Of those of you that oppose Gun Rights, how many of you have ever fired...

[cms]

a weapon? Just curious.

[joeybee12]

1. Well, I'm opposed to child molestation, yet I've never done it...

...so what's your point?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[noamnety]

2. Can you define "gun rights"?

That's a wide open term, can you be more specific?

[punpirate]

12. Yes, it's a good point...

... always necessary to define terms. What is exactly meant by being against "gun rights?" Some absolute ban, some controls on non-hunting weapons, concealable handguns, what?

For the record, I live in a community where there are lots of drugstore cowboys who think they're all gunslingers from the Wild West, gangbangers shooting up houses in drive-bys, little old ladies afraid of everyone, and they've all got guns. Theft of handguns, registered and not, in burglaries is quite common. The sheer number of guns in the community has made the police pretty jumpy, too, and there have been some very ugly incidents of police using deadly force when it wasn't appropriate.

The town has, of course, an annual murder rate that is often well above the national per capita average, and the stories of gun ownership deterring crime are very few and far between.

Some controls would improve that situation.

And, for the record, yeah, I've fired a lot of weapons in earlier years. Still, there are few things in life that worry me more than a loony fuck with a gun, legal or otherwise.

Cheers.

[cms]

28. Gun Right definition...

Just for the sake of it, how about any non-hunting gun (handguns you can't hunt with, semi's...).

[noamnety]

35. I don't know anyone in that category then

But for the record, I'm qualified as a sharpshooter on an M-16.

[Jo March]

3. What "gun rights"?

I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I don't think that every Tom, Dick and Harry needs an automatic weapon.

And, for your information, I have fired several pistols. Also, I qualified as Sharpshooter in the Army with my M-16. I also qualified to shoot and carry a M-60 machine gun.

One does not have to have fired a weapon to be able to weigh in on "gun rights", you know.

[benEzra]

16. If that's the main restriction you favor, I'd consider you pro-gun...

I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment but I don't think that every Tom, Dick and Harry needs an automatic weapon.

And, for your information, I have fired several pistols. Also, I qualified as Sharpshooter in the Army with my M-16. I also qualified to shoot and carry a M-60 machine gun.

If you favor restrictions on automatic weapons, but not on non-automatic firearms, I'd consider you pro-gun in the broader sense. That pretty much sums up even the NRA's position.

Automatic weapons are quite heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the vast majority of gunnies (and gun-rights activists) are OK with NFA '34. Some of us would like to see BATFE reopen the registration lists (closed by an amendment to McClure-Volkmer in '86), but other than that you'd get no quibble from us.

To me, the main distinguisher between someone who is pro gun rights and who isn't is where they stand on banning over-10-round civilian firearms, or non-automatic civilian firearms with military-like styling.

One does not have to have fired a weapon to be able to weigh in on "gun rights", you know.

Entirely true. Although it helps put the debate on a more rational level if, for example, someone knows that a 9mm Luger is much less powerful than a .30-06 and won't "blow a deer to smithereens," or that an AR-15 doesn't spray bullets. It gives you a point of reference.

A lot of prohibitionist arguments intentionally play to people's ignorance of (1) the physics of firearms, or (2) Federal and state law.

[cms]

29. Never said that they do...

have to have experience with weapons, I'm just curious as to how many opposers dont' have any experience at all with any firearms.

[Kolesar]

4. Welcome to the Democratic Underground message board!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Jackpine Radical]

6. I don't think guns should have rights.

[whistle]

7. I have never opposed the right to bear arms.....

...I only ask that the person who is given that right to carry lethal firearms prove that he or she are qualified to handle such weapons responsibly, that they have no criminal record, that they no belong to any subversive group and that they can prove that they are psychologically stable to be entrusted with a lethal weapon. Is that too much to ask in a modern civilized society?

[leftyandproud]

11. define "subversive"

That is where the slippery slope comes in. Your definition may be fine and dandy, but when the wrong people are in power, the letter in law that allows them to determine who is a "subversive" can restrict your rights.

[Jo March]

20. I believe "subversive" would be Progressive groups LOL nt

[benEzra]

17. That's reasonable, and to get a carry permit...

that pretty much sums up the requirements on the books in most states...

...EXCEPT the "subversive organization" part.

Who gets to decide whether a particular organization is "subversive"? John Ashcroft? Janet Reno? What's-His-Name Gonzales? Your local LEO who might not like Muslims?

(BTW, I have a NC carry permit, and my wife and I were both licensed to carry in Florida when we lived there.)

[whistle]

22. Yes, all of those....

...precisely. For example, suppose someone gets a permit to carry a firearm and then that person walks around brandishing the gun in people's faces and threatens to shot them. That would be criminal assault and he would loose the right to have than weapon. Similarly if a hate group such as the KKK is shown to encourage its members to promote violence and assault using firearms, then as a group they should loose the constitutional right to bare arms for exactly the same reason that individuals exhibiting the same behaviors would. Known subversive groups would be the term I'd go with until the legal justice system could come up with a better one. Just my opinion, but it is a way to put a cap on violent crimes where firearms and assault weapons are used.

[cms]

30. Thats not too much to ask at all...

n/t

[GAspnes]

8. I favor gun control

and I was raised with guns, by parents and grandparents who were expert at using them in the wilderness and on the range.

Shooting was never recreational for us, and the idea of having, let alone using, a gun in the city was self-evidently foolish. Grandad *drilled* into us that the field behind the target had to be clear of people for a half mile or more. "If you don't know, don't shoot."

The person walking point was the only one with a round chambered, and the bolt had to be pulled back. Handguns were essentially useless except for snakes and squirrels.

Grandad taught small arms at Fort Dix during WWI. If it was good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

[justinsb]

9. It really doesn't matter

In Canada there are more guns, per capita, than there are in the United States but the gun violence rate is a fraction of that in the US - I don't think that Assault Weapons should be sold, but it really isn't the guns, it's the people.

[iverglas]

13. oh, not again

and from a fellow citizen this time?

In Canada, there is approximately one firearm for every 4 people -- just over 7 million firearms.

In the US, there are more firearms than people, as I understand it (300 million?).

There are fewer households with firearms, fewer individuals with firearms, etc. etc., in Canada.

Given this fact, it isn't quite so easy to say that it really isn't the guns, it's the people. Particularly, perhaps, since it is handguns that are so absent from the Canadian equation (and handguns that have multiplied on the US side in the last 3 or 4 decades, and handguns that kinda tend to get used to facilitate crimes).

Wherever this canard originated -- and if it really was Michael Moore, I'd like to strangle him -- can someone not put it out of its misery?

Maybe someone with one of those gun things, and decent aim, could take a shot ...

[justinsb]

14. I'm not saying

that I'm against gun control, just that I believe there is a greater tendency toward violence in the US and that the gun control issue should not distract from an examination of that. If the gun control issue is addressed but the violence issue is not it will only change the weapons used, not the body count.

[iverglas]

18. that's what they say

it will only change the weapons used, not the body count

... but they've never managed to produce coherent rebuttals for the body of research that establishes that it just ain't necessarily so.

There are undoubtedly many differences between the US and Canada. Many many differences. I don't think that we need to ignore the fact that there are more than 4 times as many firearms per capita in the US as in Canada, and specifically vastly more handguns (and a handgun homicide rate on the order of 15 times higher than Canada's), when we decide what differences to consider.

Consideration of that difference should not distract from consideration of other differences (from our perspective: to avoid falling into traps that exist south of the border, like allowing universal health care to be undermined maybe), and thinking about the potential influences of those differences on outcomes. And consideration of those differences should not distract from consideration of the many ways in which firearms possession and use differ across the border, and thinking about the potential influence of that difference on outcomes.

[goju]

27. Lemme ask you Iverglas...

Does Canada have a history of institutionalized slavery, indentured servitude, codified racism, and continued discrimination? I dont know for sure, but one could speculate that those ills might play a role in the gun violence we see today here in the US. Ghettos, drug abuse, and drug trafficking dont just "happen" in a vacuum I dont think. I wonder if there are any figures to make comparisons.

While Im at it lemme ask, when did Canada actually become a real country as opposed to just a source of natural resources open to plundering by any ole miner with a pick, or trapper with a mule? What made possible the establishment of Canada as a country rather than an after-thought colony? I guess my question is, for how long were Canadians really "subjects" rather than free people? And what "international" factors might have been in play to facilitate the transformation of Canadians from subjugation to self rule? To whom do you "owe" your supposed freedom?

I also was wondering whether a country who liberated "itself" through the use of a gun, and a few other countries in the process, might have a different perspective on the ownership of guns than other countries who tagged along for the ride, so to speak.

[iverglas]

53. hmmmmmm

Does Canada have a history of institutionalized slavery, indentured servitude, codified racism, and continued discrimination? I dont know for sure, but one could speculate that those ills might play a role in the gun violence we see today here in the US. Ghettos, drug abuse, and drug trafficking dont just "happen" in a vacuum I dont think.

Canada certainly has a history of institutionalized racism. The manner in which the First Nations were treated during the middle third of the last century, for instance -- in particular, the coerced placement of children in residential schools where they were commonly physically and sexually abused, prohibited from speaking their languages or practising their religions and denied contact with their families and communities -- led to horrible results. The First Nations peoples essentially lost their ability to function as individuals, families and communities. That disintegration and disorganization is a major factor in various aspects of crime and violence in various parts of Canada -- urban gangs in Winnipeg, intrafamilial violence and alcoholism and addiction in both urban and rural Aboriginal communities, etc.

I wonder if there are any figures to make comparisons.

I don't know what kind of figures you might have in mind. Obviously, the First Nations population in Canada is far smaller than the African-American population in the US, for example.

Immigrant communities, particularly those composed of visible minorities and coming from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, have similar problems, arising from systemic racism in Canadian society and the individuals', families' and communities' lack of adequate resources. The Afro-Caribbean population in Canada is an example of a group in which crime and violence rates are higher than average, and which has suffered such disadvantages. And the proportion of the population born outside the country is double in Canada what it is in the US, and annual immigration as a proportion of population is also about double in Canada what it is in the US.

What I would add is that a very important difference between the US and Canada (and between the US and all comparable "western" nations) is in the distribution of income and wealth within the society. While income distribution, for instance, is less egalitarian in Canada than in most of western Europe (excluding the UK), it is still far more egalitarian than in the US, where wealth and income are, and are increasingly, concentrated in fewer hands than in any of those comparable nations. Some studies exist to indicate that relative levels of income disparity are the best predictor of relative homicide rates, for example.

While Im at it lemme ask, when did Canada actually become a real country as opposed to just a source of natural resources open to plundering by any ole miner with a pick, or trapper with a mule? What made possible the establishment of Canada as a country rather than an after-thought colony? I guess my question is, for how long were Canadians really "subjects" rather than free people? And what "international" factors might have been in play to facilitate the transformation of Canadians from subjugation to self rule? To whom do you "owe" your supposed freedom?

While you're at it, please spare a moment of silence for a country whose educational and social systems could produce such monumental ignorance in its population. I can only live in hope that the segment of the population affected by this sorry state of affairs is relatively small, although my hope is sometimes difficult to hold onto.

I also was wondering whether a country who liberated "itself" through the use of a gun, and a few other countries in the process, might have a different perspective on the ownership of guns than other countries who tagged along for the ride, so to speak.

I assume you are speaking whatever language that educational/social system inculcates, which is obviously different from what most people who speak English use, given as how I don't seem to be receiving a meaningful message.

The only meaning I can assign to that "a few other countries in the process" would be the countries liberated from German/Japanese occupation in WWII. (I'm sure you're not talking about Grenada, or anything like that.) The war that we date as 1939-1945, since Canada declared war and went to war in 1939 to protect Europe, even though nobody'd done anything to us, and that you consider to have started in late 1941, before which you did ... hmm, fuck all, was it?

But as to your main point: go ahead and wonder. Or, as I'd put it, keep your head firmly stuck in the 18th century mire, and keep smacking your lips over the propaganda you've apparently been eagerly swallowing. It sure beats thinking about and addressing any problematic aspects of contemporary reality. I guess.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[cms]

31. Well well...

You said that you'd like to strangle Michael Moore. If one of us "RKBA-heads" were to say that, we'd be labeled as psychotics and militants. It can go both ways. At least you're making progess. You actually promoted the use of a gun, even if it were to shoot a rumor. Congrats!

[iverglas]

39. well well

You said that you'd like to strangle Michael Moore.

You misrepresented what I said. If any of you RKBA-heads were to do anything else, I'd be the psychotic one ... because I'd be hearing voices that weren't there.

You actually promoted the use of a gun, even if it were to shoot a rumor.

Glad to see you appreciate a good joke.

But then, once again, that "self-deprecating" stuff is kinda lost on the southern audience, so maybe you actually didn't get it. Who knows?

[xchrom]

10. me

[Jo March]

19. Those who oppose gun restrictions-how many have been held at gunpoint?

I have. I was 6 years old.

Take that in, people. SIX FUCKING YEARS OLD.

My dad, a lifetime NRA member, held me and my family at gunpoint for several hours one cold winter night in Alabama.

I believe that the framers of the Constitution did not have my dad in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

I have been on both sides of the fence. I have held and fired a weapon. I have also stared down the loaded barrel of a gun and feared for my life.

So, to me, quibbling over whether or not banning a weapon that fires, say, 40 bullets in 3 seconds versus firing 120 bullets a 3 seconds, is rather idiotic and won't solve America's serious gun problem.

[Township75]

21. What, in your opinion, will solve the gun problem?

?

[MrSandman]

38. My gun-problem can be solved with more resources($)...

It is one problem I could mitigate by money.

Now the violence problem presents a greater threat to society.

[cms]

32. Well I'm...

sorry to hear about your unfortunate event, but please don't bold and italicize "lifetime nra member" like thats the reason he commited that act and all NRA members are like that. Thats like saying all Catholic priests are all homosexual phedophiles because of a few isolated instances.

[Jo March]

48. No - I bolded that in case someone tried to say

something about my dad being just a redneck with a gun as opposed to NRA members who are educated about guns, etc. Believe me, I've heard some snotty comments about the incident by those who say, "Yes, but NRA members are respectful about guns, blah, blah, blah."

Wanted to nip that in the bud.

Don't take offense where none was intended.

[CarinKaryn]

23. What a stupid question

What are "gun rights?"

How does our experience firing a gun relate to our desire for sensible, sane regulation of dangerous items?

I've never blow up a truck load of explosives .... need I continue?

Oh, and welcome to DU!
:hi:

You should know questions such as the one you just asked are RE asked every few months by new formun "members." Then they are reasked by the next round. Have fun here!

[Retired AF Dem]

24. Just wondering

I believe that the main cause of death for women up to 25 is murder. What do you suggest a woman should use for self defense? Since you are female and seem to know so much you could answer this.

Scumbag kills young woman, same scumbag meets armed citizen.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/57930.php

[cms]

33. Thanks for the welcome...I wasn't implying that...

you had to have firearms experience...I'm just wondering how many do. The question was out of curiosity. O believe me, I've already had allot of fun.

[Paladin]

25. Watch Out

I already answered this question recently on another Gun Dungeon thread ("Should suppressors be taken off the NFA list?"). My response came right after I was accused of being "afraid of firearms," and right before I was called "stupid." Fair warning to those of you considering posting to this thread because someone is supposedly "just curious" about your backgrounds. I've found it's a very bad mistake to divulge too much in the way of personal information about yourself or your family in this forum.

In answer to the question at hand, however: yes, I have shot a lot of guns, everything from .22 rim fires to a .375 H&H. I no longer have much of anything to do with guns, hunting, or other shooting sports, because I didn't like the kind of company I had to keep; the "Nugent-ization," if you will, of what used to be respectable pursuits. Exhibit "A" for this sad trend? Right here in the DU Gun Dungeon, every day.

My commitment to stringent, effective, proactive controls on firearms is stronger than ever.

[Retired AF Dem]

26. So you met some assholes

and now everyone that owns guns has to pay for it? I see assholes driving cars every day when are you going to start going after them?

[Paladin]

41. Interesting

My decision regarding my putting my guns away was personal in nature; I hardly think that as a result, "....now everyone that owns guns has to pay for it." I would never consider my actions to have that kind of impact, and I don't know why you would, either. And as for going after assholes driving cars: no thanks, they're way too many of them, and I have better things to do....

[Retired AF Dem]

44. they're way too many of them

I sure agree with that.

[cms]

34. Well I didn't...

mean to offend you. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by suggesting the stupidity of not trying to support your right to own an object, particularly when you many of those particular objects.

[Paladin]

42. Lose The "Just Curious" Facade

What you're doing with this thread is trolling for some easy flame targets, trying to set up people you don't think have enough firearms experience to justify an opinion on gun policy that's different than your own. It's a common tactic here in the Dungeon.

[cms]

45. Have I flamed anyone yet for their ideas...

huh?

[Lefty48197]

36. I don't see any need for you to own an M-16

Does that mean I "oppose gun rights"?

[turnkey]

37. It does...

If you try to impose upon the many, your personal opinion.

[Lefty48197]

43. What if "the many" agree with me

and the few, the NRA, disagree?

[MrSandman]

46. Doesn't the NRA support the NFA?

[jody]

47. Are you suggesting that a simple majority establishes laws and that no one

has inalienable rights that a democratic process cannot overrule?

[Lefty48197]

50. No, what I'm saying is:

Those who have the biggest guns get to set the rules. They say things like, "Think what ever you want, just don't infringe upon my rights". Or, "You can take my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hands". In other words: Try to take my m16's and I'll shoot you, and I will be a hero to the pro rkba crowd.

[MrSandman]

51. M-16s can't be purchased...

Unless they have been in private hands for a looong time, with very few and very expensive exceptions. The M 16s available are only inordinately expensive.

Do you think the AWB was about M 16's?

[Lefty48197]

58. Oh please

an AR15 plus a $10 part and a dremel makes an M16. That's why the semi-auto assault weapons need to be regulated just like the select-fires.

[Retired AF Dem]

59. 10 bucks?

http://www.funsupply.com/Firearms/dias.htm

[benEzra]

60. If AR's were genuinely easy to convert,

then AR-15's would ALREADY be classified as NFA Class III firearms, per BATFE regulations. If a firearm is easy to convert to full-auto, it is legally considered an automatic weapon even if not actually converted.

In addition, possession of full-auto NFA class III conversion parts that are not properly NFA registered is a major Federal felony, since they are regulated the same as if they were an actual machine gun.

The "easy to convert" argument is a red herring.

[jody]

55. Debates over natural or inalienable rights for over seven centuries

have generally produced a consensus that individuals have a right to life and to defend their lives. Some type of tool is necessary for those who are physically weaker than their attacker who wish to defend them self. Firearms are the most effective, efficient tool for that job as shown by their widespread use by professionals like police officers and criminals.

Each person has to make their own decision whether to defend them self or submit to an attacker. For those who choose defense, firearms are chosen by the majority.

[Lefty48197]

57. The human mind is the most powerful tool on the planet

Everything else is just a substitute.

[turnkey]

49. Agree all you want..

as long as you don't infringe on my freedoms, I won't infringe on yours.

[slackmaster]

40. An M16 would be a great addition to my collection

Not long from now it will be considered obsolete. It would fit in perfectly with my curio and relic military rifles.

[sierrajim]

52. YES IT DOES

[benEzra]

56. No, M16's are already restricted...

by the National Firearms Act of 1934, which the NRA is fine with. What we gunnies have a problem with is banning low-powered civilian rifles that LOOK like M16's but function like ordinary civilian self-loaders.