FOR or AGAINST the banning of handguns??

[Mark_Pogue]

England banned the ownership and use of handguns a couple years ago.

How would you feel if the US did the same? (hypothetically)

[Captain Hilts]

1. For the ban. I have no problem with rifles. nt

[Warpy]

21. I know folks here who swear by handguns to dispatch

the rattlesnake who has moved into the yard where the kids play. I live in the city so I'd never own a handgun, but people out here in the wild west say they need them. My own inclination would be to use a long handled hoe.

I hated them when I lived in Boston, wanted them banned. Unfortunately, there are just too many of them in circulation, so banning them is just not going to happen. It would work exactly as well as the war on drugs has.

The only thing this country could do is tighten up the sale of ammo, and that would only slow the carnage.

[liberalEd]

128. dispatching unwanted pests and wildlife is what exterminators are for n/t

[mainegreen]

145. 'Hi, Bob's Bugs? I have a rabid coydog in my yard...'

'Sure, how about 10 tomorrow?'
:rofl:

[liberalEd]

157. What's a coydog?

Anyway, I'm sure they come faster if you pay more.

Gun or no gun, I am not messing around with dangerous critters. I'd call the professionals. If they demand additional payment for emergency response, then I'll pay. If they care about my repeat business, they will be reasonable.

[mainegreen]

161. coydog = domestic dog gone wild (back to the pack).

Out in the rural hills where I'm from they're a real problem.
The problem is generally rural vs urban/town.
In the country it's often worth it to do just about everything yourself.

[Coexist]

166. there are professional animal removal services

here in Florida, we call them, rather than rasslin' the gators ourselves.

[marshall]

178. Professional snake killers?

I've got to say the people in my very rural neck of the woods would laugh themselves silly if the were told to call a professional to kill a snake in their henhouse. I'm not sure where one would come from, but it would be at least a 45 minute drive. By then all the hens would be dead!

[OldschoolDem]

2. I would not agree

Gun ownership is a 2nd ammendment right. I do want any more infringement on my constitution.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Join a well regulated militia. nt

[Midlodemocrat]

13. .

:applause:

[OldschoolDem]

18. Do you really want only forces commanded by Bush to only have guns

[Captain Hilts]

23. You can have rifles. Besides...

EVERYBODY in the Soviet Union had a firearm and they still had that evil, shitty government.

[Az]

28. Ever shot a tank with a hand gun

It amuses them.

[OldschoolDem]

32. Ever shot a tank with a rifle or a shotgun

doesn't work to well either.

[Az]

43. Guess the founding fathers didn't see tanks coming

Hmmm. Maybe they really did mean militias.

[Captain Hilts]

45. Rifles aren't a whole lot better. That's what Molotov cocktails are for. nt

[Az]

48. Thats old school

Good for taking out leaky Sherman tanks.

[piedmont]

77. Actually, rifles are useful for sniping the tanks' fragile meaty bits when they stick their heads up

[Mark_Pogue]

38. the topic is HANDguns.

[H2O Man]

47. Handjobs?

Is Pat Robertson behind this?

[Warren DeMontague]

136. No, that is something the Republican Party would DEFINITELY get behind a ban on.

Non-procreative sexual activity of any kind, actually.

[Madspirit]

159. Naughty H2O

:rofl:

[Hangingon]

193. This thread is a handjob

[LSK]

60. do you really think hand guns can hold off the Federal Govt if they wanted you?

Get real.

[krispos42]

197. Me, personally?

No. The local fuzz, county mounties, and state smokies can put out a lot more firepower than either my deer rifle or my pheasant gun.

A nation 11 times larger than Iraq, with literally tens of millions of citizens ex-military? That's a completely different animal altogether!



<chorus, deadpan>

"A nation 11 times larger than Iraq, with literally tens of millions of citizens ex-military? That's a completely different animal."

:hide:

[Hippo_Tron]

74. The freepers said the same thing about Clinton

They needed their guns in case Clinton decided to install himself as a communist dictator. When I hear such an argument on the left, my bullshit detector goes off.

[TX-RAT]

Most between 17 to 45 already are.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

[slackmaster]

89. Never let a fact get in the way of a lame "join a militia" argument

:toast:

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

114. I'm not a strict constructionist as far as the Constitution is concerned

I believe the amendments should be liberally interpreted by the courts to fit the times, including the 2nd Amendment. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment says that arms should only be used in connection with a militia. Nor does it say that when militias no longer exist that the right must disappear. The 2nd Amendment is intentionally vague on this point and has been subject to interpretation through the years. It merely says that 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. The Amendment doesn't say that only those participating in militias may bear arms. It might have been the intention of the founders that all people should keep and know how to use firemans in case a few of them would be required for a militia. The 2nd Amendment appears to be saying that if the People as a whole know how to shoot, then it makes organizing and well-regulating a militia that much easier. Personally, I think the access to firearms and the use of certain firearms should be strictly regulated. But I fear the day that all the firearms disappear from the hands of the People. On that day, there is nothing to stop the next Dictator or the next invasion.

[derby378]

118. Too late...

You and I are already part of one. :toast:

[michreject]

152. I belong to one

I don't have to report to anyone and it's not affiliated with any government entity. I'm a civilian with guns.

[krispos42]

187. I'm in one

So are 57 million other people (virtually all men) in this country.

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists
of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age
and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have
made a declaration of intention to become, citi-
zens of the United States and of female citizens
of the United States who are commissioned of-
ficers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of
the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists
of the members of the militia who are not
members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

I'm a male between the ages of 17 and 45. I am, by definition, in the militia. If you follow the 'you have to be in the militia to own a gun" argument, which many don't.

Why are you supporting a sexist policy?

[Mark_Pogue]

20. the 2nd does not specify

what TYPES of arms, does it?

[OldschoolDem]

24. You could make a legitmate arguement that rifles and shotguns are

more dangerous than handguns. Longer range, more killing power etc.

[Captain Hilts]

31. People are FAR less likely to commit crimes with rifles and kids FAR less likely to shoot themselves

or someone else should they get their hands on one.

[Mark_Pogue]

36. EXACTLY!!

.

[OldschoolDem]

37. The answer is more education

I was raised in a house with guns all over the place. I was taught very young that those were dads and I wasn't to touch them unless he was present or my brother was around.

[krispos42]

188. Well, then only criminals having guns sounds like a good idea to me

It worked exceptionally well in the UK ten years ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=973210#974879

[ieoeja]

3. Against. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

4. "See? See??? I *told* you they were anti-gun!!!"

:rofl:

[atreides1]

5. Against

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. For.

[NeedleCast]

8. Against

but then, I am against the banning of most things.

[originalpckelly]

9. Against.

[NoodleBoy]

10. against banning, for better regulation.

[slick8790]

26. Exactly. n/t

[EstimatedProphet]

72. For enforcing current regulation, otherwise agreed.

[RamboLiberal]

11. Against the Ban - Own Several Handguns

Have a CCW license and I shoot them in competitions. Feel I should have the right to own for protection and for fun. With the number of handguns already in this country banning them would be like trying to confiscate all the explosives in Iraq. Law abiding people like myself would be stripped of them while the bad guys would have all the weapons.

[BOSSHOG]

12. How can any American be for banning handguns?

Its our constitutional right to own them and use them against each other. Right there in the second amendment. In fact every American should always be armed, with hand grenades in their backpacks and glove compartments FOR SAFETY'S SAKE. Our kids on college campuses would be so much safer if they were all heavily armed; professors, janitors, food service workers, groundskeepers all should be heavily armed FOR SAFETY'S SAKE.

[Midlodemocrat]

Won't someone think of the children?

:rofl:

I for one, wouldn't object to a ban on handguns.

[Mark_Pogue]

58. Me neither!

They are truly weapons of murder.

[Solo_in_MD]

81. Its for the children that private handgun ownership is essential

[BlackHawk706867]

25. Hahaha... I don't know if your serious or joking.... BUT... eeks..

[Mark_Pogue]

29. The 2nd Amendment does not

specify WHAT TYPES of arms to "keep and bear".

[BOSSHOG]

41. Oh, that's just a technicality

ask the NRA what the second amendment "means." I posit the argument that the second amendment says citizens can be armed for the purpose of defending the country. Andy Jackson employed well armed militias during the battle of New Orleans in 1813-14. Very constitutional indeed. But obviously the constitution means that roving gangs armed with semi-automatic weapons can terrorize our cities and the NRA is just fine with that; because of their "interpretation" of the second amendment.

[BlooInBloo]

57. That's why the judicial branch exists...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/

"WASHINGTON - In the most important ruling on gun control in 70 years, a federal appeals court Friday for the first time used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun law.

In a 2-1 decision, the court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias."

[LSK]

63. 2nd amendment clearly specifies militias, nothing to do with individuals

[slackmaster]

90. Official Federal and California definitions of the militias

Federal:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Prev | Next

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Cite: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html


California:

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE

SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Cite: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[derby378]

120. What part of "the right of the PEOPLE" do you not understand?

:shrug:

[LSK]

121. "the people" is not "a person"

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

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

[derby378]

124. You reprinted that as though I never heard of the Second Amendment before...

:shrug:

[Codeine]

202. Greater legal minds than yours

or mine have disagreed. Besides, legally just about every male in this nation belongs to a militia already by dint of being an able-bodied citizen.

[chknltl]

126. Oh and don't ferget to properly edumacate everyone too...

What works for some undoubtedly must work for everyone... We could pass a law requiring that very education...for Safety's Sake of course.
( Do I really need to add "sarcasm" here? )

[Coexist]

167. BEST post on this thread.

thanks, Bosshog.

[krispos42]

198. That's right. We should force everybody to be armed

And carry a life vest. And flak jacket. And breathing mask. And crash helment with visor. And parachute. And steel-toed boots. And a fire extenguisher. And a three-day supply of water and food. And a hundred yards of rope. And a GPS beacon. And a hand-powered flashlight. And one of those injector pens for people that are allergic to peanuts or shellfish. And a portable defib device. And a flare gun.

Yeah, that's it.

I mean, for SAFETY'S SAKE we have to override people's rights to choose what they can own and what they can carry on their person!

Hmmm... what am I forgetting? Oh, yes...

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!?!

[H2O Man]

14. I don't think

the US should attempt to ban handguns in England, even hypothetically.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

15. As a non-gun person, still against it.

[Az]

16. Against

Regulate like crazy. But banning ... not so good.

[karlrschneider]

17. I am keeping mine.

...

[piedmont]

19. Against. Wouldn't work anyway. nt

[BlackHawk706867]

22. I agree with #2 it's in the Constitution for a reason and that would

mean a change to the Constitution, and I would not like to see that happen... It's the people not the guns that kill!

ww

[Captain Hilts]

35. The Constitution refers to a world where there was no police force. nt

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

204. LOL, trust the police. . .

I'm a white suburban male, and that notion is STILL laughable

[Az]

52. Gun ownership is a private property issue not a 2nd amendment issue

Unless you happen to be a well regulated militia.

You have right to own a gun based on your right to own private property.

[Phredicles]

27. Absolutely hate 'em. But probably banning them wouldn't work at this point.

[Captain Hilts]

39. Criminals want quick access to cheap handguns. Stopping the sale of cheap handguns...

would do a lot to prevent crimes committed with handguns.

The number of murders committed with firearms in this country - compared to comparable numbers in the UK or Canada is a national embarrassment.

[Solo_in_MD]

82. Done years ago in the US

which means the poor are no longer able to effectively defend themselves.

[TwilightGardener]

30. Against. I want that option, even if I never use it.

[tularetom]

33. Against - I have several

and they are a danger to nobody, even me. They are safely under lock and key and the ammunition is locked up in another part of the house. Two of them are cap and ball pistols and I do not keep any black powder on site. I'd resent any attempt to ban handguns as a restriction on my personal freedom, much like I feel about executive branch snooping on my emails and telephone calls, or the insertion of organized religion into public policy.

[catmandu57]

34. Not now

I feel much better knowing that I can have access to what the freeper down the street has, though it's impossible to say what's hidden there. I just want bubba to think twice when the pigboy gives him the go signal.

[Redneck Socialist]

40. Against, and...

:eyes:

or

:popcorn:

I can't really decide.

[Purveyor]

42. Against... n/t

[Boo Boo]

44. Cold dead hands, Baby. /nt

[RB TexLa]

46. Against

[Rick Myers]

49. It's probably WAY TOO LATE to rebottle that genie...

I own 2 handguns, for defense and target use. I would NEVER consider carrying a gun, even with a permit. Just a bad idea all around. I think 'concealed carry' is an idiotic proposition. As soon as a state passes it, signs go up banning them everywhere. It's just a crazy bone tossed to the NRA. But BANNING handguns is not something that would work in the US of A these daze...

[Oeditpus Rex]

50. IBTTL!

(In before the trigger lock.) :D



But, to answer the question — though I strongly believe in registration of handguns, I would never support a ban on them. Although not categorically unconstitutional, I believe it would violate the spirit of the Second Amendment, and I'm a staunch Constitutionalist.

The Constitution aside, a ban would just lead to more chaos.

[Kazak]

For.

...wish the fuckers had never been invented in the first place.

[smirkymonkey]

200. I'm with you.

I just can't even get my mind around this nation's apparent lust for gun ownership. They repulse me. Then again, I am a city dweller and a pacifist, so maybe that has something to do with it.

[AndyA]

51. I think everyone should be able to bear the type of arms available when the

Constitution was written, and for the reasons noted therein.

Things like muskets for guns, and people being members of militias to protect and defend their country.

A jerk driving around in a pickup with NRA stickers all over it, guns crammed into the glove box, under the seat, above sun visors, etc., I don't believe is what the people who wrote the Constitution had in mind.

[piedmont]

55. Sure, and the right to free speech applies only to the printing press.

[AndyA]

61. You can't stick a printing press in your back pocket and kill

multiple people with it in the blink of an eye.

[piedmont]

75. Which is why if I ever have to deal with a home invasion robbery, I want a handgun nearby. nt

[krispos42]

190. Doesn't matter. It's what was modern when the Constution was made

The police will be by tomorrow to confiscate your inkjet printer.

[michreject]

153. You win the award

for the most hypocritical post in the thread.

[aikoaiko]

53. Against any handgun ban for the law abiding and any politician who would propose one.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

54. Against.

If Democrats bring this up, it'll probably cause a Republican majority in the Congress.

And, if the US banned them altogether (except for police of course, and prosecuting attorneys and judges, and maybe defense attorneys, and maybe aldermen, oh, and senators and representatives, and private detectives, and bank guards, and armored car crew, and big political contributors, and well-connected actors, and some categories I forgot), oops, where was I? Oh, yeah, if the US banned them "altogether", then the black market would explode with them, brought in from abroad.

How's that ban on drugs doing?

[Yukari Yakumo]

96. True

We'd lose the wavering Rocky Mountain states west back to the Repukes now that we got several parts of it turning purple. We can kiss the Senate good-bye for awhile and probably the House and the White House too.

At this current stage, we can ill afford to lose anything.

[krispos42]

191. There are 70 million of them in the country

Most of them, I would guess, would mysteriously vanish the day the ban took effect.

What handgun? :shrug:

And then starts the basement industry in making your own...



http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/

I've looked at the manual... it's astonishingly simple. Parts you can buy in a hardware store and assemble. Some drilling, some brazing, some grinding... ta-da! Full-auto submachine gun.

[Mythsaje]

56. Against

I consider the right of self-defense an ABSOLUTE human right, and forcible restriction of a means of self-defense for those who may have no other option is, to me, a reprehensible act.

That said, the only weapon I currently own is a sword, which I DO know how to use. Course, a 6 foot 200 lb man who knows how to use a sword is a formidable opponent for most criminals, particularly with a house full of dogs.

When I was young I was a proponent of such things until a conversation with a petite older woman (all of 30 at the time) made me realize that someone like her would be an easy victim for someone like myself should her best option for self-defense be taken away from her.

Firearms are a great equalizer and, yes, they do pose their own problems. But I'm not sure the alternative wouldn't be worse.

[ThomWV]

59. Against

[LSK]

62. For n/t

[OzarkDem]

64. I'm against discussing wedge issues

They tend to distract from the real issues like getting out of Iraq, the economy and the health care crisis.

[EFerrari]

65. I hate guns and I'm against a ban on anything but assault weopns.

I'd love it if a ban were put in but, on the other hand, I couldn't support one. :crazy:

[guitar man]

66. Against nt

[DrDan]

67. For

[Mark_Pogue]

68. Remember Virginia Tech???

[Az]

69. Yep

If licenses, training, and mental health checks were in place for gun ownership it never woulda happened.

[Mark_Pogue]

71. But is there a mental analysis test

that may project that person's future actions?

[Az]

79. To an extent

People with anger management problems present a potential danger if armed. Psychotic individuals represent a problem. All sorts of mental tests to measure one's threat. Past history. Criminal record. All are indicators.

[slackmaster]

86. Cho bought his guns in violation of existing federal law

If his court-ordered referral to mental health care had been properly reported by the state of Virginia to the federal government, he would have failed the Brady Act background check.

[Az]

98. Then we need to strengthen enforcement

:D

[slackmaster]

100. Affirmative

:hi:

[VTMechEngr]

132. Well look who's using the tragedy for political gain.

Disgusting.

[anakie]

70. for the ban

I also support a complete ban on all firearms but that is another matter. Over here in Australia, one of the big stories of the week is the shooting death of a good samaritan by a bikie with a semi auto hand gun. One murder and gun control is back on the agenda.

As much as I hate Howard I do support his efforts at gun control and am more than happy living in a society that does not have crazy access to firearms like you guys in the states.

Peace

[Fla_Democrat]

73. Against

:thumbsdown:

[sendero]

76. Don't agree...

... and it would accomplish little anyway. Handguns would still be here, just not in the hands of the law-abiding.

[Wcross]

78. Why even ask the question?

What would be the point of taking away law abiding citizens handguns? Will criminals obey that law?

[BlooInBloo]

87. So she/he can run & tell his *real* friends how anti-gun DU is.

[Firespirit]

80. Against a ban.

Make them harder for felons, domestic batterers, the mentally ill, etc., to get. I would definitely support a background check, but no blanket bans.

[Solo_in_MD]

83. AGAINST banning handguns

[Jamastiene]

84. The right to bare arms is a civil right.

That's why I wear tank tops. :P

I'm mixed on the issue of gun rights. I'd say it's definitely a civil right to keep guns, but I do believe tougher laws on keeping any guns a person owns safe and protected from those who would use them to do harm would be a better way to go. I'd be against banning all handguns.

[Mark_Pogue]

158. ????????LOL

[slackmaster]

85. How about a little honest clarification in your question, Mark? (Against, BTW)

You're not talking about actually banning handguns, you're talking to banning ownership by individuals.

Police and military would get to keep theirs, correct?

[Richard Steele]

88. Against. nm

[HardRocker05]

91. against. please. we need to promote personal responsibility, not blaming the gun. nt

[JVS]

92. Against

[Xithras]

93. Against n/t

[Maddy McCall]

94. Against.

Adamantly.

[B Calm]

95. Screw this! I'm a liberal with guns and still believe the right to own a

gun is a very liberal idea!!!

[Retired AF Dem]

97. Currently I own six handguns

Les Bear TRS $1750
Colt Series 70 re-issue $800.00
Colt 1991 Govt Model $500.00
S&W model 22 $700.00
S&W Model 27-2 $700.00
Glock model 21 SF $500.00

If handguns are banned will the Govt pay me $4950.00 that I paid for them? If not they can kiss off.

[slackmaster]

99. I have yet to see a serious gun ban propsal that would reimburse full value

I have about $7K worth of handguns myself.

[Retired AF Dem]

101. I have thinned out quite a few

These are my keepers for my remaining years.

[Fox Mulder]

102. FOR

[Retired AF Dem]

104. See post 101

Since you are for it should the Govt pay people the full costs of legally bought handguns?

[AlCzervik]

103. Against.

[tammywammy]

105. Against

I'm for enforcing current gun laws, not adding more.

[name not needed]

106. Against.

Law abiding citizens with no record of mental illness should have the right to own firearms.

[PVnRT]

107. *cough* flamebait *cough*

:eyes:

[Mark_Pogue]

111. Flamebait?? Would you prefer "Gardening"????

The issues of gun ownership is one that happens to divide us, as Democrats.
Should we avoid these issues to appease you?
I say a loud. "NO!"

[BlooInBloo]

113. As even a freeper can see from this thread, the issue DOES NOT divide us....

.... Though some "people" never seem to want to stop trying.

[Richard Steele]

117. Yes. "Gardening" is a much more socially appropriate venue for the spreading of manure.

One wonders- if you're so certain the issue DIVIDES us, why
are you so intent on focusing on it?

[Mark_Pogue]

122. Bad choice of words...on my part. Diverse or

diversity would have been more appropriate.

[liberalnurse]

108. I'm fully supportive of the Second Amendment.

I support guns because it is our Constitutional right. Yea, I have a gun if you are interested.

[Alexander]

109. Strongly against.

An idiotic idea.

[Zodiak]

110. Against n/t

[MasterDarkNinja]

112. Against

Gun ownership is one area I don't agree with the party on. I'm not a gun owner, but I see the benefits of letting people buy and own guns.

There's been times in the past where places in the US have made it a law that all adults (or adult men in older times) have to own a gun, and usually the law also says they have to carry it with them outside the house. The result was a greatly reduced crime rate because criminals didn't want to go after victims they knew were armed with a gun. (I'm not saying that we should force people to buy and carry guns around though, I'm just saying the effects caused by guns aren't all bad)

If you just banned all guns then criminals and other trouble makers would just sneak them in through the black market, or across the border illegally. I recall hearing a while ago, not sure if it's still true or not, that something like 90% of the guns that are used to commit crimes were acquired illegally by the criminal.

[Jed Dilligan]

115. Until the police stand down,

I'm against the citizenry standing down.

[qdemn7]

116. I ithink it would be the

Beginnings of the Second American Revolution or the Second American Civil War. And lots of Americans, and a lots and lots and lots, of politicians would end up very, very dead, very, very quickly.

[chknltl]

119. How would I feel????

:woohoo: :party: :pals: :party: :bounce: :party: :headbang: :party: :thumbsup: :party: :grouphug: :party: :woohoo:

Handgun advocates: Have you noticed how many crimes and accidental deaths and even crime preventions have happened with Star Trek Phasers? This is a statistic worth thinking about imo.

[qdemn7]

125. Send me a private message

When I can buy a fully functional Phaser. Until then I'll keep my handguns, thank you very much.

[chknltl]

130. Do you suppose you could get behind "Stun" versions only...

as opposed to the fully functional variety?...just trying to find common grounds here. What if that were the only versions allowed to anyone not in the military. Would that work? I am assuming we BOTH want to see the carnage decrease...

[alphafemale]

123. Against! nt

[lonestarnot]

127. Nope but am for

[TahitiNut]

129. Agin' it.

Don't own one. I want the choice.

[VTMechEngr]

131. Against n/t

[Nicole]

133. Against n/t

[NaturalHigh]

134. I'm against it.

Somehow, I don't think criminals will willingly give up their handguns, so why should law abiding citizens?

[Warren DeMontague]

135. Against. Dems don't want to take all the guns away. Meanwhile, the GOP wants to outlaw the pill.

That, I think, is a far greater encroachment on peoples' personal liberty, thankyouverymuch.

[raouldukelives]

137. Cheap ones sure

I'm all for banning cheap handguns. Keep the cost above $400 and only allow quality sidearms to be sold or manufactured in the states.

[invader zim]

199. Hope your not too po'

that's great unless your too poor to afford a 400.00 handgun. I guess only the rich deserve protection....:eyes:

Zim

[area51]

138. Against. (n/t)

[bamacrat]

139. Against, people should have the right to bear arms but..

I believe whole heartedly that automatic weapons should be outlawed, there is no need for them. They are fun to shoot but are of no use to regular people. Law enforcement and military only, the law enforcement part scares me but.. Handguns can help people protect themselves in instance of a break in much better than a rifle, while a shotgun is always good. But no they should be allowed per a real background check and licensing.

[scrinmaster]

140. Legally owned automatic weapons have only been used in two deaths

Since they were regulated in 1934. One was self defence, the other was a crooked cop, who would have access to automatic weapons anyway.

[eggman67]

141. Against n/t

[EnviroBat]

142. I'm aggin it.

But I would always opt to mace or taze an attacker if the option presented itself, except in the case of a home invasion/breakin. You're fair game for getting popped at that point.

[michreject]

143. Against the ban.....nt

[cgrindley]

144. That's crap

It would be a stupid move. Criminals do not own registered weapons. Better to make carrying mandatory.

[Hangingon]

146. solidly against.

[underpants]

147. For

[Beausoir]

148. For.

[LWolf]

149. Neither.

I'm against the idea that guns make people safe, regardless of who is holding the gun.

I'm against the use of fear as a political weapon in the gun wars as in any other political arena.

I'm against the irresponsible handling or use of any weapon by any human.

I'm for clarification of the 2nd amendment. Guns have changed quite a bit since it was written, no?

What, exactly, constitutes "arms?" What is the underlying purpose of the amendment? Given the underlying purpose, what "arms" are acceptable, and what are not?

Should governments be better armed than their citizens? I hope we aren't going to see smart bombs, dirty bombs, tanks, stealth bombers, etc. sitting in people's yards because of the second amendment. I also don't like the idea of my government's weaponry being up to obliterating dissent.

Personally, I see no productive use for handguns. You don't hunt with them. You don't shoot salt at maurading coyotes with them. Their only purpose that I can see is to bully people or kill people. As I wish to do neither, I'll abstain. I truly believe that the people who WANT handguns want them because they are fearful and need to feel more "powerful." Like the world is out to get them, and the gun gives them an advantage. Something they can pound their chests about because "You don't wanna mess with me." I'd like to see the human race evolve beyond the need to see others as threats, to be more powerful than the next person.

[Retired AF Dem]

162. Don't hunt with them?

Several states have a hand gun hunting season. Why do anti-gun people come up with such ridiculous statements as "I hope we aren't going to see smart bombs, dirty bombs, tanks, stealth bombers, etc. sitting in people's yards because of the second amendment." I wonder how many people can afford the 2.2 billion dollar price tag of a B-2 stealth bomber.

[LWolf]

163. As I've already clearly stated,

I'm not "anti-gun." Unless you are a gun-cult member who believes that anything short of worship for the gun is "anti."

Having lived rurally most of my life, grown up with hunters, been married to hunters, spawned by hunters, and now surrounded by hunters, I can honestly say that I've never known a hunter who hunted with, or wanted to hunt with, a hand gun. I do know some bow hunters. I guess if you want to hunt with handguns, and there is a "handgun hunting season," taking legal game, that's fine. I talk to hunters every day. I know when every hunting season around my home starts and ends, and what will be hunted. I need to; it can be dangerous to be out on my horse during deer season, for example.

I'd suggest that hunting is not the primary purpose of the handgun. I doubt it's the purpose that most handguns are purchased for, either.

My remarks about the second amendment were intended to spark a thoughtful conversation. I don't believe in blind obedience, or support, to any scripture, law, etc.; I think we ought to be looking at the source and the reason. I think visiting the purpose of the 2nd amendment, to make sure that it isn't corrupted in interpretation, is vital.

I also think questions about governments "outgunning" citizens are vital. It takes a great deal of trust in the political system to feel comfortable with that. Trust that is not exactly engendered by corrupt politicians and the corporate, big-money vice-grip on our government.

At the same time, it's obviously not realistic to expect citizens to own or carry the weaponry available to the government. That's a conflict. I don't think it's "ridiculous." I think it's important to address.

Can you get beyond the visceral reaction to "pro-gun" conditioning to actually read the meaning in what I said? Does the very idea/ideal of a world-view not controlled by threat and response to threat threaten you so much?

As I indicated, I am neither FOR nor AGAINST the banning of handguns. I've explained my pov pretty clearly, and suggested further conversation and debate into the larger issues involved.

Canned propaganda routinely used to combat "anti-gun" people just doesn't fit my points.

[aikoaiko]

173. Clarification from SCOTUS may be coming down the pipe

Recently, the DC District court ruled against DC being able to ban handguns outright, but its really silent on regulations.

Here is the 1st paragraph from the summary (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf):


This ruling stands in contrast to most other appeals courts and may force SCOTUS to address the issue once and for all. Both sides of the issue have reason to be nervous thought. The last time SCOTUS addressed teh 2nd Amendment was in Miller. In Miller v US, I think the courts implied that civilians should be able to own what the military uses. SO if Miller hadn't died and been able to convince the court that his short-barreled shotgun had a reasonable use in the militia, gun control would be very different in the US.

From Miller v US(http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/millervus.html):

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

[LWolf]

181. This is interesting stuff. Thanks for providing it. n/t

[geek_sabre]

150. Totally against

[-..__...]

151. Totally against.

(what a silly question).

Now... if we can only repeal the ban on civilian ownership of post-1986 machine guns... :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[ProudDad]

154. A ban on handguns in urban areas

would be a great thing.

But we aren't allowed to do it thanks to a few rabid gun nuts...

[ProudDad]

155. Changed my mind

If guns were banned those poor folks with penile insecurity wouldn't have a compensating mechanism...

God knows what kind of pathological perversions they'd choose to indulge in then...

[Mark_Pogue]

156. EXACTLY!!!

[aikoaiko]

171. Its funny how its usually the antigun folks who liken penises to guns

I just don't get your neuroses.

[slackmaster]

183. Even funnier how they're the ones who express a willingness to use violence

To get their way.

[Paladin]

192. Oh, Please

Your fellow gun militants are the real violence junkies, and you damned well know it. Just check out the current threads in the DU Gun Dungeon: citizens are ALWAYS justified in using deadly force on various intruders, regardless of circumstances. What to do if the government decides to take your guns away? Why, shoot the Jack-booted Thugs first, of course. What sort of firearms take up 99% of the discussions in the Gungeon? Pistols, assault-style weapons, and third-rate military surplus junk---all designed to kill people rather than game animals.

How many death threats have you received from gun control advocates over the years, Slack? I've gotten half a dozen from those espousing your side of the argument. And my side is violence-prone? Yeah, right.....

[slackmaster]

195. If you can accuse me of speaking for all gun owners

Then I say this DU contributor speaks for all gun control advocates:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2817870#2818239

How many death threats have you received from gun control advocates over the years, Slack?

Several.

[krispos42]

196. Mandatory penis joke. Like clockwork.

:eyes:

[Madspirit]

160. Guns, Guns Everywhere Guns

No, I wouldn't support the ban of handguns. If the government came I probably couldn't fight them off with any kind of gun. If Bubba the Pesky Klanman came, different story.

This is a funny issue. It's one of the one or two where I am on a different side of the people here that I am usually on the same side of.

...but I know Midlo forgives me. I'm a lesbian in Texas and luckily I live in a liberal town because I loathe and despise guns and so does my girlfriend. We don't have one. If I lived someplace that's Else, in Texas, as a lesbian who will not live in the closet, I want to be able to protect myself from Billy Bob who wants to show a lesbian what a Real Man can do for her.

...and from a pragmatic point of view, you would have a bloody revolution if you tried to take all the guns in this country. The US is swimming in guns. I would like it if they would do more about illegal guns, the ones most hard-core criminals use. The three biggest moneymaking crimes in the US are guns, drugs and the sale of people. That one's easy to google people. I don't want to break my flow and find you a site. I look this one up all the time. It will just take you a few seconds. Anyway, concentrate on getting illegal guns off the streets. That would make me happy.

Lee

[nonconformist]

164. Against. And I'm no fan of handguns.

The myth that most Democrats want to take away your guns is just that - a myth. The vast majority of them (myself included) just want current regulations enforced.

[Beelzebud]

165. Totally against. Want to keep losing elections? Push this agenda.

[Coexist]

168. this is a tough one...

I can see why urban dwellers want them banned, street gangs and thugs in overcrowded cities; all the crime and violence.

I can see why rural communities want to be armed with whatever weapon they feel they need; miles from help, even if they do call 911. They are pretty much responsible for their personal safety.

I would like to see a centralized NATIONAL database for checks to purchase weapons - and gun shows gone the way of the dinosaur. I also think that ammunition should be regulated at a national level. Let the hunters hunt, let the collectors collect, but give the thugs a hard time.

Florida is more gun-crazy than Texas - it is easy for violent criminals to purchase handguns - even after they have been incarcerated. We also have insane "shoot first" laws here that make vigilantes, and just plain pissed-off boyfriends, friends or wives, able to kill their "enemy" and mount a legal defense to justify taking that life (he/she surprised/scared/threatened me.)

It is a difficult, twisted, complex issue that a country this large and diverse will never be able to come to a consensus on.

[slackmaster]

169. We already have a centralized national DB for weapons purchases

...and gun shows gone the way of the dinosaur.

A gun transfer that requires a background check in a gun store also requires one at a gun show or anywhere else.

Here's the unvarnished, spin-free truth for you:

The big "loophole" in the background check system is that it only applies when the seller has a type 01 Federal Firearms License, i.e. someone who is in the business of buying and selling firearms and is duly licensed to do so (which is required by law).

As the law stands now, the federal government lacks authority to regulate occasional, non-commercial, intrastate sales of used firearms by unlicensed individuals. The National Instant Check System (NICS) which was created under the permanent provisions of the Brady Act, by law can only be used by licensed dealers.

Gun shows really have nothing to do with it. Here in California, generally all firearm transfers have to be done through a licensed dealer, so every transaction at a gun show (including used weapons) involves a background check - And a 10-day wait before the weapon can be handed to the buyer.

Now my carefully considered, informed opinions:

A national system that works like California's is politically unfeasible. However, it would be possible to tweak the law so that the background check system could be used by unlicensed people. Obviously there would have to be incentives to get people to use it, and safeguards to prevent it from being misused. I think it's possible.

We need much better enforcement of current laws.

[Coexist]

170. there are gun shows in my area ALL the time - they are alive and well.

and people talk about how they can bypass the checks easily at gun shows (sports bar talk) - how the dealers there will sell them to anyone. They just arrange to meet after the show.

Florida also gives guns to criminals who could not get them in other states - even concealed carry permits:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-gunmain28jan28,0,2918397.story?page=1

[slackmaster]

175. I think you are missing my point about gun shows

In California we've figured out how to have gun shows where every sale of a firearm includes a background check on the buyer.

...and people talk about how they can bypass the checks easily at gun shows (sports bar talk) - how the dealers there will sell them to anyone....

If a sale can be done legally without a backgound check, that sale can be done at a gun show or anywhere else, including a sports bar if the owner permits it.

If you think you've personally heard someone soliciting an illegal firearm transfer, did you bother to report it to the police?

...They just arrange to meet after the show....

If someone who agrees to meet another person somewhere else at another time to do an exchange of some kind, the existence of the gun show has in no way facilitated the performance of an illegal transaction. People offer guns for sale in newspaper classified ads. If the concern is getting people who share an interest in firearms together, that happens to be protected activity under the First Amendment; and there are plenty of other venues where people may meet and discuss firearms.

You should visit a gun show in California some time and see how it's done.

[Paladin]

172. I Call Bullshit, As Well

Gun shows have most certainly not "gone the way of the dinosaur." There are still lots of them around the country.

But even more egregious, Slack, is your claim that non-commercial, intrastate sales of used firearms by unlicensed individuals are just "occasional" occurrences. The number of such sales providing firearms to street gangs in this country---never mind the number of sales to law-abiding individuals---has to number in the hundreds of thousands. If it's not available already, the technology for tracking such private sales will be in place in the not-too-distant future, and, as usual, the gun activist movement will scream bloody murder about such a common-sense measure....

[slackmaster]

176. Wow, you really got off track on this one

Gun shows have most certainly not "gone the way of the dinosaur." There are still lots of them around the country.

I never said there weren't still a lot of gun shows. We even have them in California.

But even more egregious, Slack, is your claim that non-commercial, intrastate sales of used firearms by unlicensed individuals are just "occasional" occurrences.

Paladin, you really should go back and read what I actually wrote. Your comments don't follow logically from it at all.

[Paladin]

180. I Re-read Your Post #169, And I Invite Others To Do The Same

I stand by my comments. You can't state that gun shows have "gone the way of the dinosaur," i.e., vanished to the point of extinction, and then claim that "there are still a lot of gun shows." Looking forward to your standard lecture on advanced logic......

[slackmaster]

182. In no way did I state that gun shows have "gone the way of the dinosaur"!

I encourage anyone who cares to trace back.

Hint: The bold sentence is a quote from the post to which I was replying.

Looking forward to your standard lecture on advanced logic....

All you're going to get on this one is my standard lecture on reading comprehension.

:D

[Paladin]

189. My Reading Comprehension Error Is Understandable

Your "dinosaur" phrase looks like a bold-faced continuation of your subject line, exacerbated by your lack of comment regarding the current status of gun shows. My mistake, nonetheless.....

[slackmaster]

207. The only reasonable explanation is you didn't read the thread carefully

Your replies to my posts are often knee-jerk hostility without any regard for the content of what I write.

[Paladin]

211. Thanks, Slack, For That Gracious Acceptance Of My Error

Your kindness prompts me to admit yet another mistake I've made: Up until recently---very recently, in fact---I had some notion that certain DU gun militants were more intelligent, humane, and discerning than their associates, and thus were worthy of my respect. In this belief I was gravely mistaken; it's a mistake I don't intend on making again....

[Coexist]

213. "Thanks, Slack, For That Gracious Acceptance Of My Error"

:spray:
:rofl:

[Paladin]

214. Thankee Kindly, FLDem5 (n/t)

[lynne]

174. Against

[ldf]

177. against

and the sooner ALL americans learn that many "bleeding heart liberals" ALSO own guns, and have no intention of giving them up, the sooner one more "reframed" issue the rightwing will lose.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

179. AGAINST n/t

[krispos42]

184. They banned handguns in 1998

They banned so-called 'assault weapons' in 1989.

Their homicide and crime rates are at record highs.

Guns are not the causes of violence and criminal activity. It exists for causes that are independent of the rate of firearm ownership or the type of weapons owned.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf

The population of England is about 50 million, and of Wales is 3 million. Total, 53 million people, or one-sixth of the US population. Homicide rate is 1.55 per one hundred thousand people per year. This is one-third of the current US homicide rate of 4.5 per 100k/year.

40 years ago, the US homicide rate was about 6.0 per 100k/year, looking at the chart. So ours is down about 30% or so compared to 1967.



40 years ago, the homicide rate in England and Wales was 0.73 per 100k/year, looking at page 54. So theirs is up 100% or so compared to 1967.

Note that in 1989 the UK implemented it's ban on the sale and posession of assault weapons, and in 1998 it's ban on the sale and posession of handguns. So both the numbers of guns in the UK, and the 'death-spraying' assault weapons with huge magazines, pistol grips, and bayonet lugs also decreased.

Some DUers will note that the bans on assault weapons and handguns in the UK was not intended to fight crime or homicide, but to prevent a specific form of homicide, the mass shooting like at Dunblane or Hungerford. Some DUers also advocate extremely strict gun-storage laws with the stated intent of preventing thefts so as to reduce a major source of illegal guns for criminals.

It follows, then, that even if the UK assault weapon and handgun ban was not specifically intended to lower crime and homicide rates, it should have been a nice side effect. As should the 4 million police-monitored public-area surveillence cameras that have cropped up in the past couple of decades.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=973210#973603 and responses


I think it is the dumbest thing possible. If the Democrats are going to be kicked out of office for unpopular legistlation, how about it is for something that will actually help people, like Medicare for all, legalizing pot, or bringing back the Kennedy's progressive income tax brackets?

[porphyrian]

185. I think it should be a state or local matter, not a federal one.

Given the worldwide statistics, our problem isn't simply the existence and proliferation of handguns. In some places, like the big cities, that may be the best way to deal with the problem, but it punishes responsible gun owners elsewhere to make handguns illegal nationwide. Let people address their problems locally.

[Orsino]

186. Against.

If there were ever a political climate in which we should let the government ban our guns, this ain't it.

[Hosnon]

194. Against. Those that already break the law,

i.e., criminals, would tend to be the only portion of the population with handguns.

[Edweird]

201. Against. Some in England want to regulate KITCHEN KNIVES now, because

guns were banned and the criminals turned to knives instead. Criminals are the problem, not guns. If the problem were merely the guns, prison would be the safest place to be. But it isn't. People are raped and killed daily without guns or knives, simply because criminals kill.

[Codeine]

203. Against. It's nobody's goddamned business if I want to own one.

I don't own a gun, but that's not a decision I'll allow the Bush administration to make for me. If so many of our so-called "progressive" posters are willing to let the gov't make that decision for them what other Liberties are they willing to give up in exchange for a little more Security?

[JerseygirlCT]

205. I'd feel fine, personally. Have no use for the things at all

don't want to be anywhere near one.

[williesgirl]

206. Not with the way this country is going with criminals at the helm. We'll be real glad we have them

I'm afraid.

[txaslftist]

208. Against.

They take away your rights to defend yourself right before they build the concentration camps.

[buddhamama]

209. Against

it wouldn't stop illegal guns from being sold. law abiding citizens shouldn't be punished.

[Blue-Jay]

210. Against.

Couldn't be implemented anyway.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

212. AGAINST. EOM.

[benEzra]

215. Dead set against. My wife and I choose to own handguns, and we'll keep them.

We also own some small-caliber carbines that the repubs at the Brady Campaign don't like the looks of...and we're keeping those too.



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