Why are so many DUers pro-gun?

[bluestateguy]

I would like to hear from all of you as to why you, or why you think other DUers, are so pro-gun. Many DUers are either gun owners and/or oppose most forms of gun control.

My reasons are the following:

1) I'm not about to advocate putting more powers into the hands of the Bush Administration to liscence and register guns. The next step would be to search out anybody with an Arab last name and take their guns away.

2) In the aftermath of this election, many on thr right are feeling hubris: the belief that they can do anything they want to their "enemies" without fear of punishment. That they can kill abortion doctors, beat up gays, terrorize Muslims. Such thuggery needs to be challenged.

3) I do not trust law enforcement to protect gays and minorities in Red counties.

[Fescue4u]

1. Its about Freedom

Freedom to own Guns *IS* Liberal.

[EstimatedProphet]

6. Yes it is

Rights of the individual vs government.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

208. No, it's about pragmatism

And the "other guys" getting more and more rabid by the day. If I lived in the US, I'd (reluctantly) get a gun too. Or three.

[Lone Pawn]

2. I take issue with 2 and 3.

The principle of government is consolidation of power: vigilante justice does not work. It has never worked. It will never work. Thuggery must be challenged by law enforcement, not by citizens murdering murderers.

Personally, I'm anti-handgun. So I'm not really pro-gun, I guess, though I am for gun ownership in all other regards.

[Jack_DeLeon]

21. What if the thugs are the law enforcement.

Thuggery must be challenged by law enforcement, not by citizens murdering murderers.

There is nothing wrong with killing an LEO in self defense.

[Billy Ruffian]

69. If you're the target of such thuggery

are you going to wait for the police to respond?

Dialing 911 only takes seconds ... waiting for help to arrive could take the rest of your life.

[DoNotRefill]

79. self-defense isn't vigilante justice...

Ge-ge-ge-ge git-get down, Nine One One is a joke in your town...

[AuntPatsy]

3. Your government letting you keep your small satchel of guns is

nothing more than an attempt to appease the hungry lion by allowing him to hunt his own meal that resides in a so called protective enviroment. In the end, he gets his belly full but has no real freedom....

Rather simplistic..

[bahrbearian]

11. So ,,, in that reasoning, the keyboard is the only weapon,,

That "Doesn't work in the Jungle"..

[AuntPatsy]

19. If the jungle is surrounded by a barbed wire fence, I see little differenc

People just cannot go around shooting people because they felt threatened. It doesn't work that way, my house was broken into, our much treasured very old thirty eight was taken and used in a robbery, when I went to the judge to get it back after the trial, I was informed that it was to be destroyed since they guy was able to get it?

My house was broken into, the gun stolen, and I was made to pay for the crime, the guy by the way, walked...end of story...try using your guns to fight your goverment, lets see how fast you are put down by their own use of force, theirs more legal than yours...

[bahrbearian]

36. Oh I agree ! I leave most things unlocked in my life .. But if I know of.

A THREAT I will take steps to protect my self. I myself have been vandalized,and I fear for children to be exposed to guns, but I'm sure that if our founding fathers were in our, times they would fear our Administration. Be proud of our troops overseas /because they are not at Home.

[jpgray]

4. Too much time on their hands? Weird priorities?

I can think of at least four thousand other more important issues. You think of the millions in this country that are crushed by poverty, the theft of our tax dollars and media by corporate power and the prosecution of unjust imperial wars, and how do people want to shake up the party? By joining it to the NRA. I just think that's the height of silliness, myself. What good is your gun if your life in this country isn't even worth protecting?

[countryjake]

146. What if your life isn't worth protecting?

You may have just identified a number one reason why some in this country fear violent crime & guns are one of our worst problem while many, many others see absolutely nothing in their lives or their futures except the day-to-day struggle to survive, with or without a gun, but obviously, a life not worth much. Those who have been disenfranchised by this system we live under have been reduced to living by the gun & view their weapons as their only protection, as well as their paycheck, insurance policy, & meal ticket.

Now I'm not referring to any DUers here; most of the felons I know sure don't have access to computers (not to hook them up & park their asses in front of, anyway) & they give two shits less which party maintains the oppression. But they do recognize the downward spiral & intimately feel the criminalization of whole neighborhoods, as baby brothers & sisters & their own children end up with similar records & the same damn dismal futures. This is only one effect of that crushing poverty you've mentioned & one example of worthwhile human beings who've had their lives ground into the dirt for so long, they can only live by the gun.

Instead of stumping for even more laws, to throw even more victims of society into the already super saturated penal system, why not direct serious efforts toward the disease, rather than slapping yet another ineffective bandaid on a symptom. That is where the shake-up needs to happen...in the past fifteen years we have seen a virtual end come to the "war on poverty"...an end to "welfare as we know it"...whole families thrown out of public housing programs...and gung-ho initiatives to empower "anti-crime" forces which amount to fascism in our inner cities. These past four years haven't been the first appearance of some unholy "moral" crusade; just ask those who know true repression in this nation.

[JHB]

156. Speaking of "weird priorities" and "too much time on their hands"...

...why is it "joining (the party) to the NRA" to question current stances on the issue by prominent Democrats and their efficacy in even acheiving their stated goals (much less whether they're proving to be too costly elsewhere).

I'm not a gun owner, but I'm related to several, suburban and rural, white collar and blue, and I know they resent gun control advocates mischaracterizing them (as happens far too often).

Why is it "joining the NRA" to suggest that perhaps some common ground can be found so we can finally break the "Democrats=taking away your guns" meme?

[bahrbearian]

5. I don't trust the government,,..opps did I say that?

[Threedifferentones]

7. If someone has a gun and you don't, they can pretty much make you do

anything. The idea of the government having all the guns makes me uncomfortable, especially with out current "leader." Oh, and yes I also think it is very bad that it seems many more conservatives are armed than liberals, but that doesn't really have anything to do with gun-control laws.

[jpgray]

10. Yeah, I remember Ghandi was packing heat at all times, right?

Or did the British win that one? They had the guns, so I suppose they must have.

[JVS]

24. Yeah, but India wised up and joined the Nuke club

[JohnKleeb]

53. yeah after Gandhi died

[JVS]

60. I think the whole look at Gandhi and how he succeeded argument is a bit...

lame.

He had 2 things working in his favor that helped him greatly.

1) The British Empire had just been dealt a crushing blow by WWII. It survived it, but was economically and militarily crippled by the effort.

2) Although he espoused non-violence, the threat of 600,000,000 people turning violent on a British occupation force was a huge deterrant to the Brits. I view it as a good cop bad cop thing, Gandhi espouses non-violence which would not be threatening to the British, but the British witness 250,000 people killed in clashes between muslims and hindus in the Punjab province and think "Whoa, this is not somewhere I want to stay"

[jpgray]

64. But those 600,000,000 were a threat with or without guns

It's my opinion, in the whole resisting totalitarianism side of this debate, that having popular support in your struggle with or without guns is way more important than just having guns.

[JohnKleeb]

67. It still worked despite violence

[JVS]

72. I would argue that it worked BECAUSE of violence

or at least the imminent threat of violence

[PeteGammons]

169. The biggest reason that non-violence worked...

for Gandhi, and for the civil rights movement in America, was that the British and Americans were civilized and humane. Had Gandhi tried to change Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, he'd have disappeared - quickly - into an unmarked grave, followed by whoever attempted to take up the mantle. Problem solved.

[Jack_DeLeon]

26. Do you think Ghandi was facing an enemy....

with the mindset of the Nazis?

Hell do you think Ghandi was facing an enemy with the mindset of Bushco?

[jpgray]

30. So you're thinking "if the Jews just had some Schmeissers..."?

If the weight of the public is going along with the persecution, no number of small arms is going to save you.

[Jack_DeLeon]

34. probably not...

but it would make the oppressors pay for thier crimes.

Every nazi killed would have been one less to opress everyone else.

Every nazi killed would have hurt the German war effort.

[jpgray]

37. I guess I see it as time that would be better spent elsewhere

Of all the rights we should be fighting for right now, the right to own a marginally deadlier weapon just doesn't seem important to me.

[Jack_DeLeon]

41. The right to self defense isnt important to you?

That is what the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is about. Its an extension of the right to self defense.

So do you think that law abiding citizens should only be allowed to defend themselves with thier body and maybe a knife?

[jpgray]

43. Defend themselves from what?

I guess I don't see the United States as a frightening world of constant danger wherein the only thing between myself and violent death is a firearm. Average citizens who want to own something beyond a hunting rifle in magazine capacity, or something military by design are in my view recreational gun owners or collectors, and therefore should be required to go through enough regulation to ensure they are capable and responsible enough to own such a weapon. They get the gun (with perhaps some annoyance), we get our safety, everybody wins.

[Jack_DeLeon]

48. Aliens....

what the fuck do you think people would defend themselves from, each other, maybe the occasional wild animal, or chupacabra.

I dont view myself as being in constant danger by living in the US, however if something ever did happen I would like to know that I have the tools necessary to deal with the situation.

Its always better to be prepared than not to be? Or are you somehow claiming otherwise?

[jpgray]

52. It would be akin to me writing a Nobel Prize acceptance speech

The odds of a scenario occurring where having a firearm on me would make the difference are about as astronomical as my chances of winning that peace price. So I don't really see owning a firearm as being prepared for anything, unless it's hunting or target shooting. This is real life, not a western.

[DoNotRefill]

83. I've used a gun defensively several times.

So has my wife.

I know several DUers are still alive because they LITERALLY shot and killed their attackers before their attackers could kill them.

[DoNotRefill]

82. So how many MORE seats are you willing to lose to do that?

How many times do we need to be kicked in the fucking TEETH over this issue?!?!?!?

Gun control has cost us control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Was it worth it??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????

:grr:

[Walt Starr]

186. Better point even, Gun Control DOES NOT WORK!

If it actually worked, maybe they'd have something. But the fact of the matter is, gun control laws do nothing except keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[DoNotRefill]

81. That's the thing...

if we stop pushing for gun control, the entire issue will go away. Shouldn't our time and what little political capital we retain be spent on something more important than gun control?

Pushing for gun control has become suicidal in several different ways.

[jpgray]

92. If we stopped pushing for gender equality, that issue would go away

This isn't about winning, it's about doing right by our fellow citizens.

[DoNotRefill]

94. And stripping our fellow citizens of their civil liberties...

is "doing right by them"?????????

[jpgray]

95. How is regulation stripping anyone of their civil liberties? (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

97. How was literacy tests for voting stripping people of their right to vote?

the more regulation there is on a right, the less of a right it is. I suggest you look up the definition of "infringe" in Black's Law Dictionary.

[jpgray]

101. Voting is heavily regulated

Gun regulation should be like ensuring that a person has residency in a particular state, or is a citizen, or is not a convicted felon. A few simple measures to make sure that the person cannot and will not abuse the rights of others in excersizing his or her own.

[DoNotRefill]

104. And at what point does "reasonable regulation"...

become an infringement?

[jpgray]

109. Everybody will probably have a different answer

In Florida, you can see that they are using regulation to infringe upon the right to vote with their use of the felony rolls. I'm not convinced that this is the case yet with firearms.

[beevul]

160. Regulation regulation regulation

"Average citizens who want to own something beyond a hunting rifle in magazine capacity, or something military by design are in my view recreational gun owners or collectors, and therefore should be required to go through enough regulation to ensure they are capable and responsible enough to own such a weapon."

And thats the thing. If its a right, you don't need "permission" to excercise it.

How about gagging people in theaters, You know, to make sure they don't "abuse" thier right to free speech, and shout "fire". :eyes:

How about searching everyone, to make sure that they have nothing to hide BEFORE they are allowed any privacy in thier papers and effects?
You know, to make sure they don't "abuse" thier right to privacy. Wouldn't want anyone haveing any contriband. :eyes:
This categorization of rights is sickening.

"Congress shall make no law..."

"...Shall not be infringed"

[Boosterman]

207. Do you mind if we regulate your civil liberties? n/t

[Kellanved]

150. it bodes well to remember

That the promise to relax the Gun Control rules was a major point in the Election Program of the Nazis. One they actually kept.

[DoNotRefill]

80. Look at the Warsaw Ghetto uprising....

there a bunch of Jews, living in a walled in ghetto with only small arms (most of which were taken from dead Germans), surrounded by guard towers with machineguns, managed to hold off the Nazsis longer than either the French or Polish militaries were able to.

If I'm going to end up either dead or in a "re-education" camp, I'm not going to die alone. I want some of the bastards that killed me to show up in whatever afterlife there is within seconds of me. Will I still be dead? Sure. But at least I'll have the satisfaction of taking some of the bastards with me.

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

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

[JohnKleeb]

56. The British thought of the Indians as being subhuman practically

So, yes sort of.

[JohnKleeb]

54. Yes Gandhi used weapons and so did MLK

[jpgray]

57. Can't do a proper bus boycott without a desert eagle strapped to you (nt)

[JohnKleeb]

58. haha

I hate guns, I'll say it now and I'll say it when I get back from watching Law and Order SVU, I hate em. Speaking as the nephew of a sucicide victim, I know what guns do. Yes, everything is solved with guns ;). I respect and understand the OP's original points though.

[JVS]

73. Another Good Cop, Bad Cop scenario.

MLK as the good cop, Malcom X and later groups like the Black Panthers as the bad cops.

[jpgray]

103. Note that in terms of results, MLK blows X away

So to speak.

[JVS]

117. Are you certain or is that just the way that a predominantly white culture

wants to look at the events? It is comforting for whites to think that by non-violent methods we white folks were won over to the right position. King Vs X is a false dichotomy, they complement each other. King without X is a continuation of the subservient negro. X without King is a threatening minority that almost begs for a brutal crackdown. Neither is effective alone. But together it is just like the good-cop bad-cop routine.

MLK becomes the pleasant choice for white America to negotiate with because there is the spectre of violent black uprisings to frighten them to the negotiating table and MLK offers deliverance from that.

Gandhi was easy for the British to ignore until they were in bad shape from WWII and the prospect of having to keep 600,000,000 people in line through sheer force became too much for them to bear.

[jpgray]

118. King was no subservient negro, X was hardly threatening in terms of action

In words maybe, but not so much in action.

[JVS]

133. King without more threatening segments of the civil rights movement...

might well have been subservient. True X was not as big a figure as King, but there were others who advocated claiming rights by any means necessary even violence. Also words had a large impact on the issue. My point is that King and Gandhi both were able to successfully employ non-violent tactics because each of them had allies who were prepared to use violent tactics. They did the speaking softly and others with similar goals did the carrying of big sticks to borrow from Teddy Roosevelt

[jpgray]

139. I can't dispute that. And I don't mean to minimize Malcolm either

He could have easily stirred up enormous action, and actually stopped a few riots from happening himself--more a "don't turn the other cheek" than a "smack 'em at every chance" sort of guy anyway. I don't think I can dispute your argument, because it is impossible to isolate and remove elements from those examples and say that everything would still have happened the same.

[JVS]

141. You could look for examples where there was one side without the other.

The Nat Turner slave rebellion is an example of the violent approach without the peaceful approach, it failed.

I'm sure that there have been non-violent movements that had no violent counterpart and failed.

I think that successful movements are generally a blend of the approaches

[Lone Pawn]

15. The government has all the "guns" anyway

Or is your winchester going to blow a hole in the side of an Abrams tank? Is it going to knock an Apache out of the sky? Is it going to intercept a Tomahawk?

[Billy Ruffian]

71. You don't go against an Abrams with a rifle

You go against the supply truck that carries its fuel, or the food for its crew, or its crew when they come out.

You don't know anything about tactics.

[datasuspect]

153. WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Red Dawn eminently proves your point.

except now they can use biometric data from satellites to pinpoint your location and lob a few missiles into your average trailer park/mountain hideaway/urban hideout and completely wipe you out.

deer rifle and all.

[DoNotRefill]

173. Like they did in Fallujah?

eom

[datasuspect]

176. they did BAD things in fallujah

nothing to see here, move along . . . and scott peterson's haircut, next on CNN

[DoNotRefill]

184. So I guess....

that they were able to just target insurgents, right?

What do you think would happen if the US military tried to pull a Fallujah on a US city that had a couple of hundred insurgents in it and a few tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Do you think they'd actually do it?

[datasuspect]

192. depends on how much $ was involved

and maybe you have me mixed up with someone else, but i think what happened in fallujah was a no-holds-barred bloodbath.

the iraqi patriots (what you call insurgents) are largely indistinguishable from the civilian population targeted during those attacks.

[DoNotRefill]

219. Nope, I have the right person...

and the point is exactly that...that the insurgents are fish swimming in the sea of peasants. It's very, very hard to tell them apart, unless they're actually shooting at you. Now take the Fallujah bloodbath, and try to imagine the US military doing the same thing in the US in a city full of US citizens. They wouldn't be able to use the standard racist means to differentiate between themselves and the enemy. The people they'd be fighting amongst would be their own families. And the military wouldn't be able to supress a widespread insurrection unless they were willing to also massacre innocent US civilians.

[Boosterman]

210. 80 million gun owners

How many "insurgents" in Iraq?

[Cobalt Violet]

8. I wouldn't want just conservatives to have guns.

I don't believe that we should be unarmed against an armed opponent.

[Carni]

9. I am not into guns but I agree with your reasons 100%

My stances on guns have changed quite a bit in the last 4 years due to the things you state and I think it's an issue that is drawing normally sane people over to the right side of the aisle because of the NRA's propaganda.

[hollowdweller]

12. #1 When I was a kid my dad always took us hunting and target shooting.

#2 I like shooting for fun. It's not as fun as talking politics but close. I have a couple targets set up out in the field by my house and my wife and I like to go out and crack a few off for relaxation on a Sunday afternoon.

#3 I live in the country where you have to be more self reliant as far as personal protection.

[davsand]

74. If I call 911 I'm gonna wait half an hour for the deputy to show up.

I'm not mad at our sheriff. They do the best they can to cover a large amount of turf with a finite number of officers. I'm a realist.

Anybody kicking my front door down is not gonna be willing to hang out for a while till the good guys show up. Thus, we need to be able to take care of our own protection.

As I have also pointed out in another thread, our county has exactly ONE animal control officer. It might sound like a small thing, but I have seen rabid animals out here from time to time. I'll grant you that most dogs are vaccinated, however, what about animals like skunks, cats and even coyotes?

I'm not saying everybody needs an automatic, nor do I think we need to see SAMS missiles or hand grenades out there for sale. What I'm saying is we need to actually enforce the gun laws we have on the books and enact just a few more to close gun show loopholes.

This is not about being "pro" or "anti" guns. To me they are no different than any other inanimate object or tool. by themselves they are neither good nor bad. They have a specific purpose, and how you use them is your call.

Compare them to a car maybe... In educated responsible hands they are fine. In the hands of a kid or a sick person it is an issue.


Laura

[seabeyond]

13. i dont have the right to dictate to another who is responsible

with fire arm, that because i dont like it, they cant have it. for those that are not responsible, we have laws on the books to punish them

[medeak]

14. have 2000 lb big horn sheep hanging in house

that was killed with "elephant gun"..but don't understand the need for assualt rifles.

Don't get the anti gun control thang.

[papau]

22. I agree :-)

:-)

[beevul]

162. "the need for assualt rifles"

"assualt rifles" have been TIGHTLY regulated since 1934.

[DoNotRefill]

175. By the last Federal Jim Crow law on the books...

the NFA 1934. I wonder why none of the anti-gunners complain about the current enforcement of a Jim Crow law? I'd think it would have them up in arms....

[blindpig]

209. that's one big fuckin sheep n/t

[PaganPreacher]

242. Must have come from Texas....

I read once that "everything's bigger in Texas."

(Thinking of a bighorn sheep as big as a buffalo..... eyes glazing over....drooling...)

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Jack_DeLeon]

16. ¿Why not?

There is nothing wrong with being pro-gun.

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right.

[jpgray]

23. That right ends where the lives of others begin

That's why strict regulation is necessary and appropriate. To allow dangerous criminals or the mentally unstable to own a gun is an infringement on the rights of their fellow citizens. There has to be a balance struck there, and while some people will be unhappy, others will happily remain alive.

[Jack_DeLeon]

29. No....

To allow dangerous criminals or the mentally unstable to own a gun is an infringement on the rights of their fellow citizens.

Actually the infringement would be if those said people murdered thier fellow citizens.

Anyone owning a firearm is not an infringement on anyone elses rights, using said firearm to commit crimes is an infringement.

That being said I dont think people with a history of violent crime should be allowed to own firearms.

I'm a bit more leary on the "mentally unstable" part though since who is to say who is mentally unstable or not, what if the government just said anyone who supports any socialism is mentally unstable.

Also I have a girlfriend who had ADD and was taking meds for it, should she not be allowed to have access to firearms soley because of that?

[T Town Jake]

39. "To allow dangerous criminals or the mentally unstable to own a gun"

...and who here - or anywhere else - is advocating that, exactly? Please, direct me to just one link or thread where the call has gone out for "dangerous criminals" (or criminals of any sort, for that matter) or the "mentally unstable" to be armed? Just one will do...

Straw, meet man.


On edit: spelling correction

[jpgray]

40. Meet yourself--was I claiming anyone said that?

I'm just pointing out why I believe regulations are necessary. How this would be taken to mean I accuse all pro-gun DUers of being supportive of dangerous criminals owning guns is beyond me. As for "criminals of any sort" you are more gun-grabbing than I. I would not take a gun away from someone busted for marijuana possession, for example.

[T Town Jake]

45. Bait and switch...

...there are already so many laws that prohibit criminals or those adjudicated non compos mentis that to say they are "allowed" in any sense to own, posses, or use firearms is simply untrue.

But you posited the phrase in a way that implied just the opposite - that further laws were necessary to prevent something that is already plainly illegal. Now you're backpedaling, saying you never meant such a thing. Glad to see we've cleared that up.

[jpgray]

47. Ok, point out where I say further laws are required in my post. (nt)

[jpgray]

61. I thought not

I think the only thing that has changed is your interpretation of my very clear words. I say nothing about the current state of the law or what needs to be changed, but I do say what I think regulation should do: keep firearms away from those who would use them to recklessly endanger the lives of others; heavily regulate (but don't ban) military-style rifles so that responsible collectors can get them but criminals can't. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but if I wanted to say we needed more laws or that all DUers support violent criminal gun ownership, that's what I would have said.

:hi:

[T Town Jake]

78. "I thought not"....cute trick

...but some of us don't live in front of our keyboards, and occasionally stroll away to eat dinner or take care of other mundane things. I wasn't even aware of your "challenge," such as it is, until three minutes ago. But I'm happy to oblige:

jpgray quote #1: Of all the rights we should be fighting for right now, the right to own a marginally deadlier weapon just doesn't seem important to me

jpgray quote #2: I guess I don't see the United States as a frightening world of constant danger wherein the only thing between myself and violent death is a firearm. Average citizens who want to own something beyond a hunting rifle in magazine capacity, or something military by design are in my view recreational gun owners or collectors, and therefore should be required to go through enough regulation to ensure they are capable and responsible enough to own such a weapon

jpgray quote #3: So I don't really see owning a firearm as being prepared for anything, unless it's hunting or target shooting. This is real life, not a western

jpgray quote #4: That's why strict regulation is necessary and appropriate. To allow dangerous criminals or the mentally unstable to own a gun is an infringement on the rights of their fellow citizens. There has to be a balance struck there, and while some people will be unhappy, others will happily remain alive

jpgray quote #5: Note that the locales with the highest incidence of gang violence are actually quite supportive of gun control

jpgray quote #6: Your fellow citizens who don't want to be shot? Just a thought

Now what may we glean from these little nuggets of wisdom you posted? It's as obvious as the day is long. Every post either speaks of "strict regulation" that is presumably not yet in place being "necessary," or breathes ill-concealed contempt for the entire notion of firearms ownership as a fundamental right. No one put a single damn word or "words" into your mouth: your attitude was properly extrapolated from the tone & tenor of your posts. Why, for instance, would one plead and moan repeatedly for the "necessity" of "strict regulation" unless they somehow felt that such "strict regulation" was not currently in place? All of which brings us to the cheapest debating tactic in your thin arsenal to date:

jpgray quote #6: I say nothing about the current state of the law or what needs to be changed, but I do say what I think regulation should do: keep firearms away from those who would use them to recklessly endanger the lives of others; heavily regulate (but don't ban) military-style rifles so that responsible collectors can get them but criminals can't

So, which is it? You can't "say" what the "current state of the law" should be, but you still maintain that there should be some kind of vague thing that "regulation" should do? So you are for some kind of fuzzy, undefined new "regulation"? Or aren't you? Are the laws on the books we now have adequate to the task - or are they not?

Simple straightforward questions all: care to answer them?


On edit: adverb placement

[jpgray]

90. Again, feel free to point out where I say we need more laws

You can't because I don't. :)

[T Town Jake]

98. Your non-reply "reply" speaks for itself..

..to any who might happen to stroll through the thread. Glad we got all that cleared up. Goodnight. :boring:

[jpgray]

110. I'm still waiting. (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

85. And there's your problem...

"heavily regulate (but don't ban) military-style rifles so that responsible collectors can get them but criminals can't. "

That's simply impossible. If they banned ALL guns in the US, and went around confiscating them all, criminals would STILL be armed. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE CRIMINALS. If they can bring in hundreds of tons of cocaine a year, why can't they bring in hundreds of tons of guns and ammo?

I think it was U.S. v. Haynes (1968) where the Supreme Court said criminals were exempt from gun registration laws because it would force them to violate their 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination. That's right...if you're a criminal, you CAN NOT be prosecuted for failure to register your illegally owned guns. Only people who OBEY the law can be prosecuted for it. Where's the sense in that?

[jpgray]

99. This is where your argument gets silly

"If they banned ALL guns in the US, and went around confiscating them all, criminals would STILL be armed. Why? BECAUSE THEY'RE CRIMINALS."

I doubt you have spent much time talking with those in law enforcement, because most of the crimes involving a gun in this country are not tied to a weapon that was stolen or initially obtained by the criminal. Usually the weapon was purchased legally. That's why lessening regulation is a mistake, because more guns will be out there to be shared, sold and proliferated to the criminal element. You advocate more guns in the hands of criminals, I do not.

[DoNotRefill]

102. I used to BE law enforcement before I got my J.D....

and actually most criminals obtain weapons through straw purchases made by friends or family. A straw purchase, by the way, is a criminal act in and of itself.

I do not advocate more guns in the hands of criminals. I just don't think that regulating law abiding people will stop criminals from getting guns. It sure as shit didn't work when they banned pot and cocaine...

[jpgray]

108. Two more things that are not analogous--drugs and guns

There is no legal way to obtain pot and cocaine. There are legal ways to obtain most dangerous small arms in existence in this country, depending on your state. The reason that criminals aren't opening up with an old M60 or what have you is that they are notoriously difficult to obtain legally, due to regulation. If it were simply by virtue of being a criminal that one could obtain these more dangerous illegal firearms, you would likely hear of more petty criminals using full automatic or otherwise banned weapons. But you don't hear of that, you hear of handguns and other weapons that are easier to obtain legally.

[DoNotRefill]

112. Sure they are.

Drugs now are where many want guns to be in the future.

Prohibition has NEVER worked. It didn't work for drugs, it didn't work for booze, and it will never work for guns.

You heard about the shipment of full-auto NORINCO AK-47s that got busted in Long Beach a while back?

People don't commit crimes with old M-60s because they're too goddamned bulky to carry. But illegally possessed compact submachineguns are often used in crime.

[jpgray]

115. Often used in crime? In what percentage of incidents do you suppose?

I would wager a very small number. Why do the majority of gun-using criminals not use AK-47s or MP5s or some other like weapon? Because they are expensive to obtain even illegally in this country. Handguns are comparatively cheap and all over the place. What I don't want is lax regulation on more military style weapons, because it is my view that the easier and less expensive they are to obtain, the more criminals will have and use them. Do you dispute this?

[DoNotRefill]

119. Have you ever heard of "the shoestring trick"?

with it, you can turn most semi-automatic weapons into something approximating a fully automatic ROF. It involves around 30 seconds of time and one shoestring to do.

FYI: Illegal machineguns are much, MUCH cheaper than legal machineguns.

[jpgray]

121. Now I worry you don't know much about guns at all

Most of those "tricks" can be filed under cheap and unreliable or too much trouble and not worth the effort. Yours would fall under the former.

Legal machineguns are expensive to obtain... now. Aren't you advocating we relax those restrictions?

[DoNotRefill]

125. I wasn't talking about things like the Hellfire...

and the shoestring trick does indeed work, and it works very well.

Legal machineguns (I have a bunch of them) are very expensive now, and the ban on manufacture of machineguns (§922(o)) was recently struck down in the 9th circuit court of appeals on ICC grounds.

[jpgray]

127. So what are you talking about?

The string allows the trigger to be activated by the movement of the charging handle, right? Not exactly what you would want to use in a crime situation, and you stand a good chance of breaking your trigger or something else in the process.

And once again, do you advocate lessening existing regulations on machine guns? And do you believe that as a result they will become easier or more difficult for criminals to obtain?

[DoNotRefill]

130. And you think I don't know anything about guns????

how the fuck would it cause the trigger to break? Puh-LEASE. And how exactly would it affect the use of the weapon in a "crime situation"?

I support removing the 1986 ban on manufacture of machineguns from the books. The process of that is currently ongoing since the 9th's ruling in U.S. v. Stewart. And given that there have been a whole TWO cases involving a legally possessed machinegun being used to commit a crime since 1934 (and there are 250,000 of them out there), somehow I don't think that killing §922(o) is going to cause an upswing in the illegal use of machineguns.

[jpgray]

134. I've researched cases of this method using parachute cord, &c

It's commonly accepted that such trigger devices are crap.

As for the rest, the easier it is to legally purchase dangerous weapons, the more they will be proliferated, shared and sold to criminals. You can't escape that. You have to ask yourself to what degree is a ton of annoyance and money worth keeping handguns or less dangerous firearms as the mainstay weapon of crime. To my mind, it's worth a lot, because I have no interest in owning a machine gun. That's the decision voters make. Whether what I am advocating is analogous to enacting Jim Crow laws, I don't know, but the way I interpret the second amendment, I would say I have nothing to worry about.

[DoNotRefill]

136. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is the LAST Federal Jim Crow law

that's still being enforced today. If you're not familiar with it, tell me and I'll explain exactly HOW it's a Jim Crow law.

[DoNotRefill]

84. you're right, the right ends where the lives of others begin.

That means it's absolutely fine to regulate bad CONDUCT with guns (i.e. you can't shoot people for shits and giggles) and to say people who have been stripped of their rights in a court of law (like felons and people adjudicated mentally defective) can't have guns, but if you start taking away the rights of people who have committed no crime because they MIGHT commit a crime in the future, we're all fucked.

[Marxdem]

151. Key word: "Criminals"

Do you expect them to follow your gun control laws? :eyes:

[slackmaster]

187. Dangerous criminals/mentally unstable people are NOT allowed to own guns

WTF are you talking about?

:shrug:

[Dr.Phool]

17. I used to enjoy hunting

But, being a convicted felon, I'm not allowed to posess a gun anymore. I have no problem with guns, however I see no reasonable argument for someone to own an Uzi or Mac-10.

[papau]

18. shoting at a range or in competition is fun

Also shoting rats at the dump is fun!

Also hunting for "free" meat is inexpensive if you use the same equipement for 10 or more years.


and of course:

1) I want no more gun control powers for Bush.

2) thuggery by the friends of Bush may require more than I can do at my age.

3. I do not trust FEDERAL law enforcement TO PROTECT ANYONE'S CIVIL RIGHTS.

[hollowdweller]

28. Wait about 15 years when things get so bad the unions start to get strong

and rise up against the companies and government and you will see the Republicans restrict firearms possession so quick it will make your head spin, and they will use all this Patriot Act and anti terror legislation to figure out who owns them and round them all up.

[mandyky]

20. I am pro 2nd amendment

I was born and raised in rural upstate NY where deer hunting season was a tradition. In our county you could only use shotguns for deer season. Currently to get a hunting license you have to take a 3 hour safety course - that includes police and veterans.

While I would not hunt with an assault weapon, I am not sure if they should be banned, but we have to find a way to keep them away from criminals and mentally unstable people. Same with handguns.

[eridani]

38. But you described some pretty strong regulations you support--

--so I take that to mean that regulating guns is consistent with being in favor of the 2nd amendment.

[mandyky]

42. Strong regulations? I'm confused

To say nuts and criminals need to not have assault weapons is a strong regulation?

We have to do something about our urban areas and gang violence and their ability to get oozies, etc. Men who have abused their wives should have their licenses yanked until they complete an anger management course. Violent felons should never be allowed these types of weapons without some kind of pardon. These things are strong regulations.

Nuts and criminals should be locked up without weapons until they are rehabilitated. The last thing I want them to have is an assualt weapon.

[Us vs Them]

25. It's funny. I was always anti-gun before this administration.

Is it the spirit of Texas rubbing off on me, or do I just want to be armed when martial law is declared.

Whatever the case, I see the logic, now.

[EDT]

27. Zombies and CHUDS.

[DoNotRefill]

224. Speaking of Zombies...

a fun read is "The Zombie Survival guide" by Max Brooks. It's a brilliant sendup of both zombie flicks and that drones that write FMs and TMs.

[yardwork]

31. Most Democrats have never had much of a problem with guns, imo

The idea that "Democrats and Liberals want to take away all our guns!!" is a myth that has been cleverly planted in the public's mind using the same Republican Rove-ian tactics that just got millions of people to vote for Dumya.

The great majority of Democrats don't give a flip how many guns a person has or what they do with them. Seriously. While a small number of people (Democrats and Republicans both) would like to see reasonable gun-control laws, most of us have even given up on this in recent years.

I'm far more concerned about issues like protecting the environment, the economy, national security, health care, and not destroying all those things with stupid wars.

[jesusq]

215. Who would take away these guns? IMPOSSIBLE

Think of the shear logistics. There are 250 million guns and we probably only know who owns a tenth of them. And who would you employ to go door to door and collect these guns? What kind of desperate idiot would take a job like that? The hard core gun activist types are quite literally serious when they say, "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers." Amazing how they can express such machismo, yet who do they fear the most? Hilary Clinton. Unbelievable.

Rather than challenging the authorities to pry my gun from my cold dead fingers, I'll just hide mine real well, and tell the jack-booted thugs, "Hmmm, I can't remember where I put that silly thing." <grin>

[Lefty48197]

32. I think you can own guns, and still support gun control

I also don't think there really are that mny pro-gun DUers, at least not in any more proportion than the general population. There are a few militant pro gun DUers who post in the gun dungeon, and they are consistently very vocal. That's consistent with the militant pro gunners OUTSIDE DU.

[jesusq]

214. A good example of the kind of gun control liberals should promote

[bling bling]

33. I don't own a gun but amending the constitution

to REMOVE any Constitutional rights Americans presently have is about the last thing on my list of priorities. That in of itself makes me pro-gun, I suppose.

[bloom]

35. In the past I've thought that the NRA

was pretty nuts. And I still think so, but - I don't know - maybe it's from knowing people who just really feel like it's their right to have guns - and I don't know why it is so important to keep guns from them. And if I decide to get one - I don't want it to be an outrageous hassle. And it's a constitutional thing.

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" - if anything convinced me that it isn't the guns that are the problem ( comparing Canada) - it's the attitudes of the culture at large.



I think the presidential candidates realize that making a big deal out of gun control is not really a vote getting proposition. I think it's one of those "choose your battles" kind of thing.

I see the Republicans as being the control freaks in so many ways - and so interested in messing with people's personal lives. I'm happy to have the dems be the party of civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, religious (or not) freedom, free speech rights, freedom from unwarranted searches and such... why not gun rights, too? :shrug:

[MNBiker]

44. Street Gang members don't follow gun laws......

Every new gun law only restricts the law abiding citizens...

[jpgray]

46. Yes, Nebraska's active gangworld inspires its gun activism

Note that the locales with the highest incidence of gang violence are actually quite supportive of gun control.

[beevul]

165. EQually noteworthy...

that the locales with the tightest gun control have the highest
rate of "gun troubles"

[Telly Savalas]

178. Care to provide some stats to back up that claim?

Furthermore, if this correlation actually exists, why isn't it the case that the gun control was in reaction to the preexisting high rates of "gun problems"?

According to this website there is evidence that gun control does reduce violent crime.

[beevul]

194. I dunno...

Chicago, D.C. ...

Two places with the toughest gun control in the USA, and both strong contenders for murder capitol of the USA, anually.

As for stats, I'll see what I can do.

[DoNotRefill]

225. Heh. Nice link.

Not terribly credible, since it comes from a anti gun site, but still funny.

People will take your stats a whole lot more serious if you don't get them from partisan sites....that rules out both pro and anti gun groups. They both are pushing an agenda, and that makes their work suspect. I suggest that if you want people to take you seriously, you try quoting government stats only, and even then, it's a good idea to check for biases by the author(s).

IIRC, DC inplemented it's gun control program in either 1976 or 1977. Care to wager what happened to DC's gun crime rate from then to now? Hint: It didn't go down.

[immoderate]

49. In a free country...

...who should be able to tell you that you can't have a gun?

--IMM

[jpgray]

51. Your fellow citizens who don't want to be shot?

Just a thought. :)

[DoNotRefill]

87. So if your fellow citizens don't want minorities in their neighborhoods...

they should be able to keep them out?

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a civil right. So why should it be abrogated at the whim of my fellow citizens?

[jpgray]

111. Unfortunately, yes. That's the way democracy works

And your fellow citizens have abrogated many rights of many people by majority rule--see Jim Crow and your literacy tests for an example, or the Patriot Act for something more recent (by proxy, anyway).

[DoNotRefill]

114. Horseshit.

We live in a constitutional republic, where the rights of the minorities are SUPPOSED to be protected from the whim of the majority.

I can't BELIEVE a DUer would say "yes" to excluding minorities from a neighborhood because the neighbors didn't want minorities there. When did this become the 1950's???

[jpgray]

116. Now you're being silly

I have just pointed out to you that the majority has often infringed on the rights of people in this country. I haven't endorsed the practice. But again, I don't think the second amendment has been infringed upon. Gun ownership is mentioned in the same breath as "well-regulated" in the Constitution, and it should be.

[DoNotRefill]

120. I said:

"So if your fellow citizens don't want minorities in their neighborhoods...they should be able to keep them out?"

And you said:

"unfortunately, yes. That's the way democracy works."

That sounds like an endorsement to me.

[jpgray]

124. If they make the law and courts uphold it, it happens

That is the way the system should work. That doesn't mean I endorse keeping minorities out of neighborhoods, that means that's the system of government we have--unfortunately, it seldom works properly, and much of what we see today and in the past are instances of that. But you are retreating from the point and are trying to interpret my words rather than read them.

Again, I don't think the second amendment has been infringed upon. Gun ownership is mentioned in the same breath as "well-regulated" in the Constitution, and it should be. What you describe I would definitely file under an infringement of the rights of those individuals.

[DoNotRefill]

128. Did you look up "infringement" in Black's?

I'll do it for you.

"Infringement A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon;"

"Encroach" is defined as: "to enter by gradual steps or stealth into the possessions or rights of another."

CURRENT gun control law is already an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. And eventually, gun control laws will go the way of the REST of Jim Crow...

[jpgray]

129. The "slippery slope" is a fallacy

It can happen, but just because small steps are taken doesn't mean the endpoint can be accurately determined, or even that the steps will continue.

By your definition of infringement, every single one of our rights is infringed upon. And to remove this infringement and deny ourselves this slippery slope, we should therefore allow even dangerous felons any firearm they want, with no regulation of any sort, right? That is what you're arguing? Otherwise their rights are being "infringed" upon by your definition.

[DoNotRefill]

131. Nope...

because felons LOSE their Second Amendment rights when they BECOME felons, just as those adjudicated mentally defective lose their rights when they're found to be incompetent.

[jpgray]

137. Does a felon also lose the right to free speech? Fifth amendment rights?

No. So you are, by your own definition, infringing on their rights. Next would come your slippery slope, wherein doubtless all guns are melted down to make the badges we shall all have to wear in the future fascist society that only machinegun ownership could prevent, right?

I think your logic here is flawed, and I think the absurdity it creates above proves that. Some regulation is not by definition the total ruination of a right--you yourself admit that violent criminals should not have these weapons. That is regulation, and therefore that is infringement. To my mind, that doesn't debase the spirit of the right, but to yours it must, because you are attached to your slippery slope.

[DoNotRefill]

140. Within certain situations, yes, they do.

they lose their right to freedom. They lose their right to travel. They lose their right to communicate with the media and the population at large. What communications they DO have can be monitored by the state, without the need for a warrant. The ONLY people they can communicate with in private is their attorney. They lose their right to keep and bear arms. In seven states, they even lose their right to vote.

So yeah, they lose a shitload of their rights by virtue of their conviction.

[jpgray]

142. But see, there comes the interpretation, the lack of objective fact

If rights can be taken away from felons, they can be taken away from others. There is no Constitutional source for this infringement, it is decided upon by the legislators and judges. So you support some infringements, but not others? And your favored infringement isn't a slippery slope starter, but a little more starts us rolling? Stripping a teen who had too much pot on him of his right to vote to me is a terrible infringement on his rights, as is stripping him of his right to own a gun. We aren't coming from positions of pro-infringement and anti-infringement, you just support less on the 2nd amendment than I do. So in other words, your slippery slope argument would convict you of being a fascist enabler just as much as it would convict me, if any infringement is as bad as literacy tests for voting. That's why I think your arguments are logically unsound.

[DoNotRefill]

143. In order for rights to be stripped from a person....

it must be done in accordance with due process of law. It IS based upon the Constitution (we're assuming we're talking about the commission of a crime breaking a federal law), as are ALL Federal laws out there. EVERY federal law out there MUST be made in accordance with the powers granted to the legislature by the Constitution. That's why you'll so often find "findings" in the code that "so and so affects Interstate commerce" or whatever power they're basing the law upon. If there's not authorization in the Constitution for the law, the law is invalid. That's what happened in U.S. v. Lopez, when the gun free school zone act was struck down. Congress tried to base it on the ICC, and the courts found that the law in question had nothing to do with the ICC, and so it was unconstitutional.

I think you're confusing what are commonly referred to as "human rights" or "inalienable rights" with civil liberties.

Enough. Bedtime.

[jpgray]

145. Have a good night

But the point is the infringement. If you accept this infringement on a citizen's rights, where does that leave your theory of a slippery slope? Again, you are clearly not against infringing this right, since you support some degree of doing so.

[DoNotRefill]

159. Let me get this straight....

it sounds like you're saying that convicting somebody of a felony and the consequent stripping of their civil liberties with due process of law is an infringement upon their rights. Is this correct?

If so, I can see how it may be seen as an infringement upon their rights. I don't agree with it, but I can see how you might think that. However, it was done with due process of law, and it was set into motion because of their PERSONAL actions, not the actions of others. Most of the reasons I've seen for gun control center around the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms. Restricting everybody's access to firearms because of the actions of a few is an infringement on the civil liberties of every person who wants or owns a gun without due process of law and based upon the actions of a third, unrelated party. It's EXACTLY the same mentality that blames American or Iraqi muslims for the actions of the 9/11 hijackers, because hey, they're all muslims.

[Columbia]

181. Good point

Gun control is discriminatory profiling.

[bloom]

206. Oh- great - so you are using the Patriot Act as a reason to take away

other rights???? Sorry - that is just darn ridiculous.

[immoderate]

50. In a free country...

...who should be able to tell you that you can't have a gun?

--IMM

[Telly Savalas]

180. People who are concerned with the negative externalities...

of gun ownership. That's who.

[beevul]

195. What would those...

negative externalities of gun ownership be?

[InvisibleBallots]

55. Two reasons

First, the Second Amendment guarentees me the right to keep and bear arms. Second, every totalitarian dictatorship in the history of the world has tried to disarm the population - and for good reason - armed populations don't make good subjects.

I certainly have no problem with legitimate licensing and gun control, and I'm not going to be lobbying to allow people to get machine guns.

But I think Dean has the right idea about gun control, and the rest of the party should follow his lead.

[jpgray]

59. Every one in the history of the world?

You're probably thinking of ol' Adolf in '38, China or Cuba but I can think of some others that didn't swing that way.

There is Iraq, of course. Those AK47s didn't materialize out of the Shock & Awe aether, right? Many dictatorships in Africa also have had nothing resembling national gun registration. Vietnam ring a bell?

[InvisibleBallots]

62. the Iraq argument is a good one

I'll give you that - all those AK47s didn't do a bit of good for the Iraqis did they, at least against Saddam Hussein.

Then again, they are holding off the best military in the world, so perhaps...oh and Vietnam beat us off too, didn't they?

It's pro-choice - don't want a gun? Don't buy one.

[jpgray]

63. But the problem is, there you had a united populace as well as guns

It wasn't the guns by themselves that did the heavy lifting. That's why I don't necessarily buy the argument that widespread gun ownership is an infallible deterrant to fascism/totalitarianism.

edit: And as JVS points out above, most historical analogies are prone to error. :)

[DoNotRefill]

88. Pick a genocide, ANY genocide, in the 20th century...

and I'm almost POSITIVE that you'll find that the peoples massacred were disbarred from the possession of firarms.

A disarmed populace is a necessary precursor for genocide. Every disarmed population will not necessarily be slaughtered, but every slaughtered population will have beeen disarmed beforehand.

That's someplace I'd rather not go.

[jpgray]

113. The Congo and Rwanda are good examples

I'll try to think of some "first-world" examples. Every slaughtered population need not be disarmed beforehand, but I'll grant that it helps. But I don't see many advocating the utter banning of all firearm ownership.

[DoNotRefill]

123. If they have not been disarmed, it's a war....

if they have been disarmed, it's genocide. And in both Congo and Rwanda, the slaughtered peoples were disarmed by law. That's why in Rwanda, most of the killing was done with machetes while armed people stood guard...because the targeted population wasn't able to resist effectively since they had no guns.

[jpgray]

126. You're wrong there: Uganda armed both the Hema and Lendu militias

Both sides were armed, both conducted genocide against each other. In your view, by virtue of being armed, this should be impossible.

[DoNotRefill]

132. the militias were armed...

the people who were exterminated were not. It's really pretty simple....the Ugandans gave guns to the organized forces of both sides. The people who were not part of the organized forces didn't get squat. The armed organized forces of both sides then proceeded to prey upon the unarmed people.

[jpgray]

138. Now you're trying a different tack

"you'll find that the peoples massacred were disbarred from the possession of firarms"

Were they disbarred? No. They were not a disarmed population, since members of that population were actively being armed. To my mind it is still a genocide on both sides, but to yours, by your own definitions, it is not. That doesn't make any sense to me.

[ragin_acadian]

65. I'm going to go ahead and make my irrelevant sound off

I hunt with muzzleloaders, and have a cabinet full of them. It's a skill to learn to load and fire, and a chore to clean up and maintain, but a hell of a lot more fun than point and pull. And I also feel like a more responsible hunter because i only have one shot, and not a clip.
Within reason, I think there should be no registration for bolt action rifles, and rifles of standard caliber with less than a five or seven round clip: those are pure hunting rifles - they could be used for crime, but you can't mow down a crowd or hide them in a trenchcoat.
but on the other hand,
handguns and assault weapons only have one purpose: to hunt other humans - therefore, if you intend to own one, you should be registered.

my opinion post election, however, is that everyone in the US should own one firearm, it is the last barrier between us and the littlefuehrer's pungent brand of fascism.

[zeek]

106. Wrong

Thousands of people in this country use handguns to hunt. Thousands also hunt with the semi-automatic rifles which were banned by the so called "assault weapons" ban (none of which were actually assault weapons).

Real assault weapons (rifles with a selective rate of fire) are required to be registered, and thier owners need to have a Federal Firearms Liscense.

[ragin_acadian]

152. sure

i've heard of people hunting chipmunks with a snubnose 38,
or moose hunting with an sks with a thirty round clip and bayonet

look, all i am saying is that you "could" go hunting with a fork tied to the end of a stick - that doesn't mean that the fork was made with the expressed purpose of hunting game

just like AR15's were not made to go possum hunting, they are a civilian adaptation of an army assault weapon
you could kill an elephant with a 357, but i don't think that the majority of the 357 sales are made to elephant hunters

that is just my common sense approach to defining a weapon for hunting, I don't think there are many serious hunters in this country who need thirty round clips, collapsible stocks, or flash suppressors.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't own these types of weapons, I'm saying that they should be regulated with registrations.

[slackmaster]

179. None of my assault weapons were assault weapons when I bought them

They were just rifles that I bought for target shooting or as enhancements to my gun collection. Their status as "assault weapons" was imposed by forces beyond my control.

I bought them to shoot at pieces of paper or for their financial value, not to "hunt" other humans.

Samurai swords were designed specifically to kill people, but lots of people own them for perfectly peaceful, civilized reasons. The same goes for firearms.

[ragin_acadian]

190. i wasn't saying you purchased the guns to hunt other humans

i'm saying that they were designed for that purpose
i have a steak knife on my desk that doubles as a screwdriver when i don't feel like going through my tool box. it's still a steak knife.

i have no problems with you or anyone owning these weapons, i just agree with registering them. i don't know what kind of rifles you own that you feel had the assualt weapon designation forced upon them, but in my opinion, any kalashnikov derivative, ar15, H&K models like Cetme, G3's, or MP5's, etc. sks's, garands, are infantry rifles. just because you plink at paper targets doesn't mean that they weren't designed to make war. hence the name. same thing with samurai swords.

i don't think that actual hunting rifles should be subject to these rules because it is obvious that a traditional hunter intends to use them responsibly.

[slackmaster]

196. An "actual hunting rifle" would be ideal for killing humans

To me the danger from a firearm or any other kind of weapon comes only from the person who holds it.

...in my opinion, any kalashnikov derivative, ar15, H&K models like Cetme, G3's, or MP5's, etc. sks's, garands, are infantry rifles.

That's a reasonable POV, but the civilian semiautomatic versions of ARs, Kalashnikovs, HKs, CETMEs, G3s, MP5s, etc. were specifically created with the intent of selling them on the civilian market - All the ergonomics and robustness of their military counterparts without the selective-fire capability (and hence no National Firearms Act hassle). They were intended by their manufacturers to fill an existing demand in the marketplace for weapons similar to those used by the military; not to enable millions of civilians to murder others.

As for the Garands, they're real military curious and relics with great historical significance. Obsolete for modern military use but of tremendous interest to collectors like myself.

[ragin_acadian]

229. i agree with you totally about the danger being in the person's hands

if (among other things) the results of the election were different, i would admit that anyone could own whatever kind of gun they choose, maybe we could be like the swiss, but they have an education system superior to ours. but unfortunately 59 million people just reminded me that anti abortion whackjobs still exist, along with radical jesus jumpers, promisekeepers, and all sorts of other unsavory people that should be delegated to some sort of gulag for the criminally stupid.

i'm not advocating taking away guns, i'm advocating a better sort of registration. i own a sporterized sks with a folding stock, i filled out the paper work on it, and have no problems doing so, it is an assault rifle.

i do have a problem with having to fill out paperwork for my .22 caliber goldenboy knockoff, it just seems like a useless bureaucratic exercise when compared to the masked militant that is buying four semiautomatic uzi's converted to civilian purposes, that can be converted back to full auto with parts from FAC of America.

i realize the argument that military weapons can be converted for civilian use, but what is the argument against registration?

as for the garand..okay good point. enjoy.

[Billy Ruffian]

197. hunting rifles vs. 'assault' rifles

So it would be fine to own a Remingtion 7400 in .30-06, and not have to register it, but if I bought a Garand, I would have to register it? Did I misunderstand what you wrote?

Can someone tell me the functional difference between the two?

(BTW, H&K does NOT make the Cetme.)

How on earth can you determine intent based upon the cosmetic features of a firearm?

[ragin_acadian]

231. i'm not determining intent, it seems pretty friggin'

obvious that there is a difference between a lever action winchester and the STG58-A. well they both shoot bullets. whoops, no difference -must be all cosmetic.

one more time....(shhhh, listen) i was not determining intent. i was making a case that firearms developed for infantry use in the past 50 years might be used for plinking squirrels, but were not designed for it. this is not implying that buyers intend to shoot someone, this is implying that owners of assault weapons should be registered, JUST LIKE....THEY ARE RIGHT NOW! the folding stock sks i own is registered. so is my lever action .22 caliber. there is a big difference between the two. one is point and pull, the other is not. i think it is a waste of time to make useless paperwork for a .22 caliber knockoff of an 1866 infantry rifle, when you can legally buy a Cetme (same design as the H&K G3, like debating whether pedersoli makes the navy six, or colt did/does)for.....the same amount of useless paperwork.
why not get rid of one set of paperwork that encompasses normal hunters, and create a separate and more efficient set to track who owns SW89's and FAL's.

[beevul]

233. Questions...

"i'm not advocating taking away guns, i'm advocating a better sort of registration. i own a sporterized sks with a folding stock, i filled out the paper work on it, and have no problems doing so, it is an assault rifle."

Is this "assault rifle" fully automatic?


"this is not implying that buyers intend to shoot someone, this is implying that owners of assault weapons should be registered, JUST LIKE....THEY ARE RIGHT NOW!"

Assault weapons? I thought it was an assault rifle?


Where is this that they are registered now? CA?


Register them ...umm....Why?

[ragin_acadian]

235. no, it's not fully automatic

i was under the impression that when i bought the gun, the paperwork i filled out registered the weapon in my name. maybe that was just an elaborate ruse that florida likes to go through. dunno, did it at a gun show. seemed official enough.

assault weapons. assault rifles. semantics. rifle designed by someone commissioned to create a more efficient battlefield weapon.

register them?. i would like to know who owns a weapon that holds more than twelve rounds. if i don't know, i would like some official to know. i have no problem with anyone owning that weapon, it would help me sleep better at night if i knew the freeper down the street, married to his cousin, and insanely pro-life with 14 inbred brainwashed children, had eight AR-15's, a half dozen kalashnikovs, an SVD with a high power scope, and a box of skorpion machine pistols converted to civilian use. then i could decide on a different neighborhood, because obviously this guy is more than a collector or enthusiast.

[slackmaster]

237. Your rifles are NOT registered

i was under the impression that when i bought the gun, the paperwork i filled out registered the weapon in my name.

All you really did was affirm that you are the actual buyer of each weapon and that you are not legally disqualified from owning one. You also provided information to be fed into the National Instant Check System (NICS) so the sale could be denied if NICS has you flagged as a prohibited person.

That federal paperwork - the four-page yellow form formerly known as BATF Form 4473, goes into the seller's permanent files. The information on it doesn't go to any government agency unless it gets examined in the process of a criminal investigation of the dealer or of someone who is alleged to have used a gun in a crime.

When a gun dealer goes out of business all of those yellow sheets are crated up and sent to that warehouse where they stashed the Arc of the Covenant and the remains of Jimmy Hoffa, never to be seen again.

Information sent to NICS, consists only of your name and address, and the type of firearm (i.e. "long gun"). No make and model, nor documentation that a sale actually occurred.

Neither the federal government nor the state of Florida have at their fingertips any specific information about any of the firearms you own.

It's a little different here in California - We've had de facto handgun registration since 1968. When you buy one the state gets make, model, and serial number. If you move here you have to register your handguns within 60 days by filling out a form. If you give one to your spouse you have to inform the Department of Justice of the transfer. Not so with long guns, handguns you've owned since before 1968, or homebuilt ones.

[ragin_acadian]

244. ah, thank's for the explanation, i appreciate it.

i had heard you couldn't own any kalishnakov variants in california, but i didn't know about the handgun laws.

aren't most gangmembers out there better armed than the police? seems like registration isn't working.

[Billy Ruffian]

245. ragin_acadian

you wrote in post 190 that you thought military style firearms should be registered, but hunting firearms did not need to be.

I pointed out an example of a miltary firearm (Garand M-1) and a hunting firearm (Rem. 7400) that shot the EXACT same round.

Why on earth should the Garand be registered?

I think you can get the Rem. in .308. You can get a Saiga in .308 (built on a Kalishnikov action). You can get an AR action in .308. I think the Cetme comes in a .308

Another example is Ruger's Mini-14. Comes in .223 Remington, which is the 5.56mm NATO round. That's marketed as a 'ranch rifle', and was not affected by the assault weapon ban. The Colt AR-15 was banned, because it had a bayonet lug, flash suppressor and a pistol grip.

Why should a military style firearm be registered, but not a hunting firearm? I haven't figured out why you think this would be helpful.

[jesusq]

217. They are SPORT RIFLES, not assault weapons

I have a so-called assault weapon that is an old military gun from the 1950s. The only thing that makes it an assault weapon is the bayonet and the muzzle brake. Remove those two parts and you still have the same gun (a little tamer looking, albeit). A gun that was perfectly legal in all 50 states DURING the gun ban.

Labeling a sport gun an assault weapon is like labeling an SUV a pedestrian killer. It is only an assault weapon when it is being used to attack people.

[slackmaster]

232. I took the grenade launcher off of my French MAS 49/56 in 1999

That modification was necessary to keep it from becoming classified as an "assault weapon" when California's Senate Bill 23 took effect on 1/1/2000.

You can't buy grenades easily because they're regulated as explosives, so the lack of a grenade launcher doesn't do anything at all to make the rifle less of a "threat" to society.

[Kenneth ken]

66. I can't speak for anyone else

but my point of view is that the main body of the Constitution describes how the federal government was to be set up, and what powers it would have. Counter-balancing that, is the Bill of Rights, which specified what government couldn't do, and was thereby left to the people as individuals.

Anyone can set up a free press
Anyone can own a gun
Anyone is entitled to protection from illegal search and seizure
etc.

I think any and all gun registration laws should be held at the state or local level (10th amendment) rather than a federal level.

[jesusq]

68. Gun rights may be the last rights you have left

I have just recently gotten back into shooting after being voluntarily unarmed for the past 12 years. I enjoy target shooting, pistol and rifle, but I especially love tactical competition. I tried hunting, but carving the anus and anal glands out of a deer with a Bowie knife took all the fun out of it for me.

Lemme splain something for folks who don't get the gun thing. How you feel about guns depends on your point of reference. If your first experience was going "hunting" at age 5 with your Dad and Grandpa with your little Daisy BB rifle, you think of guns in a very positive and emotional way. Male bonding, rite of passage, etc.

If your frame of reference is chalk outlines, blood on the sidewalk and sirens, well understandably, your attitude is quite negative.

But as a pro-gun liberal (you should see the looks used to get at the gun shop wearing my Sportsmen for Kerry button), I believe our repug majority government is getting dangerously close to the kind of tyranny the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent.

The Founding fathers probably reasoned that it was better for the government to maintain a healthy fear of its people than for the people to fear the tyranny of the government. The disturbing problem is that the majority of todays gun owners support the tyrants.

This administration turns a deaf ear to its people. One-million protesters with picket signs show up in DC and it barely makes the news. Do you think that one-thousand protesters with semi-automatic rifles would be ignored?

If you are a liberal or democrat near Pittsburgh, PA, look me up and I'll give you your first liberal shooting lesson free. I'll let you borrow my 9mm handgun or you can rent a smaller caliber pistol if you prefer, and I'll even pay for your range time.

Want to try out a so-called assault weapon? You can shoot mine if you like. It isn't much differnt than Grandpa's deer rifle. You'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

Handgun or long gun, your choice. Free lessons, free range time and I'll even throw in your first 10 rounds of ammo. I promise you it will be a positive experience. No kidding. Take me up on it.

Love Jesus

[mitchum]

70. An ARMED Left is a STRONG Left

[leanin_green]

77. BLUE PERSON IN A RED STATE: Armed and Ready.

Frankly, I find that most people who are opposed to guns haven't any history with them. When I lived in the city(San Francisco)I could understand stricter regulation. It's like what was said earlier about gang bangers et.al., don't follow gun laws. That's the point. Most of those people reside in cities. And if they start to encroach on us here in the country, they wouldn't find it so easy to get away with what they do.

As far as history goes, the reason that there hasn't been a fundamental power grab in this country is because of an armed populace. They have to do it more subtly, like rigged elections and silencing the media through corporate ownership.

Now, having said all of this, I still don't own my own guns(except a little .25 cal pistol my wife had when we were married), but I'm shopping.

[ZombieNixon]

75. It's a civil liberties issue.

You are not the one to say whether I can or cannot own a gun and visa versa. That said, I think background checks are absolutely necessary, I believe that gun makers need to be held accountable for fauly designs that cause harm (cf. Brandon Maxfield), and there is no need to own an assault weapon. Overall, my attitudes are pretty pro-gun rights.

[maveric]

76. Because we may be needing them soon.

I truly feel that we liberals/dems/gays/feminists/pro choicers may be targeted during bu$h's next term.

[johnaries]

86. Honestly, pro-gun is not a valid statement, or question - SAFETY

Gun Safety is the only real issue! (IMHO) I live on 20 acres of woods, next to thousands of acres of a Wildlife Management Area. I don't hunt, and I don't particularly like guns, but so far this year I had to shoot a Copperhead and a 10-foot Timber Rattler in my front yard! I didn't like doing it, but this was a real danger to my family and I felt it necessary to protect myself and them.

I don't think the issue is "pro-gun" or "anti-gun": I think the issue is that guns are dangerous tools, and we should do everything possible to make sure they are only used in a safe manner.

I learned "respect" for my weapon in Basic Training, and I have never forgotten that.

At one time, the main purpose of the NRA was to ensure safety and training in the proper use of firearms. When did that change? Why can't we get them back on "our side"?

You have to pass a driving test to drive a car, why don't you have to pass a Safety Test to own a gun? The NRA are the most experienced with guns, why can't we tap their experience to help further gun safety?

Seems to me the NRA and Democrats should be on the same side! :shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

89. heh...

"You have to pass a driving test to drive a car, why don't you have to pass a Safety Test to own a gun?"

So why not a literacy test for voters?

Rights are RIGHTS. You shouldn't need government permission to exercise them.

[johnaries]

100. You make a good point... except

that if you vote for the wrong person accidentally your vote alone doesn't blow someone's head off. I know a lot of metaphors could be made, but you have to balance the Practical with the Possible. That's what Democracy is all about!

[DoNotRefill]

105. sacrificing civil liberrties in an attempt to be "practical"

is a losing proposition. That's how all those people ended up in Gitmo...their civil liberties were sacrificed in the name of practicality.

[johnaries]

122. Technically, I wasn't talking about Giving Up civil liberties

I was talking about Maintaining civil liberties, as in the Constitutional right to Bear Arms. But, as always, the "key" lies in "balance".

[beevul]

166. Wrong !!

"You have to pass a driving test to drive a car, why don't you have to pass a Safety Test to own a gun?"


Well, maybe not wrong, but incomplete.

You have to pass a drivers test to drive a car ON PUBLIC ROADS.

You do not have to have a liscense to OWN a car, OR drive it on private property.

[slackmaster]

185. I have yet to meet anyone who opposes gun safety

:shrug:

[The Zanti Regent]

91. They will not take my gun from me.

I will not surrender my gun to any Republican official no matter what the reason.

This IS Nazi Germany all over again, the only difference is that it is innocent Gays and Lesbians who will receive the persecution my people got the last time this sickness broke out.

[MissMarple]

93. It's in the Bill of Rights. The only caveat I see is "well regulated".

What is a well regulated militia? Hmmm..... Originally it was to counteract an army of folks who were poorly controlled, and were essentially perceived to be ...unemployed thugs and criminals. A citizen militia was thought to be a better defense of liberty than the army at that time. The army was not thought to be a respectable, reliable and professional force. That is the thought of some scholars. In other words, with our computers we could be current day militia and those of us who have guns will back us up.

[DoNotRefill]

135. there are six operative words in the Second Amendment:

They are "right", "people", "keep", "bear", "arms" and "infringed".

It's a right, not a privilege. It belongs to the people, not the State, or even the militia in general. It's to both keep and bear, not to leave locked at home. It's for arms, not just certain kinds of guns that are politically correct. And it shall not be infringed, even a little bit.

[Telly Savalas]

170. Damn straight.

My rights are being trampled on because I can't possess nuclear arms. The 2nd amendment makes clear that it is my right to have a Titan missile in my back yard. It's a right, not a privilege.

[DoNotRefill]

172. Sorry, you have no Second Amendment rights.

You're Canadian, or at least in Canada. Nice strawman, though.

[slackmaster]

198. What do you mean you "can't possess nuclear arms"?

There is no federal law against you acquiring or owning one. Your mileage may vary depending on what state you live in. (Oh, I see you are Canadian so the point is moot.)

If you are a legal US resident who can pass the federal background check, pay the $200 transfer fee, get a signoff from your local chief law enforcement officer, comply with all laws, regulations, and international treaties for safe storage and transport of a nuclear bomb, you have the money to buy one and you really want one I support your right to have your very own nuke.

OTOH if you aren't really interested in owning a nuclear weapon why are you complaining?

The 2nd amendment makes clear that it is my right to have a Titan missile in my back yard. It's a right, not a privilege.

If you were a US citizen it certainly would be your right to have a Titan missile but you would not be entitled to a FREE one.

:dunce:

[beevul]

201. Chico, CA, buyers beware!!!

Theres a 500 dollar fine for detonating a nuclear device within the Chico city limits!!! :evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

226. beevul speaks the TRUTH about nuclear weapons!

It's also illegal in Chico to own a green or smelly animal hide.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws.php?site=laws&cid=184®ion=5

:dunce:

[jesusq]

220. I don't know about your neighborhood, but

I could never keep a Titan missile in my backyard. My homeowners association made me move my boat; imagine the hissy fit they would have over a Titan missile!

Let's agree that a ban on intercontinental nuclear missiles is certainly within everyone's definition of reasonable gun control and leave the handling of enriched uranium to the experts, okey dokey?

[slackmaster]

227. I have no problem with a person owning an UNARMED Titan missile

It would be just a large model rocket.

[doc03]

96. Guns aren't the problem it's our culture in this country. Guns are just

a tool. In this area recently we had a person stabbed over 200 times and 9 year old girl raped and drowned. Nobody is calling for outlawing knives,water, ball bats, chain saws, ballpean hammers etc.

[Telly Savalas]

171. Okay.

So if these objects are just as effective in maiming and killing a fellow human being, then why does anybody need a gun?

[doc03]

236. It's my right to own a gun!

It would be rather hard to kill a deer with a knife or a ball bat. I suppose you are against hunting too. So how would you control the deer population if not by hunting?

[countryjake]

107. A Few Words of Wisdom...

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Benjamin Franklin

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."
Benjamin Franklin

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
John F. Kennedy

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
John F. Kennedy

[knight_of_the_star]

144. Bush's re-selection has something to do with that I bet

Being able to defend oneself is a powerful motivator.

[American Tragedy]

147. Because I'm a strongly civil libertarian liberal

I believe in sensible gun control. Obviously there should be background checks and waiting periods. I don't want minors or people with a violent criminal record to have the weapons, and I am very concerned about anybody who feels that they cannot wait a week or two to get hold of a gun.

That having been said, I basically believe in the Second Amendment, and more importantly I believe in individual liberty and personal discretion. I think that is the fundamental idea of liberalism, despite how it has been distorted.

My biggest disappointment in the Democrats has been their willingness to acquiesce the term freedom. I am so sick of conservatives claiming ownership of that ideal, while they try to invade our private lives and behavior and legally set society against people of particular lifestyles and sexual orientations. We need to take back what is rightfully ours.

[DoNotRefill]

157. Why waiting periods?

If somebody is nuts enough to kill somebody else, do you really think that the concept of violating a waiting period law is going to bother them in the least?

I just have this mental image of a badguy saying to himself "Gee, I really want to murder that person, a crime which carries a sentence of 20 years to life, but golly, I don't want to break the waiting period law, which carries a sentence of 6 months, so I guess I'll behave myself!" Sounds pretty implausible...

BTW, you DO know that there have been documented cases of people who were in real danger, tried to get a gun for self-defense, couldn't because of the waiting period, and ended up dead before the waiting period expired, don't you? How many people are you willing to kill to have a waiting period?

[genieroze]

148. second amendment

The pubs say most democrats are against guns, we aren't. We just want to make sure they say out of unsupervised children's hands and psycho killer hands.

[DoNotRefill]

158. Since when have psycho killers....

obeyed the law?

[Telly Savalas]

174. Repeal homicide laws too.

What's the point of having homicide laws also if psycho killers aren't going to obey them?

[Columbia]

182. Homicide laws are for punishing criminals

Gun control punishes only the law-abiding.

[DoNotRefill]

221. Homicide is a "mala in se" crime...

Homicide is wrong, in and of itself. By keeping laws against homicide, you're not infringing upon the rights of the law abiding, who are not likely to murder anybody. The only people punished by homicide being a crime are people who commit homicide. Gun control is the exact opposite, a malum prohibitorum law. Guns are not inherently evil, any more than chainsaws or shovels or baseball bats are inherently evil. Guns are simply tools. And gun control laws only apply to non-criminals, since holding criminals responsible for violation of gun control laws would violate their 5th amendment rights (U.S. v. Haynes, 1968). So when you pass a gun control law, the only people it affects are people who you don't need to control. The criminals can ignore it. Now, if your goal is simply to take guns away from people who don't misuse them, fine. Just say so up front, and don't lie about it.

[genieroze]

234. Exactly, so when you catch them with a gun

throw their butt in the can.

[ever_green]

149. I agree with your reasons. It is about freedom, as someone stated.

That is my reasoning as well. Besides, there are more important issues for us to face.
But yeah, the government is getting more powerful, we need to resist somehow.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[Walt Starr]

155. To protect myself from an overreaching government

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

161. Because pandering to the right is considered to be "electable".

One of the many DLC "practical politics" sellouts that are popular among the "centrists" right along with curtailing abortion rights, easing environmental laws, "supporting our troops", disavowing homosexual marriage, and the rest of the appeasement of the redneck agenda.

[DoNotRefill]

163. Heh...My preferred candidate was Howard Dean.

He was good on all issues, and was VERY pro-gun, to the point that as Vermont's Governor, he had an A+ NRA rating. The Party, in it's infinite wisdom, chose Kerry because HE was supposedly "electable".

We were sold out all fucking right....but it wasn't by pro-gun Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

164. I supported Dean..but I didn't know he had sold out to the NRA.

We had a Democratic Rep here in SW Washington that sold her soul to the NRA. She became an ex-rep because the leftwing of the party sat on their hands rather than vote for her. After 2 years of a rightwing republican, we now have a liberal Democrat who is pro gun control, and good on all the other issues.

Appeasing the rednecks only strengthens them.

[DoNotRefill]

167. Dean didn't sell out to the NRA...

he just said "leave it up to the states", and since Vermont had a very, very low gun crime rate, there was no need for gun control laws. At least that's how the people of Vermont see it...

Part of the reason that Vermont had such a low crime rate was the fact that it was (at the time, Alaska has now joined Vermont) the only State in the Union that didn't require even a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If you were not a criminal, you could just toss a pistol into your pocket and carry it, and it was 100% legal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

204. Just toss a pistol in your pocket? Now, why would someone do that?

Unless he was a crook or paranoid. Are you trying to say that Vermont has a low crime rate because Alaska and Vermont allows folks (non-criminals of course..we all know that only criminals shoot people), to toss a gun in their pocket. If that's the case, then it would seem that the crime rate would be even lower if they weren't allowed to pack their trusty shootin' arns.

Funny how most of the civilized world manages to get by without an armed citizenry, and have much lower murder rates than we in John Wayne's Amurka do.

[DoNotRefill]

222. So you're saying VERMONT is "John Wayne's Amurka"???

I think a lot of people might disagree with your assessment.

I carry a gun on a daily basis. Why? Because there are some people out there who would probably like to see me dead. It's not paranoia, it's insurance. Because you never need a gun until you need one really REALLY badly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

239. So, who are you? Tony Soprano?

You must have some serious enemies that dislike you enough to want you dead.

[DoNotRefill]

246. Nope, just ex-LE...

with a long history of doing mean things to bad people.

[DoNotRefill]

168. BTW..."Appeasing the rednecks only strengthens them."

do you wonder why blue-collar working people are RUNNING away from our party and voting Republican, even when it's against their interests??? If you do, review the statement you just made, and you'll see a prime reason for it.

If you insult people, you shouldn't expect them to vote for you. That's pretty simple.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

203. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

I know plenty of "blue collar working people". I even put in a number of years doing "blue collar" work. Dishwasher, construction, mailman. You'd might be surprised at how many non-guntoting working people there are that aren't impressed with adolescent displays of machismo.

Just because a person works with their hands doesn't make them a redneck..as you label them.

Guys who have a problem with their jockstrap size and need to bolster it with guns and kill defenseless animals...well, what would you call them?

Intellectual working class heroes?

[DoNotRefill]

223. Just realize that what you're doing....

is driving people AWAY from our party. If that's your goal, fine, just be honest about it.

And please remember, YOU are the one characterizing people as rednecks, not I.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

238. Oh, yes. Pandering works so well. Ask Presidents Kerry and Gore.

Perhaps our next candidate should "throw a pistol" in his pocket, dress in camouflage, crush a few beercans on his head, and kill more geese.

In the process he can denounce abortion, wave the flag, talk about the need to balance the environment with economic needs, praise Jesus, and talk about sending more troops to Iraq.

Hell, why not just call himself a Republican and save time and energy.

[Boosterman]

241. If you insult....

I like the way you phrased that. I have argued that position for a while. Do you mind if I steal that for a sig? with attribution?

[slackmaster]

177. I consider myself to be a traditional liberal

Equality, justice, and personal freedom for all.

I'm pro-gun for exactly the same reason I'm pro-gay rights (including marriage), pro-choice, and favor drug legalization.

[Walt Starr]

188. Well said, I feel exactly the same way!

I suppoprt all of the rights enumerated in teh constitution, and I exercise my second amendment right to insure I'll be able to protect all of the other rights!

[Xipe Totec]

191. Me three!

You either uphold, support and defend the whole Constitution, ALL OF IT, or you get your rights chipped away one at a time.

This is another reason:

Gas Station Clerk Shoots Robbery Suspect

Two gas station robbers got a surprise Tuesday night when they attempted to hold up a convenience store in Medford. The clerk pulled a handgun out of his pocket and shot at them.

(snip)

The wounded suspect fled, but collapsed about 100 yards down the street. Police said they found a semi-automatic handgun on him. The unidentified suspect was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital, where he is being treated for a gunshot wound to the torso. The station attendant's gun was registered and he was licensed to carry it.


"In the past six months to a year, we've had several robberies. Same description of suspects. In Medford, Malden, Somerville, Everett, Cambridge, all around," Medford Police Lt. Paul Covino said.


Fred's Gas Station has been held up three times already. The shooting was captured on surveillance camera. Police said Tuesday's suspects may be behind the other robberies.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=383&e=2&u=/kcci/20041208/lo_WCVB/2487931

Don't know about other people's opinion at DU, but I kind of suspect that if we banned guns the only guy without one in this story would have been the gas station clerk. I don't think the robbers would have second thoughts about owning guns anyway.

[beevul]

199. Well said, Slack...

well said indeed!!

[Trajan]

183. There arent that many 'pro-gun' liberals in DU ....

They are a small but loud few ....

Compare to the greater DU population: they are miniscule ...

[JHB]

193. If true, so what?

Does that mean their view should not be considered? Or does that mean it's OK to accuse them of "selling out to the NRA"?

[Trajan]

205. Who said thier view shouldnt be considered ? ...

Did I advocate ignorance ? ...

I have considered the 'pro-gun' stance since my early teens, and I havent stopped considering it ....

Nevertheless: I hold 'typical' 'liberal' views regarding issues surrounding gun rights and regulations ..... I didnt need to 'sell out' to PRO gun regulation advocates to do so: I certainly don't believe gun rights proponents here must be a 'sell out' to the NRA ....

After considering their view: I have rejected it ... and so have many of our fellow liberals ....

[w4rma]

212. There are WAY more pro-gun liberals on DU that you want to admit.

Grabbing guns in NOT liberal and, imho, it's the biggest reason Democrats are losing, now. It forces Dems on the defensive on EVERYTHING. The Democratic Party is about MORE individual freedom from control by the powerful, not less. More gun control is LESS individual freedom.

[hollowdweller]

216. Amen! When Reagan said he wanted to "Get the government out of

the lives of people" lots of people thought he meant giving the little guy more freedom. However what the Reagan Revolution has meant MORE government in the lives of people, more business control over peoples lives thru workplace privacy reductions and mandatory overtime, mandatory drug testing in the military and court support of drug testing of employees without reasonable suspicion.

The Dems could really make some headway on this individual liberty aspect, and private gun ownership is part of it.

Right now the Dems say they support the right of people to hunt BUT- and that is where they lose. They need to just say the first part and not give the issue more exposure.

[DoNotRefill]

228. I think you're mistaken.

I think that there are a LOT of people at DU who truly support the Second Amendment. And I think that the numbers have been continually going up, for the simple reason of "current events" causing people to re-evaluate the actual need for the Second Amendment. To paraphrase Cottrol: "The Second Amendment is far too important to leave to the 'gun nuts'".

[Cuban_Liberal]

200. An armed populace is the last, best hope against tyranny. n/t

[skippythwndrdog]

202. Pro-Gun equals Pro-Freedom.

Plain and simple.

I support all individual rights.

[thinkingwoman]

211. Because I live in a red state

that's both humorous and truthful...growing up in a red state, particularly in a rural area, I've nearly always lived in homes that contained guns for home protection.

We own several...properly gained and registered as needed. They are safely stored and I rarely lay eyes on them but they are there if I ever need one.

I feel the current levels of gun control are fine--not too restrictive and plenty of protection when fairly enforced.

[Name removed]

213. Deleted message

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

[killbotfactory]

218. A few reasons

1. I think the bill of rights should be interpereted as LIBERALLY as possible.

2. There are better solutions to gun violence other than banning guns. Removing or reforming the "drug war", investing in depressed areas (urban and rural).

3. I don't think passing more restrictions on guns will actually do anything to stop gun violence because there are already so many guns floating around to begin with, and the measures would have to take to confiscate all the guns would result in horrible erosion of all our other rights.

[NEDem]

230. Because I believe in the Bill of Rights

As an ACLU member I believe that the entire BoR is sacred. I don't pick and choose which ones I support and don't support, ALL of it is untouchable and is the bedrock of our society.

I bought my first gun (a shotgun) on Nov. 5, my second (a semi-auto 'assualt' rifle) a couple weeks later. I'm a yellow dog Dem in a solid-red state who wanted something for protection just in case.....

Tha number one thing I've learned since I got these (besides how to store and care for them safely), it's a lot more fun to go shooting at the range than I EVER expected.

[RealLiberal4U]

240. Real Liberals Are Pro Gun n/t

[OnionPatch]

243. I can tell you why I do

No time to read this entire thread, but I'll tell you why I do:

Because I support the constitution. All of it.

Also, I look at it the way I do drugs: Just because some idiots can't handle their drugs and abuse them, doesn't mean we have the right to outlaw them. It's the same with guns. Responsible firearms owners should not have to give up their guns because of the idiots who abuse them.

The other reason is this:
We may need to defend ourselves someday against the govt. Call me looney if you like.

Last, but not least: The whole world is suffering under Republican rule of the US; People dying, environment raped and pillaged, greed is rampant, out of control. War, suffering and oppression because of them. Gun control is a big part of the reason the GOP gets so many votes. IT IS NOT WORTH IT!!!

Personally, I don't believe a majority of Dems EVER supported gun control.