What's with all the freakin' "Gun" polls/threads here in GD???

[BiggJawn]

Wassamatta, "The GUNgeon" down in Justice full up or something?
Somebody trying to scare off the Midwest fence-sitters again?

Nader getting ready to throw his hat in?

[Padraig18]

1. nah.

Just the week to beat us 'barbarians' over the head with their moral purity, enlightened views and piety...

[el_gato]

2. "gungeon" that's funny

[livinontheedge]

3. No, its just people who want to hand the election to Bush pontificating.

If the gun-haters of this party would only realize how many elections are lost because of the control control message from the far left, they would move on to other issues. If you talk about gun laws, you will lose elections . . . it's that simple.

[jonnyblitz]

32. myself and my far leftie friends love our guns!!

I dont know what you are talking about. we want and plan to be well armed for the revolution!!! It's the limosine(I know i butchered the spelling of that word) liberal types that are for gun control. :evilgrin:

[DoNotRefill]

4. I think somebody wasn't able to score his quarter...

so he's feeling grumpy.

Talk about a reason to legalize pot... ;-)

[Padraig18]

5. LOL!

That's not a nice thing to say--- probably true, but still not nice. :P

[DoNotRefill]

7. Please notice...

that I deliberately did not mention a name.... ;-)

[wyldwolf]

6. I think because more attention has been given to Dean's NRA relationship..

[livinontheedge]

8. And what would that "relationship" be?

Got any facts?

[wyldwolf]

15. You're new so I understand...

Dean's conservative stance on gun control is well known.

Dean got an "A" rating from the NRA. FACT

Luis Tolley, state legislative director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Dean “has veered way too far toward the NRA” to win his party’s nomination. FACT

There is currently a drive to get the NRA to endorse Dean. FACT

http://www.boomundo.com/dean/nra.htm

[livinontheedge]

18. Forgive me . . . what "relationship"?

I may be new, but I know a relationship when I see one and sir, I do not see a relationship. Maybe since you have been on here longer, you are smarter than I am and can tell me what makes anything you said a "relationship"?

[wyldwolf]

25. this relationship...

relationship: The condition or fact of being related; connection or association. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Dean got an A rating from the NRA. First connection. There is a move for the NRA to endorse Dean. Second Connection.

[1a2b3c]

57. I think he thought you were implying that

Dean and the NRA are fucking????

[slackmaster]

20. I think and hope Mr. Tolley is mistaken

Dean's conservative stance on gun control is well known.

There's nothing conservative about a position that gives the states carte blanche to enact any gun controls they want. It's quite a "liberal" opinion if you consider that Dean's policy is that the Second Amendment applies ONLY to the federal government.

Whether or not Dean can get the nomination will be determined in the cauci and primaries by Democratic voters in 50 states. Luis Tolley has opinions about a lot of things and most of them are pure crap.

[lastliberalintexas]

24. Hmmm,

by relationship, do you actually mean rating?

And I'd be careful about these kinds of comments if I were a Clark supporter, since his and Dean's stance on guns are virtually the same. Clark would probably have the same rating from the NRA that Dean does. IF he'd ever actually been elected to a poltical office, that is. :)

[wyldwolf]

27. no, I mean a relationship by the rating...

relationship: The condition or fact of being related; connection or association. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

As for your Clark reference, I've made no judgement here as to whether Dean's stance on guns is right or wrong. I merely pointed out that gun threads have increased since Dean's NRA rating has become an issue.

That is what the original poster asked and I gave my observation.

So there really is no reason for me to be careful here, other than the fact that someone again has tried to divert from Dean by mentioning Clark.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Kerry is out hunting today and highlighting his differences with Dean

on gun issues. Hence the extra interest in the topic here.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

19. Yep. Kerry's put it on the table.

Perhaps John Ashcroft is next in his sights?

[Selwynn]

10. You have a problem with gun control?

Is Bush getting ready to send his freeper infiltrators in again?

[livinontheedge]

13. I have a problem with gun control.

I like it when democrats win elections. I hate it when democrats lose elections. It is almost impossible for democrats who favor gun control to win in the south. That's my problem with gun control.

[Selwynn]

23. Ok so not because it isn't best for the country .... just checking..

God how I depsarately long for a leader instead of snivelling followers too afraid of how something will "play" to stand up and lead, persuade, convince and sway public opinion.

How about someone who makes their goal to persuade "the south" that BOTH guns and intelligent and cautious gun laws are good things and important to the American Heritage, instead of being to afraid to speak the truth.

Why can't politics be about leading and persuading people to a point of view - a campaign of ideas - rather than just looking at a fucking poll and letting that dictate your platform?

[DoNotRefill]

43. because...

further gun control laws simply don't sell. Try to provide "leadership" by pushing for more gun control, and the voters will kick you in the teeth. And the "intellegent and cautious" laws have all already been done.

It's a pretty simple "cause and effect" kind of thing...push the issue, and die politically. It's a third rail. And it isn't JUST in the South...it's everywhere EXCEPT parts of the Northeast (excluding places like Maine and Vermont) and California.

[DoNotRefill]

Yup....

just as I have a problem with banning abortions, just like I LOATHE the Patriot Act, and anything else that infringes upon civil rights.

And no, I'm not a freeper infiltrator. I just own guns and know how much gun control has cost the Party. Who needs Republicans when we're our own worst enemies?

[Selwynn]

28. Gun control is not the same as banning guns...

therefore not realated to "banning" abortions, and has nothing to do with infinging upon civil rights. The issue is not about banning guns or denying you your right to have arms.

The issue is that its ridiculous when its easier to get a gun than it is to get a driver's liscence. With rights come responsibility. Period. You want to carry arms? Great. You should be certified, you should be required to complete an exhaustive background check, just as rigorous as then one I went through before I was allowed to work at my job. You should be required to be certified to own and use certain kinds of weapons, and certain kinds of weapons should not be alllowed to the general public at large.

I don't consider it an assult on civil rights when we made doctors go through years of medical school before they can be certified to practice medicine. And I don't consider it an infringement on civil rights to demand that gun owners and users be forced to go through great measures to qualify for that right.

And not only this, but all this talk of our "right" to this and our "right to that -- maybe in a perfect world, we do have the right to own an unlimited ammount of any kind of gun we want no questions asks. But guess what, we LOST THAT RIGHT when we utterly failed to live up to the responsibility that right entailed. And we demonstrated our failure by our wildly out of control rates of gun violence and mismanagement.

I've heard enough unqualified talk about rights. I'm for rights too - but I'm not longer interested in hearing talk of rights with out equal talk about responsibility.

[Spoonman]

30. You make an interesting point

so lets look at some numbers.

Year 2000 Death Rates

Doctor's negligence 93,329
Motor-vehicle 31,799
Firearms Suicides 17,566
Homicides 13,252
Accidents 981

"its easier to get a gun than it is to get a driver's liscence"

"when we made doctors go through years of medical school before they can be certified to practice medicine."

Kinda shed's a little doubt on the relevance of both your examples.

[Selwynn]

47. Seeing as how that number is ten times as high as ...

thirteen other industrialized nations with gun laws combined, and seeing as how seventeen thousand gun deaths isn't exactly a tiny number, I think the fact that there is next to no regulation over the purchase or ownership of guns is pretty pathetic.

It would be easier for me to get a gun here than it would be for me to get into the opening movie night tonight - how's that for an example.

The quality of my analogy doesn't change the simple fact that I am for regulated gun sales and responsible gun ownership. I have no problem with owning a gun, and I also have no problem with there being some responsibilities associated with owning that gun, like a real background check, a waiting day period, no show loopholes, a requirement for gun handling ceritification and the restriction of some classes of firearm from the general public.

That said, I've always really wanted a Glock - not because of the famous name, but because my friend had one and I really liked the feel of it. However, another gun that I really loved the feel of was a Ruger 9mm I looked at about five years ago. I know nothing about the quality of the design, but it was about the most comfortable feel I've ever picked up.

If I do buy a new handgun, I will have no problem subitting to a thorough background check, nor in waiting five days to purchase, nor in being required to prove I have completed a gun safety class and/or been ceritified/liscenced to use the weapon, nor in purchasing a gun safe and locks, nor in the fact that I will not be allowed to by an AMRAM Surface to Air Missle at my local Walmart. I won't mind any of those things, and within a week, I'll be admirning my new sidearm.

This is what I believe in - a healthy balance between gun "rights" and gun "responsibility.

[BiggJawn]

34. "Easier to get a Gun"?? not in Indiana.

Here in the Great Hoosier State, when you go to get your driver's license renewed, they figure that if you drove into the parking lot without killing anyone and your eyesight was good enough to spot the sign on the door from the street, then you deserve your specially marked box of Cracker Jacks with the Indiana Drivers License inside.

To get a license to carry a firearm, either concealed or with a "Hunting/Target" permit, you must present yourself at your county sherriff's office, play pat-a-cake with the ink pad, fill out an application to the superintendent of the State police, then pay some $$ and wait.

if you just want to buy a handgun and you have no license, you play pat-a-cake with the stamp pad again, fill out a lot of paper work, and come back to pick up your sidearm in a week.

How's that easier than getting a drivers license?

[DoNotRefill]

40. So we should rename it "abortion control"?

the ultimate goal of fundie christians is to ban abortion. They'll settle for doing it incrementally, under the guise of "abortion control". "Oh, we only want to ban partial birth abortion, cause it's so HORRIBLE!!!"

The ultimate goal of some anti-gunners is to ban guns. They'll settle for doing it incrementally, under the guise of "gun control".

Thanks, but no thanks on BOTH. It's none of the Government's goddamned BUSINESS as to who has an abortion and who doesn't. It's also none of the Government's goddamned business what I have in my gun safe as long as I don't commit a crime.

[Selwynn]

44. No, we should stop comparing apples to oranges instead.

It is not MY goal to ban guns. But with rights comes the inseparable obligation of responsibility. I'm sick and tire of people who go on and on about their right to this or their right to that, but the moment you demand the be accountable for fair exercise of those rights and demonstrate some responsiblity in the use of those rights, then they are nowhere to be found.

It IS the governments business to ensure that gun ownership is responsible and regulated. I am not a libertarian - there are all kinds of regulations that the government can and should impose on a great many things for the benefit of all society. The goal of government is to unqualified unrestricted ungoverned rights to do anything - the goal of government should be a healthy balance between allowing room for your personal freedom and regulating your personal freedom for the benefit and protection of the greater societal community.

It's not all about you - its about the fact that with rights come responsibilities - and seeing as how so many americans are utterly and fantastically FAILING to use their gun "rights" responsibily, the government should regulate that demand for responsibilty more forcefully for the sake of society on the whole. Waiting lists, background checks, closed loopholes, assualt weapons bans, required weapons training and certification/liscencing tests are all reasonable regulations that do not ultimately infringe on your ability to have a gun, or a ton of guns for that matter.

[DoNotRefill]

45. Ah.

"the government should regulate that demand for responsibilty more forcefully for the sake of society on the whole."

And here I thought people who misuse guns WERE held responsible...isn't that why our prisons are so full?

You're arguing that we should make it more difficult for people to exercise their rights because some people abuse their rights. That's like arguing that we should make all women get judicial permission to have an abortion because SOME women abuse their right to have an abortion.

I'm not buying.

Responsibility should be placed on the people who MISUSE something, not on everybody who doesn't misuse it.

That's a pretty freaking SIMPLE concept that you seem to be missing.

[Selwynn]

48. The simple concept you seem to be missing..

Is that its not all about you.

There is a balance to be had between your personal rights and the governments responsibility to society to ensure its safety. If eveyrone wore signs that said "hello - I'm a gun abuser" it would be much simpler - but they don't. That's why there is a balance to be struck between allowing as much personal freedom as possible with govermental regulation over things that can be disasterously abused and misused. I am more than willing to bear that small burden for its potential benefit.

I'm looking into purchasing a new handgun soon. I'm looking forward too it, trying to decide what I really want to go with. But when I finally do decide, I certainly will not have any problem with a waiting period, or a background check, or the requirement that I be certified to use a handgun, just like i'm certified to drive a car, or that I won't be able to by a suface to air missle launcher from my local gun shop. I'm ok with those things. I accept that burden as part of the healthy and responsible regulation on deadly, leathal weapons that I believe is extremely justified.

Then in about a week i'll walk home with my new sidearm.

Regulation is a normal and common part of government. It is the government's job to strike a balance between your personal freedoms and the protection of civil society. And yes, rights and responsibilities do go hand in hand. And as part of society, you do not exist as an island. We're all responsible for the state of the nation, we all contribute to it to some extent. The problem of gun violence is not someone else's problem just becasue I've never violently used a gun myself. It's my problem, as this is my society, and we all share responsibility for the solutions.

A certain ammount of regulation is not too high a price to pay for a better, safer society.

[DoNotRefill]

51. Let's extend that line of reasoning to the First Amendment...

"There is a balance to be had between your personal rights and the governments responsibility to society to ensure its safety. If eveyrone wore signs that said "hello - I'm a gun abuser" it would be much simpler - but they don't. That's why there is a balance to be struck between allowing as much personal freedom as possible with govermental regulation over things that can be disasterously abused and misused. I am more than willing to bear that small burden for its potential benefit."

"Nobody likes "hate literature". It can pose a very real threat to people. It's hard to tell the difference between regular literature and hate literature before it's published, but by then the damage is done. So, for the safety of society, we should have all literature reviewed by government censors prior to publishing to keep society safe from deadly, evil books. We should license all readers and conduct background checks on them, and have mandatory limits on the number of pages a book can legally have, limit book purchases to one a month, and make oversized books or dangerous looking books illegal. There should be a mandatory waiting period to keep people from reading books. This will help save people from hate literature."

Would you sign off on that? I wouldn't.

[DonP]

42. Just some "common sense" restrictions on abortions, OK?

IMNSHO, that's a better analogy to what we're talking about.

Insert the word abortion for gun control and see how much it sounds like Jerry F'ing Falwell.

"We don't want really ever want to ban (guns/abortions), we just want to put some common sense controls in place so that they won't be misused by the wrong kind of people."

Scary for Halloween huh?

[Padraig18]

46. Thank you!

You added some muh needed clarity to this issue. :thumbsup:

[Hammie]

11. This thread needs a poll!

[Renew Deal]

12. In the begininng.

It started with Dean's evolving positions on guns.

[ShaneGR]

14. Yay! Lets bring up the issue that lost us 2000!

Guns, yeehaw!

[Padraig18]

38. While we're at it..

Let's put "Monica", "Whitewater" and "Hillary" on the same banner. That will help us a lot. Yep, yep. :P

[Selwynn]

49. That issue had nothing to do with losing 2000.

For one thing, because we didn't lose 2000.

[teryang]

53. It is a losing issue

I'm certain thousands of votes were lost in Florida alone due to gun issue.

[leanings]

16. It's funny.

People still respond to pro-gun Dems by throwing around accusations of closet Freeperism. They just refuse to accept that such a creature exists. And exists in considerable numbers, even here on DU.

[Zuni]

26. Thank you

I am a gunowner, and I like it that way. I also hate George Bush.

[Selwynn]

29. What does it mean to be "pro-gun?"

I have no problem with the second amendment, and I also believe that owning a gun should entail be a little more difficult than buying a beer or getting a drivers liscence. I believe that gun ownership should entail responsiblity - certification, a thorough background check, no instant gun purchases without waiting period, no gun show loopholes, the restriction of certain kinds of weapons like...oh, I don't know... bazookas and such from public use...

None of these things mean that at the end of the day, you can't own a gun, or several guns, or an assload of guns. It just means with that right should come an equal ammount of responsibility.

[Frangible]

31. Er, they already do

All gun purchases from dealers involve background checks with NICS and the FBI. Buying alcohol is much easier.

To get a CCW in most states, is analogous to a driver's license. You have to pass a test and demonstrate you can handle a gun safely at a range. Most states also take your fingerprints and put them permanently in the national database.

[Withergyld]

35. really

I believe that gun ownership should entail responsiblity -
If I misuse a firearm I am open to civil liabilities and criminal charges
certification,
How do we aviod this from becoming discrimination against those that may not be able to afford the training?
a thorough background check,
The NICS is a background check
no instant gun purchases without waiting period,
How have waiting periods reduced crime in the states that have them?
no gun show loopholes,
The "gunshow loophole is a fallacy"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=14309&mesg_id=14309
the restriction of certain kinds of weapons like...oh, I don't know... bazookas and such from public use...
Last time I checked bazookas were heavily regulated, expensive
and extremely difficult to get.

[slackmaster]

17. The Gungeon has deteriorated to the point of uselessness

Nothing but personal attacks and wholesale group-bashing.

[leanings]

21. Yup

We're coming boiling up out of our hole in search of new blood, hoping to drag fresh victims back down with us when we retire to our dark abode. (Mu-wahahahahahahaaa....)

[Spoonman]

22. What a pantload

cry me a friggin river
geez your not a REAL Democrat
your all RKBA scum
your all RKBA racist
stormfront.org
texaskkk.org
Ted Nugent
hooey
No thanks to the gun rights crowd and corrupt gun industry

Sorry,
I had to demonstrate the most common rebuttals presented down in J/PS

[Superfly]

33. LOL!

You know it's bad when you start using Benchleyisms in normal every day talk...

[Terran]

37. Hooey me a friggin pantload

Where's Character Assassin when you need him?

Hey guys! :hi:

[DonP]

39. The anti's keep ranting and the rest of us just head for the range

Hey, they are on the losing side in this discussion.

Ranting is all they have left to do: "Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing".

Aside from getting whipped into a frenzy every time Sara or Tom Diaz issues another phony Baloney press release, they aren't scoring many points. All our candidates are either avoiding the issue like the plague or taking a middle of the road POV. The AWB is going to dissolve, more or less quietly, unless Schumer and DiFi can get anyone else revved up.

I have to think that the Brady/VPC gang must be getting pretty close to their last farthing or so. NRA membership and gun ownership numbers continue to climb. (Not a member or an endorsement, just an observation on people voting on the issue with their wallets).

I'm quietly lighting candles that the DNC does not re-invite Sara and Jim to speak at the convention this time around.

Don P.

[Padraig18]

41. This country will be OK...

... once the left wingnuts accept that it IS a constitutionally-protected right for law-abiding, private citizens to keep and bear arms. Until then, their weepy, handholding, sob sister "Let's all sing 'Kumbaya' " approach will continue to inject an inflammatory, artificial issue into the campaigns, and drive away many potential supporters who have MUCH in common with us.

[Terran]

36. Hey Slackmaster

I agree, that's why I'm not down there with you folks any more. It was starting to seem utterly pointless. I don't think there's anything to say about the gun issue that hasn't already been said a 1000 times in that forum.

Dirk

[slackmaster]

52. FWIW I miss your presence

FlashHarry has the patience of Job.

[Silverhair]

50. It's a hot issue.

Notice that all of the gun threads have lots of responders. I am surprised at how many DUers own guns. I had expected to by a bit lonely here as a gun owner, but I find that better than half the posters are for reasonable gun ownership. I haven't seen anybody here wanting to have a machinegun. (Aw, com'on, doesn't anybody want to plink tin cans at 600 rpm belt-fed?- NOT a serious question)Most of the discussion centers around self defense. The people are passionate about the issue, and people tend to talk about the things they are passionate about.

[teryang]

54. It's a hot button issue

and just based on sheer numbers it's political suicide to focus on some reform campaign concerning guns. There are common sense provisions that can be soft pedaled and only brought up when directly raised. There are diverse interests and strongly held perspectives in large blocks of voters. Exhibiting doctrinaire disregard for the concerns of any perspective on gun issues can be politically fatal. As far as the extremists on either side, if you adopt their attitudes in a national campaign you are a goner.

I don't know why people get so carried away with it. The black box voting issue, war and peace, budget priorities for education, health care, jobs, Patriot Acts, etc are much bigger issues. But people will pick up on this one issue and vote on it and nothing else.

[Silverhair]

55. Could if be a "Litmus Issue"?

There are some issues that will usually indicate where a person stands on other related issues. Nobody on the right suggests any kind of gun control, it comes only from the left. Put together several other "hot button" issues and by the response you can usually tell where on the political spectrum they stand in relation to oneself.

I haven't thought this one out completely, I could well be wrong.

[Terwilliger]

56. wtf does Nader have to do with it?

:shrug: