In five words or less, explain the Demcratic position on guns

[0rganism]

Can you do it?

[jpgray]

1. Your guns, and our safety.

:)

[0rganism]

9. I like it. This is a good one.

It could be a little more thorough, but it has that nice sound-bite quality.

[LiberteToujours]

46. Come on, he only had five words!

What do you expect. :D

[aprillcm]

138. Hunting Good, Killing people bad!

[vet_against_Bush]

159. That is good. Ownership with responsibility. good job! nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Guns bad

It is not a realistic point of view, but that seems to be the position.

[AlexHamilton]

3. ...

No guns for psychos?

hehe

Alex
Impeachment by the People

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Emphasize safety and sensible weapon restrictions

[0rganism]

8. Six words, but it's a good start if you can define "sensible restrictions"

Work it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. No guns for felons and at risk personalities

Restrict the sale of automatic weapons
Register weapons to ensure enforcement of the laws
Gun safety training a must

[0rganism]

14. 100 points for precision, but -100000 points for brevity

five words or less, right? :)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. hey I didn't know you wanted the definition in 5 words or less

OK sensible restrictions: Register, emphasize legal ownership, teach safety. 6 words..OK?

[0rganism]

20. Tell ya what: five words or seven syllables, your choice

If we don't figure this out, we're going to have a helluva time communincating with America.

[SOL]

25. a question

How do you stop felons from getting guns?

Who decides what personalities are at risk? Wouldn't this involve more government intrusion into our personal lives?

[slackmaster]

50. Automatic weapons have been restricted since 1934

Register weapons to ensure enforcement of the laws

Wouldn't help with criminal misuse - Crooks would use unregistered ones just as they often do here in California (we have handgun registration).

Gun safety training a must

I agree. Let's teach it in public schools.

[jmowreader]

74. In a lot of the red states, they do

In Idaho, all seventh graders take hunter safety. This is largely gun safety, but you do learn how to move through the woods with a gun and how to read what's beyond the animal you're attempting to shoot. It lasts two days and part of it is shooting--you have to fire five rounds through a .22. At the end you get your Hunter Safety card; without this you cannot get a hunting license.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. In five words or less, explain the Republican position on guns

Can you do it?

[0rganism]

10. Democrats will take your guns

Done.

[DireStrike]

13. THE WINNER - It's you!!

lmao!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Gun control: hitting the target

[fob]

56. Republicans are lying to you.

Done

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

160. Ah, you want hyperbolic vitriol? Mmmmkay.

"Republicans sell guns to children"

[0rganism]

180. Difference: I stated the republican position, & you make shit up for spite

Are you trying to say my assessment of the republican position is "hyperbolic vitriol," or the actual republican position is "hyperbolic vitriol"? I could agree with you in the latter case. However, if the former, I suggest you read some of the posts from our gun-owning NRA-belonging friends in this very thread. "Democrats will take your guns" is common perception now, it's the message the NRA and the GOP have been spreading for the last 30+ years. They'll even show you some out-of-context quotes from Feinstein, et al, to prove their point. It may be hyperbolic vitriol, but it's also a prevailing idea among republicans.

So you want to counter with "Republicans sell guns to children"? Is that your actual idea of the Democratic position on guns? First time I've seen or heard it, but let's say it's a supportable assertion to the same degree as "Democrats will take your guns". If you can put something together that really makes the case, you just might be able to get that one propagating. It could actually be helpful in weakening support for republicans, even if it is "hyperbolic vitriol", whether or not the Democrats openly embrace it.

[pinniped]

30. repukes are full of shit

Too many repukes are under the impression that the repuke party is all for their guns and shit. Two of the last three major gun control laws at the federal level have been signed by repuke presidunces. The 1989 one really banned a lot of shit and the asshole who signed it is the piece of shit father of the piece of shit thief currently residing in the piece of shit wh.

Did the short-term memory repukes forget about those?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. Why complain to us?

Why complain to us about the characteristics of Republican memories?

Does referring to excrement six times advance the debate and get a Democrat elected or change a Republican mind?

[pinniped]

32. Why not complain to us?

These are the kind of stupid repukes you're dealing with. They vote repuke even after they ban their guns.

How does one unbrainwash that? I don't think it's possible.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. You don't think it is possible.

Complaining here and calling them repukes and calling them stupid (even if they often are) won't unbrainwash them. Not many of them read here and those who do won't be impressed or swayed by the insults.

[pinniped]

41. I always refer to them as repukes.

Anyways, back to the topic-

Ok, maybe when the NRA endorses a Democratic candidate for president over a repuke one, some gun repukes may be swayed. If there are many single issue repuke gun voters that may be the key. I suspect there are many.

I read that Howard Dean was in good standing with the gun owners in VT. Maybe he could've won the NRA endorsement along with the single issue voter repuke gunnuts.

Should they run Dean next time sans "the yell"?

[onenote]

60. sure: guns for all white people

onenote

[doni_georgia]

210. "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS"

....now if Heston would just hurry up and get on with it, I WILL.

Mac in Ga.

[Dude_CalmDown]

6. Five words or less? Is this a presidential daily briefing? n/t

*

[Selatius]

7. That's hard

"Have them. Don't abuse them."

[Davion]

12. A "Well Regulated Militia", DUMBASS!

J/k I'm mostly libertarian, and support SOME gun control, but not most, but it just felt good to say for some reason!

[DianeG5385]

15. Use guns to defend yourself

Guns are only necessary in a destabilized society. If you feel unsafe, keep a gun but secure it so you don't go crazy when your kids kill themselves acidentally.

[uhhuh]

17. Keep Them, But Be Careful

[hangloose]

18. never point at a humanbeing

[0rganism]

24. If that's the Democratic position, we're gonna lose every time

Defensive gun usage is the main reason for handgun ownership.

[hangloose]

151. Gee! I thought it was for turkey hunting, George, George,

where are you? Got your cammies on!

[Mojambo]

19. Ed Schultz had a caller do this one today

Safe Gun Ownership was the one that the caller suggested.

I like it.

[0rganism]

21. Or was it the other way around? You're right, tho.

I want to see if we can pass the "Schultz Test."

[prairierose]

22. assault weapons are bad for police n/t

ok that's 6

[BernieBear]

23. No but Jefferson had a good one

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves gainst tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson


Up until a few months ago I was a gun control advocate. Couldn't understand why you'd need or want a gun unless you were a hunter, which seems barbaric to me. Then I got worried about Fascism. Then I started to support the dissolution of the "assault weapon" ban and thought about buying one. Then I started to get worried when I saw that Russia was rounding up the people's guns.

I am now a strong Gun Rights believer. And TJ gives my reason....

:tinfoilhat:

[Buck Rabbit]

162. Interesting but,

We now know that unrestricted gun ownership was the norm in Iraq.

So either Saddam was not a tyrant or Jefferson and the NRA are wrong.

Near universal gun ownership also proved useless against stopping a foreign invader, firing AK47s at Abram Tanks only gets you dead and doesn't even scratch the paint on the tank.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

26. Promoting Gun Safety

I have dodged the whole Gun Control phrase for the past year with that one.

[Leilani]

27. It should be:

Stay Out of My Life!

[Zorra]

29. "Wanna see my new AK47?"

The Democratic position on guns, Nov. 3, 2004.

[anamandujano]

153. I like this one

I was thinking something like "We all need guns now."

[sandnsea]

33. courts protect our civil rights

In 200 years of democracy, we've relied on courts, not militant uprisings. The courts uphold our other constitutional rights as well, even the right to have guns. Which doesn't mean there aren't laws to regulate them, just like there's laws about orderly free speech.

(We're willingly handing over our civil rights on a daily basis, the idea that anybody is going to storm the WH with assault rifles is ridiculous. That's why I just don't buy into the 2nd Amendment stuff at all)

[Skittles]

34. legal and registered like cars

nt

[slackmaster]

51. You mean if I choose to register it I can carry it in public anywhere?

Works for me.

:D

[rockymountaindem]

69. Works in Colorado Springs too.

Until someone brought a loaded shotgun to a city council meeting and calmly sat down with it and listened to the proceedings with a loaded gun on his knee.

Now you can take it anywhere *except* city council meetings.

[kayell]

115. Only if I get to drive my car everywhere. Clear the sidewalk!

Here I come!

[firebee]

36. Simple... "God is the Truth"

God is what really happens, God is the divine reason behind science. God is a scientific equation proven true. God is the reality we're faced with. God is part of you and all around you. God speaks to us through mathematical equations, but we barely understand the divine nature of his language. Think about it... numbers never lie, even when somebody changes the numbers. A human will always make a mistake when he or she tries to play God and the numbers will always reflect those mistakes. God is what happened, what's happening and what will happen. No matter how much a person lies, deceives and manipulates other people or numbers; their will always be the truth in the end. The truth is always there and it always will be.

[0rganism]

38. You took a wrong turn somewhere on the road to "Simple"

:D

[firebee]

39. Guns... "I voted against them before I voted for them"

Before, I wasn't real hep on people having assault rifles. However, with tanks rolling around L.A., the Patriot Act II and God knows what else... Anybody know where I can pick up an AK-47 or SKS?

[JSJ]

42. ha ha ha

[immoderate]

62. God is whatever I want him to be.

--IMM

[JSJ]

37. don't shoot us

[T Town Jake]

40. "We're not gonna grab them"...

...at least, that should be the message. We lost the Congress in '94 largely thanks to this gun control silliness, and Tennessee in 2000 (which would've put it over the top for Gore, Florida or no Florida) to the same fruitless cause. The sooner the Democratic Party scampers away from "gun control" the better.

[cleofus1]

43. gun policy...

Education, Registration, Verification...crispy duck....

[wickerwoman]

44. Your hobby=my dead son.

Put it on a picture on scales with a big question mark at the bottom.

[slackmaster]

47. Please accept my condolences on the death of your son

I think we should embrace RESPONSIBLE gun owners who secure their arms properly.

Here's how I store mine:

[wickerwoman]

212. My son isn't dead.

Don't have any kids. And I'm not really that anti-gun anyway. I think we have loads more important issues to tackle right now.

I was just trying to sum up the democrats' platform on guns in a way that has impact. And I think the real belief there is that the safety of children does outweigh the hobbies of others. We do limit freedoms where the safety of others is concerned (speed limits, no drunk driving, etc.) So I don't have problems with limiting access to handguns.

Anyway, sorry if my post came across as more strident than I meant it.

[slackmaster]

213. I hereby retract my condolences

Keeping with five-word rule.

:D

[SoCalDem]

45. Please do not shoot me

:)

[proud patriot]

48. Accountability

I did it in one word .

[slackmaster]

49. Our position is not coherent

We need a better one.

[puttothesword]

67. what the dem position should be.

Out in my neck of the woods, the reason democrats lose is almost always the gun issue.

Kerry lost in my county because of that hunting video. Everyone here looked at Kerry carrying a dead goose in brand new clothes with a brand new gun and went "yeah.... right... I sure believe that! Whose he think he's fooling?"

Him running back to sign the "assault" weapons ban also didn't endear him to any of my neighbors (or me to be honest). It was a dumb law that just made the lives of folks who own guns a pain in the ass, especially those who buy inexpensive mil-surp rifles.

The dem position should be to support Vermont style gun laws. If democrats don't want to loose big in rural areas time after time again, the position has to change to "We'll protect the 2nd amendment as vigorously as we'll protect the rest." and to KEEP that promise.

[Straight Shooter]

81. The gun, I believe, was a gift.

I heard people complaining because he wasn't carrying the goose, it was the other person with him, although Kerry shot the goose.

As for the clothes, he's got money, he can buy the most recent cammo.

Ever seen these "real" fishermen with their $20,000 worth of fish-finding equipment? Or the "real" hunters with their $5,000 blinds and their fancy deer pheromone traps?

Those people are making excuses.

[puttothesword]

101. ....

"Or the "real" hunters with their $5,000 blinds and their fancy deer pheromone traps?"

Yup. Saw one just a couple of weeks ago. We all laughed at him because it was blatantly obvious he was city folk and would prolly end up shooting his toe off before the end of the day.

There's a distinct difference in some well to do sport hunter who spends lots of bucks to hunt for the hell of it verses those of us who do it to survive or at least suppliment the food supply. It's easy for folks to tell the difference and it adds further insult to injury when the guy doing it has a long history of what folks 'round here call "gun grabbing".

Really, you don't know these folks well enough to say they're making excuses. There was damn near a parade to my local gun shop when the assault weapons bill went sunset.

[K-W]

129. They are making excuses.

Now it is the responsibility of the politician to reach out to the people, but when the people are trying thier damndest not to be reached by one of the candidates, it becomes a very silly game.

They dont like Kerry because they dont like Kerry. If they wanted to, they could find a million and a half reasons not to like Bush. But instead they find a million and a half reasons not to like John Kerry and then make that their reason to like Bush.

The democrats are on the wrong side of the gun issue for these people, I understand that, but they just voted for the worst president of our lifetimes because the other candidate is in favor of making some kinds of gun ownership a little less convenient.

Nobody wants to grab thier guns, and democrats have made that absolutely clear. These people persist in believing lies.

[puttothesword]

133. Um. No.

"Nobody wants to grab thier guns, and democrats have made that absolutely clear."

I believe Pagan Preacher just posted a list of quotes of leading Democrats who want to do exactly that.

[Straight Shooter]

168. I have lived my whole life around hunters

Family is from Virginia, I lived in Texas a long time, and now in Oregon.

Hunters, hunters, hunters.

No one here made fun of Kerry hunting. He's been hunting for years. Whether his clothes were new or not, whether he carried a goose or didn't carry it, is irrelevant.

And I almost went to get my own AK-47.

Edit: my entire family hunts game, I ate venison regularly at the dinner table

[cheezus]

52. guns are for pussies, pussy

[offcenter]

53. People with guns kill people

n/t

[chaska]

54. Frame it right. "GUNS ARE FOR HUNTERS"

We must not frame it such that the underlying message is that dems will take your guns. In terms of message, we want to give, not take.

[slackmaster]

57. What about collectors, target-shooters, and people who need them for

Self-defense?

How about police and private security guards?

If you limit it to just "hunters" you're going to piss off a lot of people like me who own them for other reasons. Besides assisting my pet cat in rounding up a rat now and then I've never hunted.

[chaska]

93. It's a slogan, it doesn't have to encompass all possible variables.

We're talking about winning elections, not policies. The policy is to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Joe gun lover probably doesn't belong to that group.

We're talking about salesmanship - we need a simple effective message.

[slackmaster]

126. Keep them away from criminals

That works for me, and for 99% of the gun owners I know.

Saying they're (just) for hunters is exclusionary.

[K-W]

130. People dont just want them for hunting.

This slogan would be even less inclusive than our current policy.

[JHB]

55. mixed and confused

Or maybe 'Dazed and Confused' would be better.

[mortimer_az]

58. Prove Responsibility, Keep Your Guns

..or..

Graduate Approved Training, Keep Guns

[seabeyond]

59. back the f* off

4 words i did it

[No Mandate Here.]

61. Won't take them ALL AWAY.

[sweetheart]

63. "Right to life supercedes guns"

5 words is short...
"The right to life supercedes the right to own toys."

[PaganPreacher]

95. "right to life?"

Isn't that an anti-abortion phrase?

[sweetheart]

161. The declaration of independence !!!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator
with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government,
laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
safety and happiness.

These rights precede the bill of rights, and are not ennumerated
as they are bloody obvious.... but not obvious anymore where the
population is so ignorant, that the body politic mistakes references
to the declaration of independece as related to abortion.

[slackmaster]

171. I collect guns in the pursuit of happiness and liberty

And they pose no threat to anyone's life.

[sweetheart]

174. Yes and a mountain of bodies speaks from beyond the grave

about their denied right to life... a right that is more precious
than gun collector's feelings.

Frankly, i believe in an outright ban on handguns, and full-automatic
weapons. Let people have rifles... They're too bulky to be concealed
street "rapper" weapons.

I live in a rural area myself, and i respect the need to have a
rifle around for varmits and things that threaten livestock.

There is a balance between that mountain of bodies and your gun
collection.

[slackmaster]

181. There is no nexus between the "mountain o' bodies" and my collection

You may not be aware of this, but fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934. The small number of them that are legally owned by civilians have been used in crimes only twice in that 70-year period. Banning them now would serve no useful purpose; it would only infringe on the property rights of the few people fortunate enough to own them.

You are entitled your opinion that handguns ought to be banned, but I hope you realize that view is out of step with a large majority of voters. There was a ballot initiative to ban handguns (except for use by police, of course) in California back in the 1970s. It was defeated by more than a 2 to 1 margin. You have the right to ban handguns from your home. I encourage you to do that if it helps in your pursuit of happiness.

Let people have rifles... They're too bulky to be concealed
street "rapper" weapons.

FWIW - Most of my collection consists of rifles.

There is a balance between that mountain of bodies and your gun
collection.

Only in your mind. If I felt that my collection had any relationship to criminal misuse of firearms I'd destroy them all.

[sweetheart]

198. We're way far away from my position

I tried to write 5 words to describe a position and suddently i'm
defending gun control! aah!

I support ending the war on drugs that is the cause of 90% of gun
crimes in our country.

I support ending wrongful death lawsuit protections for gun makers.

Let the civil courts cause the gun makers to seek out innovative
licensing solutions so that they can avoid bankruptcy through
wrongful deaths.

I believe were these 2 factors started, that the whole problem would
sort itself out without requiring some sort of centrallized
legislation.

If all these gun owners were protecting the constitution, then
it would only take about 50 2nd tier lieutenant deaths in the nazi
party before they would collapse totally. Rather people are upholding
the second, not to protect the constitution, but their gun cases...

and i find that as unimportant in public argument as model train
collecting.

I wonder if my collection of anti-tank mines would ever become an
issue under the gun laws.... naaah! ;-)

[slackmaster]

211. Thanks for your kind reply

:D

[puttothesword]

184. if we're concerned about saving lives:

Number of People killed by Guns: around 11,000 per year
Number of People killed by Cars: around 43,000 per year

Now, if you take the number of guns in the US (about 223 Million) and the number of cars (around 200 Million) you'll see that you have about one death for every 20,273 guns and one death for every 4,651 cars which makes cars MUCH more dangerous in my book (not to mention enviromental damage caused by cars in manufacturing and use and the health effects associated with breathing that crap in).

So... if we're concerned about saving lives, wouldn't banning cars make much more sense?

[sweetheart]

196. You trapped yourself with that argument

As i merely agree, and that we should license gun owners just like
car drivers before they can be allowed to purchase ammunition.
Comprehensive licensing, and restricting of the priviledge to those
who keep to the terms of the license has worked rather well with
cars. It can work with guns.

I do agree about cars, and am a supporter of technology improvements
to vechilces to cut this rate. Car brake lights should increase
intensity with the intensity of the decelleration. There should
be a small row of green LED's on the back of a car showing its
speed in 10's of MPH. This would help prevent freeway pileups at
night. There is this forum: http://www.whynot.net/view_category.php?category_id=2 and i have written
and suggested quite a few ideas to improve car safety.

Bottom line, to end gun crime:

End the drugs war
End civil lawsuit protections from gun makers for wrongful death claims.

Let the civil courts sort the violators out on a case by case basis,
and let the victems of the wrongfully killed be empowered.

[puttothesword]

202. I did no such thing...

"As i merely agree, and that we should license gun owners just like
car drivers before they can be allowed to purchase ammunition."

And when there is either no longer a second amendment or an amendment that states "the right of the people to keep and bear fine automobiles shall not be abridged" I'll agree with you.

"Comprehensive licensing, and restricting of the priviledge to those
who keep to the terms of the license has worked rather well with
cars. It can work with guns."

Gun ownership is a *right* not a priviledge. Car operation is a *priviledge* not a right. If you wish to make ownership of firearms no longer a right, I suggest you get cracking at amending the Constitution.

"Bottom line, to end gun crime:

End the drugs war"

No disagreement whatsoever on this one. In fact, I'd say that's the number one contributor to gun crime.

"End civil lawsuit protections from gun makers for wrongful death claims."

Not that I have a huge love of the gun industry (I find some of them reprehensible) but this makes no sense. I make a product that is functional and won't blow up in your hand. You go and take said product and shoot someone with it. Instead of suing the shooter, the manufacturer gets sued?

If so can we sue car manufacturers for DUI deaths? What about the mines who mined the metal to make the car?

[PaganPreacher]

175. Good for the goose,

good for the gander.

When the anti-abortion people say "right to life", aren't they using the same language, and referencing the same part of the Declaration of Independence?

Doesn't that mean that their personal position vis-a-vis' abortion is justified by the Declaration, just as your personal position against firearms ownership?

Or does it mean that, since the right to keep and bear arms is specifically listed in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, your personal position is *unconstitutional,* and therefore inappropriate for a Democratic Party platform.

BTW: I don't know if you realize it, but the Bill of Rights DOES cover the "inherent and inalienable rights" in the Declaration. Check out Amendments 9 and 10.


The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[sweetheart]

204. cooking the gander

My personal position is not this thread... i could care less about
guns.... but if one is used for wrongful killing that the user
and the gun maker and the bullet maker should be open for civil
wrongful death claims including punative damages. Our society
manages to produce many highly dangerous chemicals, explosives and
weapons without them proliferating like handguns have... why?
Because licensing and industry regulation caused wiser distribution.

The 9th amendment and the 10th are so poorly understood these days
that they are not worth the paper they're printed on. You might
as well show people a roll of toilet paper.

You as well misread the 2nd. I am in favour of the original reading
of the amendment, if we're discussing that.... which would be that
after someone has completed military service, they might keep their
service weapons in their homes... and as well national guard.

I could also go with the extreme reading you're using if you let me
be extreme as well. I believe, based on that reading, that all
americans should be able to house nuclear weapons in thier homes.
Then we can detonate them if we're not happy with the politics to
protect the constitution.

The right to life covers, IMO, the citizen first, which would be
the woman and her rights. A ball of cells, has as many rights as
a prarie dog until it can evidence that it is living on its own.

My point in bringing up the declaration is that people chime on about
the second amendment, without considering the 0th amendment which
would be the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Instead, as its not an amendment, it gets somehow lost for the
interests of much more secondary concerns.

[mortimer_az]

245. Wow

So you are saying that someone who has completed their service as a SAW gunner should be able to keep their duty weapon? Where in the 2nd Amendment or the Federalist papers does it say anything about keeping your service weapon?

You recommend overturning the 1934 National Firearm Act to make your position legal? If so, aren't you going to the opposite extreme? I personally am pretty comfortable that there aren't many Class III weapons in the public hands, and those that are are highly regulated. I think it would be much less secure if any high school drop-out drool jockey that managed to stick it out for 4 years in the Army, doesn't have access to a select fire M16 or a machine gun.

[rman]

221. no, it's the first rule of Human Rights

but who cares about those these days

[T Town Jake]

172. That's absurd, and the very reason the GOP controls...

...all three branches of government right now. Gun control, especially the kind that is tinged with that hectoring tone of yours, is a sure loser for Democrats.

[sweetheart]

193. Hmmm... picking fights?

The thread asked for 5 words, not whether i thought it was wise to
bother with. In that sense, i find gun issues pretty low in priority
and, were i president for 2 terms, might never get to it, its sooo
low priority.

That said, if we ever did dig down to there, i would make sure that
people who had lost loved ones to guns, were as well represented
at the table as well as hotheaded debaters like yourself.

The right to life is foremost in society. Keeping an armed milita
has been twisted in to some sort of claim to protecting the constitution... ha! The gun owners of america are no militia as
this thread clearly shows... they are private collectors, hobbiests
of a sort.

So how do we let the 99% decent hobbiests get on with their lives,
and yet keep inner city gun crime from being the problem it is...

My solution:

1. End the war on drugs, legallizing all drugs.
2. Remove wrongful death protection lawsuit protections from gun makers.

That is my personal position, and you are obviosly new if you think
that sweetheart is anywhere near being centrist democratic. HA!
I'm quite radical libertarian/socialist. I believe that society has
the proper checkpoints, and that most problems are created by the
government to start with... in this case: the war on drugs causes
90% of american gun crime... and federal protection of gun makers
from liability for their product's is a mistake as well.

I'd bet you that after the first handgun maker went bankrupt, like
asbestos makers, the remaining manufacturers would figure out a self
regulating system of controls to make SURE such weapons stay only
in the hands of the decent non-harmful owners.

[Columbia]

64. Love to lose more elections

[hexola]

65. Stick with the Status Quo

Just let it be...we've done enough on this issue.

[Walt Starr]

66. Since perception is reality in politics, I can describe it in two words

Gun grab.

That perception is the reality in our political climate, thus the only thing a Democrat can do is be violently opposed to gun control and, in fact, supports giving a free hand gun to every American taxpayer who completes his/her return by april 15.

Perception ended.

:evilgrin:

[idiosyncratic]

68. Why? It does not matter.

Not until our votes get counted. :cry:

[jmowreader]

70. No guns in criminals' hands

That is what we're trying to do, right?

That's what the Republicans should be trying to do, right?

Yes, we are trying to take away the Crips' guns, we are trying to take away the Colombian mafia's guns, we are trying to take away Osama's guns, we are trying to take away the Yakuza's guns. But if you're a law-abiding citizen, you don't want the Crips, the Colombian mafia, Osama and the Yakuza to have guns either. You want your own guns. You want your guns for hunting, recreational shooting and home protection. And, by damn, we the Democratic Party are going to work to make sure you can keep them!

See, every time someone gets shot by a criminal someone else says "we'd be safer without any guns." That's bullshit! Those people are CRIMINALS! They need to be locked up. They need to have their guns taken away. But you, you who obeys the law, who doesn't run drugs or kill people for fun or hold up grocery stores, should have a gun if you want one.

No guns in criminals' hands. But if you're not a criminal, we're not going to take your guns.

[Javaman]

71. Any gun except assult weapons... There...5 words.

[slackmaster]

80. How do you define "assult weapons"?

That's going to be a sticking point.

[IdaBriggs]

72. Sane People Yes, Drug Dealers No (okay its six) nt

[jmowreader]

75. How about Sane People Yes, Criminals No?

That's five words, and it deals with all manner of scum, not just drug dealers.

[IdaBriggs]

92. I like it! :) nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Cowardly and wishy-washy.

They're still trying to have it both ways. Appeal to the goobers and the sensible people both.

Hasn't worked, still doesn't work.

[slackmaster]

79. Yes, some goobers are still pushing for an "assault weapons" ban

After the results of the last one, that idea has goober appeal for sure.

:nuke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

96. Which one's? I don't see any of them showing any courage.

Still pandering to the redneck wing of the party.

[slackmaster]

125. Senator Kerry for one

And IMO it lost him more votes than it gained.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

148. The "assault weapons ban" is a joke. We need laws with teeth.

Kerry was, as usual, wishy washy on the issue. We need, and most of America wants, real gun control that would actually do something about the number of guns possessed by Americans.

At least universal registration for all guns and strict laws regarding possession and use. As a first step.

[slackmaster]

170. Our gun laws are a joke because they aren't being enforced

If you try to restrict the number of guns owned by Americans you'll lose a hell of a lot more votes in the "red" areas than you gain in the "blue" ones.

As a serious gun collector I disagree with you on a personal level.

At least universal registration for all guns and strict laws regarding possession and use. As a first step.

As a VERY first step, how about enforcing the strict laws regarding possession and use of guns that we already have? How many people who attempt to buy guns and get caught by the National Instant Check System (Brady background check) actually get prosecuted?

Figures I've seen put the number around 1%. That's ridiculous! Every person who fails that check has already signed an affidavit that he or she is not a disqualified person (convicted felon, etc.). If every one who failed the check went to jail, there would be a lot fewer criminals in circulation.

We have some very strong laws in place, but neither the mechanism nor the will to actually implement them. You talk about what you think a majority of Americans want, I can assure you that every honest gun owner would be pleased if criminals who try to buy guns were actually prosecuted instead of given a free pass.

[alfredo]

76. I am an Armed Liberal. eom

[Logansquare]

127. If gays bought automatic weapons, the GOP would scream for gun control

How 'bout it--an all-gay gun show with press invited? That'd freak them out.

[PaganPreacher]

186. Gays can buy automatic weapons.

The application form for a Class III(machine gun) license, and an NFA tax stamp, do not ask sexual preference.

The ATF does not care about gay/straight/bi.

Gays who are otherwise legal to purchase and own fully-automatic weapons are free to do so.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Logansquare]

191. I KNOW...the point is, *publicize* it n/t

[AmandaRuth]

77. regulatory laws for

children & criminals

(we have too many children and criminals!)

[Straight Shooter]

78. Guns for self-protection and hunting

Okay, so "self-protection" is a hyphenated word.

I have a gun. I've been shooting guns since I was a kid. Never really considered shooting a person, or an animal, just targets.

But I do know how to shoot, and I consider my life to be more important than the life of someone who is trying to end my life or harm someone I love.

Now, that's harsh. But it's the truth.

[moindependent]

82. We Are Taking Them All

At least according to your esteemed leader, Feinstein. I was raised in Missouri, in a Democratic, Catholic family. However, the Democratic positions on gun control and abortion have been a bitter pill, made all the worse by the lackluster presidential candidate you chose. I was shocked to find out how many life-long democrats around here voted Republican for the first time ever, because they "just didn't trust Kerry."

I've been reading your posts for several days on this board, and I've found them to be enlightening and entertaining. It's nice to see that some of you have figured out that to appeal to me, the typical red state fence-sitter, you've got to get on the right side of these issues. You've finally recognized that we vote on more than economic interests, and that these issues tend to be a litmus test for the candidates we choose. There's no room for compromise on the gun issue, and very little on abortion.

If you want our votes, you'll have to rid your Senate and House presence of the far-left influence. Adopt a national and local platform that includes the elimination of ineffective gun laws, and calls for exceptionally harsh punishment for felons caught with guns. And for god's sake, drop all of this garbage about weapons bans and registration. Criminals don't register their guns, and they don't care if you banned them. If you saw what a 10 year old can do with a bolt action rifle, you'd forget all about AK-47 look-a-likes, and start trying to ban the Remington 700.

By the way, we don't appreciate being called stupid rednecks, hillbillies, or any of the other names that some of you folks, especially those from New York, have called us. There's a nice pile of screenshots from this site on the desk of a local Democratic politican in town. His Republican neighbor presented him with it as proof that your party is out of touch and out of step with our needs. I'll suggest that you pull your heads out of your collective asses, get out of the 60's, and do something useful for this country.

[BigDawg357]

110. Excellent explanation moindependent

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[0rganism]

167. Interesting. It confirms the effectiveness of republican messaging

A little ways upthread, I posit the republican position on guns to be "Democrats will take your guns." You reflect this precisely in your interpretation of the Democratic position. The message is clear, and public perception has normalized on this issue: Democrats oppose gun ownership.

I agree that this position is a loser, and I'm very encouraged to see that some DUers are able to come up with coherent statements that advance a moderated position without rambling on for paragraphs. If the Democratic party can find a way to communicate on these terms, we stand a chance of re-forming perception.

Would you say that economic populism is still a viable platform, if simply detached from perceived 2nd ammendment infringements? Or does the abortion debate still present an insurmountable obstacle?

[moindependent]

225. Moderated isn't good enough

You say that you're impressed that DUers have come up with coherent statements of a moderated position. I'll state again, leave the damn guns alone. I'm not talking moderation...I'm talking about progress in the opposite direction of where your party has taken us. No additional regulation, period. Return Second Amendment rights to US citizens convicted of felonies in non-US courts, who have not been convicted of wrongdoing within our system. Nail convicted felons to the wall when they're caught with a firearm.

Frankly, I don't believe that economic populism is a viable platform. You don't understand the demographic you are dealing with at all. In this part of the country, unions endorse democrats, and union members vote Republican. Want to know why? It's perceived that the union leadership and the politician have their hands in each other's pockets, and that they've both got their hands in the member's pocket as well.

The labor unions have reached their goals of making their members prosperous, but they've shot themselves in the foot, becoming victims of their own success. The membership isn't poor to lower middle-class anymore; it's upper middle-class to upper class! They're making $75-100K with overtime. At this point, they don't give a damn about the history of the unions, the trust-busters of the early 20th century, or the somewhat socialist ideals that the entire movement was based on. They've become full-blown capitalists, many with nice, fat retirements and small businesses on the side. Their kids are going to college and picking up nice management jobs, sometimes with the same company their parents worked for. The kids, now in management, look to the union and ask "What value do you bring my company?" while the parents pay their dues and ask "What the hell have you done for me lately?"

I recognize that economic populism isn't based on the labor union, but it's ideals seem to be embodied in the union. I'm simply trying to say that the battle has been won, and that the fight is over. The people that used to back your candidates hear your candidates talk about only taxing the rich, and translate it to mean higher taxes for themselves. I think that to a large degree, this holds true for most former "economic populists". We don't want anybody to be penalized for their success; we want contributions in equal proportion to what is spent and/or earned.

Abortion? There is probably room to negotiate. I think we can drop back to the "rape, incest (same as rape, don't you think?), and immediate medical necessity" level and be comfortable. You aren't going to convince me that a fetus is anything less than human life, so it's going to take a hell of a lot of justification to end that life, just like any other. I'm all for the morning-after pill, because I believe that putting the brakes on the process before it's really started is just fine. Pass the damn things out by the bucketfull, if it reduces unwanted pregancy and the welfare rolls.

[Kipepeo]

233. Sorry

It's nice to see that some of you have figured out that to appeal to me, the typical red state fence-sitter, you've got to get on the right side of these issues. You've finally recognized that we vote on more than economic interests, and that these issues tend to be a litmus test for the candidates we choose. There's no room for compromise on the gun issue, and very little on abortion. If you want our votes, you'll have to rid your Senate and House presence of the far-left influence.

I think you're looking for the other party. No offense, but you can keep your right-wing vote.

[Snellius]

83. Stick 'em up!

Why do gun owners always interpret the 2nd amendment as a god-given absolute right for anyone to have any weapon any where? Every right has some limitations.

[ProgressiveFool]

84. You can keep your guns

eom

[AP]

85. Gun safety, not gun controll.

[Democracy Died 2004]

86. I Wasted a Deer with my AK-47

ok it is more than 5 words. but i believe in hunting but i dont need no stinking assault or psuedo assault weapon to do it. But then i am happy with my penis size also.

[Democracy Died 2004]

87. My Penis is bigger than my gun

Damn i just can't get it down to 5 words

[TheKingfish]

88. Liberals can use guns too

[LuminousX]

89. Responsible gun ownership with regulation

[auburngrad82]

90. We're for responsible gun ownership.

As far as I know, no Democrat has ever seriously tried to ban all guns. Assault weapons, yes. Bazookas, yes. Normal handguns and hunting rifles, no.

[moindependent]

99. Kerry did.

I'll refer you back to the often quoted bill that Kerry, among others, sponsored in the Senate. I don't have the time to pull up the specific bill, but you can find it with no effort if you look at a couple of pro-gun websites. It banned "assault weapons", and then defined an "assault weapon" as a gun that had any sort of grip.

Your so-called "assault weapons" are only differentiated from the $1000 rifle I'll use to kill Bambi on Saturday by cosmetic features. Pull the trigger once, it fires once. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the magazine is empty. The primary difference between your "assault weapons" and my BAR is that mine is more pretty sitting in the cabinet or hanging on the wall.

Some of my coworkers cannot afford the same type of hardware that I own. They use inexpensive rifles, such as AK-47 clones, the SKS, and others, to hunt. These are very effective hunting weapons at ranges of less than 100 yards. The ammunition is inexpensive, the recoil is low, and the pistol grip of an AK clone is excellent for helping women and children control the rifle. All of these factors make them an excellent choice for beginning hunters, and/or those on a tight budget.

[auburngrad82]

109. Is it really necessary to hunt deer with a fully automatic weapon?

I'm not talking about semi-automatic "lookalikes." I'm talking about fully automated assault weapons.

The way I look at it is if your aim is so bad that you need a 20-30 cartridge clip on full automatic to deer hunt, then maybe you should stick to video games. If your goal is to rob banks and to shoot ATF officers, by all means, fire up that assault weapon.

I'm a very good shot with both rifles and with handguns. I don't hunt any more and at this point I don't own guns for the same reason that Republicans DO own guns. I don't want anyone forcing me to do something. I lived in Kennesaw, Georgia and the government of that little town passed a law REQUIRING all residents to own guns. I decided at that point that the pro-gun lobby had gone too far and I refuse to put money in any company that makes money off guns. All because of the government control in a little town in a red state that is supposedly against government control but has no problem exercising those same controls to get what they want.

[PaganPreacher]

124. Nobody is deer hunting with machine guns.

I think you just tried to redefine the argument.

Select-fire or fully automatic weapons (machine guns, submachine guns, and machine pistols) are legal to own but strictly regulated by the ATF, and are illegal for hunting in all states. Some states prohibit ownership of these weapons (referred to as "Class III firearms"), even by federal licenseholders.

Semi-automatic military-style rifles, such as the Garand, BAR, SKS and AK-family clones, are legal for hunting in most states (some states only permit deer hunting with shotguns). They fire ammunition that is also used in some "hunting rifles", such as the .308 Winchester, .223 Remington, or .30-06. The 7.62x39 round used in the AK-family and SKS is also found in some bolt-action rifles, and is suitable for deer hunting.

In practical terms, semi-automatic rifles such as the SKS and AK-family are inexpensive, relatively accurate at ranges out to 200 yards, and suitable for hunting deer. They have lighter recoil than bolt-action or lever-action rifles, as a rule. They are not well-suited for long range shooting or hunting for larger game.

In most states that allow hunting large game with rifles, the ammunition capacity of the rifle is regulated (no more than 5 or 10 rounds, depending on the state.)

To inject a strictly personal note, I took 2 deer last year with a scoped Saiga rifle (also called the "AK Hunter"), and will use it again next month to fill my freezer with venison. Because I hunt and fish, and eat what I kill, I save hundreds of dollars each year.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[puttothesword]

128. AWB != banning full auto

Full automatic "assault" rifles have been regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Getting one means going through a LOT of paperwork and a 200 dollar tax from BATF. Not that many folks own them and those that do have had the BATF up their keister checking everything. As well, the assault weapons ban did *nothing* to touch automatic weapons. It was purely semi-auto weapons that accepted detachable magazines that had 2 or more of 5 "evil" features.

And yeah, I hunt with one (semi auto AK). It was the most affordable rifle I could get at the time (mil surp), it allows me to not only hunt but go "plinking" and the cal is just right to bag a deer without me breaking my collar bone.

This is one reason why the dems have been loosing in rural areas. In general, they don't know gun laws worth beans and it shows.

My general rule is, if you can't pass this test: http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/awc.htm then you don't know enough about guns and gun laws to make an informed decision on them.

[slackmaster]

222. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934

This should be well understood by anyone who tries to engage in a debate about gun control, but it seems I end up posting about it at least once or twice every day on DU forums.

Any debate about fully automatic weapons should not even be on the table here.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/index.htm

[auburngrad82]

113. And you read this quote in American Sportsman Magazine?

Or on NRA radio?

I'll refer you back to the often quoted bill that Kerry, among others, sponsored in the Senate. I don't have the time to pull up the specific bill, but you can find it with no effort if you look at a couple of pro-gun websites. It banned "assault weapons", and then defined an "assault weapon" as a gun that had any sort of grip.

Show me a reliable source and I might tend to believe you. Until then, I cry bullshit!

[PaganPreacher]

114. Democrats who want to ban all firearms: in their own words

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (1993):
"Banning all guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (1995):
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (1993):
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

SEN. HOWARD METZENBAUM (1993):
"Until we can ban all of them we might as well ban none."

SEN. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN (1993):
"With a 10,000% tax we could tax them out of existence."

SARAH BRADY (1994):
"We must get rid of all the guns."

MOLLY IVINS (1994):
"Ban the damn things (guns). Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

...and one more juicy tidbit:

PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON (quoted in USA Today, 03/11/93):
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."

Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[auburngrad82]

122. You can have your guns

It's just one more wedge issue the GOP uses to divide the nation. If I were you, I'd consider joining the Marines. They'll let you shoot all the ammo you want.

What's your political affiliation, by the way? Freeper?

[PaganPreacher]

136. Been there, done that. Too old to join the Marines, anyway.

"Freeper?" Nope. The world is a bigger place then DU vs. FR. I vote "Freedom First," and ALL amendments to the Constitution are important to me. I don't drink kool-ade for either major party.

If a truly principled progressive candidate emerged in the Democratic Party, I would support him/her. It didn't happen in 2004.

Since I am new, I'll tell you a little bit about myself:

I am a veteran (US Army 80-84, Army National Guard 84-92).

Competitive shooter for more than 20 years (military, NRA match pistol, and cowboy action sport shooting). Hunter for almost 30 years. Hunter Safety instructor. Concealed Weapon Permit holder.

Graduated from a Jesuit university, and educated myself right out of Christianity. I am a proud Pagan, and minister of a small Pagan group deep in fundamentalist Christian country. The earth is my holy place.

But, enough about me.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[bloom]

91. Read this:

http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html#CONMOR


It is quite insightful about what Liberals/Conservatives think about the gun issue, as well as many others.


I think the gun issue is one that we could just let go. Do whatever - sell guns where-ever. But it won't change the whole conservative philosphy that revolves around the "strict father" mentality.


"The protection function of the strict father leads to conservative support for a strong military and criminal justice system. It also leads to an opposition to gun control. Since it is the job of the strict father to protect his family from criminals, and since criminals have guns, he too must be able to use guns if he is to do his job of protecting the family against evil people who would harm them. Although the NRA talks lot about hunting, the conservative talk shows all talk about protecting one's family as the main motivation for opposing gun control." - Lakoff

[crispini]

94. No guns for crooks.

How's that?

[demokatgurrl]

97. gun control in moderation

[FDRrocks]

98. Assault Rifles aren't for hunting. n/t

[CO Liberal]

100. The GOP Lies About Us

And so does the NRA.


This is the DU member still known as CO Liberal.

[NewsTalk]

102. Reasonable controls keep us alive

N/T

[MsTryska]

103. States Rights and Safety First. nt

nt

[Dukakis88]

104. All gays deserve shotgunless weddings.

[Dukakis88]

105. Most people are irresponsible, stupid.

[Dukakis88]

106. Happiness is a Gone Gun

[Logansquare]

107. Freedom to own, with regulation

[raggedcompany]

121. Well said

I'd like to say something which captures the difference between technology circa Bill of Rights, and technology circa Governator. But can't do it in five words. Here are a couple attempts.

Guns fine, assault weapons prohibited.
Revolvers, Rifles, Shotguns, Muskets only.

[Dukakis88]

108. Dead kids trump gun fun.

[Dukakis88]

111. Better a Bush on the Ballot than a Bullet in the Bread Basket?

Too long. Dammit.

[Rockholm]

112. Uzi Not Needed For Hunting.

[Dukakis88]

116. Five words: "Kennedys, King, Lennon, Malcolm X"

[Groucho Marxist]

117. Ban guns. Criminals love that!

No BS. The gun issue is a loser's issue for the Democratic party because it has been proven EVERY SINGLE TIME IT'S BEEN TRIED, that where legal access to firearms has been legally restricted, the response has been an INCREASE in crime.

Where the civilian's legal access to firearms has been made easier, crime has DROPPED, EVERY TIME.

Those are the facts.

You've heard it before, but it's still raw truth that criminals don't turn in their guns when ordered to, but the law abiding citizen will do so. Result: Citizen disarmed, criminal remains armed, and exploits his now unfair advantage.

The Democratic Party would do well to abandon their pro-gun-control position. It does more harm for the party than good.

Switch to a pro-gun rights position, and you'll get more defectors from the Republican party than you will lose from the party.

I guarantee it.

Groucho.

[dirtyduck]

118. "Is Killing For Sport Moral?"

I don't know...

[lefty4]

119. We want all your guns.

[dirtyduck]

120. "We Need "Homicide Relief"

[Dukakis88]

123. "What Are You Afraid Of?" -- NRA built on massive fear, cowardice

[-..__...]

131. It's for your own good.

[4_Legs_Good]

132. "No Assault Rifles"

Hey! I did it in 3!!!

I guess you could add

"I wuv guns!!!"

but that would be 6 words.

david

[MissMarple]

134. Well regulated gun owners.

Comes from the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

[moindependent]

227. Please find a 1776 definition of "regulated"

You'll find that "regulated" wasn't used in the same sense as today. To "regulate" was to equip. Well regulated meant well armed.

[Contrary1]

135. Go ahead, just shoot us.

[hiphopnation]

137. The second ammendment; read it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[aikoaiko]

139. Gun control = lost elections

Hate to say it, but its true (at least partially).

[Mike L]

140. "We will take your guns."

That's the perception now.

We should change it to: "We dumped the gun issue."

That's the only way to get the pro-gun vote. We won't be able to ban guns anyway. The cosmetic assault rifle ban was a joke.

[ArkDem]

141. gun go bang

[skypilot]

142. Eat what you shoot.

*

[blm]

143. Legal and RESPONSIBLE gun ownership

.

[immoderate]

144. Go ahead, piss me off!

--IMM

[PhuLoi]

145. better behind than in front .

How's that?

[maxrandb]

146. JFK Would Be Alive Today! n/t

[sangh0]

147. "This, that, and the other"

.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

149. How about 4 words - "A well regulated militia"

Like most things in first 10 amendments. Concise, to the point, simple.

You want to play John Wayne or Rambo - join the national guard. If not, take up another hobby.

[puttothesword]

150. Another quote similar to yours is...

"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."
-Heinrich Himmler

Germany also had gun registration, set up during the Weimar Republic. When Hitler came to power, he had a nice ready made list of Jews, Communists and anyone else he didn't like who owned firearms. They all got visits by his goverment and trips to "resettlement camps".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

155. So does most of Western Europe.

Your analogy is ludicrous. Hitler came to power because with the backing of bourgoisie and the capitalists because of their fear of "Bolshivism". The Weimar government of Social Democrats caved to the demands of the "middle" in fear of the "Bolsheviks". After assuming power the vast majority of Germans supported him because he provided stability.

As Mao said, "Guerrillas are like fish that swim in the sea of the people."

The sad truth is that the majority of the American people would much rather have stability than freedom. The idea that a bunch of guys with hunting rifles are going to take on the military is absurd.

In the meantime, unlike most of the rest of the first world, we continue to kill each other with unregulated guns. And, it's not "criminals" doing most of the killing, or "revolutionaries", but Joe Schmoe who gets tanked up and pissed off and shoots his wife or neighbor.

[puttothesword]

164. that wasn't my point....

"Your analogy is ludicrous. Hitler came to power because with the backing of bourgoisie and the capitalists because of their fear of "Bolshivism"."

And that wasn't my point. My point was that when Hitler got into power, he used the gun registration laws of the Weimar Republic to disarm any jewish/communist/people he didn't like and made it so that they could offer up little in the way of resistance.

"The idea that a bunch of guys with hunting rifles are going to take on the military is absurd."

While you may think it absurd, the founding fathers didn't. In fact, the entire concept behind the second amendment was just that. That an armed population could hold off a repressive goverment:

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms..." Thomas Jefferson 1787

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed..." Noah Webster 1787

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone..." George Washington

As well, history shows that even a modestly armed populace can in fact, take on a modern military. Remember, the US lost pretty bad to a bunch of Vietnamese kids running around the jungle with crappy old SKSs. And well, currently a bunch of folks in Iraq aren't doing too badly against the worlds largest military and they're hardly armed to the teeth with the most modern of weapons. The Republic of Ireland gained freedom from a huge British force with less than 2000 armed folks. It happens quite a bit actually. If you want, I can name no less than 15 times in the last century that this has occured.

"In the meantime, unlike most of the rest of the first world, we continue to kill each other with unregulated guns."

No argument there. Now the question is "why?" It's lazy to say, "Oh because we have unregulated guns." The guns aren't going out and killing folks. People are. Why are they doing that? (Here, give you a hint, poverty plays a huge roll in it.) As well, look at places that have heavy gun control. NYC for example. Nope, all that killing stopped, right?

"And, it's not "criminals" doing most of the killing, or "revolutionaries", but Joe Schmoe who gets tanked up and pissed off and shoots his wife or neighbor."

And why is Joe Schmoe doing that? I think it's a question that no one cares to look at. It's easy to blame it on guns instead of looking at the reason Joe Schmoe went and killed his wife.

And no, I'm not a "freeper". I just really dislike the position alot of left leaning folks take on this issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

187. You overlooked a part of my post.

The part that quoted Mao about having the backing of the people.

Sure the Vietnamese beat the hell of the American military. And, so are the Iraqis. But, they both had the backing of the people. The Vietnamese "kids" had the backing of the USSR which supplied them with materiel and weapons. But, the important factor was that they had the backing of the people. The Iraqi resistance is the same, but facing tougher odds, because they don't have that much outside assistance.

There are far more incidents of guerilla groups taking on the military that failed than there are of successes.

Gun control is a joke. The guys who want guns in NY or DC have merely to cross the border to another state.

Sure the founders envisioned a people that could overthrow a tyranny with the aid of muskets, they had just done it...well, sort of. The monetary, material, and military force provided by France had more than a little to do with it. You might take note of the Whiskey Rebellion, Shays Rebellion, etc, made of armed people fighting tyranny and how well they fared. Not to mention our homegrown terrorists and guerillas the Indians.

As to "why Joe Schmoe" is doing those things, I don't care. I would much rather face a pissed off drunk who is armed with brick or a machete than one armed with an AK-47 or, for that matter, a cheap .22.

It's all very romantic to envision freedom fighters in the mountains or cellers, but if a revolution is to occur, it's the weight of the people that's going to win it or lose it. A general strike would be a thousand times more effective than a bunch of guys playing at Che Guevarra. Not to mention, a helluva lot less bloody for the populace.

I admit that I have a bias. My father was killed by a "legal" firearm in the hands of someone with no criminal record. If there had been no guns available at the time, it simply wouldn't have occurred.

The "Guns don't kill, people do" is all very nice, until you're faced by someone with a gun.

[puttothesword]

188. ....

I overlooked the Mao quote because I read his book on guerilla warfare and found him to be flat out wrong on a lot of it.

During our own war of independance, we had the backing of around 1/3 of the population, certainly not a majority. In fact, most armed revolutions do not start with the backing of the majority of the people. The Irish revolt didn't. The Iraqi insurgency didn't. In fact, I'd say most don't have the backing of even 49%.

And yes, gun control is a joke. Not only is it a joke, but it's unenforceable and really not the issue at hand. The issue is stopping violence in a country that is the world's number one perpetrator of it, both at home in our domestic policy and abroad in our foreign policy.

As well, I take offense at calling Indian folks terrorists and guerillas. The European genocide of indigenous people has been going on for 500 years now and if anything, I'd label that terrorism (complete with small pox infested blankets of mass destruction)

We can all scratch our heads and wonder why people resort to gun crimes all we want and can yell "Ban Guns" all we want, but the underlying cause (poverty, injustice, etc) is still there and will just manifest itself in other ways.

And while I'm sorry for the loss of your father, as a queer woman in a country increasingly hostile to my very existance, let alone my political beliefs, I reserve the right for me to defend myself by any means neccessary without restriction. With tanks at protests, a Department of Fatherland Security, a goverment creeping ever so rapidly towards fascism, I'm amazed that this is even still an issue.

Gun control is what caused the 1996 Republican "revolution". You'd think Democrats would have figured out that it was a loosing issue by now.

[qnr]

152. You register your car, right?

[Sleepless In NY]

154. I always liked Wes Clark's response

"We have a place for people who like guns...its called the military" LOL! Ok, so its more than 5 words, but I think it says it all.

[robbedvoter]

163. You want guns? Enlist! Wes Clark

See, I made it in less than 5. In a debate Kerry stole it from him.

[aikoaiko]

156. registering cars and guns,

The thing about registration for guns is that should the state ever become tyranical, it will use the registration to remove guns from citizens for the sole purpose of being more tyranical. Although I think there is only a tiny chance of this happening in the US, it could happen and is a good enough reason for me to let law-abiding citizens have their guns without strings attached. As far as prosecuting those who illegally obtain guns (i.e., felons) or commit crimes with legally own guns, I say prosecute fully. I just don't see the state coming after my car should things get crazy.

[slackmaster]

223. Only if you want to drive it on public roads

"We register cars ergo we should register guns" is a weak argument, a non-sequitur.

You do not have to register a car in order to own it or use it on private property, or to drive it off-road. Some states require special permits for off-road use, but none require registration to merely own a car.

[MagickMuffin]

157. 2nd Amendment

Enough Said

Decided to add that I don't own any guns, but have been considering it since Nov. 3...

But I am a Strong Believer in "The Bill Of Rights"

[leesa]

158. You don't need machine guns to shoot deer.

[Groucho Marxist]

200. Machineguns and deer

Who ever told you that the second amendment was about hunting, anyway?

That has never been the reason for the 2nd amendment.


It's there so we can hunt our government if things get so bad that it's the only way to restore freedom to the people. It's our final safety valve, and the most effective one.

The machinegun argument is silly. The relatively few Americans who legally own machineguns don't hunt with them. They only shoot recreationally with them or collect them. No harm in that.


Groucho.





"Hey, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?

[slackmaster]

224. Why do people keep dragging machine guns into this?

Lame argument!

:shrug:

[Dark]

165. Intelligent.

[Kipepeo]

166. Keep Guns Outta Criminal Hands

Really, I think background checks, waiting periods, safety precautions, and bans on assault weapons (who is gonna use that shit for hunting or home protection, really?) should be common sense.

We have to drive that home.

A lot of people have bought the right-wing spin that democrats want to come take away their guns.

We need to drive home that we want to make it harder for criminals to get guns that they'll use to do harm to Joe American's family.

[Groucho Marxist]

205. Guns, criminals, etc...

How exactly are you going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

By passing another LAW?

Since when do criminals obey LAWS, anyway? Isn't that why they're called CRIMINALS?

HELLO, MCFLY!!!! ANYBODY HOME???? (knock, knock, knock...)


While you're at it, would you care to elaborate how a ban on "assault weapons" is going to stop crime? Particularly when the statistics clearly show that they're very RARELY used in crimes which involve a gun? It's HANDGUNS that are the preferred tool of criminals who use guns!

An "assault rifle" differs ONLY in appearance from any semi-automatic rifle that might be used in hunting like the venerable Browning BAR.

ONLY IN APPEARANCE.

BTW, I personally know several people who use AR-15s for hunting of small game and also have one available for home defense.

Your argument has no merit in the real world.

And yes, MANY democrats ARE trying to ban your guns, and mine, too. Do the names Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, John Edwards, Teddy Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton sound vaguely familiar to you? They ALL have clear, verifiable records of voting to ban firearms and/or ammunition or restrict their availability.

A few of them have voted FOR every single firearms restricting bill that has been introduced while they have been in office.

FACT.


Groucho.




"Hey, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?"

[Kipepeo]

232. I notice you're already troll-banned but in case you were wondering

...Are you really so stupid as to hold the position that criminals will break any law so therefore we shouldn't have laws? Because that seems like what you're saying here:

"How exactly are you going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?By passing another LAW? Since when do criminals obey LAWS, anyway? Isn't that why they're called CRIMINALS?"

According to that logic we'd better just make everything legal because hey, criminals will be criminals you know. Funny argument coming from someone who most likely is in favor of the government interfering in people's private lives with respect to abortion and gay marriage.

I'm really curious about gun-nuts like you...what is it about instituting background checks, waiting periods and safety precuations that scares you so much in regards to your guns? Is it that you wouldn't pass? Is it that you've *got* a criminal past related to guns?? Why on earth would any RESPONSIBLE gunowner be against precautions which DO make it harder for those with criminal intent to do harm? I don't understand that logic, because it only puts your family and my family at risk.

Here in the reality based community we'd like to do what we can to keep guns outta criminal hands.

169. All guns and hunting outlawed.

A law to ban all guns and hunting.

[PaganPreacher]

177. And let the poor eat....

Michael Moore's ramen noodles? Maybe some nice government cheese?

Many poor people in rural areas eat meat that they take themselves.

I eat game meat and fish regularly, and save hundreds of dollars each year.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[Mike L]

215. You go, Preacherman!

It's deer season. Time to commune with nature.

[RapidCreek]

173. We Love Our Fascist Killers

RC

[Fleshdancer]

176. Legal, regulated for responsible Americans. n/t

[HEyHEY]

178. Don't shoot people asshole

[mvd]

179. Enforce what we have

Not that I agree (I support quick safety courses, registration, and trigger locks being sold with guns,) but that seems to be the general idea.

[against all enemies]

182. Drunk Republicans carry loaded firearms.

[HamdenRice]

183. long-guns for hunting, handguns regulated

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

185. Didn't know

there was one. That's five words! :)

[Taxloss]

189. "Read the first half"

of the 2nd Amendment, that is.

And I have a spare word! OK: "Read the first half, bozos"

[sendero]

190. I dunno...

... this Liberal Democrat would suggest

"Smith, Wesson, Ruger, Glock, Remington"

We can give no ground on some wedge issues. This should not even be a wedge issue.

[killbotfactory]

192. Inconsistant

did i win?

[kurtyboy]

194. "No coherent Democratic gun policy"

NT

[zeek]

195. The party line or my representative?

I think the Democratic party position is something like:

No private ownership of firarms.

My Democratic congressmen, Bud Cramer, has a position best described in 5 words as:

Easy access, instant background checks

He was reelected in my heavily republican Alabama district by a 30 point margin. If the democratic party would give up gun control they could win back much of the south. Kerry would have won Florida and possibly Ohio, West Virginia and Virginia if he had supported lifting the assault weapons ban.

[Octafish]

197. License them like cars.

Four words.

[pinkpops]

199. guns help people kill people

[stavka]

201. "Cost the Party this election"

[RegexReader]

203. Ban them all, RIGHT NOW!

[Egalitariat]

206. "It's bullets that are dangerous"

nm

Guns are harmless as hammers.

[Carolinian]

207. OK for sport not murder

[JPace]

208. People kill people with guns.

[doni_georgia]

209. Point that thing somewhere else

...works for more than just guns. :)

Mac in Ga

[TroglodyteScholar]

214. "don't shoot at me, please" (n/t)

[L84TEA]

216. yeah

Don't need AK-47s to HUNT?

or

Are you mentally stable?

[Fleurs du Mal]

217. take 'em or leave 'em

[meow2u3]

218. Not for criminals or terrorists

edited subject line

[jojo54]

219. Destruction of our young people

Does that hit the mark? Our young people are really the ones who posess these killing machines. It's over drugs because this is really not a high agenda item for the government, or it's stress because of nonexistent, quality family time, sex, or peer pressure.
Any arguments?

[slackmaster]

228. We older folks have lots more guns than the young 'uns

'Cause we have most of the money.

[aikoaiko]

229. Kids, guns?

Does that hit the mark? Our young people are really the ones who posess these killing machines. It's over drugs because this is really not a high agenda item for the government, or it's stress because of nonexistent, quality family time, sex, or peer pressure.
Any arguments?


I don't believe its legal for any one under the age of 18 to own a rifle and under the age of 21 to own a handgun. Young people owning guns is illegal gun ownership. I'd like to see some statistics that say even 25% of guns are in the hands of minors under the age of 18.

[Carolab]

220. Reinstate the Automatic Weapons Ban

[slackmaster]

226. There never was an automatic weapons ban

You're probably thinking of the "assault weapons" ban, which had nothing to do with automatic weapons.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/index.htm

That's twice in 10 minutes I've responded to people who are misinformed about the National Firearms Act and/or the "AW" ban. I'll bet if I search Subject and Message for "machine guns" or "assault weapons" I'll find one or two more. It never fails!

:argh:

[aikoaiko]

230. Reinstate what Automatic Weapons Ban?

"Carolab (1000+ posts) Thu Nov-11-04 03:29 AM
Response to Original message

220. Reinstate the Automatic Weapons Ban"


Sometimes I think our biggest issue with guns is that democrats don't understand the the guns themselves or the laws surrounding them.

Because when I (someone who has only a moderate understanding of the laws surrounding guns and guns themselves) read something like "Reinstate the Automatic Weapons Ban", I fear that democrats will defeat themselves with the gun ownership issue.

[moindependent]

231. I think we can all learn something here

I hope if you made it this far down the list, you've stopped to read enough posts to understand the spectrum of beliefs at play here. Please understand that this is an exceptionally charged issue in the potential voter pool you want to capture. You've got to go beyond "framing" your position to place it in a good light with gun owners; you've got to change your position IF you want their votes. Spin doesn't win. I'm telling you to remove the voice of the far left entirely. Let them vote Green or something. They should like Nader. He made his name by blowing a minor issue out of proportion, and removing just blame from the shoulders of the consumer. Sounds like a perfect fit for gun control nuts.

As party members, you'll have to make a heartfelt decision about what the party stands for. If you're going to take the same stance that you have in the past, but spin it differently, you'll have the same outcome. I'm not suggesting that you sell your soul for votes, but be prepared for the consequences of the stand you take.

[northernsoul]

234. It's a State Issue

States must demonstrate a compelling public safety interest in any gun regulation they enact and the public safety context will be very different in Wyoming than it is in Delaware.

[moindependent]

242. "Public Safety" vs. the right of the individual

Stick with that theory if you want, but there's no such thing as a "compelling public safety interest" that could possibly justify an infraction on people's right to defend themselves. We are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...along with the right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed, among others. The steadfast belief in the right of the individual over the interests of the public at large is what sets us aside from Communists. You can only justify the denial of a right on an individual basis, never as a group. To do otherwise penalizes the innocent without any sort of due process.

I don't think you'd like the outcome of pursuing your theory anyway. Assuming that Wyoming has a lower population density, and therefore less propensity for violent crime, than Delaware, it would be logical to conclude that the need for citizens to arm themselves in Delaware is higher than in Wyoming, in the interest of preserving their own lives. Hypothetically, if the streets of Delaware were suddenly awash in automatic weapons (real automatic weapons, that fire as long as you hold the trigger, not the sissy semi-autos that Clinton banned), it would be justifiable to pass out Class III weapons to every man and woman, because you can't take a knife to a gun fight, and you don't fire a pea shooter when the other guy has a full auto M60.

And before you fire back with "people don't have to defend themselves, because the Police will".....the cops are there to mop up the blood and take fingerprints after the fact. It's well established that the police have no duty to protect, regardless of what they paint on their cars.

[northernsoul]

243. interesting due process point

Here's my thought: just as the first amendment creates a presumption that I can exercise my speech that is only rebuttable by a compelling state interest (i.e. callling in a bomb threat is not protected speech), I think the second amendment creates a similarly rebuttable presumption of a right to weaponry ownership. The language about a "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" indicates the founders intended for conflicts between this right and public safety issues to be resolved at a state and local level.

As for your Due Process concern, it's a good point. However, the DPC of Amendment XIV is subject to varying levels of scrutiny. If the government is abridging a right based on an immuable characteristic like race or ethnicity, that policy is subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny. Other policies need to show a compelling interest. A policy that says you can't walk around midtown Manhattan with a fully functional flamethrower is not discriminating on the basis of an immutable characteristic, it's saying that individuals can't do something that the local government reasonably believes to pose a public safety threat.

I'm not sure if there is a demonstrable correlation between population density and violent crime. Between the crystal meth plague and the economic and social breakdowns in a lot of rural areas, I'm coming to feel a lot safer in my inner-city neighborhood than I might in a lot of the rural areas I've visited lately.

And yes, I do understand that law enforcement and crime prevention are frequently two different breeds of cat, though the boys in blue do occasionally keep a bad situation from getting worse.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

235. 'ALL Gun politics is LOCAL"

That's what the platform should be - local - not Federal. I have lived in several states, and based on my experience this needs to be a STATE issue so the GOP/NRA can stop their tactics in the Presidential campaign.

Here's my impression of why "All Gun Politics is LOCAL"

North Carolina: Guns are fine, just not around college campuses.

Maryland: Guns are kind-of bad and we need some handgun laws. Why? B/c we have a drug problem in the major cities like Baltimore and handguns are too often used in drug violence.

Texas: Guns are great almost everywhere, and that includes TX-Dem's too.

Virginia: Guns are okay, but not anywhere in Washington DC...go figure.

BTW: Vermont has perhaps one of the MOST LENIENT handgun carry laws in the country. I've heard it called the "Vermont carry." It's a Dem state, but its small and has very little violent crime, so carrying guns up there is no problem for folks, just ask Dean...

[moindependent]

239. Maryland needs some gun laws?

If Maryland has a drug problem, and you've got people getting hurt because of it, wouldn't it make sense to fix the drug problem instead of making life difficult for those who want to protect themselves? Oh, and let us not forget how well the drug laws are working. I'm sure that gun laws will work better because...well...because even though drug dealers and users ignore drug laws, they won't ignore a gun law, will they??

[Jack Schitt]

236. "Want guns? Fight in Iraq."

[Warren DeMontague]

237. the problem with gun ownership? wearenotsorry.com

people that fucking dumb shouldn't be trusted with a can opener.

[Dora]

238. Guns for the Good Guys!

[obreaslan]

240. Yee Haa! BANG! BANG! BANG!

:freak: OH, you said democrats, i thought it was republicans.

[KnowerOfLogic]

241. Inalienable Right To Self-Defense.

Democrats should stand firmly behind the right of individuals to own guns as a means of self-defense; nothing is a more basic fundamental right. Of course they should make the case for sensible regulation and safety requirements. I do not like the phony "sports-man" angle, because IMO, that's not the fundamental reason a person should be allowed to own weapons, and democrats need to get back to basics.

[Ravenseye]

244. Democrats Want to take Your Guns Vs. Republicans Want to Arm Terrorists

[slackmaster]

246. Both statements are equally inflammatory and equally false

:nuke:

[Fescue4u]

247. America, Turn them in

Unfornuately.