Second Amendment Democrats?

[derby378]

OK, here's a tricky position. With all due respect to Handgun Control, Inc. and the Million Mom March, I still think it's time for Democrats to reconsider their overall stand on gun control.

I was recently made aware of a memo by Democratic pollster Mark Penn, Jonathan Cowan of Americans for Gun Safety and former Al Gore campaign aide Doug Hattaway that was circulated among Senate Democrats to bolster support for a now-defeated bill that would extend the "assault weapon" ban, close the gun-show loophole, and immunize gun manufacturers from many lawsuits. It read, in part:

Silence on the gun issue only hardens voters' negative perceptions of Democrats. To earn increased gun owner trust, Democrats must pro-actively define their current positions on guns – as Second Amendment Democrats, who back tough enforcement of all federal gun laws and support centrist gun policies.

Here's what I'm thinking. If the Democratic Party wants to cast itself as the party of personal responsibility - supporting a woman's access to health care, the right of gays to participate in civil unions (if not full-blown marriage), and so on - then perhaps it's time for the party to drop some of its gun-control platforms. In other words, maybe it's time for a crop of authentic "Second Amendment Democrats" to make their voices heard and pressure the folks in DC.

Your thoughts?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I've always been pro 2nd amendment

I draw the line at armor piercing bullets and assault rifles, but I certainly don't want a society where the only people with guns are cops and criminals.

[IndianaGreen]

2. I strongly support the Bill of Rights

the right to bear arms is one of our civil liberties, and often it is the only thing that remains to defend freedom.

[MoonRiver]

26. You're a real tough hombre IndianaGreen. I'm being serious here.

Don't you want to change your handle to "Indiana Jones"? I envision you in buckskins with a shotgun slung over your neck, gunning for bear! (Not being a hunter I probably bungled that image.) Anyway, we disagree a lot, but I like your style! :hug:

[IndianaGreen]

29. I am the total opposite of that image, including gender, but...

In the HBO series Deadwood, I do like Calamity Jane a lot.

My sister lives in Southern Kentucky. She moved there with her SO because they wanted to own land where they could live with their guns and dogs, and without being bothered by the bureaucrats and the feds with their regs.

There is a lot of people like that living in Cumberland County, KY.

Hi, sis!

:hi:

[MoonRiver]

34. That's what is so amazing about message boards.

We don't know who we're talking with so all kinds of misconceptions can arise. But hey, maybe I was talking about your sister, minus the gender factor, and didn't even know it! :D :pals:

[IndianaGreen]

35. She does fit that image!

and they do live in the wild, as close to Dale Hollow as you can in Kentucky. Several of our Indiana friends moved to that area too: land is cheap, taxes are low, old fashion politics (Cook County under the elder Daley comes to mind).

Most of the people there are social liberals, they don't stick in other people's business, but they hate gun grabbers. If the Dems were to adopt a more sensible view on gun rights, they could win that county.

[derby378]

36. Bingo!

That's why I brought up this thread in the first place. I know gun control is a big issue, but this election year is really crucial, and I think a re-evaluation is in order.

[MoonRiver]

40. Interesting.

I could compromise a lot more easily with guns than choice.

[DoNotRefill]

68. It's the same issue....

How much government interference do you want in your life relating to matters that the government has no business being in?

I'm rabidly pro-choice, be it guns or drugs or reproductive freedom.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Guns & cars.... REASONABLE gov't regulation

If you drive/own a car

1. you must have training, and be able to pass a proficiency/safety test.
2. you must prove identity, residence and legal standing.
3. they keep a record of all your car related transactions (such as accidents and tickets) more or less forever.

Arguably guns are potentially more dangerous (their primary purpose it to put holes in living tissue), and less of a necessity to survive in modern-day US.


Should the right to own/bear arms be completely unfettered? Should convicted felons (minors? mentally impaired?) be allowed to own/bear a firearm? Are all types of weapons legal?

The only issue is what is the EXTENT of regulation, not a binary yes or no, since there already is some (sensible and required) regulation.

[formernaderite]

13. Driving a car is a privileg not a right...

...the second amendment is the enforcement tool for citizens rights enacted by all the other amendments. That's the bottom line...considering this administration abhorrence for individual rights, it's time the left understands this fact.

[BlueEyedSon]

15. Voting?

a regulated right?

[leyton]

55. Yes.

You must register to vote. You must vote in your precinct. You may not sell your vote. You may not vote twice. (Does not apply in Florida.)

[Hippo_Tron]

64. I support resasonable gun control

And don't plan on changing my position. However regarding assault weapons, personally I think that they are less harmful than handguns which can be concealed.

[derby378]

65. Not a bad point... n/t

[Junkyard Willie]

73. Not to mention

-They are significantly more expensive than handguns of all calibers, making them even harder to get ahold of- thier greater value to their owners {not to mention the owners' concern over the ease of getting more} mean that people are more likely to hang on to them, rather than reintroduce them into the market; making them less prevalent and more expensive, round and round we go. This correlates to greater difficulty getting one on the black market when compared to other types of weapons.

-Ammunition is more expensive and bulkier than handgun ammunition.

-They are considerably louder and have larger muzzle flashes, making it more difficult to pull off a crime scot-free.

-They require more cleaning and maintenance than other weapons, and replacement parts are harder to find and install; compared with the extremely low-maintenance revolver.

-Their larger size makes them difficult to hide after comitting a crime.

-They eject shell casings a great distance comapred to semiauto pistols {revolver do not eject at all}, greatly increasing the odds of getting caught.

-They cannot be silenced, since their bullets travel well over the speed of sound.

By contrast, a .22 magnum revolver is small, light, relatively quiet {as far as gunshots are concerned at least}, cheap, does not leave telltale shell casings behind, is easily disposed of, its ammunition is plentiful and cheap, and its recoil is so light that even pre-teen gangbangers have little difficulty shooting it.

A high-velocity .22 magnum bullet will deform easily, if not outright tumble, causing a much greater maiming wound channel than you might expect from its dimunitive size.

A couple seconds spent on the bullets with a nail file and you've got dumdum rounds which fragment and yaw erratically inside the body after penetration {wounds so nasty they were specifcally banned by the Geneva Convention- which by the way is the only Geneva accord not routinely broken by all signatories}. This also means that any lead recovered from the body will be of greatly reduced use for forensic identification- if not useless out of hand.

[leyton]

140. Ah, I wasn't trying to make an argument for gun control.

I think the Democratic Party's stance on gun control needs to be reexamined, and probably relaxed. I was just trying to point out that voting is restricted, just as are most other rights.

[Junkyard Willie]

67. In Florida, however...

...don't expect your vote to count if you're serving in the military overseas :(

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. I've always disagreed with that concept too though

Driving should be a right in this day and age. Unless (and even if) you live in a major city with a fully fleshed public transportation system, having a car is a necessity of day to day life. I disagree with the notion that driving is a privilege.

[ieoeja]

21. Me Too

Had they had cars and interstates 200 years ago, and had the British restricted access to same or put up roadblocks checking for "criminals", I have no doubt the right to use public highways would have been included in the Bill of Rights.

[no name no slogan]

43. Owning a gun is not a "right", either.

Go read up on the legal history of the 2nd Amendment. It has NEVER been interpreted by the courts to mean that you have a constitutional right to own a firearm.

[DoNotRefill]

72. It isn't? Then why is the word "right" used in the 2nd?

What happened to the idea of common useage?

Is the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures really a privilege, too?

[DoNotRefill]

70. Please cite where the phrase "the right to keep and drive cars...

shall not be infringed" appears in the US Constitution.

Care to wager which device kills more people in the US annually, cars or guns? It's cars, by a large margin, and very few people commit suicide with cars, while the majority of people killed with guns in the US deliberately shoot themselves to commit suicide. I can survive without a car, it's easy to take a bus or call a cab. It's a lot harder to survive when being robbed without a gun. In case you missed it, the DoJ BJS released a study in 1994. It found that resisting an attack with a gun resulted in a 20% chance of the victim being hurt, not resisting at all and complying with an attacker resulted in a 33% chance of the victim being hurt, and resisting with anything OTHER than a gun resulted in a 50% chance of the victim being injured. Which odds would you choose?

The only restriction that there should be on the RKBA are the legal disabilities. If you're not able to vote, you shouldn't be able to own a gun, ANY gun. If you can vote legally, you should be able to own a gun, ANY gun. It's simple, straightforward, and very common-sense.

[Az_lefty]

4. I'm a life long Democrat and always supported the 2nd amendment.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Supporting the 2nd is fine.

Too bad even the experts don't agree on its interpretation.

The most restrictive version is that the 2nd protects the right to bear arms in the context of a "well regulated militia".

[DoNotRefill]

74. The main problem with that interpretation is....

the use of the word "people". The drafters obviously understood the difference between the people and the states. They said people, not states. And if you interpret the word "people" to mean the states in the Second Amendment, you completely trash the rest of the Bill of Rights, since you have to use the same terms in the same manner throught the document.

Just imagine...the only people with a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures are State employees....How'd that go over?

[freetobegay]

5. I strongly support the 2nd amendment

But the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with assault riffles!

[DoNotRefill]

75. Which clause of the Second precludes assault rifles?

Aren't assault rifles militarily useful? If it's a State's right to have a select militia, then they should have assault rifles, yes?

[Junkyard Willie]

85. Assault rifles

Assault rifles {continuous stream of bullets as long as trigger is held down} have been illegal since 1934. Referring to the semiautomatic rifles {one bullet per trigger pull} covered in the 1994 act as "assault rifles" is at best a significantly deficient understanding of firearms, and at worst a deliberate misleading.

All of the weapons covered in the 1994 act are available legally with only minor cosmetic changes. This is because most of the criteria for a weapon to be covered is essentialy cosmetic {skeleton/folding stock, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, bipod, etc}. If a criminal wants a short or no stock, why not just get the legal one and hacksaw off the plastic stock? And when was the last time a cop was killed by a bayonet on the end of a rifle?

The 10-round magazine capacity limit is often touted as an effective solution to gun violence- why, I'll never know; because if someone wants to put 30 shots into a playground she has crossed into a mental state where she is OK with killing children {one of the most heinous atrocities.} I'm not a certified shrink, but I would say if she's made the decision to fire 30 rounds and children playing on the jungle gym, the inconvienence of changing magazines twice is not going to stop her.

Remember, we're talking about semiauto fire- a magazine change will have next to no appreciable difference on the amount of rounds on target during a given time. With practice you can get a fresh mag running in less than one second {I've done it}, and lower-capacity magazines are way less likely to jam {ex: Vietnam war where magazines were purposely underloaded to prevent jams}.

You might say "well that extra two seconds might possibly have saved a kid's life, but we'll never know because she had a large magazine and 18 kids are dead where there could have been 17" but unfortuantely the answer could all too well be "the weapon might possibly have jammed after the fourth round, but we'll never know because she had reliable 10-round mags and 17 kids are dead as opposed to 2."

[DoNotRefill]

88. I legally own true assault rifles...

of the fully automatic kind. They weren't banned in 1934, they were regulated. Manufacture was banned in 1986. Guns like mine were grandfathered.

The entire thing was recently overturned in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on ICC grounds.

[derby378]

93. By "the entire thing..."

Are you referring to the 1986 provision in the FOPA or the 1934 National Firearms Act? Wading through the text, but still a little confused.

[DoNotRefill]

97. The entire thing....Sec 922(o)....

banning possession of an unregistered machinegun.

[Guaranteed]

145. Yeah, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

People can't be allowed to have bazookas in their garages and artillery set up in their backyards.

I'm a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment- it's there to protect the 1st. But I don't think it can cover heavy military weapons- anything from grenade on "up" is off-limits for civilians, IMO- and I'm DAMNED sure that CCW laws are just downright STUPID. I do NOT want people walking around with guns in their pockets. That's dangerous as hell.

[FeebMaster]

149. Supporter of the 2nd amendment, eh?

"People can't be allowed to have bazookas in their garages and artillery set up in their backyards."

As has been mentioned in this thread, there is nothing stopping you at the federal level from owning a bazooka or other destructive devices. It's just hassle filled and expensive.

"I'm a very strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment- it's there to protect the 1st. But I don't think it can cover heavy military weapons- anything from grenade on "up" is off-limits for civilians, IMO"

The whole point is that civilians get military weapons, heavy or otherwise. How do you expect the 2nd to protect the 1st if all the good stuff is off limits to civilians? Not that it can't be done, mind you, just that it makes things more difficult.


"and I'm DAMNED sure that CCW laws are just downright STUPID. I do NOT want people walking around with guns in their pockets."

Some of us disagree.

"That's dangerous as hell."

The experience of the 46 states (is it 46 now?) that allow concealed carry in one form or another would seem to indicate otherwise.

[Guaranteed]

159. Civilians need to be able to defend their homes

from infantry (which I suppose could involve a grenade, but I still think that explosives should be left out of the equation. They're too dangerous)- to think that civilians should be prepared to go up against tanks or aircraft is just ridiculous. It's not going to happen. But, like I said, they DO need to be able to defend their homes in a military situation- and if that involves assault weapons, so be it.

And people carrying around guns IS dangerous as hell. You CCW'ers always cite evidence of robberies going down in areas with CCW- what you DON'T cite is evidence concerning accidental (or otherwise) SHOOTINGS. How many more people in areas with CCW's end up getting SHOT because people are walking into bars with guns? THAT is the issue, and THAT is why allowing people to walk around with guns in their pockets is STUPID.

[FeebMaster]

162. I haven't cited any statistics.

So spare me your "you CCW'ers" stuff. Frankly, I don't care if crime goes up or down in areas that allow concealed carry permits. I don't think people should have to get a permit to carry at all. People have a right to defend themselves and a gun is the best way to do it.

[Guaranteed]

165. In a civilized society, people don't carry guns on the street.

If I go out with my buddies and one of them tells me that he's packing, I'm ditching him.

It's just totally uncalled for.

[FeebMaster]

166. I would think that in a civilized society people could

carry whatever weapons they want. No matter how civilized society gets there are always going to be criminals. Best for the rest of us civilized folks if we can defend ourselves.

"If I go out with my buddies and one of them tells me that he's packing, I'm ditching him.

It's just totally uncalled for."

That's your opinion. I disagree.

[Guaranteed]

170. But they don't need them, and leave them at home as part

of a mutual agreement they have with the rest of society that says "Okay, nobody's going to shoot anybody, and we're all going to be better off."

[FeebMaster]

171. There are some people who aren't interested

in your mutual agreement. They kill, rape, steal, and otherwise prey on people who can't defend themselves. How do you propose we get rid of them? They're not going anywhere. I think we're better off if the good guys have some guns of their own.

[Guaranteed]

172. Well, obviously...folks keep wanting to carry around guns on the street

We have a social contract, and the CCW'ers are trying to break it.

Ultimately, I don't think that guns being out on the street is as bad of a problem as you're trying to make it out to be. I think that if someone doesn't feel safe in their neighborhood, which shouldn't be that often, then they should move, instead of contributing to the problem by carrying around a gun of their own.

[FeebMaster]

173. You have to be kidding.

"We have a social contract, and the CCW'ers are trying to break it."

Really? I thought CCW'ers were worried about criminals and such. You know the kind of people who want to kill, rob, and rape you. Sorry, no carry permit for you. You signed a contract to be raped, robbed, and killed.

"Ultimately, I don't think that guns being out on the street is as bad of a problem as you're trying to make it out to be."

I don't think guns on the street are a problem. You're the one trying to tell me that people who want to carry are breaking some social contract where they've apparently agreed to be victimized without resisting.


"I think that if someone doesn't feel safe in their neighborhood, which shouldn't be that often, then they should move, instead of contributing to the problem by carrying around a gun of their own."

You know, I bet quite a few people live in neighborhoods where they don't feel safe. They should all just leave? This may shock you, but some people can't afford to leave their dangerous neighborhoods. How are they contributing to the problem if they defend themselves with a weapon? How are they contributing to the problem if they aren't out victimizing other people?

[Guaranteed]

174. By carrying a gun on the street, you are endangering others.

You aren't special just because you say, "I'm not a criminal." You can just as easily kill someone with a gun as anyone else.

Besides, if you're not planning on killing anyone, then why are you carrying a gun?

[FeebMaster]

175. No you aren't.

"You aren't special just because you say, "I'm not a criminal." "

I don't care about people who say they aren't criminals. I care about people who aren't criminals.


"You can just as easily kill someone with a gun as anyone else."

Yeah, that's kind of the point.


"Besides, if you're not planning on killing anyone, then why are you carrying a gun?"

Hello? To defend yourself. You know, from those guys who forgot to sign the social contract.

[Guaranteed]

176. If you don't sign the social contract, then you ARE a criminal.

You either agree not to shoot people, and act like it, or you're a fucking criminal.

[FeebMaster]

177. So if someone comes along

with a knife, or pipe, or gun, and decides to rob you, rape you, or kill you, you just have to take it? For the good of society? If you kill them in self defense, you're the criminal?

[Guaranteed]

178. No. If you kill them, you are NOT a criminal. Even if you use a gun.

You are a criminal, though, if you leave for work in the morning carrying a gun and putting others in danger because you're wanting to "defend yourself" from an attack that will probably never come. You are breaking that social contract, and it is no defense to say that "I'm not a criminal"- NO ONE thinks THEY'RE a criminal, and EVERYONE wants to defend themselves. That's no excuse to break the rules.

[FeebMaster]

179. So if you kill someone in self defense, even with a gun

you aren't a criminal. But you are a criminal for carrying the gun you used to do it. How is that supposed to work? You're a criminal up until you've killed in self defense? After you've done the killing, how long does it take for your non-criminal status to wear off? Until morning? Next time you go to sleep? Until the gun is back in the holster?


"You are a criminal, though, if you leave for work in the morning carrying a gun and putting others in danger because you're wanting to "defend yourself" from an attack that will probably never come."

Simply carrying a gun puts no one in danger. What if you are attacked and you are unarmed? Just bad luck I guess. At least the social contract is intact, even though you aren't anymore.


"That's no excuse to break the rules."

What rules were broken? Assuming you have a carry permit I mean.

[Guaranteed]

180. Yup, you got it.

Killing someone in self-defense, no matter how you do it, is not a criminal act.

But, if you endanger others' lives by carrying a gun in public, a very selfish act, I might add, then you are a criminal (disregarding CCW laws- I'm just referring to the social contract). Not only that, you're part of the problem. You're contributing to the LACK of public safety.

[FeebMaster]

181. I disagree.

Simply carrying a gun endangers nobody. If defending yourself is alright, then how are you supposed to do it?

[DoNotRefill]

150. So, you'd support disarming the police?

After all, just about every american cop walks around with a gun either on their belt or in their pocket, and that's dangerous as hell, right?

If CCW is so dangerous, why haven't the crime and accident figures for the last 20 years (since the "shall issue" ccw thing started becoming the law of almost all of the land) shown an increase in crime OR accidents?

In case you missed it, people holding CCW permits are considerably LESS likely to be involved in the criminal misuse of a gun or to have a firearms accident than the general population at large. If the subset of the populatin that held CCWs increased, there'd be less crime and fewer firearms accidents, if the statistical trends of the past 20 years hold true.

[Guaranteed]

160. No, they're trained. And SOMEONE has to do that to keep order

in our society (although, I suppose the cops don't use guns in England- which only goes against YOUR point).

No, it's totally different with cops, who everyone KNOWS are packing, who have been trained and understand the responsibility of being cops, are being PAID to do what they do and have actual AUTHORITY to do make arrests, and KNOW the law.

On edit: There is NO reason for civilians to be carrying around guns in a civilized society. What do they think they're going to do...shoot somebody?

[DoNotRefill]

182. Heh.....Time for a range trip story...

Many moons ago, when I was but a young lad, I was at the range when a VBPD Police Officer came in. (I realize I'm showing just how ancient I am with this next statement, but what the hell.) He was wearing his uniform and had his service revolver on his belt in his standard leather police holster. He told us that he had to qualify with his sidearm the next week, so he wanted to practice. He put up a target, drew his revolver, aimed for the target, and pulled the trigger. The gun didn't fire. It had sat in his holster, unused for so long that gunk and corrosion had built up between the cylinder head and the forcing cone, rendering the weapon non-functional. It took him almost an hour with a can of WD-40 and a screwdriver to break the cylinder free.

You obviously don't understand the difference between civilian arrest powers and police arrest powers. There's only one difference....Police can arrest perpetrators of MISDEMEANORS. Civilians can't. Otherwise, their legal arrest powers are virtually identical. Training is a good point. There are frequent shooting competitions where both Law Enforcement and civilians can participate side by side. Civilians almost always win them. I've been personally involved with training both civilians and LEOs in firearms techniques, and frankly, I'd much rather have a "gun nut" backing me up than your average cop in a nasty situation. "Gun nuts" tend to take their weapons seriously, while for cops, it's just part of the job. Now gun nut cops are a good thing, and I'd have little problem with their backup. As for knowing the law, well, it's not that hard, and most courses for obtaining a CCW go over the law in some detail. Here, the appropriate code section is §18.2-32, and it says in part (I'm paraphrasing) that if a person is engaged in a lawful act and is attacked, they have the legal right to stand their ground and defend themself. If there is a threat of grievous bodily harm or death using a reasonable person standard, then lethal force may be used. When I got my first CCW permit, I had to appear before the Circuit Court Judge who issued it, and he questioned me extensively about the law before he issued my permit.

[IndianaGreen]

151. If we had allowed CCW for airplane passengers

9/11 would have never happened!

If 9/11 had not happened, Iraq war would not have happened either!

[Guaranteed]

161. LOL right

Let's let everyone on a plane carry a gun. ROFL!!

[FeebMaster]

163. What's wrong with letting people

carry guns on planes?

[Guaranteed]

164. They might use them. nt

[FeebMaster]

167. And? (nt)

[Guaranteed]

168. And that's bad.

When guns go off inside an airplane, everyone loses.

How about, instead of everyone having a gun inside an airplane, we have nobody have a gun inside an airplane, except for perhaps an undercover air marshall and/or the pilots (which is a debatable point)?

[FeebMaster]

169. I'd consider a compromise.

"When guns go off inside an airplane, everyone loses."

Why do you say that?


"How about, instead of everyone having a gun inside an airplane, we have nobody have a gun inside an airplane, except for perhaps an undercover air marshall and/or the pilots (which is a debatable point)?"

I'd consider compromising if pilots were allowed to carry if they chose to.

[David__77]

6. There has indeed been a shift.

I've never been part of the "gun control" crowd, but I do notice that in the past while more and more progressive seem to be actively supporting gun rights. I think "gun rights" is not a bad term, because indeed citizens do possess a right to bear arms. It's not just about some deer hunting--it's about the sovereignty of the people in this country. I wouldn't be surprised if the positions flip in the coming years and the neo-cons start opposing gun rights and guise of "national security" and progressives stand in their way.

[FeebMaster]

52. It started a good long time ago

the Republicans have passed far more gun control in the last 25 years than the Democrats. Come September, most of the Democratic gun control of the last 25 years will sunset.

[lutherj]

7. I've always supported gun control, but I've been thinking the same

thing recently. It's hard to argue with the second amendment, and maybe it's time choose our battles. I think there are more important things on the line. I think there are a lot of rural Americans who vote primarily on the issue of right to carry arms. We could stand to gain some votes, and avoid looking hypocritally selective in the fight for the bill of rights.

[derby378]

10. My point exactly

And I'm not just saying this as an ex-assault weapon owner, either. The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 was partly fueled by backlash against the crime bill which banned assault weapons, some of it coming from southern Democrats.

[qb]

9. I support the right of the states' well-regulated militias to bear arms.

[derby378]

11. What if I were to tell you...

...that we ARE the militia?

On the other hand, too many gun-rights people today want all the guns they can grab, but none of the responsibility that comes with them. I assert, however, that if we are to be the "well-regulated Militia," we should at least start acting like one.

[Zynx]

17. There is a slight problem with true state militias.

There is a slight risk that if a state went off the deep end they could go to war with another state since they would basically have an army. It's unlikely, but its a prospect.

[riverwalker]

12. in up-state Minnesota

for many, it is the SOLE issue they pick candidates on. I have some relatives who read only NRA endorsments before voting. The Second Amendment is fundamental to them. I have pointed out to them that since dumya and Ashcroft have dismantled so many of our rights, why do they think they will leave the Second Amendment untouched?

[Zynx]

14. I am a very strong supporter of gun rights.

People should understand a simple fact, knives kill more people every year than rifles and shotguns COMBINED. 99.95% of gun owners don't go out and shoot people. We have fun hunting and going to the target range. Besides, as some have mentioned, having a heavily armed population is a strong deterent to oppressive government.

[HFishbine]

18. Hmmm. Anybody remember Howard Dean?

VP

[DoNotRefill]

77. yup...

If he had been the nominee, the NRA would have been well and truly marginalized in this national election cycle. That's why I still think he'd have a better chance of beating Bush than Kerry. When Kerry posed for that picture with Schumer, Feinstein and Kennedy, I knew it was just giving the NRA a huge amount of political ammunition, and said so. Frankly, this issue is why I think Kerry will lose in November. Pissing off 1/4th of the total population that own guns (it's a larger percentage of voters than that)at the get-go is a crappy strategy to win an election.

[Redneck Socialist]

137. The latest issue of American Hunter

(a NRA magazine) is running that very picture. The NRA is all over Kerry as a "gun grabber."

They are just warming up.

Kerry can shoot as many pheasants as he wants but as long as he keeps company with the likes of Feinstein few gun owners are going to be reassured.

[FeebMaster]

138. Short of coming out in favor

of repealing the NFA, GCA, and FOPA I don't think Kerry has much of a chance of winning the gun owner vote. Even if he did it would be a tossup. You've still got Republican voters who are big on guns that still seem to think that Republican politicians are pro-gun, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

[Redneck Socialist]

139. Sadly all too true

Though I would be interested in seeing what would have happened had Kerry come out strongly against the AWB.

Not that that would ever happen.

[FeebMaster]

143. Pretty much every candidate this election

had the same platform as far as guns went. Renew AWB, close gun show loophole, basically maintain the status quo. Even Bush isn't far off from that. He did say he'd sign an AWB extension after all. Has he vetoed anything yet? He'd probably sign something closing the so called gun show loophole too.

[Redneck Socialist]

144. No doubt about it

but for some reason bush gets a pass from the from the NRA on those issues and the perception remains that republicans are the friend of the gun owner.

When the government comes to collect people's guns it will be at the behest of a republican president, of that I am certain.

Somewhere else in this thread someone said they would like to see the Democratic Party put itself forward as the party of civil rights, guns included. That would be a great way to draw a sharp and clear distinction between the parties and go a long way toward reclaiming what should be a democratic constituency.

[FeebMaster]

152. Once it finally happens

"When the government comes to collect people's guns it will be at the behest of a republican president, of that I am certain."

I wonder if Republican voters will still think Republican politicians are pro-gun. Probably. :eyes: It will be funny, in a way, other than the whole loss of freedom part.

"Somewhere else in this thread someone said they would like to see the Democratic Party put itself forward as the party of civil rights, guns included. That would be a great way to draw a sharp and clear distinction between the parties and go a long way toward reclaiming what should be a democratic constituency."

It would be nice, but even here on DU you'll find supporters of gun bans and the War on Drugs and all kinds of crap that just doesn't mix well with civil rights. I just don't see either party taking any particular interest in being the party of civil rights any time soon.

[Q3JR4]

19. I've always interpreted

the second amendment to include the right of all American citizens to own guns and I'm pretty liberal. I do agree with the assault weapons ban because to me those types of guns have always been the mainstay of individuals who are more interested in hunting people than they are in hunting animals. Why else would anyone need such an amount of fire power?

[FeebMaster]

54. Actually, the weapons covered by the

Assault Weapons Ban are, for the most part, less powerful than your average hunting rifle. There is some overlap in calibers. A number of the weapons affected by the AWB are perfectly reasonable hunting arms.

It's important to remember that the AWB wasn't particularly effective at getting rid of assault weapons so much as it got rid of flash suppressors and bayonet lugs on those weapons. The guns that were around before the ban are still legal to own and sell. The weapons available after the ban are functionally the same, only without flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. I'm a Bill of Rights Democrat

You said: " perhaps it's time for the party to drop some of its gun-control platforms"

what exactly are you talking about? Let's be specific. Here's Kerry's position:

John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place. He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime

Just what exactly is it that you disagree with?

[derby378]

23. Here's a few

John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced,

Including the ban on assault weapons. I can’t support that.

The statement also apparently covers the provision in the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Acts that bans future manufacture and sale of automatic weapons to qualified private citizens. I want that gone, too.

and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.

I’m not so sure about this. It’s a feel-good idea, yes, but if Dad purchases a handgun and never uses the lock, the purpose of the lock is defeated.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. I don't think advocating the sale of automatic weapons is a good idea

politically, or practically.

" if Dad purchases a handgun and never uses the lock, the purpose of the lock is defeated."

Similarly, if people don't use their seatbelts, the purpose of the seatbelt is defeated -- but that is not a reason to no longer require that cars have seatbelts.

[derby378]

30. Machine guns and trigger locks

If you've never seen it before, try researching the 1934 National Firearms Act. It establishes Federal prohibitions on private ownership of automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, hand grenades, etc. unless said individual gets a permit from the Federal government. Visualize getting a concealed handgun license - only multiply the difficulty by at least 10.

I'm willing to conceed that the trigger lock idea isn't a bad one, though. When I first started driving in the mid-80's, I decided to give seat belts a try. They felt restrictive at first, but after a while I felt naked if I didn't drive without buckling up. This was long before someone made it illegal to drive without fastening their seat belts.

[Junkyard Willie]

39. And...

IIRC, while posession of said weapons at home is allowed, carrying them in public unless transporting them to or from the range or point of sale is prohibited; and their use in a self-defense situation is not justified {i.e. an otherwise legit scenario, but still considered a 'bad shoot'}

[DoNotRefill]

79. Why? Banning the manufacture of legal machineguns is only...

a feel-good measure. There are 250,000 legally owned machineguns in private hands in the US, and since 1934, when they started tracking it, exactly TWO legally held machineguns have been used to commit crimes. One of those was a machinegun privately owned by a police officer.

The folks that legally own machineguns are not the kind of people who are involved in criminal activity. Banning the manufacture of legal machineguns isn't a crime control measure, since they're practically NEVER used to commit crimes.

Also, Sec. 922(o) was recently struck down in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in US. v. Stewart on Interstate Commerce Clause grounds.

here's a link to that decision:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90B5FFB18A092A6F88256DDD000000FE/$file/0210318.pdf?openelement

[Trajan]

156. Ok: ... here is the solution ...

SINCE: Gun 'Aficiandos', like yerself, claim that the the AWB didnt alter the rules regarding 'bigger and more powerful hunting rifles', then WHY NOT simply buy the hunting rifles, and DRESS THEM UP ? ...

Like Barbie dolls or GI Joes ... You could add gaudy chrome ribs amd HUGE BULGING clips to these extremely powerful hunting rifles, and get the best of BOTH worlds: .. right ? ...

WHY would a gun 'aficiando' want those 'weak assed' Assault weapons anyways? , when hunting rifles are obviously more powerful and therefore more deadly ....

[Dedalus]

22. Here's Some Deft Logic...

...to get Right-Wingers to admit they support gun control. Ask them if they believe private citizens should be able to own nuclear warheads. They'll say "no." Then point out that the second amendment says "arms," which just means "weapons," rather than specifically "guns." Therefore they've already admitted they support restrictions on the second amendment. Conversely, since a sharp stick can be a weapon, and no-one on the left supports banning sharp sticks, all people already agree that the second amendment must necessarily be interpreted to mean that citizens must be able to own some types of weapons, but must not be allowed to own any and all types of weapons. From there, ask them why it is logical to assume that the issue must be framed in terms of "all guns" vs. "no guns" (it's not logical). Unless they just get irate about your book learnin' and storm off, most will concede that it is reasonable to draw a line somewhere in the middle of the category "guns," i.e. "some guns but not other guns."

[derby378]

24. Watch BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE

Michael Moore does something very similar to Terry Nichols' brother in that film. If you haven't seen this film yet, it's an aboslute must for all sides of the gun debate.

[lutherj]

27. Likewise, freedom of speech is also protected by the bill of rights,

but that doesn't mean there are no limits. You can't yell "fire" in a crowd for no reason, you can't publish classified documents, you can't libel individuals, etc. I personally fully support gun control, and Kerry's take on gun control. In fact, I think the second amendment needs to be amended to reflect 21st century reality. And let's face it, if it comes to a stand-off between the military might of the federal government and some dad's army with their tech-nines and M16 knock-offs, the dad's army will be toast. Look at Waco, or Fallujah. But the point is that maybe this is the wrong battle right now. The best way to ensure civil liberties is to work on protecting freedom of speech and assembly, and the right to vote, and the best way to do that is to protect the entire bill of rights.

[Junkyard Willie]

37. While we're updating amendments...

I think the first needs some work too. There's no way the framers could have known about the internet, and let's face it, if it comes to a stand-off between the government and some dad's websites {with their New Republic knock-offs, even!} the dad's sites will be toast. Let's get people back to quill pens and manual printing presses. Or let's have the freedom and just have *sensible* speech control- you can have a Bic pen and notepads, but enough is enough already!

And the fourth as well. You know, to reflect 21st century reality. The framers couldn't have known about credit card fraud, identity theft or international terrorism- maybe we should reflect the reality of the 21st century and only apply it to protecting horse-drawn carriages from searches by guys wearing powdered wigs {doh! it's already happening with PATRIOT and TIA!}

How about the eighth? After all, these drug kingpins, terrorists, and mafia dons have tons of cash- and is there really such a thing as 'excessive' bail anyway when it comes to terrorists? We're talking about terrorists here!

Although as far as the "fire in the theater" example I agree with you wholeheartedly- you can say "fire" at home, in the car, on walking down the street- but shouting it in a theater would be irresponsible *use* of the word. Fine. Nobody's allowed to take their AR-15 into a crowded theater :P

[lutherj]

48. Point taken, once we start tinkering with the bill of rights, who knows

what kind of a dog's breakfast we'll end up with? Best to leave the whole thing alone, and leave it to the courts to make judicious interpretations. Of course, this assumes we have justices capable of judicious reasoning. Luckily the bill of rights is a liberal document.

[Junkyard Willie]

66. No, let's leave it to...

...elected legislators to pass laws, and not partisan-appointed judges to legislate from the bench.

This isn't confined to the right or private gun ownership either, we don't need judicial activism {or worse, officials acting in violation of the law ex: SF mayor granting same-sex marriage licenses even though they are not recognized by the state} from either side of the spectrum.

I don't want judges taking away guns {or allowing gun lawsuits} any more than the next person might want a right-wing activist judge taking away abortions {or allowing wrongful-death suits over abortions}, or environmental protections for at-risk species, or Miranda warnings, or instituting prayer in schools, or...

It doesn't just cut both ways, it cuts all ways; rogue officials and activist judges jeapordize everyone's rights and priveliges.

[lutherj]

103. Judges have to interpret laws, and the supreme court has been

interpreting the constitution and overturning laws on constituional grounds since the beginning of the Union. It has become a part of the checks and balances of government. It we let them, the Repukes would try to rewrite the constitution with legislation. But the system won't allow. Even this freeper SCOTUS is forced to turn out the occasional liberal decision (as in the Texas sodomy law reversal) because, as I said, the bill of rights and the constitution are essentially liberal documents.

As for the 2nd amendment, I think it's basically antiquated. The right to bear arms is based on the need to maintain a "well-regulated militia." "Militia" is a latin term, referring to a part-time, ad hoc army raised in times of need from the agrarian class. When the emergency is over, the farmers go home. Obviously, to the framers of the constitution, this was a relevant institution, having just fought the revolutionary war. But in the 21st century the concept is meaningless. I have no problem with people who want to hunt or shoot guns on the firing range. I used to hunt pheasant when I was a kid. But I agree with Wes Clark: if you want to play with assault rifles, join the army.

[DoNotRefill]

108. "if you want to play with assault rifles, join the army"

Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, said basically the same thing.

If you think the Second Amendment is antiquated, I pity you, and cannot help but to think that you may have slept through the 2000 election process. The 2000 election process should be proof to everybody that the Second Amendment isn't antiquated, it's more relevant now than ever. Why did we fight the Revolutionary War? It was because we didn't like the government we had, we felt it was unjust and tyrranical, and ruled without the consent of the governed. Since 1999, our government has become much more unjust and tyrranical than it was before. If there were three or four more cumulative setbacks to American Democracy of the magnitude of 2000-2004, there would be a very real possibility of the need for another armed revolution to drive the eventual usurpers from office.

Power flows from the barrel of a gun. Who do we want to have the ultimate last-ditch power, the people, or the government? And if the Government doesn't trust me with my guns, why in the hell should I trust them with theirs?

If you want to get rid of the Second Amendment, there's a legal process to do it. It's called "repeal". There's ZERO chance of that happening, and you know it.

[lutherj]

115. Can you find a reference for the Himmler quote?

Of course there's no chance of repealing the second amendment. I'm just stating my opinion. Nothing you have said has changed it. One kind of power comes from a gun barrel. There are others. Sounds to me like you're advocating sedition.

Are you equating Wes Clark with Himmler?

[FeebMaster]

116. There's no need to repeal the 2nd Amendment

when everyone just ignores it.

[lutherj]

118. Maybe all gun owners should be required to show up for militia

drills every 6 months. They could run around in the woods for 3 days with toy guns and pretend they're shooting commies.

[FeebMaster]

124. I don't understand. (nt)

[Junkyard Willie]

126. Sounds good...

As long as the opposing forces dressed up like Michael Moore :P

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[FeebMaster]

129. If you say so. (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

130. ROTFLMAO!!!!

Hey IG, ya hear that? You Freeper, you!!! ;) ;) ;)

Mods: I'm not actually calling IG or anybody else a Freeper, since that's a clear violation of the rules. It's sarcasm.

[DoNotRefill]

120. Sure...

the actual quote was "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

If you google that quote, it'll turn up a bunch of hits.

I find it most unfortunate that a well-read Rhodes Scholar who had been through the USMA and was a 4 star general would be taking even a small part of his political platform almost verbatim from Heinrich Himmler. And please, don't insult us by saying that Clark hadn't read the Himmler quote, since military history is so important to a person in his former profession. I read the Himmler quote a long time ago (before Clark paraphrased it), and my credentials are not nearly as impressive as Clark's. When I heard Clark make his statement, I literally spit milk out of my nose, I was so stunned.

And there's a considerable difference between advocating sedition and reserving the right to commit effective sedition if currently unmet criteria are eventually met. You're not a lawyer, so I wouldn't expect you to understand all of the nuances. I WOULD suggest that you read the Declaration of Independence again, though.

[lutherj]

123. You're right I'm not a lawyer. And I concede your quote from

Himmler is accurate. And actually, I wasn't advocating repealing the 2nd amendment, I was advocating clarifying in a modern context, although, since I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what kind of language that would entail. And of course, it's all speculative, since that would never happen either.

Im fully aware of what happened in the 2000 election, but I don't think violence is the answer. Once it turns violent, we're lost. People like you will be called terrorists. And as I said before, a dad's army with the occasional handgun or toy M16 will be toast.

By the way, are you a lawyer? Is that why there is so much "nuance" in your post?

[DoNotRefill]

128. Violence is the absolute last-ditch response to tyrrany.

But it's vital that the absolute last-ditch response to tyrrany be preserved. I hope that there will never be a need for the American people to rise up against a despotic government. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that such a thing may become necessary in the future.

If you were to go back in time and tell the American People of 1999 the state of the country in 2004, people would call you a raving lunatic. We can't guarantee what the country will look like in 2020, much less 2520. It's possible that it'll be a swell place. It's also possible that it'll have been totally destroyed. The Second Amendment is an insurance policy for the American people. When you buy car or house insurance, you're not betting that your house or car will be destroyed, you're just covering all the bases, so that if the unthinkable happens, you're covered. If you don't have the coverage and something terrible happens, you're screwed. Same deal with the Second Amendment.

[IndianaGreen]

109. Unluckily PATRIOT Act swept away most of the Bill of Rights

which is why I disagree with both Kerry and Bush on this issue, preferring outright repeal of PATRIOT as Dennis Kucinich advocates.

[FeebMaster]

110. The Bill of Rights wasn't doing so well

even before the patriot act thanks to the War on Drugs and the war on guns.

[IndianaGreen]

114. That's true!

and let's not forget FISA and its system of secret courts and trials.

[Guaranteed]

146. I think the limits on the 1st are MUCH higher than the limits on

the 2nd, though...for me, I always err on the side of the 1st Amendment, if there's any doubt in my mind on an issue. I can't say that for the 2nd.

[Junkyard Willie]

32. More like "Daft Logic"

The second amendment grants the right to "keep and bear arms," meaning "arms" you can "bear"- automatically excluding combat-functional crew-served weapons; such as SCUD {FROG-7} launchers, attack helicopters, ballistic missile submarines, and certainly nuclear warheads.

Moreover, ordnance such as grenades, warheads, detonation assemblies, etc are separately regulated as explosives. The RKBA does not extend to explosives {gunpowder is not an explosive}; even in the 19th century you could not legally stockpile live howitzer shells or naval mines, for example, and the private ownership of live grenades, RDX, land-mines and C-4 has never been Constitutionally protected.

Not to mention the necessary components of a nuclear device are also regulated by restrictions on hazardous materials {you could no more legally own weapons-grade plutonium than you could say, a stockpile of Ebola virus, sarin gas, or barrels full of industrial waste- they fine car mechanics for improper disposal of motor oil, what would they think about several kilograms of uranium-238?} The detonation charges {conventional explosives to crush the fissile material to critical mass; or propel it, in the case of a 'gun-type' nuclear device} would also me covered by regulations on explosives.

It may have sounded witty when you re-read it in your dorm room before posting it, but if you've fooled *anybody* with your "nuclear warhead" argument you are associating with some sadly unintelligent people.

Nothing personal, of course, I'm just confident that there are better arguments for gun control out there than the "nuclear warhead" example; although I don't agree with gun control myself.

[derby378]

33. Good argument

One thing: last I heard, hand grenades are still legal under 1934 NFA provisions, but the Class 3 transfer tax is only $5 per grenade as opposed to $200 per firearm. If your state outlaws private ownership of grenades, however, you’re out of luck.

[Junkyard Willie]

38. Yeah I caught

that as soon as i posted...

you guys get the point though :P

[derby378]

41. BTW - Welcome to DU!!

Glad to have you aboard.

[Junkyard Willie]

94. Thanks

Actually more or less stumbled onto the board, I'm not really a Democrat; but always up for good discussion in any event.

[DoNotRefill]

81. Wrong...

Grenades are Destructive Devices, and are subject to the $200 tax. It's "any other weapons" that have the $5 tax. "Any other weapons" are generally defined as "gadget guns", things like firearms disguised as cigarette lighters and cell-phones.

I know people who own grenades legally. I personally own a bunch of machineguns and "silencers" legally. It's an investment-grade hobby. I personally don't own any grenades, because explosives make me nervous.

[Junkyard Willie]

89. Ahhh good old Class III Firearms License!

That's what I'm talking about!

Grenades notwithstanding, obtaining a nuclear device would be absolutely illegal regardless of RKBA interpretation; as would getting your hands on even half the materials you'd need before you could even start thinking about building one.

Good on ya for the Class III though; I've always wondered why Class III-holder groups weren't more vocal about RKBA/semiatuo ban issues. If anything the qualifications and fees involved prove you to be the penultimate responsible, law-abiding gun owner. {I know all about jumping through hoops- try on for size, for example, the U.S. Navy Floating Dog-and-Pony Show or "NAVFLOATDOGPNYSHOW" required to get TS/SCI security clearance... and even then it was only so I could go to the radio shack to pick up the mail!}

[FeebMaster]

92. You don't need a license to own them.

You need the license to sell them.

[DoNotRefill]

98. You need a tax stamp to own them....

not a license. A license is for dealing in them, and obviates the need to generally pay the transfer tax.

Oh, BTW, it's not necessarily illegal to own a nuclear weapon if you jump through all the hoops. It's very heavily regulated, though. The US Government actually used to buy nukes from private manufacturers, who made them to government specs and on government contract. The reason that nukes aren't owned by private individuals is one of cost more than regulation, though, since even Bill Gates couldn't afford the costs to make one from scratch.

[derby378]

91. Oops...

Thanks for the clarification!

[Guaranteed]

147. LOL I noticed part of your argument is that explosives aren't considered

arms. Interesting.

[FeebMaster]

56. Or instead of bringing up the tired old

nuclear weapons strawman and having to hear about McFeeb's Law you could just point out that Reagan and Bush passed some serious gun control when they were in office. For that matter, the Republicans currently control both houses of Congress and the Presidency and they haven't repealed any gun control.

[Zorra]

28. I agree with you.

I grew up in a rural area and personally know an awful lot of folks whose primary reason for being a republican is because they view the Democratic party as anti-gun ownership. I don't know any Democrats whose primary reason for being a Democrat is because they view the Democratic party as anti-gun ownership. IMO, the Democratic party would gain support if it lost the anti-gun ownership label.

[derby378]

31. Especially since...

...Bush the Lesser won't act to roll back any recent gun-control laws. Very good point there.

[Junkyard Willie]

45. Dems have the chance...

...to sway quite a few votes on this and similar issues. Conservative does not necessarily equal Republican. Many on the right are not only well aware of Dubya's support of gun control measures, but are extremely wary of "Total Information Awareness", USA PATRIOT, and the like.

You start hearing all this erosion of civil liberties, and then you start hearing things like "Homeland Security" and "Total Information Awareness" and you start thinking about Randy Weaver's children...

Chilling, to say the least.

Democrats can step up the plate and become the Party of Civil Liberties and not just the Party of Some Civil Liberties- "Hey guys, yes, we are supporting controversial art and war protesting on 1st Amendment grounds, *but* we are also supporting private gun ownership and concealed carry laws on 2nd Amendment grounds; we're against sodomy laws based on right-to-privacy, but we're also against keeping records of firearm purchases and 'guns & ammo' subscriptions based on RTP" and swing a lot of voters.

[no name no slogan]

47. gun ownership is NOT a 2nd amendment "right"

This is another myth perpetuated by the NRA and its minions. The 2nd Amendment has been repeatedly interpreted to mean that the states have the right to organize militias of their own-- it does NOT confer the "right" of gun ownership on private citizens.

For details, see my post #42 on this thread.

Personally, I have no problem with hunters and sportspeople owning firearms. However, I do see the need to regulate certain weapons that have no use other than killing another human being or non-game animal.

I agree, gun control could be a winning issue for us, but we have to stop buying the NRA's rhetoric on the issue. If we insist on framing it as a (non-existant) "constitutional right", we're already ceding half the fight to the fervant pro-gun nuts.

[DoNotRefill]

82. You SERIOUSLY need to reread US v. Miller (1939).

If gun ownership was only a State's right, the fact that Miller was legally precluded from being in the militia (due to a previous felony conviction) would have been dispositive. It wasn't. The holding in Miller was that in order for the ownership of a certain class of GUN to be protected by the Second Amendment, there must be "some showing" that the gun in question has some kind of military application, NOT that it must be in the hands of the military or a State Militia.

In other words: You can ban guns that are unsuitable for military applications, but NOT guns that have a military purpose. The double-barreled shotgun can be banned. Assault rifles can't.

[no name no slogan]

42. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN

People of all political persuasions have bought into the NRA's position on this issue, without actually knowing any of the legal history of the 2nd Amendment.

Ever since 1939, the courts have consistantly ruled that nobody in the United States has a constitutional "right" to own a gun. The unanimous Miller decision in 1939 expressly addressed the issue of a "well-regulated militia", and determined that a citizen no more has a constitutional right to own a gun than s/he does to be Frank Sinatra. This decision has been upheld by every circuit court judge (conservative and liberal) since then.

The courts have consistently decided that the 2nd Amendment reserves for the states the right to form a "well regulated militia"-- which has, since the early 1900s, taken the form of the Reserves or National Guard. The 2nd Amendment does NOT give a private citizen a constitutional right to own a gun, or to organize a militia of her/his own.

I recommend a little light reading on the topic to get the background.

Your "right" to own a gun is granted at the pleasure of the government. Therefore, if the government deems it necessary, it can legally restrict the purchase and ownership of firearms. You DO NOT have a "constitutional right" to own a gun, no more so than you have a "right" to drive a car.

Unfortunately the NRA and its publicity campaigns have distorted this issue far beyond what it actually means-- so much so that even "liberals" base their arguments on NRA's dubious interpretation of the law.

[Junkyard Willie]

46. So if I'm understanding you...

...you're saying that even though the other 9 amendments in the BOR pertain to individual rights {yes, even the tenth "...or to the people"}; the second, for some reason, does not?

Any one with a basic understanding of the sentence structure of the period can see that "militias are necessarr for security" and "the people have the right to bear arms" are two seperate statements in the second ammendment.

And while we're on the subject of what has and hasn't been interpreted by courts to be in the Constitution, can you show me the part where it says I have the right to "privacy" {as opposed to freedom from illegal search} that by extension I have the right to get an abortion?

[no name no slogan]

50. It's not my argument, it's the argument of the courts

There's large parts of the constitution that deal with the duties of the government and obligation of the individual, too, but we're not singling those out.

All I'm saying is that the NRA's argument of a constitutional right to own a gun has NOT been borne out by the courts of this country. Even such constitutional literalists as Robert Bork have argued that the 2nd Amendment does NOT give a citizen such a right.

As for the actual wording of the 2nd amendment, it is thus:

"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."

As you can see, it's one single sentence, composed of four clauses. It addresses the need for a "well-regulated" militia, and the need for the people to "keep and bear arms" in order to maintain it.

Since the early 1900s, the "well-regulated militias" have taken the form of the National Guard. The circuit courts have consistently ruled this way, as well.

And while we're on the subject of what has and hasn't been interpreted by courts to be in the Constitution, can you show me the part where it says I have the right to "privacy" {as opposed to freedom from illegal search} that by extension I have the right to get an abortion?

According to some literalists like Robert Bork, you do NOT have a "right to privacy". However, the courts have also ruled over the course of our history that citizens in general do have a right to privacy, either through the enactment of laws or interpretation of our constitution by the courts.

Still, you would be correct to say that there's no "constitutional right" to privacy any more than there's a constitutional right to breathe clean air.

[DoNotRefill]

83. Let's be correct here...

It's an argument put forth NO HIGHER than certain circuits. The circuits are badly split. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes the Second Amendment as being an individual right. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals does not. Who is right? Personally, I think SCOTUS would rule with the 5th, that it is an individual right, since the 9th's argument is based upon a very faulty reading of Miller.

If you want to be correct, you need to say "some courts", not "the courts", and provide a cf. cite. you also might point out that SCOTUS has NEVER ruled one way or another. They've hinted around about it, but never said so explicitly, regardless of what people on either side say.

[derby378]

49. So much for the Constitution

The courts have consistently decided that the 2nd Amendment reserves for the states the right to form a "well regulated militia"-- which has, since the early 1900s, taken the form of the Reserves or National Guard. The 2nd Amendment does NOT give a private citizen a constitutional right to own a gun, or to organize a militia of her/his own.

Check again - the 9th Circuit Court ruled that way, but the 5th Circuit Court made the opposite determination. For now, both are allowed to stand as the Supreme Court really doesn't want to get into the debate.

Your "right" to own a gun is granted at the pleasure of the government. Therefore, if the government deems it necessary, it can legally restrict the purchase and ownership of firearms.

...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Where does American government get its power from, BTW? At least hypothetically?

[no name no slogan]

51. You forgot the first half of the clause

"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."

The amendment DOES NOT separate these two clauses: it has them together for a very good reason. It states that as the states have the right to maintain their security through a "well-regulated militia".

Since the early 1900s, these militias have taken the form of the National Guard. You no more have the right to form a militia than you have the right to be intelligent and good-looking. Check the bottom of this page for the Presser v. Illinois[/i> case ruling].

This ruling by the courts has stood since 1939, and has withstood challenges from the right and left.

[derby378]

59. As I stated earlier...

...what if I were to tell you that we are supposed to be the well-regulated militia? If not, where's the government going to get its militia from? Blackwater?

Also, the 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of the National Guard, but the 5th Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to gun ownership by individuals.

I never promised this would be an easy debate - but it is an important one we must tackle if we're going to convince the undecided voter that we love the Constitution far more than the neo-cons do.

For the record, I'm not an NRA member, and none of my statements are being pulled off of NRA sites. I'm just another relatively new DUer who has some big concerns.

[DoNotRefill]

84. Presser predates the Incorporation doctrine...

Are you REALLY sure you want to argue that Presser is still good law? Because if you do, you're about to get figuratively smacked by a very large trout...

Also, notice that the second clause does NOT include the word "states" it includes the word "people". That kind of negates your argument.

[IndianaGreen]

95. The National Guard is NOT the militia!

The militia is each individual citizen of the states, you and me.

You are citing examples of the federal government taking rights that used to belong to the people.

[DoNotRefill]

134. The National Guard is A militia...

a select militia, if you want to get technical, right up to the point that they are Federalized and command chops from the State Governor to the Federal Government. At that point, they become part of the standing army.

The National Guard is no more THE militia than it's THE people or THE Army. It's a small subset of the army and militia and the people, but isn't THE Army or THE militia or THE people in their entirety.

[Guaranteed]

148. I just can't get around that "people" part...

seems pretty frickin' clear to me what they mean.

"...right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As it is necessary to the security of a FREE State....

[FeebMaster]

57. I've always found it hilarious

that both sides of the gun rights argument quote Miller as if it supports their argument, especially considering the background of the case.

[Mountainman]

44. The NRA is using the gun issue to support the Repubs

They mislead everyone on the Dem or Liberal stand on guns. They want their members to believe that we want to take away all guns. Some of us do but they a small minority.

I would venture to guess that the percentage of Repubs that are gun owners is about the same percentage of Dems that are gun owners.

I can also understand the fear that a wingnut gun owner has even though I think it is unfounded. The fear is that if just one anti gun law is passed it will lead to another and another until guns are outlawed.

We need to show the right that many of us are gun owners and we do not fear the reasonable control of guns since we do not believe in outlawing guns.

[DaveSZ]

53. This issue did cost the Dems the Congress, and Gore the WH

I had started a thread about this awhile back and received mostly positive responses. As I've said before, there are much more pressing issues before the country right now than banning bayonet mounts.

I also wouldn't want to live in a society like Great Britain where only the criminals are armed (not even the police have guns).

[DaveSZ]

58. Indiana Green,

Let's remind everyone of how Ben Chandler won in Kentucky:

"A" from the NRA

"A" from the LCV

"A" from the Sierra Club


His formula for success is one that all Democrats should follow if we want to create a united front of outdoorsmen and environmentalists against the anti-environment repukes.

I had read an article about Montana ranchers angered over Bush's "drill drill drill" policy, but they were afraid to vote Dem because of the "gun grabber" label.

It’s boils down to being considerate of others’ values, and I hope the Dem leadership reads these boards.


Sincerely,

Dave the Devoted Environmentalist

[no name no slogan]

158. I've actually lived in the UK, and that's an inaccurate statement

...and for the most part the beat cops don't NEED to carry guns. However, it's not entirely true that the police don't carry guns at all. If you've ever seen newsclips after a bombing or during a riot, you'll see a number of cops carrying automatic weapons, decked out in paramilitary gear.

But still, why don't most of the beat cops carry guns? Because most law-abiding people don't NEED to carry guns, either!

Those in the country can have firearms for sporting purposes, and are free to do so after passing a rigorous background check. Those that have a real need to carry guns are allowed to do so, but it is seen as a PRIVILEDGE, and carries the same responsibilities as any other priviledge you receive in a civilized society.

[DoNotRefill]

86. Ummm...some Dems DO want to ban all guns...

and the problem comes when you ask how many "reasonable restrictions" may be made before the right has been infringed upon.

Please note: The Second Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed."

[MadHound]

60. Why?

The majority of people in this country support reasonable gun control measure, like the AW ban, background checks, and registration. What, you want the Dems to become a tool of the NRA like the 'Pugs are?

[derby378]

61. Emphasis on REASONABLE

Here I go:

I support gun registration. Think about it for a moment - every machine gun and assault rifle carried by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, FBI, ATF, Secret Service, and every other agency is registered by the government in some way. If they can be registered, we shouldn't complain about registering ours.

I didn't say anything about background checks. At least, not yet. Background checks are fine, but they should be reasonable.

As for the assault weapon ban - well, that's one reason why I'm trying to raise a little awareness here. Hey, it's a healthy debate.

[MadHound]

69. Why don't you want an assault gun ban?

Assault guns have only one purpose, and that is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. They are worthless for hunting, and even the NRA agrees that the best gun for home defense is a 12 gauge double barrel or pump shotgun. Assault weapons are simply too overpowered for defensive purposes, bystanders and innocents are too easily killed by ricochets and stray rounds. An assault rifle is a battlefield tool, not a domestic one. If you believe in having civilians own assault guns, where do you stop? Rocket launchers, tanks, artillery, where do you draw the line. Sorry, but allowing military weapons into the hands of the general public is foolish at best, criminally negligent at worst.

[FeebMaster]

I think you're confused about the Assault Weapons Ban.

No military in the world issues any of the weapons covered by the AWB. Militaries generally issue their troops machine guns, and those have been heavily regulated in the US since 1934. At best, the weapons covered by the AWB can fire one .30 caliber slug per trigger pull. A 12 guage shotgun can fire around a dozen .30 slugs per trigger pull. How is the assault weapon more dangerous/deadly than the shotgun?

There is nothing stopping a civilian from owning rocket launchers or artillery right now at the federal level. There's some paperwork and background checks involved and it's an expensive hobby. Tanks aren't regulated by federal firearms law, although their cannons are. There's nothing stopping you from owning a tank if you want one.

[MadHound]

78. You obviously haven't been shopping for artillery lately friend

I have. I went to an auction about a year ago, hoping to pick up a Spanish War era cannon. I found out at the auction that the cannons had been pulled from the sale on orders of both the state and federal AG. And frankly there are plenty of other laws that prevent you from owning a tank and other high end firepower.

As far as assault weapons go, yes they are the civilian equivalent of semi-auto weapons issued to military forces the world over. Here, you can read a little more on them if you wish.<http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html>

Another problem with assault weapons is that in most cases, it is very easy and very cheap to convert a semi auto to auto. Generally about thirty minutes to an hour of work, with fifteen to fifty dollars of material, picked up at your local hardware store, or gun show.

And quite frankly if your packing your shotgun with rounds containing a dozen .30 cal shots, it is going to be ugly and you could get hurt. I wouldn't recommend more than eight, and that is pushing it. Also, with a shotgun, you are firing a spread, unlike an assault weapon where you can aim every shot. Also, a round from an assault weapon has a much higher muzzle velocity that a round from a shotgun. Higher velocity equals farther distance traveled. Instead of killing your assailant, you can kill your neighbor down the block instead.:eyes:

But why would you want something that is so overpowered? Do you want your child to die from a ricochet? Do you wish your neighbor dead from an overshot? Look, I like going out and blowing off rounds as much as the next person, but assault weapons are stupid, useless weapons that can easily kill people that you don't wish shot. Why take that kind of chance?

[DoNotRefill]

96. Wrong on many counts.

Breechloading cannons are Destructive Devices. They are legal in many states. Muzzle-loading cannons are not Destructive Devices, and are not Federally regulated.

Secondly, militaries don't generally issue semi-automatic assault weapons. They generally issue real assault weapons, which are select-fire. That means the gun has an option for several settings, safe, single shot, and multiple shot. A semi-automatic "assault weapon" doesn't have the burst feature.

Thirdly, there are federal guidelines scrupulously enforced by BATF regarding the design of firearms. If a firearm is easily converted to fully automatic, legally it IS fully automatic, and can't be sold to the general public if the semi-auto version was manufactured after 1982. THe standard used for "easily converted" is generally seen as 8 hours of machine-time in a well-equipped machine-shop. ANY gun made after 1982, if it could be easily converted in a 30 minute period, would qualify legally as a machinegun, and is banned from manufacture for sale to private individuals, pre-US v. Stewart. Selling the materials (so called "conversion kits") to convert a semi-auto to a full-auto is a Federal felony, unless the kit was manufactured and registered as a machinegun in and of itself prior to May 19, 1986.

Fourthly, the muzzle velocities between shotguns and centerfire cartridges are not necessarily that different. Centerfire cartridges vary greatly depending on what caliber they are in, the weight of the projectile, and the overall case length. What IS different is the fact that shotgun barrels are not generally rifled, and that the projectiles are generally not as aerodynamic or as large. Rifling makes use of centrifugal force to keep the trajectory straight. The mass of the projectile is important since larger projectiles have more inertia than smaller projectiles, meaning that they lose velocity faster than bigger projectiles. BTW, I routinely hit head-sized targets 100 yards away with an unrifled shotgun firing slugs. Your "it can kill your neighbor down the block" argument doesn't wash, since it's rare to find a block that's longer than 100 yards, and a shotgun slug will do a hell of a lot more damage than a round from a .30-06 at that range.

You say:
"but assault weapons are stupid, useless weapons that can easily kill people that you don't wish shot."

Which is it? If assault weapons are stupid, useless weapons, why should people be worried about them? Or could it be that they actually ARE useful weapons, you just don't like the uses some people might use them for?

[MadHound]

106. Well then, let's go over this again

Vis a vis cannons, either muzzle loaders(like I was trying to pick up) or breech loaders. How recently have you been out artillery shopping? Like I said earlier, I was shopping a year ago, and apparently the hammer has come down on individuals owning any artillery. Don't believe me? Then you go to the former Kemper Military Academy in Boonville Mo, and try to pick up one of those pieces? You too will be told that both the Federal and State AG has put an injunction on the sale of artillery pieces. Another victim of the war on terror.

You are correct in that assault weapons don't have the burst factor. But your information on the ease of conversions, even in this day and age, is woefully inadequate. Yes, I know the laws regarding such conversions, and how a gun is classified as assault or machine. I also know that you can still get easy to use kits for AR-15s and the AK series of guns at your local gun show. You might have to pick up the pieces at six or seven different booths, but it is all still for sale. And no, it doesn't take eight hours, it is more like a half hour to an hour(and no, I wasn't involved personally in this project, but I'm also not going to give further details to protect the "innocent"). Just as with drug dealers, gunnies are continually becoming more sophisticated in getting around the law.

You are also technically correct in regards to muzzle velocities, pardon my generalization friend. But nine times out of ten, a thirty caliber bullet fired from a gun is going to be traveling much faster than a comparably sized shot or slug from a shotgun. Why else do you think that there are certain hunting areas that are shotgun slugs only?

As far as my comment regarding "assault weapons are stupid, useless weapons that can easily kill people that you don't wish shot.", you are trying to play semantic games by taking a quote out of context. Let me spell it out for you. For reasons that I've already stated, an assault gun is a stupid gun to use. They are overpowered for home defense, and the chance of you hitting an innocent target is increased exponetially when you use one. They are also useless for hunting, again, because they are overpowered for the job. They are essentially military weapons that should be limited to military or para military situations.

[DoNotRefill]

117. My last NFA transfer went through....

on Feb 26, 2004, not quite two months ago. I was selling, not buying. A friend of mine legally purchased a BP muzzle-loading cannon April 2, 2004, at the last Knob Creek, KY shoot.

I'd suggest that the reason your cannon-sale didn't go through is probably because the sellers didn't actually understand the process required. That's not unusual.

"You might have to pick up the pieces at six or seven different booths, but it is all still for sale."

Purchase of full auto parts generally requires a buyer to present an approved BATF Form 5320.3 or 5320.4 to the seller for a legally registered weapon for the part to be used as a replacement for. Purchasing parts to make an illegal conversion, even if purchased from 6 or 7 separate dealers, is a federal felony. POSSESSION of even SOME of the parts required to convert a firearm to fully automatic is a felony if you also possess the gun that such parts can be used to convert. If you own an AR-15 rifle, and are in possession of a full-auto M-16 bolt or hammer, even if you don't have the rest of the parts necessary to convert it to full auto, is a felony, EVEN IF THE PART IS NOT IN THE GUN, AND THE MACHINEWORK HASN'T BEEN PERFORMED.

The reason for shotgun only hunting season is generally twofold. First, due to the nature of shotguns, their projectile dispursion pattern, and their range due to the aerodynamic nature of the projectiles, shotguns firing pellets are safer in relatively confined spaces. Birdshot fired into the air at a 30 degree angle will not travel nearly as far as a rifle or pistol round, OR a shotgun slug. The same is emphatically NOT true of shotgun slugs, if fired into the air at an angle, they can travel just as far as most other solid projectile rounds and cause far more damage when they return to earth than a rifle or pistol round due to their increased mass. The second reason is because it's a game management tool, which is the reason d'etre for the hunting laws.

Assault rifles are not necessarily unsuitable for home defense, any more than "regular" rifles and handguns are. If you live in a poorly constructed house with thin walls, you shouldn't use a pistol, a rifle, or an assault rifle. House construction varies greatly. I could fire an assault rifle in my house and the odds of it actually exiting the house are astronomically against it. As for assault rifles being unsuitable for hunting because they're "overpowered for the job", you've just shown ignorance that is fatal to your position as a knowledgable person. Assault rifles are, BY DEFINITION, chambered in an intermediate caliber. It's more powerful than a pistol round, but less powerful than a real rifle round. Hunting quiz: What caliber is the most commonly used rifle chambering used to take intermediate game in the United States? It's the venerable 30-30, which is generally ballistically indistinguishable from the round used by the AK-47, the 7.62x39mm. Compare the 7.62x39mm to other common hunting rounds used for larger game like the 7.62x51mm (also called .308 Winchester and 7.62 NATO) and the 7.62x63mm (also known as the ".30-06") and you'll realize (well, ok, maybe you will not, but others will) that your argument is completely fallacious.

[FeebMaster]

105. You are mistaken.

"You obviously haven't been shopping for artillery lately friend
I have. I went to an auction about a year ago, hoping to pick up a Spanish War era cannon. I found out at the auction that the cannons had been pulled from the sale on orders of both the state and federal AG. And frankly there are plenty of other laws that prevent you from owning a tank and other high end firepower."

I haven't shopped for artillery lately. I'm not familiar with the laws of every state, but at the federal level, the last time I checked artillery was covered by the destructive device laws.


"As far as assault weapons go, yes they are the civilian equivalent of semi-auto weapons issued to military forces the world over. Here, you can read a little more on them if you wish.<http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html >"

Show me a military that issues semi-automatic versions of weapons to their troops instead of the fully automatic counterpart.

"Another problem with assault weapons is that in most cases, it is very easy and very cheap to convert a semi auto to auto. Generally about thirty minutes to an hour of work, with fifteen to fifty dollars of material, picked up at your local hardware store, or gun show."

Most cases? I don't think so. In any case, it would be a serious violation of federal firearms law to manufacture a new machine gun for a mere civilian. You can thank the Republicans for that one.

"And quite frankly if your packing your shotgun with rounds containing a dozen .30 cal shots, it is going to be ugly and you could get hurt. I wouldn't recommend more than eight, and that is pushing it. Also, with a shotgun, you are firing a spread, unlike an assault weapon where you can aim every shot. Also, a round from an assault weapon has a much higher muzzle velocity that a round from a shotgun. Higher velocity equals farther distance traveled. Instead of killing your assailant, you can kill your neighbor down the block instead.:eyes:"

#1 Shot is .30 caliber. A quick glance at the the Federal Cartridge Company's site tells me that a 2 3/4" load of #1 buckshot has 16 pellets in it. Reduced recoil loads will have fewer pellets. 9 - .33 pellets seems to be a popular choice for reduced recoil 00 shot.

How is firing a shot that spreads out less dangerous to innocent bystanders than aiming every shot? The velocity may be higher in the assault rifle, but it's not exactly slow with a shotgun. You could still kill your neighbor down the block with a shotgun accidentally.

"But why would you want something that is so overpowered? Do you want your child to die from a ricochet? Do you wish your neighbor dead from an overshot? Look, I like going out and blowing off rounds as much as the next person, but assault weapons are stupid, useless weapons that can easily kill people that you don't wish shot. Why take that kind of chance? "

Overpowered? A hunting rifle in .308 Winchester has way more power than some assault rifle in .223. Or were you STILL talking about standard shotgun loads with a dozen or more pellets? Although I still wouldn't call assault weapons overpowered when compared to a shotgun.

[derby378]

76. Shotguns vs. assault weapons

Guards at Federal mints across America used to carry .45 caliber Thompson submachine guns around the printing presses; now my understanding is that they carry 12-gauge shotguns instead of subguns partially for the reasons you just stated. I'll give you that.

SWAT teams and law enforcement officials also use shotguns extensively – most 12-gauge models can be loaded with specialized ammo such as riot-control shot, "door-buster" cartridges, even armor-piercing rounds. But SWAT teams still carry subguns and assault rifles, too. They must think they're good for something.

I'm not making these arguments because I think AK-47s should be used for duck hunting - that's just plain laughable. The reason I want some of these laws eased is because I want our government to remember where it derives its power from. I want to remind Bush, Cheney, and the rest that they answer to us, not the other way around.

[MadHound]

80. Sorry, but SWAT teams, etc are paramilitary entities

I can see why they carry these weapons. After all, they don't want to be in the situation of having to run for bigger firepower when cruch time comes. I don't begrudge them that.

But if you think that somehow, someway your having an assault weapon is going to put the fear into our government, you are sadly mistaken. Unless you come to that fight with something serious, like RPGs, tanks, or a plane, the last sound you are going to hear before you die is the laughter of the M1-Abrams tank driver, as your assault rounds bounce harmlessly off his vehicle. Now, we could rework the laws so that anybody can have everything, but do you really want to live in that kind of society?

[derby378]

99. I don't begrude SWAT, either

They're in the business of leaving nothing to chance. I understand that. And if they have to stand against a street gang or Mafia hit men, they need whatever they can get.

But if you think that somehow, someway your having an assault weapon is going to put the fear into our government...

Not my ownership, no. My wife would rather not keep guns in the house, and we also share our habitation with two mischievous cats.

But I can't quite get why we, as a society, were able to get along for decades without the 1994 ban if the ban was so necessary to securing domestic tranquility. We stared down the Soviets in Cuba, put astronauts on the moon, and negotiated the SALT treaty with the Soviets - among may other things - without an assault-weapon ban. And I think we did fairly well despite Watergate, the Vietnam War, Kent State, etc.

I don't think we should transform ourselves into an armed camp like Switzerland - I don't believe in conscription. But for those Americans who cannot or will not serve in the military, I think enlightened, responsible, socially-conscious gun ownership should not be discouraged.

[DoNotRefill]

100. Yessiree....you can't fight the US Army without tanks....

That's why Fallujah is so pacified right now.

I don't own a single gun that could reasonably be expected to knock an F-18/A out of the sky, or that would destroy an M1A2 tank. I DO own a bunch of guns that could reasonably be expected to be capable of killing an F-18/A pilot when he's not in the plane, or could be used to kill a tank crew when they're not "buttoned up" in their tank. And M1A2 tanks are not equipped with "piss-tubes"...

[FeebMaster]

107. Sounds like a design flaw to me.

"And M1A2 tanks are not equipped with "piss-tubes"..."

[DoNotRefill]

132. Oh, shit...

I hope I didn't give away classified information with that comment!!! ;)

[Junkyard Willie]

119. Sounds like a doctrinal flaw to me

Pacification may prove to be impossible or at least prohibitively difficult. Leaving aside that this is one of the least costly (in dead Americans) wars in history, the questions we should be asking ourselves are "is stopping enemy action in Fallujah really worth it and if so, why has restraint been shown to the degree it has in Fallujah?"

If not, then lets bring our boys home and let the Iraqis figure it out by themselves.

If so, let's get it under control as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, making the stakes for the Iraqis unacceptably high for anti-US action will require an unprecedented level of brutality. The US would stop using dismounted troops and unarmored vehicles (HMMWV) whenever possible, and retaliate against any insurgency with punitive air raids, fuel-air explosives, and artillery rockets. Armored columns and mechanized infantry would divide the city into sections and travel between these sections would be prohibited. Unauthorized travellers or curfew violaters would be shot on sight. This has the potential to cause additional terror attacks against the US, and the first one would have to be punished even more brutally or they would continue to happen.

No matter who's in office, option B seems unlikely to happen. The pickle we're in now is that sicne we were too nice in the beginning (i.e. not destroying Hussein regime and then immediately leaving, and instead staying behind to build schools, repair infrastructure, provide water and electricity); and heading for home now would be politically devastating for Bush. All the people calling for the return of the troops would be waving different signs once the pictures stated coming in of the starving Iraqi children abandoned by the US; or a theocratic regime continuing the atrocities of Saddam under a different name (fresh new look, same great torture!)

So unfortunately things will stay the way the are. For fear of bad PR the military will not be directed to crack down hard enough to kill all the enemy; and it will be percieved as a weakness by them, encouraging more attacks. Meanwhile, American contractors running sanitation and other public works projects will continue to be killed or captured. President Bush only has to worry about the problem for a few more months. If he's reelected, he will relegate it to the back burner, letting his successor worry about it; and when that president is elected, he will be able to blame the entire situation on Bush, and be reluctant to take drastic steps to clinch the victory. If Kerry wins, the blame game simply starts 4 years earlier and drastic steps are unlikely as Kerry is going to have to think about his own reelection. And round and round we go.

[DaveSZ]

62. .

Most state constitutions grant citizens the right to personal ownership of firearms except for a small handful (about a half-dozen states).

I think some liberals simply are scared of guns, and that’s why they want to ban them.

It’s a very inconsiderate position if you ask me.

[MadHound]

71. Spin and blather my friend, spin and blather.

Most people, including liberals, back the second amendment. Also most people realize and favor the need for reasonable gun controls. As far as liberals being scared of guns, you obviously haven't hung out with many liberals have you?

And for your own information, I own five guns myself, and having come from a fine liberal family, have been around them all of my life. But that just must not compute for you, stuck as you are on stereotypes.

Wanting reasonable gun control measures does not mean that we are gun grabbers or don't favor the second amendment. It simply means that we don't wish to see the wrong guns fall into the wrong hands, and if they do, be able to trace them.

What I don't get is the notion of wanting reasonable gun controls somehow equates to gun grabbing, but hey, I've never been what a serious gun nut, nor seen them as some sort of substitute for my manhood.

[DoNotRefill]

87. Uh huh...

then explain the 1994 election cycle. In the 1995 SOTU, Clinton stated that the AW ban cost the party seats in congress.

I'd rather the Dems stayed away from the issue. No need to be a "tool of the NRA", but no need to poke a hornet's nest with your nose, either.

[MadHound]

90. So you think they should sit on their hands,

And trade Congressional seats for innocent lives as the gunnies and NRA turn this country into an armed camp? Sorry friend, I don't want to live in a society that doesn't put reasonable controls on dangerous items. Cars are registered and drivers are required to have at least a minimal competency before their allowed to drive them. Why should guns and their owners be allowed to skip even the most minimum of controls.

As far as Clinton's analysis goes, well, I think it is BS. The majority of people in this country are in favor of reasonable gun control measures, ie background checks and registration. Giving the field over to the gunnies means that you are betraying the wishes of the majority in a country that is supposedly a democracy. Not a smart thing to do.

Sorry, but the only mistake the Dems have made on this issue is allowing the NRA and gunnies frame the debate. What the Dems should do is take this issue as their own, out of the hands of the fanatics, and then they will own the field.

[DoNotRefill]

104. Because cars are not Constitutionally protected....

What part of "infringed" are you having trouble understanding?

I can understand how you could confuse "people" with "states".

Putting restrictions on rights is a categorically BAD idea. I oppose literacy tests for voters, just as I oppose literacy tests for gun owners. I oppose redefining "unreasonable" in "unreasonable searches and seizures" so that it's meaningless.

You'd have a MUCH better case if the Second Amendment included a word like "unreasonably" before infringed. It doesn't, and the authors obviously understood the meaning of the word, since they included "unreasonable" as restrictors in other rights.

As for Clinton's analysis being BS, well, I'm sorry, my friend, but you're a relatively anonymous poster on an internet bulletin board, and he's a fabulously popular two term ex-president. His opinion on matters political carries a hell of a lot more weight to me than yours does.

[MadHound]

111. And why do you insist that reasonable gun control somehow equates to

Infringing upon your right to have a 30.06? Gee, does that background check prevent you from going out and shooting any damn time you please? Does the registration paper somehow lock down your shotgun so that you can't get to it? Puhleeze friend, lighten up.

And what do you have against democracy? You know, majority rules, etc.? I'm sorry that somehow you feel constrained by the fact the majority of Americans(including *GASP* NRA members) feel that it promotes a safer, saner society by having some basic controls on guns. Tell you what, you want wide open, uncontrolled guns and ordinance, there are many countries that fit the bill. But I would suggest you talk to my friend Jay(or any other Lebonese refugee) first. Back in the day, he left. Too much insanity, everyone from the age of five on up carried a gun, and used them. That's why he came to the US, because we are a little more civilized than that.

And it is nice that you believe Clinton and all, but really, if you believe anything without researching it yourself, then you're a fool, and a gullible one at that.

[FeebMaster]

113. Actually, Ted Kennedy recently introduced an amendment

to a bill that would have given the Attorney General the power to ban pretty much any ammo he decided was armor piercing, which would certainly have included 30-06. It didn't pass, though. Would you consider that reasonable?

The problem with "the majority rules" comes about when the majority starts violating the rights of the minority.

[DoNotRefill]

122. I don't want to live in a Democracy...

I want to live in a Constitutional Republic.

If 51% of the voters say that minorities shouldn't be able to vote, fuck'em.

If 51% of the voters say that Catholicism should be the official religion of the US, fuck'em.

If 51% of the voters say that abortion should be outlawed, fuck'em.

If 51% of the voters say that people like me should be put into camps and exterminated, fuck'em.

And if 51% of the voters say people like me should be disarmed when we have committed no crime so that we are unable to offer effective resistance, fuck'em, and MOLON LABE!!!

Civil Rights are NOT negotiable based upon the disapproval of 51% of the voters.

As for registration, it is a necessary precursor for confiscation. I'm unwilling to go down that road.

[derby378]

63. Randi Rhodes debating gun-control now

God love her, but she's buying into the "National Guard" argument right now. What good is a musket against an M-16?

[Junkyard Willie]

101. What's a good response...

...to the argument that areas that have more-restrictive gun laws have mroe violent crime than less-restrictive areas?

What's a good riposte to the assertion that armed civilans successfully repel criminals without killing them or getting themselves killed?

How would you respond to the "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have them" argument?

Just trying to see both sides of the issue without it turning into a flame war.

[IndianaGreen]

102. The issue is liberty! "Gun control" is a smokescreen for tyranny.

Just look at Iraq and see how a well-armed citizenry often is the last bastion of freedom against a tyrannical occupier.

The Framers did not want and all-powerful federal government, and they did not believe in permanent large standing armies. The principle is still valid, and the sooner we return to it, the better off we will be. We will have to bury whatever delusions we may harbor about "ruling" or "controlling" the world.

[Junkyard Willie]

112. Guns as a womens' issue

The vast majority of rapes are comitted without firearms. Can a desire for fewer rapes and date rapes counteract a desire for restrictions on private gun ownership?

There would be a considerable deterrent value after a year or so of dead would-be rapists on the evening news every other night.

We as a society accept the loss of a life to prevent a rape {justifiable homicide}, and to avenge rape {death penalty}.

Many people even accept the loss of a life to allow a woman to avoid undesired side effects {abortion}.

I'd like to see gun ownership as a womens' rights issue- and I'm more than willing to accept the deaths of predators as a result.

As an aside, I'd ask anyone who would throw out the "it'll get taken away and used on the woman" red herring to try an experiment before doing so: give someone a water pistol and see if you can take it away without getting wet.

[IndianaGreen]

121. It is also a gay rights issue

Armed gays don't get bashed!

[Junkyard Willie]

131. Now that's what I'm talking about!

[FeebMaster]

133. You need to come down to the dungeon

where you can learn important information like how the Pink Pistols are really a secret Republican organization that pretends to be gay to advance their racist, homophobic, pro-gun agenda. ;-)

[DoNotRefill]

135. Dude, you forgot the word "pantload"...

you gotta get that in there SOMEWHERE.... ;)

[FeebMaster]

136. I don't recall seeing any pantloads lately.

Humhole seems to be popular, though.

[DoNotRefill]

125. Gun control is the idea...

that a woman lying dead in an alleyway after being raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to that same woman standing in that same alleyway explaining to the police how her attacker came to have two bullets in his chest.

[Jane Austin]

141. We are very liberal in our family

and own quite a few guns, both for target shooting and protection.

Although we have sporting dogs, neither of us hunts.

Like Wesley Clark, we think that if you want to shoot AK-47's, there are a lot of them in the Army and you should go there to shoot them. :)

[FeebMaster]

142. I don't think you'll find many AK-47s

issued in the US Army.

[Hippo_Tron]

153. If only our founding fathers had used clearer sentence structure (n/t)

[FeebMaster]

154. It's pretty clear. (nt)

[Trajan]

155. Awwww .. now what about our gunluvin 'friends' in J/PS ??

Where will THEY go ? .. back to the High Road.org ? ...

Well: there is always I/P ....

THere is already a 'centrist' position about second amendment issues: it is called REASONABLE REGULATION .... yet we seem to forget, when it is convenient to do so, that the second amendment crowd has resisted ALL regulation of ANY kind ....

I would give on the AWB issue, given that decent and fair regulations were in place to disallow sales to felons and nuts ...

See ? .. there: .. I gave up something: ... I moderated my position ....

Now: ... where is the moderation from the other side ? ...

Will they intone the 'NO NEVER ABSOLUTELY NOT' mantra ? .... again ? ....

THis is a two way street ....

[DoNotRefill]

157. Uh huh...

please name the last Federal gun control law that was actually REPEALED.

The gunners have given and given and given and given (NFA '34, GCA '68, and an assload of amendments to both) and the anti-gunners have given what exactly??? Hell, the anti gunners ADMIT that what they've forced through is just the start of what they want, and some go as far as to admit that the ultimate goal is to ban and confiscate all firearms.

The pendulum has swung WAY too far towards the anti-gunners. It's time for them to give back, and not a little bit, but a LOT.