Stuart Rothenberg just lied outright on CNN about Dems and guns.

[blm]

Rothenberg just said that NO Democratic candidate has talked about the gun issue because they are afraid of it. That is a LIE. Kerry has said MANY times that we are not the party of the NRA and supports sensible gun control measures.

That whole con flag flap of Dean's was about the gun control issue. I can't believe the lies the media spreads.

[AntiCoup2K4]

1. Another plus of Dean winning the nomination

The NRA won't be able to touch him without contradicting themselves.

[sandnsea]

14. That's a great reason to vote for someone

Forget the kids being gunned down, just do the politically expedient thing.

[Octafish]

16. 16-year-olds can carry concealed weapons in VT

It's one of the reasons the NRA gun nuts give Ho-Ho an "A."

Who remembers Columbine?

[leanings]

18. 21 and under

are prohibited from owning/carrying handguns by federal law. And if lax gun control laws contribute to high levels of gun related harm, Vermont must be a hotbed of shootings and violence, right?

[evil_orange_cat]

20. don't be so hard, he's a Kerryphile :LOL:

16 and under can carry guns, eh? that's a good one... tell me another one :D

leanings, you are right on about the federal law... and good point about Vermont violence.

[Octafish]

27. It's not funny. In Vermont, 16-year-olds can carry.

Is walking around with a gun under your belt a state's rights question? Ask Ho-Ho or his brain Trippi and get back to me.

From the Brady site:

CCW Limits

May police limit carrying concealed handguns? NO

State law allows anyone who can buy a gun to carry it loaded and concealed in public. No police permit or police notification is required to carry loaded guns hidden on a person. No training in gun laws or gun safety is required. Vermont is the only state in the country to have such a lax approach to the carrying of loaded, concealed weapons in public.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.asp?state=vt#ccw


Vermont's law:

Section 4008. Possession of firearms by children

A child under the age of sixteen years shall not, without the consent of his parents or guardian, have in his possession or control a pistol or revolver constructed or designed for the use of gunpowder or other explosive substance with leaden ball or shot. A child who violates a provision of this section shall be deemed a delinquent child under the provisions of chapter 11 of Title 33.

http://www.atg.state.vt.us/display.php?smod=21

[leanings]

30. This statement is false.

"In Vermont, 16-year-olds can carry"

16 year olds are prohibited by FEDERAL law from owning/carrying/possessing a handgun. If you made the statement that Vermont's STATE laws do not PRECLUDE a 16 year old from carrying a concealed weapon, that would be accurate. But accuracy in this case isn't inflammatory, and that doesn't serve your purpose.

And please demonstrate how this lack of a state law has had any effect on Vermont's crime/violence rate. Or how the lack of a Vermont CCW statute has done the same.

[Octafish]

35. YOU demonstrate how it's false.

The links provided are active. The statements are taken from the sights, ond of which is the State of Vermont. The other is the home page for proponents of the Brady Bill.

What's your problem, anyway? Trippi holding back your pizza ration?

[leanings]

38. it's pretty simple, really

Federal law applies. Here, from a source you probably consider credible, even if I don't:

http://www.millionmommarch.org/facts/gunlaws/juvposs.asp

Federal law <18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1)> prohibits any federally licensed firearms dealer from selling or delivering handguns to a person under the age of 21. However, the federal juvenile possession ban <18 U.S.C. 922 (x)> makes it unlawful for persons under the age of 18 from possessing handguns. Therefore, unless prohibited by state law, sales of handguns to persons between the ages of 18 and 21 may take place in the secondary or private market*.

I was incorrect in that it's illegal to sell to someone under 21, but it's legal to possess if you're over 18. Regardless, 16 year olds cannot carry handguns in Vermont, or in any other state in the Union.

I believe the law in question was passed under the Youth Handgun Safety Act, or some such.

[sandnsea]

36. Only applies to federal land?

I'm fairly sure because around here we have alot of federal forests and what people do is grow pot there and then the local cops can't do anything. Just like the pot pipe thing, if they hadn't sold them over the internet and crossed state lines, it wouldn't be federal. So I would think that in most of Vermont, 16 year olds can carry concealed weapons.

[leanings]

37. Cool!

I guess federal laws proscribing possession of machine guns don't apply so long as I keep them out of the GW National Forest.

[molly]

23. HO-HO? I love it!

I am anxiously awaiting the reading of the un-sealed records!

[Octafish]

34. Dean is Bush-lite. Wonder how much the NRA has raised for Dean?

They give to those who do their bidding. Seems there's more than guns, though, that draws NRA types to Dean. They think he's VERY close to Bush in terms of his policies. Check out what those who know him from the Old North End Rag (Vermont) say:

Howard Dean: the Progressive Anti-War Candidate?

Some Vermonters Give Their Views

By DONNA BISTER, MARC ESTRIN and RON JACOBS
(The Editorial Collective of the Old North End RAG)

Howard Dean the liberal, anti-war candidate? The laughter rings most loudly in Vermont.

As Dean's candidacy caught fire over the summer, a number of articles have appeared on the net examining his history and current stance on important national and international issues. They all point to a Clintonesque Republicrat whose stances are not far from that of the current administration.

SNIP...

Dean the Democrat continued to pursue much of the economic agenda established by his Republican predecessor, Richard Snelling In short, this meant a tepid pro-business policy under the guise of fiscal conservatism, often at the expense of social programs serving disadvantaged populations. "One of my most persistent activities during the early 1990s was trying to fend off the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party," said Glenn Gershaneck, Dean's press secretary for nearly four years and Snelling's spokesman for seven months before that.

SNIP...

As Governor, Howard Dean endorsed the National Governors Association policy opposing the Kyoto Protocol unless it included mandatory emissions cuts for developing countries, and recommending that the United States "not sign or ratify any agreement that would result in serious harm to the U.S. economy." For environmentalists, EP, under Dean's leadership, came to mean "Expedite Permits", rather than Environmental Protection. Business leaders were especially impressed with the way Dean went to bat for them against Vermont's stringent environmental regulations. For more, read Michael Colby's excellent review of Dean's environmental misbehavior.

CONTINUED with a lot of stuff Deanieweenies don't want to know and certainly don't want DUers to know ...

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs08292003.html

BTW: Ho-Ho's a nice nickname compared to the other one that refers to the miraculous healing of his back which allowed him to spend the same winter as he dodged the draft skiing — Coward Dean.

[Monte Carlo]

2. Whatever achieves the desired effect.

The reasoning behind it is rather unimportant.

[billbuckhead]

6. In light of the Columbus and the Beltway snipers, one must conclude

that CNN like the ratings boost that these domestic terrorist attacks using rifles gives them. The NRA is the cutting edge of our enemy, if we appease these domestic terrorists, we deserve to lose.

[leanings]

19. which gun control law opposed by the NRA

would have prevented these attacks?

[JI7]

3. and

this is how they have been when it comes to kerry most of the time. either totally ignore him on an issue or misrepresent it.

[demsrule4life]

4. The problem is there is no such thing as

"sensible" gun control measures. Most people think of "sensible" as a complete ban. What we have to let people know that is we will try to do everything in our power to keep guns out of the hands of idiots but as long as you aren't an idiot you are more than welcome to own them.

[sandnsea]

12. That is not true

The law doesn't allow for a complete ban. The Supreme Court ruled years ago on this in US v. Miller. The only guns that can be banned are ones that are used primarily for criminal purposes. That's why the "scary" guns are targeted in the assault weapons ban, their purpose is to assault people. Everybody knows you're never going to ban all guns in America.

[demsrule4life]

15. Hi Sandsea

But I think you are not right. In US vs Miller all the complaining was over a sawed off shotgun. It was decided that sawed off shotguns had no use in the military. I would think that the evil black guns, which are also issued to the military would be legal since the military does issue them.

[DoNotRefill]

26. nope...

they ruled that the law wasn't unconstitutional because there was no showing that it was militarily useful. The Supreme Court didn't hear the issue of if it was or was not militarily useful, they noted that the record didn't show anything about it, and remanded it to the lower courts for trial. Since Miller was long-gone, he was never retried, and the issue effectively died. Had Miller been tried, and had the defense made a showing that there was some military use for such a weapon, the law would have been struck down again.

[sandnsea]

29. That's the foundation

There are arms for a purpose and arms to commit crimes The point is that there is no precedent for banning all weapons, it's not going to happen, it's an NRA talking point and nothing more.

[ma4t]

17. "scary" guns are banned because of stupidity

The assault weapons bill bans certain guns because they have a pistol grip rather than a traditional stock and grip. Does any rational person think that the design of the grip affects the danger posed by a long gun?

Other guns are banned because they have a bayonet lug. Therefore, an illegal gun can be rendered legal by simply grinding off the bayonet lug without changing the magazine capacity or rate of fire. Can anyone claim with a straight face that this makes any sense at all?

The basic premise behind the assault weapons ban was to make simple-minded people (most prominently the bill sponsors) feel better without doing anything meaningful. That is one definition of a stupid law.

[sandnsea]

32. How many banned guns?

How many total manufactured guns? Brady banned specific guns that were seen as the most dangerous at the time, just like sawed off shotguns and machine guns were regulated back in 1934. If we had any common sense, we'd move forward with this and take a serious look at guns committed in crime. Instead, too many take the NRA position, for what purpose I have absolutely no idea. No responsible citizen is going to lose their right to own a gun.

[ma4t]

40. how many banned is not the point

I can't say exactly how many guns were banned by the so-called Assault Weapons Ban bill. It doesn't really matter whether it banned 100 or 100,000 because the rationale for banning a gun is ludicrous.

Guns are banned if they exibit a certain number of characteristics. Examples of characteristics include flash suppressors, pistol grips and bayonette lugs. Notice that not a single one of the aforementioned characteristics has any effect on the magazine capacity, rate of fire, muzzle velocity, caliber or any other thing which actually has anything to do with making a particular weapon more or less dangerous.

In fact, if a weapon has a sufficient number of "bad" characteristics to be banned, it magically becomes "un-banned" if a single one of the offending characteristics is removed. Thus my earlier post where I stated that one could make an otherwise banned gun legal by filing off the bayonette lug. I repeat my earlier question, "Does any rational person actually think that the inability to fix a bayonette makes a weapon less dangerous in common American society?" When was the last time anyone here heard of an armed robber using a gun with a bayonette attached?

The problem with the assault weapons ban is that it is so transparently stupid that it serves solely to convince NRA types that there are many politicians, mostly Democrats, that want to ban their guns based on absolutely no rational basis at all. I'm forced to say that, to the extent people support that legislation, the NRA seems to be right. Stupid policy is rarely good politics in the long run.

[leanings]

21. I also have a problem

with the contention that rifles covered under the AWB are used "primarily" to assault people, or figure differently in crime statistics in any manner which would make one come to the conclusion that they're overrepresented in gun crime.

[DoNotRefill]

25. you need to reread Miller....

Miller does NOT state that there's a criminal purposes test. It states that in order for a firearm to be protected by the Second Amendment, there must be SOME showing that it could be militarily useful. Consequently, handguns, rifles, and shotguns as used by the military are protected, but "sporting" guns are not, UNLESS they also have some useful military purpose. For example, a scoped bolt-action rifle, designed, manufactured, and sold for the hunting of medium game, would be protected because it's substansively similar to or used for the same purposes as the M-24 series of military rifles.

In other words, you could conceivably ban guns that aren't effective, but the fact that a gun IS effective could be used to show that it's protected.

BTW, if ANYBODY had pointed out that the short-barreled shotgun possessed by Miller had some military application (like clearing trenches during WWI) there'd have been a different result. Unfortunately, Miller's side wasn't represented AT ALL. Not even an amicus brief.

[sandnsea]

31. See #29

If you want to be an NRA spokesperson, that's up to you. But there's no basis in law to claim anybody can ban all weapons. The purpose of gun laws to date is to ban guns that tend to be used for crimes or assaulting cops and people.

[madaboutharry]

5. They are all just

LAZY. That is the basic problem, journalists today are too damn lazy to do any research. It is easier to say whatever comes to mind when you know you won't get called on it. Clark has made numerous statements about guns, including the ones he himself owns. He has also famously said "If you want an automatic weapon, join the Army. You can shoot them all day long there."

[blm]

9. That's another who spoke about gun control.

Rothenberg is a LIAR and played the issue up FOR the NRA and their politicians.

[Jerseycoa]

13. Here

Clark Gun Policy

He's also spoken out against concealed weapons laws.

AP/Gazette Xtra

[solinvictus]

39. Himmler

Herr Reichsfuhrer of the SS Heinrich Himmler stated a similar thing in Germany about gun control. Basically, if you want a gun, join the SS or SA.

[displacedtexan]

7. remember when kerry ended the debate by talking about gun control?

everyone did a double take...
and, lo and behold, several other dems addressed the issue the following week.

rothenberg knew he was lying just now.

[JI7]

10. it was also

a big part of his formal announcement speech. but most of those who report on these things never actually watch or listen to it, or they just lie about it.

[blm]

11. I was there when he said it in SC.

I do think that Kucinich also has made gun control comments.

[HFishbine]

8. My Dream Job

Would be to fill my mind with facts during the day from the Internet sites where the truth can be found (you know 'em), and host one of these "Fair and Balanced" shows at night. Nobody gets called on the facts anymore.

It's sickening to listen to the shit that just slides right over the heads of Colmes, and Blitzer, and Woodruf, and Brown, and Tweety, O'Reilly and the other supposed professionals.

Don't you ever find yourself yelling at the TV, "That's not true!" or "Ask him about..." Of course you do. Why isn't there someone on TV who represents the truth-seeking audience?

[funkyflathead]

22. Dude that Rothenberg guy is helping us

Kerry is shooting himself in the foot by loud mouthing about guns.

Dean's got it right and Kerry is desperate.

[Egnever]

24. Hah you missed the whole point of the piece

Gun control is a losing issue. You are right kerry came out at the debate for gun control and made some noise about it last month.

Look at where his poll numbers went in the last month, you can atribute some of that decline directly to his coming out on gtun control.

People tried to tell you this when he was doing it but you as usual railed against them. This month we see the results yet still you want to push kerry for gun control.

Cary on if you will Gun control is sinking kerry. The latest poll results prove it.

[blm]

33. Most people agree with Kerry's stand on gun control.

The numbers reflect all the media attention that Dean gets. The same reason that polls always kept Lieberman up so high. Name recognition.

Be honest. Kerry's numbers have NOTHING to do with gun control. It's all about the media oxygen going to one candidate while the others get covered as "process" stories about Dean.

[SharonAnn]

28. Dean was talking about the gun issue last April-May. Maybe

before that.

Sheesh, these GOPers are just too deceitful.