Sportsmen for Kerry

[blm]

http://www.johnkerry.com/activists/sportsmen/

Working for Sensible Gun Safety


*Supports the Brady Bill & Mandatory Background Checks
*Will Work to Close the “Gun Show Loophole”
*Working Make Gun Locks Mandatory & Prevent Child Access to Guns
*Voted to End Unlicensed Sale of Guns on the Internet
*A Leader in Banning “Cop Killer Bullets” & Banning Large Capacity Clips


John Kerry Strongly Supports Sportsmen’s Rights to Hunt and Fish


*A Lifelong Hunter and Supports Sportsmen’s Rights
*Supports the Second Amendment & Will Defend Hunting Rights
*Supports Greater Land Conservation for Hunting and Fishing



Kerry Supports the 2nd Amendment & Will Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Kids & Criminals


*A Lifelong Hunter & Will Defend Hunting Rights
*Common Sense Gun Policies Include Background Checks on Criminals
*Strongly Supports the Second Amendment & Gun Owners Rights
*Worked With Law Enforcement Agencies to Ban Military Assault Weapons
*Will Work to Close the “Gun Show Loophole”

[KC21304]

1. Sounds very sensible to me.

Of course I never thought an AK-47 was hunter friendly.

[Frangible]

2. Ok, I've gotta nitpick

*Will Work to Close the “Gun Show Loophole”

The problem here is that it will also require all personal firearms transactions to go through a FFL. While I'm not opposed to it, I'm just saying it's a broader issue than gunshows alone.

*Working Make Gun Locks Mandatory & Prevent Child Access to Guns

I can't think of a single gun being sold that doesn't come with a gun lock, so I'm not sure how much benefit this will have.

The problem is gun locks only keep guns safe from very small children. Any teenager can hacksaw or drill through one in seconds.

You need a gunsafe to keep your guns safe, imo.

*Voted to End Unlicensed Sale of Guns on the Internet

How? They still have to go through a FFL to be sold legally. It's the same as mail order. If you mean black market gun sales, that's a whole nother bag of worms.

*A Leader in Banning “Cop Killer Bullets” & Banning Large Capacity Clips

Ah yes, the infamous teflon bullets that don't actually pierce armor (urban myth), and what exactly is a "clip"? Magazine, perhaps? That was part of the '94 AWB that had no effect in lowering crime.

*Worked With Law Enforcement Agencies to Ban Military Assault Weapons

None of the so-called "assault weapons" included in the '94 AWB were ever used by a military, so how are they "military assault weapons"?

Did he mean perhaps, "guns that look similar to what the military uses, but aren't actually automatic, and are semiautomatic like hunting rifles"?

The '94 AWB was purely cosmetic and according to a NIJ study did not lower crime. It did nothing to lower crime nor address the top 10 crime guns.

I agree with Kerry on some counts-- but others just seem kinda silly.

I don't see the point of gun control if it doesn't lower crime. :shrug: I do support gun control where it's effective, though. Kerry's views seem to be the same of most other candidates, and differs from Dean only on trigger locks / the "loophole".

Yet it doesn't stop him from blasting Dean about being pro-gun.

[KC21304]

3. You say the problem with gun locks

is they only keep guns safe from children who cannot hacksaw or drill through one. To me that would be a great accomplishment and surely not silly.

[Frangible]

4. no, that is an accomplishment

I just think that in a lot of cases people need a safe to keep their guns truly secure.

I'd be fine with mandating trigger locks be sold with all guns, but I just don't think that goes far enough in terms of responsibility if there are older children in the home.

[Romulus]

5. great post

I'm definitely not supporting Kerry now. Thank you for highlighting his true stand on the issue.

http://www.johnkerry.com/activists/sportsmen/gun_saftey.html#gs5

Voted to Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons in the United States – John Kerry strongly supports the current ban on assault weapons and voted to restrict the manufacturing, transfer or possession of these weapons in the United States—including AK-47’s and similar weapons used by terrorists in Afghanistan. Kerry voted for the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act” which banned military-style assault weapons.

NEWS FLASH* - the 1994 AWB does not affect the sale of full-auto AK-47's like those "used by terrorists in Afghanistan." God damn - why does that keep having to be repeated? If I wanted a real AK-47, and had the money, I could legally go out and buy one right now and/or after the renewal of any version of the AWB:eyes:

Voted to End Unlicensed Sale of Guns on the Internet – John Kerry voted to end the unlicensed sale of guns over the Internet. Kerry voted to force websites which are clearly designed to sell guns to be federally licensed and compliant with all related firearm laws. Often times, criminals and others not legally allowed to purchase guns will use the Internet and these websites to by-pass federal gun laws.

NEWS FLASH* - I bought my last handgun over the internet from a private seller, and per existing federal law I had to have the firearms shipped to a federally licensed firearms dealer, who had to run a background check on me before I could take it home. :eyes:

A Leader in Banning “Cop Killer Bullets” & Banning Large Capacity Clips – John Kerry is a national leader in promoting sensible oversight of ammunition sales and favors banning large-capacity ammunition clips which have no sporting value yet risk the lives of police officers and average people from the criminals that wish them harm. . . .Kerry also voted to ban large capacity ammunition clips and voted to protect these military-style weapons which are only meant to kill people.

NEWS FLASH* - Firearms are not always purchased for their "sporting value." And, gosh, believe it or not, some people might need to be killed in self defense.:eyes:

Cracks Down on Unlicensed Ammunition Dealers & “Cop Killer” Bullets - John Kerry “has introduced a bill (S. 533) that would subject ammunition dealers to the same licensing requirements as firearms dealers. S. 533 would also apply the Brady bill's background check requirements to ammunition. Under the bill, the Secretary of the Treasury would be required to test and rate the destructive power of projectiles to clearly define and ban armor-piercing ammunition.

NEWS FLASH* - 99% of ammo dealers are federally licensed firearms dealers. Subjecting the hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo sold in this country each week to the Brady Check system will (1) overload and crash the NICS computer system (effectively banning firearms sales and leading to #4), (2) clean out the ATF's supply of background check forms (banning firearms sales and leading to #4), (3) overwhelm the FFL's who have to keep those completed forms, and (4) guarantee that 98% of firearms owners will go out to vote in whomever promises to get rid of that 1984-style legislation. :eyes:


And finally:
Kerry’s Sensible Gun Safety Laws Do Not Include a Ban On Guns – When asked if his position on gun safety included banning the sale and ownership of guns—an unrealistic and virtually impossible idea, John Kerry responded with his common sense goal for America: “No, I wouldn't do that. I don't think it's enforceable to begin with, and I believe that we have a strong second-amendment-belief structure in America. It's not going to change. What could change…is the responsibility with which we handle them and approach guns.”

NEWS FLASH* - Since when have constitutional rights become "belief-structures?" Good thing stripping away the right against self-incrimination is not (yet) enforceable. :eyes:


Here is the best part:
"No wonder people in this country are fed up with Washington. They are fed up because they understand what they want done. And instead, we get things being labeled, and gamy little political phrases thrown around. . ."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Frangible]

6. well, I'll still vote for him

Over Bush. But I'd prefer Dean get the dem nomination, of course.

[Romulus]

7. oh yeah

I forgot:

ABB!! :evilgrin:

[cindyw]

8. News flash 1, you were never a Kerry supporter

News flash 2, our constitutional ammendments only work, if we have a belief-structure in them. Otherwise we could not change them. It was a belief structure that added and then took off prohibition, gave women and african americans the right to vote and whole person hood to african americans. It was a belief structure that gave men and women who could die for our country the right to vote. Our Constitution is one big belief-structure.

[Frangible]

9. I don't know about that

Judging from Leno's "Jaywalking", I doubt most Americans even know what the Constitution or Bill of Rights are :dunce:

[sandnsea]

10. Why is a gun so important to you?

You really go out of your way to fight on this. Seems like having a gun is critical to you. I don't understand why.

And just a couple of points.

The Internet Gun Trafficking Act was passed in 1999. So if you've bought a gun over the internet recently, it's that act that caused the sale to be handled the way you said. Kerry voted for it, that's what he said. I don't understand your problem with the statement.

The clips are generally over 10 bullets. I don't think people are going to be in a situation where they need to defend themselves with more than 10 bullets.

The point of most of these other proposals are just to close up the few loopholes that remain. The weapons banned have been banned because they're guns of choice. That's the same reason sawed off shotguns and Saturday Night Specials were banned years ago. You're right that some have more to do with looks than force, but that's also why they're attractive to 'thugs'.

I remember when people first started talking about guns for protection, it was quite controversial. The current 2nd Amendment 'belief-structure' is not something that goes back generations. It's totally brand new and trumped up by the NRA. I cannot remember anybody talking about the 2nd Amendment and guns when I was a kid. People automatically knew guns were dangerous then and that certain guns should be outlawed. I don't know where in the world that kind of common sense went.

[Romulus]

11. umm, no

I just don't like being lied to, and that's what I see is being done here by the Kerry campaign. That's my beef. Why should someone have to lie?Why do they think people will tolerate it?

The Internet Gun Trafficking Act was passed in 1999. So if you've bought a gun over the internet recently, it's that act that caused the sale to be handled the way you said. Kerry voted for it, that's what he said. I don't understand your problem with the statement.

Umm, no it wasn't. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:s.00637: Latest Major Action: 3/16/1999 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

If it was passed, I wouldn't have been able to buy my SIG from a private seller:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.+637:
`(2) TRANSFERS BY PERSONS OTHER THAN LICENSEES- It shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under section 923 to transfer a firearm pursuant to a posting or listing of the firearm for sale or exchange on an Internet website described in paragraph (1) to any person other than the operator of the website.'

EVEN THOUGH ALREADY EXISTING federal law had me have the transfer handled by a licensed dealer. Closing the private sale loophole would cause the same to happen for all transfers, whether at a gun show, backyard, shooting range, or bulletin board. Why should the internet be singled out? Reason:to posture and make like you're "doing something."

And, ummm, no. Handguns are the "weapons of choice" for most crime-committers. AK-47 and UZI look-alikes are also-rans, and that is only because they look like "real" AK-47's and UZI's and dumb crime-committers can't tell the difference. What happens when firearm "A" is banned? The "thugs" start using firearm "B" that does the exact same thing as firearm "A" in the exact same way. What gets banned after that? Why firearm "B," of course. And what then of firearm "C," the next "weapon of choice?"

Why is this such big deal to me? Because I learned too much from history about what happens when people are disarmed by a government for no good reason other than to maintain governmental control by force over those people. Ask the Kosovar militias why they won't disarm, even though the UN is there "for their protection": the same way the UN was there for the souls in Srebrenica, Rwanda, etc. :eyes:

The pro-life crowd loves their strategy of chipping away at a woman's right to choose, based on bogus reasoning, just so they can get a precedent on the books as a stepping stone for further incrementalism until the "end game" that they have no quams about articulating. The leaders of the gun control crowd have already articulated their "end game" for "firearm safety": look at the UK, AUS, and soon-to-be CAN for the roadmap they're using.

As long as I have a voice, I'm going to use it to keep that crap from happening here. I'm sorry about all the Kerry criticism (since you are a passionate Kerry supporter), but Kerry's positions keep pushing my buttons.

[sandnsea]

13. Why?

I'll look into the internet firearms sales more later.

But as to the rest, why? Other countries still have their hunting weapons and can buy guns for protection. Those countries you mention are so much safer than the U.S., their way seems to be working better for self-protection anyway. How can you support a gun in the name of self-protection when it's clear that the more guns there are, the more danger you're in. It's like the death penalty, the more executions, the worse the murder rate. It doesn't help. Why is it so important to you to have a gun? I just don't understand it. You are not going to fight the U.S. military with a gun. Those days are long gone. What does your gun do for you?

[Pez]

14. it's kind of funny...

...that dean got his support because he was an angry peacenik "against the war" while "for unilateral action..." (uh, when the intelligence he was gathering in vermont permitted?); he's a conservative labeled uber-lib by the press; calls democrats with decades of experience fighting for the liberal cause "do nothing" and "bush-lite"; and now he has his supporters defending the NRA and the confederate flag!!!

doowoowoooooo... welcome to the twilight zone.

maybe the subject should be "it's kind of eerie..."

[sandnsea]

18. We think it's just politics

What if it's not? What if people's deeper feelings are really coming out?

[Frangible]

16. Let me ask that question of you, Sandnsea?

Why should guns be banned if it doesn't lower the crime rate?

Those countries you mention are so much safer than the U.S., their way seems to be working better for self-protection anyway.

This goes both ways, there are countries with less restrictive gun laws and both less and more crime, and countries with more gun laws and less and more crime.

You simply cannot, cannot make any inferences or conclusions from that.

How can you support a gun in the name of self-protection when it's clear that the more guns there are, the more danger you're in.

Also consider the US itself-- the areas with the highest crime, are those with the most gun control. The areas with the least crime, are the areas with the least gun control.

Furthermore most crime, including homicides, in the US is committed without a gun.

There is no evidence, none, that the civilian ownership of firearms has any effect on crime.

Why is it so important to you to have a gun?

Why is it so important you want to ban guns that are rarely used in crime based on cosmetics alone?

You are not going to fight the U.S. military with a gun. Those days are long gone.

Try showing some times in recent history an occupying army has won a guerilla war?

Furthermore, if such a thing did happen, a good portion of the military would defect.

What does your gun do for you?

Provides protection and recreation shooting it at a range. They aren't used in crime and gun control based on cosmetics like the assault weapons ban does not lower crime, and that is a proven fact.

If you want to make society safer -- consider that most crime isn't committed with a gun in the US. Stop criminals from getting guns through illegal channels. Don't be distracted by cosmetic gun ban red herrings. Address the root causes responsible for gun and non gun violence alike.

[sandnsea]

17. If there's no laws, there's no illegal channels

That's really funny. Gun advocates want some 'other' gun laws enforced; but when you want to make the gun law in the first place or ask for help getting 'good' gun laws, then you hear 'liberal gun controllers' and 'regulation creep'. (Creep, meaning that endless spiral) If gun owners had taken responsibility for their industry, we wouldn't have this problem. You still can, will you?

You can pretend we don't have the highest crime rate in the world if you want to, it's just not true. Cities with gun control laws are having crime rates go down. Areas without it, like the south, still have the highest crime rates. There's plenty of evidence to show that the availability of guns does impact crime rates. It just makes no sense to pretend we don't have a problem in this country in order to protect some illusory right to defend ourselves against the government.

[Frangible]

19. Uh

That's really funny. Gun advocates want some 'other' gun laws enforced

You ARE aware that there are less than 1% arrests in all these laws stopping criminals from getting guns, right?

Does that seem a tad low?

but when you want to make the gun law in the first place or ask for help getting 'good' gun laws, then you hear 'liberal gun controllers' and 'regulation creep'. (Creep, meaning that endless spiral)

Please explain how passing laws that ban weapons based on cosmetics, and are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt not to lower crime, is a "good" gun law.

If gun owners had taken responsibility for their industry, we wouldn't have this problem. You still can, will you?

:roll:

What problem? The problem of a lot of violence in the US? You think that's the fault of "gun owners not taking responsiblity"?

THE MAJORITY OF CRIME IN THE US IS NOT COMMITTED WITH GUNS

Yet guns are to blame for our crime rate? How is that logical?

You can pretend we don't have the highest crime rate in the world if you want to, it's just not true.

Omg, that's completely untrue. The US crime rate has been dropping since the 70s and we certainly DO NOT have the highest crime rate in ANY category. How can you even state such things?

Cities with gun control laws are having crime rates go down. Areas without it, like the south, still have the highest crime rates.

Wrong and wrong. All areas are seeing a drop in crime across the US. Furthermore, the highest crime areas are places like Chicago and Washington DC -- good luck even trying own a gun there. Guess what, you can't!

There's plenty of evidence to show that the availability of guns does impact crime rates.

No, there isn't. By that same token, there's no casual evidence that the availability of guns reduces violence, either.

It just makes no sense to pretend we don't have a problem in this country

We do have problems, and banning guns based on useless cosmetic features is not going to help it, and that's a proven fact.

in order to protect some illusory right to defend ourselves against the government.

The bill of rights is illusionary? No fucking way. Sorry.

[sandnsea]

28. You're just wrong

The US Crime rate has not been dropping since the 70's.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Crimes with guns have dropped dramatically since 1993.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

The South has always had a higher homicide rate.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm

And notice in this link. Family, friends, street buys, and other illegal sources are all lumped together in one statistic. How in the world can anybody make rational claims about gun laws with reporting like that.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Your claims are just preposterous, all of them.

[Frangible]

29. No, I'm entirely right

Read for comprehension, please.

The US Crime rate has not been dropping since the 70's.

That is completely untrue. On the very page you cite:
Homicide rate, 1970: 7.9 per 100K
Homicide rate, 2000: 5.5 per 100K
Forciable rape, 1970: 172 per 100K
Forciable rape, 200: 145 per 100K

As you can see, I've done my research. What I stated was 100% fact.

Go read the NIJ report done under Clinton about the AWB.

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

Once again-- I've done my reserach. What I stated was 100% fact. It's all in the report.

Fact: Washington DC and Chicago have higher crime rates than the south. These cities have gun bans.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/Local/LocalHomicide.cfm

Once again, I've done my research. I have only stated fact.

None of my claims are preposterous. They are all 100% fact, and even the data you cite supports each and every one of them.

I challenge you to refute my statements if you think they are "preposterous". Considering they are all based upon facts released by the government, you'll have a very hard time doing that.

I'm only trying to be logical here. You know, at one time, I was very anti-gun.

But I can't help but look at the data, not tainted data from the NRA or Brady Campaign, but the actual government statistics, and make logical conclusions after analyzing it.

That is why I can back up all of my opinions here. They were all reached by research and hard data.

Isn't that the reasonable thing to do? Look at the data and analyze it?

You tell me.

[sandnsea]

30. No, you're just ignoring half the facts

The crime rate goes up up up until the late 90's and then you say crime has been dropping since the 70's. That's not accurate.

New Orleans has the highest violent crime rate in the nation. Why would you ignore that fact in trying to prove whether gun laws are effective or not?

http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/istudies/peace/peace/US_cities.htm

And once again, why is it so important to own a gun that you would twist facts and ignore the impact guns have on our society? It's not good, any way you try to twist it around.

[Frangible]

31. Oh, please

The crime rate goes up up up until the late 90's and then you say crime has been dropping since the 70's. That's not accurate.

Wait, so if there are any variations at all it's not a "trend"? That's some different statistics than I learned in college.

Yes, you can describe trends, even if there is variance. And the undisputable fact remains crime is lower now than it has been since the 70s.

New Orleans has the highest violent crime rate in the nation. Why would you ignore that fact in trying to prove whether gun laws are effective or not?

http://hypatia.ss.uci.edu/istudies/peace/peace/US_cities.htm

There is no data supporting your claim on that page or anything I could find linked to it.

According to the numbers, DC outranked all major cities, and is again the nation's "murder capital."

Immediately following DC on the list were Detroit (the winner in 2001), Baltimore, Memphis, Chicago and Philadelphia (in that order).

Other notable rankings included: Los Angeles (9), Dallas (10), Boston (18), San Francisco (24), and New York (25). Last on the list was Honolulu, ranked 32d with only 18 murders, in spite of its population of nearly 900,000.


http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

You'll note New Orleans isn't even on the list. I have no clue where you get that from.

And once again, why is it so important to own a gun that you would twist facts and ignore the impact guns have on our society? It's not good, any way you try to twist it around.

I haven't twisted anything. I've demonstrated repeatedly my conclusions come from cold, hard facts. You've tried unsuccessfully to refute those facts; you can't. You can disagree with my conclusions if you wish, but the facts are there independant of either of us.

All I merely ask is people look at the data from an open mind and make a rational, logical analysis of it.

An informed decision, if you will.

I have not, nor have I ever, twisted anything. Every thing I've said is backed by fact.

Let me ask you this:

Why is removing people's freedom so important to you, that you ignore facts and make conclusions without even looking at data?

As I've stated repeatedly, I support some gun control, but I look at it from a rational, scientific perspective and only analyze it under that light.

Look, I don't expect you anyone else to always have the same conclusions I do. However, arguing with me about government facts is silly; they're facts that would be fact without my existance. All I ask is you look at the facts with an open mind and reach your own conclusions.

Please, read the NIJ report on the AWB. Look at the facts for yourself. Reach your own conclusion-- but don't skip over the facts! I don't ask you agree with me. Only that you first examine the issue and do research.

[sandnsea]

32. No, it doesn't work that way

You cannot take an upwards trend for crime for nearly 25 years, have it drop drastically in a couple of years, and then say crime has been dropping for 30 years and call that the trend.

I've seen reports on New Orleans having the highest violent crime rate, but as usual, can't find what you need when you need it. But here's a report from the DOJ about Louisiana and crime, with New Orleans having the most murders in 1999.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs0/666/overview.htm

Here's another report. This one's got Atlanta at #1. I read a different report for 2002 with St. Louis moving up to #1. This shows crime in some cities dropping 30%-50%, and still showing up in the top ten. By your reasoning, I bet you'd point to these huge crime decreases to say we don't need gun laws. How much worse would these statistics have been without gun laws? And how can you possibly measure the real effect of gun laws on a city if the surrounding area doesn't have any gun laws?

http://www.gppf.org/crime/agenda2002crime.htm

Here's some specific stats on guns and Louisiana.

http://w3.agsfoundation.com/Louisianachart.html

I really don't need to read your report. You say yourself, crime has been dropping, but you still need your guns. Murder rates are actually at near 1960 levels, but you still need your guns. You obviously have to know the havoc guns create in this country. You want your guns anyway and you won't say why.

[Romulus]

33. it's a fundamental principle at stake here

You say yourself, crime has been dropping, but you still need your guns. Murder rates are actually at near 1960 levels, but you still need your guns. You obviously have to know the havoc guns create in this country. You want your guns anyway and you won't say why.

We all have a right to self defense; firearms are the most effective means of self defense against a person using force that threatens death or serious bodily injury. We (and NO ONE ELSE) are each legally responsible for our own self-defense. The police are hired to come to our aid when needed, that it true. However, until they are notified of our situation, and actually arrive to help, we are on our own. I own firearms so that I can do something during that in-between time besides becoming a good-looking corpse. That's primarily why I own firearms. It doesn't matter if the risk of being a crime victim is "negligible": Anna Lindst didn't think "it" could happen to her in peaceful Sweden. As long as the legal duty of self-defense remains on myself, and there is *some* risk of needing to exercise that duty, I should be allowed to take the reasonable precaution of possessing the most effective self-defense tool around.

Yes, illegally owned firearms are used to cause much misery in the U.S. But the answer is not to impose further restrictions on the legally owned firearms when those restrictions do not address how and why illegally owned firearms are misused.

Instead of posturing about "assault weapons," concrete things should be suggested to ensure firearms safety above the current federal laws:

- require all firearms transfers to go through at least a state-level background check. You should show proof of ID and state residence. MD has a good system where the state police can do the background check for private sales, instead of a licensed gun dealer. Failure to show proof of sale or report of theft means that the last owner is on the hook when a crime gun is recovered. Right now, the first person to purchase a brand-new gun is on file with ATF. My system will allow the chain of custody to be traced to the last owner, without the danger of a "Gestapo round up list" of registered firearms owners.

- Handguns transfers should have a minimum 3-day waiting period. This could help with suicides, some "rage" crimes, and maybe gun-running to some extent. If you need a gun NOW, and you don't have one, well that's piss poor planning on your part, now isn't it?

- keep a state registry of all handgun sales (like MD does). This is not a "gun registry," where you have to keep a registration certificate with you at all times, like you do your car. This system merely keeps track of the last purchaser once, and only once, and until that purchaser transfers that handgun to someone else. This will address the handgun-running and straw-purchaser problem we have in this country, which is the real "gun problem." This does not go overboard and keep Joe's shotgun or target rifle info in some 1984-style database.

- mandatory safety training for all firearms purchasers. This addresses the need for safety training for all firearms owners, without the formation of a "Gestapo roundup list" of those firearms owners (aka "licensed owner list.") MD again has a good system where the local police have to offer a free course (for handguns and certain rifles) once a week. Once you attend the class you get a "diploma" that you have to show before you can purchase a firearm.

- a concealed handgun permit system that allows any citizen, who meets the screening standards for armed security guards in the state (background check + training), to receive a permit allowing them to carry a concealed firearm for their personal protection. If a person can hire an armed security guard for their protection, it makes no sense to bar the person from passing the same standards as the guard and doing the job themself. Society gets (1) better trained firearms owners, and (2) more citizens actively protecting their ability to keep contributing to society, which ensures that more contributing citizens remain breathing and contributing to society. This permit would be valid in all 50 states and territories; if you can hire armed security guards there, you can do the job there yourself.

- handgun safety standards: all new commercial semi-auto handguns should have an integrated safety lock (so the gun itself can be locked), a magazine disconnect that prevents the gun from firing once the magazine is out, and a loaded indicator so anyone can see that it is loaded. These features are both old-art and state-of-the art right now (HK, Steyr, Walther) in handgun design, meant to cut down on "oh sh**" accidents, suffered by even well-trained firearms owners as well as novices.

- handgun safe storage: all handgun owners should be required to buy a gun safe of some sort to store their handguns when they are not at home actively supervising them. A quick-open fingerpad gun safe can be purchased online for $77. Too many stolen handguns are fed into the black market, which leads to the "handgun problem" I talked about earlier.

All of these things can be tied to the federal grant money given to the states for law enforcement (like the "over 21" laws were tied to federal highway money). That way, there is no federalism problem like when the feds impose something on states.


Hmmm, maybe I ought to send these ideas to someone . . .

[sandnsea]

34. You should

It would be nice if gun owners would support some kind of standards on their own.

But still, the concept of needing guns for protection is way overblown. I mentioned in another post about people in my own town who keep loaded handguns in their bedstands. We haven't had a murder or similar violent crime in so many years, I can't even remember. The nearest larger city, Eugene, had 2 murders last year. The number of guns stolen and ending up in the hands of criminals creates a greater danger than the one people are supposedly protecting themselves from.

People used to know this. The NRA created gun rights hysteria and self-protection hysteria. For the most part, it's not real.

[Frangible]

35. Hah

You cannot take an upwards trend for crime for nearly 25 years, have it drop drastically in a couple of years, and then say crime has been dropping for 30 years and call that the trend.

Must we really argue over semantics? The data is there, and it shows that crime now is relatively low. Yes, there were periods of time over the last 30 years it both went up and down, but overall it's lower.

I've seen reports on New Orleans having the highest violent crime rate, but as usual, can't find what you need when you need it.

It's because it's simply not true. DC is the murder capitol of the US for a reason.

New Orleans has higher crime than anywhere else in that state for one reason: population density.

I really don't need to read your report.

And that's your problem. You refuse to even consider data and are forming illogical baseless opinions. Logic goes right out the window.

I challenge you to consider the data and THEN make a conclusion.

But you can't do that, can you? Because the facts don't support your view.

Murder rates are actually at near 1960 levels, but you still need your guns. You obviously have to know the havoc guns create in this country. You want your guns anyway and you won't say why.

Right, my bad, like you said, the bill of rights "illusory", you don't "need to read" the facts of the matter, and we should ban all guns.

:wtf:

There is no logic in your arguments. No evidence for your claims. You dismiss fundamental rights as "illusory" and won't even consider facts and evidence before stripping people of essential liberties.

Sad, just sad. How can you argue with someone who sews their eyes shut to the truth and won't even consider the facts and data?

Why are you so afraid of the truth? Why must you form opinions in darkness?

[BallaFaseke]

12. What a buffoon!

As one PHEASANT HUNTING SPORTSMAN he ain't getting my vote.

If supports SA rights then he needs to support owning ALL AND EVERY KIND OF GUN LEGALLY AVAILABLE.

Not some $1,600 dollar double barrel shotgun.

[SahaleArm]

20. Sure thing...

> ALL AND EVERY KIND OF GUN LEGALLY AVAILABLE

What does this mean, legally available today, 10 years ago, 50 years ago? If you're an absolutist then everything should be legal, including military grade arms.

[Frangible]

21. Well

That was the aim of the second amendment. Nowadays though, people don't think the bill of rights means anything, so take it with a grain of salt.

[SahaleArm]

22. Free speech...

isn't absolute and the founding fathers never had to deal with RPG's, nukes, and laser-guided missiles.

[Frangible]

23. We are talking about infantry small arms here

The second amendment does not and never did apply to artillery which did exist at the time, only to the small arms an infantryman carried.

As far as restrictions on the other amendments go, how do you like your patriot act and 10 commandments in a courthouse? Cause I sure don't.

[SahaleArm]

24. It may imply it...

but it says the right to bear arms (no restrictions). Even restricted to small arms, a single RPG qualifies (1-person ~35 pounds).

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

And no I don't support the Patriot act:)!

[Frangible]

25. It's not explicit in the amendment itself

But something I gathered from reading the federalist papers. This is all kind of academic though, as I doubt that people will A) ever agree on what the 2nd amendment means, and B) ever agree that the bill of rights is still relevent today. So as a result there's a lot of "fudging".

:shrug:

Personally, I support gun control in many cases. I just don't agree with it when it is overly restrictive and does not reduce crime. I think the only "good" gun control is gun control that helps to prevent accidental deaths and crime.

As I said, I agree with Kerry in most cases, and will still vote for him.

[SahaleArm]

26. And I agree with you.

If the attempt of the 2nd was to avoid the tyranny of the federal government then one could argue absolutism. Otherwise it will be a compromise as with all the other amendments. Strict constitutional interpretation will only lead to a Scalian philosophy.

[quinnox]

15. This is a great platform

Once again, Kerry has the best platform out there. For those that care about gun violence and responsibility, Kerry's the man.

[BallaFaseke]

27. No that would be Kucinich

Kucinich supports a stronger assault weapons ban.