Why the gun craze???

[mstrsplinter326]

So many people go ballistic about their right to be armed, even when the subject is not even under question here in the DU or out in the world at large.

Why is there such a fervent focus on the right to bear arms? How can you justify that Americans have earned the right to be trusted with guns? I don't want to take your gun away, so don't give me the Bill of Rights speech, I've had it. (P.S. you are not part of a legitimate militia. You get you keep your gun due to proliferation, not because of the Constitution)

Here's a brilliant idea:
You want people to stop messing with your 'right' to be armed?? Ok, then focus your energy on stopping gun violence. The NRA, associated organizations and similar minded people focus all their energy trying to lift the ban on assault weapons. Of course people are going to challenge your right to bear arms if you want an AK-47. Furthermore, if all this energy went into finding real solutions to violence in general in America, then maybe people would stop messing with you. And I'm not talking about rap music and video games. Real solutions are prison reform, living wages, job security, etc.

I understand you feel your rights are under attack, but as long as people are abusing their privileges to the extreme of killing lots and lots people, then you will find your rights under attack. The US is one of the worst, if not thee worst industrialized nation for per capita gun violence. That has to change if you Pro-gun nuts want to have legitimacy it retaining your 'right' to bear arms.

[Narf]

1. Rights aren't earned, they're intrinsic.

A very wise man once wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right to Life and Liberty means the right to defend oneself against tyranny and petty criminals. My owning an AK-47 doesn't cause others to commit crimes. Your NOT owning an AK-47 doesn't cause others to commit, or not commit, crimes. I'm doing my part to reduce gun violence. I don't use my gun to commit crimes. That's one gun (actually several) that are not being used to commit crimes every day of the week.

[kalian]

3. Well said....

:toast:

[mstrsplinter326]

4. You are doing your part by not using guns?!?!?

Would I be doing my part as a country if I accumulated Nuclear weapons, but just chose not to use them, all the while promoting other countries rights to have them - with out regard for those countries commonsense and temperament??

Your right, rights aren't earned, but they can be abused - and that's the gray area that gun-wielders have gotten themselves into. The issue is not so black and white that, no matter the circumstances, you get to keep your gun.

If freedom of speech were only and exclusively exercised by the KKK and the Nazis, do you really think it would be much of a right for very long??

Obviously that's an extreme example, but I am just trying to show you rights, when abused, come into question. And when it's as important as the difference between someone's life or death, your bound to have some heat from the opposition. And it's bound to be strong. I agree you should get to keep your hunting and personal protection guns.

I repeat: NOBODY NEEDS AN AK-47. NOBODY!

Most importantly, your post sidesteps the issue at hand: Reform. Things have got to change, one way or another. And if no pro-gun reforms don't come out (reforms that allow you to keep your gun), then anti-gun reform is destined to follow.

If guns are used only for protection, hunting, etc, and not to be used for attack, why do gun owners fight so hard against background checks? Is it that crazy to want to keep guns out of ex-criminal's hands? We don't allow child molesters to live near schools. Why allow violent criminals to have guns??

[FeebMaster]

7. Again with the "need."

Also, I'm invoking McFeeb's Law and declaring you the loser of this debate. Four posts and we've got people going on about nuclear weapons. Come on people.

[mstrsplinter326]

8. extreme examples can often times be used to show ridiculousness

especially to those entrenched in their points of view.

It's not uncommon and it's purposefully absurd.

[FeebMaster]

10. If you want to go around posting

absurd things, people are going to think you're absurd and stop listening to you. You're right, it's not uncommon, hence McFeeb's Law.

[mstrsplinter326]

12. Have you stopped listening??

Doubt it.

[slackmaster]

14. Let's see if you really know what you're talking about

Cite federal law that prohibits an indivudual from manufacturing or owning a nuclear bomb.

:evilgrin:

[mstrsplinter326]

17. I don't understand your point, and don't want to scour law books

to make a point that I don't get. please explain.

[slackmaster]

22. Your nuclear straw man example has been discussed many times

I'll give you the answer: There is no such law. It's theoretically possible for you to buy a nuke IF YOU REALLY WANT ONE.

And if you don't want one or can't provide a concrete example of someone who does, your admittedly absurd example is kind of pointless.

[mstrsplinter326]

35. Pointless?

Does my example point out the absurdity of wanting an excessive weapon - yes. While this hero 'McFeeb' states that the only argument I have is the over played Nuclear card, I am not using it to promote gun control - hence it doesn't apply.

Whole argument: Moot. Point still missed.

Point:
Curbing violence will stop the gun control crowd in their tracks. Curbing violence is more important than ownership of machine guns - not legally, morally.

[slackmaster]

38. OK, I see a lot of potential for agreement between you and me

Curbing violence will stop the gun control crowd in their tracks. Curbing violence is more important than ownership of machine guns - not legally, morally.

I agree on both counts, violent crime is the primary excuse used by gun control advocates, though ownership of machine guns is (as I believe you have said) not really an issue right now.

:toast:

Peace.

[mstrsplinter326]

44. I like that it took so long to come to it

It's been a fun morning. Thanks for the banter.

Peace in the Middle East

[FeebMaster]

40. Wow.

No one has ever called me a hero before. I'm all choked up.

Sorry, though, you've still violated McFeeb's Law.

"Curbing violence will stop the gun control crowd in their tracks."

It will certainly slow them down, but the authoritarians don't seem to be interested in curbing violence, they just want more control.

"Curbing violence is more important than ownership of machine guns - not legally, morally."

Violating any right is immoral.

[mstrsplinter326]

47. You still missed the boat

You can continue on stating that violating rights is wrong. But it has been said by all other parties here. We agree.

"It will certainly slow them down, but the authoritarians don't seem to be interested in curbing violence, they just want more control."

Curbing violence would take away public support. It doesn't matter what 'authoritarians' want.

P.S. you are a hero the pro-gunners here, they quote you like mad.

[FeebMaster]

54. Of course everyone says that violating rights is wrong.

No one wants to look like an authoritarian. The problem comes when you start to define what a right is. Authoritarians don't think gun ownership is a right. They don't think drug use is a right. They basically aren't interested in rights at all. They want control. Most of them have never met a government program they didn't like. When Ted Kennedy introduced an amendment to the lawsuit bill that would give John Ashcroft the power to ban basically any ammunition he wanted, where was the outcry from the pro-control crowd? When there are calls to register guns and put those lists into the hands of John Ashcroft, where was the outcry from the pro-control crowd?

Curbing violence would take away public support, you're right. The problem is you can't curb violence if you aren't in charge to implement the policies that will do the curbing.

P.S. you are a hero the pro-gunners here, they quote you like mad.

I just said what everyone was thinking. Hell, it's probably been said before. I just gave it a snappy name.

[mstrsplinter326]

84. "The problem comes when you start to define what a right is."

I don't think that's exactly what you meant to say. Rights must be defined, or everyone would have a right to everything. And no one has a right to things like murder and rape.

"where was the outcry from the pro-control crowd?"
- It's hard to draw sympathy for people who watch their relatives and friends die inordinately to gun violence.
Where was the NRA sympathy for Columbine?

I'm not saying the pro-control crowd is right for not protesting, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and offer you a non-control, non-promotion view.

"Curbing violence would take away public support, you're right. The problem is you can't curb violence if you aren't in charge to implement the policies that will do the curbing."

I agree 100%. Electing either G-dub or Kerr-bear is not going to remedy the situation either.

[FeebMaster]

88. It's exactly what I meant to say.

"I don't think that's exactly what you meant to say. Rights must be defined, or everyone would have a right to everything. And no one has a right to things like murder and rape."

I say a person has a right to carry a gun if they choose to. Others say a person has no such right. Who gets to decide who is right? Who gets to decide what is a right?

Obviously there is no right to rape and murder because to commit either of those acts you have to violate another's right to life and liberty.


"- It's hard to draw sympathy for people who watch their relatives and friends die inordinately to gun violence.
Where was the NRA sympathy for Columbine?"

Why are you dragging the NRA into this? I'm not a member and I don't really care what they have to say.

"I'm not saying the pro-control crowd is right for not protesting, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate and offer you a non-control, non-promotion view."

Non-control and non-promotion? I don't understand. Either you are for gun control or you are against it.

[mstrsplinter326]

94. hmm...

Obviously there is no right to rape and murder because to commit either of those acts you have to violate another's right to life and liberty.

then someone's rights to rape and murder are being violated by some else's rights to life and liberty. Circular.

Non-control and non-promotion? I don't understand. Either you are for gun control or you are against it.

"you're either with us or against us" - G-dub
That statement is crap. Nothing in the world is that black and white.

[FeebMaster]

98. If you want to argue that there is a right

to rape and murder, you're going to have to find someone else to do it with.

Circular. :eyes:

"you're either with us or against us" - G-dub
That statement is crap. Nothing in the world is that black and white.

You misunderstand. We're not talking about being with us or against us. We're talking about being pro-control and being against control. I am against all gun control so I think it's fair to say that I am not for gun-control. Other people might support various amounts of gun control. Maybe some of them think there should be background checks but you can buy whatever you want. Maybe some want all guns banned. They all want some control, maybe a little, maybe a lot. So I think it's fair to say that they are pro-control. So you can see that the only way you can say someone isn't pro-control is if they don't support any control at all.

[RoeBear]

74. Proof of that is those people who...

...who want to go back to the 'may' issue days of CCW.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Curbing violence will stop the gun control crowd in their tracks."

It will certainly slow them down, but the authoritarians don't seem to be interested in curbing violence, they just want more control.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Why else would any thinking person want another person to prove a 'need' before being allowed to carry concealed?

[FeebMaster]

20. I don't understand. (nt)

[mstrsplinter326]

39. You said if I made my points the way I did, people would stop listening

But they didn't. You are obviously still concerned with what I have to say.

[FeebMaster]

49. Yes, but I'm crazy.

I argue about gun control for kicks. On the bright side, I understand that I'm never going to change anyone's mind on the subject. Bringing up nuclear weapons when talking about small arms is still a goofball strawman, though.

[mstrsplinter326]

51. I agree on nuke bit

That's half the reason its effective - its out of control.

Anyway, I don't want to change your mind about control, as I am not for control. I am for stopping violence as we know it. It's out of control, and is more pressing than any other gun-related issues.

[muffin_man]

15. Legal gun owners like

people with conceal carry and so on do not by and large commit gun crime. Just like drugs as long as they exist you will not keep them from criminals or anyone else who wants to get them no matter what laws or background checks you do.Violent criminals are not allowed to have guns now. Most people charged with domestic violence are automatically banned from gun ownership the rest of their lives.An argument with NO violence can get you a DV conviction and you can no longer LEGALLY own a firearm. How many crimes have been committed with an AK? It is not a very popular armed robbery choice. This is definitely a McFeebs law post.

[mstrsplinter326]

AKs aren't used in crimes?

And you can't reasonably hunt with one, nor are they feasible for personal protection.
Ok, then why make it legal to have one? Smells like: Circular argument. Not Important.

And the point is missed over and over and over...

I AM NOT ADVOCATING GUN CONTROL!!!! Why can't you see that? All I want is for people to stop focusing their energy on legalizing AK-47's and focus it on curbing violence. What the funk does McFeebs law say about that?? I don't care. I am not here to argue logistics of logic. That's just sidestepping. What is wrong with promoting ways to curb violence over ways to obtain machine guns??? Curb violence, then go out and buy and small country's arms. It just seems like the right thing to do.

[slackmaster]

23. Valmet hunting rifle is based on the Kalashnikov action

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_1989_report.txt

But I'm not surprised you didn't know that.

[FeebMaster]

27. What's stopping someone from hunting

with an AK-47? Why would it be unreasonable? It is legal to own an AK-47 so the question goes to you: Why make it illegal to have one?

McFeeb's Law is only about nuclear weapons. Here was the original post:

The final refuge of the gun grabber. Nukes. I think we need something like Godwin's Law with regard to nukes in gun control arguments. We can call it McFeeb's Law.

If you want to limit the 2nd amendment, I'll be more than happy to compromise with you. We'll ban nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Man portable and squad portable small arms will be unregulated. What should we do with artillery pieces and high explosives? Maybe have a background check requirement before someone can buy them. I don't think that's particularly fair, but I'm willing to compromise.

You're quite right about curbing violence, but some people are more interested in gun control than curbing violence. What's wrong with talking about obtaining a machine gun? Can't you promote ways to curb violence at the same time as talk about ways to obtain machine guns? What the hell have I been doing these last few months?

[mstrsplinter326]

29. It just seems pointless to

allow more guns while saying "Don't use them very much." I suppose your right it is do-able, but it isn't work well.

[FeebMaster]

34. Who is saying "Don't use them very much?" (nt)

[mstrsplinter326]

37. If they have no practical purposes in everyday society

other than ones you'd like to push them to, then inadvertently you are saying 'don't use them very much.'

[FeebMaster]

56. But they do have practical putposes.

Hunting, recreation, self-defense.

[mstrsplinter326]

85. Machine guns?

I am resigned to differ on that with you, sir.

Machine Guns for Hunting, recreation, self-defense would be over kill. Recreation I might buy. But its a strech to call it a maybe-recreational gun to a necessity for all americans. But I am not one to promote control. It just seems there's better expenditures of one's energy than making sure I can have a machine gun under my pillow at night.

[FeebMaster]

91. Many machine guns are select fire

so why is it such a stretch to see someone hunting with them. Some might argue that a suppressed sub-machine gun is an ideal weapon for home defense. Who are you to decide what is overkill? Who says that having a machine gun is a necessity? What is it with people and guns and need? If I want to buy a 500 horsepower sports car, should I have to prove that I need it? Rumor has it this was supposed to be a free country at some point.


Oh, and who is saying anyone wants to keep a machine gun under their pillow?

[mstrsplinter326]

96. I never said I am the rule maker

around here. The whole idea is just crack pot to me, morally. It's wrong morally to own a machine gun, in my opinion. Inevitably it will end up in the wrong hand. They will change the select fire switch.

I don't wish to govern your right to have one, but you'll never convince me it's sane to have one or even want one.

[FeebMaster]

99. So to clarify.

You think it's morally wrong to own a machine gun and that they have no practical purpose, but you aren't interesting in preventing other people from owning them. At least not more than they are already prevented from owning them.

You basically want to maintain the status quo as far as gun control is concerned then? What are we discussing in this sub-thread again?

[muffin_man]

28. The point is

that it is legal to own an AK now and it is very rarely used in crime. Take it out of excistence and you would see almost no decline in gun violence.If you want people to focus on curbing violence adding new gun laws won't help. But wait your not for gun control just AK control? Fine take the AK and watch nothing happen to gun violence %. If you want to curb violence then curb violence not guns. If we had 0 guns in the US would that solve the violence? Would people not use other weapons?Remember very small % of gun violence or crime is committed by legal owners of ANY type of gun. Banning AKs does not keep them from the criminals,just makes it so they are the only ones with AKs.

[mstrsplinter326]

31. No, I am not for control

I am just saying it isn't reasonable to have an AK, nor is it to fight so hard to have one. If that energy could be so put to use curbing violence, then, when violence went down, you wouldn't have to fight 1/10 as hard to obtain any fire arm you wanted

[FeebMaster]

36. It's hard to get rights back

once you've lost them and it's easier to fight to keep them than it is to fight to get them back. Do you think that the pro-gun people here wouldn't like to curb violence? Some of us even have suggestions on how to do it, but no one seems to be listening.

[mstrsplinter326]

41. I agree

I am not asking you to forgo you right to an AK. I am asking you to put it aside to unify a anti-violence voice, so that things can get done. Do you feel like your right to protect you and yours is currently being violated because there are certain weapons you cannot buy? Are there not other weapons good enough for personal protection?

[FeebMaster]

58. And if that right disappears while I've put it aside?

What then? I already give my full support to curb violence in this country. My support for the right of people to own whatever weapons they want to without restriction is part of that.

Of course my right to protect myself is being violated because of restrictions on weapons I can buy. But it's not just the restrictions on what weapons it's the restrictions on getting the ones you still can buy. Background checks, waiting periods, carry permits. They're all violations of rights. Not to mention the increased costs of buying guns do to import restrictions and in the case of machine guns complete civilian manufacturing bans. Hell, my state has a two week waiting period on long guns.

Good enough isn't the point. It's the principle.

[mstrsplinter326]

93. Would you see an end to all federal legislation?

Should you be able to purchase large scale military weapons like surface to surface missiles? Apaches?

I guess it works in principle that you may one day need those, but frankly it's bullshit to believe it.

You cannot seriously expect to, in the face of extreme American gun violence repeal every law on the books. What if they made crack legal tomorrow? Do you think the public could handle that? Every right is not intrinsically granted to every citizen, because uninformed, mis-educated and mislead people cannot function with some aspects of the world. Crack and Rocket launchers are two examples.

I know how you feel, I feel just as strongly on other issues. And I doubt you'll see my point of view fully - but you have to understand that while you may devote more than enough energy to anti-violence issues, most gun-nuts aren't. There's a middle ground somewhere...

[FeebMaster]

97. Yes I would.

"Would you see an end to all federal legislation?"
Should you be able to purchase large scale military weapons like surface to surface missiles? Apaches?

An apache is just a helicopter. If you could get Boeing to sell you one or if you could find one used, there is really nothing stopping you from owning one. It's the weapons on it that would be covered under firearms law. The gun anyway.

Surface to surface missiles? I don't know if those are covered under the whole destructive device shebang, but you can certainly own artillery pieces right now. So really what's the difference if someone owns a cannon or a missile. Missiles sound like an expensive hobby, though, since you only get one shot.

"I guess it works in principle that you may one day need those, but frankly it's bullshit to believe it."

Always with need. :eyes:

"You cannot seriously expect to, in the face of extreme American gun violence repeal every law on the books. What if they made crack legal tomorrow? Do you think the public could handle that? Every right is not intrinsically granted to every citizen, because uninformed, mis-educated and mislead people cannot function with some aspects of the world. Crack and Rocket launchers are two examples."

If they made crack legal tomorrow I think the public could handle it. But if they don't, I don't really care. I'm sorry some people can't handle freedom, it's a shame. But quite frankly, the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer because of them.

"I know how you feel, I feel just as strongly on other issues. And I doubt you'll see my point of view fully - but you have to understand that while you may devote more than enough energy to anti-violence issues, most gun-nuts aren't. There's a middle ground somewhere..."

The only energy I devote to any of these issues is posting on this message board which is about as likely to make a difference as anything anyone else is doing regardless of the time, energy, and money they're throwing at whatever problems they're trying to fix.

What does it matter what gun-nuts devote their energy to? They're free to fight for the issues that are important to them in whatever manner they chose.

There is no middle ground.

[mstrsplinter326]

101. Crack

If they made crack legal tomorrow I think the public could handle it. But if they don't, I don't really care. I'm sorry some people can't handle freedom, it's a shame. But quite frankly, the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer because of them.

"the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer because of them."
If you cannot see how repealing all the gun laws (or those preventing crack) tomorrow would make people suffer, then I'm glad you don't call the shots in this world.

There is no middle ground.
Intrinically, then, there is no compromise. If your opponents won't compromise, then you will never have what you want. The 'no middle ground' argument is self-damning.

"What does it matter what gun-nuts devote their energy to? They're free to fight for the issues that are important to them in whatever manner they chose."

Does it matter what the anarchists devote their energy to? Or how about the Islamic Fundamentalists? Does it matter what they devote their energy to? Of course it does. If soccer moms devoted their energies to legalizing rufies, it would matter.

[FeebMaster]

102. My opponents won't compromise

"Intrinically, then, there is no compromise. If your opponents won't compromise, then you will never have what you want. The 'no middle ground' argument is self-damning."

so it really doesn't matter. I'm not going to compromise on freedom and I'm well aware that I'll never get what I want. There is no point in compromising if you're the only one doing the compromising.

If you cannot see how repealing all the gun laws (or those preventing crack) tomorrow would make people suffer, then I'm glad you don't call the shots in this world.

I thought you wanted to address the root causes of violence. Are you trying to say that the war on drugs isn't a cause of violence in this country?


Does it matter what the anarchists devote their energy to? Or how about the Islamic Fundamentalists? Does it matter what they devote their energy to? Of course it does.

No it doesn't matter what anarchists or Islamic Fundamentalists devote their energy to as long as they don't violate the rights of others in the process. They're as free as anyone else.

If soccer moms devoted their energies to legalizing rufies, it would matter.

Why?

[muffin_man]

46. You have seen the other post here right?

It is legal to have an AK now.Banning these weapons does nothing to curb violence. With your reasoning that low wage and so forth is the root cause of crime/violence then if we eliminated all guns would people who are low wage not commit violence? One has nothing to do with the cause of the other. Guns do not cause violence.They are used to commit violence and I'll even say any use of a gun is violent. Target shooting is violent to the target,hunting is violent to the animal.What is your idea for curbing violence, other than saying this gun is fine to own this one is not. I assume this reasoning could apply to vehicles as well? Most people don't need SUVs and no one needs a sports car NO ONE! Both in the auto world are high accident prone vehicles one for it's size among other things and the other for it's speed.

[mstrsplinter326]

48. NO!

I DO NOT WANT THE AK TO BE BANNED. End of my posting on the matter. read the other posts for content.

[Narf]

52. You're right, I don't NEED an AK-47...an M-14 would suit me as well.

[mstrsplinter326]

53. is it humorous

to be sarcastic or uppity or what ever that comment is trying to accomplish about violence?

I don't think so.

[Narf]

57. I was agreeing with you.

I own guns for self defense....that's all. I don't use them to commit crimes.

In your opinion what kinds of guns should people be allowed to own?

[Cooper]

122. *I* need an AK47

<<Nuclear weapons.>>

nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, and are considered "ordnance," and are therefore not protected by the second amendment. so no, i do not advocate private ownership of nuclear weapons.

<<Your right, rights aren't earned, but they can be abused >>

that doesn't make them any less inalienable.

<<- and that's the gray area that gun-wielders have gotten themselves into. >>

nope. that's the gray area anti-gun propaganda has gotten us into. we didn't get ourselves into anything. negligent healthcare kills more people than guns. swimming pools kill more children than guns. knife murders are more common than murders by 'assault' weapons.

<<The issue is not so black and white that, no matter the circumstances, you get to keep your gun. >>

yes, it is.

<<If freedom of speech were only and exclusively exercised by the KKK and the Nazis, do you really think it would be much of a right for very long??>>

if it were exclusively exercised by any small special interest group, it wouldn't be free speech. why the equation of gun owners and white supremacists? why not use the NAACP as your example. hell, they even agree with the KKK on a few things . . . like the disarming of african americans.

to answer your question, no, i don't think it would be. but i think it SHOULD be.

<<I agree you should get to keep your hunting and personal protection guns.

I repeat: NOBODY NEEDS AN AK-47. NOBODY!>>

these two statements contradict each other. an AK-47 is an excellent personal protection weapon. i can think of several instances in which you could use one to defend your home. i also think it would be a great weapon to use against a tyrannical government regime that threatens the security of a free state, which is why the second amendment exists.

<<If guns are used only for protection, hunting, etc, and not to be used for attack, why do gun owners fight so hard against background checks? >>

because background checks are a big ol' step toward gun licensing, which is a big ol' step toward allowing only the elite (Sean Penn) to own guns. for example: would you agree only literate people should own guns? surely if you're too stupid to read, you don't need a gun, right? just like you don't need to vote?

this one always gets me. lots of anti-gunners are the same people that want the drug question taken of FAFSA's, but want to make it illegal for people with drug convictions to own guns. so someone made a mistake when they were young and foolish. should that be used to hinder their education or their civil liberties?

<<Why allow violent criminals to have guns??>>

we DON'T allow them to have guns. a convicted felon cannot own a gun. will that stop him? no. conducting background checks on everybody who buys a gun will hinder law-abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals who have illegal access to weapons. do you really think a convicted felon will walk into Bob's Gun Shop and fill out a yellow form???

[Pert_UK]

107. "Rights aren't earned, they're intrinsic" - now prove RKBA.

Even if you go along with the concept of intrinsic rights (where do they come from, how do they work, why should they be inalienable?) you've still got a long way to go before you get to the RKBA.

Rights are "good in themselves" e.g. right to free speech and assembly. They are not "means to an end" they are the "end in itself". I could concede that the "right to life" (whatever that means) could lead to the "right to self-defense", but that doesn't mean that the MEANS to achieve self-defense is a right in itself.

Rights are GOOD IN ALL POSSIBLE UNIVERSES AND SITUATIONS, but they are still constrained (e.g. you may have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a theatre, but that doesn't mean you won't be arrested). What is the point in having the "right to bear arms for self-defense" when those arms would be utterly useless in a peaceful society, or where people were controlled by drugs to prevent violence. The right to life would still make sense there, but the right to bear arms wouldn't.

Also, you need to distinguish between inalienable rights "from God" (freedom of Speech) and legal rights granted by the legislature. E.g. I have a right to walk around the public park, but that's a legal right rather than some bizarre intangible gift from the Deity.

As far as I can tell, in the US you have a LEGAL right to own guns to protect your LEGAL right to self-defense which stems from and is a means to achieving your "inalienable/intrinsic/objective" right to life. The means is not an end in itself

[FeebMaster]

109. haha

"What is the point in having the "right to bear arms for self-defense" when those arms would be utterly useless in a peaceful society, or where people were controlled by drugs to prevent violence."

You could probably find wide support for something like that even here at DU.

[Columbia]

120. And..

What is the point in having the "right to bear arms for self-defense" when those arms would be utterly useless in a peaceful society, or where people were controlled by drugs to prevent violence.

In a peaceful society, why would you feel the need to ban arms anyway?

[MrSandman]

121. Gun control is less about the gun...

and more about the...

"What is the point in having the "right to bear arms for self-defense" when those arms would be utterly useless in a peaceful society, or where people were controlled by drugs to prevent violence."

...control.

[Cooper]

123. chicken suit

<<What is the point in having the "right to bear arms for self-defense" when those arms would be utterly useless in a peaceful society, or where people were controlled by drugs to prevent violence. The right to life would still make sense there, but the right to bear arms wouldn't.>>

that doesn't sound much like a "free state," one whose security would be supported by well-regulated militia. if you don't that "well-regulated militia" and "right of the people to K&BA" relate to the individual people themselves, read the Federalist papers or other first-source material by the founding fathers.

to partly answer your question, though, the RKBA in a peaceful society would keep that society peaceful. specifically, that right would keep it from being trampled on by its government.

<<Also, you need to distinguish between inalienable rights "from God" (freedom of Speech) and legal rights granted by the legislature. E.g. I have a right to walk around the public park, but that's a legal right rather than some bizarre intangible gift from the Deity.>>

the declaration of independence and the constitution do not grant rights. the framers thought that rights were granted by a Creator. modern thinkers would probably say human beings have rights, period. as in international human rights law.

legal documents, such as our constitution, limit the government. they do not name rights, except to keep the government from stepping on them.

for example, no where is it written that you have the right to dance in a chicken suit on your roof. but you do. the reason there is no legislation securing that right is that no government has seen fit to squash it.

but governments in the past have definitely had fun oppressing the RKBA. that is why it is secured in the constitution.

[kalian]

2. Like playing with fire, don't you...?

:eyes:

Take away guns...and I can assure you that people will continue to
kill other people. What will you do later on? Make it unlawful to
own baseball bats? Crowbars? Knives? Hockey sticks? Bare hands...?

The issue does not boil down to inanimate objects...but PEOPLE.
People are inherently VIOLENT...not the inanimate objects. But,
unfortunately, people don't quite comprehend this... :eyes:

[mstrsplinter326]

5. where did I say guns should be taken from gun-wielders?

[kalian]

62. You're questioning our rights to bear arms....

remove my rights...and thus you're removing my guns.

[mstrsplinter326]

90. where? (n/t)

[texasdem99]

6. Huh?

What the fuck?

"So many people go ballistic about their right to be armed, even when the subject is not even under question here in the DU or out in the world at large."

The subject isn't under question?

Then what has the discussion been about all this time in this forum?

I guess I missed the fact that everyone was in agreement and the right to keep and bear arms wasn't even under question here or in the world at large, either...

You lost me with that opening sentence. I didn't even read the rest of what you posted, since that sentence made no sense whatsoever.

[FeebMaster]

9. You don't understand Pete.

No one is saying you can't own guns. You can have single shot .22 rifles, maybe. Maybe we'll let the shotgunners keep one shotgun, assuming it has a 28" barrel and has all of the proper biometric identification thingies on it. It should probably be properly registered too. But no one, needs an AK-47. Your right to own a gun isn't being violated just because you can't own something you don't need. See? It all makes sense.

[mstrsplinter326]

11. well at least you studied up

The posts here are started by the gun-nuts, hence the statement that their rights are not in question until gun-nuts bring it up.

Plus their is no pressing pro or con gun ownership being discussed in congress right now. I can see the relevance of the matter, obviously, or I wouldn't post. But the issues recently have been brought to bear here in the DU by pro-gun folks.

[slackmaster]

13. My issue is with the platform of the Democratic National Committee

Those who call for gun bans and unworkable ideas like universal gun registration, licensing of all gun owners, etc. are doing the party a disservice. The stricter the level of controls you call for, the more people (read: voters) you alienate. My purpose in discussing gun-related topics on these forums is to advocate against self-destructive party policy.

I think the party should basically stick with the 2000 platform, with a few minor tweaks for clarity. Some of the language is ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, deliberate and otherwise, that paints the Democratic Party as seeking to ban guns or tax gun ownership. Neither is actually party policy, but the lack of clarity in our platform gets exploited by the GOP side.

P.S. you are not part of a legitimate militia.

Oh yes I am. I am a member of the unorganized militia both on the state and federal levels.

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

And http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

But that's just an FYI, not my basis for supporting the right to keep and bear arms. The militia responsibilities of citizenship provide one good reason for an armed populace, but not the only reason why individuals should have the option of owning weapons.

The NRA, associated organizations and similar minded people focus all their energy trying to lift the ban on assault weapons. Of course people are going to challenge your right to bear arms if you want an AK-47.

Another FYI - An AK-47 is a machinegun, not an assault weapon.

[mstrsplinter326]

16. Ak vs. assault

Null: Doesn't matter much, neither are needed. But thank you for the info.

On the issue of gun control being in the Dem platform: I agree 110%. It alienates and gun control is not what will stop violence.

And I guess I define militia differently then you and your supporters. I defene militia as State sanctioned armies that act to protect the citizens when the gov't is not capable of doing so.
The US Army is capable of protecting it's citizens.

[FeebMaster]

19. The US Army is capable is protecting it's citizens?

Is it now? Yes, the US Army is out protecting US citizens in all the 130 something countries it's currently occupying. Personally, I don't think the US needs a standing army.

[slackmaster]

25. Standing armies are good for holding territory, but not much else

The Marines do most of the real work in war.

<ducking, running for cover>

[mstrsplinter326]

26. I apologize.

By Army I was being all inclusive. Army = All branches of the gov't approved military.

[Columbia]

71. Exactly right

:evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

21. The unorganized militia serves to protect citizens as well

Especially in events like natural disasters, e.g. Hurricane Andrew in Florida, where there was no police protection for up to three days and not enough National Guard or regular military to make up for the lack of formal government assistance. Americans have always been good at forming ad-hoc groups to preserve our common interests and help out individuals who need it.

The downing of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001 was an extreme and unusual example of the unorganized militia mustering itself into action for the greater good. But most actions of the unorganized militia are more like people cooperating with each other to shore up a levy, or rescue someone who is in distress, or take up a collection so that someone who has been robbed can provide Christmas presents for their children. Our willingness to band together to help out in times of need is one of our core values.

Please read carefully the first few sections of the California Military and Veterans Code starting with section 120 in the link I provided. As members of the unorganized militia we are obligated to be available to be conscripted into service at the pleasure of the Governator. In exchange for our societal duty of self-sacrifice, is it really asking too much to keep people's bloody hands off of our guns?

[Romulus]

30. they're doing a bang-up job

in Montgomery County, MD, the home invasion capital of the DC area.


The US Army is capable of protecting it's citizens.

[mstrsplinter326]

32. and the militia is doing what in DC?

Army doesn't equal police. And DC's problems go way deeper than that. Take representation away from someone, then take their good jobs - hell yeah they're going to turn to robbery.

Don't waste time promoting militia there - promote job recovery and representation. Then the mititia won't be necessary.

[slackmaster]

33. It may seem like nit-picking but the distinction really does matter

A lot of people who support the "assault weapons" ban do so on the basis if faulty information. Some of the ban's promoters have openly admitted they have exploited public confusion about what kinds of weapons are out there and what kinds of controls are already in place. I think about half of the general public, exclusive of most gun owners, do not comprehend that a semiautomatic assault weapon (using the federal definition) fires only one bullet per trigger pull.

One of our esteemed contributors here coined the term "gun porn details" to describe any technical information that tends to refute arguments in favor of gun control. I call that a "Don't bother me with the facts" attitude.

If you misstate technical information in a gun control debate, you're going to get tackled by people who understand the issues every time. I've been collecting guns for many years and I do some gunsmithing and general machine work. I'm also from a military family. I understand what is and is not a semiautomatic assault weapon, and consider anyone who downplays the difference between semiautomatic and automatic firearms to be a dupe, perhaps unwitting, in a "vast conspiracy of lies(TM)", which I mean only half sarcastically.

[mstrsplinter326]

43. I understand

What I mean to accomplish is to stop the argument about it in this post. The different weapons don't make a differnce in my eyes other that they have made gun-nuts have place their energies in the wrong places.

[slackmaster]

45. So, tell us your solution to violence

"You say you've got a real solution, well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan."

- John Lennon

[mstrsplinter326]

50. I've stated this else where but

Real, tangable gov't where people feel and are involved. The US used to have it.

10$ or more minimum wage with a withdrawl from NAFTA and WTO. Plus a catering to the creative elites (Research Richard Florida for more). And formation of international Fair Trade organization to replace ties lost.

International ban on slave labor.

Maximum wages (to be set by max productivity based on a max hours worked)

ETC.

I don't profess to be a polysci genius, but these are some starting points.

[RoeBear]

73. Huh?

"International ban on slave labor."

What does that have to do with US domestic gun policy?

[-..__...]

75. Must be

All those foreign (Chinese), manufactured AK-47's that "flood the streets" of our inner citys.

[mstrsplinter326]

82. A ban on international slave labor

if properly executed, would go along way to improving labor conditions around the world. Improved labor conditions would ease the job export the US is currently facing to one we could maintain for the longterm by creating new jobs. More jobs = less violence and crime.

It's pretty simple actually.

And about the China's AK's comment: Don't put words in my mouth, please.

[slackmaster]

106. I believe we already have an international ban on slavery

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

But slavery continues, I think we all know that.

[iverglas]

118. forgive 'em all, mstrsplinter

A lot of our comrades here in J/PS just aren't too accustomed to thinking about whatcha might call progressive notions.

Of course, some of us suspect that most of the RKBA crowd in the larger world aren't really interested at all in a society in which there is genuine equality of opportunity, and any semblance of those other freedoms some of us care about: freedom from want, freedom from fear. Human security ain't their bag. Other people's needs, other people's insecurity, aren't their concern. Their own security against those whose security they don't care about ... and their own ability to reap the benefits of keeping other people unequal and insecure ... is what really matters.

Some of us do care a little more.

http://www.humansecurity-chs.org/
Commission on Human Security

The Commission on Human Security was established in January 2001 through the initiative of the Government of Japan and in response to the UN Secretary-General’s call at the 2000 Millennium Summit for a world “free of want” and “free of fear.” The Commission consisted of twelve prominent international figures, including Mrs. Sadako Ogata (former UN High Commissioner for Refugees) and Professor Amartya Sen (1998 Nobel Economics Prize Laureate).

http://www.humansecuritynetwork.org/menu-e.php
Human Security Network

A humane world where people can live in security and dignity, free from poverty and despair, is still a dream for many and should be enjoyed by all. In such a world, every individual would be guaranteed freedom from fear and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to fully develop their human potential. Building human security is essential to achieving this goal.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Preamble

The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights, ...

Being a foreigner, I'm not perfectly well-versed in the history of this RKBA stuff, but I've been reading the odd bit of interesting background.

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.guns.htm
"More on Guns and Race"

I haven't delved into it all much, but so far it seems pretty obvious to me who's on what side of all this in the real world. ;)

.

[Romulus]

18. welcome

The same can be asked of why Americans are "justified" in having freedom of speech since the right-wing publishes anti-gay and anti-miniority screeds all the time, which incite their followers to drag people behind pickup trucks until they disintegrate, beat others to death, etc.

Stopping gun violence is everyone's goal. Some believe the best way to do that is to send the SWAT team into my house at 2AM to kill me and confiscate my peashooter in the name of "society's safety." Many don't believe that is how you would "Stop gun violence." How we "stop gun violence" is what is discussed down here in the Dungeon. Stick around and see.

We pro-gun-owners get mad whenever someone talks out of their *ss about this subject during a screed to "ban the bad guns."

For example (since you apparantly are not aware):
The so-called "assault weapons ban" has NOTHING to do with "AK-47's," which are already controlled by the 1934 Gun Control Act and are legal to own (if you can find one on the US market), and will remain legal to own AFTER any version of the AWB passes.

The AWB bans possession of this, which LOOKS like an AK-47:



But not this:


or this



Even though all three:
(1) fire the same bullet
(2) in the exact same way
(3) because they are ALL "Semi-automatic weapons"

If there is no functional difference between the three, what rational basis is there to prohibit ownership of #1, but not #2 & #3?

Furthermore, if all this energy went into finding real solutions to violence in general in America, then maybe people would stop messing with you. And I'm not talking about rap music and video games. Real solutions are prison reform, living wages, job security, etc.

Funny, that's what I ask myself whenever another anti-gun-owner type bothers to post around here.

[mstrsplinter326]

24. I like what you have to say...

But you speak as if every gun owner spends equal energy on the real violence curbing issues as they do on fighting the semi-automatic weapons ban. I doubt most spend too much energy at all.

[freebird71457]

105. Every day

Every day I work to curb violence. By going armed. I'm peaceful by nature, but will not be offered violence. If some goblin wishes to extend violence against me, I will answer it decisively.

It's an individual thing. I will grant every individual the right to walk down the street, to talk, discourse and argue, to make his feelings known. I draw the line at violence.

[billybob537]

42. Please

I own several guns. Im not afraid of the government taking them away. I stopped listening to the NRA fear machine years ago. They're just trying to get thier membership up by preying on the impresionable nitwits. I live in Ma. we have serious gun laws. Nothing in state law prohibits private gun ownership by responsible citizens. I vote democratic in spite of the fearmongering of the BUSHSTAPPO!!!

[Narf]

60. Another potential shocker:

You, and I, can still legally own fully automatic belt-fed machine guns, fully automatic Uzi submachine guns, and even full auto M-16s with grenade launchers.

[kalian]

63. I know...I want a couple....

:evilgrin:

Too bad the ATF gets to say whether or not you can have them...whether
you're a "good citizen" enough to own them...

[-..__...]

72. MA firearms laws are an abomination...

and a disgrace. No, MA doesn't exactly prohibit private firearms ownership, they just try their damnedest to make it as difficult as humanly possible for responsible citizens to have any access to firearms.
When the local CLEO has a say as to whom may own a handgun (even going so far as requiring a doctors note), and an out of control AG who would rather spend his time performing sting operations on out of state ammo and reloading supply dealers, then a future prohibition on ownership isn't that far fetched.

[billybob537]

76. Quick run out and buy more ammo before the make it illegal.

[FeebMaster]

78. Might not be a bad idea,

what with stand up Democrats like Ted Kennedy trying to give John Ashcroft the power to ban whatever ammo he wants.

[-..__...]

79. Make it illegal?....

Hmmm, why would they do that when it would be more beneficial to tax it out of existence? Not that it would really put a dent in my budget or accessibility; the NH border is only 20 minutes away and I have friends there that I can use as a mail/shipping drop-off. The question is should you, I and every other gun owner in MA have to resort to that? Halting on-line sales of loaded ammo was bad enough, but now I (we) can't even buy empty brass or unloaded bullets on-line? Justify that if you can?

AG Reilly has a hard-on for gun owners and he makes no attempt at hiding it.

http://goal.org/Alerts/mailorder.htm

Short version. http://goal.org/fraud/release.htm

Detailed version. http://goal.org/fraud/report.htm


BTW, seen any post-98 Glocks, Kimbers, Ruger MK-II's or Pardini's for sale lately?

[Narf]

111. When in doubt...RELOAD yoru own!

[mstrsplinter326]

55. Sorry ladies and gent's but I am out

I have a lacrosse game to attend to. Have fun conspiring to shoot down my arguments. (No pun intended, seriously) I had fun and I enjoy nothing more than a good argument.

Thanks for the banter.

Peace!

[slackmaster]

66. Lacrosse?!?!?

Kid, you'll put your eye out!

[Narf]

59. Which of these guns is more deadly?

This one?

Or this one?

[kalian]

64. One shot, one kill.....

doesn't matter what gun you use. ;)
I think that scope on that AR looks too big IMHO. But that's just me.

[Narf]

61. Here's an interesting addition to your handgun collection.

Full auto Glock

[kalian]

65. Way cool.

:toast:

[Diogenes2]

69. Gun Hobby Lobby

I'm so relieved that your hobby of collecting guns is protected by the Bill of Rights. Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm.

[Narf]

70. You are forgiven.

[slackmaster]

67. That's one for experts only

Fun to shoot and great for ammo sales, but most people can't get more than one round in the broad side of a barn with a G18.

[Narf]

68. And those with plenty of money to buy ammo.

That thing would burn through the stuff like a politician through campaign money.

[billybob537]

77. Like Bush with a surplus

[Low Drag]

80. I’ll refute/shoot down your argument.

So many people go ballistic about their right to be armed, even when the subject is not even under question here in the DU or out in the world at large.

Why is there such a fervent focus on the right to bear arms? How can you justify that Americans have earned the right to be trusted with guns? I don't want to take your gun away, so don't give me the Bill of Rights speech, I've had it. (P.S. you are not part of a legitimate militia. You get you keep your gun due to proliferation, not because of the Constitution)

I'm a pretty reasonable guy and even I have a "knee jerk" when I hear more gun control proposed. Earn a right? Wow. News flash, you and I are part of the militia if you are a male between 18 and 45. I think you are referring to the modern National Guard that started in 1917. Quick math says that's 126 years after the BOR.


The NRA, associated organizations and similar minded people focus all their energy trying to lift the ban on assault weapons.

Do a web search on Project Exile, an NRA program to get federal gun laws enforced. I'm all for focusing on behavior, not objects.

Questions for the group....
Does it make sense to band cars and booze to stop drunk drivers?
Sue GM when a drunk driver kills someone?
Should we have background checks prior to purchase of digital cameras? After all the only reason to have digital cameras is so child molesters can load illegal photos on the Internet.

Focus on the person who committed the crime and the behavior behind it not the tools used then we will make a dent.
Also, check out the UK's violent crime rates since banning almost all firearms.
Is the goal to cut gun crime or violent crime as whole?

[mstrsplinter326]

81. There's been a lot of posts here. I think you should read them

if you get the time.

The first point - People represent what they have done with their rights. If ever an abuse goes too far (define 'too far' however you want) that right is removed. That's simple government.

Two - I never said I want to take away or control your right to bear arms. Never.

Three - The NRA is evil. Any organization spear-headed by Heston is evil. That's a man who hosted rallies soon after the Columbine shootings, in Columbine. In Flint, Michigan he hosted a rally the day after a 6 year old girl was shot to death in her class room. Plus the NRA's propaganda = Fear mongering.

The consensus that we came to in this hotly debate topic was that gun control does not stop violence (Which, I believe, is what you were trying to say). But having guns doesn't either. There are real solutions (see other posts).

[FeebMaster]

83. Why don't you tell us mstrsplinter

what gun control you do support since you've said a number of times, now, that "I never said I want to take away or control your right to bear arms. Never."

I think most (some) of us can agree that guns aren't the cause of violence and there are a number of things that have nothing to do with guns that could be done to reduce the violence in this country. Does that mean you would support the repeal of all of the current federal firearms legislation? Or are there some new firearms laws you'd like to see passed?

[mstrsplinter326]

87. no, no, no

no repeal, no new laws.

Yes: Real solutions to curbing violence.

With solutions implemented...
Then we can discuss current policy.
Then resistance to freeing repeal will be null.

Not everyone is pro or con. It's not that black and white.

[FeebMaster]

92. So you're trying to say

you aren't pro-control when you support all of the current gun control? That's interesting. The way I see it, if a person supports all of the gun control we currently have, that makes them pretty pro-control. But that's just me I guess.

[mstrsplinter326]

95. I never said that either

I never said I support the controls we have. I don't frankly care about the controls. I will never buy a gun, so it doesn't interest me. But I do support non-violence and that's where my energies will be placed, not fighting for what will amount to increased violence. There's a middle ground somewhere...

[FeebMaster]

100. Are you saying that by fighting to

remove the current controls on guns the pro-gunners are fighting for increased violence?

[Columbia]

104. I think you've watched Bowling for Columbine a few too many times

"The NRA is evil. Any organization spear-headed by Heston is evil. That's a man who hosted rallies soon after the Columbine shootings, in Columbine. In Flint, Michigan he hosted a rally the day after a 6 year old girl was shot to death in her class room. Plus the NRA's propaganda = Fear mongering."

Please provide the date and place of these incidents and then the date, place and reason for the supposed NRA "rallies" after them please. And no, BFC does not count as a source.

[Low Drag]

117. I was addressing your original posts

and I note you took a total pass on a program the NRA does have to reduce crime.

They have dozens of programs for firearms safety etc. They train law enforcement organizations and their classes are accepted around the nation for CCW issue. Remember the NRA was formed in the 1870s and did not become political until 1968.

VPC, HCI are only PACs. If they were so concerned about gun safety why don't they have any safety programs? I shoot and I've never heard of a since event sponsored by either org.

Now for your first point on taking rights away. Since when have you seen the right to assemble taken away from all people because a few thousand knuckle heads become violent in a protest march?

To your last point, guns do keep criminals at bay. All the states that have adopted a shall issue type of CCW permit has seen a reduction in violent crime. It takes about 3 years for it to kick in though.

[Festivito]

86. Hmmm, sounds like an argument FOR the Patriot act.

People abuse rights, so our rights are attacked by our government.

I vote democratic. That's how I "focus" to try and stop gun violence. A more egalitarian government evokes a more right using not abusing public. If we show by act we don't share health care or justice, we show people that other people around us don't matter. I say violence over injustice ensues.

Explain how Canada could have a higher percentage of gun toters and a lower percentage of gun abuse, i.e. deaths. Then maybe we could dispense with your use of the word nuts.

[mstrsplinter326]

89. You vote democratic

Kerry will not repeal the Brady Bill. I promise.

"Explain how Canada could have a higher percentage of gun toters and a lower percentage of gun abuse, i.e. deaths. Then maybe we could dispense with your use of the word nuts."

Canadians love guns - not violence. Americans love violence - that's nuts.

You must not have read the other posts. We've been over this ground. I am not retracing it.

[MrSandman]

103. No, it will expire in September

Kerry will not repeal the Brady Bill. I promise.

[Narf]

108. The Brady Bill will NOT expire in September...

The assinine ban on scary looking guns WILL, however, expire on the 13th of September unless our elected representatives sell us out for the promise of more pork projects for their buddies.

[MrSandman]

110. Correct, the AWB...Wasn't that part of Brad????

My bad

[Narf]

112. No...AWB and Brady Bill are separate things.

[MrSandman]

113. Thanks, thought they were rolled together,

NICS was amendment to BRady, Sunset amendment to AWB.

Damned sausage.;-)

[Narf]

114. It can be confusing at times.

The Brady bill addressed a real issue, that of how to stop convicted criminals from easily buying guns from gun dealers. The AWB, on the other hand, was merely an assinine program to ban scary looking guns. Very few politicians up for election this year will come out in favor of extending the ban, especially when even supporters of the ban have come out and stated it really hasn't done squat to reduce crime.

[slackmaster]

115. The Brady Act is supposed to make the Gun Control Act enforcable

I mean the GCA of 1968.

And I support that end. GCA '68 correctly identifies people who should not be allowed to have guns, but as original written and compromised it had no teeth.

Too bad the NRA is plotting to destroy NICS by getting more crime records and mental health adjudications into the database. The arrogant bastages!

:tinfoilhat:

[MrSandman]

116. Still, Kerry won't ban Brady...

And that is a law I can live with.

[Festivito]

119. Are you sure you read what I said.

Originally you asked: how do I focus on gun violence (not gun control, gun violence).
I answer: Democratic egalitarianism evokes less violence. (This answered your original question, even explaining how. No mentioning gun-control by me; gun violence: yes, gun control: no.)

You respond: Kerry will not repeal the Brady Bill. (You respond as though I talked gun-control, to me, you responded this way.)

Then, after I have stated why Canadian would love violence less than Americans, you respond with Canadians love violence less than Americans.

You then claim that I did not read the other postings. (I reviewed them sufficiently.)

You appear not to have read the post to which you responded.