Poll about an assault weapons ban, For or Against?

[billbuckhead]

[bluestateguy]

1. Doesn't really matter to me

Bad people will get their hands on guns no matter what, but if the politicians want to pass this law because it makes them feel good I understand.

[Bombtrack]

8. Oh yeah a Saturday Night Special or a bakooka, what's the Diff?

The gun control passed by Clinton did work. Gun crime and all violent crime went down signifigantly during the 90's. I can't believe how idiotic liberals become on some things when they start cozying up to the Paleocons. Your "people" are just going to break the law anyway" argument is the same logic made by people who want less corporate regulation, less environmental regulation, etc etc.

[bigbillhaywood]

14. Only the police and military should have assault rifles. They use them

responsibly, and have never used deadly force against their own citizens-- so citizens don't need guns to defend themselves against the government or big corporations because they are such nice guys and would never think of using armed force against us.

[Bombtrack]

19. They don't have to be nice guys to not impose anything that would prompt

the likelyhood of an armed revolution. The US public are relatively uninformed but they are going to notice if a dictatorship or something that would neccessitate an armed uprising took place. These apocalypytic minded people should really get back to the crazy right where they belong.

[bigbillhaywood]

24. Please see my post below. There are many historical examples of the

gov't and corporations using armed force to shut down strikes and demonstrations.

[Bluzmann57]

2. Not necessarily an anti gun person

because, quite frankly, I eat wild game sometimes. But there is no reason for assault weapons to be in anyones hands, other than military, and maybe police(big maybe). I mean, if a person can't kill an animal with a "regular" gun, then they are probably not fit to have guns anyway. As for me personally, I used to own a .22 caliber rifle, with which I target shot regularly, but sold it once I had children, because, while I enjoyed target shooting, I enjoyed my kids more.

[bigbillhaywood]

17. Only the military and police, huh? See post #14. The Army and Police have

had a nasty habit of shooting down demonstrators and strikers when they start looking like a threat to the established order (they do it in Iraq, and they have done it on numerous occassions right here in the US). They should be disarmed first.

[EDT]

3. A ban on weapons that just look scary doesn't help at all.

I could see an outright ban on magazines of more than 10 rounds being rationalized, IF you could actually make it work- this would still let people who enjoy collecting and shooting historical/ military weapons not have their hobby crushed by Soccer mom's who judge a gun's deadliness only by it's appearance.

Most crimes don't involve assault weapons anyways, they're mostly junk guns that are dirt cheap, that people (like me) who shoot for a hobby or fun would never buy anyways.

[billbuckhead]

27. It's sad "soccer moms" are thought so much a threat to freedom

I happen to think the NRA, the GOA, Al Queda, Aryan nations, the various mafias, etc are far more of threat to freedom and liberty than a woman protecting her family.

[OpSomBlood]

51. Some people feel that arming themselves is "protecting their family"

So forgive them if they have a different interpretation of "protection" that you do.

[EDT]

69. Soccer Mom's just need education- I'd love to take them to the range

and show them how much fun target shooting is. All they have without a gun owning friend is the TV news, that categorizes every gun as an "Assault rifle" or if a pistol, an "Assault Pistol", which really doesn't exist, but is a term I've heard a local Boston station use alot.

Oh, and if you own more than 1 gun, you have "an arsenal"!

Bad guys are already breaking the law, and could care less about more laws. Only honest people like me who have guns safely locked up, and teach friends safely how to shoot, listen to new legislation.

[OpSomBlood]

74. "Assault pistol" is the next phase.

They already hijacked the "assault rifle" terminology for their little experiment in 1994. Now they have invented the equally ominous (and meaningless) term "assault pistol" to go after handguns.

It's only a matter of time before we're hearing that "assault revolvers" give criminals six times the firepower.

[Mattforclark]

4. Yes, but I would rather that it made sense in some way or other...

the current assault weapons ban doesn't.

Unfortunately, the politicization of this issue and the enormous power of lobbyists makes sensible legislation exceedingly unlikely.

[Deja Q]

5. Against the ban. It's ludicrous. People need to defend themselves.

I don't know where people get that ridiculous mindset.

Actually, I do. Given how expensive those things are, only the rich can afford them. Probably as a precaution to protect themselves from rioters, should riots break out after another social injustice the rich had created.

(you know those abominations should be utterly banned.)

[Mattforclark]

7. Only 300 UK Pounds...

http://www.rusmilitary.com/html/c-deact_ak74m.htm

It's got a bayonette though ;0

[gulfcoastliberal]

11. That's a bit Misleading

Those guns are deactivated:

- in place covered by wooden hand guards the barrel has 3 cross holes equal in diameter to caliber of the barrel
- the chamber is sealed by welding
- the bolt is cut at an angle
- the firing pin channel is welded
- the bolt locking lugs on the bolt and ledges on the receiver are removed
- the piston head of bolt carrier is filed off
- the lower safety lug on the bolt carrier will cause chambering of two cartridges at a time, which would make shooting impossible

- the magazine cartridge guides are removed to make loading impossible

- ADDITIONAL deact feature introduced on all AK-74 imported this April: the internal part of the selector of trigger mechanism is removed. These AKs are now reduced in price: £279 only

[FeebMaster]

53. That's a hell of a lot of money for a gun that doesn't fire (nt)

[bigbillhaywood]

10. 1. Not true only rich can afford them 2. Rioters could use them as well,

as far as rich people defending themsleves against rioters-- they don't need to they have the police and military to defend their interests, just as they have throughout history. Disarm the cops and military first, then we can talk about disarming the citizenry of their assault weapons.

But I guess, according to you, it's okay if the police and military have these "abominations", because surely THEY will use them responsibly.

[Bombtrack]

15. How often to people need to get frigging assault weapons to defend

themselves. When they get burgled by a pack of ninjas? Raped by a gang of Russian mafiosos?

These guns are not needed by civilians.

[bigbillhaywood]

21. Yeah, just cops and soldiers. And we get to be defensless when they come

to shut down our democratic rights, like they have done countless times throughout history. Kent State, Fred Hampton, the Pullman strike, the Little Steel strike, the 1877 general strike, the Minneapolis Teamster strike, the San Fransisco general strike, the Seattle general strike. This stuff mean anything to you?

[bigbillhaywood]

22. BTW, I can name many, many more.

[Bombtrack]

28. First of all who are "they" and second of all how would any of those

situations have ended up any better if there were just more overzealous people on both sides with machine guns? That's what we want to make people safer, more crossfire.

[bigbillhaywood]

35. "They" are the government and/or their corporate masters. Two of the

strikes I mentioned were victories (SF 1934 and Minn. 1934) b/c the strikers were armed and used military tactics to defend their picket lines. The National Guard and Army were called out in both cases and if the strikers were unarmed and had taken a pacifist approach, they surely would have been broken by the power of the State and/or the private armies of the corporations.

An interesting fact is that no matter how much gun control gets passed companies like Pinkerton and Burns never seem to have any problems getting weapons-- and these are the firms hired to bust strikes. That's because when it comes to choosing between corporations and labor, the gov't always chooses corporations. Even if you disarmed companies like Pinkerton (which I'm all in favor of), the cops and military will always side with the employer.

[MrSandman]

103. LA Riots?

[bigbillhaywood]

6. Your poll choices are too nebulous, how bout something concrete, like

"I support renewal of the assault weapons ban". "I believe the assault weapons ban should expire".

[Mattforclark]

9. That would also be too nebulous

It would be better if exactly which assault weapons ban were being talked about were specified. Preferably with a link to the exact H.R. #...

[billbuckhead]

13. With the coming collapse of the Bush Misadministration I think we can get

a far more comprehensive ban on the most dangerous weapons and leave behind this B.S. about what constitutes an assault rifle. No one needs more than a 6 bullet clip to kill a deer on defend their home.

[KiloForAngelese]

12. Ban them all

Americans don't need any guns now. With all we have on Bush we can safely get back into the gun registration mode and soon afterward go door to door and collect these criminal weapons of choice. Now is the time while we have Bush on the ropes.

[gulfcoastliberal]

16. Could you Elaborate?

What "gun registration mode" has ever been employed on a national level? Generally it's a state-to-state issue, barring ATF regulations. As for going door-to-door to collect firearms, that seems slightly ludicrous. BTW, Welcome to DU.

[billbuckhead]

20. Going door to door is the wrong approach to curbing weapons escalation.

If someone has one in their home, leave them have it there, but if it comes out in public, confiscate the weapon and fine them the first time and then jail them the second time. Felons caught in possesion of these weapons should go to jail for life, known mentally disturbed people with these weapons should also be put away. Make selling them a felony and using them in the commission of a crime a life sentence.

[KiloForAngelese]

37. Sounds pretty ood except that Aussies and the UK did it with no problem

There is no reason we can't do the same here. The very few un owners will have little choice in the matter if we get serious about getting rid of these weapons that are the choice of criminals.

Remember it for our future children and their future. Ban them now and collect them soon afterwards. Bush and his NRA racists are out of the picture now.

[OpSomBlood]

44. These weapons are not "the choice of criminals."

They are used in less than 3% of all gun crimes. They were used in less than 3% of gun crimes before the ban took effect.

[KiloForAngelese]

46. That does not matter - we can sell this to most Americans as fact

People do not need these guns or any others for that matter. Once we can disarm these morons that think they are Rambo we will be much safer. We can add a few more thousand police officers to help deal with the elements that make these gun owners think they need to be armed.

[OpSomBlood]

47. I own a Colt M4 carbine.

A semi-automatic rifle that most people consider an "assault weapon." I use it for target shooting and small-game hunting.

So forgive me for taking exception to your "Rambo moron" assessment. My house with a safely stored "assault rifle" is safer than most homes with no guns at all.

And I find it telling that you don't think the actual statistics matter...and that you can sell (read: spin) it in a way to make most Americans buy it.

Funny, I thought most noble causes didn't really require "selling."

[bigbillhaywood]

54. Sweet piece (I'm talking about the M4).

[KiloForAngelese]

61. What do you need that much firepower for?

Someone could get hurt or steal your un and hurt others. Americans are tired of Rambo gun owners.

[bigbillhaywood]

65. I'm not discussing this w/ you. Like I said, I got your number. n/t

[OpSomBlood]

66. What makes my rifle more "powerful" than any other semi-auto?

- It fires smaller ammunition than most hunting rifles.
- It fires at the same rate as any other semi-auto.

And as for someone stealing my rifle...it's highly unlikely considering the way I store it. And besides, does the thought of someone stealing your car and committing crimes with it keep you awake at night?

[KiloForAngelese]

70. I don't know the gun details

I just know that respectable Democrats say they are bad and I believe them.

[OpSomBlood]

72. That is a really sad way to approach important political issues.

Letting other people do your research and thinking for you. The sad thing is it's not uncommon.

[KiloForAngelese]

78. These are elected Democrats

They are supposed to know more than me. If not then I should be in their cushy job.

[OpSomBlood]

80. You obviously have internet access and free time...

...so perhaps you should utilize both to research the pressing issues of the day and arrive at your own educated conclusions. You may find yourself surprised to disagree with a person with a "D" next to their name once in a while.

[KiloForAngelese]

83. If we can't trust these long time Democrats then who can we trust?

Please don't say Bush.

[OpSomBlood]

84. Trust your own educated opinion.

Then decide who else is worthy of your trust. Blind allegiance to either party is politically unhealthy, because you won't realize it when they start screwing up.

Do your own research on issues and develop your own opinion. Because unless you do, you'll never know when people are lying to you.

[bigbillhaywood]

86. Take a break, you're going nowhere OpSomBlood...

I PM'd you, read it

[KiloForAngelese]

87. Gun control is too important for individuals to decide

We need the brilliant minds of Democrats like Clinton, Schumer and others to decide such things for us. That's why we elect such leaders to tell us what is best.

[OpSomBlood]

89. You're only about a quarter as clever as you think you are.

n/t

[LoZoccolo]

156. That's why your ass got tombstoned.

Boo-ya!

:toast:

[bigbillhaywood]

48. I got your number.

[KiloForAngelese]

55. I hope so

It's the same number that Schumer and Feinstein are proud of.

[bigbillhaywood]

57. And others...

[billbuckhead]

100. Gun confiscators sound like Republican plants trying to stir trouble

People should be allowed to keep the guns they have, but not be able to buy more high capacity weapons or carry them outside their own property. They should still be able to buy new shotguns and hunting rifles.

[OpSomBlood]

102. What about carrying them to the range? Or hunting?

What exceptions (you'd probably call them "loopholes") are there to your proposed property rule? And what arbitrary capacity should be established as "high"?

[billbuckhead]

81. SUV's used to be involved in very few accidents

till they were mass marketed and then we figued out these things were rolling over all over the place. Why should assualt weapons be any different, once there's lots of people carrying them around, it's obvious they would start using them.

[OpSomBlood]

120. The only problem with that logic...

...is that "assault weapons" aren't being used "all over the place." They are used in less than 3% of gun crimes, an almost identical rate as before the 1994 AWB.

[DoNotRefill]

45. isn't that exactly how the American Revolution started?

government troops moving to seize privately owned arms?

[KiloForAngelese]

49. Times have changed

We have the Bush admin on the ropes for their part in the torture of all these Iraqi citizens and now is the time for a leftist leader to take over America and get these damn stupid guns out of peoples houses.

Ban and confiscate (or buy back) these dangerous weapons now!

[bigbillhaywood]

165. Hey Kilo! Now that you Freeper ass has been tombstoned, let me say this

if you are still reading. We "leftists" have guns. Leftists with guns-- a Freeper's worst nightmare. I told you, I got your number, you fuck!

[billbuckhead]

50. Any proof of that?

I never read anything like that.

[DoNotRefill]

52. read up on why the Brits were marching on Concorde and Lexington...

It was to seize guns. They got the guns....bullets first.

[billbuckhead]

59. That was after the "Boston Tea party" wasn't it?

I thought the war was about taxation without representation (actually a trade war between the Brits and John Hancock over the tea market) and the British threat of freeing the slaves in the south.

[DoNotRefill]

63. the war was about a lot of things that the people were pissed about...

but what sparked actual combat between the people and the government troops was a move on the part of the government troops to disarm the people. They marched to seize the guns, and precipitated exactly what they were trying to prevent. The people were faced with the option of "use it or lose it", so they did.

[billbuckhead]

77. What started the war was a trade war & not the Brits wanting to take guns

BTW, the American revolution was part of a the first real world war in which the Brits, the Dutch, the French and the Spanish fought all over the planet. John Hancock was the richest man in America at the time and the Brits were going to open the market the for the East India tea company with the stamp act. Also the Brits had began to make slavery illegal in 1772 and the South was pissing themselves over it. Sounds a lot like the foundation of the coming American civil war.

[DoNotRefill]

88. Ah. So the Brits were marching on Lexington and Concorde to shop?

That's interesting. Not historically accurate, but interesting.

[billbuckhead]

95. The war started when the Brits defended their capitalists property

Thats when the soldiers came. The shooting didn't start till after the destruction of the East India Company's tea.

[FeebMaster]

97. You mean mercantilist. (nt)

[bigbillhaywood]

107. Mercantilism was an early form of capitalism-- also known as

"mercantile capitalism".

[DoNotRefill]

105. so the shooting started...

when the troops went to arrest the people who threw the tea in the harbor? They were NOT going to seize the guns in Lexington and Concorde when they were fired upon?

Simple question. What was the immediate purpose of the troops marching on Lexington and Concorde? What were they trying to immediately accomplish? Please answer the question, don't give me a long-winded diatribe about capitalism, communism, the price of tea in china, or anything else. Were the British troops marching on Concorde and Lexington to seize guns or not, and if you maintain that they weren't, please cite a CREDIBLE source (not Zinn) that says that they were not.

On edit: Here's part of the text of the order sent from General Gage to Lt. Col Smith: "Having received Intelligence, that a Quantity of Ammunition, Provision, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with the Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever ..."

[billbuckhead]

116. The war started when the tea hit the water, the guns were there before the

insurrrection and no troops were sent. The troops were sent to protect British interests after the destruction of the property. I know progun people put these inaminate objects on an altar but the war was about ideals and not weapons. Defending capitalist property is the highest ideal in a capitalist system. Go try to burn down a bank and see if you don't get stopped by the authorities. I say again the guns were there for a long time and the Brits did nothing till the tea hit the water.

[DoNotRefill]

121. even after I quoted the op order...

you still can't admit that the shooting didn't start until they tried to seize the guns. I salute your persistent self-delusion. My hat's off to you.

[billbuckhead]

123. The soldiers didn't come till the property was destroyed

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Just like today, the soldiers came to protect the oil. The Brits didn't go chasing after guns till the war started. You got the cart in front of the horse or the gunfight in front of the reason for it. The fixation on guns is the cause I suppose.

[DoNotRefill]

167. Nope...

The troops were around after the Tea Party, but before they marched to seize the guns. Nobody started shooting. If they had, and the war had been "on", they'd have been met at the wharf by people with guns. Once they went to seize the guns, people started shooting. And once people start shooting, THAT'S when the war begins. UNLESS there's a declaration of war beforehand, but that didn't happen.

If "the Brits didn't go chasing after guns till the war started", then when exactly did it start? When were the first shots of the war fired if not at Concorde Green?

It was the firing of those shots on Concorde Green that "started" the war. There were other reasons why people were unhappy, but the Brits sending troops to confiscate weapons is what turned a bad situation into a shooting war.

[billbuckhead]

30. In fact going door to door is obviously unAmerican

Do really think this is the right policy or are you playing DEVILS advocate?

[KiloForAngelese]

42. I think now is the time

Since Bush and his torturing admin are on the ropes we need to move and move fast. Reister the guns first while we have the high ground and then it will be easy to collect the rogue guns after Kerry is sworn in.

[OpSomBlood]

82. Noble causes don't require nefarious scheming.

n/t

[MrSlayer]

18. I don't see why any citizen needs a machine gun.

Handguns for protection and rifles for hunting are fine but no one needs to own a machine gun. You don't hunt with an M-16 or AK-47 unless you are hunting people. It's unnecessary and they should be banned from the general public.

[bigbillhaywood]

26. Yeah, leave them to the cops and military. No historical examples in this

country of those forces using arms to squelch popular discontent, demonstration, strikes and rebellion. We can trust the gov't to have a monopoly on such weapons. They're nice guys.

[Bombtrack]

33. Where do stop breaking up monopolies? Tanks? RPG's? Grenades?

We do live in a society that gives our government the job to protect us. That is there constitutional duty. And if we don't like how they're protecting us, we can vote in people who agree with us.

And on a related note. 50 percent of Americans favor an increase in firearms regulation, 10 percent favor less.

[bigbillhaywood]

36. Vote for democratic change in one hand and piss in the other and see

which fills up first. Look having the ballot box did not stop the gov't from using armed force against its citizens in strikes and demonstrations before-- what makes you think it will prevent it in the future. You have too much faith in our "democracy", it serves the interests of the rich-- it always has.

[OpSomBlood]

29. The assault weapons ban doesn't apply to machine guns.

Everybody:

The assault weapons ban doesn't apply to machine guns.
The assault weapons ban doesn't apply to machine guns.
The assault weapons ban doesn't apply to machine guns.

[Bombtrack]

34. It applies to submachine guns and assault rifles among other things.

.

[bigbillhaywood]

39. Nope, those have been illegal for several decades. The assault weapons

ban deals with high-capacity semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Machineguns are fully-automatic.

[OpSomBlood]

41. No, it does not.

The AWB only applies to semi-automatic weapons. Until 1994, the term "assault rifle" applied exclusively to shoulder-fired fully-automatic machine guns. The ban changed the nomenclature to include semi-automatic weapons.

Any weapon that fires more than one shot with a single trigger pull is defined as a machine gun and is heavily regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban has no pertinence to such weapons.

[DoNotRefill]

43. bombtrack, you are SO wrong.

show me where the AW ban even REMOTELY mentions submachineguns.

[DoNotRefill]

38. Why?

is it "because they're used in crime"? the fact is that legally owned machineguns are statistically NEVER used in crime. Since 1934, then they started tracking it, to date, TWO out of 250,000 legal machineguns in private hands have been criminally misused, and one of those crimes was committed by a police officer with a privately owned machinegun (this was 1986 in Dayton, OH).

Or is it that we should strip people's civil rights because their exercising them makes you feel uncomfortable? Isn't that the same reason given for Jim Crow?

Feh.

[GoldenOldie]

23. Problem Solved

The Bloomberg News reports that the "Army running out of ammo, seeks
bullets from foreigners." Seems like the debate about ownership of guns will be a moot point.

Guess Georgie won't be needing that extra 25-billion after all.

[Hubert Flottz]

25. I did think no we don't need them but being a democrat I've......

flip flopped! Hell you never know when a guy like Rush might want to come in and play some frat brat pranks on you or your kinfolk and I've never been into dying for someone else's stupidity!

EDIT} Besides Uncle Sugar showed me how to use one and it would be a damned shame to waste the "Good Training" that you folks paid for like Bush did!

[FemaleDemfromMass]

31. Right now,

in my city people are shooting in the streets, in broad daylight. It's gang wars and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Unfortunately, it's not in one area either, it's through a major part of the city.

I have always been an advocate for gun control, but now more than ever. This isn't the largest city either, but it is out of control because of guns and drugs and a Mayor who apparently doesn't care
and believe it or not, he's a Democrat. I can only hope we can get another Democrat to run against him when election time for him rolls around again. It won't be soon enough.

[DoNotRefill]

40. that's proof positive that gun control doesn't work...

Since Mass has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

[billbuckhead]

56. And Massachusetts has one of the lowest murder rates

Hawaii has extremely strong gun laws and almost no gun murders even though it is a diverse densly populated place with a lot of wealth. Vermont might have little gun crime but it's like a rural all white middleclass county.

[DoNotRefill]

60. I s'pose it's possible that people from MA just can't shoot straight...

since the person from Mass claimed that they were shooting up the city...

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[DoNotRefill]

64. are you cute and blonde and over 18?

if not, sorry. ;)

[bigbillhaywood]

68. Don't lie...

Over 18 is not a requirement for you. Neither is cute. I heard about "the incident".

[DoNotRefill]

90. Having sex with children isn't always wrong.

I was only 9 years old at the time. It doesn't excuse it, but it IS a mitigating circumstance, especially considering that she was older than I was. Besides, while she was ugly, she was also very willing. In fact, it was her idea. Really!!! ;)

[bigbillhaywood]

93. You're not in the Spartacist League are you? We should probably

end this discussion. I think our moderators might shut it down. You saw how they deleted my "Fuck You" post despite the disclaimer?

[DoNotRefill]

94. well...

the "fuck you" post was pretty harsh, and some people are offended by that kind of language.

I'm just joshing you. I know you're just joshing me. There are no hard feelings, at least from me.

[bigbillhaywood]

104. Yeah, I guess I'm still not used to discussion board etiquitte. I talk on

this board the way I do on the street. Where I'm from saying "Fuck you" is not automatically an insult. We use it all the time in everyday conversation.

[DoNotRefill]

110. yeah, I know....where I'm from, the term "pus-nutted son of a whore" is...

sometimes a term of endearment.

[bigbillhaywood]

122. Attention moderators...

Tombstone this insulting, sarcastic asshole!

BIG, BIG DISCLAIMER: I'M JUST FUCKING AROUND! (That means I'm just kidding)

DoNotRefill, you are a pus-nutted son of a whore, buddy.

[DoNotRefill]

166. It's a matter of context and tone...

Much as the "N word" can be a term of endearment, or a signal that a knock-down, drag-out fight has just been started.

My wife refers to me as "my rat bastard". Coming from her, it generates cuddlesome huggy-kissy-feelings. Coming from others, it's a sign that it's time to open the last can of whoop-ass.

:)

[-..__...]

119. Think it might be a people problem and not a gun problem?

"Hawaii has extremely strong gun laws and almost no gun murders even though it is a diverse densly populated place with a lot of wealth. Vermont with very liberal might have little gun crime but it's like a rural all white middleclass county."

Think about it.

[bigbillhaywood]

58. Springfield or Holyoke? Or...

Lowell, or New Bedford, or Lawrence or Brockton. Please tell me I got one of them right! I'm from East Boston-- oooh, I forgot one...Chelsea?

[FemaleDemfromMass]

67. You guessed right,

New Bedford - and unfortunately they haven't missed, one person was shot and another was killed. I guess though this is better than last year. We had a killing once a month throughout the year.

[bigbillhaywood]

71. Your town is a big center of heroin distribution in New England, so

that could have a lot to do with the violence. That and the unemployment there. My union used to have a lot of manufacturing plants and warehouses there, but they're all gone now.

[OpSomBlood]

75. Funny how violent crime and unemployment follow the same path.

n/t

[FemaleDemfromMass]

76. Yes, it's the drugs........

my husband will be retiring in two or three years. I would love to convince him to move away from here. Sadly, I don't think he will.

[bigbillhaywood]

85. Ah, it's not so bad. Besides, where else would you move to?

Not to Western Mass, I hope-- they're a bunch of Connecticut clones there and they don't know how to drive! I would love to be back in Boston, I'm so homesick. But my job tells me the only way I'm gonna get a transfer is if someone dies or retires!

[FemaleDemfromMass]

91. That's the problem too,

we've both lived here all of our lives. I don't think we could get used to somewhere new. My only hope is that my daughter will get out of here while she is still young (21).

[bigbillhaywood]

98. Hey, it's not where you live, it's what you do with your life. Your

daughter could do good things in New Bedford. Who knows? Some people gotta stick around to make things better. If not, she could always move to Boston. Close to home, but more opportunities. Eastie still has reasonable rent by Boston (outrageous) standards.

[FemaleDemfromMass]

114. She loves Boston

and I think she would love to move there, but she's working two jobs and taking classes so that will have to wait. She has her own apartment and I am so proud of her, she is independent, smart and a good worker. She will really go places - IMHO. :)

[bigbillhaywood]

118. Who doesn't. Rudest city in America, but still great...

I moved there when I was 16, and it was tough to make it, but I did okay in the end. 27 now and itching to go back. If I was, I wouldn't be on a message board on a Saturday night! But, unfortunately, I live in a city now where I know hardly anyone and I'm on the road most of the time so I don't get to meet many people. I love my job, but in a year or two when my debts are paid off, I'm moving back-- job or no job. Your daughter may have to wait and save (like me), but it will sure be worth it when she finally gets to move. Of course, who knows? Maybe things will work out for her in New Bedford!

[DoNotRefill]

92. I'm reminded of Councilman Chuck Richardson...

from the City of Richmond, VA. At the time, Richmond had one of the highest per capita homicide rates in the country. A newspaper asked him if he thought drugs were responsible for the upswing in murder in Richmond. He said "No, it's not the drugs, it's all the guns." This was a short time before he was indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison for being one of the city's largest heroin dealers while he was on City Council.

[bigbillhaywood]

73. Oh, and by the way-- welcome to DU! n/t

[FemaleDemfromMass]

79. Thanks for the welcome! n/t

[OpSomBlood]

32. Semi-automatic is not "high output".

One shot per trigger pull.

[-..__...]

96. Talk about a loaded question!

You play the NBC strawman when a simple "yes" or "no" answer to your question would suffice.

"We need some sort of ban on high output weapons".

WTF is that? A plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?

[OpSomBlood]

101. I admit, "high output" was a new one by me, too.

Anti-gun propagandists must love the creative freedom they get to invent new firearms terminology. First we got "assault weapon" (an interesting variation of "assault rifle" that refers to cosmetic features on semi-autos), then it was "assault pistol" (a term we're starting to hear a lot but has no definition) and now it's "high-output weapons" (which is curious, because semi-autos have a rather slow "output" rate...one shot per trigger pull).

[-..__...]

129. "Bullet hose" is my favorite.

Followed by "spray fire from the hip", and runner-up... "Hose down an area".

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. I think we should be able to get anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons

since that's what would be needed ultimately if the people needed to revolt against the government or repel foreign invaders. I mean really, what do hunting rifles and handguns have to do with "A well regulated Militia" or "the security of a free State"? We need RPGs, Stinger missiles, antitank mines, etc., not rifles with bigger clips.

[OpSomBlood]

106. Semi-auto "assault weapons" have been around for about 100 years.

Where was the outrage back then?

And as for the "we'd never be able to revolt against our superior military" argument:

Of course not. Just look at Iraq.

[billbuckhead]

109. Actually guns aren't getting the job done in Iraq it's RPG's & roadside

bombs. Body armour has made guns remarkably ineffective against a strong well equipped miltary.

[DoNotRefill]

113. Ah. That's why...

the guy in the car with Thomas Hamill on the kidnap video had a RPG and an IED instead of a Kalishnikov....

I've yet to see a piece of body armor that will stop a 7.62x39mm round to the face...

[billbuckhead]

150. Once you're captured you could use spears and clubs

Most of these rifles the high capacity weapon crowd are fighting for aren't that accurate that they're gonna get that many head shots. I think the roughly 20 wounded to 1 killed casualty figures coming out of Iraq bears that out. People don't use these things like sniper rifles, they want to use them like machine guns.

[OpSomBlood]

158. The design of the weapon doesn't affect how it is used.

And it's a little hard for a semi-auto rifle to be used like a machine gun...a little obstacle called "reality" prevents it.

[DoNotRefill]

168. Ah. So...

your average firefight in Iraq takes place with the US side having machineguns, artillery, cannons, et cetera, but the Iraqis just use RPGs and IEDs, right?

A RPG is a piss-poor gun to be using against infantry, because it doesn't throw fragments worth a damn. It's good against LAVs and when massed against helicopters at close range, it's pretty ineffective against heavy armor in that it takes a really lucky shot, but it's a crappy anti-infantry weapon. On the other hand, it would be pretty damned funny to see a squad of enemy soldiers try to clear a building using only RPGs... :)

Hamill was captured in the ambush of a convoy of FUEL TRUCKS. What happens when an RPG hits a fuel truck, and the self-forging plasma discharge from the warhead penetrates the hull? Hint: Very, VERY hot stuff comes into contact with thousands of gallons of gasoline yeilds what result? Since Hamill was alive and in one piece, instead of dead and in very small crispy pieces, odds are pretty good that they didn't use RPGs on his truck, right?

Also, RPGs aren't exactly rapid fire weapons, ya know? And IEDs are a real bitch to try to use for personal defense, unless you're a suicidal "not so smart bomb".

[MrSandman]

111. Second Amendment is not about hunting...n/t

[Nimble_Idea]

108. If you want an assault weapon

THEN MAN THE FUCK UP and go to Iraq.

That's what I say to you "big weapon , little man" people.

[FeebMaster]

112. The army doesn't issue assault weapons.

They issue machine guns.

[Nimble_Idea]

124. You've got me, your a genius

eom.

[OpSomBlood]

126. He wasn't trying to "get you"...he was stating a simple fact.

The types of weapons used by our military are completely unaffected by the Assault Weapons Ban. The ban applies to semi-automatics only, which means one shot per trigger pull.

[Nimble_Idea]

131. ok well, I'm not here to play word games

All Im saying, is if you want weapons to kill people, join the army or police. But they will do checks on you, so you can't be crazy and such...mmmkay?


Btw, I'm not against small handguns, I think they are ok.
I'm not against all weapons as I said in another post. I just said that because of his little threat.

[OpSomBlood]

136. So if you want to kill people, join the police?

I admit, it's pretty strange logic you're dishing out here.

I'd also like some elaboration as to why small guns are less of a threat than big guns. Because statistics routinely show that "small guns" are used in more than 90% of gun crimes, and "assault weapons" in less than 3%.

But don't let the facts get in your way.

Also, who threatened you?

[Nimble_Idea]

138. ok here goes...

people who want to kill people should head to the nearest police station or military recruiter, and make it known you want to kill people with guns, so they can finger you...

And small guns won't get a whole Highschool killed, it will give time for police to get there and stop the fools.

And your fuzzy math about numbers, who cares what percent, get rid of guns, gun crimes go down. Simple math to me.

and you did.

eom.

[OpSomBlood]

142. Your math is simplistic and impossible.

My math is plain statement of fact.

And as for "big guns" (the kind in the Assault Weapons Ban) killing people faster than "small guns" (the kind used in more than 90% of gun crimes)...they all fire at the same rate. So one does not fire faster than another.

By the way, someone taking note of your "big talk" from anonymity is not a threat. There's nothing in this thread that can even remotely be construed as threatening, other than your irrational expression of fear at my observation.

[Nimble_Idea]

145. Your threats scare me, and I hope they take away your gun

Your doing nothing but distortions. So now, I'm the threat??
lol:eyes:

[OpSomBlood]

160. "Assult weapons": 3%, "small guns": 90%

There are no distortions in those numbers whatsoever. The "small guns" that you think are hunky-dory are the ones used in the vast majority of gun crimes.

As for threats, go ahead and point out where anyone here has threatened you. You seem a little paranoid.

[DoNotRefill]

172. Hmmmm....

"And your fuzzy math about numbers, who cares what percent, get rid of guns, gun crimes go down. Simple math to me."


Too bad that the gun control experiment in England proves you wrong. They got rid of almost ALL civilian ownership of guns, and gun crime (along with other crime) went UP.

BTW, most of the people killed by the Columbine shooters were killed not with an assault weapon, but with....drumroll...wait for it....a SHOTGUN.

[DoNotRefill]

171. ROTFLMAO!!!!!

"All Im saying, is if you want weapons to kill people, join the army or police. But they will do checks on you, so you can't be crazy and such...mmmkay?"

Given the pictures and video from Iraq, I HAVE to ask you what you base your "you can't be crazy" statement on.

Somebody a long time ago said this, which sums your position up in a nutshell: "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." we saw where that got the world...

[FeebMaster]

133. Thank you. (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

115. the people having guns doesn't serve the State.

Isn't that how the rest of the quote goes?

[OpSomBlood]

117. Define an assault weapon, or can you?

Funny...most legislators can't do it, either.

Last time I checked, they were using machine guns in Iraq. The AWB doesn't apply to machine guns.

And it's rather ironic that "big weapon, little man" is "big talk" shielded by the anonymity of the internet.

[Nimble_Idea]

127. assault weapon =

firearm used to injure or kill people.
in other words assault weapon.

as for machine guns, refer to my earlier respose to someone else.

as for the "big talk" shielded by the anonymity of the internet.....

oh my......the subtle threat....makes me nervous.....I'm scared now...
I'm afraid you might come assault me with your weapon.....I'm glad you can't because I'm shielded by the internet, and I hope they take your weapon away.

[OpSomBlood]

132. Who issued a threat?

By the way, your definition of "assault weapon" is ridiculous in it's vagueness. But I guess that's why you're not a legislator.

[Nimble_Idea]

137. strange, I thought I would make a good legislator

you know, vagueness, blank checks and all.

[DoNotRefill]

173. Yup....just like the Patriot Act was good legislation...

eom

[bigbillhaywood]

135. So, under your defintion a blackpowder musket would be an "assault

weapon". How ridiculous. I don't like guns..they're scary. I trust my government-- the police and the military to use them responsibly, but no one else. Yeah, the cops and the military-- they never do bad things, they never attack their own citizens.

[billbuckhead]

130. Feel threatened?

It's well known that men use mechanical objects especially guns, boats and cars to express their masculinity. It's also a cliche that sports cars, speed boats and guns are often used to overcome the insecurity small penises or lack of luck with women or society in general. Advertising use it all the time, otherwise everyone e-mails wouldn't be filled with penis enhancement ads and Rush Limbaugh and his ilk wouldn't have penis enhancement ads.

[Nimble_Idea]

134. yes I do.....he scares me

did you see what he said to me? I don't know about people's motives or whatever, but I just don't think they should have assault weapons in our streets.

I refuse to live in a Taliban-lite country.

[OpSomBlood]

139. Sorry, my desire to own a rifle has little to do with my penis.

But thanks for the concern. As for the "threats"...someone please let me know when there is one to speak of.

[DoNotRefill]

174. I've seen a fair number of penis enhancement ads...

but can't recall seeing a single one with a big gun in it. Why is that?

"Fear of weapons is a sign of sexual immaturity."--Freud

[bigbillhaywood]

125. The military are about the last people I want to have those weapons...

It's precisely because they and the police are armed, that I want private citizens to be armed also. You trust the State too much. They have and will use their weapons to suppress democratic rights.

[Nimble_Idea]

128. last time I checked

our army was volunteer, people who come from our families and hometowns......yeah I want to see the time they actually go to suppress the private citi..oh i mean their own family....


give me a break.

[bigbillhaywood]

140. Okay, you want examples, I'll give you examples...

Military/Nat'l Guard:

Kent State massacre
Seattle General Strike
San Fransisco General Strike
US General Strike of 1877
Teamster Minneapolis Strike
Pullman Strike

many others...


Police/Federal agents

Murder of Fred Hampton (Black Panthers)
Little Steel strike
Amadou Diallo
Cincinnati Rebellion

Damn, I could list so many instances where the military or the police used armed force to oppress the people or kill innocent people I won't even bother mentioning more. Open your eyes.

[bigbillhaywood]

147. Come on, now reply to my post. What's the matter? No "Times have

changed-- that wouldn't happen, now"? Funny, whenever I bring up the historical examples of armed gov't oppression here in the US, the anti-gunners fall silent. Unless you would like to argue that strikers and demonstrators don't have the right to self-defense. Or that such self-defense would be ineffective against the US Army (sorry, but it was in the SF general strike and the Minn. Teamsters strike, and to an extent in the 1877 general strike).

[Nimble_Idea]

148. 1877?? Are you serious???

Like I said, not all weapons, but most.
Reasoned people can make a judgement on what is ridiculous to let in the hands to end up in the streets to gun down people.

It will all be voted on, so we can argue all we want, but soon it will be law.

[bigbillhaywood]

151. Ha! Ha! I'm Carnac the Magnificent check out post 147. How recent

does the last example have to be for you to recognize it can happen again? Many of the examples I gave you were from the 60s, others from the 30s. With a right-wing Republican political hegemony, what makes you think it can't happen now? How has our basic political structure changed since 1877? We were an electoral "democracy" then as we are now.

[FeebMaster]

152. How about 1985 when the Philadelphia police

dropped a bomb on the MOVE house which sparked off a blaze that burned 60 other houses down.

[bigbillhaywood]

154. Right! And also the Cinncinatti rebellion, which I mentioned, happened a

couple of years ago. Press spun it as black "riots", but the indiscriminate rioting didn't occur until a few dyas into the rebellion. Up until then, there were demonstrations and acts of ouright rebellion against City Hall and the police. Police even attacked nonviolent protestors. Of course, I doubt this matters to whatshisface-- in his view America is a good place where the gov't does no wrong.

[OpSomBlood]

159. Free Trade Protests in Miami last year.

Another example of armed police attacking an unarmed public.

[makhno]

141. Yeah

You must've been asleep these past couple of weeks. You think young Lynndie and the other sociopaths at Abu Ghraib would think twice about shooting their "assault weapon" into an American crowd?

It baffles me that given the uncertain times we're in, people would actually clamor to take away some more of our already limited rights.

[bigbillhaywood]

143. Thank you, nestor.

[makhno]

146. We need a little sanity

I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading on every gun control thread.

[bigbillhaywood]

153. Neither can I, but I think it's the opposite of what you're thinking of...

I'm surprised how many DUers actually SUPPORT gun rights. I guess not everyone's in the ether.

[OpSomBlood]

155. 39% of Democrats own a gun.

A little statistic the VPC/Brady grabbers don't want you to know about.

[makhno]

157. I think that ..

.. while some of the "Democrats are anti-gun" rhetoric is accurate, the perception is also to a large extent perpetuated by Republicans, for whom it represents a very convenient political tool. A lot of Democrats support gun ownership and if the party were to adopt a less shrill institutional tone on the issue, it could gain numerous converts in what passes for red states. A lot of working class and rural voters share broadly liberal ideas, I think. Guns and issues of morality and religion is what's keeping them away from our party. Resolving one of those without compromising constitutional tenets would go a long way toward making the party attractive to them.

Perhaps we're moving in this direction. I don't follow the issue that closely, but it seems that we've come down a bit from the anti-gun hysteria of the early 90s.

[bigbillhaywood]

161. Here's what I think...

I think the extremism and political hegemony of the right wing is scaring the shit out of Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans. I can't tell you how many formerly conservative people I've known who are moving left. It's not a majority by any means, but I think as this country moves more and more to the right, people on the "soft left" are moving hard left, and libertarian-minded folks are starting to realize the corporate fascists and their lap-dog Republicans are the most dangerous enemies to their liberties.

I think people who used to not fear gov't tyranny now fear it, and that accounts for the change in opinion on gun ownership rights. Now, the challenge is to get the right-wing gun-nuts on our side. They share many common values, they have just been manipulated and misled by the right-wing (I should know, I used to be one of them). We can win them over and they will be formidable allies.

[FeebMaster]

162. Most of them are hopeless.

"They share many common values, they have just been manipulated and misled by the right-wing (I should know, I used to be one of them). We can win them over and they will be formidable allies."

Most of them will try and tell you how pro-gun the Republican party is and they'll do it with a straight face too. If you bring up all the gun control the Republicans have passed they'll just start whining about how the AWB is worse or how things would have been even worse if the Democrats had been in charge.

[OpSomBlood]

163. It worked on me.

I was a registered independent and quite moderate before Bush stole the election in 2000. Now people think I'm way to the left.

But I don't tow the party line on every issue. I think the right to own guns is a big part of what makes us truly free. It's a choice, and no one is forcing you to own them.

It's pretty ridiculous that guns are even considered a "Democrat" or "Republican" issue. The Republicans decided about 30 years ago to make it (along with abortion) the wedge they use to divide the Democrats.

And some Dems took the bait.

[FeebMaster]

164. Of course, the funniest part

is that's about the same time the Republicans started passing all kinds of gun control at the federal level.

[billbuckhead]

175. Your getting beat 2to1 on saturday night on forum full of NRA astroturfers

and you think your doing well. It's pretty consistant with what polls say that 2/3 of Dems are for stronger gun regulation close to 60% for independents and 40% for republicans. I pretty more women would be voting during daytime hours.

[OpSomBlood]

177. Yeah, and how many of those who voted yes think it's about machine guns?

n/t

[makhno]

144. Screw anti-gun laws

I was watching a NY cops and robbers documentary the other day. Needless to say, every big bust involving countless local, state and federal LEO's was on drug or gun charges. In other words, the state actually created the crime and then proceeded to spend billions of dollars to "remedy" the situation and ruin the lives of millions of people.

Why not spend that money on better schools? After school activities? College funds for poor kids? Social programs for their parents? No, we will instead create criminals where none need to exist. It's fucked up beyond words.

[OpSomBlood]

149. Decriminalize drugs, lock up violent criminals.

I'd even be willing to compromise and have mandatory extended sentences specifically for those who use "assault weapons" in crime.

But stop passing laws designed only to harrass law-abiding citizens. Because criminals sure aren't buying their guns at stores and subjecting themselves to background checks. They buy their guns from trunks of cars.

[krkaufman]

169. Don't worry about it for now.

We've got bigger fish to fry.

[corporatewhore]

170. I am now progun because of Iraq and against the ban

Operation White Mans Burden showed me how guns could be of aid to oppressed people to stage an effective resistance and to defend against god knows what "our" troops are doing to them.(i guess this is what the founders had in mind) Also have been reading up on the Black Panthers and why gun control came into play

[MadProphetMargin]

176. An unarmed population is a population of slaves, or potential slaves.