Fuck Gun Control.

[Tyler Durden]

It is NOT a Leftist Core Issue.

Leftists are the traditional revolutionaries, and guns are part of that.

Fuck Gun Control. Doesn't belong on the platform. Stupid Fucking issue.

And to anyone who wants to step up to THAT microphone, more Seniors died last year from preventable disease causes than all of the domestic gun violence cases combined.

[Feathered Fish]

1. ?

What's your beef?

[Tyler Durden]

3. Someone down the threads got sideswiped by +/- Gun Control Debating.

I am beginning to look on ANYONE who sidetracks us from UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, EDUCATION, EQUALITY, AND VOTING as the enemy. Gun Control does not belong on a true Leftist Agenda.

You can't have MINE. Why, someone must have STOLEN them.

[Feathered Fish]

4. ok

[EstimatedProphet]

206. Thank you

That is exactly what my point in many posts has been. Unfortunately when I bring it up I am told that what I am actually doing is supporting the right wing agenda, and that I am trying to front for the Republican party.
This is urban vs. rural, not right vs. left. Gun control measures make a lot of sense in urban areas, and not in rural ones. A reasonable gun rights discussion needs to realize this, instead of the outright black vs. white argument that has been going on.

[DoNotRefill]

90. MY beef....

is people who absolutely, positively refuse to see what this issue has cost us, and insist that we keep pushing for more gun control when everybody with even HALF a brain knows it's cost us dearly.

Frankly, when I see somebody claiming to be a "Democrat" that is pushing for gun control, I suspect them of being another Sarah Brady...what was the affiliation of her husband again??? Oh yeah....he was Press Secretary for REAGAN.

Gun control cost us control of Congress, and was a decisive factor in the presidential defeats in 2000 and 2004. How much more do we have to take, how many MORE losses must pile up before we stop listening to the kool-aid serving anti gun crowd?

[Peak_Oil]

115. I agree.

I can't understand what everybody's so afraid of.

[autorank]

2. Gun control is an albatross the way we're doing it.

The country is already an armed camp. What can be done. The Brady Bill is fine and there needs to be gun control for weapons terrorists can use (like that rifle that can shoot holes in steel or whatever). That can be couched as patriotism.

The real opportunity is found in Montana. Make conservation for hunters and fishermen a central issue. I don't fish much but when I do, I would like to eat the fish (that I don't throw back). :wtf:, do that now and you're playing roulette.

I agree that we need to reframe this issues for people who want to vote for us.

I'm not in favor of reframing basic human rights issues or backing off on socio-economic issues, however. The gun thing has reached the point of diminishing returns.

Corporate America controls the media and we get manufactured news.
Corporate America now controls the voting machines and we get manufactured elections.

[Tyler Durden]

6. Too Little, too late.

So fuck it. What cannot be changed must be endured. The rest of our agenda IS change: Gun Control does not fit anymore.

[freedom rings]

7. Brady Act does not work

When you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer now you have to have your purchase appoved by the National Instand Check system. The NICS system (National Instant Check System) is foiled by a simple $50 fake identification kit. When you run a NICS check on anybody, it simply assumes that you are who the ID says you are. Unbelievable but true. That is why the Brady bill is a waste of time and effort. The vast majority of attempted firearm purchases that have been stopped by the NICS check were later approved for sale because errors in the data base flagged the person as a felon when the charge was later reduced to a misdemeanor or vacated because the person was found innocent.

Terrorists are not going to be interested in an off the shelf 50 calibur single shot bolt action, which I believe is what the writer is referring to since this rifle is VERY powerful and can be purchased by Americans without a permit. If and when terrorists attack us using guns, it will be with military full automatic (machine) guns that have been smuggled in across our borders. They are cheaper, do more damage, and cannot be traced easily, and can be purchased by dozens of illegal military weapons sellers in the world.

[bryant69]

5. IT depends on what one means by gun control

Both sides frame the issue in extremist terms, in order to use it as a wedge. I'd bet that most people could settle on some kind of compromise, but both sides have too much invested in keeping the issue alive.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[charlie]

23. Right, I agree

I doubt gun enthusiasts would want characters in their neighborhoods LEGALLY selling cheap firearms out of the trunks of their cars. And I'm sure most gun control advocates are okay with firearms for defense, hunting, and collecting in homes. So, what to do when one side fears erosion of rights and the other is alarmed by a nation already awash in guns? Maybe declare a moratorium on new laws? Push for a constitutional amendment that clarifies gun rights once and for all? Do some marketing ju jitsu and talk about gun safety instead of gun control? I dunno.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. i hate guns

the represent everything bad about America.

I love war movies, but war movies without guns - like Lord of the Rings or King Arthur - anything with hand-to-hand combat because that was how real men fought.

Stupid cowboy movies had to creat a myth in America that tough guys had guns. Pussies have guns. Real men have their fists and their wits.

Just my opinion as someone who lives as far away from a rural area as I can, and is damn glad I do so.

[John BigBootay]

32. HAAA HAAA HAAA!!!!!

"I love war movies, but war movies without guns - like Lord of the Rings or King Arthur - anything with hand-to-hand combat because that was how real men fought."

I can't believe I actually read this here!!!

That has got to be one of the most monumentally stupid quotes ever in the history of words!

Is there a way to nominate this one for "dumbest quote of the year?"

[sendero]

43. I get his point..

... if you don't maybe some kind of remedial thinking 101 would be in order?

If you are going to ridicule someone at least have the sense to explain why you find the comments ridiculous.

[John BigBootay]

93. I have to "explain" why??? It's not obvious???

OK, here goes:

He says that "real men" don't need guns to fight, "real men" supposedly like Gandalf, Lancelot and Bilbo Baggins-- completely ignoring the fact that REAL MEN (not fictional fantasy characters) used GUNS to win the most harrowing, nerve wracking and important battles EVER fought on this planet:

Iwo Jima
Tarawa
Corregidor
Ardennes Forest
Guadalcanal
Gettysburg
Trenton
Yorktown

etc., etc., etc.,

Maybe this poster believes that even if the Orcs had guns in Lord of the Rings, then Gandalf would just use a magic spell to turn all the bullets into flowers. But chances are if the Orcs had guns the Hobbits would want them too.

Jeeeeeezzz!!!!

I need to explain this???!!!!

[countryjake]

126. I wouldn't call it a battle, since half were disarmed...

but Wounded Knee might be used as a good example.

[DoNotRefill]

171. Have you ever seen the film "Wizards"?

"By the way, I'm glad you changed your name you son of a bitch!"

:evilgrin:

[stepnw1f]

60. You Seem To Have a Couple Yourself

Did the poster rub your feelings the wrong way or do you rationally object to his criticism of pussys needing guns. I live in the city and grew up in the city and while guns are available, I and my buddies never needed guns. Just brains.

Go have fun with your penis enlargement.

[John BigBootay]

97. "Penis enlargement--" How original! n/t

[stepnw1f]

119. Indeed (nt)

[Mr_Spock]

162. He's right you know. Only cowards in the city have guns.

I grew up in the inner city and Jesus' line in my sig was the lay of the land - "you live by the sword, you die by the sword".

ONLY PUSSIES feel the need to fight with guns!!

Now, since I'm in the country and I am surrounded by latent homosexual right-wing pussies - yeah, I am properly armed :D.

AND, I agree with the poster 100%! The legal ownership of weapons should NOT be an issue in politics. They are legal and they are mostly harmless here outside of the cities (there is a nut-job who packs at the bar who I don't care for). Dems need to become pro-gun - if not simply to protect ourselves from the nut jobs who live out here. Here is a post describing what this right-wing BOY thinks is an appropriate response to a bumper sticker he "disapproves" of:

Don't run them into a ditch...stitch their driver's side window with gunfire! Might as well use the the Second Amendment while we still have it.

All enemies, foreign and domestic....

Posted by: Cowboy Blob at October 23, 2004 11:40 PM

This boy would be crying if he even tried such a stunt, but these are our retarded adversaries! lol

[slutticus]

100. I thought he was being sarcastic.

:shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

94. heh...

so a pussy with a gun will lose to a "real man" who uses his fists? yeah, maybe, if the "pussy" is a chronically abused housewife who doesn't know dick about guns, and the "real man" is her drunken abuser...otherwise, the "pussy" will win EVERY time.

Don't take a knife to a gunfight.

[Mr_Spock]

167. True, but the converse "live by the sword, die by it" also applies

He who brings the gun to a knife fight should expect to die that day.

[immoderate]

178. Not if the gun is loaded.

--IMM

[Mr_Spock]

180. I dare you to verify the veracity of that statement

Takes a special kind of person...

[immoderate]

189. First, I wouldn't go to a knife fight.

As a matter of fact, I use that as a test. If there is ever a place Where I feel I would need to bring a gun, I stay home.

Now we're dealing with hypotheticals. Especially since I've never shot at a person.

I have some martial arts training, and a good deal of gun training and practice, and I figure I could shoot a couple or three guys with knives before they could be in knife range.

What you say is true. But a person in fear of his life could be that special type of person.

In general, I don't advise people to get a gun for defense, because they are not easy to use. I tell them if they are in fear of attack, to learn bo jitsu (stick fighting) and then carry a cane or umbrella, which is much more readily available for defense, and much safer to bystanders.

But given the choice of weapon and no other (like staying home), I'll take a gun if I know there's going to be a fight.

Now who will judge the veracity of my statement and fulfillment of the dare?

--IMM

[alwynsw]

190. And what does a tough guy do with a knife when a pussy is shooting?

I'm not a tough guy. I'm an average guy. I own quite a few firearms. I use them for sport and recreation. I hunt and I eat what I kill except for predators that are after the local livestock.

Have I shot anyone? You bet your ass I have. He shot me and shot at me first. Lotta good my fists or a knife would have done me when I got up to see what the noise was and a crook that had broken into my home shot at me. (If you're wondering, I went to the hospital and he went to the morgue.) Yup. I'd use a gun again to protect my wife and son - or myself for that matter - or anyone I don't even know if I'm sure of the circumstances - you know, like the guy in a ski mask with a revolver threatening a convenience store clerk would be a definite target.

My dad, my stepfather, and father-in-law were tough guys IMO. Pop was a bomber pilot in the 8th AAC in WWII. My stepfather and father-in-law were on MTB's in the south Pacific during WW II. Now those were some tough guys. Check the mortality and capture rates for bomber pilots and MTB crewmen during WW II. Do you think they were all pussies because they owned and used firearms after the war, or did their use of firearms and far more destructive weapons during the war make them pussies. It's hard to tell from your post.

Go on back to your Lord of the Rings fantasy world. In this world, the bad guys use the very best weapons they can lay their nasty hands on. I intend to be as well as or better armed than the criminals - within the law.

[skippythwndrdog]

207. I guess you hate freedom.

[DrWeird]

9. I tend to agree.

Although it's probably worthy of debate as to how core it is.

[sangh0]

17. Giving in to the repukes on the issues?

It's hilarious coming from the "stand up and fight" crowd

[JohnKleeb]

31. it is ironic

I agree with Magic Rat's I hate guns though honestly, I hate em.

[Midlodemocrat]

147. I do too.

I hate hunting as well. But, that being said, since gun owners do have a right to the guns, we do need to keep control on them, same as we do any dangerous weapon, like cars, or prescription drugs.

[JohnKleeb]

149. They should be able to own rifles or handguns

or shotguns but I see no reason why a person should own the same weapons the military does. I don't like the concept of hunting, however I respect it if people are doing it for survival or utitalize the animal.

[Midlodemocrat]

150. With sprawl encroaching all the last vestiges of rural areas,

I don't think there are two many people who have guns for survival. I just don't like them. But, if a person wants to own one, I have to accept their decision. I honestly don't think that is what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

[DoNotRefill]

153. I know a shitload of people in Brandermill....

that own guns. Of course, I also know a shitload of people over 40 in Brandermill that smoke pot. Whodathunkit!!!

[Midlodemocrat]

156. Do you

live in Brandermill? I live near there, but it isn't on your profile.

[DoNotRefill]

158. Ex-Branderlander....

but I escaped. Now I'm in SW Virginia.

[Midlodemocrat]

161. Gotcha.

You didn't like it there? I live in Woodlake and I really like it. A great place to raise kids, I think. Lots of friends for them, etc.

[DoNotRefill]

165. Now I live in a county....

that has fewer residents than Woodlake alone. I got tired of living with the crowds.

[DireStrike]

70. I don't think so.

"Stand up and fight" for liberal values, which are not necessarily what the Democrats have been supporting.

The arguments about this(stand up and fight people saying to give in on X) have more to do with clear definition of what people are talking about, than with hypocrisy or shortsightedness.

And of course, it's not clear that the people supporting this post are the "stand up and fight crowd", unless of course you've seen some of them expressing such things.

[sangh0]

95. So you're going to "stand up and fight" by giving in on gun control?

And giving up on gun control, without any discussion of the merits of gun control (as compared to a discussion of it affects elections) is being done in the name of "liberal values"

[MrBenchley]

102. That's gun nut logic

The onyl way we can possibly defeat folks like John Ashcroft is by parroting exactly the same diseased rhetoric that he does...because actually opposing him would be wrong.

And that's why they call them gun nuts.

[sangh0]

106. I can almost understand why someone might make that mistake

but what I don't get is how anyone could call that "standing up and fighting". It sounds like "Roll over and play dead"

[MrBenchley]

114. It is "roll over and play dead"

to sane people...but gun nuts all think they're Rambo on a Red Scooter because they've got a popgun fetish. Sadly, what tehy really are is flabby white guys with a gun fetish, lying to themselves and others.

[countryjake]

142. Fox smells his own hole.

Coming from a people who were slaughtered by this deluded nation; disarmed, land rights taken away, religious freedom outlawed, herded to camps, given-name rights outlawed, citizenship denied, things held sacred destroyed, & outright slaughter; you are mistaken. If you feel no need to protect your rights & feel safe in the belief that this country can no longer destroy those who don't agree with policy, fine, but don't wonder why certain parties continue to lose power. Your description of folks who view this country's system as an ever-present threat is insulting!

[Sparkly]

188. That's what gets me.

Statement:
"Maybe we need a candidate who appeals to 'moderate' or 'center' voters who've been voting Republican in recent elections -- not changing course on issues, because most voters already agree with us -- but simply relating to these people in a way that cools their discomfort with voting for a Democrat."

Standard replies:
"F*** moderates, we don't need their votes!"
"We do not need to move right!"
"We can't become Repuke lite!"
"Who can even tell the difference between the parties anymore?"
"The Democrats need to be different, and stand up for something!"
"If you run a Republican against a Republican, the Republican wins every time!"

Question:
"Does that include gun control?"

Standard reply:
"Well, that's different."

[yella_dawg]

10. Gun control is a fundamental issue that cannot be ignored!

Without constant and reliable control, who knows what you might accidentally hit?

[Killarney]

11. I'll never understand the love affair Americans have with their

guns. Maybe it's growing up in 'elitist Massachusetts,' but I've never understood it.

Every picture on that werenotsorry website is all redneck Republicans with their hands on their guns. It disgusts me.

I don't get it. Is it bloodlust?

[freedom rings]

12. They are tools, and very good tools

Have you ever gone out and shot a gun? Hunted? Target practiced? Served in the military? There are over 250 million firearms in America. Something like 80% of American households have at least one firearm in them.

Firearms are the Great Equalizer between those that will wantonly do us harm (they will ALWAYS have guns) and those of us that just want to live our lives and not cause mayhem to our fellow man.

You owe your very freedom to the firearm. Over 34 states now have right to carry laws.

[Killarney]

15. No, I've never even seen a gun irl.

No desire to.

[norml]

16. Gun control has never been an issue with me.

I say "Let the gun nuts have their guns". Although I'd rather not have one around, given the high number of people who use them to shoot themselves or their loved ones. And that I've never had an intruder or needed to shoot anyone or any animal I've needed to shoot for food. I did enjoy shooting at targets with a BB gun as a boy. Some guns might be a good investment. Maybe I'll own a gun someday. Can't tell when. You must admit though that even you want some sort of gun control, or do you think your neighbors should be able to have and use any type of weapons system?

[freedom rings]

25. neighbors

I trust my law abiding neighbors with any weapons system they want, up to and including machine guns.

It is the law BREAKING neighbors that I do not trust, but hey, they will get the guns they want ANYWAY because they are CRIMINALS and that is what CRIMINALS do.

[norml]

196. You say "up to and including machine guns" What about bigger things?

What about weapons systems even bigger and more powerful than machine guns? What about your neighbors having heavy explosives? My point still is that even you want some sort of gun/weapons control.

[Midlodemocrat]

19. You're kidding right?

...more people are killed/injured by their own firearms than actually stop the marauding herds. I don't dispute your right to have a gun, because I believe in the Bill of Rights, but I do dispute some of the reasons people feel that they need to arm themselves.

[Billy Ruffian]

71. Sorry, but that claim is incorrect

Estimates of defensive gun use range from about 650,000 annually to over 2.5 million.

You may be referring to a study that claimed that people with guns in the house are many times more likely to be injured with a gun than to use it defensively. I'll see if I can find a link to the study, and the refutation of the very, very poor methodology in it.

I've had a loaded gun in the house for 20+ years. It's just another tool for safety.

[Midlodemocrat]

144. Sorry, I don't buy it.

How many people do you actually know of who defended themselves in a home invasion versus the number of kids who accidentally pick up the gun and kill themselves or others. I don't dispute your right to have a gun, just the logic for owning one. It seems to me if you want to have a gun, then no excuse is necessary. Sort of like if you choose to have a cat or a dog. If it is what you want, no explanation should be necessary.

[DoNotRefill]

152. well....

considering that fewer than 900 accidental firearms deaths occurred nation-wide in the last year that stats are available from the USDOJ, I'd say that Defensive Gun Uses FAR outstrip accidental deaths involving firearms.

[Midlodemocrat]

155. But there were 29,237 violent firearm related deaths in

2002, the last year the CDC has information. There is no way that these deaths were all 'protecting myself' related. A little off topic here I realize.

edit:for typo

[DoNotRefill]

160. You're exactly right, and around 2/3 of those....

were premeditated, deliberate acts of suicide. Murders account for less than 9,000, and accidents account for less than 900.

[Midlodemocrat]

164. Actually, no.

The figure for the same year, same website is 17,108 suicides, with a total of 30,242 gun related deaths. I realize you got your information from another site, but this is the information I got from the CDC site.

[DoNotRefill]

175. You do WISQUARS?

2002:

Total violence related firearms deaths: 29,237
Total accidental firearms deaths: 762 02%
total firearms related suicides: 17,108 58%
Total firearms homicides: 11,829 40%


2001:
total violence related firearms deaths: 28,540
total accidental firearms deaths: 802 02.8%
Total firearms related suicides: 16,869 59%
Total firearms homicides: 11,348 39%

In both years, suicides greatly outnumbered homicides. In fact, suicides accounted for more deaths than homicides, accidents, and legally justified shooting combined.

Source: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

[alwynsw]

191. ME - defense. Accidental - NONE!

[DoNotRefill]

101. midlodemocrat....

you're referring to the Kellerman "43X" statistic. What you need to read the fine print to find out is that almost ALL of those cases are cases of deliberate, premeditated SUICIDE. Yup, 2/3 of all firearms related deaths in the US are SUICIDES. And there were fewer than 900 accidental firearms deaths NATION-WIDE out of 300 MILLION people last year.

[MrBenchley]

24. They're fetish items for a small minority

who scream "They're going to take our guns!" every time any common sense gun control measure is mentioned.

"Something like 80% of American households have at least one firearm in them."
Well, 36% is like 80% in that they both end with "%"....

"In the United States, about 35-36% of households have a gun and 22% have a handgun. Long guns are more commonly owned than handguns: 14% of households have only long
guns; 6% have only handguns and 16% have both long guns and handguns. Twenty-four percent of respondents surveyed personally own a gun and 15% personally own a handgun."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:vBAr2KsRukUJ:www.helpnetwork.org/frames/resources_factsheets_gunsinus.pdf+NORC+survey+guns+households&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

And most voters support gun control...

Most Americans (88%) support mandatory gun safety courses for gun buyers; 78% support background checks for private sales of guns; 77% support mandatory registration of handguns; 74% support the requirement that all new handguns be personalized; 73% support a mandatory background check and 5-day waiting period; and 69% support limiting sales to one handgun per buyer per month."

"You owe your very freedom to the firearm."
Actually, we owe our freedom to our collective armaments and citizen-soldiers...not to armed neurotic skulking aorund city streets with popguns in their pants.

[Peak_Oil]

51. 80 million people is a fairly substantial minority

that outnumbers African Americans and g/l/t/b combined by more than 2 to 1. They outnumber the Million Mom March by 80 to 1. Before you knee hits you in the nose, just remember that the Democratic Party is losing. President, House, Senate, the trifecta, all went to the Republican Party. Result? Perhaps three NEW SCJ's.

Like the results of the current path? How about this. Many of the 80 million gun owners out there don't necessarily want to vote for the Democratic party because of its affiliation with gays, AA's, and the MMM. You're gonna have to throw them a bone or we will lose again and again and again. The Democratic party will be the third party in a two-party system.

You have GOT to throw these guys a bone, or once again, you will be whining about losing.

Rather than saying that they're wrong and stupid (which pushes these potential Dems away) you could try to gain their support by taking an active stance on the 2nd amendment and say that it specifically addresses the rights of individuals to arm themselves, and even float an amendment to the BOR that specifically says that.

Do that and watch the President, House, and Senate wheel around to the Dems. Then, push through any other reforms you like. You'd have the wherewithal do actually do so. This allows the Dems to FRAME the debate rather than REACTING to the debate, which has been the losing strategy we've implemented recently.

Or, choose to remain powerless.

[T Town Jake]

65. Well stated. I agree 100%. What really needs to happen...

...is that RKBA needs to become one of those issues that BOTH parties support without question - a broad "consensus" issue that neither party cares to dispute. Gun control fetishists need to be marginalized from the party like the tiny faction that they truly are. The day the Democratic Party abandons gun control for good is the day it gets a running start on the road back to a permanent national majority. Hell, we'd probably control Congress right now were it not for gun control.

[Peak_Oil]

69. What I'd really like to see

is a Democratic party candidate that would outlaw outsourcing completely. Outsourcing of manufacuring, intellectual labor, OIL PRODUCTION (which ain't gonna happen so forget it for now), everything.

We should learn how to live with the resources that actually exist in our country.

Imagine how many jobs we'd gain by doing so. Isolationist? Indeed. Yes. Isolate us from globalization. Put American back to work. The imperial capitalists would aboslutely turn green if we floated this. Imagine how many people get rich from globalization (small number) and how many have jobs (shitload). Labor rights from a labor party.

The gun shit is a very small thing in the big picture, but it's something that might put the Dems back in control so we could restore rights to the workers rather than the very small minority of the rich.

[T Town Jake]

79. Absolutely right - get the party focused back on...

...some real issues rather than allow a tiny faction keep us out of power with their unseemly obsession with other people's constitutional rights. Labor Union households are overwhelmingly RKBA - as are most Americans, period. Once we ditch this putrid gun control silliness, and regain power, the very issues you outlined can be addressed - plus Health care, preserving Social Security, and the rest. That's a move we can all applaud.

[Peak_Oil]

84. Thanks! Nice to have some company here.

Throw a bone to some people who would be interested in the rights of the individual, finance the campaign by the workers and the majority of people, take back control of the government by the people.

Don't waste time on debates framed by the rich that are designed to divide the many. That's their tactic, divide the many, make them argue with each other, and then they can keep strip-mining our nation for themselves.

As long as that which binds us together is stronger than that which would tear us apart then all will be well.

Find common ground with the rank-and-file Republicans and the Democrats win! Without a win, the effort is lost.

[MrBenchley]

89. This IS hilarious, Jake....

"some real issues"
Let's see, we got a war in Iraq we don't know how to get out of, we got the guy who attacked us on 9/11 running around free and clear, we got unsecured ports, factories and rail and bus stations, we got jobs going out of the country every day, we got the deficit skyrocketing out of control, we got open bigotry, we got pollution....

And you want to tell us we should try to reach out to people who looked at all that and thought those weren't REAL issues, but that the threat that John Kerry might take away their dicks guns was. Because, of course, they will respond to "real issues" once we pander to their paranoid delusions.

And then flying monkeys will come out of Wayne LaPierre's doughy butt.

"Labor Union households are overwhelmingly RKBA"
And the AFL-CIO ended up on the NRA enemies list. In fact, there's no more anti-labor organization in America than the National Rifle Association.

"Take Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. He has voted with the gun lobby enough times on gun-related issues that he has earned an A+ rating from the NRA. At the same time, he has consistently voted against workers' interests, and for business' interests, on almost every workplace-related issue. He has opposed increasing the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits and establishing an ergonomic standard that would make workplaces safer; and he has supported provisions that would make millions of workers ineligible for overtime pay and that would weaken unions and union rights.
And Santorum is not the exception; he is the rule. On work and employment-related issues that come before Congress, NRA-supported politicians are much more likely to support the interests of employers than the interests of employees."

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/04248/373232.stm

[T Town Jake]

104. You're preaching to the choir about the importance...

...of the issues you listed there, Benchy. And if it weren't for a tiny faction pushing wildly unpopular gun control bilge, every one of them would be well on their way to being addressed by a Democratic President and Congress. Don't blame me - I'm RKBA. Blame your GOP pals the Brady's and their ilk.

[MrBenchley]

112. Evidently I'm not...

"wildly unpopular gun control"
So tell us, Jake...why did pResident Shithead pretend to be FOR gun control, if it's wildly unpopular?

Answer: It's not...and sucking up to gun nuts would have cost the incompetent corrupt drunk millions of moderate voters.

"Don't blame me - I'm RKBA."
Actually you are exactly the sort of person to blame. The RKBA websites were lousy with the swift boat lies and the "Hanoi John" stuff every day during the campaign, without a single word of opposition that anybody could see. The gun lobby spent millions lying their ass off about Kerry and the Democrats without a murmur of protest from any "pro-gun democrats" anywhere.

Fuck your phony movement and its lies. RKBA is rotten from stem to stern.

[T Town Jake]

132. LOL - I sure didn't have to wait long for the ongoing...

...obsession you seem to have with "RKBA websites" to surface. I made a bet with myself on how long it'd take, and I won it. Like some Fundy anti-porn crusader who spends hours pawing through stroke mags so he can "educate" himself on what he's up against, you seem to know far more about what goes on over at "RKBA websites" than any gun owner I've run across in this forum. Indeed, I couldn't honestly tell you the last time I visited an "RKBA website." They're mainly for non-partisan "nuts-and-bolts" firearms talk anyway; you exaggerate the size and scope of most of their political forums, which are usually quite small and not well-frequented.

[MrBenchley]

138. Know your enemy, Jake...

It's always amusing to see what sort of psychotic gibberish gun loonies spout..and I've gotten lots of material for Bob boudelang from those forums.

"Like some Fundy anti-porn crusader who spends hours pawing through stroke mags"
So few sane people confuse guns with sex, jake....but gun loonies do all the fucking time. It's why the rest of us jeer.

[T Town Jake]

151. Well, I must admit...

...the one you posted down in the Gungeon a while back about "Racists see faces" was hilarious. Something about posters at some site seeing Ronald Reagan's face hovering over the United States the day of his funeral in a weather satellite photo. That one had tears streaming down my face.

[MrBenchley]

75. Gee, that's really funny...

considering the Republicans also pretend to be part of that "tiny minority"...

[MrBenchley]

73. But still a minority...

"Many of the 80 million gun owners out there don't necessarily want to vote for the Democratic party because of its affiliation with gays, AA's, and the MMM."
Yeah, how many? A majority of gun owners support common sense gun legislation....including the Assault Weapons Ban.

"Many of the 80 million gun owners out there don't necessarily want to vote for the Democratic party because of its affiliation with gays, AA's, and the MMM."
Yeah, there's a lot of bigoted loonies out there. Shall we start wearing sheets and lynching folks, like the Dixiecrats used to do? We should cheerfully piss on black Democrats and gay Democrats (not to mention urban Democrats and Jewish Democrats and Oritental Democrats and Hispanic Democrats) just to suck up to David duker'
s constituency?

"You have GOT to throw these guys a bone"
Why? The Republican party pretends to support gun control too....and doesn't. Why not attract the millions of moderate Republicans and independents who support gun control by emphasizing our position, instead of trying to suck up to the scum of the earth?

"you could try to gain their support by taking an active stance on the 2nd amendment and say that it specifically addresses the rights of individuals to arm themselves"
So in other words, we should lie about what the Constitution actually says and what the Courts have said, just to reach bigots who hate blacks and gays. No thanx, binky.

"even float an amendment to the BOR"
Ah, somebody needs to go back to civics class....

[Peak_Oil]

77. You win

this arguement.

Then again, you lost the Presidency, the Senate, and the House.

Congratulations!

:nopity:

[MrBenchley]

92. Wave your guns around...

That's clearly more important to you than the good of the country...

[Peak_Oil]

109. I think you've got the wrong idea about me.

I don't like gun control, that's true. But one more time, I'm going to run this past you. The Democratic Party LOST EVERYTHING this last race. Presidency, House, and Senate. The remainder of the Democrats in Congress are falling in line behind the Republicans because they're overwhelmed.

The Democratic Party is powerless to stop the Republican party for the next four years. We lost. It's over. We did not appeal to the majority of voters. Keep that in mind for a second.

Without broadening the appeal of the Democratic Party, we will lose again. Once again, George will send our sons overseas to die for oil and the Democrats will not oppose. They will lay down and die like the sick animal the Democratic Party has become.

We need fresh blood to take up the banner again. You tell me where we're going to get it from. Give me something better. Give me access to 80 million voters from some other voting bloc. Where are you going to get them from? We lost by 2%. Next time we'll lose by 2% unless we find 5.2 million new votes. We win over 10% more gun owners and we win in a walk.

Then, your voice counts much more than it does now. Right now you're venting on a message board instead of writing to your Democratic Congressman on an issue you really care about, gun control or other.

I think we have worse things to worry about than gun control myself. Education, social services, heat for the poor this winter, eventually a decent mass transportation system run on energy from an energy source this country actually has, such as nuclear.

This gun control thing is bullshit, it's a canard. It's dividing us. Why insist on dividing us? Find a way to bring us together. Remember, if you lose, you have NO VOICE. Well, I suppose you could continue to respond to me on a message board. I hope you find this experience satisfactory.

[MrBenchley]

125. I got exactly the right idea about you....

"The Democratic Party LOST EVERYTHING this last race."
And nobody did more to bring that about than the gun lobby.

"Give me access to 80 million voters from some other voting bloc."
By pissing off voters we have now? And bear in mind that the folks you're talking about are fuckwits who put their gun fetish above the good of the country. What in the wide world of sports makes anybody think that bigoted idiots who reject the entire Democratic agenda now are in any way potential Democratic voters?

"Right now you're venting on a message board instead of writing to your Democratic Congressman on an issue you really care about, gun control or other."
Yeah, and you're pimping a far right wing agenda that even the Republicans have to distance themselves from publicly.

"I think we have worse things to worry about than gun control myself. Education, social services, heat for the poor this winter, eventually a decent mass transportation system run on energy from an energy source this country actually has, such as nuclear."
But what do you care? You've got your guns!!!

"Find a way to bring us together."
Fine...let's have reasonable gun control measures to cut down on the ohrrendous toll of gun violence in our country, and reject the far right wing RKBA agenda, which is little more than a code word for racism anyway.

[mitchum]

13. I'm with you, my friend

An armed Left is a strong Left

[T Town Jake]

40. "An armed Left is a strong Left" - Exactly right...

...the right-wing fears nothing so much as liberals & progressives embracing their 2nd Amendment rights.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. I don't see people harping too much about THAT lately.

Abortion? Check. Gay rights? Check. Separation of church and state? Check. Gun control? ... no check.

[Peak_Oil]

59. Wrong tack. Repubs defined the debate that way.

We have the choice to define the debate another way. Abortion is a hot button for certain people. Making gay rights first and foremost is a losing battle for the Dems. I'm personally all for gay rights, but boomers and older aren't necessarily so enlightened. Defining the Dems as the Gay Rights party is a mistake. Defend gay rights, but I wouldn't say that that issue should be first and foremost. Try using an issue that has broader appeal, such as one considered important by 30% of the US rather than perhaps 5%.

Just stack the arguements by demographic size.

[DoNotRefill]

110. If you went to the "Million Mom March" in 2004....

you know that it was a nationally advertised protest march in Washington DC, that had a fair number of influential people coming to it....and it drew a crowd, according to NPR....of "hundreds". In DC. Fewer people showed up to it than show up on a weekend night at the local multiplex.

Most people are tired of losing. Some people apparently ENJOY losing, and seem willing to do ANYTHING to see to it that we continue to lose by maintaining a "hardline" on gun control. When a poster calls 80 MILLION voters "scum", you have to wonder what his REAL objective is.

[Peak_Oil]

121. Exactly.

The Democratic Party needs to focus on winning elections by appealing to the widest possible spectrum of voters, including strongly supporting issues that the majority would take personally. We have the option of framing the debate rather than simply reacting to the Republican agenda.

This is one way to bring 80 million people's attention to something they consider important. Could you imagine the NRA's reaction to an amendment to the Constitution saying that RKBA is an individual's right and not the right of the Government? They would absolutely wet themselves with glee, and the Dems would win in a walk.

[sangh0]

18. Funny how some think we can win by being like the repukes?

So what do we give up on after gun control?

[MrBenchley]

22. What's even funnier

Is that if we were to toss some principle off the back of the sleigh, gun control would be a terrible choice--since the Repukes pretend in public they're FOR gun control.

[UpsideDownFlag]

50. it never ceases to amaze me, benchley.

i've missed you down in the gungeon- I hardly ever go there anymore.

[MrBenchley]

53. Me neither....SSDD down there....

I like your new handle...

[UpsideDownFlag]

68. thanks. i changed my SN after the election... seemed more appropriate.

'embrace gun 'rights''.

[Peak_Oil]

61. The Republicans WON by being like the Republicans.

Remember that.

Big blue LOST by being like the Democrats.

[MrBenchley]

105. Actually the Republicans pretended to be gun control Democrats in public

pResident Shitforbrains told the country he was for renewing the Assault Weapons Ban during the debates...

[sangh0]

108. bush* also pretended to be FOR civil unions

Yeah, that's a sign he was being a real republican. ALL the repukes are FOR civil unions, right?

:crazy:

[MrBenchley]

127. We should have hammered him hard on both issues....

And he didn't tell that lie because "civil unions" were unpopular....

[sangh0]

146. I guess that means

we should abandon civil unions too!! After all, it's not a "real" liberal issue, right? If it were, it wouldn't be supported by so many people.

It has to go. Too many people agree with it.

[Tyler Durden]

170. Civil Unions=Equality Issue.

I think I stated that one.
I can see you're another "Every Last Issue or I won't vote for you" Democrat. Silly.

I repeat, FUCK gun control. More kids died from preventable childhood diseases last year than all gun violence combined.

[immoderate]

174. More kids died from choking on hot dogs

than died in gun accidents. Let's ban hot dogs.

--IMM

[DoNotRefill]

192. It's interesting that you say that.

If you look at the various stats out there, more kids under the age of 13 months (around 50 a year) drown in 5 gallon buckets than all children under the age of 10 years old who are accidentally killed with a firearm.

Kind of makes you think....

[mitchtv]

20. I must admit to being ambivalent as I own several

However I am not so sure assault weapons belong in municipalities that chose to ban them. I don't think people should be out killing animals with them either. If you can't hit something with a rifle , take it to a shooting range.

[immoderate]

184. You can rest easy.

Firstly, assault rifles are like other rifles except they can't have flash suppressors bayonet mounts of skeleton stocks.

Secondly, those rifles that can easily be made into assault rifles and are prohibited by hunting regulations. They are semi-automatic, and hunting rifles must be have bolts, levers, or pumps to chamber a round.

My guns will never be used on living things. They're for target and recreational shooting.

--IMM

[Billy Ruffian]

203. While I'm not a hunter

I don't think your statement is correct. You wrote
hunting rifles must be have bolts, levers, or pumps to chamber a round.


Are you claiming that semi-automatic rifles are not legal for hunting? That's not true in every state.

[MrBenchley]

21. Pout louder

"more Seniors died last year from preventable disease causes than all of the domestic gun violence cases combined"
So what? The gun lobby funded the Republican party, which blocked those seniors access to affordable health care.

And while we're standing at the microphone, let's point out that gun control is such a popular issue that pResident Fuckwit had to pretend in public he's for it, so he can fool moderate Republicans and independents.

[immoderate]

67. So let's have the gun lobby fund the Democrats.

Then they can pay for our issues.

--IMM

[FubarFly]

26. Yes! cop killer bullets for everyone!!

A fully automatic assault rifle issued with each new birth certificate!!

And fuck you if you feel otherwise!

Seriously, what do you think the phrase "gun control" means anyway?

Too many Democrats have been hopelessly warped by right wing propaganda on this issue.

[Peak_Oil]

56. What is the Assault Weapon Ban, and what does it say?

In 1994, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed. This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:

* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
* A grenade launcher.

Grenade launchers were already illegal and regulated by the ATF as "Destructive Devices". However, most militaries use an item known as a rifle grenade. This grenade attaches to the muzzle of the rifle and is launched by firing a round (or special blank round) into the base of the grenade. Since civilian flash suppressors were identical in diameter to military flash suppressors, they were capable of using this grenade (although possession of such a grenade is illegal and unlikely). For the purposes of this bill, this made these flash suppressors into "grenade launchers".

Firearms manufactured and owned prior to the ban are still legal if you can prove to the ATF that the gun was built as an assault rifle prior to 1994. After 1994, no more assault weapons (as defined above) can be manufactured.

[YNGW]

27. Gun Control

What I find interesting about those who advocate for Gun Control is that in the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments, the phrase "the people" means "the people", but in the 2nd Amendment "the people" suddenly means "the government".

[FubarFly]

28. Define "gun control" please.

And while were on the subject, could you post the full text of the second amendment.

[T Town Jake]

29. Yep - that's the incredible logic that...

...the gun control crowd is constantly trying to sell.

[FubarFly]

30. "Gun control" crowd?

So you support unrestricted, unregulated, gun proliferation?

Or if you don't, then perhaps you are a part of this "crowd."

[T Town Jake]

35. I support the 2nd Amendment the way the Founders...

...meant for it to be interpreted - RKBA. I support laws that keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and lunatics, to be sure. But sane law-abiding citizens should not have their RKBA infringed, just like the amendment plainly says.

[FubarFly]

37. So you support some forms of gun control.

I'm glad we're in agreement.

And for the record here's the text of the second amendement:

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.


What do you think the phrase "well regulated" means?

[T Town Jake]

41. Absolutely. I believe in background checks...

...and laws that preclude felons, people adjudicated non compos mentis, drug addicts, and people convicted of domestic abuse from owning firearms. And stiff prison sentences for those caught selling firearms to same.

To answer your question, I think "well regulated" fits that definition of "gun control" in the examples I listed above quite well.

[FubarFly]

48. Do you think there should be restrictions

as to the type of weapons owned?

Should I be able to own unlimited numbers of fully automatic military style assault weapons? Or would that possibly infringe upon other citizens right to seek out "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

[DoNotRefill]

117. there are 250,000 legally owned machineguns in private hands...

in the US. Since 1934, when they started keeping track, exactly TWO of them have been used in a crime of violence. TWO, in 70 years. And one of those involved a POLICE OFFICER.

Yes Sir, that's one HELL of a problem we've got with legal machineguns...

[FubarFly]

131. It's not the "legal" machine guns I'm worried about.

But if we registered all guns, kept track of them, and the same ratio held, I'd be pretty damn happy.

What I am concerned about is reducing gun fatalities.

And I'm sick of listening to NRA talking points obscuring any substantive discussion on the issue.

[DoNotRefill]

133. So you don't oppose legal machinegun ownership?

After all, LEGALLY owned machineguns are practically never used in crime...

BTW, I don't know if you knew this, but roughly 2/3 of ALL gun fatalities in the US are cases of suicide. I thought Democrats were FOR Death with Dignity laws?

[FubarFly]

143. So you support registering ALL guns then..

After all it worked so well for machine guns.

By golly, you've shown me the light. National gun registration is the answer!

[DoNotRefill]

148. Nope...

because criminals are NOT required to take part in a registration scheme, and they CAN NOT be punished for failing to register their arms. Why? Because the Supreme Court says that doing that would violate their FIFTH Amendment rights.

[FubarFly]

159. Registration would of course be voluntary.

And along with education and training, it would be a public safety project. Perhaps we could attach a tax break as an incentive.

Criminals of course would still be criminals. But if you privately sell a criminal a registered gun without agreeing to the terms of the sale being conditional upon a background check, then you would be liable for the crimes committed with that gun.

Responsible gun ownership goes up. Criminal gun ownership, albeit slightly, goes down.

Sounds like a plan to me.

But don't tell the NRA- it might hurt precious gun sales

[DoNotRefill]

163. You don't need permission....

to exercise a right. And almost NOBODY would comply if it was voluntary. Look at the California "Assault Weapon" experience. They passed a law making it a crime to possess an unregistered assault weapon. They had an estimated FIVE PERCENT compliance rate. And that was MANDATORY registration.

[FubarFly]

176. Right, what part of the word INCENTIVE did you not

understand. I don't think California had the right approach. I am suggesting a more civic-minded alternative. If you put more money in people's pockets, and this was entirely VOLUNTARY, trust me, people would sign up. With the sale of new guns this would be an almost sure thing. Would you rather pay $500 or $425? For example.
Slowly but surely, you change the way people view guns in this country. As both a right- no doubt!- and a responsibility.

But of course with all of the hate and fear filled rhetoric out there, there is no way we can discuss decent proposals without some lunatic yelling about slippery slopes.

[DoNotRefill]

177. I think they'd laugh in your face.

They tried the Big Stick, and got an estimated 5% compliance rate in the face of criminal prosecution. What on EARTH makes you think that people would comply for $75??????

[FubarFly]

185. Exactly my point.

Our culture is too twisted for sane solutions to even be debated, let alone applied.

It wont stop me from trying.

I just wish I encountered less resistance from my fellow Democrats.

Civic-minded responsibility was a value we all used to share.

[DoNotRefill]

193. When your "sane solution" includes abrogating civil liberties....

damn straight we're going to resist you. And by "we're" I'm referring to pro civil rights Democrats.

[FubarFly]

198. Hmm..we agree that we'll never agree.

"Pro civil rights Democrats" are doing great harm to this country by tacitly supporting the right wing agenda. The Republicans are using "gun rights" as a wedge issue to enable their fascist agenda, and you are enabling them by bleating their propaganda.

So damn straight I'm going to resist you.

The inference that reducing gun violence is somehow against civil rights is laughable. Have you ever set foot inside a major city?
How can you be against gun control in cities, when in many places guns are used as a major tool of oppression? Guns are a far greater scourge then your bean-counting fatality statistics indicate.

Here's why: If you have a problem with the drug dealer on your block, good luck trying to speak out. If they figure out it was you, you're more than likely to end up dead. But why even take that chance if the cops won't even set foot in your neighborhood? For the cops, it's not worth the risk. Do you think arming yourself is the answer? Hah! YOU have a family to protect. They don't. For most people in this situation, it is already hopeless. As the Republican agenda, in which the "gun rights" ilk proudly supports, gains more and more traction, the number of neighborhoods that end up like this will increase, because the amount of poverty will increase. The laws I support would help limit the flow of guns into these neighborhoods. They give honest citizens a fighting chance against the drug dealers and the gangbangers. This is why ***actual*** civil rights activists support gun control. They know that they can't defeat the culture of violence using violence.

And this is also why most cops support gun control. They know that law enforcement is impossible unless they can get some sort of handle on the amount and types of weapons that come into the neighborhoods. They are the reason why there was an AWB in the first place.

So why should "pro civil rights" Democrats care about gun control? Well, if we lose the support of the civil rights activists, we lose the minority vote. And without the turnout of minority voters in cities, many of our blue states are no longer blue. Good luck winning the WH without Pennsylvania, Michigan, or California. Hey, but at least you'll have West Virginia, maybe!

Of course, I'm apparantly in favor of losing elections, and anti-civil rights, so what do I know? :shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

204. Heh.

I lived in Richmond, VA, and Washington DC. It's strange....even with DC's draconian gun control laws, which effectively disarmed the people who obeyed the law, any criminal who wanted a gun seemed able to get one. It's kind of strange how that works....the only people the law affects are people who obey the law.

"The laws I support would help limit the flow of guns into these neighborhoods. They give honest citizens a fighting chance against the drug dealers and the gangbangers."

Horseshit. For some unknown reason, drug dealers and gangbangers have no trouble getting whatever the hell they want. It probably has something to do with the fact that they already work in the black market. All that gun control laws do is disarm the people who obey the law.

"And this is also why most cops support gun control."

How long did you work as a cop? Because my experience has been that most rank and file cops (including myself at one point) do NOT support gun control.

As for the Democrat winning blue states, forgive me if I'm not as up on current events as I should be, but didn't we win the Blue States in 2000 and 2004? So why aren't Gore and Kerry in the White House? Oh, yeah....because winning the Blue States alone isn't enough.

[FubarFly]

214. Al least we're getting somewhere....

The reason criminals are getting guns is that there are still major loopholes in these "draconian" laws. However there have been laws which been effective. The Brady Bill has helped the situation, despite the fact that the private sale loophole seriously undermines it. Again, if the criminals weren't still getting guns, there wouldn't be a need for tighter gun control.


How long did you work as a cop? Because my experience has been that most rank and file cops (including myself at one point) do NOT support gun control

I'm not a cop, but I come from a family which has many cops. There is not a one of them who wants to face criminals who are both organized and more heavily armed than they there are. When I tell you that there are neighborhoods that cops just don't go to, I'm not
exaggerating. Now I can find plenty of links on the web to support my statement, and I can find plenty of links to refute it. There is much propaganda out there. The bottom line is no cop relishes the idea of going up against a Tek-9, Uzi, or Ak-47. No one I know, no one you know. The AWB has had an effect, but not the effect it could of had. NRA resistance is a major reason why.

As for the Democrat winning blue states, forgive me if I'm not as up on current events as I should be, but didn't we win the Blue States in 2000 and 2004? So why aren't Gore and Kerry in the White House? Oh, yeah....because winning the Blue States alone isn't enough.

Of course. But we can't win elections by losing more blue states.
Giving up on gun control will cause more harm than good. Feel free to disagree. In my opinion we are better off fighting right wing propaganda than panderering too it's victims. We've been weak, muddled, and muzzled. Forgive me if I think our problems are much deeper than our mainstream positions on gun control.

[DoNotRefill]

218. Heh. Correlation does not equal causation.

"The reason criminals are getting guns is that there are still major loopholes in these "draconian" laws."

Pot and cocaine are pretty much illegal in the entire US. How hard is it to get pot or cocaine? And if you're concerned about armed drug dealers, there's already the distribution net in place.

"Again, if the criminals weren't still getting guns, there wouldn't be a need for tighter gun control."

Criminals will ALWAYS get guns, PERIOD. It doesn't matter if all guns are banned, they'll still get them. Look at England. There's apparently a thriving black market on eastern european firearms like the makarov there.

"The bottom line is no cop relishes the idea of going up against a Tek-9, Uzi, or Ak-47."

I sure as shit would rather go up against a tec-9 or an Uzi than a 60+ year old M-1 Garand. Why? Because my vest would stop repeated 9mm parabellum rounds, and you could punch through 5 or 6 vests with a single standard .30-06 FMJ round. Also, people who use Garands know that they have to AIM.

"The AWB has had an effect, but not the effect it could of had."

The AW ban didn't do shit. There were already no random drive-by bayonetings. And that had ZERO to do with the NRA. It was a stupid law to begin with.

"But we can't win elections by losing more blue states"

Do you REALLY think that because we dropped gun control people in the Blue states would suddenly start voting Republican?!?!?!

[FubarFly]

221. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Let me just say, who the hell goes into a street fight carrying a M-1 Garand? Damn. Again the AWB in it's original inception is different than the final bill. You look at the effect of compromise and declare the entire effort useless, I bitch and moan about the fact that we had to compromise, because I know there's still a problem. I am open to working solutions.

Do you REALLY think that because we dropped gun control people in the Blue states would suddenly start voting Republican?!?!?!

I live in Philadelphia. I can tell you that if Philadelphia has a high turnout, the state goes blue. If it has an average or weak turnout, then it goes Red. If it weren't for leaders in the black community getting out the vote, PA would definately be red. Dropping gun control from our platform would seriously hurt our turnout in cities.

[DoNotRefill]

222. Ummmm....

"who the hell goes into a street fight carrying a M-1 Garand?"


Who the fuck goes to a streetfight carrying an AK-47?????

"I bitch and moan about the fact that we had to compromise, because I know there's still a problem."

If that was a compromise, we'd have been ROYALLY screwed if an "unwatered" bill had passed. Your COMPROMISE cost us the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. Nice work, that.

"Dropping gun control from our platform would seriously hurt our turnout in cities."

Cite, please.

[FubarFly]

223. For starters you can google

NAACP and gun control.

It's no secret that civil rights groups support gun control.


Who the fuck goes to a streetfight carrying an AK-47?????

No one I hope. One more than is necessary if the NRA taliban advocates have their way.

[FubarFly]

49. Double post.

Oops.

[Columbia]

42. What do you think "shall not be infringed" means?

[FubarFly]

46. Well,

I believe we the people have the right to bear arms. This is a right which should not be infringed upon- IOW taken away. If we interpret militia to mean, potentially, every able bodied American citizen, then the real trick here is to understand that "well regulated" is not a form of infringement, since it's spelled out in the very same amendment. The real question here is: who does the regulating? Do we let miltias regulate themselves, or should our freely elected representatives be able to apply regulations on militia, without going so far as to infringe upon- i.e. take away the right entirely?

[Columbia]

55. The militia is independent of the right

A modern reading would sound like this, "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

You can quibble over the militia and how it should be run all you want, but it doesn't take away from the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html

[FubarFly]

64. SInce my first sentence said that people have the right to keep

and bear arms, I'm hardly disagreeing with you.

But my quibbling speaks to the heart of the gun debate:

We have the right to bear arms.

But we do not have the right to the unrestricted, unregulated, possession of firearms.

Because we do not have the right to endanger public safety.

[Columbia]

80. Again there is that pesky "shall not be infringed" part

You are also assuming that "unrestricted, unregulated, possession of firearms" endangers public safety.

I'd argue that it is just the opposite - that "unrestricted, unregulated, possession of firearms" preserves public safety.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Ben Franklin

[FubarFly]

91. So if I oppose letting every nutball in America build an personal

arsenal, then I would be surrendering an Essential Liberty?

I suppose you are also in favor of yeling "Fire!" in movie theatres, since that would be surrending your right to freedom of speech, which is also an Essential Liberty?

[Columbia]

111. In my opinion, yes

I sure as heck would yell "fire" in a theater if there was a fire. It'd not only be your right to do so, but your duty.

If you were truly surrendering your right to free speech to safeguard the remote chance that a person will yell fire when there is none, movie theaters would gag you on entry.

And gagging you on entry is precisely what gun control does. It is a prior-restraint, pre-emptive strike which presumes guilt/future crime upon the innocent.

[FubarFly]

123. Hardly.

You can not ignore the gun fatality statistics in America and rationally make this argument.

There's nothing pre-emptive about making a law to address gun violence AFTER thirty thousand people have been shot dead.

[Columbia]

139. Ignoring the Common Cause

That is a fallacious argument. You are assuming that gun ownership has a proven causation to "gun fatalities." Such is not the case. In fact, it even has a rather poor correlative relationship.

If you truly were concerned about firearm homicides, it would behoove you to work on eliminating drug prohibition, reducting poverty and unemployment, and improving education rather than wasting your time on useless gun control legislation (which only costs us elections and thus reduces our role in advancing those core values).

[FubarFly]

154. It has been proven. Over and over.

It's not my fault that people twist facts to suit their own private agendas. And it's not that it's still far too easy for criminals to buy guns, which is certainly a problem. It's that it's too easy for irresponsible people to buy guns. We don't provide enough education or training. We don't impart upon gun owners the gravity of responsibility that gun ownership carries. Most gun accidents can be avoided, and most gun fatalities could be avoided. This is ground zero. Basic logic. Sensible regulation at it's finest. Unless we address the fundamental way we view gun ownership, then I will fervently support any legislation that intelligently restricts gun ownership. Because despite your claims to the contrary, irresponsible gun owners are a threat to society.

[DoNotRefill]

179. You have a problem with suicide?

because that's that around 60% of gun fatalities were in 2001 and 2002. Suicides.

"Unless we address the fundamental way we view gun ownership, then I will fervently support any legislation that intelligently restricts gun ownership."

And your perpetration of that goal will continue to ensure that Democrats have trouble geting elected dog-catcher, much less President.

[FubarFly]

200. Suicide is a separate issue.

Are you suggesting that gun violence isn't a problem because most gun deaths are suicides? Okaaay. I heartily disagree. Gun violence is a problem AND our countries high suicide rate is a problem. The numbers for both are still way too high.

"And your perpetration of that goal will continue to ensure that Democrats have trouble geting elected dog-catcher, much less President.

I disagree. Most Americans support gun control. 70% supported the assault weapons ban. Our problem is with articulating our positions. Too many people believe the lies Republicans tell about Democrats.

[DoNotRefill]

210. Oh horseshit.

"Too many people believe the lies Republicans tell about Democrats."

Too many people DON'T believe the lies we tell about ourselves. We tried to sell Kerry as a moderate. He's not. Kerry claimed to support the Second Amendment. He doesn't. Kerry tried to run as a "Hawk" on Iraq. He isn't. If you try to feed people unbelievable lies, you shouldn't be surprised when they don't believe them. And if they're obviously STUPID lies that are easily seen through, that factor alone can make them turn against you. Bush won because a lot of people thought he was telling the truth as he saw it. It's the old "he may be an asshole, but he's an HONEST asshole" bit. They thought Kerry was simply saying what was politically expedient. And frankly, if Kerry had simply told the truth about his position (for example, if he'd come out and said "Damn straight I'm a Liberal, and I'm PROUD of it!") he couldn't have done any worse than he did by trying to be a "moderate".

[FubarFly]

216. Uh huh

So Kerry was an ultra liberal tree hugger, who paid lip-service to the second amendment, and was a secret "dove" on Iraq?. Your more twisted than I originally though. But hey, if it makes you feel better: you believe YOUR lies, and I'll believe mine.

With that said, I do agree with you that I would have liked Kerry a lot more if said, "damn straight, I'm a LIBERAL and I'm proud of it." I absolutely agree with you that Kerry was too politically expedient.

[DoNotRefill]

220. A SECRET dove????

Nope, I think EVERYBODY knew that Kerry wouldn't have gone into Iraq if he had been President at the time. Do you REALLY doubt this???

You say "ultra liberal tree hugger" like it's a BAD thing. Why is that?

[DoNotRefill]

211. oh, and BTW....around 60% of gun violence....

is suicide, according to the CDC. And I have ZERO problem with suicide, be it by gun or whatever other means out there.

[Columbia]

197. There will always be failures within the system

You will NEVER prevent that. In fact, the harder you try to prevent them, the more complex system becomes, and the higher potential there is for catastrophic failure.

See Prohibition for example. Unintended consequences of higher rates of violence and homicide.

[FubarFly]

199. Granted.

But the consequence of doing nothing sometimes outweighs the risk of trying something.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but at least I'm willing to admit that there is a problem. And there is a very serious problem.

If we can agree on nothing else, hopefully we can agree on this.

[Columbia]

205. Doing nothing?

We've been increasing regulation steadily for the better part of the last 70 years (usually under Republican administrations). Gun control (or lack thereof) is NOT the problem. It is a knee-jerk response to a problem that has much greater underlying causes that I've already mentioned previously.

The war on drugs. Poverty. Unemployment. You alleviate those big three and you won't even need to think about passing useless, ineffective and liberty-limiting legislation like gun control.

By stressing gun control, we lose votes and elections and thus opportunities to actually do something about those issues I've listed.

[FubarFly]

217. Thanks for the polite response,

You make some valid points: much of our regulation has been a knee-jerk response which doesn't address the root of the problem. And alleviating poverty, unemployment, the war on drugs is certainly a good idea. But we're simply going to disagree on the effectiveness of gun control. I think there are a few more viable babies mixed in with that bath water than you do.

And respectfully, I disagree with your conclusion. We are not losing elections by stressing a position that most Americans agree with. We are losing elections because we value pandering over principles.

[Columbia]

224. I'll agree on one thing

We are losing elections because we value pandering over principles.

And one of those principles we pander away is individual freedom (gun rights).

[DoNotRefill]

118. If you're not "well regulated" already....

I wonder where you live. Let me put it to you this way. A human being is physically INCAPABLE of holding all of the statutes that apply to him/herself at one time. The weight of the paper would crush them.

[immoderate]

52. Well regulated means adequate

As in SCUBA diving, you would want a well regulated air supply. I have searched this one out thoroughly.

--IMM

[FubarFly]

76. So then it would speak to the overall amount of miltia.

Following that logic, there should be a finite number of gun owners.
Since it's clear that the entire population wasn't intended to be militia. Why else would it have to be well regulated?

[immoderate]

87. The entire population is the militia.

Usually though, it means men of combat age, whatever that is.

Adequate does not mean adequate in numbers it means in skill, or adequate to use the weapons. The militia of the time were often called "regulars" which meant that they had adequate skills to use their arms.

Like I say, I looked this stuff up.

--IMM

[FubarFly]

96. I'm sorry,

interpretations aren't as universal as you think.

It's why there is still debate on the subject.

[immoderate]

113. That's the way these words were used when

the Constitution was written. No one is preventing anyone from debating. Most debates are about the meaning of words anyway.

Here is a federal court case which covers much of this.

On edit: From US vs. Emerson (revised in 2001) 5th District Federal Court:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia
appears from the debates in the Convention, the
history and legislation of Colonies and States, and
the writings of approved commentators. These show
plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense. . . . ordinarily when called for service
these men were expected to appear bearing arms
supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use
at the time.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=9910331cr0

--IMM

[FubarFly]

202. It figures that you would quote the 5th.

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

212. How about the 9th?

In U.S. v. Stewart, §922(o) was struck down as unconstitutional on ICC grounds.

[DoNotRefill]

120. The militia is everybody....

except a few public officials (props to George Mason).

[MrBenchley]

98. Yeah, Tom Jefferson in diving mask and flippers....

with Jacques Cousteau and James Madison laboring over the Consittution at the bottom of the sea...

Uh, tell us, what does the regulator do on a scuba tank?

[immoderate]

136. A regulator on a SCUBA (it's an acronym)

provides the right air pressure depending on depth.

Here's the pertinent text on the 2nd Amendment from US vs. Emerson:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=9910331cr0

Plainly, then, "a well-regulated Militia" refers not to a special or select subset or
group taken out of the militia as a whole but rather to the
condition of the militia as a whole, namely being well
disciplined and trained. And, "Militia," just like "well-regulated Militia,"
likewise was understood to be composed of
the people generally possessed of arms which they knew how to
use, rather than to refer to some formal military group separate
and distinct from the people at large.

Regulated here means adequately trained.

--IMM

[DoNotRefill]

116. And what do you think the words "right", "people", and "infringed" mean?

If it's a State's right to have a militia, why doesn't it say "the right of the state militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

It's a RIGHT, NOT a privilege. It belongs to the PEOPLE, NOT the State. And it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, not even a little bit, or what you think is "reasonable infringement".

"Power to the People" used to be a progressive ideal. Then at some point we got infiltrated by authoritarianists.

[YNGW]

39. Well said.

The Bill of Rights were to limit government, not to impose more gov't regulations upon the citizenry.

I refuse to discuss these and other issues with people who have already determined their stance. These people in our party who consistently want to plant their shoes in cement and not compromise on issues for the sake of purity need to be shoved into a corner and ignored. It's a losing proposition for them to have a seat at the table and to allow them to have any imput will only lead to our continued defeat.

[MrBenchley]

45. What I find interesting

is that nobody's tried to pretend the Bill of Rights covers only individual rights and not collective rights more desperately than the National Rifle Association.

But when the Campaign Finance Reform law passed, they were the first to rush to court, claiming that their collective freedom of speech was abridged if they couldn't hand out blood money to the GOP's right wing extremists.

And by the way, which pair of words do not appear in the Second Amendment?
A) "well-regulated" and "militia"
B) "state" and "security"
C) "guns" and "individual"

[immoderate]

58. It is an indivdual right.

Here's a summary.

http://www.mcsm.org/indivright.html

Here it is in FindLaw:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20011031.html


Here's the court decision--5th District:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=9910331cr0

The court found in reversing a lower court decision that the right to bear arms was indeed an individual right, and that bearing arms was not exclusively a reference to militia activities.

--IMM

[YNGW]

86. "the people"

"The people" are "individuals" in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments. That's also the case in the 2nd. When the framers said "the people", they meant "the people", from the "collective" even down to as small an entity as the "individual" citizen.

"The people" have the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, whether that be a collection of many people or just one individual.

"The people" have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...., whether that be a collection of many people or just one individual.

And so on.............

-----------------------------

A "Thanx" out to IMModerate for documenting the courts cases establishing the individual and the 2nd Amendment and discrediting those who have foolishly decided to deny their fellow citizens their Constitution rights because of their own personal agendas and selfish desires.

[immoderate]

195. Just doin' my patriotic duty.

:)

--IMM

[DoNotRefill]

122. And the ACLU was there with them...

Imagine that....

[T Town Jake]

33. You're so right about that...

...the tiny gun control faction in the Democratic Party cost us the Congress in '94; the 2000 presidential election (even with the obvious fraud; they wouldn't have been able to steal it if gun control silliness hadn't cost Gore Tennessee); and at least three Senate and several House seats this last time out. It's time gun control was dropped by the Party, period.

:thumbsup:

[FubarFly]

34. Now it's a "tiny faction"

Sort of like the troll population on DU?

[T Town Jake]

36. If you've got something you want to say...

...or an accusation you wish to level, why don't you just come right out and speak it plainly? :shrug:

[FubarFly]

38. Forgive the inference.

I'm just sick of useless hyperbole as opposed to constructive debate.

[T Town Jake]

44. Quite alright. I understand what you're getting at...

...but I think we can find what common ground we can, and agree to disagree on the rest.

[sendero]

47. I've been posting about this for weeks..

... gun control policies, as practiced by "liberals" are useless, have created no greater good for society and have cost Dems millions of votes.

As far as I'm concerned, those points are not even arguable. I'm not talking about background checks and the like, I'm talking about putrid and stupid legislation like the "assault weapons ban", which is about as accurately labelled as the "new freedom initiative".

This we-have-to-get-the-guns liberal mantra is one of the main elements in the public's perception of liberals as a bunch of whiny pantywaists. The facts are simple:

1) there are millions of guns in the US. the only effective control would be to melt them down and it is not going to happen.

2) laws that make largely artificial distinctions between one gun and another might make the ignorant sleep better, but it infuriates those with a clue. how do you like it when legislation restricting your rights is passed, where everyone who knows the subject matter recognizes it is nothing more than a feel-good bill that screws with people and makes not one person safer?

3) right wingers have long amassed guns as a hedge against a totalitarian government. guess what, the totalitarian government is not coming from the left, its coming from the right (a legit argument might address how useful the citizen ownership of firearms against a totalitarian government actually is, I'm not getting that far in here)

4) the left has always been about individual rights. but on the gun issue the left just loses its mind. you simply cannot justify restricting the rights of gun owners because you are afraid of what they might do. once someone commits a criminal act, they lose some of their rights, gun ownership being one of those rights. but to pass laws that say "we can't trust people to have guns" - well that is an a priori infringement of rights that the left should be against

[FubarFly]

57. OK.

The putrid legislation you decry isn't the same as legislation in original inception. It's a watered-down compromised version that no well-informed "liberal" would support. Why on Earth why anyone WANT ineffective legislation? The reason the "assault weapons ban" is so ineffective is because the NRA put all off their lobbying muscle into neutering the law. And that's not to say that it still didn't do some good. The NRA is also the reason we still have loopholes in the background checks you claim to support.

The real debate about gun control isn't about "good guns or bad guns." It's about "more guns or less guns"

The NRA, in it's current incarnation as the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers, is against any legislation that would lead to less guns. Their interest isn't one of public safety, merely one of profit. Less guns = less sales = less profit. They are in it for themselves. They use the second amendment as a smokescreen, and do everything in their power to muddy the debate.

Now would restrictions on the type of guns and the amount of guns increase public safety? Most studies I've seen would indicate, yes. But as long as people repeat the NRA's propaganda as fact, there is no way we can have a proper debate.

[sendero]

72. Thanks for making my case...

.."The real debate about gun control isn't about "good guns or bad guns." It's about "more guns or less guns"


Who gives YOU the right to decide that there should be less guns? Who gives the government the right to say "we need less guns out there so don't let ole Jim buy one?"

That is exactly what I'm talking about - it is a losing proposition for the Dems because PEOPLE WANT GUNS and they get MAD WHEN YOU SAY THEY CAN'T HAVE ONE.

[MrBenchley]

82. Again, this is such a ridiculous proposition....

"Who gives YOU the right to decide that there should be less guns?"
The Founding Fathers did....

"PEOPLE WANT GUNS and they get MAD WHEN YOU SAY THEY CAN'T HAVE ONE"
Sez who? We've seen that just 36% of the households have guns....and how many of those need or want more than one? Furthermore, who said they can't have one?

[FubarFly]

83. Public saftey transcends your selfish desires.

If our expression of freedom endangers society as a whole, our legally elected representives has the right place restrictions on them. This is also true of every single other freedom we have.

If gun violence wasn't an epidemic in this country, I wouldn't even be arguing this point.

Now your correct in saying that we have to articulate our positions properly. No one is trying to keep ole Jim from owning a gun, an arsenal maybe, but not a gun.

[sendero]

88. Wahhh...

.... I pronounce you the exact kind of liberal that will never will another election in this county.

Why don't you just say "for the children" or "hug your cat today"?

So, you want to ask ole Jim how many guns he already has? How incredibly American. Why don't you ask him what church he goes to and whether he buys Savings Bonds?

Sorry, this isn't about public safety, this is about a minority imposing their will on others because they are scared. Sound familiar?

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[FubarFly]

182. Let's try this again.

Since my other post was deleted.

Stop feeding into how the right defines "liberal."

They have twisted the concept into a caricuture.

Help me untwist.

[DoNotRefill]

129. that's EXACTLY the reasoning that made GITMO happen.

"If our expression of freedom endangers society as a whole, our legally elected representives has the right place restrictions on them."

Nice. Very Nice.

:puke:

[FubarFly]

137. Yeah, I'm sorry if actual democracy is too messy for you

Using your argument we should never pass another law, because it might "lead to Gitmo." I support laws which I perceive are in the public interest, as would you I guess, if you had any intention of being honest with me.

We have a whole history of passing such laws. And many have actually succeeded in doing good. Really. You can look it up.

[DoNotRefill]

140. yup...when we put the Japanese into internment camps....

we did it to "protect the public".

Ever hear the saying "The Bill of Rights isn't a suicide pact"? That's where you're coming from...practicality over civil liberties. Thanks, but no thanks.

[FubarFly]

168. No, not that one. That was a bad law.

Part of the responsibility of having rights, is developing the wisdom to exercise them.

Of course, by you logic we should also not regulate our food, penalize polluters, or limit the age of our workers, or the length of our workdays.

Practicality, when it works, enhances civil liberties.

Surely you see this?

[DoNotRefill]

181. What I see...

is that you're willing to trade civil liberties in the forlorn HOPE that it MIGHT make things better. I'm not.

Some gun laws are constitutional. For example, it's perfectly constitutional, and not an infringement of the RKBA, to make it a crime to shoot people. That's regulating conduct, and passes constitutional muster without problem. But when you get into regulating POSSESSION when there's been no bad conduct, THAT is unconstitutional.

[FubarFly]

201. So you see what you WANT to see, and

not what I actually WRITE.

The types of laws I am arguing for have already been challenged and affirmed as constitutional. The type of laws you THINK I'm arguing for, well that I don't know. I am arguing for laws against possession when there is bad conduct. In order for these laws to work,law-abiding gun owners may be inconvenienced- you already have to submit to a background check; you already can not own certain types of firearms. I'm hardly advocating the massive surrender of civil liberties that your hyperbole suggests.

[DoNotRefill]

213. Try U.S. v. Haynes, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)....

"In these circumstances, it can scarcely
be said that the risks of criminal prosecution confronted by
prospective registrants are "remote possibilities out of the
ordinary course of law," Heike v. United States, 227 U.S. 131,
144; yet they are compelled, on pain of criminal prosecution,
to provide to the Secretary both a formal acknowledgment of
their possession of firearms, and supplementary information
likely to facilitate their arrest and eventual conviction. The
hazards of incrimination created by the registration
requirement can thus only be termed "real and appreciable.""

If a criminal must register a firearm, that's a violation of his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. So registration laws ONLY apply to the law abiding. Now what was the purpose of your registration scheme again?????

[FubarFly]

215. Did you rememeber wheh I told you it would be VOLUNTARY?

Care pointing out to me where I advocated mandatory registration?

[DoNotRefill]

219. and if it's voluntary, it's useless.

No offense intended, but you've got some STRANGE ideas.

[FubarFly]

225. None taken.

And the feeling is entirely mutual. ;-)

[Billy Ruffian]

226. What would voluntary registration accomplish?

Ease of recovery? BS. I've got the serial numbers of all my stuff recorded. If it gets stolen, the numbers go to the police. If not, what possible utility is there in the police having those numbers.

[DoNotRefill]

128. yeah, gun companies are profitable...

that's why so many are out of business, and S&W was sold for $1,000,000, which was a TINY pricetag.

[FubarFly]

173. You keep making my points.

This is why the NRA is so virulent. It's business, nothing personal. They are subverting the public good in an attempt to increase profits. They're bad Americans, but good capitalists. This is why they are by and large Republicans. If they didn't push so hard for "gun rights", they fear more companies might go under. After all, most people who want guns, already have them. Guns don't wear out like your car does, or your TV does. They're built to last. So how to they increase sales- well, like any capitalist they promote "new and better guns", they encourage multiple ownership, they turn it into a stylistic fad, like cars are a fad, or technology is a fad. You just simply must have the newest car, or the fastest computer, or the most um, lethal gun. Even if you don't need it. They also use xenophobia as a selling tactic, but that's a parallel point.

Personally, I don't see the sufferering of gun companies as a bad thing in the same way I don't see the suffering of tobacco companies as a bad thing. But that's just me.

[MrBenchley]

62. What a pantload....

"gun control policies, as practiced by "liberals" are useless, have created no greater good for society and have cost Dems millions of votes."
Sez you. Of course here in the real world, the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill cut gun crime and were overwhelmingly popular. Even the NRA has to pretend in public that they supported the Brady Bill (although they fought it all the way) and pResident Shrimp had to announce he was for renewing the Assault Weapons Ban (which was a lie).

"laws that make largely artificial distinctions between one gun and another"
That IS hilarious. If those distinctions between assault weapons and other weapons WERE artifical, gun nuts wouldn't be creaming their jeans for assault weapons, the gun lobby wouldn't have sued to try and over turn the ban, and the GOP wouldn't have scuttled it on the NRA's orders.

"right wingers have long amassed guns as a hedge against a totalitarian government."
And what model citizens they are too....so we should become a left wing version of the Aryan Nation? Thanx but no thanx, sparky.

"you simply cannot justify restricting the rights of gun owners because you are afraid of what they might do"
What a pantload. We have every right to register cars and license drivers to prevent harm to society. We have every right to put restrictions on toxic waste disposal because we're afraid of the damage someone doing so irresponsibly might cause.

Do be sure and tell us which law you think says "we can't trust people to have guns."

And by the way, it's hilarious to hear people, who say they need a pistol permit because they distrust their fellow citizens, turn around and wail that nobody trusts THEM.

[Peak_Oil]

74. artificial distinctions between one gun and another

"laws that make largely artificial distinctions between one gun and another"
That IS hilarious. If those distinctions between assault weapons and other weapons WERE artifical, gun nuts wouldn't be creaming their jeans for assault weapons, the gun lobby wouldn't have sued to try and over turn the ban, and the GOP wouldn't have scuttled it on the NRA's orders.

Please take a look at the following site:

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm

Exerpt:

In 1994, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed. This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:

* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
* A grenade launcher.

Grenade launchers were already illegal and regulated by the ATF as "Destructive Devices". However, most militaries use an item known as a rifle grenade. This grenade attaches to the muzzle of the rifle and is launched by firing a round (or special blank round) into the base of the grenade. Since civilian flash suppressors were identical in diameter to military flash suppressors, they were capable of using this grenade (although possession of such a grenade is illegal and unlikely). For the purposes of this bill, this made these flash suppressors into "grenade launchers".

Firearms manufactured and owned prior to the ban are still legal if you can prove to the ATF that the gun was built as an assault rifle prior to 1994. After 1994, no more assault weapons (as defined above) can be manufactured.

[MrBenchley]

78. Been there, done that....

I already know gun loonies don't like the AWB. Of all their horseshit, this "nobody knows what an assault weapon is except we who get chubbies from them" bushwah might be the most tedious.

[sendero]

81. What a steaming pile...

... I never said anything about the Brady bill, because it is nothing more than a background check and a waiting period for handguns.
These kinds of reasonable laws I have no problem with. However, you can find just as many people who have data to prove the Brady bill did nothing about crime as you will find those who claim it did.

Concealed carry laws were supposed to result in an outbreak of crime. A funny thing happened, states that implemented them saw crime go down. Go figure.

Now you are trying to equate bullshit legality on some guns to the licensing of drivers. Is that the best you can do, because it is not a flawed analogy, it is no analogy.

When you pass laws saying "you cannot buy a gun like this", you are passing a law that says "we can't trust people to have guns". If you don't get that, try some ginko bilboa or something.

[MrBenchley]

134. Yup, that;'s what your post amounts to...a steaming pile

"Concealed carry laws were supposed to result in an outbreak of crime. A funny thing happened, states that implemented them saw crime go down."
Not even close to true. Florida passed its idiotic concealed carry law in 1987, when there were 123,030 violent crimes in the state. By 1993, that had risen 31% to 161,789 violent crimes...

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/total_Index/total_crime.asp

Crime began to decline in 1994, because national gun control legislation had been passed...but it declined slower in Florida than in states with sane gun laws.

"When you pass laws saying "you cannot buy a gun like this", you are passing a law that says "we can't trust people to have guns"."
I guess that's what it sounds like if you've got a gun fetish or if you're dishonest.

And again, its'funny as hell to hear someone who claims he needs a pistol permit and damn the risk to public safety because he doesn't trust his felow citizens complaining he isn't trusted himself.

[immoderate]

194. Convenient misrepresentation of gun crimes in Florida by Benchley

Benchley,

You use the term violent crimes but you neatly ignore posted stats about gun crimes. And you also ignore population growth.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/Crime_Trends/violent/fa_index.asp

Gun crimes in Florida went from 260 per 100,000 in 1996, down to 150 per 100,000 in 2003. That's a 42% decrease in gun crime since 1996. Gun murders in Florida declined by 27% in the years you cited, 87-93. And gun robberies have declined by 48% since the CCW law went into effect.

You also don't respond to any of my postings about court definitions on the second amendment. And you slip in ad hominems and psycho-sexual references about anyone who wants to preserve their gun rights. According to you, everybody who owns a gun is a nut, with a castration complex, and a fetish. Does anyone else on this thread put this in a psyco-sexual context? There may be a problem, and not with guns.

That's quite a picture forming here.

[Peak_Oil]

145. re: steaming pile

I don't like gun control, but the background checks are fine with me. If somebody just got out of jail for a violent crime... but that's another debate on whether that person has paid their debt to society and is now free. A parolee, on the other hand...

CCW permits are an interesting topic though. I have read a little on falling crime/ccw permits. It seems that ccw's were issued during a time of economic upswing, so it's not necessarily true that the ccw's caused the drop in crime. Maybe it was the economic upswing that did it. More study is warranted, that's for sure.

Banning the single-shot 50 cal's is kind of interesting, though. There has never been a crime committed with one of those, but there is talk of banning them. Why? I don't understand.

[T Town Jake]

157. I got my CCW license in 1997...

...right in the middle of the Clinton boom years. So that tends to back up what you're saying. I tote pocket protection around quite a bit, so it's a very useful license. I was out and about today safe and secure in the knowledge that no one could make me a victim.

[Wonk]

166. You may have felt that way, but you were mistaken

re: "safe and secure in the knowledge that no one could make me a victim."

I don't know how many of the Beltway Sniper victims were packing heat. It could've been all of them (for the sake of argument), and it still wouldn't have made a bit of difference whether they lived or died.

[T Town Jake]

172. And if I happen to find myself in the crosshairs...

...of a hidden, camouflaged sniper 500 yard away, you'll be right. How likely is that? I'm talking about being "safe" from the far, far, far, far more common occurrence of some murderous thug with a knife or a carjacker who won't simply take the car but also tries to take my life. But I think you knew that.

[DoNotRefill]

130. W00T!!! Pantload Alert!!!

Thanks, Benchley! I KNEW we could count on you!!! :)

[MrBenchley]

141. Gun nuts produce those pantloads regularly...

so I might as well point them out.

Therre's not a single aspect of the RKBA bag of tricks that isn't a lie.

[alwynsw]

208. Allow me to comment on your post:

It's just .

[DoNotRefill]

124. did you watch the 2004 Million Mom March on C-span?

It was this much-ballyhooed thing...and only a couple of hundred people showed up, INCLUDING the speakers and their entourages.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

54. What about Pacifist leftists?

nt

[immoderate]

63. Pacifist leftists should be against violence.

And gun laws don't affect that.

--IMM

[DownNotOut]

66. Regular people can

not be trusted with these violent tools. We don't have a choice but to turn to our government for assistance purging OUR America of this nasty scourge!


DownNotOut

[w4rma]

85. National gun control is dead. And good riddance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=93053&mesg_id=93053

[Spiffarino]

103. Huh?

:shrug:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

99. There's a lot of pacifists out here who kind of like the idea of

"beating swords into plowshares."

Flame away.

[LittleClarkie]

135. Shouldn't I get to know Gun Control first?

Why, oh why is that always the first thing that occurs to me when someone says "Fuck _______"

[slackmaster]

169. Start with a box of chocolates, or a nice bottle of wine

Don't try to get into Gun Control's pants too quickly or you are likely to get slapped.

:dunce:

[fujiyama]

183. It's a dead issue

Democrats should dump it. I've changed my mind quite a bit on this issue.

But I think some people are a bit naive in believing that just by dumping this one issue we'll be competetive in rural areas. It's not quite that simple.

That said, it's not helping in any way. Personally I'd prefer a candidate like Fiengold that voted against the PATRIOT Act, IWR, and the assult weapons renewal, than someone like Fienstein or Schumer, that voted for IWR, PATRIOT Act, and enthusiastically in favor of the assult weapons renewal and other corporate bills (like the recent budget!).

And Kerry was nuts to have a picture taken with them voting for that assult weapons renewal thing. It wasn't as though this was a bill worth taking the time off campaigning to vote for...then again, it wasn't worth voting for in the first place.

[pinto]

186. Sorry, all, but I need to move this to another forum. Please continue

your discussion at the link.

[slackmaster]

187. Thank you for having the guts to say it, Tyler Durden

:toast:

[Township75]

209. Gun control is for individuals with a small penis...

those big guns remind them of their short-comings every time :)