NRA to Montana: Obama a threat to gun owners

[davidnc76]

HELENA, Mont. — The National Rifle Association said Wednesday that Barack Obama is trying to mislead voters about his past support of gun control, calling the Democratic candidate "a poster child of the extremist, elitist gun control movement."

The group was responding to recent remarks by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat who supports gun rights and told reporters this week that Obama "ain't ever going to take your gun away." Schweitzer, who has the NRA's support in his re-election bid, added that there is little difference between the Democrat and Republican John McCain.

The NRA said Schweitzer was misrepresenting the candidates' positions.

"To somehow suggest (Obama) is supportive of gun owners because he says so when he is in Montana running for president is absurd," the NRA's Chris W. Cox said in a telephone interview from Virginia. "We are going to make sure that anybody that tells Montana gun owners that Barack Obama is not a threat to gun owners is exposed as someone who is not shooting straight."


Read more:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/5942325.html

[Mz Pip]

1. Earth to the NRA

The Democrats don't want to take away your guns. They never did. Get over it.

[slackmaster]

13. Yes, most Democrats don't but I can give you a list of 67 members of Congress who do

In the interest of reducing energy consumption, I refer you to a post in the Gungeon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=183040&mesg_id=183047

Reply #26 in that thread explains my perspective in detail. I have a vested interest, but so do a lot of other people.

The author and all of the co-sponsors of HR 1022 are all Democrats. Their behavior reinforces the inaccurate perception that the position of the Democratic Party is to take away peoples' guns.

We need to get control of these loose cannons. They make it possible for the NRA and other groups to misrepresent the true position of our party.

[Major Hogwash]

40. Yeah, but you're not from Montana!!

You're from California!!
Where assault weapons are already banned by state law.

Damn, even your Gubinator Schwartzenegger even banned .50 caliber rifles from being possessed in California 4 years ago.

Talk about "loose cannons"!

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

[derby378]

54. And your point is?

Do you want to be on record as supporting a Republican state governor?

Just because the Terminator signed it into law doesn't mean it's a good law. The same guy who outlawed .50-caliber rifles in California is also the same guy who unleashed Kindergarten Cop on the world.

[slackmaster]

67. You are misinformed in at least two ways, Major Hogwash

1. State law bans possession of unregistered AWs. People who owned them before the two laws took effect were allowed to register them.

2. California's definition of AW is substantially different than the one in HR 1022. HR 1022's is much broader, and specifically includes popular sporting rifles like the Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30. It also would cover historic, collectable military rifles like the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine. Many rifles in my collection that are not California AWs would become federal AWs if HR 1022 becomes law. Because there would no longer be a market for those items, their value as collectibles would drop to zero, which would harm me financially. I am by no means the only person in that position.

Damn, even your Gubinator Schwartzenegger even banned .50 caliber rifles from being possessed in California 4 years ago.

Once again, people who owned them before the ban could register and keep them.

Like me.

http://www.members.cox.net/slack/images/AR-50_+_slack.jpg

I mounted mine on a machine gun tripod.

[Otto DeFay]

21. I fear you are misinformed.

Draft of the 2008 platform
"Firearms
12 We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,
13 and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use
14 firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but
15 we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together
16 to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show
17 loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons
18 ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly
19 and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional
20 right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."


H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007
Sponsors all Democrats
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA)
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY)
Rep. William Clay (D-MO)
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA)
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA)
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA)
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA)
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Rep. James Langevin (D-RI)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA)
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Rep. James McGovern (D-MA)
Rep. Martin Meehan (D-MA)
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL)
Rep. Bradley Miller (D-NC)
Rep. James Moran (D-VA)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Del. Eleanor Norton (D-DC)
Rep. John Olver (D-MA)
Rep. William Pascrell (D-NJ)
Rep. Edward Pastor (D-AZ)
Rep. David Price (D-NC)
Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA)
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA)
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)
Rep. John Tierney (D-MA)
Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA)
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-MD)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA)
Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC)
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD)

H.R. 1022 has several controversial provisions among which are:

`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.



In other words, yes to HR 1022,
yes to the "assault Weapons Ban" that, according to Bill Clinton, cost Al Gore the 2000 election
No to millions of votes in swing states who would otherwise vote to protect the environment and the economy but are *NOT* going to vote for ANYONE who would increase restrictions on firearms.


WHY do we do this to ourselves?

[ieoeja]

46. Did you read the Grandfather clause?

This will not take away anybody's firearms. It does not even ban sells by individuals. It just bans the sell by gun manufacturers of certain items.

While it is still a stupid bill, it most certainly does not do what the crazies claim it does.

[derby378]

55. Oh, whoopeee, a "grandfather clause"

So I can legally purchase an AK, but my adult sons and daughters cannot? That is taking away my children's guns. They have a Second Amendment right to own such firearms, and HR 1022 takes that right away.

[ieoeja]

59. They could still buy it from individuals or inherit.

As already stated, it's a stupid bill. But if the elected Democrats run with it, you know the other side is going to exaggerate its effect. And we have to at least tell the truth. The fact that it does not ban possession, or even individual sales, may be enough of a compromise for some.

I oppose it for electoral purposes believing it the one thing most likely to cost us the White House. But mostly I oppose it for civil libertarian purposes. Why is it everytime the Democrats and Republicans compromise, it is in favor of assaults on our personal liberties?

What's wrong with, "we won't attack firearms if you don't attack abortion"?
Or, "we won't attack firearms if you stop the MADDness?"
Or, "we won't attack firearms if you stop the war on drugs?"
Or, "we won't attack firearms if you give up 3-Strikes laws?"

But, no, our compromise is, "we'll give up protecting women's rights, if you nominate a Republican who co-authored the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban".


You know, I have a difficult time thinking up anything for the left side of that equation except for firearms. Which is, I guess, what keeps me in the Democratic Party.

[slackmaster]

65. No, you are wrong about that

It would be illegal for anyone other than a licensed gun dealer or law enforcement agency to buy an "AW" from anyone.

It would be illegal to bequeath one to your heirs.

As a serious collector of curio and relic firearms, I have a vested interest in fighting against HR 1022. It would harm me financially.

[ieoeja]

68. I couldn't find that text in the bill. Could you point me to a link and highlight it? n/t

[slackmaster]

69. Here you go

Section 922(v) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--

`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or

`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

Paragraph (1) concerned law enforcement weapons.

HR 1022 means no more free market for collectors.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

[ieoeja]

71. So I got it backwards. You can still buy it from a gun store. Just not from individuals.

Do I have this correct? It only bans individuals selling to individuals? They can still manufacture and sell them through dealers?

This law gets even stupider the more I read about it.

Unfortunately when I look for section 922(v) of Title 18 in the United States Code, all I find is "repealed". So I don't have the original text to further define this.

[slackmaster]

73. Almost

Manufacturing and importing new ones would be illegal, except for law enforcement use.

Ones you own when the ban takes effect - You can sell them but only to dealers. Dealers can re-sell those to individuals who can pass the same background check you get for new guns now. But of course dealers take a cut at every transaction.

What's stupid about it is that it will reduce peoples' choices and reduce the value of peoples' possessions without any foreseeable benefit.

[knixphan]

49. Earth to NRA, pt 2

The Repubs took away a lot more, and you didn't raise a finger to stop them.

[RollWithIt]

2. Sadly, Charleton Heston's hands really are cold & dead now.....

I find it interesting that the NRA is forced to spend time on Montana of all places. Do they get more than 3 electoral votes these days?

[anonymous171]

3. If I am ever elected president I will find a way take away every NRA member's guns.

Guns will still be legal, but NRA memberships voids your right to bear arms. I would rule with an ironic fist.

[nc4bo]

4. Why doesn't the NRA STFU and stop fear mongering that segment of the population that likes guns.

geez.

[Malidictus Maximus]

22. Why don't Democratic candidates stop acting

like they WILL if the get the chance?

DiFi "Turn them all in".

The NRA isn't making this shit up, we are doing it to ourselves.

If Senator Obama stated "I will veto any gun control legislation that reaches my desk" it would be a quick few million votes in crucial areas. But I guess it's more important to pander to a few ignoramuses who don't know jack about firearms yet want to ban anything they find scary and, frankly, *DO* come off as 'elitist' (when they try to tell people what guns they should and shouldn't own)

BOTTOM LINE: No matter how you personally feel about guns, even if you think that anyone who would even want to shoot one is an ignorant, racist redneck who should be drop shipped to Iraq, it is a losing issue; the platform. Senator Obama's votes and the above mentioned HR 1022 are fucking *poison* in several crucial states; lose the anti gun rhetoric or lose the election, our choice.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. I would think most people will be thinking about the economy instead of fringe issues?

[slackmaster]

15. I have a substantial investment in collectible firearms

I cannot view certain kinds of gun control proposals as fully disconnected from the economy.

[Malidictus Maximus]

24. No more of a "fringe issue" than freedom of speech.

*ALL* of our rights are important. People who do not believe this have no business in politics.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. this 'right' is a long way down the 'rights' list

[benEzra]

35. Yup. Position #2, out of 10.

Right after speech, press, and religion, but before the prohibitions against warrantless search and torture.

Generally speaking, civil liberties trump economic issues for most people who care at all about civil liberties.

As I asked elsewhere, would you support a candidate whom you knew would double your salary, but would also outlaw all abortion after the eighth week and imprison any woman who tried to get one?

No?

Then you don't believe that economic issues trump civil liberties either. Neither do I.

[SteveM]

44. Probably so, but in a close election, 2A can very well make the diff (nt)

[MercutioATC]

6. Yet another reason Schweitzer would be an incredible VP pick.

You can't listen to Schweitzer and think he's wishy-washy on gun control. He'd shut down the "Obama wants to take our guns" cries in short order.

[Alter Ego]

11. Schweitzer's been my pick since the start.

The only knock against him is that Montana is only 3 EVs--and how significant is that in the long run?

[AlinPA]

20. He will help in IN, ND, SD, CO, OH, PA, NM. He can relate to people and carry our message

really well.

[Blue_Tires]

42. the NRA would still find some other way to be anti-obama...

[MercutioATC]

58. Probably, but their message would lose a lot of punch with Schweitzer on the ticket.

Plus, I don't thing they'd go after the ticket as hard with one of their posterboy members on it.

[Thrill]

7. BLAH BLAH..Every Democratic Presidential candidate is going to take your gun. Same song and dance

And they have these pathetic people who can barely pay their bills vote against their own best interest.

I;ll continue to say it. Whoever votes for McCain because of single issue BS like pro-life, guns, and race deserve everything they get, if he wins. Don't whine about your bills, gas, mortgage, health care, etc....

[benEzra]

18. I would never vote for McCain, but I do not believe that economic interests are supreme, ever.

Would you vote for a candidate you KNEW would double your salary, if you also knew he would outlaw abortion and imprison women who tried to get one?

No?

Neither would I. And I would NOT consider voting against such a candidate "voting against my own best interest," because for me, civil liberties trump dollars. I suspect they do for most people. It is no different with gun owners, IMO.

[SteveM]

45. Some corrections concerning "pathetic people"...

Gun-owners as a group "...are not psychologically abnormal, nor more racist, sexist, or violence-prone than nonowners... Gun ownership is higher among middle-aged people than in other age groups, presumably reflecting higher income levels and the sheer accumulation of property over time." POINT BLANK: Guns and Violence in America, Gary Kleck, N.Y., Aldine, 1991.

Since there are as many as 80,000,000 gun owners in America, it is evident that they are NOT voting single-issue on guns or we would have Republicans waiting to take office for the next two centuries.

[AndyTiedye]

8. The R in NRA Really Stands for REPUBLICAN

Yes, they want to defend our right to buy guns.
They also support any other policies that result in more guns being bought.
They LOVE the Repiggies warmongering. Nothing uses up guns and ammo like a good war.
They LOVE the Repiggies fearmongering. That comes in second as a motivator of gun sales.

The NRA is the lobby for the gun INDUSTRY.

Friends at least try to persuade their gun-toting friends not to support the NRA.

[SteveM]

47. When you get over frenzy about the NRA consider this...

There are as many as 80,000,000 gun-owners in the U.S. Less than 5,000,000 are in the NRA.

[davidnc76]

9. It sure is the same song and dance.

[Avalux]

10. The NRA must know about "Hunters for Obama".

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-16-2008/0004794250&EDATE=

[slackmaster]

14. The AHSA is a thinly-disguised front group for the Brady Campaign

They have no credibility among people who are paying attention to the issue.

Obama's past record on firearms is easy to understand in the context of the jurisdiction he represented while in the Illinois state legislature. I have to trust him to apply a broader perspective on the subject as President.

[Avalux]

16. Yeah, I know about the AHSA.

I also know that NRA member hunters (like may Dad) - those with brains who are concerned about conservation, are supporting Obama.

[slackmaster]

17. Obama should not attempt to deny his past record, but he does need to explain himself

You and your dad and I are not going to be dissuaded from supporting Obama over this issue, but it could cost him millions of votes if he doesn't get a handle on it.

[onehandle]

12. I wish he was, but he isn't. nt

[bullwinkle428]

19. "John Kerry wants to take my guns away!!" - An actual quote from

my one bad experience that I had canvassing during the 2006 campaign!! Yes, I know that Kerry ran for President in '04, but this was in the wake of the joke Kerry had made about going to Iraq, and the wingnuts went crazy, saying he was insulting all of the troops.

Anyway, this guy on my contact list (supposedly, a list of registered Democrats ONLY) happened to be in his open garage, cleaning one of his rifles on a stand, Whit the barrel pointing straight out the garage door. I just kind of knocked on the frame of the open door, and he was startled. Gave me a bit of scare, as he was the one with the firearm.

I was simply trying to get the message out to get to the polling place on election day, and he apparently had been drinking the Kool-Aid by the pitcherful. He brought up the Kerry joke, and of course believed he had disrespected the troops. He was deathly afraid of losing his rights as a gun owners as well. Part of our instructions as canvassers was to not get into any kind of debates with any of the voters, so I simply thanked him for his time and left.

[JustAnotherGen]

23. I wish . . .

That other gun owners would see this for what it is - something to induce fear. No one is going to take their guns away. The 2nd Amendment is not going to go away. This is something the Republicans trot out EVERY election. Guess what? Bill Clinton? In office for 8 years - he never took our guns away from us.

He also never imposed an UNpatriot Act on us. Go figure.

[benEzra]

28. He did sign the much-hated Feinstein law, though...

which raised prices on replacement magazines for popular handguns by 500%, and placed silly restrictions on popular civilian rifles.

Clinton later said the passage of the (idiotic) Feinstein law was a huge mistake:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

Mr. Clinton badly miscalculated the backlash against the 1994 Feinstein law, because he was misled by the DLC crusaders into believing that the gun issue was somehow about hunting guns rather than target and defensive style guns.

Gore made the same mistake in '00, and Kerry in '04, and it hurt them both badly. Then the party finally dropped the ban crusade in 2006, and pro-gun Dems helped retake Congress. I hope this year we follow the 2006 approach, not 1994-2004.

[JustAnotherGen]

41. Couldn't agree more

Regarding the path to take.

If do it - means Guns, God, Prayer in Schools, Abortion, Marriage between all people - those issues craft the election.

With all of the issues facing our country right now, those issues need to be taken off the table.

Much as I hate feeling like by adding marriage between all who wish to marry off the table would throw many glbt Democrats under the bus - I feel if we can JUST get a WH, House, and Senate filled with Democrats . . . that's the time to open the national referendum and do something to protect these folks who wish to ensure the legal security of 'marriage' (social security benes, rights of inheritance, etc.).

If those items get BACK on the National Political spectrum - it will mobilize the nuttiest nuts on the Right who are just stupid enough to vote against their own financial interests in order to impose their so-called 'Moral' interests on others.

BTW - Gun Owner. I have no fear WHATSOEVER that a Democrat will take my gun away from me. Under the UNPatriot Act - it's a possibility. When I can't defend myself against Black Water when they break down my door . . . I can't get a few shots off at one of them before they take me.

So call me a nut. :rofl: But I truly feel EVER person on the left should have a gun to get off a few shots at Black Water when they come in and break down their door! :rofl:

[Coexist]

25. blah de blah de blah....

ugh.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

27. Why in the blue blazes of fuck does anybody "need" to own an ASSAULT WEAPON??

If you are a sane, legal adult with no criminal record, and you choose to own a gun or two, by all means, do so. But who needs an assault weapon?

And who in their right mind would ever oppose closing the gun show loophole, because it's the gun shows where the psychopaths and criminals get their guns in the first place.

If you can't pass a background check, you don't need a gun. If you can't wait a few days for that background check to take place, you're probably buying the gun for the wrong reasons, and probably need a few days to think about it.

And as far as the NRA propaganda goes, I'm sure they totally forgot to mention that the ONLY time guns were ever confiscated from American citizens was in 2005 when REPUBLICAN CRIMINAL THUG NAZI BASTARDS FROM BLACKWATER, UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY did so in New Orleans.

You remember the Bush Crime Family, don't you NRA? Didn't your chairman brag about how he would have an office in the Chimp White House?

[benEzra]

29. You've been spun by the loaded term, I think. This is an "assault weapon":

Why in the blue blazes of fuck does anybody "need" to own an ASSAULT WEAPON??

If you are a sane, legal adult with no criminal record, and you choose to own a gun or two, by all means, do so. But who needs an assault weapon?

You've been spun by the loaded term, I think. This is an "assault weapon" according to the repubs at the Brady Campaign:



That's a Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, a small-caliber (.22 centerfire), non-automatic civilian carbine marketed as an all-purpose farm/utility rifle. And banned by name as an "assault weapon" by H.R.1022.


This is an "assault weapon":



That's an AR-15, another small-caliber, non-automatic civilian carbine that happens to be the most popular centerfire target rifle in the USA. The AR-15 dominates centerfire target competition in this country.


This is an "assault weapon":



That's an Olympic target competition pistol, caliber .22 Short. Yes, the Olympics.


The rifle in this photo is an "assault weapon":



That's my wife's antique and highly collectible SKS, a 1952 Tula. Non-automatic, low-capacity, antique, the most popular centerfire rifle in U.S. homes, and an "assault weapon" according to the repubs at the Brady Campaign.


See the pattern here?

"Assault weapon" is a term of demonization for the most popular civilian nonhunting guns in the United States. More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt. They are NOT a crime problem (less than 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle). We'd like to keep them, thanks.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

30. So you don't think a goddamned AR15 is an assault weapon??

It's essentially the same thing as an M16. It's a fucking COMBAT WEAPON used by the military to fight wars. Don't try to pass that thing off as a "target shooting" gun, whether painted pink or otherwise.

Again, why does anybody NEED one of those in their home?

[benEzra]

31. No, it's NOT "essentially the same thing." The AR-15 is NON automatic and NON burst capable.

The M16/M4 platform is a military, NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapon; the civilian AR-15 platform is a non-automatic, non-military, NFA Title 1 civilian rifle that is not used by ANY military in the world. It is NOT a combat weapon; if you think it is, show me a single military on this planet that uses a non-automatic, non-burst-capable AR-15 in a combat role.

And whether or not you want to acknowledge it as such, it IS the most popular centerfire target rifle in this country, and has been for several years.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dPgKhLIoL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

And in terms of numbers, more people own non-automatic civilian guns dubbed "assault weapons" than hunt. That's why the gun issue since the early 1990's has been primarily about handguns and the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, NOT hunting guns.

FWIW, how do you feel about the Ruger mini-14? The mini is just as much an "assault weapon" as the AR-15, and is functionally identical---same caliber, same rate of fire (once per trigger pull), same range of magazine capacities. It just has a 19th-century-looking stock.

[Arnold Judas Rimmer]

32. And anyone who can use Google will know how to convert their AR-15 into fully auto.

It may not be legal to own one, but it's hardly a secret. I've known about that one for years, and I'm certainly not a "gun nut".

[benEzra]

34. No. AR-15's made since 1986 have used different receiver dimensions...

than M16's and a slightly different receiver configuration, so that M16 fire control parts and even registered pre-1986 DIAS's absolutely will not fit. By Federal law since 1986 (the McClure-Volkmer Act), NFA Title 1 civilian AR-15's (and all other civilian firearms) must not be easily convertible to full auto; any that ARE easily convertible to full auto are automatically classified as NFA Title 2/Class III restricted full autos even if not actually converted. That's why there are no NFA Title 1 civilian firearms that fire from an open bolt, because open bolt firearms are easily converted by filing the sear.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

A post-1986 AR-15 is no easier to convert to full-auto than a mini-14, a Browning BAR, a Remington 7600 or a Ruger 10/22, and full-auto convertibility has never been a criterion for inclusion in the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch anyway. Cosmetic features like handgrip shape/muzzle style/receiver shape, and ergonomic features like adjustable stocks, are the criteria, not alleged convertibility.

BTW, you didn't answer the question about banning mini-14's, Olympic style target pistols, and SKS's. What do you think of banning them?

Here are some more "assault weapons" on the ban slate, for your review:


Browning BAR Mk II Safari Grade, .300 WSSM (to be banned because of Evil Threaded Muzzle)



Benelli 12-gauge turkey shotgun (to be banned because of Evil Protruding Handgrip)


Not to mention M1 carbines, M1 Garands, Springfield M1A's, Kel-Tec SU-16's, and any self-loading rifle or shotgun that has ever been procured by a U.S. police department. "Assault weapons," all, according to H.R.1022.

[slackmaster]

61. How often do conversions like that actually occur?

We had a case here in San Diego a few years ago in which a gunsmith illegally converted two rifles to selective-fire for one of the Mexican drug cartels.

I am a gun collector, AR-15 owner, and an amateur machinist. I know exactly how it could be done. It's not trivial.

The possibility of doing such a conversion is really a non-issue for public safety.

[SteveM]

51. You are resisting good argument...

Most all hunting rifles had their beginnings as military ("COMBAT") rifles. The difference between the AR 15 semi-auto carbine and a Remington 742 "deer" rifle is the former usually shoots a moderate-power .223 round while the latter shoots a far more powerful .30-06 round. Both grew out of war use.

Further, the accuracy, lack of recoil and superior ergonomics make the AR 15 (and similar types) a superb target weapon, esp. for long-range shooting. Similarly, these semi-auto carbines are now chambered for larger caliber rounds so that they can be used for hunting (examples: .260Rem, .308Win).

You are fixated on "NEED." Americans have a right (protected by the Constitution) to purchase, possess and bear firearms. They don't NEED to answer to your NEEDS. But if you ask owners of semi-auto carbines (some 14,000,000?) why they have them, they will tell you: target shooting, home-defense, hunting, collecting.

What is your problem with that?

[derby378]

56. Why does anyone NEED to visit DU or DailyKos?

Jee-zus, can't you be satisfied with Huffington Post? :rofl:

[MercutioATC]

36. I just want you to define the term "assault weapon".

We'll work through this step by step.

Define "assault weapon".

[Major Hogwash]

38. Assault weapons are . . .

banned in California, New York, and Connecticut, just to name a few of the states that outlaw the possession of assault weapons.

[ieoeja]

48. They ban *possession*?

The so-called Assault Weapon Ban passed in the US congress only banned the sell by manufacturers of these weapons. You could still legally possess one or purchase one second hand.

While I oppose this law, we should not let ourselves be fooled by the lies of the NRA and other groups who pretend this law actually banned the weapons. Of course, the Democrats who originally passed the law made it much easier for the NRA to lie about the law by misnaming the law.

[Major Hogwash]

50. These are state bans, ieoeja.

They are still in force today.

[ieoeja]

53. Of the three you list, only California bans possession.

New York and Connecticut goes beyond the 1994 federal bill by banning sales by individuals. Inheritance is the only manner in which an AWB may change legally change hands in these two states.

But California does outright ban the weapon. So you are correct on that one.

Again, while I oppose the law on civil libertarian grounds as well as on electoral ones -- reviving the federal sales ban will almost certainly cost us the White House -- if we are stupid enough to put the damn thing in the platform as reported, then I will at least point out the lies being told about it.

On the plus side, John McCain was one of the original co-authors in 1994. And he was still an advocate for the law as recently as 2002.

[slackmaster]

63. No, California bans possession of UNREGISTERED "assault weapons"

:hi:

When some of my rifles turned into AWs, I registered them.

I was able to reconfigure two rifles so they did not become AWs. (Removed a grenade launcher from one, took the folding stock off another.)

[ieoeja]

66. But you did have to reconfigure them, right?

I read something about "render unoperable". Didn't catch anything about conversion, but that wouldn't necessarily have to be written into law anyway. If you convert it so it is no longer a legally defined AW then the ban on possession of legally defined AWs would no longer apply.

The federal and other two state "bans" allow possession of legally defined AWs. They just put limits on sales.

[slackmaster]

70. In two cases it was possible to modify them to non-AW configurations

In others it was not possible, so I registered them.

Oh, one other thing:

When the federal AW ban expired in September 2004, it became legal for me to reconfigure registered California AWs into configurations that would have violated federal law during the federal ban.

For example, bayonet mounts and threaded barrels suddenly became legal again. Bayonet mounts are not AW features in California, but they were covered by the federal ban. The original barrels on my AR-15 rifles had permanently-attached muzzle brakes because they were bought during the federal ban. This was called a "post-ban" configuration.

Now they are post-post ban.

[Major Hogwash]

75. I only listed those 3 states because they are states that are considered blue.

And are considered "liberal" for most intents and purposes.

Actually, there are 7 states in total that have assault weapons bans on the books already.
I didn't list all 7 of them because this issue isn't really important to the presidential race.

It's basically a waste of time to try and talk to people here about Obama and his position on the issue of guns because most of the people that have commented in this thread have lied about Obama and his position on guns, so I don't waste my time arguing with them on a daily basis.

People know that guns are not an issue this year.
They weren't even an issue back in 2004.
The Democrats took polls of the top 10 items that people were most concerned with during the 2004 campaign, and the issue of guns never made the top 10 issue list.
Ever, at any point in time, during the entire 2004 campaign.

I was a member of the NRA for 20 years, from 1974 to 1994, and I quit the NRA because they are just a right-wing organization that uses the issue of guns to raise money to support Republicans running for office. The NRA raised over $20 million dollars to support Bush in 2000, and $24 million dollars to support Bush in 2004. Those are facts that the NRA used to have on their web site. But, because it is another election year, the cocksucking liars at the NRA have hidden the links to their own articles bragging about how they helped to defeat Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.

But, since there are only 80 days left until election day, I do not intend to waste any time arguing here about non-issues like guns.
It's 5:30 in the morning as I write this, and I am preparing to go out to the desert range south of Boise to "zero in" my hunting rifle because deer season starts in select hunting areas here in the next few weeks.

[SteveM]

52. Still doesn't define the term "assult weapon." (nt)

[MercutioATC]

57. That's not a definition.

I'm asking for your definition.

[Major Hogwash]

76. You live in Ohio, where there is no state ban on assault weapons.

Yet, if you lived in one of the states that has state laws banning assault weapons, you would know the difference.

[slackmaster]

62. Each of those states has a different definition of AW

A firearm that is an AW in New York may not be one in California, or vice-versa.

FAIL.

[Major Hogwash]

78. And that is because the United States is made up of 50 different states.

Hawaii is another state that has a ban on the possession of assault weapons.

So, why did you say "fail"?

[derby378]

74. That's not a definition...

And we do mean "definition," not a laundry list of safety features.

[Major Hogwash]

77. You live in Texas, where there is no ban on assault weapons.

But, if you lived in one of the other states that has state laws banning assault weapons, you would know the difference.

[slackmaster]

60. Not to put too fine a point on it, but at the moment there is no such thing as an assault weapon

Under federal law.

The definition was strictly a legal, non-technical one; and it expired in 2004.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[snowbear]

37. It only takes two seconds to pull up McSame's flipflopping past, so why isn't the NRA doing that?

If they seriously wanted to go with the pro gun dude, they'd be backing Bob Barr big time.

I agree with the others here.. just get Governor Schweitzer out there and everything will be fine.

McCain to Gun Shows: Drop Dead
by Michael E. Hammond

At a time when even anti-gun pollsters are encouraging liberal Democrats to "lay low" on gun control until after the 2002 elections, there is one public figure who is working hard to fan the flames of anti-gun fervor: Arizona Senator John McCain.

Last year, McCain went into both Oregon and Colorado to promote anti-gun ballot issues in those states.

Three months ago, McCain pushed legislation on the Senate floor, S. 27, which would prohibit groups like GOA from mentioning the anti-gun records of incumbents on TV or radio within 60 days of an election.


Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) plugs his gun control bill with fellow anti-gun cosponsors Senators Chuck Schumer of New York (left) and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (right).

Now, McCain is on movie screens nationwide, pushing an anti-gun message that urges moviegoers to disable their firearms, thereby making them unavailable for defense of business, family or home.

But these efforts to become America's most anti-gun politician have apparently been insufficient for McCain's monumental ego.

Now, McCain has joined with Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman to introduce S. 890, a bill which would effectively outlaw gun shows.



The McCain-Lieberman bill would:

* Require licensure for gun show promoters -- and registration of dealers (public or private), desiring to sell guns, ammunition, or even books at gun shows;
* Outlaw the private sale of guns at a gun show without a government-approved Instantcheck, even if only a small part of the transaction -- such as writing down a phone number -- took place at the gun show;
* Allow gun shows to be regulated and inspected virtually without limit.
Incidentally, this open-ended regulatory authority could be used to impose the same sorts of requirements which were contained in the infamous Smith & Wesson agreement: imposing training requirements for all gun buyers, one-gun-a-month purchase limitations, and requirements that sellers investigate the background of gun buyers.

But these admittedly draconian provisions are not even the worst aspect of the McCain-Lieberman package.

The worst provision is a section, borrowed from Bill Clinton's 1999 proposal, which would allow every board member of an organization sponsoring a gun show to be imprisoned for up to five years if the organization failed to notify EVERY gun show attendee of his obligations under the Brady law.

http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws0107.htm

[slackmaster]

64. You're absolutely right about McCain

His flip-flopping has not endeared him to gun owners.

[Major Hogwash]

39. Chris Cox doesn't live in Montana, hell, he's probably never even been there!!

Cox is an idiot.

McCain was one of the co-authors of the AWB that was passed in 1994.
McCain has a 26 year Congressional record of being a gun grabber.
The GOA gave McCain an F- rating!!!

You can't get any lower that that!!

McCain's rating is as low as whale shit!!!

[benEzra]

43. Yup. (n/t)

[Vinca]

72. The NRA needs to get a grip. At this point their guns are the last

thing we've got to worry about. Higher on the list is psychiatric care for the crazy people who use the things to maim and injure people. Maybe if there were more gun happy, crazy Democrats than Republicans they'd look at the issue differently.