observations on barack obama and gun control

[clu]

I work nights and it's starting to get late for me so this could be a drive-by post of sorts. I was surfing my favorite gaming forum and I read a post about Obama's desire to ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles... Trust me, I'm as liberal as they come but I gotta disgree with some Dem. stances on gun control.

The forum post that caught my attention seemed so over-the-top that I assumed it could be countered easily, but I was wrong. I did a bit of reading and I now get the impression that Obama's real focus is restricting sales via gun shows. Unfortunately when you consider his beliefs that the public should not possess uzi or assault-style weapons, that can be logically construed to mean that Obama supports a semi-auto weapon sales or transfer ban. I see the obvious drawbacks of public possession of semi-auto assault-style weapons, but I really don't think that's too much of a factor on crime depending on the implementation.

Additionally, the forum post in question elaborated that Obama has very good social policies (i think the repub meant discrimination-type stuff vs. economics), but that the gun legislation was a deal-breaker.

I grew up with a friend who had a lot of cool guns - they were really fun. Depending on the family environment etc, there could be a few positive aspects of recreational shooting. When people truly flip out, they're going to stab, poison, or use some other method. Sure high-powered guns make it easier, but honestly, so do any other semi-auto pistols. I'd vote for Obama over a repub, but I hope that some this anti-gun legislation is forgotten. Come up with other restrictions on who gets the good stuff, and tax the hell out of them. Do something, but don't prevent law-abiding citizens from a military-style semi-auto weapon hobby.

Nationalize the oil and health or pharmaceutical industries, legislate green technology but please leave some with the ability to have some fun while bonding with their kids and their semiautomatic rifles.

here is what I read to get my post together....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0409150153sep15,1,7897647.story?coll=chi-elections-utl&ctrack=1&cset=true

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Anyone have relevant statistics to share?

[warrens]

1. I believe his main thing is the gun show loophole

The rest is a personal observation, not a legislative intent. I agree with the former, not the latter.

[bryant69]

2. Here kid - have a semiautomatic rifle

No remember keep the safety on.

Maybe I should explain that much if not most hardware of this nature is not being taken out by happy families and played with.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogsopt.com

[Vincardog]

3. Happy families do not play with guns, Everyone should have gun access and education

I like my semi auto. The 2nd Amendment
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Never was about hunting.

It was and is about making sure the people could fight back against the Government.

[clu]

4. perhaps i have a bit of a bias

As my dad wouldn't allow me to have a slingshot when I was a kid. Anyways, my perception is that legitimately purchased assault-style weapons are owned mostly by normal gun enthusiasts. As long as it's regulated enough, the damage inflicted with a couple of berettas is not much less than what's possible with an HK-MP5 or an uzi. Sure there's a slightly different type of personality that you may be able to stereotype with, but again, the truly violent can always find other means.

In terms of this type of activity being family oriented, forgive the political stuff and check out these enthusiasts.

40mb video of a outdoor shooting activity - right-click and save if it doesn't stream well. http://tscmachine.com/images/Videos/RoanokeHIGH.wmv

[billbuckhead]

5. I like what Wes Clark said about assault weapons

"You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"
<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-01-14>

There are no serious Democratic candidates for President who aren't for the AWB and few Republicans for that matter, now that Frist is gone.

Gun nuts have no one to vote for in the next election.

[benEzra]

6. The Army doesn't USE "assault weapons" bill...

they use NFA Title 2/Class III restricted assault rifles, NOT the non-automatic civilian rifles that you like to call "assault weapons." As you know, possession of an M16 or an actual AK-47 without Federal permission (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony.

This statement of Clark's is why I think Clark misunderstood the law on the topic, because I don't think he would deliberately try to pull a bait-and-switch like that.

[Paladin]

10. And That Statement By Clark......

....got him compared to Heinrich Himmler in our very own DU Gun Dungeon, by one of your fellow Gun Evangelists claiming to be a Democrat.

Time and again, whatever sensible-sounding points you make are justifiably sabotaged by the radical, shitty company you're keeping. The daily content of the Gungeon provides overwhelming proof of this.....

[billbuckhead]

11. Paladin, check out the "High Road.com", they make freak republic look good

I'm amused at the endless gotcha semantic games these gun "enthusiasts" play. Like this guy ben knows more than a first in his class West Point graduate. They can't explain why the US has a higher gun crime rate than any similar nation, they can only blame Americans, not our failed gun policy.




Renowned "gun rights" Astroturfer John Lott/Mary Rosh from the American Enterprise Institute, the same "think tank" that predicted we would get candy and flowers in the Iraq invasion.
<http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/>

[Paladin]

13. The Wes Clark/Heinrich Himmler Thing Was Ugly.....

....even by the low standards of the Gun Dungeon. And here we are in another campaign season, so I'm sure there will be other such outrages. Pretty pointless, considering what a non-issue guns have been this time around.

Nice image of Lott/Rosh, by the way.....

[billbuckhead]

17. One way or another, guns and gun regulations are always an issue in America

[Retired AF Dem]

35. Just wondering

When Mr B. died did you inherit all of his old pics?

[Irreverend IX]

37. Oooh... Bill's mad.

He stuck both Republican muzzle-loader pics in the same post!

I doubt either Delay or Cheney know how to operate that thing.

[benEzra]

27. I had never seen that one, so I did a search and found the thread...

The Wes Clark/Heinrich Himmler Thing Was Ugly....even by the low standards of the Gun Dungeon.

I had never seen that one, so I did a search and found the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=86079

The Himmler cite was by Columbia, who is not, AFAIK, a gungeon regular.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=136774

Just to clarify, I do NOT think Clark was being deliberately deceptive when he implied that "assault weapons" are military automatic weapons; I think that was an honest mistake. And I think that Clark would be an otherwise excellent candidate, if that mistake is rectified and he drops the ban-more-rifles issue (which he may have already done). He's no Himmler.

I've been meaning to correspond with WesPAC on the issue, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Will try to do so sooner rather than later.

And here we are in another campaign season, so I'm sure there will be other such outrages. Pretty pointless, considering what a non-issue guns have been this time around.

All I would ask is that gun bans stay a non-issue. I think the party's dropping the ban-more issue after '04 was a big reason for the Senate win last month, IMHO. The downside is that the Brady Campaign, VPC, AHSA, AGS, SHV, and others want to make another rifle and magazine ban a legislative priority, and it is my desire to see that not happen.

[derby378]

24. "Gun Evangelists?"

OK, you can go ahead and hit the Alert button for all I care, but I cannot resist...

YES! I say, LAY YOUR HANDS on that Rock River AR-15 and FEEL THE POWER, brothers and sisters! Somebody better TESTIFY! Verily I tell thee, REPENT your wicked ways of keeping the safety off, and thou shalt be spared embarrassment at the shooting range. HALLELUJAH!

[Paladin]

28. That's About As Amusing As The Tammy Duckworth Thread....

...you started down in the Gun Dungeon not too long ago. You know, the one where you asked whether the gun policies of Democratic candidate and double-leg amputee Duckworth were "shooting Democrats in the foot," as you so charmingly put it.

There was a time when something that ugly would have gotten you kicked out of the Gungeon; not any longer, I'm sorry to say. And don't worry, I'm not going to hit any "Alert" button on you. I want as many people as possible to see your handiwork, for reasons that are obvious to everybody except you......

[derby378]

29. Sounds like you're finally starting to learn something

You may object to my choice of words in the whole Tammy Duckworth affair (would this be what Opus of Bloom County called "Offensensitivity" back in the day?), but in the end, Duckworth lost. She should have won, by all rights, but she lost. You can blame the GOP robo-calls - and honestly, I'd say you'd have a strong case here - but if it weren't for her stand against Second Amendment rights, she wouldn't have been so vulnerable that a bunch of hackneyed robo-calls could have done her campaign in.

You can tell me that Rod Blagojevich ran on a platform where he even referred to semi-automatic firearms (which have been in civilian hands for a hundred years) as "weapons of mass destruction" and still won the gubernatorial race in Illinois, but he was campaigning in all of Illinois, and doing so as an incumbent. Duckworth was campaigning in a single district of Illinois that was heavily Republican to begin with - and apparently not too crazy about handing in its guns.

Politics is not for the squeamish, as you have learned. Duckworth should have won. But she also should have listened a little more to her would-be constituents.

[Paladin]

30. It's A Real Downer That Duckworth Lost

But that doesn't change the fact that guns were not a critical issue in this recent election season. The fact that you chose to publicly join with right-wing gun activist forces to trash Duckworth's campaign is as typical as it is shameful---just the sort of behavior we've come to expect from Gun Dungeon "Democrats" such as yourself. So spare us the after-the-fact boo-hoos about Duckworth being defeated, OK? Don't add hypocrisy to your list of misdeeds.

Looking forward to the kind of things you and your fellow Gun Evangelists will be saying about Obama and other prominent Democrats in the next weeks and months. As you say, it won't be for the squeamish....

[billbuckhead]

34. The gun lovers crowd is proud as a peacock when democracy works their way

while being the first to hide behind small (R) republicanism when it doesn't. If we had a nationwide, everyone has an equal vote referendum on gun issues, they would lose like crazy.

[derby378]

38. Instead of putting words in my mouth, if you don't like where I'm taking the party...

...what is your own level of involvement in the Democratic Party?

Have you considered becoming a precinct chair? Are you willing to serve as a delegate to your county and state conventions?

I've done both. I'm in the Democratic Party for the long haul no matter what you might think of me. And I don't know how involved you are in your local Party structure, but now is a very good time to reflect upon that.

Here at Democratic Underground, we're not training a bunch of political armchair quarterbacks. We're training activists who are willing to get down in the trenches. So if you have a problem with pro-gun Democrats like me telling the Brady Campaign and Join Together to back off, then take a cue from Bob Marley: "Get up, stand up."

I can't do it for you. This is something you're gonna have to manage on your own. And if I, as a pro-RKBA Democrat, can encourage you, a pro-gun-control Democrat, to make your voice heard in the formal Party structure, then please lay off any charges of "hypocrisy" and get out there. Talk to your county Democratic Party officials and get in on the ground floor for 2008.

[Paladin]

40. Trying To Change The Subject? How Unsurprising

Want to know about my level of involvement in the Democratic Party? Let's just say that it began decades ago, in all probability before you were even born, and continues to this very day. I'm not going to furnish you with any further details, because I've found from bitter experience that it's a big, big, big mistake to furnish gun militants with anything in the way of personal information. Quite frankly, there are way too many well-armed, wet-brained head cases on your side of the gun rights argument; once again, for proof of this I refer everybody to the daily content of our very own DU Gun Dungeon.

One final thought: In all my decades of proud service to the Democratic Party, I have never once even thought about making, much less actually made, a gratuitously ugly and hurtful comment about a Democratic candidate's physical afflictions. I want you to reflect on the fact that you will never be able to truthfully make that statement, no matter how much down-in-the-trenches work you do for the party. That ought to cause you a lifetime of shame, but I just don't think you have the capacity for it. In any case, you sure as hell are in no position to deliver snotty little lectures to me about party service.....

[derby378]

41. NOW we're getting somewhere

You interpreted my comments about Tammy Duckworth's stance on gun control to be, in your words, "a gratuitously ugly and hurtful comment about a Democratic candidate's physical afflictions." I will not apologize for your mistranslation of my original intention, nor will I apologize for your apparent inability to let the matter go. You chose to make the subject Tammy's disability, not how her own position on gun control might affect other Democratic races. In other words, I think you inadvertently pulled a bait-and-switch on yourself - whereas I wanted to debate the issues, you turned it into a diatribe against my "phraseology."

I cannot help but wonder if there was some need to perceive Tammy as being "re-victimized" because of the fact that she was gravely wounded in Iraq. I'm not saying that you're trying to hold up Tammy as immune to criticism - Ann Coulter tells her braindead audiences that we do this all the time - but I chose to see Tammy Duckworth as a candidate and a politician, not a cripple. So, once again, I assert that you are trying to put words into my mouth in order to score points for yourself because I somehow triggered your "offensensitivity" defense mechanism. And maybe it was purely unintentional on your part. I'll give you that much, provided you are willing to concede that any slight your perceived that I made concerning Tammy Duckworth's condition was also purely unintentional.

I wasn't asking you for personal information about your involvement with the Democratic Party, but I get the feeling you've been burned by "gun nuts" in the past, which is unfortunate. You might even be a State Party Chairman who shook the hands of all three Kennedy brothers for all I know or care. But the political winds of change are blowing, and old paradigms are starting to creak under the strain, as you already well know. People want a government that respects people's privacy and civil rights, that supports medical research (including stem-cell research), that won't tap their phone lines or infiltrate peace groups, and that will actually follow the rule of law. And if the whole package includes an AK-47 that I keep at home under lock and key, then so be it. I'm for progressive Democratic leadership in Congress for the next 40 years. And anything that threatens such a possibility is something that I will fight tooth and nail.

If you've spoken your peace, then I'm done, too - let's move on. Salud.

[derby378]

18. Yes, I know you're chortling in glee that Feingold will not run...

...but face facts. There will be no semi-auto ban in the next two years at the very least. And the next Democratic President we get will have to deal with an increased number of pro-gun Democrats in the House and Senate.

Democratic "gun nuts" have declared victory in '06 in that we have prevented Congressional Democrats from making anti-gun legislation a priority.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[derby378]

22. Why are you bringing up Frist?

This is Democratic Underground, remember?

2008 is still a long way away. Sit back and enjoy the ride - it's gonna be a wild one.

[billbuckhead]

32. Just pointing out NRAer's will have no where to go in the next POTUS election

Maybe David Duke will run since he liked Charlton Heston's speeches so much.

[otherlander]

19. Yeah, besides, we don't need guns!

We've got habeus corpus to protect us!

Oh. Wait.

[derby378]

25. Oh, SNAP!

:rofl: :hi:

[benEzra]

8. Not sure if you're aware of this,

In terms of this type of activity being family oriented, forgive the political stuff and check out these enthusiasts.

40mb video of a outdoor shooting activity - right-click and save if it doesn't stream well. http://tscmachine.com/images/Videos/RoanokeHIGH.wmv

Not sure if you're aware of this, but all automatic weapons are already very tightly controlled (mere possession of one without Federal authorization is a 10-year felony). I can't see that video, but if it's the Roanoke machine gun shoot, those aren't "assault weapons," those are restricted NFA Title 2 machineguns, which you have to get special clearance to own.

An "assault weapon" is a non-automatic civilian rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out, not an automatic assault rifle.

Anyways, my perception is that legitimately purchased assault-style weapons are owned mostly by normal gun enthusiasts. As long as it's regulated enough, the damage inflicted with a couple of berettas is not much less than what's possible with an HK-MP5 or an uzi. Sure there's a slightly different type of personality that you may be able to stereotype with, but again, the truly violent can always find other means.

You are correct. Despite their popularity, all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides annually, per the FBI, presumably due to the fact that they are very difficult to carry on one's person or conceal inside a vehicle.

The AR-15 (.223 Remington) is arguably the most popular civilian target rifle in the United States. Most of us gunnies (4 out of 5) aren't hunters, and we'd definitely like to keep our nonhunting-style guns.



Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, vindicated in '06, IMHO)

[benEzra]

7. What kinds of guns are you talking about?

Maybe I should explain that much if not most hardware of this nature is not being taken out by happy families and played with.

I didn't see anything on the linked site (after I fixed the typo in the URL) regarding guns, so I'm not sure what classes of guns you're talking about.

The guns *I* am worried about people banning are the most popular centerfire target rifles in the United States--AR-15 type rifles, SKS's, Ruger mini-14's and Mini Thirty's, civvie AK lookalikes--so if those are the guns you're talking about, I'd like to see the data you're looking at.

Per the FBI, rifles of any type are almost never used criminally (out of 448 homicides in Illinois in 2005, all rifles combined accounted for only 4 of them, and less than 3% of homicides nationally), but small-caliber self-loading rifles are immensely popular among civilian gun owners. My wife owns one, and I own a couple.

Looking at the numbers, there are probably more "black rifle" owners in the U.S. than there are hunters. If you use a broad definition of "assault weapon" (the types of guns threatened by S.1431/H.R.2038), you're talking about potentially half of all gun owners.



Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, vindicated in '06, IMHO)

[clu]

9. at the risk of getting watchlisted

I'm going to go ahead and say that the mini-14 would be the life-blood of a revolution. uhm, not necessarily in the U.S. though.

[billbuckhead]

12. No civilians have ever used nuclear arms on Americans

Good excuse to legalize them

[clu]

14. Not to throw around insults

But save the disingenuous arguments for the free republic... for some reason that type of statement reminds me of that place - lots of bumblefuck logic. I'm in TX and we've had concealed-weapons permits for a few years now. I haven't sought out statistics but I don't think CCW permits have made gun violence more prevalent here. How exactly is a ten-round 9mm different from a semi-automatic UZI? If semi-auto. UZIs are OK, why not semi-auto. .308?

Again, I really don't understand some Dem. stances on gun control. Abortion rights, gay rights, and gun rights are all wedge issues. It seems to me that only two of these are really important. At the risk of sipping kool-aid and parroting propaganda, doesn't the DINO Feinstein carry a pistol? What's the big deal about rifles? I guess I have to admit some ignorance here on what Dems. want to do with gun legislation...

IMO it's not about whether or not gun prevalence is bad, I think it's more of a question of whether or not banning certain guns would significantly cut down on crime to offset any detrimental aspect of a gun ban. To a very real extent, if someone was to invade your home, the police would really only serve to clean up in a lot of cases. Arguing the merits of shotguns versus rifles or pistols is a side issue. I'm not advocating getting in shoot-outs with burglars, but I would imagine that if you were awoken in your bedroom by an intruder, you would rather have a pistol than be defenseless.

Someone earlier mentioned that the US crime rate in relation to gun prevalence... wasn't the point of "bowling for columbine" that gun prevalence really isn't the cause? As much as I hate to say it, I see the way some of my "loser" siblings have grown and I'd attribute our violent crime rate to problems with child-rearing more than gun prevalence.

[derby378]

15. I'm with you here

I consider myself a progressive Democrat, and I'm against any attempt to bring back the semi-auto ban. I don't even use the term "assault weapon." I do not wish to give any legitimacy to a term that, to this day, doesn't even have an established, universale definition - even though there was a Federal law banning guns that fell under this category. I'm convinced that the Brady Campaign treats "assault weapons" the same way that fabled judge treated pornography: "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

Can't define it? Then you can't legislate against it. Case closed.

Amendment II Democrats

[billbuckhead]

16. Here's exacty what Michael Moore has to say about gun regulations

9. "We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours."

<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2006-11-14>

MIchael Moore on Wes Clark's stand against assault rifles

"On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

<http://www.clark04.com/moore/>

Quit spinning "Bowling for Columbine" and go by what Moore actually says and not what you think he means

[clu]

21. hmm

I'm not arguing that Moore supports ownership of assault-style rifles, I'm arguing that Moore moves away from the position that gun prevalence equals gun violence. If you have a ballistics fingerprinting system to prevent murder with a hunting rifle, it would be just as effective against semi-auto assault-style weapons.

Considering how you can gun down someone with a pistol, a ban on tec-9 semi-auto pistols does nothing to prevent such massacres. Indeed, a tec-9 was the only assault-style weapon used at columbine. The rest were shotguns and rifles.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/18/columbine.manes/index.html

The real tragedy of Columbine was that two high-school kids were sold the weapons without restrictions in the first place.

The real issue here is whether or not the threat of high-powered semi-auto. rifles supercedes their benefit enough to warrant a ban.

[derby378]

23. I can answer that question

Out of a total of 3,393 BATF traces in 1993 for the weapons banned in the upcoming crime bill, there were 1,202 traces for Intratec weapons (TEC-9, TEC-DC9, and TEC-22), 878 traces for SWD weapons (MAC-10, etc.), 581 traces for Colt AR-15s, 281 for Uzis, 175 for Intratec copycats, 99 for AR-15 copycats, 87 for AK-47s, and 64 for revolving cylinder shotguns like the Street Sweeper. In addition, there were only 12 traces for Galil rifles, 9 for Fabrique Nationale weapons, 4 for Steyr AUG rifles (importation into the US banned in 1989), and only one single trace for a Beretta AR-70 rifle for the entire year of 1993.

The NIJ study furthermore reports that traces for 19 enumerated firearm types climbed to 4,077 in 1994 and then dropped to 3,268 in 1995, a decline of approximately 20% over one year.

In addition, the NIJ study detailed that the number of gun murders in America decreased by 10% from 1994 to 1995, mirroring a drop in gun traces for "assault weapons" as well as overall gun traces for the same time period. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and other pro-ban organizations often cite this statistic from the NIJ study as proof that the semi-auto ban helped reduce gun murders.

What the Brady Campaign doesn't often mention, though, is that the same NIJ study by Roth and Koper demonstrated that gun murders were already on a downward trend, dropping 4-5% from 1993 to 1994. Even with "assault weapons" readily available and "on the streets."

Top 10 Myths about Semi-Automatic Firearms and the 1994 Ban

[Romulus]

39. Clark is not very bright

"On the issue of gun control, this hunter and gun owner will close the gun show loophole (which would have helped prevent the massacre at Columbine) and he will sign into law a bill to create a federal ballistics fingerprinting database for every gun in America (the DC sniper, who bought his rifle in his own name, would have been identified after the FIRST day of his killing spree). He is not afraid, as many Democrats are, of the NRA. His message to them: "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

<http://www.clark04.com/moore/ >

This is why I think Clark is not suitable for higher office: two factual errors in a major PR statement.

1. The DC snipers owned two different rifles. The first one, a bolt-action rifle, was their true "weapon of choice" and they purchased it through a straw purchaser. This rifle was lost during a dry-run of a sniper attack. The second rifle was the stolen Bushmaster, which was a "target of opportunity" that they shoplifted out of a gun store. Neither of those rifles would have been traced to Malvo and Muhammamed.

2. So-called assault rifles are semi-automatic and fire no faster than the WWII-era M1 Garand. The M1 Garand is available for purchase to non-military members through the Federally-chartered and supported Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP). All you have to do is join a CMP-affiliated private gun club and attend one CMP shooting match or training class; then you are eligible to have a Garand shipped straight to your home, no recruiter necessary. If this is the case, why should you join the Army to go target shooting when you can get the same kind of rifle shipped by a government organization straight to your home? Duh!

Bonus #3 factual error:
3. "Gun Show Loophole" didn't seem to matter since the Columbine Kids had a straw purchaser buy their guns.

[benEzra]

26. And Hiroshima was leveled by a civilian rifle with a handgrip that stuck out.

No civilians have ever used nuclear arms on Americans Good excuse to legalize them

And Hiroshima was leveled by a civilian rifle with a handgrip that stuck out, right?

This is the type of silly rhetoric about protruding rifle handgrips and over-10-round magazines that drives me NUTS. There is an immense difference in effects between a thermonuclear weapon, and a non-automatic .22 or .30 caliber civilian rifle with a protruding handgrip. Hmmm, let's see...

Civilian target rifle...............................2 kJ
W-88 warhead........................1,884,150,000,000 kJ

Yeah, the nuclear weapon is only a trillion times as powerful. I can see how that's comparable. :eyes:

[billbuckhead]

31. The2nd amendment doesn't prohibit nuclear weapons

It's all a slippery slope. I'll go with what the ACLU says makes sense and not what DINO's say.

[benEzra]

36. The first amendment doesn't prohibit child porn, either...

but that doesn't mean that I don't have a right to speak out on political issues on web forums.

But the fact still remains that civilian small arms are NOT similar in scope to nuclear weapons. There's that little, trivial, trillionfold energy difference, for one...

The other thing is, go back to the Second Amendment and look what it protects. Arms that can be kept and borne. Small arms. Not crew-served weapons, and not ordnance. Nuclear weapons are crew-served heavy ordnance, not small arms.

[mdmc]

33. God Bless My Guns

Liberals RULE! Bill of Rights Purist here...

[cynatnite]

42. This may seem like a dumb question, but...

why does a person need a semi-automatic rifle for?

[derby378]

45. MYTH #9: You don't need an assault weapon for self-defense

One common sentiment expressed by gun-control advocates is that ownership of semi-automatics by law-abiding citizens is simply unnecessary. For example, consider this excerpt from a September 6, 2004 editorial in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:

You don't need an assault weapon to defend your home and family against an intruder. Neither do you need one to go duck or deer hunting. What you need an assault weapon for is to commit murder and mayhem on a massive scale.

Which means you don't need one at all.

You don't need a 36" plasma television in order to watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann when a 12" black-and-white TV set will do quite nicely. You don't need a hybrid car in order to make a trip to the local grocery store when a traditional gasoline or diesel car will get you there just as quickly. For that matter, you don't need to drink organic milk that is free of rBGH when there is so much supermarket milk laced with antibiotics and hormones just waiting to find a place in your refrigerator.

Since when did the concepts of freedom and personal choice become anathema to the pro-gun control movement in America? Enough, already.

The editors of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel would do well to re-read the Bill of Rights. After all, there's a good reason why the Founding Fathers never called it a Bill of Needs.

Top 10 Myths About Semi-Automatic Firearms

[Odin2005]

43. This rural Democrat thinks the God-damned gun issue needs to die.

And I'm sick of urban Dems who demonize us gun owners.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

44. I'm with you, Odin

I'm a life long Democrat, from a Dem. family. I own and enjoy an AR-15 & an AK-47. I don't hunt, mostly because I'm too lazy & don't feel like shooting Bambi. But I have no problem with those that do. A lot of money for conservation and public support for open spaces comes from hunters. By and large, hunters are responsible users of the American wilderness.
I like to target shoot. Why do I need a semi-automatic "assault weapon"? For the same reason anyone else owns golf clubs, iPods or knitting needles, the freedom to choose. The gun issue for Dems is a losing proposition. It has cost us a lot more votes than it's ever gained us. Sure guns are used in crimes, but the people using those guns aren't deterred by laws. I see no reason why law abiding Americans should be kept from owning guns. If we Democrats gave up on this gun control issue we would have more votes & support for our other core issues. More gun laws will NEVER make us safer they will only cost us votes!