and the NRA correctly and contextually quoting the piece.

You, too, could indeed write an editorial, but that's immaterial. You're not the "Paper of Record," and your advocacy is not considered to represent much of the left of the political spectrum.

The Times (and anyone else) is certainly entitled to their opinions. It does not, however, protect them from the political and electoral fallout of such opinions and advocacy.

[LiberalElite]

10. Then... THEN they'll only be left with THE LEAST POPULAR FIREARMS!!!!!!!!

Oh NOOES!

[canosoviejo]

12. One or two more attacks on Innocent people

at the correct timing and it could cost the "Democratic" party the election. Pretty sad to lose an election and all that goes with it on one issue...

*Edit* fixed to "Democratic"

[MohRokTah]

17. Yep.

And they do it because "fuck this shit".

And then , they'll whine for the next two generations as a radical right wing court destroys every little bit of progress we've made.

[rockfordfile]

35. It's Democratic party

go back to fox news. The nra is more than responsible for innocent people being murdered by guns.

[Duckhunter935]

41. it's "democratic"

I hope that was just a mistake

[Skittles]

95. LOL, DEMOCRAT PARTY

could you BE any more fucking obvious?

[951-Riverside]

15. Hey NRA ...yes, from your cold dead hands if you so desire

Those guns will be taken eventually. Its not going to happen today, tomorrow, a week from now maybe not even 5 years from now but they will be taken, its just a matter of how many innocents you're willing to ignore for the sake of your stupid hobby.

There was a time when people thought that slavery would never end, that women would never vote, that the civil rights act would never pass, that gays would never have the right to marry, that the confederate flag would never be taken down from the South Carolina statehouse but it happened. Progressive ideals always win in the end.

To quote Former Lt Governor of California Gavin Newsom " It's going to happen, whether you like it or not"

you are just playing into the NRA's hands.. Congratulations

The only thing they have to offer is tools of death, destruction and mayhem. That's not much of a hand and eventually the American people are going to get sick of it. Again, not today, not tomorrow, not a week from now, maybe not even 5 years but the NRA's reign of death and horror will end.

[virginia mountainman]

57. Yep Regional party..

Almost completely powerless except for the Northeast, Chicago, and California...

[etherealtruth]

16. Why post right wing NRA trash here?

[GGJohn]

21. The fucking NY Times said exactly what the NRA is reporting,

how is that RW NRA trash?
They're just repeating what the editorial board on the NYT's editorial page.

[etherealtruth]

34. The NRA is right wing trash

Posting an NRA meme is posting right wing trash (post the editorial over and over .... just leve the right wing hate groups out of t)

The NY times editorial was magnificent and does need to be read .... I dont need to have NRA memes (right wing trash) posted on a reportedly progressive board

[GGJohn]

42. Yes they are,

but that doesn't change the fact that they're just repeating what the fucking NYT said, and if you think it won't fire up firearm owners, I urge you to remember what happened in 94.

[etherealtruth]

67. My objection is the meme (from the NRA)

I am actually really glad to see that comment from you r/t the NRA .... though we will never agree on guns it is good to know that you don't support a group that harnesses hatred and bigotry to promote their cause (in addition to the anti-democrat garbage)

[GGJohn]

108. I loath the NRA and it's board members,

I actually belong to The Liberal Gun Club.

[rockfordfile]

40. Who will you vote for in 2016?

[GGJohn]

46. What the fuck does that have to do with this thread,

but I'll give you a free clue, look at my sig line.

[rockfordfile]

65. who will you vote for in 2016 Presidential election?

[GGJohn]

70. Are you failing to see?

I said look at my sig line for your free clue.

[Eleanors38]

28. etheral, are you saying the NYT is "trash?" I'm surprised.

[etherealtruth]

30. No I am saying the NRA is right wing trash and has NO plce here

....but, then again you knew that (or I had given you more credit thAn you deserved)

[Eleanors38]

80. Everbody at some time links, quotes, cites RW trash...

Know thine enemy, you know?

But some want to hide it when happens to be the.... Truth. Sorry, no censorship and no tear' watch lists.

[onecaliberal]

18. Fuck the NRA and their congressional supporters.

[Skittles]

116. AND their DU supporters

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

131. +1

n/t

[Squinch]

208. Skittles, as always, hits the nail on the head.

[yallerdawg]

19. "Confiscation"? Bullshit.

They just make up shit.

The NRA has no credibility. They are a sales tool of gun manufacturers and conservative politicians.

Page One NY Times Editorial

[virginia mountainman]

27. From your link..

it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Yep, the NRA is telling the truth on that one....

[rockfordfile]

43. So you agree that the nra hates Americans

[virginia mountainman]

51. uhh....what?

Come ask me that again, after you study the thread at hand.

[rockfordfile]

72. The nra doesn't want anything done

They could careless as long they pump guns into the America public.

This is a nra ad about themselves not the American people.

The nra when it comes down to it hates the American people.

[virginia mountainman]

76. Then why do they win

over 90% of the elections they back?? Is it because they hate America???

[Skittles]

81. because fear is easier to instill into very stupid people

[virginia mountainman]

85. yea, look at all the confiscation talk around here lately..SHEESH..

[Skittles]

86. there's always extremists

the problem with gun humping extremists is they have made GUN MASSACRES THE NEW NORM IN AMERICA

rational people are increasingly fed up with gun humping COWARDS

[branford]

107. Extremists?

Both the president and Clinton, and dozens here on DU, have explicitly and proudly cited Australia as an appropriate model for gun control in the USA. To the extent you might not be aware, their "involuntary buyback" of firearms and accompanying bans is precisely the type of policies the NRA and others are complaining about?

Unless you're suggesting that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are "extremists," if you don't people want be to be afraid of confiscation policies and act accordingly, I suggest out Party leadership stop openly advocating them as good ideas. Similarly, if people actually believe what the president and others say, they're not "stupid," they're simply holding them to their word.

[Duckhunter935]

44. yep, confiscation

You seem to be wrong

[yallerdawg]

91. Where is "confiscation"?

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

"Give them up for the good of our fellow citizens" is not confiscation

Confiscation means "seizure by the government" - a far cry from "give them up."

But of course the purpose is to gin-up the fear of the "guv'mint seizing our guns"! The NRA does this as a matter of routine.

And here it is at DU!

[Duckhunter935]

100. and when nobody "gives" them up?

Sounds to me, the "give them up" is non- negotiable,

[virginia mountainman]

103. REALLY????????? I MEAN REALLY?????????????????????

require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up

Sounds like confiscation to me, and most everyone else I would bet.

[yallerdawg]

110. This is the New York Times editorial page!

They expressed a positive hope in the face of relentless mass killings using weapons which serve no other purpose!

And you have a problem with this? It's a scary "seizure by the government"? From a newspaper editor?

This is absurd.

[branford]

115. Sigh...

You're agreement with the editorial or policies does not change the fact that the NYT's is indeed suggesting confiscation, hence the word "require," or more importantly, the undeniable American reality that anything that even remotely smells of advocacy of such a policy is generally considered a red hot electoral loser and political suicide for most elected representatives who suggests it.

[GGJohn]

111. Maybe you missed the word "require" to give them up.

That's confiscation pure and simple.

[yallerdawg]

114. Combat weapons used to commit mass murder - no problem.

If we agree that we will not have these guns available to the American civilian population - if we agree to that as the editorial suggests, that is now "confiscation"? That would be the Bigger Problem?

[GGJohn]

124. These are not combat weapons,

these are semi auto rifles, they operate the same exact way as my .22 semi auto rifle.

No military in the world uses semi auto weapons as their main battle rifles.

Please learn what the hell you're talking about.

[Duckhunter935]

127. none of my AR pattern weapons

Are combat weapons. They are civilian semi-automatics. My bolt actions are indeed military battle rifles.

[yallerdawg]

167. Your saying you have the assault weapons...

used in San Bernardino, and everyone except documented mentally ill should have at least one. This is your basic home defense weapon 'cause you never know?

An AR-15 was used to kill nine people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon in October.

It was also the weapon used in the murders of 12 people at a Colorado movie theater in 2012.

And an AR-15 was used in the 2012 murders of 20 first graders and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut.

*****

Lightweight and easy to master with about 30 minutes of instruction, the AR-15 was invented in 1959 for the military, but was modified for civilian use beginning in 1963.

*****

Civilian use of the weapon is an abiding issue though.

There once was a nationwide ban on such assault weapons, imposed in 1994 following a number of mass shootings in the '80s and '90s

Assault weapon is common denominator in mass shootings

[Duckhunter935]

197. those are not assault weapons as they

Were purchased in California that has an assault weapons ban. See how stupid cosmetic features bans are now. Mine that I use for shooting paper plates at the range I guess could be called assault weapons as they have bayonet lugs but only one has an adjustable stock. They do have pistol grips and I use 20 round magazines, do not care for bigger ones. I do not own them for self defence and they are normally locked in my safe and it would take to long to get then if my home was ever invaded.

[spanone]

20. FUCK the nra

[Eleanors38]

62. "No one's trying to take your guns away."

And a hippo's backside surface burst won't sling shit for sixty feet!

Naw, unfortunately the NRA got it right, but your commitment to doctrine, narrative and orthodoxy may blind you to that fact. But hopefully you aren't blinded to the fact that the NYT's measure of courage was to use the 5th Amendment as a shield to the above-referenced bowel evacuation; I mean, who'd thunk it was playing footsie with Bush-Cheney all these years?

A serious question I don't really have the answer to:

Do you think The NYT (and lesser components of MSM'S anti-gun agitprop) will touch off another outpouring of hundreds of thousands at gun shows as happened three years ago?

[spanone]

71. like i said FUCK the nra

[branford]

84. With erudite political commentary like that, I cannot fathom why gun control is a political loser?

You can "Fuck the NRA" as much as you wish, but whether you like it or not, the positions of most gun owners and gun rights advocates, including the NRA, matter very much. The NRA is fantastic at getting people to the ballot box, particularly in contested elections, and gun control is a political loser.

[spanone]

109. last time i'm saying it FUCK THE NRA. got it?

[branford]

119. Oh, I got, and so do a lot of other voters across the country.

How's that gun control working out in Congress?

[spanone]

138. with the nra owning most of our congress critters, you have nothing to worry about

[NCTraveler]

37. Proved they are right about what? Nt

[virginia mountainman]

49. They years of "they are coming after your guns"...

Now we have mainstream politicians calling for it... And the New York Times posted an op-ed on the front page saying:

it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

All the easily dismissed talk of "there coming for your gunz" is now not so easily dismissed, when a paper like the NYT, and the comments on the campaign trail about the "Australian solution" are making the news.

Well, lets just say, I expect some extremely hard hitting ads from the NRA this election season, showcasing the Democratic Candidates in their own words...

[beevul]

45. I don't know about you, but I saw this coming.

I pity the fools that didn't. Their idiocy is going to cost everyone dearly in the electoral sense.

[angrychair]

53. Do. Not. Care.

We have tried it your way VM, the do nothing, pray for the victims, buy more guns bullshit for decades.
Cars kill people. We mitigate that risk by requiring seatbelts, insurance and airbags among hundreds of other safety features. We do this to make a product that was created for transportation of people and goods.We do almost nothing to control and mitigate risk for a product that was created for the sole purpose to kill. For good or bad reasons, the firearm was not created for target practice or as custom jewelry to wear around your hip. It was created to kill.

No other constitutional freedom is treated with so little legal underpinnings to balance the right given against the greater good.
The freedom of speech doesnt give me the right to yell "fire" in a movie theater if there is no fire.
Why does the right to own a weapon translate into your right to shoot and kill me because you think I might hurt you?

Me and billions of human beings, manage to go our whole lives never needing or wanting a gun.
Grow up and realize the world around you is not a "B" western.

[virginia mountainman]

58. No you never tried it my way...

My way would have worked.. And had been offered up many times in the fine forum....

But since gun control advocates do not want a discussion, they only want to dictate terms. They get treated as such.

[angrychair]

89. Maybe you have ideas

Maybe some see those ideas as reasonable.

Nothing will change the fact that when people like you walk around with a gun, in a public space, you are asking me to trust you, a stranger, that you won't kill me or someone I care about with it. That is a hell of a lot of trust. You can spare me the license and safety course as that does little to mitigate the risk I am beingcasked to have in stranger. A hard lesson on trust gone bad that mother of that 7 year old learned about recently.
I don't want to have to constantly have to wonder if that asshole walking into taco bell with a gun on his hip and a rifle over his shoulder is here to kill everyone or just a burrito. Or that if I look at him "funny" he won't decide to "fear for his life" and kill me.

That is a very tough sell.

[Skittles]

92. gun humpers are the last people who should have guns

their paranoia trumps any common sense

[yallerdawg]

96. But now if you had a gun...

bought a gun, wouldn't you feel much safer and live much more fearlessly?

What a world they want us to live in...

[Jim Beard]

177. The NRA refuses everything

and that is exactly why I switched to repealing or amending the 2nd amendment out. If the NRA wants to play hardball so can I. I have had enough and if you gun lovers think all Democrats are like the FOX News belittling of Allen Colmes, you have another thing coming. I farm and know that professional hunters can cull coyotes and wolves.

You country get all those LIBURAL farm subsidy checks can build a safe room when you are laying on your asses in the winter.

[virginia mountainman]

178. You need to be careful who you play hardball with..

They may turn the table, and dominate the issue..When will the "hardball" start?

[GGJohn]

83. You damn well better care,

I urge you to remember what happened in 94.

[PowerToThePeople]

82. Ban all guns! n/t

[DLevine]

88. Fuck the NRA.

I don't give a fuck about anything they say. Terrorist assholes.

[GGJohn]

123. They're NOT saying this

it's the NYT that is.

[DLevine]

129. The NRA is spinning this.

They want people stupid enough to listen to them to think that EVERY gun will be confiscated if a Democrat is elected. If people in this country are dumb enough to elect another Republican, then I guess there is no hope for us. I stand by my principles, let the chips fall where they may.

[beevul]

97. I recommend bookmarking this thread...

I recommend bookmarking this thread, to see how many of these people that don't give a shit, start giving a shit in 2016 all of a sudden.

[virginia mountainman]

105. Yep...EOM

[Angel Martin]

145. and they call Republicans the stupid party...

SMH

[6000eliot]

150. Because a few gun nuts are going to swing the election.

They wouldn't have voted Democratic in the first place.

[GGJohn]

151. I strongly urge you to remember what happened in 94.

There is a distinct possibility that it could happen again.

[6000eliot]

152. Like chicken-shit Congresspeople and the media,

people in here are seriously overestimating the power of the NRA.

[GGJohn]

154. You are aware that this last election, 90% of NRA backed candidates won their races,

how is that not powerful?

Regardless, I'm not talking about NRA members, I'm talking about the other 80-100 million firearm owners in the country, think about that number, if even only 1/2 of those owners voted, that's 40-50 million voters.

[6000eliot]

156. In an election that was expected to swing Right in RW areas. Yes.

[Jim Beard]

173. Are these Carl Roves figures?

[GGJohn]

175. Ummm, no,

these are the final results.
I don't quote anything from Rove.

[rufus dog]

194. Why don't you closely look at those numbers you keep spouting off

Look at the candidates they support and the district/states where they had their "success."

Because it a bullshit stat thrown around by NRA supporters. Do the research, look at the races they truly impacted since 2000.

Look at the trend over they last twenty years and how they very carefully enter swing races, yet throw their support behind candidates who are safe bets.

One final thing to remember, ... THE NRA HAS BACKED THE LOSING CANDIDATE (POPULAR VOTE) IN FIVE OF THE LAST SIX PRESlIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

So they fail in that area 83% of the time.

[lancer78]

188. like the guy in the hbo show

"The newsroom" said in his opening speech, if liberals are so smart, why do they lose all the time?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

117. Gee, that's so sad that the NRA members are soiling their camouflage undies.

And doing so at the very thought they might have to give up their "most popular" toys.

[virginia mountainman]

120. Yea, that will show them, they won't even show up to vote now will they.

Looks like the NRA will need to give up it's 90+% win rate on election day..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

121. Will they still be throwing a tantrum?

[virginia mountainman]

132. Why would they throw a tantrum..

They tend to win...

[likesmountains 52]

140. Can you keep your guns, but drop your support of NRA?

Seriously, I believe that there are plenty of gun owners that do not support the NRA's agenda..are you one?

[virginia mountainman]

143. I don't support them.

But We do agree from time to time..

[likesmountains 52]

147. ok, but you seem to be pretty supportive in this thread..

Maybe you have answered this, but do you think people on the "no fly list" should be able to buy guns? Do you think every dude that shows up at a gun show should be able to buy whatever he wants?

[JonLeibowitz]

162. The no fly list is a bullshit reason to stop the purchase of a firearm.

It is completely unconstitutional btw, due process violations.

Not to mention that there have been people on the list who are certainly not terrorists.

[likesmountains 52]

168. you're right, let's just do nothing.

Sorry all you future dead, innocent people!

[lancer78]

189. the proposed

Changes is just mental masturbation. Makes you feel good but doesn't do anything.

[virginia mountainman]

164. The no fly list?

Yes... But before you go off on me, hear me out


The No-Fly list that the "average" person has no way of getting off of, or even knowing is they are on it, with zero judicial oversight? Some want to use these "secret" lists as a basis to deny a civil liberty?????

Progressives support this? remember, Senator Ted Kennedy was on the list at one time, because he was a high profile senator, he was able to get off of it, after several weeks, and making three PERSONAL phone calls to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge but what about the average person who wont have the Homeland Security Secretary's phone number?

Do we, really want to set the precedent that it is OK, to deny someone civil liberties because they "happen" to be on a super secret watch list, with no judicial oversight, and no way for the average person to get off of it? Or even know that they are on it in the first place?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/19/senator_on_terror_watch/

The ACLU's take on it...

https://www.aclu.org/news/court-rules-no-fly-list-process-unconstitutional-and-must-be-reformed

“For years, in the name of national security the government has argued for blanket secrecy and judicial deference to its profoundly unfair No Fly List procedures, and those arguments have now been resoundingly rejected by the court,” said ACLU National Security Project Director Hina Shamsi, one of the attorneys who argued the case.

“Our clients will finally get the due process to which they are entitled under the Constitution. This excellent decision also benefits other people wrongly stuck on the No Fly List, with the promise of a way out from a Kafkaesque bureaucracy causing them no end of grief and hardship.

No it has not been fixed yet. Before you support the use of Bush-Co's super secret terra watch list, to deny someone a civil liberty, understand that you are saying it is OK, to deny all civil liberties in the same manner. How would you like to wake up one day and be told that you have no civil liberties because you name appears on a secret list, and have zero recourse to take?

Add judicial oversight to the list, with a way for innocent people to clear their names, I can support it, until then, HELL NO.

[likesmountains 52]

169. ok, yes..don't want to upset anyone!

[branford]

125. Do you honestly believe that advocacy of an effective gun confiscation policy

has any chance of passage in Congress or most states (or surviving constitutional muster), and more importantly, it would actually be good for the electoral prospects of the vast majority of Democrats in federal or statewide elections?

Your elitist disdain for those purported camouflage-wearing, gun-toting rednecks notwithstanding, they and other gun rights supporters vote, and they do so with near religious zeal on the issue of gun control.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

126. We "elitists" also vote.

[sadoldgirl]

128. But do you live in purple and semi-rural state?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

195. I live in a semi-rural area of a blue state.

I don't drink cabernet, drive a BMW, or shop at Saks 5th Avenue.

I'm also the son of a man who was killed on purpose with a legal gun by a non-criminal.

[branford]

148. I'm aware of voting patterns.

In fact, as a born and bred progressive NYC attorney (and I've never owned any guns), I'm often wrongly perceived as the quintessential Northeastern, urban, elitist liberal. Heck, I wouldn't even know where to locally purchase "camouflage undies." I also routinely vote for anti-gun Democrats here in Manhattan, as it's never really an issue.

However, I am not so blind or willfully ignorant to not realize that in important and often purple states like FL, CO, OH, PA, NH, IA, etc., gun rights not only matter, elections can be decided on this one issue alone. Further, one does not insult or condescend to voters and expect to win.

Unlike some others here on DU, I similarly don't believe I'm any better than my American brethren, including a great many Democrats, who may engage in professions or hobbies that involve camouflage clothing and similar less urban pursuits. Our Democratic Big Tent better start serving more than Cabernet and quiche, or we'll quickly become a regional party, as suggested by current political maps.

[sadoldgirl]

122. I have warned of this before, but got the cold

shoulder. After the magazines were reduced from
30 t0 15 in Colorado, we lost immediately 3 Democrats
in the legislature. And that was by recall.

The rural population as well as gun lovers put this
kind of proposed restriction down as the first reason
for their votes.

Yes the NYT was utterly stupid to play into their
hands,otoh did it mean to do that? I don't know.

[Hoyt]

130. You gunners are the ones playing into their bloody hands, period.

[sadoldgirl]

134. Look I hate guns, but in my state ,which is purple,

a lot of even democrats will just vote against any
kind of restriction,that the NYT put out. In the city
they would vote for it, but the cities are not the
majority of the votes.

[Hoyt]

139. Then we need to encourage Democratic gun fancier-- not a big crowd in my opinion -- to do the right

thing. Again, I don't see a gun or two at home a problem.

[GGJohn]

144. Nobody cares what you think is ok,

it's up to each and every law abiding American citizen to decide what's right for them, you know, that freedom of choice thingy.

[sadoldgirl]

146. I agree with you, and this is where Bernie is

right. All the shouting will not help. All sides have to come
together to find some reasonable solutions. It has to be
from gun lovers as well as haters. I don't know whether
one can leave the NRA totally out, although I wished for
that. Getting a lot of national gun clubs and hunters,as
well as people, who detest guns,and star a quiet conversation
nationally. I don't see any other way.

[branford]

180. A perfect example is the recent gubernatorial election win of Democrat Jon Bel Edwards in LA.

I guarantee if he didn't support gun rights, he would would not be governor.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2015_LA_Gov_John_Bel_Edwards.htm

On Gun Control: I support gun rights, unlike national Democrats

Vitter went out of his way to tie state Rep. John Bel Edwards, the only major Democrat in the race, to President Barack Obama. Edwards responded that he differs from national Democrats on major issues, including his opposition to abortion and his support for gun rights. Edwards also confirmed to Vitter that he voted for Obama for president and then added, "but I have never voted for David Vitter." The small studio audience laughed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/john-edwards-claiming-win-over-david-vitter-in-louisiana-governors-race/2015/11/21/a583fc06-9070-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html

From the start of his run, Edwards knew any chance of victory hinged on distinguishing himself from the prevailing image of Democrats among voters. In meetings with small groups in rural parishes, he touted his opposition to abortion and strong support for gun ownership. He had fellow members of West Point class speak about his character and values.

[grntuscarora]

133. I no longer give a rat's ass what the NRA thinks about anything.

Yes, it'll be an interesting election year.

But bring it on.

[Renew Deal]

135. I think you are your ilk proved gun controllers right about the weapons and NRA

They are correct about the NRA and they are correct about the issue. Time to turn in the weapons of war.

[bowens43]

137. Confiscation IS what we need. Why not say it? Fuck the gun lovers.

take them by any means necessary , from their cold dead fingers??? Ok with me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

176. "(T)ake them by any means necessary" Let us know when you and/or your kids volunteer...

...to go door-to-door confiscating guns.

[Logical]

174. On their email alert list I assume?? Nt

[Photographer]

179. To vs. too

To is a versatile preposition. A few of its many definitions are (1) toward, (2) reaching as far as, and (3) until.1 Too is an adverb meaning (1) additionally, (2) excessively, (3) very, or (4) extremely.2 Whenever you’re in doubt about whether to use to or too, see if any of those synonyms of too (i.e., additionally, extremely, etc.) would work in its place. If none fits, then to is probably the word you’re looking for.

Usually when someone uses to in place of too or vice-versa, it is simply a typo or an error made in a careless moment, so let’s not be too hard on people who occasionally mix them up. None of us is immune to such mistakes. When the mixup is habitual, however, it is a problem. Most people who speak English as a first language master the distinction in primary school, so the mixup can make one look either poorly educated or like a very unpracticed writer, which can be devastating when it comes to college applications or job-application cover letters.
Examples
To

I am going to bed.

She turned to him and said hello.

The dictator was restored to power.

He pressed his face to the glass.

We stood face to face.

There were two men to every woman.

It’s now ten minutes to six.

I came to return this book.

When I came to, I had blood on my hand and everyone was looking at me.

I pushed the door to and shut off the lights.

Too

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

The sun was too bright, so I put on my shades.

The error was too glaring to ignore.

She wasn’t too pleased to see us again.

You will too clean your room!

I miss you, too.

[patsimp]

181. has the nra agreed to allow people to walk into their offices with loaded guns and whatever else the

NRA believes should be legal in other parts of the country?

[branford]

184. You can indeed carry firearms at the NRA headquarters,

so long as you otherwise comply with Virginia and federal law. Concealed carry is permitted by both employees and visitors. The headquarters even has a shooting range. Carrying is also permitted at NRA conventions and events, again as long as it complies with relevant law.

Your statement is a myth and a commonly propagated fallacy.

You are free to contact the NRA directly and inquire if you so desire.

There are many reasons to criticize the NRA, but they rarely involve hypocrisy when it comes to the ownership and carrying of firearms.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/nraban.asp

http://buzzpo.com/shannon-watts-caught-red-handed-lying-nra/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172739/-I-Called-the-NRA-Today-Oh-Boy

[patsimp]

187. thanks for the links - however

from your link:

"Which I did. I finally was connected to the public affairs department and spoke to a pleasant woman there. I told her my friend thought the NRA should allow visitor weapons, to be logically consistent, and that I disagreed, with the view that you can't always trust gun owners to act safely and that it would be dumb to assume visitors' goodwill. And that there was a six pack of beer riding on her answer. She told me that the security guards at the front desk were unarmed, but that visitors were not allowed to bring weapons into the building (except to their posh firing range, which has a separate entrance). Doesn't that leave the visitors at a bit of an disadvantage, I asked, and we had a bit of a chuckle about that. I was too chicken to ask her whether that policy was inconsistent with the NRA's present philosophy that seems to encourage shoot-outs.

So there you have it. The NRA staff is armed, while visitors are disarmed. "

[branford]

190. Sigh...

Last edited Mon Dec 7, 2015, 03:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Read all the links, and as I expressly encouraged, call or email the NRA yourself. You need not provide your identity to ask the questions, and you'll hardly be the first. At worst, the receptionist or pr rep will roll their eyes.

You can also do your own simple research. Just Google the issue. Both staff and visitors are permitted to conceal carry at the NRA headquarters in compliance with Virginia and federal law.

As I said, the NRA are many things, a lot of them not very good, but they are not hypocrites when it comes to the ownership, possession, and carrying of firearms.

I'm sorry if all this bursts your bubble. However, if you want to taken seriously, accuracy is paramount.

[Major Hogwash]

183. Good post. The NRA has helped many Republicans get elected to Congress over the last 35 years.

So, when people ignore the NRA's political clout, they are displaying their ignorance.

[branford]

185. The NRA has also supported a number of Democrats over the years.

The NRA cares about gun rights, nothing more. Sadly, our Party has turned this into partisan issue, and thus NRA and other gun rights advocacy has tremendously hurt the electoral prospect of Democrats across the nation.

For instance, John Bel Edwards, the new Democratic governor of Louisiana, was well liked by the NRA (93% Rating).

https://votesmart.org/candidate/66464/john-edwards?categoryId=37&type=V,S,R,E,F,P#.VmUPdfkrLIV

http://louisianademocrats.org/2015/11/11/fact-check-pro-vitter-superpac-lies-about-john-bel-edwards-oil-gas-record/

[krispos42]

186. In 2000, Bush the Lesser was selected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

He was able to get 271 electoral votes to Gore's 268. Bush was able to get that because a) Gore lost his home state, and b) the vote in Florida was close enough for Florida's Secretary of State/Bush's Florida campaign head AND Florida's Governor/Bush's older brother to steal it for him with a margin of less than 600 votes.

Bush and his adminstration, through gross incompetence (at minimum) fail to govern in an effective manner, resulting in terrorists able to successfully attack the U.S. on 9/11/01. The attack put Bush in a position to invade Iraq 18 months later. Iraq collapsed into civil war as Sunni and Shia factions faced off against each other as well as the U.S. military.

After the invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi government (including the military) was purged of members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, as they were deemed untrustworthy. Lack of effective, experienced leadership prolonged the insurgency in Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of dead people an ten times that displaced.

The military officers that were dismissed eventually joined an insurgent force which became knows as ISIL, which has done many terrible and inhumane things to very many hundreds of thousands of people over the past several years. Including the San Bernardino massacre several days ago.

The New York newspapers and many left-wing politicians immediately call for more gun control, as evidenced in the O.P.

The 1993 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and Gore's support for such things, is a large part of what made the election of 2000 go towards Bush. No FAWB, Gore wins his home state of Tennessee as well as Florida, 9/11 never happens, and life as we know it is generally better for just about everyone.


Stupid laws have serious consequences.

[virginia mountainman]

191. unfortunately for some, history began yesterday.

O well, what can we do?

[G_j]

192. unrec...

for promoting fear of the NRA.

[chowder66]

193. Boy howdy...the article talks about "those kind" "Certain kinds of weapons"....

"Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition."

Personally I think gun owners should voluntarily get rid of their guns...you know...quit them. It's better for everyone's health and probably better for everyone's state of mind.
And just think, if we get rid of some guns, the other neglected guns will get so much more love now!!! It's a win-win!!!

[mwrguy]

196. Ban every last one

[MineralMan]

200. What? Good. Let them worry.

Who cares what the NRA wants?

[MineralMan]

201. Well, I don't know, but it seems like you're bringing

the NRA talking points to DU. I tend to agree with the New York Times editorial, and I'm a firearms owner. You appear to agree with the NRA on this subject. I find that alarming. All three of the Democratic presidential candidates have said they want additional controls on military-style firearms. And, yes, I do know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto weapons.

I do not care how the NRA feels about the New York Times front page editorial or about any other opinion the NRA may hold. I find the NRA to be a right wing hate group these days. I'd prefer not to see positive threads about that organization here on DU. Of course, that's not up to me.

[LanternWaste]

202. Many people maintain the courage of their convictions regardless

"Many of you cheering for "confiscation" you are just playing into the NRA's hands.."

Many people maintain the courage of their convictions regardless of how it may be branded by idiotic gun-PACs into witless bumper-stickers.

[Logical]

206. So in your mind we never do anything to upset your favorite group because...

They will just use it to raise money?