Synopsis for what happened in the Senate (AWB clear version)

[Baclava]

Today in the Senate, the gun industry lawsuit preemption act (Senate bill 1805) was DEFEATED 90 to 9, in response to the fact that Feinstein's amendment to extend the 1994 assault weapons ban was PASSED by vote and therefore WAS attached to this major bill.

But, as the gun industry lawsuit bill was soundly DEFEATED, Feinstein's AW ban extension was ALSO defeated, as it was part and parcel of the larger bill, having become an amendment to it.

To put it very simply, the AW ban extension was passed in the Senate and became part of a larger bill that was in turn defeated.

The results: This attempt to renew the AW ban has been DEFEATED. THE BAN WILL SUNSET AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED. THIS IS A VICTORY FOR RTKBA.

The bill to protect the gun industry from lawsuits was ALSO DEFEATED, but we never had that before anyway. We lost NOTHING there.

Certain other amendments also died along with the bill, including Boxer's amendment to require gun locks to be sold with all handguns, and an amendment to allow concealed carry in ALL states, but ONLY for law enforcement officers.


That is the short version.

[DarkPhenyx]

1. What a sad and unfortunate thing.

A defeat for safety and sanity advocates everywhere.

[kalian]

2. Are you 100% sure about this?

You mean that the AWB will be sun setting in September of this year?
Good news IMHO if this is true.

[jhfenton]

3. 99% sure

I see very little chance for the AWB to be extended this year. For that to happen it would require a sequence of unlikely events.

1a. The Senate would have to get 60 votes to force the AWB to a vote.

Or since there aren't 60 votes...

1b. The Senate would have to again tack the AWB on to a piece of pro-gun legislation -- an underlying anti-gun bill won't get 60 votes for cloture -- and pass the overall bill. That didn't happen today. I doubt it would happen differently next time.

Then after 1a or 1b happens...

2. The U.S. House has to pass the AWB. That's not going to happen. It won't even get to a vote. It won't get through a conference committee. If it did get to a vote, there are more than enough votes to kill it.

That said, I am wasting no opportunity to lobby my legislators.

[Baclava]

115. Sample Letters to Draw From...

Dear Senator/Congressman XXXXX,

I am writing you in regards to the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994". And as I am sure you know, is set to expire via a sunset clause in September of 2004. I wish and urge you to vote against any renewal of this legislation.

The banned weapons and magazines in question are rarely used to commit murders in this country. A criminal is not going to spend $1,000 on a weapon when he can get his hands on one that is often home made, cheaply manufactured, or stolen and just as lethal for less than 200 dollars. The "Assault Weapons" ban simply doesn’t work like its authors said or expected it to, regardless of what they claim. The facts can be distorted but the truth cannot."Assault Weapons" neither cause, nor significantly contribute to violent crime in America. For this I urge you not to support the renewal of this legislation.

The ban has had no palpable effect on crime, but it has had a tremendous and terrible impact on the law-abiding citizens of the United States. Many people engage in competitive shooting programs such as the Civilian Marksmanship Program that uses mainly semi-automatic firearms. They are no longer allowed to configure their rifles in the constitutionally protected manner of their choosing. This should not be allowed to continue.

Last but not least, the ban targets features just because they look scary. The authors of this legislation honestly have no comprehension of physics or the mechanics of modern firearms. They feel that just because a firearm looks scary it should be banned, when the truth of the matter is that so-called "Assault Weapons" are mechanically identical to semi-automatic "sporting rifles." For this I beg that you to oppose the renewal of this "feel-good" legislation.

The fact this ban has had no effect on violent crime, it hinders the performance of men and women involved in competitive shooting, and attacks weapons based solely on their appearance is more than enough justification for its expiration, and I implore you to vote against any reauthorization or renewal of the "Assault Weapons" ban.

Please do not alienate America’s lawful gun owners.


Sincerely,
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Senator/Congressman XXXXX.

As one of your constituents, and I am writing to inform you of my feelings on a very important issue. As you are probably aware, a very bad and unconstitutional law is due to sunset in 2004. I am referring to the 1994 ban on certain types of semi-automatic firearms, and the production of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

It is an appalling violation of my rights and an affront to all American gun owners. This ban has also done nothing to combat crime since the firearms in question are only used in an extremely small percentage of gun crimes.

I urge you to remember the oath you took when you entered office and fight to ensure that this law dies next year and stays dead. If you choose to side with the antigun forces in congress on this issue, rest assured that I will not be voting for you in the next election.

Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Senator/Congressman XXXXX,

My reason for writing is the "Assault Weapons" ban due to sunset in 2004. The restriction of so-called "assault weapons" imposed unacceptable limitations on America’s law abiding gun owners, and did nothing to control or prevent crime. Thus I strongly urge you to oppose any and all attempts to reauthorize this ineffectual ban.

The shame is that these limitations were imposed simply for political expediency and "feel-good" propaganda, and without any regard for the legality of such restrictions. Please understand that the "Assault Weapons" ban is an unambiguous infringement of our constitutionally acknowledged right to bear arms, and as such, we gun owners will no longer tolerate anyone who chooses to ignore and erode our birthright as free Americans.

When the current ban on so-called "Assault Weapons" sunsets, simply say good-bye to it Senator/Congressman XXXXX. Please put an end to the foolishness of cosmetic fixes simply so some of your colleagues can say: "Look what we are doing to make our streets safer!" while doing nothing but punishing collectors and sport shooters of these incorrectly labeled "assault weapons". I implore you look at the real statistics and expose the foolishness and lies, and I ask you to acknowledge the inherit constitutionality of these firearms, and to protect our right to own them.

Sincerely,

[MrBenchley]

4. Wow...that is some desperate spin.

Actual truth: The NRA lost three different times in one day.
They lost the AWB amendment.
Then they lost the battle to get the DC gun law repeal onto the floor.
Then they lost the gun show loophole.
And so they threw in their cards and now want to say they defeated the bill they had been pushing.

By the way, both the House and Senate AWB bills are still alive...and now we know it would pass in the Senate, with overwhelming public approval.

[slackmaster]

6. Looking at the bigger picture

The AW ban is scheduled to expire.

The misnamed gun show loophole is still alive and well.

Lawsuits against gun manufacturers for abuse of their products by criminals keep on losing in the courts.

By the way, both the House and Senate AWB bills are still alive...and now we know it would pass in the Senate, with overwhelming public approval.

Wrong again. The bills that are still active are not the same as the amendment to S.1805 that passed and went down with the ship today. They're much more aggressive and will be defeated.

But keep on spinning if that blows your skirt up.

[Baclava]

12. Wow...

Me Thinks Thou Doth Protest Too Much

[MrBenchley]

13. Gee, I'm not the one

trying to pretend the gun lobby WON.

[Baclava]

15. You're barking up the wrong tree here....

We all want a better America, let's not quibble because we differ slightly on the path to get there.

In other words, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Did you know you have a flat on your spin machine?

[MrBenchley]

16. Surrrrrre......

But I'm not the one trying to pretend the gun lobby won today.. That would be YOU.

[Baclava]

17. Yep

That's me...Mr. Fantasy...

[MrBenchley]

18. Yep...

Only in RKBA fantasyland do three losses (and a failed amendment that couldn't even get on the floor) add up to a victory.....but then desperate spin does make one dizzy.

What was even funnier is that the NRA sent the marching orders on the final vote to their Republican stooges via PDAs...guess the GOP isn't even pretending they represent anything but corrupt lobbyists anymore.

[Redneck Socialist]

5. So how do you think this will play in the general election?

Dems can say they handed a defeat to bushco. because he wanted the gun industry protection act straight up and supporters of gun rights can say they defeated the AWB.

A win for both sides then?

Maybe, but we can be sure that we will hear about Kerry voting to extend the AWB all election long. Once again a Dem takes careful aim and shoots himself in the foot.

[slackmaster]

7. I can't see it making much difference one way or another

Most people really don't understand these issues or care about them. Not having the gun manufacturer immunity to tar Bush with takes a talking point away from some Democrats.

Proponents of the assault weapons ban will shoot themselves in the foot by trying to get too strict of a ban passed. Today's vote on S.1805 was IMO a resounding defeat for an extension of the AWB.

[FeebMaster]

8. There could always be

a repeat of 1986.

[MrSandman]

9. I heard that both Edwards and Kerry

made it a point to forego the campaign trail to vote for the AWB.

They would have been better off politically to campaign and let this vote slide. There is no upside in the middle to making the vote.

Bush has been on record as supporting the AWB, which probably can't pass the House. I fear he hopes that an AWB will be offered similar to hr 2038 which will be claimed to be stronger than supported and vetoed, electorally hurting many supporters of the bill.

But then, looking at Patriot legislation, Bush doesn't seem to fear stubbbing the CONUS.

[MrBenchley]

10. Who are you kidding?

Voters overwhelmingly want assault weapons off the street...even Chimpy had to pretend he did, although he didn't do a damnn thing in that direction.

It would be great to force this unelected drunk in the White House to stand up FOR assault weapons.

[jimsteuben]

21. when you say "assault weapon"...

what does that term mean to you?

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

22. It means I'm not going to play "lets pretend" with you.

<sarcasm>Nobody knows what assault weapons really are except we who love them </sarcasm>

[jimsteuben]

23. Seriously, Mr. B, what the heck is an "assault weapon"?

California has one definition, New Jersey has a different definition, federal law defines it differently, Massachusetts has a definition, and the VPC has a definition.

And none of them disagree with each other. What the heck *is* an "assault weapon"? Anything that looks mean?

You use the term, so please answer a simple question.

When you use the term "assault weapon," just what do you mean?

And take as much time as you want.

[Columbia]

24. Good luck

I've been trying to get him to spit that one out for months.

[jimsteuben]

27. I never even use the term "assault weapon"

Unless I put quotes around it. I'm not claiming to have the "correct" definition, but I always like to ask advocates of banning "assault weapons" just what *they* mean by the term. And I have never ever gotten a straight answer.

Admit it, Mr. B, "assault weapon" has no real meaning. It's merely a propaganda term just like "gateway drug." When Kerry says he wants to ban "assault weapons," isn't he engaging in an exercise of propaganda in the same way that Bush did when he kept harping about Iraq's fictitious "weapons of mass destruction"? In both cases they just want to punch our fear buttons to rally around fearless leader.

Any other advocates of banning "assault weapons" want to help out the beleaguered Mr. Benchley?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

32. That's because we know what a crapass question it is....

[RoeBear]

34. That was funny...

...thanks.



Also funny; I did a Google image search of 'crapass' and got eight hits. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=crapass

One picture shows a playing card being cut in half by a bullet.



I can only come to the conclusion that a 'crapass question' is a direct hit, one that tears the opponent in half. So, Benchley, I thank you for calling my question a crapass one.

[CO Liberal]

39. And I Did a Google Search of My Own....

...on that horrible phrase you combined with "loon" in Post #31. And Google returned the following image:



Draw your own conclusions......

[RoeBear]

43. Not sure how you came up with that image...

...but I did a google image search of 'gun' & 'bigfoot' and got:



which seems to explain your inexplicable reference to bigfoot the other day. :D

[CO Liberal]

70. Here's the Explaination

People say Bigfoot does not exist. And many pro-gunners say the "gun show loophole" does not exist.

See the connection now?

[Columbia]

91. Hmm...

But neither Big Foot nor the "Gun Show Loophole" exists. I see that connection, but what's your point?

[CO Liberal]

92. But They Do

Regardless of what the Nuts Ruining America say.....

[Columbia]

97. Alrighty then.

[MrBenchley]

41. Well, that's as grotesquely wrong as your other conclusions.....

but then who's surprised at that?

[RoeBear]

45. You mean you weren't saying that...

...as a compliment? I'm crushed.

[jimsteuben]

105. It's a simple question: what is an "assault weapon"?

I direct it to Mr. Benchley, ColoradoLiberal, or any other advocate of "sensible gun control."

When you use the term "assault weapon," just what exactly do you mean?

Any semi-auto rifle or shotgun? Any rifle that can hold more than ten rounds? five rounds? fifty rounds? Any gun that looks mean and scary? Any gun that possibly could be used to hurt another person?

I honestly don't know what you guys mean when you use the term "assault weapon."

Is it like obscenity? Can't define it but you know it when you see it? Does it mean whatever the Attorney General says it means?

Why can't the advocates of gun control get together and agree on what the term means?

[MrBenchley]

113. I'm quite happy to go with the description in HR 2038

[slackmaster]

114. Three simple letters: DOA

HR 2038 is a non-starter.

[jimsteuben]

118. ok, thank you

From HR 2038.
"The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:
(D)A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a threaded barrel;

`(iii) a pistol grip;

`(iv) a forward grip; or

`(v) a barrel shroud."

Under current law, an "assault weapon" includes semi-auto rifles with any two evil features, but this bill would make mean that even one evil feature is enough to make a normal, run-of-the-mill semi-auto rifle into an evil, fearsome "assault rifle."

What the heck happened to bayonet lug as an evil feature? Why was bayonet lug set kicked off the new list of evil features while all of a sudden forward grip was put onto the list?

And why does the bill specifically include the M1 Carbine on the verboten list? It doesn't have *any* evil features.
http://tinyurl.com/29vvp

And if the M1 Carbine is on the list, why isn't the more powerful and more accurate M1 Rifle?
http://tinyurl.com/273uo
http://tinyurl.com/2pbo4

Somebody help me out here.....

[FatSlob]

36. That's a new one.

I'll have to use it in the future. "Crapass" I like it.

[Baclava]

11. I don't think either side will want to play with this hot potato

Ten Republicans voted to extend the bill. These were: Warner, Chafee, Fitzgerald, DeWine, Lugar, Voinovich, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Six Democrats voted against extending the ban. They were: Baucus, Nelson, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Zell Miller of Georgia and Harry Reid of Nevada.

[DavidMS]

14. It was probably the best outcome...

The VPC and Brady Bunch get a set of issues to whore in the next election.

The NRA and GOA get issues to whore in the next election cycle.

The AWB (a bad, symbolic whorish law) is dead.

Manufacturer immunity (in reality back door "tort deform") is dead, at least for now. The suits against firearms manufactures (most of which are baseless) will probably die in court (no neglegence on the part of firearms manufactures). The only way I would support manufacturer immunity would be as part of a larger anti-slapp federal law (essentaily making frivilious lawsuits agaist the unpopular and politicvaly active illegal) which would be good for everyone.

Everyone "wone," but will go and whine an awfull lot.

[Wickerman]

19. The losers tonight? The American people

"During a segment on the NBC Nightly News this evening the reporter covering the gun bill debate mentioned that some Senators saw INSTRUCTIONS from the NRA to abandon the effort to pass the gun bill ON THEIR PDA's (or blackberries). Of course, there are no lobbyists allowed on the floor, but THEY MIGHT AS WELL HAVE BEEN THERE because they were telling the GOP Senators exactly what to do."

I have also heard this on MPR. I don't give a damn if it was the American Medical Association or the American Pipefitters Association, I don't want that kind of power in the hands of non-citizens, i. e. any lobbying group. Kind of frightening that an org can control senators so blatantly.










from this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1186972#1187008

[MrBenchley]

20. Guess the GOP has stopped even pretending

they represent their constituents. And it's hilarious that it's such a utterly scummy lobby commanding them, too.

Wonder if there is a way to hack in to tell those asswipes to vote for single payer health care or a jobs program.

[slackmaster]

63. It's not just the GOP taking marching orders via Blackberries

...Some Senate Democrats who supported immunity were spotted reading the e-mail on their BlackBerry pagers; within minutes, a copy of the message -- in which (NRA's Wayne) LaPierre said his group would use the vote "in our future evaluations and endorsement of candidates" -- was circulating in the Democrats' cloakroom.

"I'm a bit numb," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who was the lead sponsor of the amendment to extend the assault weapons ban. Of the NRA, she said: "They had the power to turn around at least 60 votes in the Senate. That's amazing to me."

The weapons ban, enacted in 1994, expires in September, and Tuesday's vote left its future in doubt. Backers said they would try to tack the measure onto other bills, or to pass it on its own, though it is unclear if they can generate the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster.

"We will come back, and we will come back, and we will come back again," Feinstein said....

For full copyrighted article please see http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/8093270.htm

[CO Liberal]

25. Well Said, Lunabush!!!

Let's hope that this starts a groundswell of opposition to the Senators who took their marching orders from the NRA. If a significant number of them are shown the door on Election Day, perhaps that will politically castrate the Nuts Ruining America.

[slackmaster]

26. Are you suggesting that practice is not done by other lobbyists?

For example trial lawyers, oil companies, banks, etc.?

And are you saying that you are sure that kind of influence is endemic only to Republican members of Congress?

I agree it's bad BTW, but I've long been under the impression that vote-peddling has been going on wholesale since the nation was founded.

http://politicalgraveyard.com/special/trouble-disgrace.html

New technology has just made the connections more direct. Ever since the advent of cell phones it's always been possible for a well-connected lobbyist to reach a member of Congress while he or she is in session.

[Dolomite]

28. Yeah! What's the deal? The VPC communicates to my PDA

on an almost bi-daily basis!

What's next? Only evil people have PDA's? Who are the ad wizards who came up with this one? I mean will somebody please give me a break!

Why just this morning I was notified by StoptheNRA.com that the "NRA's Immunity Bill is Dead" (tee-hee!).

When I went on read the rest of the e-mail they neglected to mention that the VPC's lawyers will still remain gainfully employed as they continue to try and not win any court cases in the remaining 17 States that haven't eliminated nuisance lawsuits against manufacturers of legal products.

The also neglected to mention that in 193 days the Assault Weapon Ban will expire. (he-he! he-he!)

[Wickerman]

29. No, I don't make a distinction between the Repugs or Dems on this

I quoted an original post not of my own writing. I was commenting on the lock step quick turn that was made at the last moment. I'm not sure what part of I don't give a damn if it was the American Medical Association or the American Pipefitters Association, I don't want that kind of power in the hands of non-citizens, i. e. any lobbying group. Kind of frightening that an org can control senators so blatantly. indicated that I don't understand that votes for sale wasn't common place?

Sorry to have attacked the sacred NRA and those wonderful Republicans, right here at Democratic Underground.

No, Fuck it. I won't even try to be sarcastic or friendly on this one. I am damn sick of seeing folks down here go out of their way to never offer criticism of the Republicans as long as they maintain the appearance of fighting for the RKBA issue.

I don't have a firm stance pro or against but it makes me sick to see people down here support Bush and his cronies just because they are perceived as more responsive to the NRA and RKBAs than Dems.

If folks here don't recognize the Bushites out of control assault on our freedoms other than RKBAs, then I can't imagine what in the hell they hope to accomplish down here. If those same folks aren't here to fight the removal of Bush and frame their RKBA arguments in the context of Demo ideals (or at fucking least progressive ideals) then I have to question why they bother to post here.

No one is being converted, the RKBA/pro gun control controversy will NOT be solved down here.

[MrBenchley]

33. Appalling, isn't it?

Just as its hilarious to see people pretend that a bunch that turn in lockstep at a moment's notice on orders from Wayne LaPierre are "freedom lovers." Jeeze, the Red Guard of Mao wasn't as obedient and compliant as the GOP is to the corrupt gun industry.

[demsrule4life]

35. You have so called Democrats on this board that if they ran the world

there would be
1. No guns
2. Could not read anything that was not approved by them
3. No freedom of speech
4. No freedom of thought.

You just let me know if I'm wrong.

[MrBenchley]

38. Gee, dems....

Nobody's stopping you from slandering every Democrat anyone's ever heard of and posting turds from right wing cesspools...

I just pointed out that we never see you doing anything else.

[demsrule4life]

40. You would not run the world like this?

Don't worry not expecting an answer.

[MrBenchley]

42. I've pointed out right wing horseshit as such all my life, dems

[Columbia]

47. Some point and point

Yet fail to see the pile growing right between his legs.

[MrBenchley]

50. And some post right wing horseshit and

then snivel when it's pointed out as such.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

53. Too TOO funny for words...

Is that why every right wing piece of shit in the Senate took their marching orders yesterday from the NRA?

It's grotesquely funny to se somebody trying to pretend Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Diane Feinstein are right wingers...

Tell us, columbia, are you REALLY tryinng to pretend Trent Lott and Larry Craig leftists?

[Columbia]

56. If it's too funny for words, why do you bother?

Like it or not, gun control by definition is an authoritarian idea that is in keeping with right-wing politics. There are issues that flip-flop away from where they ideally belong. During the 19th and 20th century, the Democrats were on the side of slavery and segregation and the Republicans were on the side of civil rights. If you think about it now, it sure seems backasswards doesn't it? The same is true of gun control in this generation. And one day the Democratic party will embrace gun rights again and become the true party of liberalism and freedom.

[MrBenchley]

61. Winston Smith would be right at home with the NRA...

And really, who is surpprised to see you recycling ditto-monkey rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh...trying to equate Republicans and civil rights....

"And one day the Democratic party will embrace gun rights again and become the true party of liberalism and freedom."
While flying monkeys come out Mary Rosh's ass.....

[Columbia]

64. Did you make a mistake?

Are you speaking of Winston Smith of 1984 fame who fought against authoritarian Big Brother? I doubt he'd be at home with the politics of the NRA, but he'd for sure be fighting against gun control authoritarianism.

Go ahead and close your eyes to the past if that is what it takes for you to believe your own misstatements.

[MrBenchley]

67. No mistake at all.....

He'd be right at home with somebody trying to equate right wing loonies and freedom.

"I doubt he'd be at home with the politics of the NRA"
Are you kidding? The sudden shift from "yes" to "no" when Big Brrother Wayne spoke over the PDAs is right up Winston's alley..

[Columbia]

68. Maybe you should reread 1984 again

Because it seems you have no comprehension of the themes of the book whatsoever...

[MrBenchley]

69. Maybe you should

"This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs -- to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance. Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date."
And so the GOP goes from voting for the "Screw the Beltway Sniper Victims Bill" to voting against it in the blink of an eye, after Big Brother LaPierre tells them to. And gun fetishists online shout what a mighty victory it was for Big Brother, and insist that up is down, left is right, and armed thugs represent freedom.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

76. Big Brother says vote "yes"...Big Brother says vote "no"

Republicans LOVE Big Brother and obey his every command.

[slackmaster]

79. Totally misplaced metaphor

The problem with what happened in the Senate yesterday has nothing to do with one lobby or another having too much influence. The problem seems to me that a MAJORITY of our Senators place their own political aspirations at top priority when they should really be the last consideration, surely after the public interest.

It's not about control by the NRA. The NRA's opinion matters to Senators and Representatives from some (perhaps MOST) states because the NRA's endorsement or lack thereof can make or break one's chance to be reelected. The NRA's "marching orders" aren't structured as "We want you do do X, Y, and Z," rather "If you vote for this bill in its present form we may not endorse you." It's that cynical and that simple.

This isn't 1984. It's more like Let's Make a Deal gone mad. It's the ultimate corruption that too often comes with ultimate political power.

The NRA isn't Winston Smith. The NRA is Monty Hall with a gun.

[demsrule4life]

85. Damn

I remember posting that somewhere.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

87. Too too funny, dems...

Tell us again how Ed Asner is a communist.

[slackmaster]

66. Thanks for clarifying your true agenda

"And one day the Democratic party will embrace gun rights again and become the true party of liberalism and freedom."
While flying monkeys come out Mary Rosh's ass.....

I joined the Democratic Party in 1976 because I thought it represented the best hope for true liberalism and freedom. Too bad you don't share those ideals, MrBenchley. So sad.

[CO Liberal]

74. But Last Month, Pro-Gunners Were Calling Us Pro-Control Folks "Communists"

Which is it, Columbia?????

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

77. Gun Nut Newspeak

The NRA losing vote after vote is a victory...just as armed thugs are freedom.

And as usual, the RKBA crowd is spouting horseshit...

[slackmaster]

80. 90 votes in the Senate counts as a loss?

It seems to me NRA got exactly what they asked for - A clean bill or nothing.

[Columbia]

81. I never called you a Communist

Even if I did, I thought communism was ok on this board?

I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at. Could you please clarify?

On edit: BTW, have you had a chance to think through whether you support Kennedy's amendment to S.1805?

[CO Liberal]

95. What Difference Does It Make Now????

The brain-dead GOP Senators obeyed their asshole masters at the NRA and killed the bill.

[Columbia]

96. Um ok.

[CO Liberal]

71. WRONG!!!!!

On all four counts.

[Columbia]

73. So you don't think there are any posters at all who fit that description?

[MrBenchley]

78. Gee, columbia

show us where anybody said the "enthusiasts" COULDN'T put up all the right wing horseshit they wished, or salnder Democrats left and right, or put up post after post of gun porn to stroke their stubbies over....

What's hilarious is that the RKBA crowd wants to do so but then wants to cry "foul" when anybody mentions out loud that they do.

[Columbia]

83. I'm not the one demanding a litmus test

For legitimacy on this board.

You are.

[MrBenchley]

86. Nobody's demanding a litmus test

If you want to post right wing crap, feel free....

[Columbia]

88. You're the one crying about

Us criticizing Democrats. If you get upset at that here, don't go up to GD:2004. You'd probably have an aneurysm.

[MrBenchley]

93. Not crying but laughing my ass off

How tragic for you that you hate anyone pointing out what the RKBA crowd posts

[Wickerman]

82. I don't think you are wrong

I think we have members of both stripes who would, left to their own devices, practice items 2-4 on your list. I agree that would be wrong. I also believe we have members who would support item 1. I can't fault them for that - that, in fact, is why we have this forum - so that the two parties can disagree.

I am saddened, though, to see the level of discourse so poor. Lately, on both sides of the aisle I see members using disparaging remarks as blanket group attacks. I prefer both sides clean up their act if they want either side to take them seriously. If either side is just taking pot shots then the users doing that should get another hobby as they are doing more damage to their cause than they are helping.

[demsrule4life]

89. I might of been out of line on that post but this is how I feel

I support how anybody chooses to live their life. On myside how I choose to live my life is my business. It is a simple way to view life and I think it is the most liberal there is.

[Columbia]

94. I am sad too

"I am saddened, though, to see the level of discourse so poor. Lately, on both sides of the aisle I see members using disparaging remarks as blanket group attacks."

Unfortunately, this is brought about by really just one instigator left unchecked. I don't advocate the censoring of any opinions whatsoever, however the fact remains is that the cause of most of the problems down here can be attributed to just one poster.

[Wickerman]

98. I remind you that posts here either fall into the definition of the rules

or they are deleted. I may miss a few, I may be too strict on a few, but to say someone is unchecked belies a careful reading of the rules.

I ask for civillity on both sides and all I get is the same tired cry that someone else started it.

As Skinner reminds folks daily you can be your own moderator. If someone annoys you so much and contributes so little to the discussion, then put that poster on IGNORE.

[Columbia]

99. Only telling it how it is

This is probably an Ask the Admin type post, but we should have some sort of reverse ignore feature. I'm not much for ignoring or alerting posts or posters, but I wouldn't mind if I could get them to not respond to mine.

[MrBenchley]

100. In other words

you don't care so much about your own freedom of speech...as long as you can stifle other people's freedom of speech.

Ho-kay.

[Columbia]

101. Nope

More like I'd rather keep certain posters at arms length from me. Call it spam-blocking if you will.

[MrBenchley]

103. "if I could get them to not respond"

So let's hear no more of this rubbish about the RKBA crowd being "pro-freedom" in anyway.

[Columbia]

106. It is consistent with freedom and liberty

I have a right in this country (though perhaps not on this board) to keep people from trespassing on my property, to prohibit certain people from calling my home, and to institute restraining orders on persons who constantly harrass me.

As is often said, one's right to use one's fist ends when one's nose begins. And I wouldn't mind keeping that fist a bit further from my nose by keeping the person at arm's distance. However, if that fist is thrown, I consider all defensive measures justified and necessary.

[MrBenchley]

108. Only in RKBA newspeak

....ignorance is strength, and keeping other people from responding is freedom of speech

[Columbia]

Why do I even bother?

:shrug:

Who is more of a fool?

The fool, or the fool who tries to tell the fool that he is a fool.

<on edit: the only fool I am speaking of is myself - all other fools are figurative>

[slackmaster]

104. If you use Ignore you have to discipline yourself not to peak

There is (or used to be) a glitch or two in Ignore that made it too easy (for me) to view ignored posts.

I personally couldn't master my desire to see what one Ignored indivudual or another had to say in response to my posts. Some of the responses were pretty ugly, so rather than let them stand I've pretty much given up on Ignore.

If we were all truly civil we'd stop responding to those who have us on Ignore, or pretend to have us on Ignore. I'm not civil enough to do that.

:D

[Columbia]

107. Quite right

I think it is quite unreasonable to expect people not to defend themselves when they are attacked either literally, verbally or physically.

[Wickerman]

111. 'kay

all I am saying is that attacking goes both ways. I've gone back through archives of the Gungeon as far as I can and it has always been so, long before the poster ya'll love to complain about so much.

Use ignore or not, no skin off my teeth - but when folks reply they are required to respond within the rules. Merely disagreeing with someone is NOT a PA - making it personal is.

[Baclava]

119. Unspoken rule of DU Dungeon....

The last (and loudest) poster thinks he wins...

Not anymore....

[Wickerman]

121. I'm certain that made sense to you

but it doesn't to me. Color me a picture - what part of your parade, if any am I raining on here?

[slackmaster]

102. I can't figure out how you got from that post

That anyone wants to stifle anyone else's freedom of speech.

[Columbia]

44. We don't either

"Sorry to have attacked the sacred NRA and those wonderful Republicans, right here at Democratic Underground."

Us pro-gunners have done the same, many times.

"No, Fuck it. I won't even try to be sarcastic or friendly on this one. I am damn sick of seeing folks down here go out of their way to never offer criticism of the Republicans as long as they maintain the appearance of fighting for the RKBA issue."

To be honest, and I can't speak for others, but down here, I am fairly nonpartisan when it comes to RKBA. Isn't that why we come down here to the Gungeon? Nobody is immune from criticism or praise. If they advocate gun control authoritarianism, and they are Republicans like Sarah Brady, I will condemn them. If they acknowledge and support our Constitutionally backed right to keep and bear arms and they are Democrats like Russ Feingold, they will receive the utmost praise. If you want to see Democrat bashing, then GD:2004 is a much better place for it. They are 10 times more hostile towards fellow Democrats up there than anything I've seen down here.

"I don't have a firm stance pro or against but it makes me sick to see people down here support Bush and his cronies just because they are perceived as more responsive to the NRA and RKBAs than Dems."

I've never seen anybody support Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, or anybody else down here. I will (and have) condemn each and every one of them in the forums above, but we argue principles down here and not so much politics, so we typically leave politicians out of the fray unless there are direct remarks relating to our cause.

"If folks here don't recognize the Bushites out of control assault on our freedoms other than RKBAs, then I can't imagine what in the hell they hope to accomplish down here. If those same folks aren't here to fight the removal of Bush and frame their RKBA arguments in the context of Demo ideals (or at fucking least progressive ideals) then I have to question why they bother to post here."

I'm sure all of us agree with you about the assault on freedoms, but we put a lot of importance of RKBA, and we believe that it is truly our last resort to remove tyrants should the democratic process fail to do so. All those who believe that Bush is out of control should support our cause, but all too often they fall in line with the authoritarianism of Ashcroft instead.

"No one is being converted, the RKBA/pro gun control controversy will NOT be solved down here."

Actually, we just recently converted MissMarple to a fairly liberal RKBA stand. We invited her to read the Federalist papers, had a lively discussion about the 2nd Amendment, and got her to realize how important these rights are. You are right in that the controversy may not be solved down here, but I don't think that means we should give up. I do have a personal agenda and I don't hide it. I believe that RKBA is in keeping with the ideals of liberalism and the Democratic Party and I advocate the adopting of this plank within the party so that we take away a huge voting bloc from the typically anti-freedom Republican Party (the GOP is anti-gun too, but they just hide it a little better, which creates the illusion that they are for gun rights). By doing so, the Republicans will never win another election as they lose their most politically active constituency.

[MrBenchley]

46. Yeah, surrrrrrrrre.....

That's especially hilarious, coming at the same time that the Super Tuesday poll thread is still open....not to mention the thread where the RKBA crowd is dancing around trying not to say anything bad about Trent Lott.

[Columbia]

48. One day

I hope to see something honest and constructive come from you instead of copy and pasting your usual incitive remarks.

[MrBenchley]

49. You see them all the time

You just don't like them...

[demsrule4life]

51. Damn

Laughed myself right out of the chair.

[FatSlob]

75. I second.

[Columbia]

54. You don't know how much I wish that were true

I really do enjoy lively, civil, and constructive debate with antis. However, you just don't provide it. I'm not sure if you won't or you can't. But if anything, you hurt your own cause with your behavior and temperament.

[MrBenchley]

55. Gee, you don't know how little I care

what anybody in the RKBA crowd thinks is "lively, civil and constructive," considering the sheer volume of right wing horseshit and masturbatory gun porn that gets posted here day in and day out by your bunch. (How long before the next "Biggest gun I've ever held in my trembling hands" thread, I wonder?)

And since most of that bunch is declaring they won't vote Democratic (and a big fucking surprise THAT is to those of us liberals who are down here regularly), I see little reason to bother with what any of the gun huggers think.

[slackmaster]

57. An attitude sure to cost Democrats votes

Not caring what a substantial number of people think.

Who'd have expected to hear a position like that expressed by a "liberal"?

[Columbia]

58. Actually, I do know how little you care of civil discussion.

[FeebMaster]

62. You're right.

I just woke up and I'm feeling the urge to praise Trent Lott some more.

Boy that Trent Lott, he's a real dickhead. If he were my senator, why, I think I'd vote against him. Yup, that Trent Lott sure sucks.

[slackmaster]

65. Larry Craig sucks too

I've never really cared for any of them.

A pox on all their houses.

[jhfenton]

90. Distinctions

I don't have a firm stance pro or against but it makes me sick to see people down here support Bush and his cronies just because they are perceived as more responsive to the NRA and RKBAs than Dems.

If folks here don't recognize the Bushites out of control assault on our freedoms other than RKBAs, then I can't imagine what in the hell they hope to accomplish down here. If those same folks aren't here to fight the removal of Bush and frame their RKBA arguments in the context of Demo ideals (or at fucking least progressive ideals) then I have to question why they bother to post here.

I haven't seen anyone defend Bush in this forum. Bush is certainly not a friend of left-leaning or right-leaning libertarians. I actually find it hard to think of any large policy issue on which I support Bush. (I suppose I would have been supportive of the tax cuts if they were coupled with commensurate reductions in spending, but Bush doesn't seem to have a met a spending program he doesn't like.)

I can't speak for the others on here, but I was raised in the Democratic south, so I identified myself as a Democrat. But my Democratic party was a far cry from what I see the national Democratic party preaching today. My Democratic party was suspicious and mistrusting of a strong central government. The further away the power is from the people, the less likely it is to be under the control of the people.

So don't blame me if I'm unhappy and critical of most of the Democratic senators based on their votes in favor of banning scary-looking semi-automatic rifles. If we're discussing the failed War on Drugs, the PATRIOT Act, the death penalty, no-knock warrants, the "Defense of Marriage" Act, the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment, the restrictions on stem cell research, or a host of other issues, I'll be unhappy and critical of most of the Republicans.

My problem is that most of the Senate and all of the major-party presidential candidates disagree with me on critical, fundamental, non-negotiable issues. Both major parties feature incredibly authoritarian planks in their platforms.

Where is the incentive to vote for a candidate simply because he promises to violate fewer and different fundamental rights than his opponent?

[jimsteuben]

109. distinctions indeed

jhfenton, I could not have said it better myself.

You da man.

^5 :toast:

[Wickerman]

110. I feel your pain

sorry to use the tired Clinton cliche, but I do understand that feeling. Its expressed in every forum on this site by many, many folks.

The simple truth is that there is no one size fits all candidate or forum. If you ever find it, run like hell because they are lying out of their ass.

I've been a life long Dem, all except that first time I could've voted. I voted John Anderson. It felt real good at the time. I beleived that I made an excellent decision and really demonstrated my anger at Carter for things I realized later I was misinformed about. So, me and a few million others made a big maistake and Reagan took over from perhaps the most sincere and intelligent president the US has ever experienced - at least in my lifetime.

In 1979 I learned the folly of seeking a perfect candidate. Never, in my mind, has the time for compromise and an ability to see the good in a candidate beyond all the disappointments been so important. 4 more years of Bush will be devastating to everyone but the top 5% of the wealth of this country. Forget gun rights, we won't have need of any of the amendments when he and Johnnie A. and Dickie are done.

At the local level I can support candidates that are more ideallogically pure and make distinctions on the candidates gun stances - at the national level I have to support the person that will make this planet the healthiest for my children. At this point weapons are not at the top of the healthy planet list.

[MrSandman]

117. Look for any of my posts about...

Bush and the AWB, Patriot Act, or Constitution. When I try to take the anti-RKBA view, I find it is not a debate about liberty and serfdom; freedom and tyranny; or any of these polar opposites. I belief it is a debate about feelings.
Whether it is more selfish to insist on rights which are not demonstrably utilitarian or more selfish to restrict rights for laws that are not demonstrably effective.

The reason no one is being converted, is that these feelings emanate from the core beliefs of the, yes, the zealots on either side. Face it, only a zealot would spend this much time engaging in what, in the long view is pointless rhetoric.

It is not lobbyists who cause a problem, it is the Senator who allows a lobbyist to reach him on the floor of the Senate. Or even having his office send him info. on how phone call counts are running. It is not a democracy. The legislators are elected not to mirror public opinion, but to vote their minds.

Even though my eldest child at home is only 10, any time that I take any of my three out shooting helps to teach them the responsibility to become a citizen who is aware that their actions and inactions have consequences which must be lived with.

While I am at it, the greatest assault on our freedom is not the AWB, Patriot, or the militarization of our society in the name of the wars on crime, drugs, or terror, but in the huge debt that we are building. What is it now? A little over 5% of GDP? What has to happen before this is taken seriously? The 1930's will be remembered as the good times.

I can only spit in the wind about a very limited number of things, so I spit about the here and now and fatalistically accept that as long as money to constituents ensures a long political career, I can do very little about the economic threats. I used to be idealistic.

[RoeBear]

30. The anti-freedom crowd could have had...

...the trigger lock requirement added on to the bill and it would have passed. They might have been able to get the 'loophole' amendment
passed too. But apparently they didn't want those two things. Instead they added the AWB extension which they knew would kill the bill and the above two mentioned amendments.

[slackmaster]

37. Both sides used all their ammo, ended up with a stalemate

Status quo is maintained, and both sides are declaring victory.

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

59. The anti-freedom crowd obeyed the NRA when the email came

as if they were zombies....

[slackmaster]

60. So why are you working so hard to keep the Zombies in office?

:shrug:

[lcordero]

112. If that is so then I think that the Republicans were compromising

too much.

I'm to the far left of the political spectrum, even with that I still think that even ONE of those concessions were still too much.

[Baclava]

116. I learn something new about the people here everyday.

How many lies can you find here?:

"What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?"

"Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire."

Wrong they are designed to do whatever the shooter wants to do with it. There is no difference between sporting arms and so called "assault weapons" it doesn’t matter how much stuff you have on a gun... i.e. lights, lasers, scopes, handguards and grips, flash suppressors ect. It's still the same bullet coming out of the same barrel at the same velocity hitting the same target doing the same amount of damage, cut the bullshit already!

"Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip."

Wrong again, check the military docs for firing weapons from the hip, you’ll find that even their machineguns are designed to and ARE fired from the shoulder with presentable accuracy. Firing from the hip with ANY firearm is irresponsible and a waste of ammo seeing as how you can’t hit the broad side of a barn.

"There is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public."

WTF is up with this "high powered" BS anyway? You ever shoot a .308 or a .338? That’s high-powered. The majority of "assault weapons" are not nearly as "high-powered" as you might think. Phrases like "high powered" and "assault weapons" are just buzz words created by some idiot that’s never fired a gun in his life that read some info of the internet and now claims to be an expert on the subject. Gee... kind of sounds like.......nevermind. Just because something "looks" dangerous doesn't make it more so. Most people aren’t afraid of your average hunting rifle. BUT, truth be told, most of your average hunting rifles could do far more damage than any ol' "assault weapon". Looks don’t kill, bullets do. Why should the public be frightened anyway? That’s ludicrous and ridiculous. You want to know what firearm is used in crime more than any other in the country? The .38 snub nose revolver. It has none of the features listed above but is more easily concealable and much, MUCH cheaper and more available. A thing that criminals tend to go for.

"Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features":

"A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading." Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 4 or 5-shot magazines.

Does this really make you more comfortable? 4 or 5 people can be methodically murdered from unbelievable range while some idiot firing 30 rounds from the hip and is lucky to hit one person and is immediately clobbered after he runs out of ammo. How many rounds you have, or can fire, is a non-issue, its what YOU do with those rounds that counts.


"A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, and a pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, facilitates firing from the hip."

There you go again with this BS. I guess you think that just because a person has a scope on their gun that this facilitates sniping? Grow up. People use their guns how they please. And most of us would actually like to hit the broadside of a battleship!

"Allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon."

Easier said than done there, slick. I tried it once when I was younger. Took a lot of stability and even then I couldn’t hit an old barn at ten paces!

"A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed."

I have to call bullshit on this one big time. You go out and try to aim or even shoot an 8-10 pound rifle with 1 hand. I wont be surprised if the gun goes to the anti-aircraft role very quickly, if you know what I mean. Do you anti-guys have ANY personal experience with REAL firearms ANY time in your lives? When your experience with guns can fit in something bigger than a kiddy-pool then give me a call. Till then you really don’t need to talk about something you know NOTHING about. Period.


"A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating."

What’s wrong with this? that’s just good common sense firearm care.

"It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire."

I hate to tell you this but you can get serious burns from gripping the barrel for just ONE shot. It is there for a reason. So that the person can have a stable basis for aiming the weapon. But wait why do they need to grip it if they are firing one handed? You are repeatedly defeating your own argument.......


Ya' know - Lots of people are like pen-raised deer.

They think the whole world is like the little pen they grew up in, regular feedings, big fence to keep the predators out, never saw anything but their pen so they think the whole world is like their little cocoon. Why would anyone need a gun? "that's for rednecks and hicks"... course they never fired one but they "know" because they watch a lot of tv to learn stuff about how "guns are bad."

[jimsteuben]

120. buzz words

Baclava wrote:
"The majority of 'assault weapons' are not nearly as 'high-powered' as you might think. Phrases like 'high powered' and 'assault weapons' are just buzz words created by some idiot that’s never fired a gun in his life that read some info of the internet and now claims to be an expert on the subject."

They are indeed buzzwords which were carefully selected for their propgandistic effect, but they weren't selected *by* people ignorant of guns but *for* people ignorant of guns. The people over at VPA and Brady Campaign know precisely what they are doing.

[Wickerman]

122. Locking

I think everyone has had their say here, at least twice. Everyone enlightened? Good.