Rachel just called out the NRA and gun activists for killing DC representation.

[onehandle]

With their poison pill amendment that would let people carry assault weapons on the streets of DC and might let guns into public schools.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

76. And you're there to tell 'em what is, right? nt

Barfcasm.

[Recursion]

2. So you're only for some civil rights for DC residents?

I lived there 10 years. The District's gun control laws were a joke. This would have been an awesome legislative package if our party could pull its head out of its ass about guns.

[onehandle]

3. So you're only for representation for DC if they accept the dictate of a lobbying group? nt

[paulsby]

4. it's called civil rights

RKBA

not acceptable for cafe constitutionalists, apparently.

[baldguy]

8. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

Is about national defense - a job which is handled entirely by the federal govt. (If you're going to wrap yourself in the Constitution, you should use all of it. Otherwise you may expose your ass or your ignorance unintentionally.)

DC can ban guns for the same reason it can ban dumping toxic waste in the streets - to protect the heath & safety of its citizens.

[paulsby]

10. no, it's not

and EVERY single member of the scotus, not to mention practically every legal scholar, to unclude such as larry tribe

iow, conservatives and liberal scholars agree

the right is not recognized as belonging TO the militia

it belongs to... wait for it... THE PEOPLE

read it again

see: prefatory clauses

[mmonk]

17. Reserved to the people meant the states back then.

And this is the only amendment with a qualifier.

[paulsby]

19. rubbish and everybody from tribe to stevens to ginsburg to roberts

disagrees

the people refers to an INDIVIDUAL right

it does have a prefatory clause

i can show you numerous examples of same through0out various historical documents. need i do so?

the structure is exactly the same.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Forget it. You are talking to people with the same mindset as the American Life League

"Guns are bad" is the "Abortion stops a beating heart" of a certain subset here...

[defendandprotect]

154. Thank you, but we've already read the GOP/NRA propaganda ...

[jazzhound]

162. You really think this is convincing argument?

Smearing those more educated than you on the issue of guns/crime by tossing them into the enemy camp?

Really?!

Again.........you give little credit to your fellow Dems who can see right through this childishness.

[defendandprotect]

191. GOP/NRA are world class right wing propagandists . . .

and have for decades been using tactics of violence and bribery to get their way --

[jazzhound]

199. As usual, you dodge the point.

The point wasn't to deny that the GOP are world-class propagandists, it was to confront you for your dishonesty in merging the GOP with Dems who disagree with you on the issue of gun rights.

Sorry.......but you are a hopeless cause. I rarely put anyone on "ignore" but your continuous misrepresentation makes you a person unworthy of my time. Have a good life.

[defendandprotect]

201. Unfortunately . . .

When Dems support a GOP/NRA agenda THAT is the point!

Oh -- please put me on ignore!!

Bye --

[Euromutt]

67. So how come the X Amendment lists the states and the people separately?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Moreover, how can the states have the right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (I Amendment), or the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" (IV Amendment)? And how are the states supposed to "secure the blessings of liberty to <their> posterity"? How can states reproduce? How can the members of the House of Representatives be "chosen every second year by the states of the several states"?

I could go on, but I think my point is clear: it's evident to any person who is not trying to tendentiously distort the obvious meaning of a word for the sake of ideology that when the Constitution mentions "the people," it means exactly that.

[Callisto32]

120. Drat, you beat me to it.

I just posted the same thing up above. Glad to see someone else got it in, though.

[defendandprotect]

155. Clearly, the states enforce the rights of the people to be secure . . .

and to keep the peace --

[PavePusher]

98. Don't waste your time, this wall is made with very thick bricks. n/t

[defendandprotect]

153. Milita is a government issue -- and you're celebrating another right wing fascist SC decision?

How many of their decisions have you liked?

You will find just as many opinions -- if not more -- from even previous SC Justices

call the GOP/NRA 2nd amendment game-playing farce!

Opening clause sets the stage --

[cowman]

160. Well apparently the SCOTUS

doesn't agree with you. Quick, How many justices in the Heller v DC agreed that the 2nd Amend was an individual right? I'll wait

[defendandprotect]

196. How many aren't corporate?

[Recursion]

11. Bang-up job they did

Three years ago there were four execution-style murders on my block in Columbia Heights within 2 weeks. And that was when homicide was at a 40-year low.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Now now, you *know* you aren't supposed to look at the *actual* crime and murder rates.

The laws are 'good' ones according to some, so never mind the horrific levels of crime.

Like the old Brady Campaign "grades", which rated the various locales' gun laws according to their concordance with
Brady gospel. They gave up on them after it became glaringly obvious to even the slowest learner that a good grade
almost always coincided with a high crime rate, and places like Vermont were getting an F.

[defendandprotect]

156. And you want to go backwards?

Obviously, guns are being brought in from surrounding states which are

pushing GOP/NRA -- "let's create a violent America" -- agenda.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Mother Smuckers]

41. Well, I'm fairly new here so I've missed all those comments by fucking morons who think

guns are the only solution to every problem. Could you please show me some of them? If your claim that guns are never appropriate in an urban area, you really should be campaigning to disarm cops unless you were a little disingenuous. I have no problem with any constitutional process to take guns away from criminals...do you have some clever idea how to do that without leaving only law-abiding citizens unarmed? I think most of us RKBA folks would love to hear about it.

You know, using a term such as Australopithecene is potentially as offensive to some people as would "Aboriginal" be when applied to another particular ethnic group.

[tburnsten]

93. You just made my list

my buddy list that is!


Welcome to DU, thanks for reading the posts of others when replying and refraining from excessive, uncalled for hyperbole and character attacks.

[defendandprotect]

158. "you really should be campaigning to disarm cops unless you were a little disingenuous."

So to be sincere, anyone who supports "gun control" should be working to disarm the

police?

[11 Bravo]

36. "Jackboots"? You lose.

I have a VA carry concealed permit, own three long guns and two handguns ... but "jackboots" renders your argument worthless.

[Mother Smuckers]

44. It's a term long used since the Waco incident by "progressives."

And I have eleven guns as we type...the latest group of well over a hundred I've owned in my 67 years.
You probably should not assume.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. Jackboots does not equate to a Godwin

And I'll see your 3 long guns and raise you 12 more

[leeloo]

22. If you are going to quote the Constitution,you should use all of it.

free State,national defense,federal govt, all in one paragraph...

RKBA is to protect us from the Gov and it is a free state not a free country..

[X_Digger]

26. Tell that to the SCOTUS, the various states who passed individual focused amendments..

.. hell, tell it to the american public..

PRINCETON, NJ -- The Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday that a District of Columbia ban on handgun ownership is unconstitutional appears to be solidly in step with public opinion. A clear majority of the U.S. public -- 73% -- believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. And almost 7 out of 10 Americans are opposed to a law that would make the possession of a handgun illegal, except by the police.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-Supreme-Court-Gun-Rights.aspx

[GreenStormCloud]

73. Read some of the writings of the founding fathers about guns.

They clearly intended for ordinary citizens to be able to own and carry around guns.

[tburnsten]

94. Jefferson even recommended carrying a gun any time you were on a walk

I can only assume he also would have been in favor of carrying a gun every time you left the house, but "constant companion on your walks" is a nice way to put it.

[defendandprotect]

161. How about quoting some of it -- and let's also note populations/society

was quite different then -- and so was the array of weaponry!

[SteveM]

78. The militia clause burns in your mind. Like a vacuum tube. nt

[Callisto32]

119. The constitution delineates the limits on the feds, not the powers.

Edit: (Hit tab too soon)

It may seem counter-intuitive at first, since it is usually written in terms of what is allowed.

It limits by listing what they MAY do. There is a basic rule of statutory interpretation, translated from Latin it is something like "the inclusion of one is to the exclusion of others." When a law lists something, we can presume that if something else was left out, it was left out intentionally.

Note that the Constitution changes here to outright negative language, "...the right of the people shall not..." Thus it is even more forceful than the more general language used throughout the non-amendment portions of the Constitution.

Also note that the right is reserved to the people. We can see that this is actually to the people in their individual capacity, and not to the state or the federal government through the application of another rule of statutory interpretation. If you use a word in a statute, it always means the same thing.

Amendment X reads as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Note that in this language, the States, the United States (the federal government) and the people are distinct entities. Thus must it be in amendment II.

[defendandprotect]

163. In this case, the big clue is what was put in . . . "A well-regulated militia . . ."

and, historically, we can see that the RIGHT to own guns has always been limited by

government, controlled by government . . . whether States or in their capacity to

keep the peace . . . for the people.

Let's also remember that "arms" are involved and I don't know anyone but government

who controls anything from cannons to A-bombs.

[cowman]

169. Then riddle me this Joker

Why did all 9 Justices agree that the 2nd Amend was an individual right in Heller V DC? And before you start with the same old tired reply that it is a RW court, I would hardly call Justice Ginsberg, or Breyer, or Stevens, or Sotomeyor RW.

[defendandprotect]

190. Why did the gang of 5 put W in the Oval Office?

Are you saying this isn't a corporate SC?

Of course it's corporate --

[cowman]

197. Niiiiice footwork in avoiding my ?

I should have known you would avoid answering

[defendandprotect]

202. Guns make no sense for society -- any society --

I haven't actually read the Heller decision --

mainly because I'm behind in reading SC decisions -- way behind.

But the bottom line is NRA is a corporation --

and as far as I know majority on court now are corporate --

Certainly Breyer -- Sotomayer . . .

Ginsburg would have been the only one I would have questioned --

Stevens is a Repug -- isn't he?

[X_Digger]

206. John Paul Stevens? "The Liberal Lion"????

Okay, -1000 credibility.

[Callisto32]

209. One of the biggest things that bothers me about DU, at least in this forum...

is that there is so much guilt by association, and immediate discredit of something based upon its source. Conversations like:

"Those stats are crap because they came from the NRA website."

"But they originated with the FBI..."

"Doesn't matter, they lose credibility because YOU got them from the NRA."

"But they originated with the FBI..."

"You should have gone to a less biased/more Democrat friendly/et cetera place to get them..."

"But....they ORIGINATED with the FBI..."


"LALALaLALaLALALALA I can't HEAAAAR you, LALALALALALALA..."

If someone provides you with good data, use it. Don't deny valid data just because you don't like who gave them to you.

[jazzhound]

213. Good point --- the guilt by association tactic seems to be the latest

favorite of the pro-"control" crowd. That is, painting all gun rights advocates as tea partiers or militia members. During her interview with Jon Stewart Rachel Maddow pulled this slippery stunt. In describing Timothy McVeigh's mindset with regard to his perceived part of a larger whole, she dishonestly paired gun rights advocates and militia members.

[cowman]

207. Yes he is

but he always sides with the liberal wing of the SC.
OK tell me this, all guns magically disappear, how is a frail senior citizen or a woman supposed to defend themselves against a young thug? A gun used properly will usually give them the means to defend against a much stronger assailant and most of the time the weapon isn't even fired, just the sight of it usually sends the POS running. Guns are not a magic talisman but they do give people a fighting chance

[defendandprotect]

211. Again . . .

I haven't had time to read the opinions --

but we have many counter opinions -- and the idea that the Supremes are anything

but players in the system would be naive.

The power is with the right at this time -- and that's why we have this decision.

As for your questions, you're ignoring the reality that we haven't ALL been armed

over 100's of years.

And, certainly, it won't protect you from government. When they decide they want

your guns/arms -- as they've done before -- and as they recently did at Katrina --

they'll simply come and take them.

[cowman]

214. About 10 years ago

the govt came to my little town here in NV and asked the Sheriff's Dept if a total ban on guns were enacted, would they go door to door and confiscate them? Know what the Sheriff told them? Fuck off, if you want guns confiscated do it yourself and most of his deputies would join in with the citizens to resist it, and I suspect that most street cops feel the same way, and if you think the Military would jump in, you are sadly mistaken. The Military won't stand by while americans are being murdered by govt agents. There is a long history of distrust of govt in this country.
A Russian General was once asked if he thought his country could invade and occupy the U.S., the general said that his troops would be slaughtered because of the american citizens right to keep and bear arms

[defendandprotect]

218. Imagine that the government is engaging in more intensive training in response now ...

Who confiscated guns at Katrina?

Who shot blacks with guns?

And how many PRIVATE white forces disarmed people and kept them from entering safer areas?

What was WACO?



About 10 years ago
Edited on Sun Apr-25-10 01:44 PM by cowman
the govt came to my little town here in NV and asked the Sheriff's Dept if a total ban on guns were enacted, would they go door to door and confiscate them? Know what the Sheriff told them? Fuck off, if you want guns confiscated do it yourself and most of his deputies would join in with the citizens to resist it, and I suspect that most street cops feel the same way, and if you think the Military would jump in, you are sadly mistaken. The Military won't stand by while americans are being murdered by govt agents. There is a long history of distrust of govt in this country.
A Russian General was once asked if he thought his country could invade and occupy the U.S., the general said that his troops would be slaughtered because of the american citizens right to keep and bear arms


I doubt that young men in the military actually wanted to murder Iraqis -- and certainly not

2 million plus of them -- but it happened due to training. And just look at how casually they

do it now . . . like a video game!

The Military won't stand by while americans are being murdered by govt agents.

No one said "murder citizens" -- only YOU said that.

[Callisto32]

208. The federal and state governments are corporations.

What's your point on the corporation thing? What do you mean they are "corporate?"

"Corporation" has become a code-word for "evil" or something. While I agree that the laws that allow people to avoid personal liability for their bad decisions by hiding behind an unduly thick corporate veil are questionable at best, immoral at worst, being an agent of a corporate entity does not necessarily make one inherently bad.

Guns make no sense for any society?

They certainly make it easy for the poor people in Appalachia (you know, like, where I'm from, where whole households often subsist on less than $18K a year) to put food on the table. Trapping and bow-hunting can't hold a candle to the efficiency of a rifle. Long term, buying a used rifle and a couple of boxes of ammunition is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying meat.

Don't you care about poor people?

(Okay, that last line was pure snark...)

[Callisto32]

210. That is not operative language.

It's like "Short Title: This Bill May Be Cited As BLAH BLAH BLAH"

It says nothing about what shall or shan't be done.

If it is a right, it cannot be limited, at least not rightly. That is what RIGHT means.

The government is a corporation. One of those things you seem to dislike so much. Why trust this one?

AGENTS of the government (Real, natural people) control those arms. A corporation does nothing, save through its agents.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

77. And you're for D.C. representation only if they have gun-prohibition? Got it. nt

[Mother Smuckers]

5. I like Rachel but she is horribly misinformed, prejudiced and WRONG on this particular

issue. Sorry.
edit...fixed adjective that should have been adverb

[Recursion]

6. This is the only issue where Democrats talk like Republicans

Arguing emotion rather than facts, making stuff up completely, and just living in a fantasy world devoid from actual facts. That should tell us something.

[Mother Smuckers]

9. Absolutely. I learned well over 50 years ago it's tough enough to fight your enemies

without having to re-educate your friends 5 times a day.
:grr:

[SteveM]

80. Boy, I'll say. This is the only forum where you can regularly get away with...

references about penis length/manhood; racial stereotypes, "women who want to be like men," white men who want to, variously: Oppress blacks, oppress women, and invade the White House; and of course any other smear your mommy and daddy told you not to use against others you haven't even met.

But, it's all the gun-prohibitionists got left.

[Katya Mullethov]

103. Aint it cool ?

But....but .......it'll lead to harder stuff !


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73PnAymHAHk

[defendandprotect]

166. That's because Democratic Party has been infiltrated by GOP/NRA . . .

[defendandprotect]

165. Rachel is terrific on every issue including this one --

Sorry . . . !!

[jazzhound]

171. I agree strongly.

It's really sad that she undermines her cred. on this issue. I've heard it pointed out that she's used the phrase "so-called assault weapons" to suggest that she's educated regarding the usual media bull, but the fact that she lumps the tea-party fringers together with *all* RKBA advocates doesn't line up with her usual studied positions. Sad that she's not even aware of the damage she does in perpetuating the hypocritical stereotyping.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[baldguy]

12. Now, who's got it backwards?

Seems to me the people of DC freely chose to ban guns, but the yahoos from the states with more tumbleweeds than people (and few blacks) want to force the issue.

[Recursion]

15. I notice your sig quotes Gandhi

Do you know his position on gun control?

[baldguy]

21. C'mon. Puke up the standard RW propaganda about how Gandhi *JUST LOVED* his guns.

Go ahead - show everyone how ignorant you are.

For an encore, you can tell us how the Nazis confiscated everyone's guns in pre-WWII Germany too.

[leeloo]

25. Cool if you cannot debate,pull out the Nazi card..............

[Recursion]

32. Despite your ill-aimed vitriol, Gandhi's quote is apropos

He was talking about colonialism and disarmament of the colonized, and DC is a colonial jurisdiction.

[baldguy]

38. And this NRA-backed RW amendment would take away DCs right to self-determination.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Like Roe v Wade took away the "right" of states to ban abortion?

I guess it's different because it's guns, amirite?

[defendandprotect]

122. GOP/NRA/"pro-life miitants" .... all one . . .? Is that what you're saying?

That seems to be what those who have studied it say --

Militias have been involved in "pro-life" violence --

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. Yep. Both groups of people unwilling to accede to the rule of law.

The USSC has been the ultimate arbiter of same at least since Marbury vs. Madison, for good or ill.

Don't like a decision by the Supremes? Try to get it changed by a later one, and abide by it until then.

[GreenStormCloud]

74. The amendment had, as its purpose, the restore another set of rights to DC..

But that was just too much rights for some people, so now the people of DC will still be without their full rights.

[SteveM]

82. Would you support D.C. self-determination if its gun laws were like those of Vermont's?

[TPaine7]

89. DC has no right to self-determine to deprive residents of their rights to

1) free speech
2) freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
3) freedom of religion
4) freedom of travel
5) freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
6) the right to keep and bear arms publicly and privately


We have seen "state's rights" used to deprive people of constitutional rights before, why do you think it's ok to use "DC's right to self-determination" to deprive people of their constitutional rights today?

[defendandprotect]

167. Because they don't any longer need "A well-regulated militia" . . . ???

[TPaine7]

212. It isn't the "well regulated militia" that has the right to keep and bear arms--

it's "THE PEOPLE."

[defendandprotect]

123. Obviously, the GOP/NRA are running government . . . and Dem decisions now ...

We've waited a long time for this progressive move to give DC representation --

and now once again progressive legislation is blocked by GOP/NRA --!!

Do we really think that the GOP/NRA are anxious for Democrats/progressives/liberals

to take back government?

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. It's unpossible for 'real' Democrats to support the Second Amendment, iow.

Got some documentation for your allegations?

[defendandprotect]

150. Maybe you can work on that with an interpreter and get back to me?

[jazzhound]

164. Maybe you can stop (cheaply) ducking the point? n/t

[defendandprotect]

168. When you explain what you wrote, maybe we can figure out the "point" ...???

or is that "unpossible" . . . ???

[jazzhound]

177. Well.........I didn't write the sentence........

...........but it's painfully obvious that the person who did was taking you to task for your transparently bigoted remark challenging his/her Dem loyalty.

That clear it up for you?

[defendandprotect]

189. Yes, a distorted grammar lesson is debate . . . right?

If there is any disloyalty it's on the part of the GOP/NRA and its infiltration

of the Democratic Party --

now tell me they don't use members' money to finance their agenda?

[jazzhound]

193. "Yes, a distorted grammar lesson is debate......right?"

Sigh. No......it's not. As anyone reading this exchange will understand, it's a cheap and transparently dishonest tactic to avoid dealing with the main thrust of the writers point.

[defendandprotect]

195. Again, I'm waiting for an interpretation of the original post you're defending ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

215. You claim the NRA 'infiltrated' the Democratic Party -without providing evidence

You've been implying that since some DUers and Democrats agree with the NRA's stance on gun rights, we are 'infiltrators'.

It's as dishonest as saying that since the ACLU defended Illinois Nazis' First Amendment rights, they were 'infiltated' by the brownshirts.

FWIW, the ACLU were correct in doing so- even Nazi scumbags have civil rights, and we need to defend the rights of
ALL, no matter how obnoxious.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. Close but not quite a Godwin

[Euromutt]

71. I don't think there is any such propaganda

Nobody claims Gandhi loved guns, but the fact is that he wasn't opposed to firearms, or other means of violence, in principle, at least initially. It's a dirty secret (albeit a rather public one for anyone willing to acknowledge it) that both the campaign for Indian independence and the American civil rights movement opted for non-violence out of political expedience, rather than principle; in both cases, the leaders figured (correctly, in my opinion) that employing violence would deprive them of political support from people who might otherwise be sympathetic to their cause (in Britain and among American liberals, respectively), either by turning those people against them or marginalizing their opinions.

Admittedly, later on in life, especially after the campaign bore fruit, Gandhi fell victim to his own hype; because non-violence had worked for him, he came to believe it would always work better than using force. History has not been kind to this idea.

And the German weapons law of 1938 didn't deprive everybody of their privately owned firearms; in fact, it made it easier for most people to own guns, especially Nazi party members. But it did prohibit ownership of weapons by "undesirables" such as Jews, left-wingers, trade unionists and other anti-social and subversive elements.

Bear in mind that propaganda is information disseminated for the purpose of influencing opinion; that information does not necessarily have to be false. In fact, most often, propaganda consists of information that is true, but does not tell the whole truth.

[defendandprotect]

151. You missed the violence? It was on the anti-civil rights/anti-independence side!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Seems to me the people of Nebraska freely chose to ban abortions,

but the know-it-alls from NARAL and NOW want to force the issue.

Hey, if it's kosher for DC it's kosher for Omaha, no?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. You have it backwards

States can not ban rights in the Federal constitution. Otherwise Alabama could have just ignored Brown or Roe.

Does amaze me how some progressives can be against some rights and not for others as well as supporting a cause born and steeped in racism like oppressive gun control.

[slackmaster]

72. The people of DC are still perfectly free to ban guns

From their own homes.

[krispos42]

75. So the yahoos want blacks to be able to own guns?

And the people of DC don't? Interesting.

[dashrif]

85. yes

just smacks of racism dont it

[defendandprotect]

125. No . . . it smacks of GOP/NRA determination to create a violent America and sell guns --!!

While we have a right wing court which supports corporatism, this distortion of

the 2nd will work --

When the tables turn, we'll be back to gun control and common sense --

Which means that the GOP/NRA/right wing militias have to keep knocking out any

progressive/liberal Democratic action!!

And that many Democrats are financing that activity with contributions to GOPs/NRA --

[cowman]

131. You do realize

that 73% of americans believe that the 2nd Amend is an individual right to own and carry firearms? If you think that is going to change, I've got some property here in Nye County, NV for sale, only used to test Nuclear Weapons.

[defendandprotect]

170. As far as I'm aware, the majority of Americans want "gun control" . . .

and that's despite very heavy right wing GOP/NRA propaganda and lots of right

wing money --

[cowman]

176. HaHaHa

The majority of americans dont want the govt passing any new gun control laws, 73% of americans say that the 2nd Amend is an individual right and I know from personal experience that the vast majority of street cops support the right of the people to keep and bear arms whether it be open carry or concealed carry, the only "cops' that oppose it are the cop-o-crats. At least know what you are talking about before you post

[defendandprotect]

182. They wouldn't be GOP/NRA statistics by any chance, would they?

In every instance, at least a majority has agreed that gun laws should be made more strict -- although the exact level of that sentiment has varied significantly. The high point for agreement with the "more strict" alternative was 78% in 1990, the first time the question was asked. The low point was in October of 2002, with only 51% in agreement.

Over 16 years -- Gallup Poll --

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27229/gallup-summary-americans-gun-control.aspx


And, even given things like the DC "sniper" -- what did DC do?

THEY MOVED TO BAN GUNS!!

[X_Digger]

198. Someone please repost this link to deflectandproject?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/support-gun-control-laws-time-lows.aspx

or this one?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html


She has me on 'ignore' but I'd be curious to see her response.

[cowman]

200. It's no use

this poster will just say that it's a GOP/NRA conspiracy.

[defendandprotect]

204. Nah . . . they're just nice guys . . . !!

[X_Digger]

194. "As far as you are aware".. and you 'ignore' anyone who challenges your preconceived notions.

Funny that.

Careful, you might just learn something. We can't have that, now can we?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/support-gun-control-laws-time-lows.aspx


Less than a majority want stricter gun control.

Here's another one-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html
"Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll." emphasis added

[friendly_iconoclast]

136. If that's so, why have crime and murder rates DECLINED nationwide?

Care to explain?

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[cowman]

181. Thats not what they said

during the DC gun ban, violent crime increased in DC by 134% while the rest of the nation's violent crime decreased.

[defendandprotect]

185. Here's what the poster said . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=311648&mesg_id=311658

Post the ban -- crime at a 40 year low!!


Three years ago there were four execution-style murders on my block in Columbia Heights within 2 weeks. And that was when homicide was at a 40-year low.


That's your fellow-gun-lover talking . . .

[cowman]

203. Thats right

Homicide in the rest of the nation while in DC the violent crimes rate increased 134% since the ban, and yet after Heller V DC was decided against DC the crime rate dropped by 40%. So how do you explain this?

[Statistical]

79. You can't ban rights.

It would be no different than in VA banned mosques, or VT banned free press (to be replaced with the Peoples Press of Vermont).

I know this is a very hard and scary concept for you.

There is an individual right to keep and bear arms. It exists. The sooner you accept reality the easier it will be.

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. So held by Supreme Court of the United State.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

81. Sorry, wrong again. It was the Supreme Court of the U.S....

Anyone can pass any law in any jurisdiction at anytime they want.

But it has to be Constitutional. Right?

[Mother Smuckers]

95. I wonder if you have an opinion of how same-sex marriage in DC would fare left to a popular vote

there. I believe I know the answer, but what do you think about it?

[defendandprotect]

124. Great Ghandi quotes . . . !!

[Recursion]

13. California had almost no gun control laws until the Panthers started carrying

Gun control in the South started with Jim Crow.

You want to scare white people? Give dark-skinned people guns.

[Odin2005]

16. Exactly.

"Gun Control" = "Keep guns from black people, because they are all thieves, druggies, and rapists...".

[villager]

20. Perfectly okay, however, to keep representation from black people!

Just as long as it suits the needs of the NRA!

[defendandprotect]

129. Notice it suits the needs of the GOPs/NRA . . . that's how it works.. and these militias ...

are also GOP-inspired --

and conveniently they all serve to BLOCK progressive/liberal reform from health

care to DC representation --


And many Democrats are support GOP/NRA agenda -- sadly!!

[defendandprotect]

128. . . . and don't forget they want "revenge" for slavery . . . !!! That one always sells big!!

[X_Digger]

27. Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford act into law in 1967.

Why? Because the Black Panthers were marching armed.

[defendandprotect]

127. Absolutely . . . as though we'll tolerate "black" militias . . !!!

It's amazing how so many believe the GOP/NRA mantra that Dems will take their guns

but can't follow thru to the final reality that no matter what, the power is with

government and when "guns" become inconvenient for them, states and Federal government

will take guns -- Katrina being one prime example not only of the gun taking but ...

especially the knocking out of any "black" with a gun!!

GOP/NRA propaganda is quite blinding though for many who believe in violence as the final card!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

135. I see the Deacons for Defense and Justice and Rob Williams do not exist in this dojo.

Or Fannie Lou Hamer
Or Harriet Tubman
Or Zora Neale Hurston

All black, and all conspicuously armed. I doubt you'll acknowledge any of them...

[defendandprotect]

219. Harriet Tubman actually used the gun at times to threaten slaves who became frightened ....

and wanted to turn back --

And I've never heard that either Fannie Lou Hamer or Zora Neale Hurston headed up

MILITIAS???

We do very well know, however, what happened to the gun toting Black Panthers!

[friendly_iconoclast]

223. Here's a black militia, supported by the NRA. A little more inconvenient truth:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x238936


virginia mountainman (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-17-09 03:38 PM
Original message
“Negroes with Guns” America's Dark History of brutal, sadistic violence against African Americans
Edited on Fri Jul-17-09 03:42 PM by virginia mountainman

Great Read! A few excerpts..

....In the summer of 1957, a Klan motorcade sent to attack the house was met by a disciplined volley of rifle fire from a group of black veterans and NRA members led by civil rights activist Robert F. Williams.

Using military-surplus rifles from behind sandbag fortifications, the small band of freedom fighters drove off the larger force of Klansmen with no casualties reported on either side.
Williams, a former Marine who volunteered to lead the Monroe chapter of the NAACP and founded a 60-member NRA-chartered rifle club, described the battle in his 1962 book, "Negroes With Guns," which was reprinted in 1998 by Wayne State University Press.
According to Williams, the Monroe group owed its survival in the face of vicious violence to the fact that they were armed. In several cases, police officials who normally ignored or encouraged Klan violence took steps to prevent whites from attacking armed blacks. In other cases, fanatical racists suddenly turned into cowards when they realized their intended victims were armed.

Oddly, it appears that the organized armed blacks of Monroe never shot any of their tormentors. The simple existence of guns in the hands of men who were willing to use them prevented greater violence. .......

.....His effort to provide guns and training to African-American civil rights supporters was alarming to white politicians. Most state gun control laws, not just in the South, were blatantly designed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and other minorities. Those with racist beliefs were not pleased when blacks claimed the right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed to all Americans.

The connection with the NRA might surprise some people who portray the organization as a haven for racist rednecks. Former NRA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa spoke with Williams before his death. She recalls, "He was very proud of being an NRA member and that the NRA sanctioned his club without question."

The civil rights organizations of today bear little resemblance to the deadly serious armed activists of Monroe. African-American leaders generally support the liberal white line that guns are evil and have no place in modern society.

On the other hand, small numbers of responsible black gun owners continue to honor their heritage by practicing their marksmanship and joining gun rights organizations. The tradition of the black gun club still lives on in the Tenth Cavalry Gun club, led by Ken Blanchard in Prince Georges County, Md. .......

http://www.jacksonville.com/interact/blog/stanley_scott/2009-07-17/%E2%80%9Cnegroes_with_guns%E2%80%9D_america_dark_history_of_brutal_sadistic_v

[defendandprotect]

224. "A" black militia supported by NRA? SPL reported 360+ new militias in just

past months!!

And, is this one "black" militia also involved in "pro-life" attacks on women's clinics?

[leeloo]

28. As able to defend themselves from criminals? n/t

[proteus_lives]

64. Shhh. Antis hate being faced with the racist roots of gun control.

[villager]

18. I see the requisite defense of the NRA and the Roberts court is right on time...

...among the gun lobby apologists...

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. The wingers and fundies feel the same way about Roe v Wade.

Great minds think alike...

[defendandprotect]

130. Close connections of all to GOP -- NRA/"pro-life" militia/murderers ---

and unfortunately many Democrats are supporting that backward rightwing agenda --

[PavePusher]

133. Tossing off criminal accusations pretty lightly, aren't you?

Good thing for you that libel laws aren't as restrictive as gun laws.

[defendandprotect]

173. Check with Southern Poverty Law ...

For decades it has been understood that the militias were active in violence

against women's clinics --

Or maybe it's "pro-life" murder of doctors that you're denying?

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. "Pro-life" and gun control advocates are the same:

*Both dislike Supreme Court decisions
*Both regularly issue overwrought proclamations decrying the loss of life
*Both are fond of dark conspiracy theories

[defendandprotect]

Presume you think that post makes sense . . . check with someone on your side

for clarification -- and repost if you can!

[jazzhound]

179. Gun control advocates are similar to Repubs vis-a-vis the health care issue

in that they do an awful lot of screaming and misrepresentation while not offering a single constructive solution to the problem.

[defendandprotect]

220. Right . . . the GOP/NRA love the Roberts Court -- !!

[PinkFloyd]

23. They did it because they knew most likely it would be a Democratic seat

If it was a bill that added a seat in Texas or Kentucky, I bet they'd never say a peep.

[onehandle]

34. Exactly. nt

[harkadog]

35. The bill also added a seat in Utah.

Sounds Republican to me.

[X_Digger]

24. Norton should have actually read the amendment.

It wouldn't have removed the restrictions that Rachel quoted her as saying it would.

[Mother Smuckers]

31. Sorry to say Norton is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

...

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[aikoaiko]

33. When did the NRA become part of congress where they could submit and vote for amendments

:shrug:

[onehandle]

39. Since forever. They wrote the amendment that lost a 90%+ Democratic city, a vote. nt

[aikoaiko]

51. SO really some congress critter submitted an admendment and others voted to attach it to a bill.

Or was it a Senator? It was a while ago.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. Were they really going to get a vote? I doubt it

and its our fellow Democrats who pulled the bill

[Euromutt]

70. No; the Constitution did that a long time ago

When it didn't give voting representation in Congress to political subdivision except the "several states" and mandated the creation of a federal District "by cession of particular states," thereby depriving the inhabitants of said District of Congressional representation upon formation.

Personally, I'm all for giving DC a vote in the House (heck, given that D.C. has a tenth more inhabitants than Wyoming, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to granting D.C. statehood), but it would require a constitutional amendment to do so legally; a simple Act of Congress won't do it. It's less than fair, but I don't much care for taking shortcuts with the Constitution for the sake of political expediency. We had plenty of that under Bush.

[Tippy]

40. Remember this?

The National Rifle Association's second-ranking officer boasted at a closed meeting of NRA members earlier this year that if Republican nominee George W. Bush wins in November, "we'll have . . . a president where we work out of their office."

First Vice President Kayne Robinson, who is in line to succeed NRA President Charlton Heston, added that the NRA enjoys "unbelievably friendly relations" with the Texas governor. Robinson, who is also chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, made the comments Feb. 17 before 300 members in Los Angeles. He also described 2000 as "a critical election" in which Bush's success would ensure "a Supreme Court that will back us to the hilt."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/050400-01.htm

[tnlefty]

46. Kicking this just for this.

:hi: :kick:

[aikoaiko]

54. What does that have to do with congress, or this bill?

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

145. Wow --

OK . . . we'll explain it . . . GOP/NRA is a right wing movement --

which supports a right wing fascist agenda and which members' money to

infiltrate the Democratic Party so as to move their rightg wing fascist

agenda there, as well!

Come back if you need more help -- !!

[cowman]

157. How the hell do

you live with such paranoia? It will burn you out sooner or later, my advice, and just my advice, smoke a joint and chill out dude:smoke:
BTW, there are many many dems that belong to the NRA so be honest and call it the GOP/DEM/NRA

[defendandprotect]

175. Am I the one pushing guns?

No -- that's you --

Yes -- the GOP/NRA have infiltrated the Dem Party -- and probably used your money to

help them do that !!

[jazzhound]

183. Strawman # 234,609,762,628

No one is "pushing guns" here. Simply providing *pushback* against the errant notion that reducing the supply of guns will magically reduce violent crime.

[defendandprotect]

187. We are discussing the GOP/NRA . . . and the amendment which

seeks to arm DC residents !!

[cowman]

184. Now your flat out lying

I have never pushed guns on anyone, matter of fact when someone tells me they are going to buy a gun for the first time I tell them to think very hard about it because it is an awesome responsibility and if they are adamant about it I tell them to go to the range first and rent a gun and make sure thats what they really want to do.

Gun control as a political issue is a non starter in this country, deal with it

[defendandprotect]

186. GOP/NRA and their members don't want to spread guns around?

What was the amendment the GOP/NRA just wrote re DC?

[cowman]

205. No we dont

want to "spread guns around" we want to protect the 2nd Amend for all americans present and future, so once again, you are either flat out lying or ignorant of what the NRA is all about.

[SteveM]

84. Remember this?

Where Bill Clinton explained Al Gore's defeat in 2000 as the result of his support for the so-called "assault weapons ban," which gun-controllers/prohibitionists have tried to downplay ever since?

Can't have it both ways, Tippy. Either the Second Amendment has powerful support, or it is a "winning issue" which does not harm to Democrats. You seem to favor the former outlook, so you will understand that when one side literally storms the gates of the opposition, then you can expect they will elect a "...president where we work out of their office."

But, in the face of that reality, I am a little tired of fellow-Democrats giving the GOP (and the NRA) EXACTLY what they want. I'm a little tired of "liberals" who are such wild-eyed prohibitionists and culture warriors that they delivered Bush to the oval office by certified mail. And are STILL doing it. When do you think they'll stop?

[dashrif]

88. +1000 A pro 2nd candidate

is stronger than a D or a R in most places and can be the deciding factor to a voter imho

[SteveM]

112. Yep. Gun-owners are a significant bloc. Are they tens-of-millions? Probably not...

but in close elections a few million (or several hundred thousand) votes is critical. How many pro-2A votes could Gore have gotten in Florida if he were a strong 2A supporter? More than enough, imo, to "cancel out" the Nader vote (though here, many of these voters probably wouldn't have voted for Gore at all or would have cast their ballots for Mesa the Cat.)

[Tippy]

91. NRA lost Dems a lot of votes over the years...

and are still doing it. At one time most of my family members belonged to the NRA, and everyone dropped their membership when they began using it as a wedge issue to win elections. Bill Clinton was wrong about why Gore lost, because in reality he did win. Pointing out the "assault weapons ban" only fired up these people even more. They will never stop..Because they think the Gov will take away their guns, this was a big issue in 2008 they had people scared to death of Obama, to the point people who had never owed a gun or guns were buying all they could get a hold of in Western TN, because they were convinced Obama was our to hurt them. Even some of the children were telling others that Obama would hurt them in some way. It's not just crazy what is taking place is INSANE.

[SteveM]

113. I agree with the craziness of it all...

As bad as MSM is/was, it provided a leavening effect on public discourse by legitimizing issues and setting at least some terms of debate. But now that MSM is a fragment of itself, "anything" goes.

Matters are not helped by the position of the Democratic Party. To this day, in its Platform, is a call for a permanent, even more sweeping so-called "assault weapons ban." It is hard to accuse folks of paranoia when a party calls for the banning of a weapon now owned by probably 18,000,000 folks -- more by some millions than those who hunt!

The Party platform does NO GOOD. It's only a "Hit Me" sign. And boy, do we get hit.

[defendandprotect]

146. And the reality of who tooks away the guns in Katrina was . . . ?????

The government --

You can't help people who are that stupid!

[defendandprotect]

143. Amazing . . . also reminds me of the Diebold/? computer guy bragging he'd be working

to put Republicans in office!!

And, corporations have been so succesful at cutting off democracy/people's government

that we just sit in shock at what's going on -- paralyzed!

[baldguy]

43. They paid good money for a couple dozen GOP members of Congress.

Its all the money they conned from their hard-working, middle-class members by lying to them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. O noes, it's the Protocols of the Elders of The NRA Redux!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

56. So, lobbying about gun laws is the same as antisemitic blood libel? -nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. Yes, they are both moral panics ginned up to con the gullible

As none of the stuff in the OP was in the actual bill, I'd say it was an excellent way to give cover to the
DEMOCRATS who didn't like it.

And it worked.

[Recursion]

68. Ding ding ding

We have a winner

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[aikoaiko]

55. oh, which ones and how much?

[defendandprotect]

144. Right . . . and when those members finally wake up the right wing agenda will be in place!!

:)

[defendandprotect]

142. NRA is a corporation "paying to play" and our elected officials are bribed . . ..

And, NRA heavily targeted "pro-gun control" Democrats with tons of right wing money

and then put their own "pro-gun" Dems in place!

[marmar]

42. Love ya, Rachel....

:loveya:

[tritsofme]

57. The bill would have been ruled unconstitutional anyways.

Congress does not have the power to grant voting rights a non-state entity like the District of Columbia.

A constitutional amendment would be required, it is not as though we went through all the trouble of passing the 23rd amendment just for fun, if it could have been accomplished by an act of Congress. This whole process has been a waste of time, now it's a good thing we don't have expend resources on litigating such an obviously flawed bill.

If these people were serious about seeing that DC residents are properly represented in Congress, they would propose a permanent constitutional fix, or better yet, grant statehood to DC.

[Euromutt]

65. I entirely agree

Personally, I whole-heartedly support giving the residents of the District voting representation in Congress, but I'm opposed to trying to achieve that by simply ignoring the Constitution.

[Recursion]

69. DC had representatives from 1800 to 1810

They caucused with the MD and VA delegations (this was back when Arlington and Alexandria were still in DC).

A Congress full of people who had actually written the Constitution didn't seem to mind.

[defendandprotect]

148. Interesting . . . thank you!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

58. I thought it was an ingenious way to blame the NRA for something that was dubious to begin with

No lawyer I have spoken with on the DC representation has believed it would pass constitutional muster, though many agreed with it in principle.

The anti gunner hyperbole on this is actually so extreme as to be amusing. Amazed they can take such an anti civil rights stand in a minority-majority area. Hard to believe that the do not fully understand the racist roots of gun control in this country.

[proteus_lives]

63. "With their poison pill amendment"

What a crock.

:eyes:

[Walk away]

83. What is wrong with gun fanatics trying to force cities to arm their populations?

It seems so bizarre.

[proteus_lives]

86. Wow, really?

Are you that dim?

[onehandle]

87. Total selfishness.

They want open carry 'normalized.' The more guns out there and openly out there, the more available extreme assault weapons and ammo will be. This is their theory and holy grail.

The NRA just wants to help gun companies sell more guns period. In a way, they are more sensible than the gunbaggers who were in DC on Monday.

[rrneck]

99. What's an extreme assault weapon? nt

[east texas lib]

105. They have built in I-Pods that play death-metal tracks as you spray hot flaming lead?

Cool!

[rrneck]

107. Duuuuuude!

Fuck yeah! :headbang:

[DonP]

110. The "shoulder thing that goes up" has sharp pointy things on it...

... and they only fire those ultra ultra high powered "cop killer" bullets that go "through schools" a la Johnny Dangerously. Mine actually has two bayonet lugs on it. One pointing forward and a spare on the top in case someone tries to jump on me from above. Sometimes it make sit hard to get a good cheek weld.

I read somewhere earlier this week that there are now 6.8 million target shooters and hunters using the AR-15 platform. Thank you Assault Weapon Ban, you did such a fine job.

[rrneck]

111. Maybe this is one of them?

Hey, it looks like a shoe. Maybe it has something to do with extreme sports. That trend has been around for a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-jqEj1Hvnc

[DonP]

115. Nope, that's not it - besides everyone knows that assault weapons are black...

... and those "extreme assault weapons" must be even a darker black than the regular ones.

But I wouldn't mind having a gun with a memory circuit like that one. Every subsequent shot hits exactly the same spot. That's about the only way I'll ever get tight groups anyway.

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. Are you animist? Do you believe that *seeing* someone carrying a gun is harmful?

That's the only way that bit of wharrgarbl makes any sense.

[defendandprotect]

141. By the time the members wake up that they're supporting right wing agenda --

it will be in place and too late -- !!



:eyes:

[spin]

92. I can and do own firearms and have a concealed weapons permit ...

why should another citizen of our country who might live in Chicago or Washington DC have fewer rights than I do?

Are the law abiding residents of Chicago or DC less responsible or not intelligent enough to handle a firearm in a safe manner and use one for self defense if their life is threatened?

That seems bizarre to me.

[PavePusher]

100. Cite, please? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. The "arm everyone" canard AGAIN? It's like chupacabras or Bigfoot.

There's always a few who swear up and down that they exist, but they never quite seem to have the evidence at hand...

Maybe some nice person will take the explain to you the difference between allowing something and forcing it upon you.

[defendandprotect]

140. Yep -- hard to explain why anyone would be opposed -- !!!

:)

[Jackson1999]

90. As probably the only DC resident in the Gungeon.....

I can't tell you how disappointed I am. Gun rights and representation??? It was going to be like Christmas.

THIS is why I will never join the NRA. I just do not buy that they are a "single issue organization." They had the chance to back the most sweeping gun reform law for any municipality or state in history---and they intentionally killed it.

They don't care about gun rights for DC residents. This was obviously some favor for some Congressman for some other favor.

To you NRA supporters, please tell me why the NRA has lobbyists trying to get things done in places like California and Illinois, but have never ever lifted one finger to get any serious pro-gun DC legislation passed through Congress?

[defendandprotect]

149. My guess: GOP/NRA are right wing . . . DC is minority occupied . . .

[PavePusher]

96. Can't be honest for a second, can you? n/t

[derby378]

97. My take on why denying DC residents their rights is a really bad idea

Click here for the Amendment II Democrats blog on MySpace

[Abq_Sarah]

104. Just out of curiosity

What, exactly, is an "assault weapon"?

[spin]

108. Definition of "assault weapon"

Assault weapon is a non-technical term referring to any of a broad category of firearms with certain features, including some semiautomatic rifles, some pistols, and some shotguns. There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.<1>

Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a flash suppressor. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only once each time the trigger is pulled.

***snip***

Modern usage

The term assault weapon is often confused with the term assault rifle, itself a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle". There is no technical military definition of an assault weapon, but in a general sense, the term assault weapon can refer to a military weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking a fortified position (as referenced in multiple uses in military terminology below). Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to refer to specific semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by specific characteristics for statutory purposes. The legislative usage follows usage by political groups seeking to limit the individual's right to keep and bear arms, who have sought to extend the meaning to include a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name or appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon.

Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition. The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".<3> Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms, commonly referred to as gun rights supporters, generally consider these uses of the phrase assault weapon to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe civilian firearms. This term is seldom used outside of the United States in this context.

The first use of the term is uncertain, but it gained notoriety in 1986 when Gun Digest published its book, "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons". This book used the term to describe a variety of firearms including bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and semi-autos.

Recently terminology variants such as "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon"<4> have been gaining in use by political leaders and groups who seek to limit or ban these firearms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

Assault rifles vs. Assault weapons

The term assault weapon is a political and legal term used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Primary pistol grip
* Forward grip
* Threaded barrel (for a Suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
* Barrel shroud

The assault weapons ban did not restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly-manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers. emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Assault_rifles_vs._Assault_weapons

[Abq_Sarah]

109. So...

It's basically anything anti gun people want to ban.

Kind of like a semi automatic pistol is a machine gun in DC.

[spin]

114. True, and the term is often used to confuse people ...

into believing that the firearms that would be banned with a new "assault weapons" ban are the same as military select fire weapons. For example "assault weapons" look similar to assault rifles. Both are usually black and sinister looking.

The M4 carbine is a family of firearms tracing its lineage back to earlier carbine versions of the M16, all based on the original AR-15 made by ArmaLite. It is a shorter and lighter version of the M16A2 assault rifle, with 80% parts commonality with the M16A2.<2> The M4 has selective fire options including semi-automatic and three-round burst (like the M16A2), while the M4A1 has a "full auto" option in place of the three-round burst.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine

The AR-15 (ArmaLite Model 15<8>) is a widely owned<9> semi-automatic rifle, of which the most famous derivative is the selective fire M16-series assault rifle used by the United States military.

The AR-15 consists of separate upper and lower receiver assemblies, which are attached with two through-pins and can be quickly interchanged with no tools. The lower receiver (because it bears the weapon's serial number and fire control group) is itself regulated as a firearm. However, the upper receiver assembly is simply considered a part, and may be purchased and mail-ordered in most locations with no restrictions. This is an attractive feature for users because it allows a number of upper receivers (often in different calibers) to be interchanged with the same lower receiver.<10> However, one must be thoroughly familiar with firearms laws before doing this as it is possible to make an illegal configuration.<11>

***snip***

Today the AR-15 and its variations are manufactured by many companies and have captured the affection of sport shooters and police forces around the world due to their accuracy and modularity. (Please refer to the M16 for more history on the development and evolution of the AR-15 and derivatives.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

A really good video by a police officer which explains the difference between "assault weapons" and assault rifles can be viewed at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

[jody]

106. Thanks for posting. OP is an opportunity for some who oppose RKBA to demonstrate gross ignorance. nt

[Katya Mullethov]

116. The sad refrain

That is the competition

[jody]

117. Ignorance is a curable disease, stupidity is a terminal illness. Those who refuse to accept they

are sick can never be cured.

[Callisto32]

118. If they want to let people carry something that doesn't exist and nobody can define...

...that's okay with me.

[defendandprotect]

121. Heard DC representation was coming up again . . .

We'd have much more progressive government without GOP/NRA influence and money --

DC needs the vote --

GOP/NRA need to sell guns and violence --

Wonder which would work better for us?

hmmm...

[cowman]

132. You do know

that there are as many Dem politicians that support the 2nd Amend as there are Repubs? So maybe you had better say GOP/DEM/NRA just to be fair.

[defendandprotect]

139. No . . . it's the GOP's NRA from the beginning . .. that they have infiltrated the Democratic Party

just adds up to their spreading more bribery money around --

Decades of their targeting "gun control" Democrats and buying "pro-gun Dems" only means

that right wing money can buy legislation and candidates --

but, what's new?

[friendly_iconoclast]

152. They were even smart enough to steal *all* the evidence of this that you had...

...and that's why you don't post any facts to back up what you say.

Perhaps some nice person might explain to you that 'assertion' =/= 'fact'...

[defendandprotect]

178. You mean you didn't know that GOP/NRA were targeting "gun control" Dems . . .

and probably with your money?

They were doing that for decades --

and buying right wing "anti-gun control" Dems --

You'll probably find them boasting about that in some of their old fund-raising

propaganda --

You still have it?

[cowman]

159. Wow

So because I support the RKBA I am a closet Repub and not a Dem. Thanks for clearing this up for me.
\:rofl:

Take a chill pill dude

[defendandprotect]

180. How did it benefit you that the GOP/NRA infiltrated Dem Party?

How did it benefit you that the GOP/NRA targeted Dems who were "anti-gun control"

but supportive of Democratic Party ideals?

You got what you paid for !!

[jazzhound]

174. Wow is right.

Persons that argue the pro-control case in this fashion are actually allies of the RKBA movement since they so completely discredit themselves.

[cowman]

188. I know

they are our best allies

[cowman]

192. When I got back

from Vietnam I looked at every asian as an enemy until I realized that this paranoia was eating my insides and burning me out, once I accepted that no one was out to get me I started to live again, take it from me, all this hatred you have for guns, gun owners, and men is going to burn you out. I actually feel a sense of pity for you because I know what you are going through

[friendly_iconoclast]

216. Like Ahab and the whale, you are. You don't care if your pursuit sinks the ship

Fortunately, a lot of us prefer the Democratic Party not be used as the Pequod by your crowd...

[jazzhound]

217. Amen!

Fortunately, a lot of us prefer the Democratic Party not be used as the Pequod by your crowd...

:thumbsup:

[friendly_iconoclast]

221. Looks like the "GOP/NRA" have been using alien technology they got via Eisenhower

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4356696#4356865

You learn the most interesting things when you look at people's posts in other threads...

[jazzhound]

222. Thanks for the huge laugh, friendly!

I took the "interesting individual" off of ignore long enough to read that thread.

Great stuff.............highly recommended.