Kerry lost the election today

[Fescue4u]

I understand he just voted to extend the 1994 Gun ban. The same gun ban that cost Democrats the House, Senate and Gore the presidency.

How foolish and Sad.

Very depressing turn of events.

[slackmaster]

1. I agree with you, but that opinion won't be popular here

I've got one hell of a Cassandra complex. The gun ban enthusiasts don't seem to realize their efforts are likely to result in four more years of GWB.

[primavera]

33. Not necessarily

NPR ran a surprising piece yesterday indicating that the nation's 30 million hunters, who have traditionally voted republican, are growing increasingly hostile to the shrub as they keep finding that, when they take junior out to bag his first buck, they're no longer finding the pristine woods they once knew but rather are finding oil derricks in their place. When questioned whether he could support a Dem who would undoubtedly be more protective of the environment, but would also most assuredly be more restrictive in terms of gun legislation, one hunter observed: "What's the point in owning a gun if there's nothing to shoot with it?"
(http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1740090)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

52. If Bush signs it, he loses

Not sure about whether this will hurt Kerry or not. In the long run, it CERTAINLY hurts our party.

[DoNotRefill]

89. Nope, he's now covered either way.

If he vetos it, he's got cover because of the immunity aspect of it balanced against the AW ban. If he signs it, same deal.

I agree, no matter what, it hurts us.

[primavera]

103. Why is this a big deal?

By renewing an existing ban, it's not like legislators are taking away something people had, they're just continuing the status quo. People seem to have lived through the last decade without uzis, why will the sky fall if they don't have them in the next decade? Hell, in civilized countries, people have been living without any guns, or at most, extremely tightly restricted access to guns, for many decades and it doesn't seem to have resulted in revolutions in any of those countries. Yet here, unless we enthusiastically support ATMs which dispense free howitzers 24 hours a day, our party is doomed to extinction. I'm sure the gun lobby would love for us to believe that: it makes their jobs so much easier if everyone is too afraid of them to ever so much as question the gospel according to Charlton Heston, but personally, I'm not sure I buy it.

[KaraokeKarlton]

127. Our Constitution addresses the issue and MANY people

own and use or collect guns. Americans aren't fond of having their rights infringed upon. If you just silently let your Constitutional rights be tampered with on guns it opens the door for more things being infringed upon. It can't be allowed. I also believe the gun ban would extend to more firearms than is already banned. As a gun owner who grew up where hunting is a part of life, guns are a huge issue.

[cheezus]

129. so what weapons are ok?

where in here do you draw the line, and why?

fists
pepper spray
baseball bat
bow and arrow
rifle
shotgun
handgun
semi-automatic rifle
fully automatic assault rifle
pipe bomb
c4
napalm
anthrax
dirty bomb
tactical nuke
ICBM delivered nuke

does the 2nd Amendment say we can have whatever arms (arms, not guns) we want? If we take away the right to have an a-bomb are all of our other liberties at risk?

[nolabels]

133. I try to keep the kids away from the last four or five on that list.....

but they are just so unruly and out hand sometimes that it is hard to keep track of them :D

[Columbia]

134. McFeebs law hereby invoked

[cheezus]

156. What the heck? McFeebs law doesn't show up on google.

and I asked a reasonable question. obviously we have to draw the line somewhere, so where is it?

[FeebMaster]

159. McFeeb's Law

is explained a bit further down the thread, but I'll cover it here.

McFeeb's Law is a response to the WMD straw man in gun control debates. It's like Godwin's Law, only for gun control. I don't have a link to the original thread but the original explanation went something like this:

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.

[cheezus]

162. okay, so rpgs are okay?

my questions still stands: where do we draw the line?

[FeebMaster]

163. I drew the line in my post.

The line is at WMDs with artillery pieces being a matter of some contention.

There's nothing stopping you now from owning an RPG, unless they banned them from import at some point. Firing it would be an expensive hobby, though.

[cheezus]

165. um, so why not wmds and artillery pieces?

[FeebMaster]

167. Because I'm willing to compromise.

While personally I think artillery pieces should be unregulated, I'm willing to compromise and require background checks before purchasing them.

[DoNotRefill]

164. Under current law they are....

you can get them legally if you know where to look and have way too much money to waste. I have a friend who just sold a bunch of RPG-7s off, legally. True, each launcher and each round has a $200 tax on it, but it's all legal.

[cheezus]

166. wow. that's completely insane

[FeebMaster]

168. Why? (nt)

...

[primavera]

131. Thank you

That was probably the most eloquent, succinct, and convincing defense of gun ownership I've heard to date. I will endeavour to be more respectful in the future.

First of all, be assured that I have no problem with people for whom hunting is a rich part of their lives and heritage. As a life-long birdwatcher, I share both the pleasure of being out in the great outdoors and the almost hunting-like stealthful tracking of one's quarry. What concerns me about gun ownership is therefore not that many people wish to own hunting rifles. What concerns me is that the positions consistently taken by organizations like the NRA to my mind have very little to do with a citizen's right to own and use a hunting rifle. Rather, they seem to be focussed on establishing a right to own extremely dangerous military-style weapons which were designed not for hunting or recreational use, but for the sole and express purpose of killing people.

I have yet to hear from even the most avid gun enthusiast a desire to use a 50 calibre for hunting purposes. Nor have I heard that child safety locks on guns compromise one's ability to hunt. Or that hunting is better faciliated by the employment of fingerprint-resistent coatings on weapons. Does it adversely affect a hunter's aim to register their weapon and undergo a background check? Yet it is against these measures that to my mind just seem like commonsense precautions to protect public safety that the NRA so vigorously lobbies.

This is what I don't understand. How do gun ownership proponents arrive at the conclusion that efforts to ensure that guns are used responsibly constitute an infringement upon their right to engage in innocent activities like hunting? I'm sorry, I just don't get that. The right to bear arms does not come with the right to use them irresponsibly or to the detriment of the safety of others. So why are measures designed to promote safe, responsible gun useage considered so objectionable?

[Columbia]

135. Sigh. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting.

Please read Federalist 29 and 46.

[primavera]

137. Nor is it about private ownership of ICBMs

Please read it again, I think you will find that nowhere in it is a right to own and operate M-1 Abrahams tanks articulated. My point is that the right to bear arms is not a limitless absolute, rather it exists within a context. The question of which arms may be owned and how they may be employed is therefore perfectly legitimate. Or are you among that thankfully miniscule minority which holds that the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens some absolute and limitless right to bear and use any and all arms, up to and including a nuclear missile submarine if that be their wish?

[Columbia]

138. I invoke McFeeb's Law again

Actually, you can probably buy and own an M1 and nuclear missle submarine if you really wanted to and had the money.

The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free atate, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

When you start infringing on this right, you make way for the abolition of all others.

Again, I implore you to read Federalist 46 and 29 and then return for discussion.

[primavera]

139. Honest questions

Sorry, you're over my head: what is McFeeb's law? I don't think I've ever heard that expression before.

Secondly, and I do not raise this question to be antagonistic, but because I honestly do not know the answer, but how does one bridge the gap between possession of arms by "a well-regulated militia" and possession of arms by unregulated private citizens? My understanding of history is that militias, although comprised of common citizens, were nonetheless organized, structured groups of soldiers who received training and were led by professionally trained officers and existed to serve the needs of the state. The successors to the militias are the state guards, who also receive training and whose employment of arms is exercised within the framework of an organized and professional chain of command. Plainly, it is the prevailing view that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms not only to militias and their organized successors, but to ordinary people who use arms without either training or command structure. Again, that seems to be an uncontested point, so I assume there must be sound arguments supporting it, but can anyone explain to me what those arguments are? I really don't know the answer here.

Thanks!

[FeebMaster]

142. I'll field that one.

McFeeb's law is a response to the continued use of the WMD straw man when discussing small arms. I don't have a link to the original thread but it went something like this:


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.

As for the rest, I'm not really interested in debating the grammar of one sentence.

[primavera]

144. Thanks, I think I understand

So it's basically a blanket dismissal of positions which inconveniently conflict with the preferred position of gun rights advocates, sort of along the lines of "nya, nya, nya" and "so there." Got it, thanks for the clarification.

[Columbia]

146. I believe it is more a dismissal

of a logical fallacy that is neither germane nor constructive to the debate.

[FeebMaster]

147. Not really.

It's just frustrating to discuss small arms and constantly have people start crying about nuclear weapons. What does one have to do with the other? Which of the current federal firearms laws regulates the use and ownership of nuclear weapons?

[Columbia]

148. No kidding

I think we've had to invoke McFeeb's Law 6 or 7 times in the last couple of days alone. There's been a lot of extreme sophistic rhetoric flying about due to S.1805 and the AWB and it's getting really tiring.

[FeebMaster]

150. What was really shocking

to me, at least, was that one thread went 99 posts before McFeeb's Law had to be invoked. I was shocked. I think even this one was over 100. Usually it takes 20 or 25 tops before someone goes off about WMDs.

Sure the blatant ignorance of federal law does get tiring after awhile, but I find gun threads outside of the dungeon to be rather refreshing for a couple of reasons. First, there are some reasonable people up in General Discussion who don't bother with the dungeon for various reasons. And second, even nuclear straw men are a refreshing change from the constant whining about the NRA, Mary Rosh, and the widespread racism of gun owners.

[Columbia]

153. That is true

I suppose it is a change of pace. I think the last couple of weeks of peacefulness in the Gungeon spoiled me. The last couple days down there now have been really contentious with the instigators back. I guess it makes life a little more interesting though.

[Columbia]

145. McFeeb's Law

is a corollary to Godwin's Law that states that during a gun-control debate, one side will inevitably resort to accusing the other side of wanting to own nuclear weapons or WMD and when that happens it is an automatic loss of the debate. This is not exactly how it goes, but perhaps FeebMaster who coined the term will be along to explain it better. I couldn't find the post where he gives a better description.

Your questions about militias can be VERY easily answered by Federalist 29 and 46 (46 especially). That is why I kept asking you to read them. Here's a link to 46 - http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html and 29 - http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html. If you don't feel like reading them or they are too arcane to understand, I'll tell you the basic premise. The most important purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the general population to be able to resist and overthrow a federal tyranny. Yes, the best way to do so is through an organized militia, but they get these weapons from their personal inventories. The idea is that if and when it is necessary to reclaim the government, these armed citizens will band together and organize to fight for their common cause. There is some talk of mandatory training in Fed 29 (meeting a couple times a year to ensure proper arms are maintained), but ultimately that was never put into place, because it was seemingly overencroachment of powers and if anything it is more of an individual state thing. In the end, without the right for all citizens to keep and bear arms, it would be impossible for any kind of militia to serve its purpose.

Another argument put forth many times, is that the 2nd only guarantees the right for states to have militias. However, if you look at the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is quite obvious that only people can have rights (1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th Amendments). States only have powers delegated to them by the people (10th Amendment). It is quite obvious that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people as plainly stated in the amendment.

[primavera]

155. Thanks!

That's a very clear and concise synopsis. I will try to find time to read the references you cite, I'm just a little too busy to tackle them today. I actually really shouldn't be online now, I just couldn't resist...

Have a good one!

[Columbia]

161. You're welcome

Good luck on your investigative journey. I eagerly await the day when you stand with us on the side of liberty.

<Edit - this was meant as a response to 155>

[Fescue4u]

83. I don't strive to be popular

Just accurate.

[Nicholas_J]

91. Vast majority of Democrats

Support the Assault Weapons Ban. Gun folk seem to over-rate their influence on the Democratic Party.

I would think that the failure of Dean to do well would make that absolutely clear.

[Columbia]

95. Means nothing

The AWB is not an issue with most who do support it. However, it is a HUGE issue for those who don't. Those are the ones you have to worry about, because they will donate, lobby, and vote in large numbers on this single issue. Love 'em or hate 'em, they will make a difference.

[slackmaster]

97. Dean's demise had nothing to do with guns

It was about the man himself.

[primavera]

2. Woo hoo!

He just got my vote! Maybe he's not as spineless as I thought. :)

[Fescue4u]

4. Well he has mine to

The question is, how many has he lost.

[no name no slogan]

114. All the Republican vote?

If they're Repubs, they'll vote Repub.

The Democrats are still the majority party in this country. All we need to do is run candidates who are not afraid to be Democrats, to give our people a reason to vote!

Know why we keep losing to Repubs? Because we don't give our Democratic supporters a REASON to vote for our candidates! If their choices are between a Repub and Repub Lite, why bother? Either way, we get a Republican.

I applaud Sen. Kerry for his vote. I find it hard to believe ANYBODY can justify a civilian purpose for an assault rifle.

[DoNotRefill]

119. That's why....

we're now no longer the civil rights party....

[lastliberalintexas]

136. That's not how it works

"I find it hard to believe ANYBODY can justify a civilian purpose for an assault rifle."

Nope- I don't have to justify anything. The government has to provide a justification for taking AWAY my rights. Never forget that. And that principle applies to all of our rights, not just those involving guns.

on edit: Sorry for the lecturing tone- didn't intend it that way! :-)

[htuttle]

3. Doesn't Bush say he's going to sign it?

How does that work out to Kerry losing and Bush winning? Please explain...

[Fescue4u]

Very simple.

Gun grabbing is a losing issue.

Gun grabbers lose elections.

Its a civil rights thing.

[MAlibdem]

31. bush also supports the extension

how can anyone be in favor of letting people have AK-47s? It's a matter of framing the debate

[slackmaster]

35. Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand the AWB

AK-47s aren't covered by the assault weapons ban. They are machineguns and therefore regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

[MAlibdem]

46. ok

I concede that i dont kno the specifics. I do know that it is still a matter of framing the debate

[slackmaster]

You are not alone in not knowing the "specifics"

Unfortunately most of our Senators are as clueless as the population at large. Gun-related topics are inherently technical. Taking a "don't bother me with the facts" attitude puts the debate in the realm of emotionalism, which I cannot abide.

[MAlibdem]

63. so you know the facts?

tell me them, or at least some...what is an "assualt weapon" defined as.

[slackmaster]

72. The AR-15 is an AW but the Ruger Mini-14 is not

Both fire the same caliber. Both take detachable magazines, and large-capacity magazines exist for both. Both have gas-operated semiautomatic mechanisms. Both can be configured with flash hiders, bayonet logs, and collapsible or folding stocks. Both can have pistol grips. Selective-fire military versions of both rifles exist. Neither are popular with criminals because criminals generally prefer handguns.

The ban is not based on reason, rather on fear. Whether or not a particular weapon is considered an AW is based on gadgetry unrelated to ballistics or potential for abuse.

It makes no sense to restrict one but not the other. If there is a good reason to restrict them, let's see it and if it makes sense then ban them both.

[Columbia]

49. You are right, it is a matter of framing the debate

And the anti-gunners have framed it so well that the majority of people (including you) are misled into believing all sorts of nonsense regarding this legislation.

[MAlibdem]

55. so explain it

i'd be willing to listen. I believe in 2nd amendment rights (tyranny sucks, yo).

[slackmaster]

59. I see the AWB as an irrational restriction on cosmetic features

Things like bayonet lugs and folding stocks, which do not make a weapon any more lethal than one that lacks those features.

If there is no rational reason to restrict peoples' choices, implementing a restriction is simply wrong.

[Columbia]

67. Ok

The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" puts a moratorium on sale of weapons with certain features such as:

Folding stock

Pistol Grip

Bayonet Mount

Flash Suppressor

In fact, none of these features are expressly forbidden, but only semi-auto with detachable magazine weapons that have more than one feature.

For example, if I want to buy an AR-15, I can get one with a pistol grip, but not the folding stock, bayonet mount, or flash suppressor. The AWB does nothing to affect the capability of these weapons, but only prohibts certain cosmetic features on new weapons. "Pre-ban" weapons with all the naughty features are still available for sale and trade.

[cheezus]

154. yes, explain

what are our second amendment rights?

[DaveSZ]

51. Bullshit

Fucking Kerry man.

What an idiot.

He just lost W. Virginia, probably Nevada, maybe Missouri.

[HuskerDem]

61. But Bush is on the same side of the issue so this whole assertion

rests on crap.

It's a logic thing.

[Columbia]

8. Good chance it won't reach his desk

But lots of pictures of Kerry celebrating the vote. Does not bode well for him. Or Edwards for that matter.

[Robbien]

15. Bush wants to sign the main bill that protects gun manufacturers

against liability suits. The AWB is an attachment to the gun liability bill. The gun package bill still has to go to the house where the AWB might be stripped from the gun liability bill.

[MidwestTransplant]

28. Bush doesn't want the AWB

but said he would sign it.

[RichV]

5. Hell, Bush should SIGN the thing, not just vote for it

eom

[mark414]

6. blah blah blah

yeah man, forget about voting in favor of something good if it's going to cost you votes. who cares about you know, principles or anything anymore?

[Columbia]

11. I agree

They should have done the right thing and voted against renewal instead of sacrifing principles for politics.

[redqueen]

96. Thanks for posting details

I have to agree with you on this one.

Why was this bill up NOW? Who added it as an amendment to the liability bill? Why don't Senators know the details you and slackmaster have put forward?

(edited to give credit to slackmaster for providing details.)

[el_gato]

45. blah to you

the gun grabbers will have us all being slaves of the government

[TlalocW]

7. Actually...

There was a pretty good article that looked at the last elections, and the NRA-backed candidates really didn't do that well. I can't think as to whether it was 2000 or the 1996 elections, but he's going to have soccer moms, who are still a voting bloc on the political radar, liking him for doing that.

TlalocW

[slackmaster]

10. What's the NRA got to do with it?

:shrug:

[TlalocW]

Or love for that matter according to Tina Turner

Because they're the ones that are going to go after Kerry for voting this way, and I don't think it will have that great of an effect. For the most part, the majority of people who want assault weapons unbanned are seen as outside the political mainstream anyway, so I don't think the original statement that Kerry is going to lose because of that is true - even if the view of assault weapon proponents being out of the mainstream is true or not. So the main concern is the NRA with its deep pockets going after him, but they haven't been that successful in the last few elections.

TlalocW

[slackmaster]

24. I thought the main concern was votes

As in getting enough to beat GWB. The AW ban won't gain as many votes as it costs.

[TlalocW]

26. Assault Weapons isn't even going to be on the political radar

It's going to be mainly jobs and economy from the democrats and macho chest pounding over Iraq and gay marriages from the republicans.

TlalocW

[DoNotRefill]

48. I think you're wrong.

this kind of thing is going to serve as a distraction to the 80-100 MILLION gun owners in this country, MANY of whom are single-issue voters.

Poking this constitutency with large sharp pointy sticks is a BAD idea for Democrats. We're better served if they stay away from the polls.

[TlalocW]

69. Well, we'll agree to disagree

I don't think that all 80 to 100 million gun owners are rabid on the AW ban. I'm sure a lot of them are more of the Barry Goldwater bent of what the hell do you need one of those for.

TlalocW

[slackmaster]

87. If Senator Kennedy's ammo ban amendment passes

Then you are going to see a lot of pissed-off deer hunters. Tens of millions of them.

You think a 4 million member NRA isn't much of a threat. How would you like an 8 million member NRA? Any serious effort to ban .308 or 30-30 ammunition will cause that to happen overnight.

[TlalocW]

93. Yada yada yada

I suggested agree to disagree. Fine, you're hyperventilating about it. I'm not. I'm dropping it. You go on bloviating if it makes you feel better.

TlalocW

[slackmaster]

102. Thanks for feeding my Cassandra complex

It's all about getting votes, folks.

[redqueen]

99. Can anyone explain why Kennedy wants to ban ammo?

? Is there a logical reason for this?

[slackmaster]

101. See the thread in the Gungeon

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=41978&mesg_id=41978

[redqueen]

105. Thanks!

:)

[molly]

9. LOL - what a sense of humor you have!

[Fescue4u]

14. I didnt find Gore losing funny

Nor losing the house and senate either.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

12. Wrong!!!!!! This is 2004 and a majority of the people.....

support the ban. This will ASSIST JK in his roll to victory
in November.

:kick:

[Columbia]

18. The majority of the people have not a clue as to what this ban really bans

[slackmaster]

21. Which is in fact nothing

The AWB is a moratorium on manufacturing certain items. Nothing has been banned. A real gun ban would involve some kind of confiscation.

[Columbia]

29. True

Give me a break, even pro-gunners get caught up when the antis get to frame the debate. :)

[slackmaster]

A majority of the people are idiots

Sorry to say it, but it's true.

A majority oppose same-sex marriage. A majority are deeply religious. A majority were in favor of slavery not very long ago.

[DoNotRefill]

115. We'll see what kind of turnout....

the MMM gets. I'm betting they'll get a crowd of under 5,000 total.

[JasonDeter]

13. If people are looking for any excuse to not vote for Kerry

any excuse will do.

[mdguss]

20. Depends:

If a more moderate state--like Nevada, or Arizona with high suburban (anti-gun) residents goes to Kerry, then he didn't lose. This will make it harder to win Ohio and West Virginia, though not impossible.

[JasonDeter]

41. But

If bush* is going to sign the thing into law how is that going to cost Kerry votes in the general? And I think the gun folk underestimate America's disdain of assault weapons in the hands of the general population.

[mac56]

25. Amen to that.

Deciding not to support Kerry, based on this, is shallow and disingenuous.

[stewert]

16. Ridiculous........

When all the democrats and Nader voters cast their vote for John Kerry
in november he will beat Bush like a drum by 4 to 5 million votes.

This gun vote is meaningless in the big picture.

[meow mix]

17. i think bush will sign it -nt

[TheBlob]

19. It's not a Gun Ban - It's an Assault Weapons Ban

And it was the right thing to do.

[Fescue4u]

23. Nice spin.

Buts its just spin.

Its a gun ban pure and simple.

[mac56]

30. You're doing a little spinning there yourself, friend.

How's painting with that broad brush working out for you?

[LoneStarLiberal]

34. It's not a gun ban, it's an ASSAULT WEAPONS ban

It's not a gun ban.

It's an assault weapons ban.

No one needs assault weapons.

I own two bolt action rifles and two handguns. I hunt. No one I know outside Charlton Heston and the two senile old guys my dad and I share our deer lease with think that assault weapons are used for anything except killing lots of people.

If you want assault weapons, join the military or the Michigan Militia. If you want guns, there are plenty to legally purchase.

[Fescue4u]

37. I need one

Because I want one and its my civil right as an American.

In a free country, thats not only a need, its a God given right.

[mac56]

43. "I need one because I want one"?!

You're not representing the gun owners' side very well here.

I think my four-year-old uses the same logic in the toy store.

[Forkboy]

60. God gave you the right to have an assault weapon?

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Fescue4u]

76. Yes

And the right to Free speech, the pursuit of happiness etc etc.

tell me, how many civil rights do you think should be stripped away?

[Forkboy]

81. None

I just doubt God is really for the promotion of weapons :eyes:

God!First Blood! Rated Y

[cheezus]

158. the assault weapon ban takes away your civil rights?

okay then, which weapons CAN we ban?

[DoNotRefill]

160. You can ban....

any weapon that doesn't have some kind of military application. If it has a military purpose or can be adapted to a military purpose, SCOTUS says it's protected by the Second Amendment.

I suppose potato guns are bannable...

[Columbia]

77. It's guaranteed in the bill of rights

But who needs rights anyway

[slackmaster]

79. As an atheist, I see it as a natural right

We are a tool-making and tool-using species after all.

As free beings we have the right to own, say, or do anything we want as long as that particular object, speech, or behavior has not been prohibited by due process of law.

[Columbia]

39. More Brady talking points

Oh, by the way, you know that Ted Kennedy is attempting to ban all hunting rifle ammo right? Better start practicing with your bow.

[slackmaster]

40. The most popular rifles used in target matches are AR-15s

I'm presenting the following link to support my statement, not as an attempt to encourage people to buy them from the federal government:

http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Programs/AR15.htm

[DoNotRefill]

56. Nobody NEEDS a free press or to vote, either...

Since when has "need" been a determining factor for civil rights?

[Neoplatonist]

22. Clinton not only signed the 1994 ban, but implemented it

..then won another full term as president in 1996. Your whole theory is illogical. The vast majority of Americans are for the assult weapons ban. This is a plus for John Kerry, not a minus.

[West Coast Democrat]

27. I get tired of the illogical posts around here as well.......

I am flabbergasted daily.

[DoNotRefill]

32. And Clinton said....

that passing the ban cost us many seats in Congress, leading to the Repukes taking over. Gore's FOID card proposal is widely credited with him losing his home state. If he had carried his HOME STATE, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

How many times do we need to be kicked in the teeth by one issue before we stop pushing it?

[Columbia]

36. I think there are some masochists out there who enjoy losing

[West Coast Democrat]

42. I thought it was "out of control big government spending"....

that cost us Congress in 1994. That's why we have a leg up this time.

[redqueen]

38. Oh FCOL

The gun ban was not the reason why we lost so many seats on the hill. Neither was it the reason Gore handed his win to Bush.

:eyes:

[Columbia]

44. Better take it up with the big dog then

[DoNotRefill]

53. Was Clinton lying in his SOTU then?

HE certainly seemed to think it cost us seats...

[redqueen]

66. Yes

Of course he's going to blame some bill or another.

It's much easier than saying "I signed the (fill in the blank) Act and pissed off a lot of liberals"

[Fescue4u]

64. Clinton said it was

I suspect he may have some insight into this.

[redqueen]

70. Clinton was trying to keep liberal outrage at bay for a while longer

It worked, too.

[Fescue4u]

78. Im not sure I understand your point.

Could you explain it a bit. Im a bit slow today.

[Uzybone]

47. Kerry bashing at its finest

he votes his principles and he is accused of not pandering for votes. I think his detractors are the flip flop kings around here.

[littlejoe]

54. Funny, but I was just thinking that very thing! Hmmmm..........

[Fescue4u]

65. When his principles are contrary to the B.O.R

When Kerry opposed civil rights, is he supposed to be immune from discussion?

If Kerry came out against Gay rights, I would have an issue as well.

[littlejoe]

50. That is your opinion, one in which I do not share.

We live in a vastly different world than four years ago or even longer. I Believe that people will understand the importance of such a ban this time around.

Kerry can definitely sell the public on it.

[slackmaster]

62. Please explain why you think the ban is important

Using facts and logic, not regurgitated propaganda.

[Old and In the Way]

108. It's a regional issue.

If you live in a suburban/rural area where hunting/guns are a tradition (like I do), it's a bigger issue. But those areas are already fairly conservative/Republican.

If you live in cities/urban areas, I think the concerns of AW outweigh the limitations that that the law presents.

I have a .22 that I have fired in 25 years. Personally, I don't know why you need to have armor piecing bullets to hunt deer. If you need to shoot a deer at a 1000 yards, you aren't much of a hunter, anyway.

Anyone that would vote against Kerry/Edwards based on this vote is not too bright, IMHO. Perhaps these people need to suck it up and put the interests of this country ahead of their personal obsessions with guns.

[DaveSZ]

68. The thing is

With Bush the hunters won't have any more woods left to hunt in.

[Forkboy]

57. People who think they need one of these

should be pelted with garbage :)

[Evil_Dewers]

58. Kerry lost the election today

really? When Bush signs this into law or allows it to be come law without his signature, doesn't he just become as hypocritical?

The gun nuts will be pissed at Bush for allowing this bill to become law. Unless you think he'll use his veto power for the first time in his presidency...

Bush's first veto: Allowing the assault weapons ban to expire and rejecting legal protections for gun manufacturers.

[Columbia]

73. All the more reason he won't let it get to his desk

That way Kerry looks ban for voting for it AND it still fails to pass.

[Fescue4u]

74. It will not make it to Bush's desk

However, the picture of Kerry and Feinstein, in lock step will be burned into everyones memory at election time.

If someone the Republicans screw up and let it get to Bush's desk, then it will hurt Bush far more than it will hurt Kerry.

However I doubt that will happen. Instead, Kerry will be stuck with this hot potatoe.

Depressing really.

[mac56]

84. Thank you , Mr. Rove.

nm

[liberalitch]

75. Yup!

may as well stay home in Nov.
Right!?!
I mean what the hell....
The only way Kerry will not win in Nov. is if we all chicken out and park our volvos and cry into our Vegan lattes... over dean or kucinch not getting the nod.
Boooo Hooooo! :-(
Now get off your ass and vote democratic so that we can be a great nation again!

[Snivi Yllom]

71. the same could be said about Bush

but this will likely die in the House.....

[DoNotRefill]

85. This gives Bush a win-win scenario on this issue.....

This was part of the liability shield lawsuit. If it passes the house as-is, Bush is completely covered, and can pander to both sides of this issue, no matter what he does.

If he vetos it, he can say to the pro-gunners "I killed it because of the AW ban", and to the anti-gunners he can say "I didn't give the gun industry immunity." If he signs it, he can say to the pro-gunners "the AW ban was outweighed by protecting the arms industry", while saying to the anti-gunners "I signed the AW ban renewal."

THIS IS BAD.

[Columbia]

90. Very astute observation

We're screwed.

[mac56]

94. Yeah, what's the point anymore? Everybody just stay home.

:wtf:

[DoNotRefill]

98. Frankly....

I'd rather the rabid gun owners stay home. Don't you?

[mac56]

109. I don't want anyone to stay home!

I want everyone to vote, AFTER they take their one-issue blinders off.

[Snivi Yllom]

106. MY PREDICTION

is the House strips the sensible portions like the AWB out of the bill.

[sandnsea]

80. People support the AWB

In survey after survey. Even gun owners support this. Don't let a handful of loudmouths fool you, even DU loudmouths. People want guns regulated.

[slackmaster]

82. As a DU loudmouth I have to ask

Do you think you understand what the assault weapons ban addresses, and what it does not address?

In my experience a large majority of DUers and people in general don't have a clue or have ideas that are flat-out wrong.

[sandnsea]

88. 19 guns

I understand perfectly well and refuse to have this debate again. It's the most circular, inconsistent bunch of arguments I've ever witnessed. Worse than the IWR vote and that one was pretty bad.

[Columbia]

92. Apparently not

You're right, the anti-gun argument is certainly circular and inconsistent and depends on willfull ignorance for it to prevail, which it often does.

[slackmaster]

100. It appears to me you don't understand it

But thanks for trying.

[DaveSZ]

86. Survey after survey?

Show me even one.


That picutre of Kerry and Feinstein is worse than the one with Jane Fonda.

[Killarney]

104. It's not that big of a deal. All but

All but 4 or 5 Democratic Senators voted for it (Feingold voted against, which I find very weird) and some Republicans voted for it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

107. Baucus is losing support with every vote.

He better hope the Republicans here in Montana vote for him, because I don't know any Democrats who will.

[Hippo_Tron]

113. Baucus is ranking member on the finance committee...

Which means when the democrats get their majority in the senate back, he'll be the third most powerful in the senate. Baucus isn't going anywhere.

[bowens43]

110. Ridiculous.

The assault weapon ban did not cost the Dems the House or the Senate nor did have anything to do with Gore's loss.


I assume you have something to back up your nonsensical statement, something that doesn't come from the NRA?

[DoNotRefill]

111. How 'bout Bill Clinton's SOTU address?

You know....the one where he said that it cost us seats in congress?

Or was Clinton a NRA puppet too?

[Hippo_Tron]

112. I don't think we lost the House and Senate because of gun control...

We lost he House and Senate because of a failure to pass the Clinton healthcare Bill. Gore's loosing the presidency was his own damn fault. Clinton carried Tennesee both times, Gore should've been able to carry it with no trouble but Bush took it.

[David Dunham]

116. The gun bill failed. No problem for JK here.

[DoNotRefill]

118. Yeah, there is....

look at how Faux is playing the video of Kerry with Schumer et al after the vote. It's a non-issue for Dems, but a rallying cry for the Republicans.

Today will energize the pro-gun people against Kerry. That's something we should have avoided.

[alcuno]

117. A job or an assault weapon.

Weird to think that that might be a tough choice for someone.

[DoNotRefill]

121. Tell that to Gore....

and how many blue-collar union voters he lost in 2000 over his FOID card scheme....

[Democat]

120. When Kerry doesn't vote, DUers attack. When he does vote, DUers attack.

Karl Rove must be loving it. :)

[DoNotRefill]

122. He could have voted for it....

and then not done the photo op afterwards. Mark my words, that photo op WILL come back to haunt him in places other than the NE and California....

[Redneck Socialist]

123. I wouldn't go so far as to say he lost the election, but

he sure didn't do himself any favors. This vote will be brought up near every day between now and the election. Nothing like throwing bloody chunks of meat into the water and then jumping in with the sharks.

Guns are a loser issue for the Dems. On day we will wake up and realize that.

[katieforeman]

124. I really don't think so.

There are so many larger issues than that in the campaign this year. The only people who will vote based on that issue alone are pretty much all "dittohead" Republicans who would never vote Democrat anyway.

In fact, it might even help with those swing voters who thought they were voting for a "compassionate conservative." Most of America thinks the republican Bill is extreme and the Democrats can use this as further evidence that Bush is an extremist.

[DoNotRefill]

125. Prior to yesterday....

there were lots of pro-gun quasi-republican leaning folks out there who weren't likely to vote in 2004 due to general disaffection towards Bush.

If the pic of Kerry after the vote gets wide press (and I'm sure it will, it was shown repeatedly in video form on Faux already) that'll get them off of their asses and to the polls.

Would they have voted for Kerry? Doubtful. Would they have voted for Bush? Also doubtful. Now they'll vote for Bush for SURE, and there are a HELL of a lot of them. Consider this. If only 2 out of every 100 gun owners (and I think that figure is low) are single issue voters over this issue, that's 2 million votes that wouldn't have gone to Bush but now will. What was the margin in 2000 or 1996? That's quite a handicap to deal with.

Part of politics is denying your enemies ammunition, much less big fat smoking and loaded .357 magnum revolvers. I'da thunk Kerry's experience with this kind of thing in Viet Nam (leaving loaded guns for your enemies) would have had more effect. Apparently he hasn't learned from that mistake, because he sure as hell did it again yesterday.

[katieforeman]

128. I think things have changed since 2000.

Most single-issue voting gun holders live in states Democrats don't have a shot at anyway. (no pun intended)Also, I think they are more likely to have bought into Bush's Iraq=war on terrorism argument and probably would have taken the time to vote for that reason.

The sniper shootings in DC and Columbus OH have undoubtedly increased support for gun control among swing voters.

The damage that would have been done to Kerry's credibility among Independents and disaffected moderate Republicans had he not voted for it would have inflicted much more serious damage. It would have added to the perception that Kerry was a flip-flopper without conviction and more of them would have stayed home disgusted with both candidates. The vote also allows Kerry to paint himself as more of a moderate and Republicans as extremists out of the main stream.

Furthermore, if Kerry had not voted for it, Nader's argument that both Democrats and Republicans are corrupt might sway a few more voters his way. Some of the Democrats who already think there's not much difference between Kerry and Bush might have been more discouraged and just stayed home.

On balance I think it would have hurt him much more to vote against something he was on the record as supporting and that most moderates approve of.

[DoNotRefill]

151. We shall see....

In May of this year, the MMM is holding another march in DC. They're calling this the "stop the assault" march. I was at the first MMM (in 2000 or 2001?), and while there was nowhere near a million people there, there were a lot of people. From what I've seen, there's nowhere near the same level of interest in it this time around. We'll see, in a post-9/11 world, just how much support they have. I have no doubt that the turnout will be much smaller.

[KaraokeKarlton]

126. Why does he skip the votes swing voters won't mind

but then vote for the things that will turn swing voters off?

[salin]

130. Doesn't the size of the vote (nearly all repubs as well)

sort of innoculate the problem. Well geez... (insert list of conservative republicans).. voted the same way...

[DaveSZ]

132. After they got

Kerry on tape, they killed the bill.

[nolabels]

140. Really though both parties are guilty here and ordinary Joe's takes it....

In the shorts again. There should be no excuse,they extract $500,000,000,000 plus a year from the public in the name of defense, but according to THEIR reports a few guys can jump on airplanes with box cutters and cause cataclysmic mayhem throughout the world. To me this makes no sense unless they are lying. Seems a stalemate to me.

I am willing to bet some figure out ways to twist everything around, it seems they have already made a choice. Though not my choice, and I don't know who's choice it is. It seems to me they would want half hearted ways to start out, for then, later to ratchet it down harder.

Flying lead balloons, asking others to turn in such things sounds like a NO-GO. Let people keep their weapons and make sure they are educated or make sure you keep them ignorant and take the weapons away (Haiti) away. Both parties seem to be working on the latter, but in different ways.

I am no fan of freeper land but a few do make some points to keep in mind. I would say that the choices were already made, and the public was not included in the conversation, thinking the status quo is always looking for ways around them, to be specific. Looking for a Swiss point of view I came up with this

If you have the stomach
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/581907/posts

On edit: Here is a better link and just have to be able to read to check it out, sorry for that trash just above

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html

P.S. I am sure there are many other such things in The DU gun dungeon but this just came up first on the engine. So just to reiterate, a repub philosophy, keep-em ignorant till the end.

[Stuckinthebush]

141. I would imagine that most non-GOP Americans support the ban

It doesn't take a die-hard liberal to realize that no individual needs an automatic weapon for hunting. It might piss off the big time gun enthusiasts, but the maority of them are already GOP.

[FeebMaster]

143. What does hunting have to do

with anything? There are a whole lot more gun owners than there are hunters.

[Redneck Socialist]

149. Well the problem is

that the AWB doesn't have anything to do with either automatic weapons (they are already regulated) or hunting. It does have a lot to do with the democrats losing elections though.

Since gun enthusiasts are a large and active voting block maybe we could try not alienating them every chance we get.

[DoNotRefill]

152. Stuckinthebush....

you've fallen victim of the anti-gun propaganda. The AW ban has NOTHING to do with automatic weapons. That's the National Firearms Act of 1934.

There are something like 100 million gun owners out there. Most of them know that the AW ban is bullshit.

[West Coast Democrat]

157. Oregon's Republican Senator voted for the extension

....and we're a swing state!