Kerry's stance on guns will help him

[cheezus]

...because he shares the same view as the majority of americans: guns are for hunting and protecting your family, not committing crimes. Nobody outside of the nuts who would vote against him no matter what actually thinks Kerry, a hunter, is going to take everyone's guns away.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Yep.

Gotta fight freeper logic with real logic!

[blondeatlast]

2. Thank you; the RW BS in this forum today is making me wonder

if I made a wrong turn and ended up in you-know-where.

[JohnKleeb]

3. its a hard arguement for me to argue but in reality its so comon sense

[derby378]

4. Since when, however...

...does Amendment II apply only to hunting and sporting firearms?

[library_max]

11. Actually, it doesn't apply to anything at all unless you're in the militia

US v. Miller, the Second Amendment can only be applied and interpreted in the context of continuing and making effective the militia. So if you're not in the militia, the Second Amendment doesn't apply. By the way, more recent decisions (Hickman and Silveira) clarify that you have to me actually enlisted in an active state or federal militia, not just an "able-bodied male" theoretically included in the militia.

[cheezus]

17. since we got weapons more powerful than musketts

the true purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure the people could, if necessary, violently uprise and overthrow the government.

might have been possible during revolutionary times, but not now by a long shot... unless you really want the tim mcveighs of the world to have the same weapons as the us military

kinda like how you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theatre.

[MoonRiver]

5. delete

[Cocoa]

8. looks good for Kerry to stand up to such a powerful group

makes Bush's cringing position/non-position look cowardly by comparison.

[MoonRiver]

10. Correct. I posted to the wrong message and deleted.

:argh: Sorry!

[MrBenchley]

6. Exactly so....

Good post....

[liveoaktx]

7. 80 percent of TEXAS want the ban- that's, again.... TEXAS

that according to the Dallas Morning News

[derby378]

12. Then let them repeal Amendment II (n/t)

[blondeatlast]

15. Repeat that phrase all you want; it isn't changing any hearts or minds. nt

[Wild Bill]

66. well let's get a state AWB

I doubt a Texas state AWB would even be get out of committee. I don't know where they got the 80% number. Maybe the poll question was biased.

[Lex]

9. I agree. n/t

[diamond14]

13. absolutely.....Kerry KNOWS what real Americans want...

soon-to-be President Kerry will always be a President of the people...

[Renaissance]

14. Kerry today re the AWB:

"Police officers shouldn't be faced with military-style machine guns."

If that's Kerry's big bold stance, it's an awfully ignorant one.

[uhhuh]

19. Okay?

Police officers SHOULD be faced with military-style machine guns?

That's an informed stance?

Explain...

[Renaissance]

20. The AWB had nothing to do with machine guns.

There is no logical way that the AWB sunset will cause police to be faced with "military-style machine guns."

[MrBenchley]

22. As long as you pretend assault weapons can't be converted

to auto fire, which for some bizarre reason, you do.

[Renaissance]

25. Any semi-auto can be converted to full-auto.

That doesn't make the practice legal.

[MrBenchley]

32. So ban them from the market

why allow lawbreakers a machine gun?

[Renaissance]

35. Ban what, lawbreakers?

A splendid idea.

[MrBenchley]

36. No, ban assault weapons....

[Renaissance]

40. The term "assault weapon" no longer has any meaning.

You'll have to be more descriptive.

[MrBenchley]

45. Has plenty of meaning for me....

but then I'm not gripped by gun nut hooey....

[Renaissance]

53. Your personal interpretation is meaningless to the law of the land.

According to federal law, the term "assault weapon" is meaningless. So feel free to redefine it however you want...that doesn't make it the law.

[MrBenchley]

59. Gee, it's not my personal interpretation....

and SB 1431 spells it out just fine....

[DoNotRefill]

81. Why?

legal machineguns are practically never used in crime...


what's your problem with legal machineguns? Because it sure as shit isn't that they're used to commit crimes...So where's the problem?

[Romulus]

82. licensing and registration apparently isn't enough

for some folks.

Just look at the CA .50BMG fiasco . . .

[MrBenchley]

83. Let's have that licensing and registration then, rom....

but eventhose modest steps toward sanity are opposed by the corrupt gun inudstry and trigger happy "enthusiasts."

[MrBenchley]

84. Tell it to Alan Keyes...

He was sharing your enthusiasm for machine guns just a couple weeks ago...of course he's crazy as a shithouse rat.

[DoNotRefill]

85. So the reason we shouldn't have machineguns...

is Alan Keyes??? Request clarification.

[MrBenchley]

88. The reason you shouldn't have machine guns is pretty obvious

so obvious that only a babbling far right wing lunatic like Keyes says different.

Nice playmate you got....

[DoNotRefill]

89. Well, if it's so obvious, spell it out...

Come on, Bench, I really want to know why you think legal machineguns should be banned.

[MrBenchley]

92. Hey, refill....

the second your demands become a concern of mine, I'll tell nutso Alan Keyes, and he can tell you.

http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/382

[FeebMaster]

93. You know Alan Keyes?

First Jackney Sneeb, now Alan Keyes. Wow. You know everyone.

[MrBenchley]

94. No, feeb....I just know what sort of scum

gun nuts have for playmates.

[FeebMaster]

95. What sort of scum is it?

Speaking of playmates, someone seems to want me to go wandering around some KKK websites and I was wondering if you could recommend any.

[MrBenchley]

97. Ask one of the gun loonies

over at one of the gun nut forums like highroadrage.com, or at that conservative website you hang out at....I'm sure they know where to find their fellow bigots...

[DoNotRefill]

100. Why not ask you?

You seem to spend FAR more time over there than we do...

[MrBenchley]

103. Gee, refill, I'm not a racist piece of shit pimping for the gun industry

like those infesting those forums.

[DoNotRefill]

111. but you seem to spend an awful lot of time there...

far more, certainly, than I do. Why is that?

[MrBenchley]

116. Far be it from me to wonder

why somebody who claims to be a "pro gun democrat" wouldn't want to put something pro-Democratic on a forum that purports to speak to his primary interest in life.....especially when it's infested with dittohead rubbish.

As to why I go there, it's because I jeer at such ugly brain-dead specimens to amuse liberals and other intelligent people.

[FeebMaster]

102. I don't want to ask them,

they'll start pissing and moaning about how we need another pro-gun dynamo like Reagan for president or something.

Besides, you seem to be an expert on the subject and I thought you might have some good KKK links for me to visit.

[MrBenchley]

108. Gee, feeb....if you don't want to know

don't sit around moaning and pissing about not knowing.

"you seem to be an expert on the subject"
And I told you where to find out what you wanted. But you don't want to do that, because the answer might show what a crock feeb's sick little fantasies really are.

[FeebMaster]

110. I'm not pissing or moaning about not knowing.

I do want to know. That's why I asked you.


And I told you where to find out what you wanted. But you don't want to do that, because the answer might show what a crock feeb's sick little fantasies really are.

I'm not sure what my sick little fantasies have to do with asking you for a link to some good KKK websites. Besides, why should I trust those allegedly dishonest fuckwits in the gun/conservative forums when I have an honest-to-God, trustworthy Democrat with the answer right here?

[MrBenchley]

113. Well, feeb, you might have hit your comedic apex

pissing and moaning about not knowing.....and then denying that you're doing so.

[FeebMaster]

117. And here I thought my posts were just fitfully amusing.

Well, if I am pissing and moaning about not knowing, I'd certainly like to stop. Perhaps you could link me to some good KKK websites so I won't have to keep pissing and moaning about it.

[MrBenchley]

118. One or two laughs out of a thousand

is the very definition of "fitfully"

"if I am pissing and moaning about not knowing, I'd certainly like to stop"
Oh, won't somebody please tell feeb how to achieve his purpose?

[FeebMaster]

120. Surely I've gotten

more than eight laughs with my posts.


Oh, won't somebody please tell feeb how to achieve his purpose?

Well you could have just linked me. No need now, though, iverglas has linked me to a KKK website. They're all for armed minorities, you know.

[MrBenchley]

121. You have four thousand posts?

Guess "one or two per thousand" was an overly generous.

"iverglas has linked me to a KKK website."
So I guess now we'll have you claiming Iverglas supports the KKK or some such rubbish in every other post.

"They're all for armed minorities"
It's sad to see you continue trying to childishly distort what has been said clearly. Not funny, not amusing, just sad.

[FeebMaster]

122. 3714.

3715 now.



So I guess now we'll have you claiming Iverglas supports the KKK or some such rubbish in every other post.

Nope.



It's sad to see you continue trying to childishly distort what has been said clearly. Not funny, not amusing, just sad.

Oh it's been clearly said. The KKK want no gun laws, which will allow minorities to arm themselves as easily as KKK members.

[DoNotRefill]

96. You still haven't given us the obvious reason...

that machineguns shouldn't be legal.

[MrBenchley]

104. But I gave you the answer you deserved, refill....

[DoNotRefill]

112. You said there was an obvious reason...

why won't you give it?

[MrBenchley]

114. Yes, I did...

And it grows ever more blindingly obvious with each post.

[DoNotRefill]

115. Why won't you say what it is then?

eom

[uhhuh]

23. So What?

If it doesn't matter, why do the gun lovers get all worked up over it?

What does it do exactly?

Why should anyone care if it will make no difference?

[Renaissance]

27. You're right. We should ban spoilers and ground effects too.

Because those cosmetic features make cars look faster and more dangerous. And nobody needs them.

[uhhuh]

28. I'm glad we agree

A car is a tool. What purpose does it serve other than to stroke one's ego, to make it appear "faster" or "more dangerous"?

Why would one want their vehicle to appear more "dangerous" in the first place?

Edited to clarify.

[MrBenchley]

21. I think he's referring to gun nut hooey at its lamest....

Assault weapons can be easily converted to automatic fire...which gun nuts never want to admit.

Hence John Kerry is "ignorant" (in gun nut terms) for referring to machine guns....of course, by that "logic" (which is more like pathology than anything else) Ted Nugent is another Einstein.

[Renaissance]

26. Any semi-auto can be converted to full-auto.

By your logic, you should be pushing for a ban on all semi-autos instead of a ban on bayonet lugs.

[uhhuh]

29. Yep

I think we should get rid of or more heavily regulate semi- autos too.

[MrBenchley]

30. Ah, the phony "bayonet lug" gambit....

The thing about the RKBA cause is that not only is it dishonest from stem to stern, but it's pushed by some of the worst public figures in the world.

[Renaissance]

39. Why are you more concerned with bayonets and folding stocks?

Than with the actual mechanical operation of the weapon?

If you want to ban all semi-automatic firearms, that is what you should be debating. Put your proposal on the table and let's talk it through.

[MrBenchley]

49. Nobody is pretending that is the substance of the bill

except the gun nuts who are trying to pretend the meat of the bill doesn't exist....

[Renaissance]

52. So if you don't want to ban all semi-autos...

That means you want to ban bayonet lugs and folding stocks.

It's a pretty simple formula at work here.

[MrBenchley]

58. You want to play semantic games? Do it without me.

[TexasSissy]

31. Does the ban cover all semi-autos, or just some of them?

[Renaissance]

34. The ban only covered some semi-autos.

In order to qualify as an "assault weapon" a rifle must have had two or more of the following features:

- Bayonet lug.
- Pistol grip.
- Folding stock.
- Threaded barrel (silencers are still heavily regulated).
- Grenade launcher (grenades are still heavily regulated).

So in other words, a rifle that fired the same ammunition at the same rate through the same barrel that only had one or none of those features was still perfectly legal to manufacture. None of the features outlined in the ban affected the mechanical operation of the weapon.

[TexasSissy]

38. Pretty weak ban, then, right? But maybe better than no ban?

[Renaissance]

42. We shouldn't have laws banning things just for the sake of it.

If you can propose a real, effective way to reduce gun crime, I'm all for it. Instituting bans on cosmetic gun features simply because "it's better than nothing" is a ridiculous waste of our legislators' time and energy.

[uhhuh]

43. The RW likes to ban things for no reason

in the hope that it will lead to bigger things.

The "partial birth abortion" ban comes to mind.

What purpose do those "cosmetic" gun features serve?

Why would one want them?

[Renaissance]

44. It is not your place to decide why someone would want them.

And it certainly isn't Congress' place.

This "well, it's better than nothing" alleged logic is ridiculous. The law didn't accomplish anything.

[library_max]

46. So, a big cheer for S 1431 / HR 2038, then! It will accomplish plenty.

No "cosmetic features" here. It bans firearms that are based on the same design as a banned firearm, so no loopholes.

[MrBenchley]

48. Agreed!

[MrBenchley]

47. The hell it isn't....

Congress' job is to provide for the general welfare....and nobody but the corrupt gun industry is served by letting loonies and thugs run around with assault weapons.

"The law didn't accomplish anything."
If that were true, there'd have been no opposition to renewal...but the gun industry itself showed what a lie that claim is when they scuttled their own disgraceful "immunity from liability" bill rather than accept a renewal.

[Renaissance]

51. "Loonies and thugs" aren't allowed to own guns.

The ownership of firearms by criminals and mentally ill people is already against the law. Why don't you just insist on enforcement of the existing laws so we can succeed in keeping "loonies and thugs" disarmed?

[library_max]

54. Convicted criminals and diagnosed loonies, you mean.

This is an important distinction. People intending to commit a felony or do something crazy with a gun rarely inform the gun shop owner to that effect prior to their gun purchase.

[uhhuh]

55. Definately

I wonder where Rennie is now?

They haven't answered Mrbenchley or me about why, if this law did nothing, the gun lobby fights so hard against it? I would like to know.

[Renaissance]

56. Principle.

That is why we fought so hard against it. The principle of the matter.

[library_max]

64. What principle?

It can't be the individual RKBA. The Miller, Hickman, and Silveira decisions took care of that.

[JeremyN]

72. Interesting

I've been reading a lot of posts here and it seems that people don't understand that of all the Supreme Court cases where the 2nd amendment has come up, it has been referred to as an individual right in 97% of them. Even the Miller case is among these. I quote from the case:

"The signification of 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 of all males physically capable of acting concert for the common defense."
"And further, that oridinarily 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."

Looks to me like it's saying that the militia comprises of any man capable of being in it, and that these men are expected to have their own firearms, that are of modern design. There is nothing about having to be enrolled in any formal body of a militia itself. Indeed the Federal 8th court of appeals agrees that the Miller case protects the right for an individual to keep and bear arms. "There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment or any other part of the Constitution that the words 'We the people...' have a different connotation in the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere."

Kerry is all well and good, but anyone who thinks he isn't rabidly anti-gun is on something. Of all of the political gun organizations that rate political figures on thier stances on the gun issue, every pro-gun group gives him an F or a 0%, and every anti-gun group gives him an A or 100%. His voting record shows that he has voted for every piece of anti-gun legislation he's come accross since he entered Congress. I kinda wish he'd stop with the "I'm a hunter" crap, but I guess if it gets some of the pro-gun crowd's vote, then I suppose it's worth it.

[library_max]

78. Hickman and Silveira updated the Miller decision.

From Silveira:

"Our conclusion that "militia" refers to a state entity, a state fighting force, is also supported by the use of <**41> that term in another of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment, enacted <*1071> by the First Congress at the same time as the Second Amendment, provides that a criminal defendant has a right to an indictment or a presentment "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger . . . ." U.S. CONST. amend. V. The inclusion of separate references to the "land or naval forces" and "the Militia," both of which may be in "actual service" to the nation's defense, indicates that the framers conceived of two formal military forces that would be active in times of war -- one being the national army and navy, and the other the federalized state militia. Certainly, the use of "militia" in this provision of the Bill of Rights is most reasonably understood as referring to a state entity, and not to the collection of individuals who may participate in it."

And from Hickman:

"The Second Amendment creates a right, not a duty. It does not oblige the states to keep an armed militia, n7 or to arm their citizens generally, although some states do preserve, nominally at least, a broad individual right to bear arms as a foundation for their state militia. n8 See, e.g., People v. Blue, 190 Colo. 95, 544 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1975) (en banc) (citing Colo. <**12> Const. art. II, § 13) (recognizing individual right to bear arms under state constitution); State v. Amos, 343 So. 2d 166, 168 (La. 1977) (citing La. Const. art I, § 11) (same proposition); State v. Krantz, 24 Wash. 2d 350, 164 P.2d 453 (Wash. 1945) (citing Wash. Const. art I, § 24) (same proposition); Akron v. Williams, 113 Ohio App. 293, 177 N.E.2d 802 (Ohio Ct. App. 1966) (citing Ohio Const. art. I, § 4) (same proposition). Even in states which profess to maintain a citizen militia, an individual may not rely on this fact to manipulate the Constitution's legal injury requirement by arguing that a particular weapon of his admits some military use, or that he himself is a member of the armed citizenry from which the state draws its militia. United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 55 L. Ed. 2d 521, 98 S. Ct. 1493 (1978) (technical membership in state militia insufficient to show legal injury under Second Amendment); Warin, 530 F.2d at 106 (same with respect to individual "subject to enrollment" in state militia); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th <*103> Cir. 1992) (same, citing Warin); United States v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65, 66 n.2 (3rd. Cir. 1977) (en banc) (narrowly <**13> construing the Second Amendment "to guarantee the right to bear arms as a member of a militia")."

[DoNotRefill]

86. Not with the force of law...

in most of the country...

Say it with me now... "Persuasive authority is not binding....Persuasive authority is not binding....Persuasive authority is not binding..."



I knew you could!!!

[library_max]

90. They are the only precedents available.

If and when there is another case that comes down on the other side, the Supreme Court will presumably intervene. Until then, Hickman and Silveira are what there is. In any case, all the cases, SCOTUS and otherwise, ruled in favor of the gun control measure at issue and against the gun owner. There's not a single Second Amendment case, SCOTUS or otherwise, that upheld anybody's RKBA under any circumstances.

[DoNotRefill]

101. Where's your cf?

tsk, tsk, tsk... and not a mention of Emerson anywhere...

[library_max]

105. The precedent in Emerson is that the Second Amendment did not apply.

The extraneous verbiage in Emerson is irrelevant, as it is not subject to review and reversal.

[library_max]

79. Dupe, sorry.

[library_max]

80. And by the way,

if you can find me a quote from the Miller decision that explicitly says that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, I will send a check for $100 to the organization of your choice.

[DoNotRefill]

87. Same deal...

if you can find me a quote from the Miller decision that explicitly says that the Second Amendment DOES NOT guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, I will send a check for $100 to the organization of your choice.

[library_max]

91. What did they teach you in law school about proving a negative?

Wasn't it that the affirmative shoulders the burden of proof?

I can sure as hell show you those quotes from Hickman and Silveira, by the way.

[DoNotRefill]

99. actually, burden of proof varies...

and you brought it up. And in case you missed it, this isn't court. And Hickman and Silviera sure as hell did NOT come from the Supreme Court.

If you pulled this kind of dishonest crap in court, you'd be disbarred. Oh, wait, you CAN'T be disbarred. My bad.

[library_max]

106. Actually, I did not bring it up. JeremyN brought it up.

And following your example, I'll assume that you were being deliberately dishonest in blaming me for it.

Burden of proof evidently varies according to which side of the argument DoNotRefill is on. Whichever side that is, that's the side that doesn't have to support its contentions. Boy, it must be nice to have that law school education. Saves you from having to argue issues on their merits. You can just let a sneer be your argument.

Hickman and Silveira have both been around plenty long enough for review. If they haven't been reviewed, the presumption is stare decisis.

[DoNotRefill]

119. You said...

you'd give $100 to the person who showed a certain exact statement from Miller. I cut and pasted your reply, threw in a negative, and made the same offer. You obviously couldn't find a statement in Miller saying it was a collective, as opposed to an individual right.

You have presented Miller in a way that is, at best, intellectually dishonest. You failed to cite the cf that you knew about (which would get you kicked out of most law schools, with a negative effect on your legal career).

Shouldn't you be off zeroxing something?

[library_max]

124. And that was in response to JeremyN's previous post.

Try reading the whole thread. It's not that hard.

You have presented Miller in a way that is intellectually dishonest. No, actually that's not fair. You interpret Miller one way and I interpret it another way. It's a difference of opinion. I have no more right to call you a liar over it than you have to call me a liar over it.

By the way, that means you don't have the right to call me a liar over it. Just in case all that law school education didn't teach you any basic logic.

Just for laughs, is a militia one person or more than one person? I don't expect an honest answer, but what the hey, it's worth a try.

And I guess you missed law school the day they taught how to spell "xerox." The preferred term is "photocopy," anyway, so as not to infringe on the Xerox company's trademark.

[DoNotRefill]

125. Heh, you're right, I did.

It's been a while since I've xeroxed anything. I wonder why that is? Probably for the same reason I haven't had to go and get a cup of coffee for years, either.

[library_max]

127. Guess I was right not to expect an honest answer, or any answer at all.

:shrug:

[JeremyN]

98. What about

What about the 275+ other various federal (including the SCOTUS) and state court cases that refer to the 2nd amendment as an individual right (vs about 10 that dont)? Would that be ok?

I think the rulings in Miller were not so much about whether the 2nd amendment gives an individual right, but it was more about whether it is still legal under the 2nd amendment to restrict certain weapons. They found that if a weapon was not a weapon that would have some kind of military purpose, it could be restricted. Compare this with the current trend of gun control where the anti-gun community wants to ban weapons because they are military weapons. So first, we can't have them if they're not military weapons, but now we can't because they are?

[library_max]

107. Could you please cite and quote just one?

That way, people won't think you're making up your facts as well as your numbers. By the way, if you're thinking of using Emerson, don't bother - the ruling was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the case, so anything else the decision said about the Second Amendment was irrelevant.

[MrBenchley]

123. Well, max, guess you're not getting an answer

to this one either....

[JeremyN]

73. Well

Well the law didn't do nothing period, it did nothing useful. It made certain weapons more expensive because they didn't look politically correct, and it prevented people from buying new firearms with the features they wanted because the features were politically incorrect. Why does the pro-gun community hate it so much? Because it was an abridgement of freedom for no good reason.

[MrBenchley]

60. And there's a lot of evidence that some gun shop owners

wouldn't blink if they did inform them. A sting operation found a high percentage of gun shops went out of their way to encourage straw purchses if a customer couldn't get past the background check.

[JeremyN]

74. Indeed it is a shame

I would wager that these gun shop owners were only trying to help decent people who have had problems with background checks because of gov't screwups or perhpas because they have a very old felony on their records obtain guns. I'm not defending this kind of lawbreaking or other such thing or anything, but I doubt that any but a small percentage of these gun sellers were trying to help people they thought would use the gun for serious crimes obtain weapons. I could be wrong of course, and again, I'm not defending it, but I think context is in this instance, as it is in all things, important.

[MrBenchley]

76. Yeah, sure.....

People only go into the gun business out of a sense of altruism...NOT.

[JeremyN]

126. Well my only experience...

The employees at my local gunstore are friendly and helpful people who all share a love for the shooting sports. From what I've heard from other people around the nation, most gun store employees are like this, with some exceptions of those that think they know everything and are less than helpful because of it. I've not heard any specific examples of ones that would blatantly suggest violating the law to someone they thought was a criminal. I'm sure there are some that would, though.

[uhhuh]

50. Really?

If it didn't accomplish anything, then it didn't restrict anything either.

Those who have guns should view this as the equivalent of declaring a day of recognition of the starfish, but yet the gun lobby froths at the mouth about this and uses it as a wedge issue.

What point are they making if it did nothing at all?

[MrBenchley]

41. The proposed renewal bill was S.B. 1431

You can find the text on Thomas Register....

http://thomas.loc.gov/

[skippythwndrdog]

62. Have you ever tried it?

Assault weapons can be easily converted to automatic fire or are you just spouting more VPC misdirection?

I'll not bother with addressing the misuse of the term assault weapons. Easily converted, yes in some cases. Those cases require changing receivers, which is a relatively easy thing to do. The only rub is this: those receivers are controlled by the NFA of 1934. If you have one without the requisite permit(s) and tax stamp, you're already a criminal for possessing it. If you have the paperwork, you're eliminating one weapon in order to make another.

The other option requires a skilled machinist to make the parts. That option is already illegal.

[MrBenchley]

63. What I find funniest

is that even the GOP fuckwits in Congress who blocked the ban wouldn't spout the gun nut silliness we see peddled down here on a daily basis...but then they knew what a load it is.

[skippythwndrdog]

69. The usual non answer.

Guess I'll go back to pretending some folks don't exist.

[MrBenchley]

75. Your silliness deserves no less....

[G_j]

16. suburban women

very much agree with the assault weapons ban.
I think they are a good group to be reaching out to right now.

[G_j]

18. takes no responsibility for any of his actions

most of us don't let our children behave in this way.

[wuushew]

24. The election doesn't hinge on the popular vote

it hinges on the winner take all system of getting sufficient electoral votes from the 10 swing states that will decide this election.

If one was to weigh the relative importance of the certainty of war with Iran, the further impoverishment and sickening of American workers then a truly rational voter would sacrifice this issue for those of equal or greater value. To those who say gun nuts would vote for Bush anyway, the only mechanism for testing that hypothesis is to run a campaign without pushing gun control and then measure voter behavior after the election. If certain swing elements still vote for the idiot future campaigns in 2008 and beyond can return to policies that excite and or turnout the liberal base.


I do not wish to debate the merits of the AWB, but it seems that both sides are capable of making good arguments for and against. I feel that raising this wedge issue at this time does not serve the purpose of electing John Kerry to the Presidency.

[cthrumatrix]

33. it shows the cowardice of shrub..won't answer a question

[wuushew]

37. Shrub is just being smart

Answering the question would cause more damage amoungst votes that he also needs.

Bush's character flaws are apparently not an issue with likely voters since most polls show an extremely close race despite being AWOL, despite being a liar, despite numerous other qualities of assholiness.

Bush's vote is a collection of disimilar single issue voters who if he doesn't piss them off will vote for him again.

[smb]

57. There is one, and ONLY one, relevant fact

That fact is: If the Democratic Party hadn't gotten hold of the "gun control" tarbaby, Al Gore would be President.

[MrBenchley]

61. Well, there's a pantload....

All you have to do is take a sampling of "gun owner opinion" on any online gun owner fourum to see what horseshit THAT is.

The people opposed to gun control are the same people who hate blacks, Jews, gays and uppity women. They keep their ears glued to that flabby junkie Limbaugh and their eyes on Faux Noise. They're not voting Democrat.

[library_max]

65. And of course you have more than just your opinion to support that "fact."

Right? So let's hear it.

[library_max]

109. I guess I can give up waiting for an answer to that question . . .

[jody]

67. Kerry's position on the AWB is unclear because he is a sponsor of

S.1431 "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003" which essentially bans all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

Until Kerry removes his name as sponsor and publicly opposes that provision, then he is hopelessly typed as a gun-grabber.

[library_max]

68. That's "pro-gun-control," please.

Kindly use a little courtesy when you refer to the next President of the United States. Especially on DEMOCRATICUnderground.

[UpsideDownFlag]

70. good post.

it helps break the monotony of RW threads down here.

[katinmn]

71. Have you been to the Kerry forum lately?

There are many people on there who are livid, screaming about the 2nd amendment and giving long rants about their uzis and huge gun collections. And they are Democrats. Been there since the beginning. It got so bad I had to bail for a while.

When John Kerry takes a stand against Bush on assault weapons, he gets railed on by so-called supporters.

[MrBenchley]

77. Amazing isn't it?

We also get wads of "pro gun democrats" here, spouting right wing horseshit and railing about Kerry and prominent Democrats.

About the only place you never see "pro gun democrats" is on gun loony forums...there, you get nothing but freeper horseshit day and night. And here we get nothing but excuses as to why that is.

[MrBenchley]

128. From the New York Times...

"Democrats hit hard at Mr. Bush. "We cry out for leadership,'' said Senator Schumer, adding that, "The president talks about flip-flops. Well, flip: I'm for it. Flop: House, don't do anything, don't pass it.''

The Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, supports renewing the ban, and took a break from campaigning earlier this year to return to the Senate when it came up for a vote as part of a broader piece of gun legislation. Fifty-two senators voted in favor of renewing the ban, but the underlying measure was defeated.
On Wednesday, a senior adviser to Mr. Kerry, Joe Lockhart, signaled that the ban would become a campaign issue. He said that Mr. Kerry planned to discuss the ban Monday, at an event timed to coincide with its expiration. Mr. Kerry, he said, "believes the cynical deal between the president and the House Republican leadership, hiding behind procedure, is completely unacceptable.''
A poll released this week by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania found that 68 percent of Americans - and 32 percent of N.R.A. members - support renewing the ban. The findings, drawn from interviews with 4,959 adults, had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus one percentage point."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/politics/09ban.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=1a6dfdbfdb300209&ex=1095480000