I believe that the only way the Brady bill or any other gun control legislation will ever get passed

[Pryderi]

again, will have to happen in the same manner that the Brady bill was first passed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. We could use some national standards, but we really do not need more gun control

[texshelters]

20. Yes

or did you already forget last Saturday?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Brilliantrocket]

34. Stop conflating mental health with magazines

Just because one sick person does this , doesn't mean you need to ban something for the rest of us? Why do we need them? Why do you need a car that can go 160 mph? We should just put a governor on all cars to make sure they don't go over 75mph. Someone who has such a irrational hatred for guns wouldn't understand that something could ,lord help us, be fun.

This is 100% a mental health issue. Develop a system for the care of the mentally ill and I bet less of this would occur.

[YllwFvr]

52. no law could have prevented that

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. Keep waving the bloody shirt. You might still get some traction with it.

[one-eyed fat man]

69. How about all those people

Who are coming out of the woodwork, girlfriends, classmates, teachers, friends who are telling everyone who will listen they knew he was crazy all along?

Didn't one get quoted as saying as soon as he heard the news he knew it was Jared?

Now if any, one or all of those people had done something then, the shooter would either be in a psych ward someplace or on medication. In either case, his mental health history would have been in the FBI database so that when some store clerk phone in the background check NICS would have stopped him?

Why do you have no blame for them?

Yet you are convinced if ban hadn't expired and he hadn't been able to buy 33 round magazine none of this would have happened.

[SteveM]

100. Noticed your photo of Twain...

If what he wrote in "Roughing It" is correct, he packed.

[old mark]

2. The "Brady Bill" and the "Assault Weapons Ban" were useless legislation,

purely for political showmanship...The "Ban" actually banned nothing, just made subject guns more expensive because many were assembled here in the US from imported parts. The use of rifles of any type in crime is so infrequent it is insiginificant according to the FBI, yet the myth and lie persists that this caused a reduction in violence. The same may be said of other treasured anti-gun lies, such as the "gun show loophole"...it is just not true...but recall Hitler's propagandist Josef Goebels stating that the bigger the lie, the more it is believed.

OK, I'm done-attack me.

mark

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Nice Hitler reference. Really classy. eom

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Hello_Kitty]

19. No it's really offensive. Right up there with Palin and "blood libel".

[shadowrider]

46. It doesn't take away from the truth of the statement, regardless how offensive you find it n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

51. It's comparing people who support gun regulations with Nazis and it's disgusting. eom

[shadowrider]

53. Only in your mind

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

That has been repeated since humans could first talk. The nazis weren't the first and they won't be the last to use it.

[Hello_Kitty]

55. Then you have plenty of comparisons at your disposal besides Nazi then, don't you?

You know, ones that don't imply that your opponent on this issue doesn't want to exterminate millions of people.

[shadowrider]

60. That's a strawman argument

You've twisted what he actually said into something you think he said then attack that.

Nowhere in his statement do I see an inkling of support for nazis.

[lawodevolution]

82. "51. It's comparing people who support gun regulations with Nazis and it's disgusting."

As a gun owner I experience and read the hate, bigotry and intolerance of people who support gun control every day. NAZIs were also hateful, bigoted and ignorant to people with different views.

[one-eyed fat man]

97. Historical precedent.

Senator Thomas Dodd was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials and had reviewed copies of the Nazi Germany firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968, passed under the leadership of then-Senator Thomas J. Dodd, was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation.

Stephen Halbrook, in "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews," 17 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, No. 3, 483-532 (2000), asserts that German arms laws were extremely lax, and even under the 1920 "Law on the Disarmament of the People", only items such as grenades and machineguns were banned, however small arms such as rifles and pistols remained in common use. Germany did not in fact have comprehensive gun control legislation up until 1928, which created the legal framework later built upon by the Nazis.

Those who favor gun control try to depict gun control laws as benign and historically progressive. However, German firearm laws and hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust. For instance, according to the New York Times 21 Mar 1933 page 10, the German police searched the home of Albert Einstein for weapons and found only kitchen knives.

The Nazis weren't the only ones to use gun control laws to further consolidate their power or to disarm a population they wished to eradicate. Despots have always favored a disarmed populace so it is natural to question the motives of those most stridently championing similar causes.

[PavePusher]

58. I had never even heard the term "blood libel" until the Palin quote came up.

I don't think anyone gets to have sole usage of words. The term can be used by others.

[slackmaster]

7. Needs more ALL CAPS and misused apostrophes

I disagree with you about the Brady Act. I think the background check system is a pretty good thing.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. Well that means you're in league with DR. GOEBBELS!1!

[texshelters]

21. So let's give up on sensible regulation and

arm everyone because the idiots in Congress, or the corrupt, can't pass a bill that works?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. "Sensible" meaning "the type *I* support. And who, exactly, wants to "arm everyone"?

Can you give an example from primary sources?

[one-eyed fat man]

84. They passed the bill Brady wanted.

Dianne Feinstein herded it through the Senate.

The term "assault weapon" is pejorative and a politically-motivated term to describe a civilian firearm that LOOKS like a military firearm. This term is seldom used outside of the United States in this context.

The leading proponents of gun control wanted a ban on "assault weapons" so their best minds defined exactly what an assault weapon was, and Congress gave them what they wanted:

So, to be an evil assault weapon it had to be semi-automatic, able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

The gun controllers were happy and congratulated themselves on their politcal acumen and having made the world safe for unicorns.

Now people who happened to have a gun that was built before the ban got to keep it. People who didn't have one all of a sudden felt left out and had to have one. So they started paying crazy prices for guns that were not exactly uncommon, but they weren't particularly popular.

Then, people started building the same rifle minus the evil features.

Since on most modern military rifles the flash suppressor does double duty as the rifle grenades spigot, remove that from the civilian copy and the bayonet mount and now it is no longer an assault weapon. That is exactly what happened.

The gun shot the same ammunition, with the same accuracy, just as far, just as fast, it JUST didn't look right.

The gun controllers were puzzled. Sales of these guns were skyrocketing. They suddenly realized the manufacturers had removed the features the ban said were evil. This is not what they wanted but it is what they were willing to let Newt Gingrich be Speaker of the House over.

It is as if they had said we want to ban hot sports cars. What's a sports car? It has a V8 motor, a 4-speed, and two of the following:
it is red
it has racing stripes
it has decals

The price of red V8 cars with racing stripes, decals, and a 4-speed just went through the roof.

And somebody can't make blue V-8 cars with a 4-speed fast enough.

[Euromutt]

89. Actually, I think Goebbels said that of the British government (specifically Churchill)

Namely that the British government was making certain (according to Goebbels) spurious claims, hoping that if they were big enough, or repeated often enough, people in other countries would believe them.

Context is important when quoting.

[virginia mountainman]

3. I, as a proud Democrat..

Will ACTIVELY RESIST just about any of the "recently proposed" gun control legislation,as the proposals are nothing more than "Feel good" fluff that will do nothing but piss people off at us.

I will resist to the point of withholding ALL support to local and national candidates who even gives lip service to such legislation...

This includes stumping, phone banking, and fund raising activities, in which I have been very active in the past. I have told more than a couple "doomed to failure" campaigns to "Shove it" when they wished for my support over this very issue, and back in the mid 90's I even worked for the SUCCESSFUL OPPOSITION to one who was particularly egregious on this very issue.

Civil liberties are far to important to me, and many many other Democrats feel the same way.

[texshelters]

23. So, why are you for large magazines in the public? Really, can you

logically defend that? The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated" militia. So it allows for some regulation. The question is, what regulation will reduce violence cause by guns. The shooter used a gun last Saturday, lest you forget. He couldn't done it without that gun.

Guns is one area (and perhaps religion) that brings out the paranoid in members of all parties.

So, you don't see any problems with gun massacres in public?

No, think about the question, read it: do you think reducing gun violence in public, whether the killing of individuals or mass shootings, should be reduced?

If so, what do you suggest? Nothing? If not, have at it.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. The novelty magazines have nothing to do with it

It may well be his use of them that caused the pistol to jam and allow him to be taken down.

[virginia mountainman]

32. Now now... Where did I say that..

I did not see any problem with "gun massacres in public"?

I do have a major problem with them.. I just don't see how a bullshit ban is going to help one iota.

If you look at violent crime rates, you will see that such massacres are becoming more and more RARE. It seems that the liberalization of American Gun Laws, has had a positive effect on helping lessen these violent encounters..

[Brilliantrocket]

35. Are you stupid or just pretending?

Well regulated does not mean " HERP DERP BAN GUNS" it means well trained and equipped.

[RSillsbee]

56. Because it's been tried

With no discernable effect on crime. From 1994 to 2004 it was illegal to manufacture magazines that held more than 10 rounds (except for export and police/ military use). The law did not prohibit ownership or transfer and after 10 years there was no evidence found that it had any effect on crime. To my knowledge extended magazines have been used in exactly one mass shooting to date.


Given the above why don't you logically defend why we need yet another law against extended magazines

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Why are you begging the question and conflating large magazines with killings and violence?

Loughner could done what the guy at Virginia Tech did: Brought a second gun (which Loughner had), and reloaded while covering

himself. Cho only stopped because escape was impossible. No one was able to tackle him after his gun jammed, as in Tucson.

[SteveM]

101. More corrections to your post...

"The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated" militia. So it allows for some regulation."

Actually, there is more to the Second, as you know. "Well-regulated" meant that when the militia was called to assemble that citizens were to PROVIDE THEIR OWN ARMS suitable for use in combat. It is not a bottomless well from which regulation can be ladled up on demand.

"The question is, what regulation will reduce violence cause by guns. The shooter used a gun last Saturday, lest you forget. He couldn't done it without that gun."

You may wish to read the Center for Disease Control's executive summary of gun-intervention strategies and the research supporting them. They found insufficient evidence that any of the strategies offered had any effect of the problems purported to be solved or ameliorated. You needn't be high & mighty about "forgetfulness," but lest YOU forget, Cho at Virginia Tech killed far more people with a similar semi-automatic pistol using rather conventional magazines -- he just carried more short ones. So a far worse mass murder WAS IN FACT carried out "without that gun."

"Guns is one area (and perhaps religion) that brings out the paranoid in members of all parties."

I don't know what you mean by this.

"So, you don't see any problems with gun massacres in public?"

Did anyone imply there was no problem with "...gun massacres in public?" Frankly, I see a problem with massacres using ANY weapon, public or private. Please try to explain what you mean by this question.

"No, think about the question, read it: do you think reducing gun violence in public, whether the killing of individuals or mass shootings, should be reduced?"

Sure. And in fact, the murder rates in this country have fallen for some years. You didn't forget that, did you? This fall may be because LEOs are more effectively tracking repeat thug-felons, and getting them back behind bars. As far as the spectacular mass killings, I don't think you or anyone else has a real, workable solution to reducing these, except for the "unglamorous" and expensive stuff like better mental health treatment and education. Do you really think this jerk-wad could not get hold of a weapon to shoot others for his own glorification? Do you really think that?

Here is a possible action which may help in reducing high-profile mass shootings, esp. of politicians and other notables: encourage some of the "official" entourage to carry concealed weapons. This may not stop an assassination try, but it may reduce the carnage. Bloomberg, Sen. Feinstein, and others have their armed guards.

[northoftheborder]

25. IMHO, your view is fanatical.

[virginia mountainman]

30. How can you say that??

A clear majority of American voters AGREE WITH ME..

It is Gun Control, that is viewed with utter disdain by MOST Americans, why are you against the "Will of the people"?

[Brilliantrocket]

36. He can't let go of the lie

That gun control works. In his silly mind he thinks that a perfect fairy tale society can exist. Over optimistic thinking.

[shadowrider]

49. I know most American voters agree, but here's the problem

Posters of the anti side typically only watch TV, read websites and gather other information from sources that agree with them. In their mind, their view is the mainstream since no one disagrees with them since all their sources are in agreement.

"How in the heck did McGovern lose? Everyone I know voted for him". That's the mindset.

[beevul]

86. Let me see if I have this right.

Let me see if I have this right.

The gun control lobby and its supporters passed gun control touted as "reasonable" and "sensible" on and off for a good long time.

Now the gun control lobby and its supporters claim they just want "reasonable" and "sensible" gun control...as if there isn't any.

And you think its a fanatical position to oppose it?

That says more about your position, than anything else.


How much is enough?

[SteveM]

102. The cat crept into the crypt, crapped, and crept out again. nt

[shadowrider]

48. many many other Democrats feel the same way.

Dude, haven't you learned by now if you support 2A you're a right-wing, Limbaugh listenin wacko? (At least according to many posters on this board).

[cowcommander]

5. They were ineffective pieces of feel-good legislation that did nothing to reduce gun crime

[Ozymanithrax]

8. The NRA is the single most powerful interest group in America today...

The blow the doors of AIPAC.

As long as special interest groups have a special place in the pocketbooks of the elected, there will be nothing done about gun regulation.

This will die down, and it will go right back to "cold dead hands" comments. The Republicans in Congress will not pass any legislation concerning gun rights, well except to pass a law allowing them to carry guns into Congress and fight duels on the national mall like they used to in the good old days.

[virginia mountainman]

9. You do realize, when you are talking about "special interest groups" and the NRA..

Your talking about it's 4,000,000 (that's FOUR MILLION) politically active members??

[Hoyt]

15. NRA is smart enough not to allow members to pack at meetings. Yet they push for toters in public.

I don't think we need a bunch of folks packing in public. That's where the laws need to be tightened -- way too lax now. Just about any fool can get a gun, and carry it anywhere they want.

[Straw Man]

38. Smart enough to urge compliance with the law.

NRA is smart enough not to allow members to pack at meetings. Yet they push for toters in public.

If you're referring to the annual convention last May, North Carolina state law forbids carrying in the Charlotte Convention Center. The NRA merely asked its membership to obey the law.

But you knew that. Right?

[Hoyt]

40. NRA could have gone elsewhere. NRA knows too many cowboys, inexperienced and wacos in membership.

But, you know that.

[Straw Man]

61. Wrong again.

NRA could have gone elsewhere.

North Carolina law gives establishments the right to ban concealed carry on their premises. The Marriott Convention Center decided to exercise this right when the convention was already in progress. Signs were posted after the convention had begun.

But you knew that. Right?

Once the decision was made, it had the force of law. Certainly you wouldn't suggest that the NRA should have urged its members to break the law.

[one-eyed fat man]

71. They packed at the convention in Lousiville.

But the state law is different in Kentucky.

But you are going to pretend that somehow that because the NRA moves its convention all over the country from year to year they should ignore states that have have laws you agree with?

[Ozymanithrax]

41. Not compliance, and absolute change in how the amendment was viewed.

That doesn't make it comliance, it makes it a fairy tale.

[Straw Man]

63. I see.

Not compliance, and absolute change in how the amendment was viewed.

So you contend that the NRA is too moderate in support of the RKBA? Interesting.

[Pullo]

65. There are many RKBA advocates who feel that way n/t

[Straw Man]

68. Yes...

...and Ozymanithrax apparently agrees with them.

I'm getting that through-the-looking-glass feeling again...

[shadowrider]

50. Just about any fool can get a gun

The same as any fool can get a computer and post ridiculous anti-gun comments on a gun forum.

[Hoyt]

72. Non-toters have rights to liberty and safety. We ban stinking cigars in public, ought to ban guns.

Further, if someone is shot in a public place that did not take steps to stop toters, the bar, church, restaurant, public park, etc., should be sued to extent of law.

[shadowrider]

74. There is NO right to safety. Show me in the BOR where that right is spelled out please n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. You want the equivalent of banning the *carrying* of cigars, not the smoking thereof.

A cigar in a case carried in someone's pocket emits no smoke or odor, and no one is harmed

A gun in a holster under someone's jacket or in a purse emits no bullets, and no one is harmed.

[shadowrider]

78. Shhhhhhh, you'll give them ideas

Anyone caught with a cigar, open or wrapped, is subject to current smoking violation penalties

and stuff.

[Hoyt]

93. Ha, the carrying of a cigar won't kill me. Inexperienced, cowboys packing might.

What cracks me up is all the toters who claim they are so experienced in a tense situation that they are not a danger in public. The vast majority have done little beyond shooting paper targets, seeing how fast they can change magazines/clips, watching Rambo and a training video or two, and playing cowboy in front of a mirror or something. Yet, I have to stand in line with these poor souls packing. That is not freedom or liberty.

[PavePusher]

94. Surely you can cite to where your fantasy has occured, amiright? n/t

[Straw Man]

96. Is yours an open-carry state?

Is that how you know all these "poor souls" are "packing"? Or do you just sort of... imagine it?

I think I've asked you this before, but you do know that cops don't train on live targets, right?

I also don't know where you hear all these claims of expertise. Could you point out a few from this forum? Or do you just hear them when you're standing in line with all the poor souls?

[rl6214]

99. Yet you think only cops should be armed and the only

training a cop has is the 50 rounds he has to fire at his once a year qualifying. I on the other hand shoot tens of thousands of rounds in a year. I have taught cops about handguns, how to handle them, how to shoot them and trained them at the range. I will out shoot 99% or the cops out there but you don't think I can handle carrying concealed? I'm not a cop, I'm not out there to protect you or to stop any random crime, I am carrying to protect myself and my familiy.

[SteveM]

105. Please cite some evidence of your "toter" being a "danger in public." nt

[TPaine7]

77. We do not ban cigars in public;

we ban SMOKING cigars in public.

All your analogy are belong to us.

[one-eyed fat man]

92. How about the converse?

If a person is injured by a criminal in a gun-free zone can they sue "the bar, church, restaurant, public park, etc?"

[SteveM]

104. Actually, I prefer nice-smelling cigars. But yours is yet another prohibition...

I note that you see a ban of cigars 'in public.' How far we have come from smoking in confined areas, restaurants, offices, and have "slipped down the slope" toward public bans. And the tobacco smugglers are going 24-7 already.

So you wanna sue because someone (public? Private?) did not "take steps?" Maybe a place should be sued when they post "gun-free" zones which encourage some spittle-flying idiot to shoot fish in a barrel. Yeah, that's the ticket. More suits.

BTW, private businesses -- "bars, churches, restaurants" -- are already free to post their "gun-free zone" signs. But I've noticed some are coming down; not because of the power of a Second Amendment lobby, but because some of these places have put 2 and 2 together and decided not to say to the thug & nut case: "Come on Down!"

[YllwFvr]

54. the laws are too lax

are growing even more so. Well in your view I guess. In my view, they are growing more liberty/ rights oriented. More and more states are allowing it. In Wisconsin open carry was recently affirmed as legal, where before no carry was allowed. Score another one. Only a couple left!

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. You need to prove to a majority that your proposed ban will work

Until then, your diktats regarding the unsuitability of carrying in public remain your opinion.

A valid one, but still just an opinion.

[X_Digger]

73. For one year, derp derp derp..

You could carry at previous years' conventions, and likely will at future events.

herp derp derp

[Ozymanithrax]

22. I'm talking about an organization that took a narrow and unhistorical..

view of the Constitution and foisted on the rest of America (300+ million) and who have managed to usurp basic policies of public safety.

[YllwFvr]

57. I think they are content with the status quo

and the supreme court did very well in Heller and McDonald in my opinion. They are just opposed to new legislation, most certainly this kind that will do nothing to change pubic safety

[X_Digger]

79. Well, some 234,000,000 agree..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-Supreme-Court-Gun-Rights.aspx

[beevul]

80. Then your talking nonsense.

What YOU call narrow and unhistoric, is in fact correct, and historic, and the bill of rights itself proves it:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org


The bill of rights itself says explicitly that the second amendment and all the rest of the first ten, are restrictions on government.

You'd like to see the amendment read as a restriction on we the people.


It is in fact YOUR view, which is narrow and unhistoric.

[cowcommander]

10. Actually, republicans have a better success record when it comes to passing gun control laws

I always laugh whenever I see republicans idolize Saint Reagan so much, yet ignore how he fucked over the 2nd Amendment and did more damage to it than any democrat.

[virginia mountainman]

12. Your absolutely right!

People also forget that the movers and shakers in today's gun control movement, are also mainly repuke..

Sara Brady, Republican
Paul Helmke, Republican
Caroline McCarthy, was a Republican till she decided to run for office
M Bloomberg, Republican, most of the time

It amazes me how many Democrats enjoy being spoon fed from these Republicans.

[Paladin]

13. SLACKMASTER! SLACKMASTER! He Said "Your" Instead Of "You're"!!!

Don't just sit there, do something!

[SteveM]

106. Add Chas. Krauthammer and Wm. Bennett to the GOP banner list.

[Ozymanithrax]

24. Actually, until the NRA decided to violate more than 190 years of...

Constitutional interpretation to push the fairy tale idea of an individual right to own a gun, the second amendment was pretty much antiquated and unused amendment that provided for militias, an concept outdated since before the Civil War.

Never the less, their narrow interpretation, along with the other orignalist bullshit pushed on the United States by an out of control Conservative Supreme Court, will remain the law for a long time.

[hack89]

31. So the Bill of Rights doesn't delineate individual rights?

despite everything we know about why the BOR was added in the first place? You really believe that the founding fathers really intended to use the BOR to strengthened GOVERNMENT power over it's citizens? Really?

[Ozymanithrax]

43. Until the 1970's the 2nd amendment was viewed as coerning the right...

to serve in a militia. The NRA has created a new interpretation, that gives everyone the right to overthrow the government that is accepted by the hyper conservative originalists on the court, even though it was never considered as an individual rights by the founding fathers.

Alas,it isn't going away, and must be paid for regualarly by piles of murdered people.

[Statistical]

44. No it wasn't.

Read Heller. Extensive cites from legislative records and court cases in the time period after ratification that clearly shows intent.

This whole "collective right" nonsense isn't supported by any historians. It is simply pushed by those who want to wish the 2A away.

[Ozymanithrax]

45. NRA approved history. No thanks. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. All that, and not a single cite or quote to support your argument.

I can see why you wouldn't or couldn't. Allow me to quote your avatar:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[PavePusher]

95. Then cite your own.

We'll wait....

[beevul]

81. Only by those that can not be bothered to read.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

[hack89]

85. So why do so many state constitutions

explicitly define the right to bear arms as an individual right if such a concept was so far outside the mainstream of US legal theory? We are talking about some state constitutions that are as old as the Federal one - constitutions influenced by the federal constitution.

How is that possible?

[SteveM]

108. Wrong again...

the "militia clause" interpretation was a rather recent notion, one promulgated by Laurence Tribe and others, until the former relented and recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Referencing "...piles of murdered people" will not help your "cause."

[pipoman]

33. You do realize that the NRA actually supported and endorsed the original Brady Bill, no?

[DissedByBush]

67. Actually, the NRA wasn't involved in Heller

The NRA declined when asked. The NRA stated it did not want the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Lack of facts, a hallmark of the "bill of rights minus one" anti-gun crowd.

If you read Heller, you will see exactly how you are so wrong on the Second Amendment.

But what is most disgusting to me is liberals who fight to take a restrictive view of any of our rights.

We normally take the most expansive view possible such as with gay rights and choice.

[SteveM]

107. Please cite the source of your "fairy tale."

The Second was not antiquated, but it certainly was "used." If you mean by being "unused" that court decisions were few and far between, that may be because no one really questioned an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Again -- and you will keep hearing this time and time again -- the "People"<'s> right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on membership in a militia. You need to study the body of work by constitutional scholars which attests to this, and quit spreading your own froo-froo dust about.

[Euromutt]

91. I think you are overlooking the AARP

They have ten times the membership of the NRA. If you think getting additional gun control measures through Congress is difficult, just try reducing entitlements in Social Security and Medicare for people over 50.

[SteveM]

103. Get rid of the NRA, and you will have another group take its place. nt

[Upton]

11. We don't need anymore gun control..

I'm sick and tired of having my rights infringed upon. I live in a rural area, I don't even know any Democrats who support more silly emotional feel good legislation and if this nonsense keeps up, they'll just take their votes elsewhere.

[Pryderi]

16. Gun control is "silly emotional feel good legislation"? No, it's rational.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. What would you like to see?

Already adjudicated criminals and those with mental problems are banned. Full background checks are already done for every purchase from an FFL. What else do you want?

[Brilliantrocket]

37. It's irrational.

It will never work because it only removes guns from those who choose to follow it. It makes as much sense as trying to make murder more illegal. We can pass a resolution AFFIRMING that we hate murder! It's not going to change anything however.

[petronius]

39. Actually, it's both. Much of what we have now is rational and useful.

Some of what we have now is intrusive and useless. Much of what has been proposed is silly emotion-driven BS...

[SteveM]

109. I live in an urban area, and don't see much sentiment for gun-control. nt

[hollowdweller]

14. Here's the things I think need to happen.

First I think that the central thing that obstructs gun control is politics and fear.

The NRA has been one of the most successful grassroots political organizations in the history of the US. I like guns and I have to credit them for preventing an extremely restrictive situation from happening here in the US.

However in order to keep grasroots activated and funds coming in the NRA has to work at sewing a great amount of FEAR that ANY gun laws will start a slide toward total confiscation.

Another sort of bad thing with the NRA is that with the urbanization of the US there is less land to hunt on and less areas in peoples local communities where they can just go out with their kids and shoot tin cans or target shoot. SOOOO, the demographic of the gun owner has changed somewhat. So the NRA has sort of gone way more toward the self defense and preventing gov't tyranny what I call the sort of "fantasy" gun owner.

He sees the gun in a movie or something and wants one but neither shoots nor hunts on a regular basis. It's more of a macho thing than anything practical. Look at the AK 47. They've sold millions of them. They look badass. You see macho warriers carrying them. Yet they really aren't great for hunting and there's any number of guns that are WAY more accurate.

ANYWAY, to get to the second part the politics. OK so I know a LOT of former Democrats, who really economically and socially agree with the party. BUT- they own guns and they vote GOP over the gun issue.

So really the gun, and race in southern states, those are the only two issues that the GOP has on these people. Otherwise they would still be Democrats.

So the dems take over and despite the warning that they are "gonna take your guns" nothing happens.

Obama even signs some bills loosening gun laws which totally puzzles the brainwashed. The GOP has to sound more and more outlandish in order to try to keep their constituency, some of which ARE converting back to the dems.

So really what has to happen is that the gun owners need to be convinced that any legislation done to make people safer is not going to restrict their ownership of guns. For instance the Brady Law. Only a few really paranoid gun owners care about that law now because it's really not an inconvenience.

So like this magazine capacity thing. If rather than banning them they forbade the sale of them at the same time as an initial gun purchase, and then somehow made county or local law enforcement have to check the people out or you had to take like an MMPI and pass it before you bought them that would not restrict anyones ability to own them but might prevent them from being bought and used impulsively.

But people have to realize that Guns are like Social Security for the Dems. Any changes have to be done in a way that reassures the constituency that any change in law will not result in a change in benefits!

[texshelters]

18. And how was that? The shooting of Reagan?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[aikoaiko]

28. I remember folks conflating full auto with the semiautos rifles in order to mislead the public.

Is that what you're talking about?

:shrug:

[Katya Mullethov]

83. If you consider the candidate for Director of BATFE&GH "Folks" .

I on the other hand consider him a " fucking asshole" .
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/11/robert-farago/missing-andrew-traver-tv-interview-surface/

Not only are they awesomely powerful , but they are completely uncontrollable .Running a full auto AK must be like taming zebras or herding cats or something .

The talking heads were claiming that MexDTOs are smuggling guns INTO the US this morning in relation to the billion they blew on the virtual border fence . Apparently , when purchase orders are depending on it , guns flow NORTH !

[beevul]

87. That video needs a thread all its own.

People need to know the truth.

[Katya Mullethov]

88. It already had one

And you are absolutely right . Make another .
I'd say we were about 30 or 40 odd threads in the hole this week as it is .

[Abq_Sarah]

98. I guess they would be uncontrollable

If you don't freaking know how to hold one.

[Brilliantrocket]

29. So you mean underhandedly and against the will of the American people?

How can you call yourself a liberal? You need to go over to the fascist forums, they use tactics like this.

[Marr]

42. If some nut did what Loughner did inside a G8 conference or something similar,

you'd have more strict gun control laws a week.

[bossy22]

47. doubt it

[SteveM]

110. Nope.

[guitar man]

76. So somebody needs to shoot the president? Nt

[Euromutt]

90. Last time I looked, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was still law

Okay, it's been the better part of a year since I bought a firearm from an FFL (and well over a year since I bought a handgun), but the dealer still had to contact NICS to run a background check on me before he would hand over the rifle.