The AWB - my take (for what it's worth)

[derby378]

Yes, that was me on Randi Rhodes earlier today trying to argue we should let the AWB go. I respect that she wants to keep police safe and sound (who doesn't?), but lapsing back into the old "National Guard, National Guard" argument doesn't do it for me. (* was in the Texas National Guard; would you trust him with an assault rifle?)

One thing I couldn't get to, unfortunately, was why I think the AWB is incompatible with what Democrats are trying to achieve:

Preserving the reproductive freedoms of women - a resounding Yes.

Guaranteeing the civil rights of gay, bisexual, and transgendered Americans - green light.

Freedom of the press, speech, religious convictions - okey-dokey to all three.

The right to associate with our fellow Americans without being spied on - Hell, yeah.

Access to a jury trial, including curbing abuse of jury nullification - it's a no-brainer.

The right to keep and bear non-hunting and non-sporting arms - hold it right there, buster!!

You see, we Democrats are campaigning for greater freedom for Americans. That's one reason why I can't see why we'd turn a blind eye to one critical portion of the Bill of Rights in the interest of a false sense of security.

Maybe I'm an idealist, but we don't need tougher gun laws - we need smarter gun laws, not to mention smarter gun owners. I don't think we need to mandate getting a license for a squirrel rifle, like Chuck Schumer seems to indicate.

It's all about freedom - and freedom is what Democrats are all about.

So please, what am I missing? Let's talk.

[Wickerman]

1. we need smarter gun laws, not to mention smarter gun owners

Yep - I have little problems with guns - but we have many stupid gun owners as history shows. They are the ones that scare me - to put guns in the hands of the poeple that I hate to have to share a highway with makes me fearful for my family.

[petronius]

9. Actually, putting cars in the hands of most people...

...that we share roads with is scary enough. (And no, I'm not making the cars-kill-more-people-than-guns-so-let's-ban-cars argument.) But I agree with you about needing smarter gun owners - I think some form a gun user' license would be a good idea. By the same token, I think that the existence of idiots is, on its own, a fairly weak argument for banning or restricting anything...

[Columbia]

10. I think we should start by having

Mandatory gun safety and awareness programs in schools.

[enfield collector]

2. absolutely nothing, it's all about freedom. why do authoritarians

want to grab our guns is more the question?

[RoeBear]

3. No one is hurt or injured by ...

...free speech. Prove me wrong.

And on an unrelated side note, what is wrong with jury nullification?
"including curbing abuse of jury nullification"

[derby378]

4. re: Jury nullification

Apparently, Texas has had problems with corporations influencing appeals courts to nullify jury awards for malpractice cases, fraud, etc. That's what I was referring to.

[RoeBear]

5. Oh...

...I never thought of jury nullification as a bad thing. OJ was an example of jury nullification, not a great example, but he hasn't killed anybody since then.

[happyslug]

6. I hate to bring up OJ's trial but it was NOT jury Nullification

The Jury found that OJ did not MURDER his wife. He may have killed her, but it clearly was NOT MURDER.

Most Family abuse killings are NOT murder, there is rarely any intent to kill or cause great bodily injury when an abuser kills his spouse. Thus in most cases it is only manslaughter NOT murder. The same with OJ's killings what you have is a death NOT caused by a Planned intentional act of a Killer BUT someone who was so enraged by what he saw that he killed. By legal definition that is manslaughter, a Charge The Judge had thrown out when the Judge asked the Prosecutor if they wanted to charge OJ with Murder or manslaughter.

OJ's Defense had been able to argue that in the case the Prosecution was building against OJ, they had to defend on two different and inconsistent theories of the Case. One was Murder, OJ drove up to the house with the intention to Kill his wife, the other was manslaughter where OJ drove up to the house with intention just to visit his wife and saw her with another man and that sight caused him to kill both of them.

The Murder theory required the Prosecution to show the intention of OJ, the Manslaughter charge required only that they show OJ at the house and he killed his wife and her guest. In my opinion the Prosecution could have won a manslaughter charge against OJ standing on their head in a clown outfit.

The judge gave the prosecution a choice, which legal theory, Murder or manslaughter? What did the prosecution do? Opting for the nearly impossible duty of proving OJ INTENDED to kill his wife instead of what they could prove, he had killed his wife.

That is what the Jury found, that OJ did NOT murder his wife. That jury was NOT presented with the argument that OJ Killed his wife WITH NO INTENTION TO MURDER HER.

The problem was Prosecution overcharging NOT jury nullification.

[enfield collector]

7. I never looked at it that way,the jury decision

kind of makes some sense to me now. the problem I have with OJ is that he so obviously caused their deaths yet continued to lie thru his teeth about it.

[greendeerslayer]

8. you are not missing anything, you are right on

It's time to put the liberty back in liberalism. The longer Dems fail to do this the more we all lose.

[mosin]

11. Not a thing

So please, what am I missing? Let's talk.

You're not missing a thing.

I would support adding basic firearms education as a part of the public school curriculum. Safety/avoidance training--like Eddie Eagle's "Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult." program--for early elementary grades. Practical safety training in middle school health or PE classes. Allow shooting clubs back into high schools.

[Trashman]

12. I agree

Mosin,

And as far as rights, Stupid people get those too. How many stupid people have the right to vote? Wether they use it or not. This affects all our lives, and some people around the world. Which rights should we restrict to people who have a predetermined level of intelligence?

[7th_Sephiroth]

13. i dont have a problem with mandatory gun education

(require all gun sellers to have a licensed instructer and gun range) but banning things is just bad, first you ban one type of gun, than you ban another and another, until thier all gone and a freedom is lost

[GuntotingAMERICAN]

14. As long as anti gun groups associate with us democrats we will lose

elections.
The NRA isn't extreme at all, i am a member. It is disheartening for me when they send me stuff telling me to support the republicans because the opposing democrat is anti-gun.
I live in Wyoming and my guns are a way of life, so i HAVE to vote to protect those rights.

[7th_Sephiroth]

15. it worries me alot but i remember

shrub dont want people having guns either and there are SEVERAL pictures out of kerry shooting on edit: bush, as the most hated man on earth, has alot more to fear with people being able to walk into a walmart and walk out with a scoped, long range rifle than kerry does, i really doubt kerry will return, or extend the AWB