It should be clear that gun control is a big fat loser for dems

[cali]

sorry, but that's been demonstrated repeatedly. The last thing we need next year is for dems to get caught in that snare. There's way too much at risk, and far more important issues: Dems should steer clear of it.

[spanone]

1. don't worry, the supreme court will put a gun under everyone's pillow.

[Virginia Dare]

7. I agree...

D.C. is going to lose this one. It will put handgun bans to rest for a long time.

[stranger81]

54. Exactly. No way did this far-RW court take this case to uphold gun control --

they want to eliminate all gun control, now and forever, and that's exactly what they're going to do.

[krispos42]

118. That makes as much sense as...

...saying that Roe v. Wade is making all women get abortions. Or Brown v. Board of Education is going to make all schools the same racially.

Halloween's over. Throw out the strawman.

[SteveM]

137. Not really: restrictions on both full-autos and CCW permits are probably constitutional (nt)

[Recursion]

189. There are plenty of right-wing gun control proponents

For that matter, gun control as we know it today started with Jim Crow laws.

Even today, I imagine if a black nationalist party demonstrated in public legally armed, like the Panthers did back in the day, there would once again be a conservative pro-gun-control backlash.

I sometimes take flak for constantly inserting race into the gun control debate but in this country racism and gun control have a history too entwined to extract from one another.

That's why I despise so strongly our party's attempt to persuade "hunters" (ie, rural and exurban whites) that we don't want to take their guns. We just want to take the guns from the (urban and black) bangers who, frankly, do need to own a gun more than the rest of us. The second amendment is not about hunting, and hunting is not at all a guaranteed right, nor is there a commonlaw or statutory history of its being one.

Given how eager Gonzo seemed to be to limit gun rights (you're in our mysterious no-fly database? no gun purchases for you, either, then!) I could see an Alito, Scalia, or Roberts going down that road too (neither of them, I think, are interested in seeing the poor black people in DC being able to defend themselves or rise up). They all seem to believe anything is justifiable in the quest to keep the populace "secure" -- why would this be any different?

[LibertarianAtheist]

231. and you make that sound like a bad thing

should we prohibit people from possessing anything which might hurt someone? How about we try banning alcohol again? And drugs. The drug war is working so fucking well, I mean it's literally so hard to buy an eighth of Marijuana, and when was the last time someone died from a crime involving drugs? Let's continue criminalizing everything under the sun. How about we don't punish 299,990,000 people because 10,000 people fucked up enough to kill someone?

[spanone]

234. it is a bad thing.

[LibertarianAtheist]

240. care to explain your point further?

i explained why i think it's a good thing for all gun control laws to be dead, care to explain why preventing law abiding and responsible people from owning firearms is a bad thing?

[derby378]

241. One point I would make - not towards prevention of ownership

Concerning NFA Class 3 weapons (full-auto firearms, 40mm grenade launchers, revolving-cylinder shotguns, etc.), I could still support a screening process for private ownership of such weapons based on an example from the 1930s.

When the Great Depression settled in, union organizing accelerated. Businesses and corporations began countering union activity, sometimes violently. "Law and Order Leagues," mercenary organizations of semi-professional strikebreakers, were often deployed against striking unionists. A lot of blood flowed, sometimes on both sides. It got so bad that some companies hired security guards to patrol the assembly lines with full-auto Thompsons in hand to help intimidate workers and prevent insurgency and sabotage. When FDR signed the National Firearms Act of 1934 into law, the same laws that applied to the common man in terms of machine gun ownership also applied to businesses - a $200 transfer tax applied to each and every NFA weapon, and no executive could justify that sort of business expenditure, although more than a few private citizens managed to scrape together enough cash to pay the fee and keep their weapons legal despite the weak economy at the time.

I do think that provisions of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 should be repealed - I see no sense in an arbitrary ban on the manufacture of full-auto weapons for the civilian market any more than I see any sense in the 1994 semi-auto ban. Just keep NFA in place and enforce the provisions, and all should be well. Or at least that's my take on things.

[Yukari Yakumo]

236. Ironically, if SCOTUS rules against DC, then it will end up helping us

By ruling against DC's law, the issue will be dead before the new year.

If they rule in favor of DC, gun control will very likely become a campaign issue. Unfortunately, it's an issue that typically does not favor Dems in swing states and newly purple areas.

[Alexander]

100. How is rescinding a ban on guns in the home putting a gun "under everyone's pillow"?

Enough with your straw man hyperbole bullshit already.

[madeline_con]

200. The 2nd Amendment does not require you to have one.

It just guarantees that criminals don't have exclusive access.

For now. Let's hope for the best.

[RB TexLa]

2. Don't know how much help it will be but my vote in the primary steers us away from it

:hi:

[seabeyond]

3. that is for sure. but majority of dems never promoted that. was NRA

that campaigned on that and really hurt the democratic party. i remember the bullshit i was hearing from the republican male population,..... dems want to take away guns like england and a whole ass story in that NRA fed to the group

[NeedleCast]

4. That's true to an extent, but

when candidates like Kucinich are handing the NRA ammo (if you'll forgive the pun) with lines like "I want to ban all handguns" they're be happy to use it against us. We should know how the Republican campaign machine works at this point since we've been facing an all-out smear war for decades. Our candidates need to be very careful what they say about gun control, because the right will happily take things out of context or spin it into "Democrats want to take your guns!"

[seabeyond]

28. yes... i cringe when he does that knowing he will never be elected, yet

that is what repugs will use to the people painting the whole party

[krispos42]

119. It was the slipperly slope argument

Which has merit. After the 1993 Federal ban was enacted, other states such as California, Massachusettes, and Connecticut did their own, non-sunsetting bans.

And do you really think that those states will EVER loosen up their laws?

Not likely.

[Wiregrass Willie]

5. I agree 100%.

Let's not lose the war over a small un-winnable battle. Next year we have a chance to flush the Republicans in a very big way -- once and for all. But if we waste our resources over this, we'll be lucky even to win the White House.

[Virginia Dare]

6. It doesn't matter whether the Dems make it an issue or not..

the Repubs will. I remember when (Bill) Clinton was going to grab everybody's guns...:eyes:

[frazzled]

8. Not for this Democrat

If you want to use fear of what the Republicans will say or do with the issue of gun control, then run your campaign on fear. We've been losing by letting them set the ground rules for years.

I live in Chicago. I can't tell you how many times I have cried in the morning reading the Metro section of the Tribune and reading about a senseless gun death--most often of a child caught in the crossfire of something. Like the little girl having her 7th birthday party and a bullet came through the window and killed her.

Just this week, a doctoral student from Senegal was shot down and killed outside his apartment--he had just finished defending his thesis in chemistry --- and was going to receive his Ph.D. in three weeks.

I know all the gun-nuts' arguments about the criminal not the gun. I am sick to death of them. If nothing else, we need to make guns as offensive to the general public as cigarettes: after all, they kill you a lot quicker and don't even go well with a cocktail.

So hug your gun and rest assured the Bush Supreme Court will make sure D.C.ers will once again be armed to the teeth. It makes me sick.

[derby378]

12. While I sympathize with your plight, seeing as you're from Chicago...

Isn't it true that gun-control laws in Chicago are very tight, yet you still have a myriad of problems with gun-related crimes?

I see this pattern repeating itself a lot. New York, Los Angeles, and many other cities where some guns are outlawed and others are heavily regulated are having problems with spikes in violent crime. Of course, some cities (like Dallas) are having their own problems with gun-related crimes despite more lenient laws, but if more regulation and control of firearms is the solution, how come it's not working in Chicago and LA?

Something needs to be done, I agree, but I think it's time for a little "outsude the box" thinking instead of the same ole, same ole that will still leave us where we started - complete with the obituaries.

[frazzled]

15. Local laws will never be effective when you can get a cheap gun next door ...

or through the mail. It actually makes it easier for criminal elements to get a gun outside the loop.

So you can run across the line to Virginia from D.C. or to Indiana from Chicago.

You know, most people don't like guns except for those owned by hunters and law enforcement. So why should we have to shut up about it? Because we're afraid of the Republicans?

I'm tired of having to run on the wrong side of issues because of poor legislation and electoral politics. Some honesty and innovation--and hard truths--are called for.

[BadgerLaw2010]

17. Gun ownership is also heavily restricted nationwide in Mexico, Brazil and Russia.

Suffice to say, those countries aren't exactly peaceful.

If gun control worked, there would be a political argument here, but there is just no scientifc proof backing up that it is the least bit effective.

[Xenotime]

66. Bullshit. It does work..

[EstimatedProphet]

92. And that proves what, exactly?

Funny that they never include Switzerland in their statistics.

[BadgerLaw2010]

108. And the US has free gun ownership, and much less violence than those restricted countries above.

Guns do not explain American violence.

Gun bans do not mean lower violence in the countries or the cities that have them. LA, Chicago and DC are still warzones, as are Brazil, Mexico and Russia.

[Yavapai]

157. yes,

If you add up the total gun related deaths in the USA with the total number of those killed in automobile accidents, it is still less than those killed by the medical doctors and hospitals.

When the sheeple wake up someday and realize that the only way to ever get back their Liberty back is by a revolution, they will say "gee whiz, I sure wish we only had some guns to do it with..."

Why do you think the framers of the constitution put in the 2nd amendment? For rabbit hunters????

[madeline_con]

201. Guns didn't murder them. People did.

Sorry to be so cliche, but they could have used any number of weapons. Don't blame murder on guns. Blame it on murderers.

editred 4 speeling

[karlrschneider]

19. Maybe it would be easier if you would stop BEING on the wrong side of the issue.

Just sayin'

[frazzled]

29. Nothing will ever convince me I am wrong on this issue

Smart national policy on sensible regulation of firearms is the right issue, and there's no way I can be bullied (especially by non-sequiturs) to believing otherwise.

Pointing to failures to prevent crimes in areas with local gun laws is hardly convincing. We are not islands.

We have tax cheats all the time--does that mean we should do away with tax laws?

No one has come forth with a convincing argument for why we need to allow certain types of weapons to be sold in this country or prevent certain types of regulation. And they won't ... though god knows the NRA has infested even message boards such as this.

There are many reasons for crime... passion and poverty and mental illness among the leading factors. And regulation of firearms certainly won't prevent all crime. But there is no reason not to enact legislation that would help to hinder it, even if it saves only one innocent life.

[Tejas]

42. perfect example of the subject at hand

"And regulation of firearms certainly won't prevent all crime. But there is no reason not to enact legislation that would help to hinder it, even if it saves only one innocent life."

And that legislation would be...?

[AZ Criminal JD]

47. Nothing will convince you including facts

I used to live in Chicago next to the Indiana border. You can't get guns by crossing the border to Indiana -- the laws don't permit it. You can't get guns through the mail -- as you said -- the laws don't permit it. You have your mind made up but you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

[EstimatedProphet]

95. Really?

And regulation of firearms certainly won't prevent all crime. But there is no reason not to enact legislation that would help to hinder it, even if it saves only one innocent life.

So your argument is that guns are bad, regardless? So bad that even actions that have no positive effect on controlling them and only act to remove constitutional freedoms should be done anyway, just because they're so bad? That's not an argument, that's an obsession.

[karlrschneider]

131. Fine, you might also consider that very many Democrats embrace their 2nd Amendment rights

every bit as much as Republicans do. This, contrary to DU conventional 'wisdom' is not a party-line issue.

[SteveM]

139. "convincing argument"? You said "Nothing will ever convince me I am wrong."

[mvccd1000]

197. You spoke the same words I feel.

"But there is no reason not to enact legislation that would help to hinder it, even if it saves only one innocent life."

I feel the same way. Do you know how many innocent women and children have been killed by airbags in cars? Those things can be deadly, and I propose that we pass laws to make them illegal. If we can save even one innocent life by getting rid of airbags, it will be worth it.



:sarcasm:

[madeline_con]

202. So, regulating firearm ownership will hinder

crimes of passion, poverty and mental illness?

Can you not see that "good guys" should be allowed means of self defense? The law abiding will be the losers when firearms are banned.

[2rth2pwr]

246. Outlaw all motor vehicles. It will be worth it if it saves just one

innocent life.

[WGS]

48. Through the mail?

Local laws will never be effective when you can get a cheap gun next door ...
or through the mail.

Who is selling guns through the mail? except to licensed dealers...?

[Tejas]

49. The mail is full of guns.

Interstate deals are done by sending the firearm to an FFL through the US Mail. FFL then does a NICS on the buyer, buyer takes posession. These type of transactions between law-abiding citizens take place every day.

UPS and FedEx are also used.

(hope that helped)

[Ghost in the Machine]

169. Yes, but the poster made it sound like someone could just go online

and buy a gun from guns-R-us.com or ebay or somewhere and have it sent directly to their home via postal mail. You can't do that, period. There are legal channels to go through, as you mentioned. You can't just buy a gun and have it mailed to you... as the OP suggested..

Welcome to DU :hi:

[slackmaster]

80. Licensed collectors can get curio and relic firearms through the mail too

:hi:

[Tejas]

87. gotta love those Nagants!

;)

[slackmaster]

89. And Mausers, Lee-Enfields, Swiss K-31s, M1 Garands...

And on and on and on until your credit card is maxed out.

Those $1,000 Lugers add up fast.

:argh:

[Tejas]

99. uncle! uncle!!!

I GIVE!

Gonna have a K-31 someday, hope to find something interesting under the buttplate!

[slackmaster]

79. Mail-order guns for the general public ended in 1968 with the Gun Control Act

You have to have a Federal Firearms License to get a gun that way now.

[Tejas]

85. actually...

For all intended purposes, it is mail-order. Send $ to an individual in another state, he sends the gun to you via a stopover at your local FFL. The FFL does not take "ownership" of the firearm, only temporary posession.
He then makes record of it's arrival in his store, and after a NICS check he simply hands the gun over to you. The FFL then records it's departure (you taking it home).

Sort of like having a parcel delivered "in care of".

In layman's terms, that's "mailorder". :)

[EstimatedProphet]

97. True, but the FFL has responsibility over the gun while in posession

So a convicted felon could still buy a gun that way, but the FFL that receives the gun has the responsibility to stop transfer after a background check. In that way, it really is no easier than the registration process at gun stores.

[beevul]

188. I call bullshit.

"You know, most people don't like guns except for those owned by hunters and law enforcement."

That statement, its just plain bullshit. Even here on DU half those polled own guns.

"So why should we have to shut up about it? Because we're afraid of the Republicans?"

Actually, if you support the brady bunch, your in bed with republicans...but you'll accept this and mislabel thier cause as progressive or liberal.


"Local laws will never be effective when you can get a cheap gun next door ...or through the mail. It actually makes it easier for criminal elements to get a gun outside the loop. So you can run across the line to Virginia from D.C. or to Indiana from Chicago."

You wanted " honesty and innovation--and hard truths"...well heres some for you. Lets see if you really want them.


Maybe those places...you know the ones that want to be so much more restrictive than thier neighbors...ought to either:

A)Take responsibility for thier OWN jurisdiction, and make sure that those things thier neighbors have but they dont want in thier jurisdiction, DONT get in to thier own jurisdiction.

B) Recognise when A is not achievable.

C) Stop blaming your neighbors for your jurisdictions failure at A or B.



And we can talk about that after you explain back up this statement:


"You know, most people don't like guns except for those owned by hunters and law enforcement."

[Recursion]

192. You mean the neighboring jurisdictions with LOWER CRIME RATES?

Yes, in DC you can cross the Potomac to Virginia, which has a significantly lower crime rate than DC and, if you can falsify documentation as a Virginia resident, purchase a handgun, and sneak it back into DC. If you wanted to.

More likely you'd buy it from the dealer on your corner (guns come up from Florida with the cocaine) and not have to worry about a false identity chain that could be linked to you.

And possibly most importantly, why should Virginia be punished for DC's inability to handle our crime problem? Virginia manages to have a much lower crime rate without resorting to a handgun ban. Maybe DC should look at what Virginia does rather than try to rope Virginia into doing what doesn't work for DC?

[BadgerLaw2010]

16. Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation after DC. Lot of good it does.

[cali]

13. Look, I'm not saying that communities shouldn't

be able to enact local gun control laws- though I'm not sure about D.C.'s. Has it been effective? Doesn't DC have a very high rate of gun violence? Will allowing law abiding citizens to possess guns up the violence? Are gun laws effective in reducing gun violence.

And stop with the gun loving crap- I do own a gun, but I actually loaned it someone who's heavily into target shooting 6 years ago. I don't give a shit if I ever get it back. And I want to point out that there's no reason for stricter gun laws in my state- we have a low incidence of gun violence and the laxest laws in the country.

[michreject]

38. It really supports your argument

When you use terms like "Gun nuts". It's as far as I read.

[Tejas]

43. Keep an open mind, somebody has to.

Though according to some, an open mind is all we "gun-nuts" have, so open that our brains fell out long ago LOL! Heck, a wry sense of humor around here goes a long way too ;)

[SteveM]

138. Judging from D.C.'s crime data, crims there are already "armed to the teeth."

But the law-abiding population is not.

Your analogy with cigarettes points up a problem with prohibitionist efforts: reliance on moral condemnation. If you keep condemning people with moral arguments, soon they will react. The language of the anti-gun interest groups throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s was so condemnatory and abusive that the "pro-gun" groups reacted with punishing effectiveness. Gays, ganja, guns, cigarettes, alcohol -- prohibition doesn't work. And culture war begets culture war.

You said you are "...sick to death of them." Of the criminals or the guns?

[Irreverend IX]

161. Chicago already bans all handguns.

And the people committing the shootings you mentioned almost all have prior felony convictions that would bar them from owning guns anyplace in the US. The gang warfare in Chicago will continue regardless of any anti-gun legislation that gets passed. The only way to stop the violence is to end the drug war, but no politician with any power is willing to touch that issue.

[Yukari Yakumo]

237. Ending the Drug War isn't the answer either

It would "help" the users. But they're not the problem.

But the pushers will find something new to make money off of. They're the real problem.

[LanternWaste]

9. Is there any major fire-arm legislation planned

Is there any major fire-arm legislation planned or on the Congressional calendar? Or a grass-roots push about to get underway?

I really haven't heard too much of this issue in the last few national election cycles-- including this one.

[Tejas]

34. yes, the motherlode

HR1022 already has 50+ co-sponsors.

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


Biden wants the '94 ban all over again.

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=286107

[wuushew]

35. Ha Ha this Congress is worthless

you greatly over estimate their ability to pass(or even vote on) legislation.

Where is the Byrd-Clinton amendment? Hillary said the IWR would be repealed last month. Where is Obey's war tax? Why do we still have an AMT?

[Tejas]

52. Never underestimate a fool.

I underestimated the Senate in '93. They (save for Sen. Reid and others) passed the AWB and the cost was paid in '94.

I don't underestimate them anymore.

[slackmaster]

82. HR1022 would cost me personally thousands of dollars

Lost value in firearms that would suddenly become impossible to sell legally.

Since I don't see any possible improvement in public safety coming from it, I have every reason to oppose it and none to support it.

The fools.

[SteveM]

142. Also HR1167 (by Cong. McCarthy, D-NY): the "No fly, no buy" bill...

In this proposed legislation, the "No fly" list established by the Bush Administration, will get you a free pass to "jail;" i.e., your name will be entered on the National Instant background Check list to further deny 2A rights. I believe a counterpart was introduced by Sen. Lautenberg (D-NY) allowing the same thing. According to the Second Amendment Foundation, the legislation was drawn up in Alberto Gonzalez's office so he would have the power to place more people on restricted lists without due process.

Many Dems' support of civil liberties is veneer-thin; but to carry the GOP slop bucket is craven.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. In your dreams, Cali! Americans everywhere know their only hope

are the Dems. You can keep your little band of SUV-driving chicken-hawks.

Anyway, Cheney did for hunting, what Bush has done for the right.

[cali]

14. what the fuck are you taliking about?

your post is nigh on incoherent. And sorry, here in my neck of the woods, hunting is still a big part of the culture- among liberal as well as others.

[Xenotime]

70. How can you be progressive and hunt? They don't go together.

[slackmaster]

83. Why not?

You're not one of those "You have to be a Vegan to be a progressive" types, are you?

(ETA For the record, I have fished but never hunted.)

[EstimatedProphet]

98. How can you be an environmentalist and not be concerned about animal overpopulation?

That's just ridiculous.

[cali]

101. I don't know where you live, but yes where I live

progressives can and do hunt. and I don't know who the hell you are to say that progressives can't hunt. Just how is it more progressive to go to the grocery store and buy meat from a factory farm? Are you saying you can't be a progressive if you buy meat from the local grocery store?

[CTyankee]

115. I think the issue is handguns, not rifles and shotguns.

It's interesting, the pro-handgun people often make the argument that an individual armed is ultimately able to resist a tyrannical government and those governments all over the world has prevented the citizenry from owning guns, so that proves it.

To which a response has been made: if you want rebel against the government you had better have better armaments than a handgun.

Recently, I have noticed more hunting activity by Dem candidates. Bill Clinton could pull it off but John Kerry sure didn't. He looked a bit odd in his cammo...

[benEzra]

123. Umm...H.R.1022 would ban the most popular rifles in America.

I think the issue is handguns, not rifles and shotguns.

It's interesting, the pro-handgun people often make the argument that an individual armed is ultimately able to resist a tyrannical government and those governments all over the world has prevented the citizenry from owning guns, so that proves it.

Umm...H.R.1022 would ban the most popular rifles in America, which is why the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was such a loser.

Only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter; the vast majority of us are nonhunters.

you had better have better armaments than a handgun.

We do. And the Bradyites are trying to take plenty of rifles and shotguns, too...

[CTyankee]

126. Really? Where are your armored tanks? Firepower to match that of the United States Army?

I know this is the stuff of exciting novels and such, but honestly, do you think your own private militias will prevail in such a conflict?

I am not being snarky here. I honestly wonder what your cache of weapons actually DOES for you in this argument? Now, if you are NOT talking about defending yourself against a tyrannical government, then you get into a crime argument, which arguably is also a public safety issue. Since my family was involved in a handgun murder, by another family member who kept a gun for "protection", you will have a hard time convincing me of your case. Is there another reason then for keeping weapons at the ready in one's home?

[benEzra]

134. Thoughts...

Really? Where are your armored tanks? Firepower to match that of the United States Army?

I am not being snarky here. I honestly wonder what your cache of weapons actually DOES for you in this argument?

It dramatically increases the amount of political capital and resources necessary to carry out a tyrannical regime. The Holocaust was largely carried out by lightly armed, unarmored policemen going door-to-door. That would be much less feasible in the United States--as would quelling the resulting insurgency. Most goverments are wary of starting civil wars, and the U.S. populace is one of the few remaining on this planet that would have a decent chance of waging a successful one. That is as true now as it was when "Publius" wrote The Federalist #46.

The Wehrmacht managed to deal with one ghetto that fought back (Warsaw); a hundred such, not likely.

Also, one does not need to be a lion in order to dissuade a lion from eating you; being a porcupine will often suffice.

Now, if you are NOT talking about defending yourself against a tyrannical government, then you get into a crime argument, which arguably is also a public safety issue. Since my family was involved in a handgun murder, by another family member who kept a gun for "protection", you will have a hard time convincing me of your case. Is there another reason then for keeping weapons at the ready in one's home?

I've written at some length on my reasons for owning guns, e.g. here. You probably will not agree, but it at least may illuminate where we are coming from to some extent.

BTW, my father had a "save" with a handgun in the mid-1970's, when I was a child. No shots fired; his would-be attackers saw he was armed, looked at each other, and left.

I am now 37; my wife and I are both quite competent with firearms, and have both been licensed by the state to carry same. Most of my coworkers and acquaintances own guns. I do not mean to minimize the tragedy of your family's situation--nothing can, nor should--but your family's experience is the exception, not the norm, of legal gun ownership, and someone who would do something like that has serious underlying issues that the majority of the population do not.

I fully understand and respect your choice not to own guns, but my wife and I have chosen differently--and we do wish to make that choice ourselves, rather than having it made for us.

[CTyankee]

140. I am glad your life was saved. It is not to your detriment, tho, to point to

the incidences of innocent life being taken by gunfire in our streets (and in homes, such as whathappened in my family). I will say, tho, that our country's hospitals have gained enormously in their knowledge of how to save people who arrive on their steps with GSW (gun shot wounds). This unfortunate and tragic fact has advanced the medical community's ability to deal with such incidences. It didn't help my niece; hers was a clean shot to her left temple. Her mother was in the room (also wounded, not fatally) and saw her daughter die before her eyes.

I don't pretend to be an expert on Nazi Germany, but it does seem to me that the Nazis were able to take over for a variety of reasons, not the least being a lack of enforcing laws that protect civil liberties, an overt play to the nation's anti-Semitism, and, most importantly, the huge build up of their armed forces. We have an even more hugely built up military comparatively than they did. I don't wish that retribution on anyone, and certainly not anyone on this board.

Well, I haven't read the FP since grad school, but I do recall that what Madison was essentially saying in #46 was that our new country had defeated Britain because of locally armed patriots, which was very true. And it was also true that the founders were revulsed by the idea of the tyranny of European countries "standing (federal) armies." That is quite clear. And quite a good idea at the time! How we can translate that noble and stirring passage (as I recall he rhapsodized about it and well he should, as he was trying to convince people to vote in a new federalized constitution!) to the reality of today is another argument, perhaps for another time.

[SteveM]

144. They're in the same place Iraqi insurgents keep them, right?

[CTyankee]

151. Yes, and I am so glad you brought this into the argument!

We are in a foreign land that has no real idea of what we mean by "democracy" and we are fighting a losing insurgency.

This is NOT my argument. I am arguing against the idea that our own,homegrown insurgents in some future, imagined, novelistic (altho terribly romantic and dashing they may be)holdouts against a tyrannous US government would have a hard time overcoming a huge military response.

The fact of the matter is that we WILL leave Iraq, sooner or later, because it is THEIR country, not ours. That is NOT the same thing...

[Tejas]

152. so........we all get a free AK?

Fully automatic right?



Sorry, not trying to peck at you but I'm a little bit lost here.

:)











(I could really use a break on ammo)

[CTyankee]

154. I hope I can help and am sorry I am so dense.

My point was that with our occupation of Iraq, we have a very different culture that we are trying to force into a mold of democracy. The insurgency there is against us being there. The forms of defense against us are meant to drive us out, which eventually will happen.

By contrast, I am saying that if people in this country try to use their individual cache of weapons against an encroaching federal government they would have a difficult, if not impossible, time, as our federal government has the military firepower to extinguish local opposition.

Does that help?

[Tejas]

163. yeah, pretty much.

I got kind've confused by the earlier "we are fighting a losing insurgency" part, I took that to read "the insurgents are losing"...then for some goofy reason from there on I couldn't get the pictures of all those free AK's we gave away out've my head.

Your post was not dense, y'all just talk funny up there and...er...oops

:)

[CTyankee]

166. No, my bad. I should not have written "losing insurgency." Ugh.

Also, if you are from "Tejas," or "Texas" so am I, so I guess I don't have any excuse for my imprecise English! I was born and raised in Dallas, but have lived in the Northeast since I was 21 years old (quite a few years!).

[Irreverend IX]

168. How would the US military deal with hit and run insurgents?

Domestic insurgency does not mean going toe to toe with tanks and bomber jets. If a fascist takeover and rebellion occurred, most rebels would snipe the fascist enforcers from afar, then run away and conceal themselves within the civilian population. If every fifth house in a typical suburb had a scoped rifle and someone skilled in its use, it would become a very unfriendly place for hostile military forces. This would devastate the enforcers' morale, and they wouldn't be able to respond with tanks, bunker buster bombs or any other multimillion dollar WMDs, since bombing neighborhoods flat would disrupt the economy trigger even more resentment among citizens.

[CTyankee]

172. Are we talking about a rational government here?

It seems to me that we fear the irrational government, such as we have been seeing with this administration, who would not fear risking the disruption of our economy over their own fear of losing their power. We have seen their irrationality on display in Iraq, aplenty!

Your "every fifth house in a suburb with a scoped rifle" is indeed a lovely concept, except that then the government calls in an air strike, in which case, your scoped rifles have little chance of survival, much less of success.

In Iraq, a scoped rifle in every fifth house will work in the long run. We will go home eventually, when we get tired and it is, after all, their country, not ours. It is the history of the modern world that native insurgencies always win against foreign invaders (where of course it didn't work with native Americans against Europeans in the new world, but that was because of the disparity of weaponry). But that is not what we are talking about here.

I know it is difficult to argue against such an ingrained affair of the heart that many people, maybe in love with Hemingway, have for this notion. So my argument seems heartless and cold to some people. I am not antagonistic to you, really. I see the idealism that drives you. But I just don't see it prevaling.

[Recursion]

194. I'm still confused

our federal government has the military firepower to extinguish local opposition.

One of the lessons of Iraq (and Vietnam, and Afghanistan, and the Philippines, and...) is that no amount of firepower is sufficient to extinguish local opposition.

For that matter, I think we hit Iraq much harder than any American administration or junta would ever hit America. And it still doesn't work. The more you attack civilian populations the harder they resist you. This has been shown time and time again and people just don't want to learn this lesson; that's fine with me on a discussion board, the problem is when these people start trying to plan wars...

[CTyankee]

210. But I was talking about our own government vs. our own population.

Foreign interventions are different and you are right, the insurgents win because they live there and the invaders eventually go home, as we did in Vietnam and will in Iraq.

Can our government actually "take over" in a military coup and use whatever means necessary to extinguish local opposition? I would love to agree with you but 1)you don't have a networked group large enough to rise up effectively against the firepower of the national defense establishment, and 2)if Katrina is any example for us, our federal government is quite willing to let masses of people either get killed or displaced and scattered. I I never thought I would see bona fide heroes get destroyed, as the Wilson's were and Kerry's political fortunes were, by their own government. I never thought we would ever have a government run by people who believe that the environment doesn't matter because we'll all be caught up in the rapture and, to quote Keynes, in the long run we're all dead.

I know you are acting in a fine tradition of defense of liberty. I wish you well and that you have peace.

[EstimatedProphet]

223. Actually, I want a Thompson

[Tejas]

229. you don't want much do you

priced .45 ammo lately?

YIKES!

[EstimatedProphet]

230. And a reloader. Yeah. A Thompson and a reloader.

:)

[Yavapai]

160. own private militias will prevail in such a conflict?

"I know this is the stuff of exciting novels and such, but honestly, do you think your own private militias will prevail in such a conflict?"


Well, lets see now, North Viet Nam won in a gorilla war. It kinda looks like Iraq is holding it's own in a gorilla war. If I remember correctly, those peasants of the first American Revolution did OK against the most powerful army in the world. Hey, it happened in Cuba also.

[CTyankee]

170. Well, let's look at them case by case.

Please, first of all, it is "guerrilla" war, not "gorilla." Different, you know.

In all of your cases, you are speaking about a native people fighting invading forces. Vietnam was one country divided in two by France and later enforced by the U.S. Iraq of course, is the same sort of thing. Cuba was fighting a government set up by the U.S.'s corporate interests and fueled by native resentment into the intrusion and exploitation by the U.S. into their own country.

As for our revolutionary war, our early founders wanted initially to settle the dispute with England, our parent country, but could not, given our differences with their imperialistic impulses versus our own interests as a new colony. Ultimately, our own interests grew and we diverged from their exploitative and arrogant rule and we drove them out of our new found land. They were then a foreign force and, far from home, had to withdraw. This is the fate of all empires who seek far flung exploits, from Athenian League Greece, to Rome eventually, and on and on.

So here is the difference. If we are talking about an insurgency in our country versus our own country's military, it is a very different thing. The controlling power has no incentive to pull back and leave, as with Britain with the American colonies across the Atlantic Ocean. Our central government can and will crush any challenge to its power. In a way I love the concept you seem to advance -- ah, the romanicism of the individual patriot bravely defending against the overpowering force of the U.S. government ("we'll take to the hills and live off the land!), but it isn't going to happen that way. Sorry...

[Yavapai]

174. Yes, of course it would,'t work here.

"Please, first of all, it is "guerrilla" war, not "gorilla." Different, you know."

Thank you for the correction, I did indeed mean Guerrilla.

You must be right, an insurgency here could not hope to work, but I can dream can't I? Now when trains can't make it in and out of the heartland because of a few missing spikes and L.A. (pick your favorite metropolitan city here), doesn't have any electricity because the towers fell over, and all the natural gas went "poof" in the desert there might be some rather peeved folks there. Oh, and did I mention fiber optic cables? Microwave signals sometimes fade for a minute or two, but fiber optic fades are such a nuisance, aren't they?

Now, to dream on, when they send people out to fix these minor problems they will surely have to put some army folks there to protect them and then they will have them guard all the miles between the generators and users. Ditto with the fiber optics cables,rail lines, microwave hops, radio sites, commercial radio and television sites, gasoline and natural gas lines, and that is just off the top of my dreaming head. That is really a lot of Army folks stretched really thin. Like say a few hundred times the length of the USA/Mexican border. We all can see how well we are able to protect that, can't we?

Lets see now, People living in the big cities might be just a tad upset that they can't go for a joy ride anymore because the gasoline shortage making gas $40 a gallon but Pizza is OK, because you can just walk to get it (oops, I am so sorry, no dough!). Can't use the ATM? Hum-mm? Must be because the microwave or fiber optic fade causes a long delay between the banks central database and your local machine. Summer = no Air conditioner, winter = many blankets.

Gee, think there might be a bit of overwrought political pressure anywhere?

BTW, many of us gun-toting, ammo hoarding, country bumpkins are self-sufficient with solar panels, wells, gardens and a whole lot of firewood stacked up for the next three years. In other words, if and when it comes, I can shoot and eat a rabbit, deer, elk, or even a Javalina. City folks will be demanding some changes from all those politicians who "just want to serve the public". Hell, we might even see a million man march on Washington, with ax-handles, guns, knives, ropes and anything else they might deem necessary to get their point across.

But back to reality, it could never happen here!

[Recursion]

193. Private militias

do you think your own private militias will prevail in such a conflict?

Ever heard of a certain cakewalk we were promised?

Militias armed with small arms can and do stand up quite well even to technologically advanced armies.

[CTyankee]

211. Yes, worked fine in getting us out of Vietnam and will eventually in Iraq.

Those are foreign lands.

I know you feel very strongly about your security and freedoms. I wish I could agree with you in a way, but I do think you are tragically misguided. However, your passion and your commitment are admirable and for you, most likely, the only way your conscience demands that you act. I don't quarrel with that.

Va bene e pace...

[Recursion]

219. The foreignness, inexplicably, seems to matter a lot to you...

I guess all i can say is I disagree. The foreignness makes Iraq and Vietnam more "winnable" for us because our soldiers feel less sympathy for the insurgents. If the US ever had a full blown insurgency/revolution again, I would suspect that just like the last two times a good bit of the military would join it.

[madeline_con]

203. Have you seen what a group of guys with improvised

weapons and rifles have done in Iraq?

Take out the RPGs, they're still a formidable group to contend with.

[Recursion]

205. You make the RPG's in your garage, along with the IED's

Hell, if I can find some C4 I could make an RPG right now...

The problem is, grenadiers and fusiliers need riflemen to protect them while they do their work.

[madeline_con]

206. Then, we'll have everything we need for the revolution. n/t

[Tejas]

228. where would the UN stand on this? n/t

[Sanctified]

218. You don't need Armored tanks to overthrow a Government.

And you don't need firepower to defeat the US Army, Castro did not have tanks and the Insurgents in Iraq do not have firepower.

[BadgerLaw2010]

110. Good luck ever winning an election without the Midwest states.

[Recursion]

175. Wow. Thanks for letting me know I'm not progressive, Xenotime!

And all this time I thought that working for GLBT equality, racial equality, labor rights, and gender equality made me progressive. It turns out that my hunting deer apparently undoes all that. Thanks for letting me know!

[fishwax]

198. how do you figure?

[dysfunctional press]

212. what makes you think that progressives don't eat meat?

:shrug:

i LOVE the stuff.

[Dr. Strange]

112. cali, I ran the post through the Babelfish translator.

Here's what I got:

Cali, you are dreaming! Democrats are the only hope for Americans across the planet. You may continue to associate with your cadre of SUV-driving chicken-hawks. My hamburger lacks pickles. Besides, Cheney is proceeding to do for hunting what Bush has done for the right. And it makes my pancakes whither.

Hope that helps.

[SteveM]

143. Here too! I just got a deer and hope for another this weekend.

[barb162]

190. That's unfair.

I don't know where the SUV and chicken hawks crowd (s?) gets into this. And I doubt most hunters stopped hunting after the Cheney shooting incident.

[mainegreen]

11. Yes, they should.

[wuushew]

18. You understand that this could be a case of one sided politics?

For reasons known only to themselves the SCOTUS chose to accept a political hot potato during an election year. I assume even if the Democrats talk about the real issues like health care and Iraq an unsatisfactory 4-5 ruling would scare the shit out of gun owners in key swing states.

The Dems are blameless in this battle. Also if D.C. can't regulate handguns then I want my two extra Senators and one Representative in Congress now please.

[mvccd1000]

20. DC didn't regulate handguns, they banned them. nt

[karlrschneider]

21. So did Virginia Tech.

:shrug:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

22. Good luck with that statehood thing ..

It might be easier to just roll it into Maryland, pick up a rep or two.

[Recursion]

195. I wish there were a "Democracy for DC" topic board...

Recession is a commonly proposed solution; the biggest problem is neither Maryland nor DC seem to want it.

The original southern half of DC was receded back into Virginia (it's now Arlington County and the City of Alexandria), but that was something both the residents and Virginia wanted (indeed, one main argument was the lack of Congressional representation for the people living there, and at that time "Washington County", the non-federal part of northern DC, didn't have much of a population at all).

[beevul]

105. One job of the SCOTUS...

"For reasons known only to themselves the SCOTUS chose to accept a political hot potato during an election year."

One job of the SCOTUS is to settle matters wherein matters of constitutional interpretation are split within the circuits.

Thats what there was, and IS. A split. Thats one reason the case was granted cert.

[-..__...]

133. And both plaintiff and defendent petioned the court to hear the case.

The new term begins in October. To the best of my knowledge, they can't carry over a pending case to the next term.

If the SCOTUS planned it this way as the poster suggests, that would be one humdinger of a conspiracy theory.

[mdmc]

23. can we win without the anti-gun nuts?

My sister and B-in-L used to be con / moderate Dems.
Now they have two kids.
They support gun ownership, but are passionate that gun violence must be stopped.

They are very courageous and will be voting against the NRA. Since they live in NYS, they will most likely end up voting third party, knowing that their electoral vote will go to HRC.

When gun violence negatively disrupts your life, you become an advocate. Electability is not much of an issue for those that are on a crusade.

[wuushew]

25. It would be very hard without Ohio

of course the almost certain recession next year will make a Republican victory in the rust belt less likely.

[mmonk]

24. It's because there is no reasoned debate on the issue.

I'm not one to fear debate. But I know the party is.

[marmar]

26. As much of a gun-control advocate as I am, I've got to agree - it's a loser of a political issue.

Thomas Schaller, author of "Whistling Past Dixie," makes this point, that Dems should leave gun control alone to win over those Midwestern and Western states that are ready to go blue.
Gun control works best as a localized issue in the big cities of the Northeast, Great Lakes, Midwest and West.

[Beausoir]

27. Not for me!

[devilgrrl]

30. Why do you say this? Have the Dem's been obsessing about gun control lately? Or...

did you just pull this out of your own ass to be deliberately provocative?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[devilgrrl]

45. Oooh ouch! Don't hurt me like that!

BTW, who needs google when we have you? :sarcasm:

Also, I did bother to read at least one article in relation to this upcoming ruling. There is no mention of Democrats within this article in regard to making "gun control" an issue. Therefore, my snark still stands. So stuff it in your piehole!

[SteveM]

148. If Dems were not "obsessing," then why this massive response?

[devilgrrl]

224. Why the massive response? Because it's flamebait...

:popcorn:

[Cha]

31. It's clear that the reslugs

use it as a giant wedge issue cause they have nothing. And hunters and gun people are led to believe that gun control applies to them when nothing could be further from the truth. It's the killers on the streets that shouldn't have access to all those high powered snipe shooter rifles or whatever they're called.

Alas, gun control seems to be the least of our problems.

[Tejas]

36. Brady analogies hurt us too.

"And hunters and gun people are led to believe that gun control applies to them when nothing could be further from the truth."

No disrespect meant, but Biden's current dream and HR1022 do indeed pose a threat of gun control to any gun owner, including hunters.

As long as either plan is on the table, it/they exist as a tool.

[Cha]

40. Oh really? Well, I say Biden

should mo' better then.

Who knows who may need a gun in this 1984 society?

[Tejas]

46. Not sure I understand...

I'm saying we should take the tool away.

ie: Drop the gun ban stuff like a bad habit (which some on the hill have developed).

[Cha]

53. Then we're on

the same page.

[virginia mountainman]

145. WOW....

Do you realize, the "assault rifles" you are want to ban are, in the grand scheme of things, relatively UNDER POWERED??

Their is MUCH more "killing power" in a turkey hunters 12 gauge shotgun.

Not to mention many deer hunters rifles. They ECLIPSE the smaller AR-15 style weapons in power, and range...matter of FACT, it is ILLEGAL to hunt Deer, and other medium sized game with most of the "assault weapons" because they are NOT, powerful enough to insure a clean kill.

Matter of fact, THE most effective common "man stopper" caliber out their IS, the 12 gauge. it is widely available, ......and CHEAP

Please think before you hit send.....

[loyalsister]

173. power......

I assume it is in reference to "capacity to kill."
Capacity to kill can have two meanings.
It can require a lot of firepower to kill a single entity.
Or, there is the instance where a lot of firepower is needed so that a lot of entities can be killed in quick succession.
Many people have less problem with guns designed for the first purpose and a big problem with guns designed to suit the second instance.
Legitimately so IMO as we have see that attractions to those weapons have turned into some frightening episodes.

Wanting to make sure the alcoholic down the street doesn't have easy access just seems sensible.

[Recursion]

177. And "assault weapons" are neither

Or, there is the instance where a lot of firepower is needed so that a lot of entities can be killed in quick succession.

You seem to be dishonestly implying that assault weapons have some high rate of fire compared to non-assault-weapons. Why would you imply such a lie?

[Thothmes]

233. Assault weapons

they do have a higher rate of fire. True assault weapons have full automatic fire function. Pull the trigger and the weapon fires until you release the trigger or the magazine is empty. This can be as high as 600 or so rounds a minute. non-assault weapons at best are semi-auto, one trigger pull, one shot. Every hunting rifle I have ever seen is a bolt action rifle with at best a five shot magazine capacity.

[Recursion]

235. No no no no no no no no no no no!

True assault weapons have full automatic fire function.

BUZZ. False

Any other myths you'd like to spread?

[virginia mountainman]

187. You still don't get it...

A hunter, using a 12 gauge shotgun, loaded with "oo" buckshot, is one of the most fearsomely equipped persons you will ever meet, he potentially carries in his hand, MORE firepower than many of our soldiers do.

His "common 12 gauge" Will unleash 9, .30 caliber projectiles, with EVERY, pull of the trigger...this is using the common "00" buckshot load, actually, it is a moderately powerful load, their are much more powerful ones.

An AR-15 "semi automatic" assault rifle, will only unleash 1, much smaller ".22 caliber" projectile, with every pull of the trigger.

Also, realize, Shotguns, can hold up from 6 to 9 shells, depending on model.... compared to the much more common 30 rnd magazine for AR-15 style rifles.

I would be much more worried about a man with a Mossburg 930 shotgun, loaded with 8 shells of "00" buckshot, than the same man with an AR-15 rifle in ANY close encounter.

do the math 8 x 9 = 72 large projectiles, with 9 pulls of the trigger, sent toward the target....


Now tell me, what public good, will banning a small caliber "ugly" rifle be??
VS...

The AR-15. with the 30 much smaller projectiles with 30, pulls of the trigger..

[loyalsister]

242. Sorry

It's all about gun porno and DU is full of it. I think that the guns that people want because they are showpieces are the guns that are in demand.
I have heard talk about wanting to mount them on cars so that they don't have to deal with bad drivers. The people who are drunk over these showpieces are some of the most scary gun owners.

As the saying goes people kill people.

[virginia mountainman]

244. So do swimming pools, but you don't want to ban them...

Gun Porno?? What is that? WHERE is that?

Who said they wanted to mount them on cars??? No one I know of has

You seem to be talkin' about alot of things you know little about...

[loyalsister]

245. Gun porno...

Gun Porno?? What is that? WHERE is that?
I have said for a long time that the thing that bothers me most is not so much people who are interested in guns for utility but the gun culture.
This mass that has felt it so necessary to create a paranoia form this organization that has inspired an industry that supports a demand and growth while the interested customers drool.

Who said they wanted to mount them on cars???

One person I know of visiting a hospital who said they would rather order food than drive into the small city after they asked a candy striper type person where to get food other than the hospital. Not until he could mount his gun on the hood of his car, that is. I know there are more stories like this out there. I am not offering this as evidence. Only an example of how a person thinks of a gun as a convenient option. Fantasy or throwing it out. The idea is the point.

This is a story I heard, of course, but another anecdote is the person who started reading that crap and developed an inspiration to sleep with a loaded gun under their pillow.

[virginia mountainman]

249. I see...

You can extrapolate one conversation to cover ALL, gun owners, and ignore facts that refute you...


WOW, The "Brady Campaign" don't even try to do that.

[benEzra]

221. I think you've been spun...

I assume it is in reference to "capacity to kill."
Capacity to kill can have two meanings.
It can require a lot of firepower to kill a single entity.
Or, there is the instance where a lot of firepower is needed so that a lot of entities can be killed in quick succession.
Many people have less problem with guns designed for the first purpose and a big problem with guns designed to suit the second instance.
Legitimately so IMO as we have see that attractions to those weapons have turned into some frightening episodes.

Wanting to make sure the alcoholic down the street doesn't have easy access just seems sensible.

IMO, I think you've been spun somewhat. Small- and intermediate-caliber rifles are NOT a crime problem in the United States and never have been, nor are they highly represented in mass-shooting incidents.

According to the FBI, twice as many people are murdered each year using shoes and bare hands as using all rifles combined.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Note that that percentage is for all rifles combined. Tell me again how small-caliber rifles with modern styling are such a crime problem in the United States...

Wanting to make sure the alcoholic down the street doesn't have easy access just seems sensible.

Whether or not a rifle has a handgrip that sticks out has nothing to do with its potential for misuse by an alcoholic.

It's not alcoholics the Bradyites are after; it's people like my wife and I, who don't drink, don't use drugs, are both college educated, and have records so clean that we squeak when we walk...

[loyalsister]

243. yeah yeah yeah

Those statistics are not the point in my argument and I would hope you would understand that.

There was no assumption that every person who has a murderous thought and tries to acquire the guns noted actually goes through with the crime.
It seems the point of a gun or would guarantee the most certainty with least amount of effort. How about some stats on the success of intent and the weapon?

The thing about alcoholics and guns and is that when they get in on this gun blazonry bullying I that comes from the gun lobby they feel right at home and very comfortable with a loaded gun under their pillow.
As soon as a person I know hooked up with someone with an NRA subscription that's exactly what happened.

[Cha]

199. I wrote..."killers on the

street shouldn't have easy access"..no need to freak out.

[Recursion]

176. Hunting is by no means a guaranteed right. Gun ownership is.

And hunters and gun people are led to believe that gun control applies to them

Less than a fifth of gun owners hunt. And hunting has not ever in commonlaw been seen as an unfettered right (in fact, it was very difficult even for a freeman to hunt in historical England).

Incidentally, so-called "assault weapons" are frequently used by hunters.

That surprises you because you probably don't know what an "assault weapon" is, but you're still more than happy to keep people from owning them.

It's the killers on the streets that shouldn't have access to all those high powered snipe shooter rifles or whatever they're called.

Really? Find me an example of a murderer using a "high powered snipe shooter rifle" or anything remotely like that (I think I know what you're talking about).

Rifles are simply not used in crimes. Pretty much at all. Why do you want to ban them?

Why do you insist on banning things you clearly don't know the first thing about?

[Basileus Basileon]

33. If it were up to me, I'd ban handguns. But I know it isn't up to me, so

I'd rather the Dems not push gun control.

[Tejas]

39. I'd rather ban criminals.

Um, oh wait a sec :)

[Basileus Basileon]

41. If we outlaw crimes, only criminals will commit them!

Wait...

[Tejas]

37. great thread for the GUNS forum

Your subject has been brought up there before but there are some new takes here that are very interesting.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

44. The hard-core gun nuts still now and forever will believe the Dems are gun grabbers

The ones I know are anyway. They've never voted for a Dem and never will because Dems are the anti-gun party. Dumbasses.

What I worry about on this issue is that it may bring some of the disillusioned Republicans to the polls who otherwise may not have voted in 2008.

I agree with you on this issue, cali. Dems should steer clear of gun control in 2008. We have nothing to gain with the issue and everything to lose.

[WGS]

67. Perhaps

a good starting point would be to stop calling gun owners "gun nuts" and "dumbasses." There are a great many gun owners in this country who are Democrats and there are also many Conservatives who are tired of the current situation and might consider voting Democrat this time around, many of them are also gun owners.

The name calling and sterotypes are not helping the cause.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

94. You're jumping to conclusions

Not all gun owners are gun nuts. However, all gun nuts are beyond reason.

[Tejas]

102. clarification?

So as to be on the same page, you feel a "gun nut" is...?

Just trying to understand.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

111. As I said

The people who believe that the Democrats will steal their guns. No amount of reasoning will daunt them. I know the type personally.

During the Clinton era we had one quite eccentric one who dove about town in a white van with the neon spray painted message which read, "Clinton is anti-gun and will take away your Constitutional right to bear arms. A well armed society is a peaceful society." There was actually quite a bit more and some bible verses also, but that's all that I can recall exactly. He had a small following, but luckily most just thought he was nuttier than an expensive fruitcake.

Then I also know another person who has stockpiled ammo and firearms and keeps a supply of MREs for the eventual fight he knows is coming when they come to remove his guns. The very fact that he'd willingly eat MREs rather than conventional canned food is proof enough to me he's crisp. He's not as eccentric as the first one I mentioned, but he does belong to a survival group who he says all believe as he does. I don't actually know if that's true or not, as I've not met the rest of them. They do, according to him, go on "maneuvers" regularly however.

I also know people who insist on keeping loaded guns handy near the main doors into their house, even though they have small children and the guns are well within their reach. If that's not a classic example of a dumbass, I don't know what is.

[Tejas]

116. shoot!

I don't even rate on your scale. But that's a good thing, right?

:) :) :) :) :)

I keed!

I keed!

Naw, thanks for explaining your personal definition, much too easy to take things the wrong way out here (imagine that).

;)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

127. I'm really about responsible gun ownership

That's really what I care about.

I keep my firearms safely locked away from children and potential thieves. I've taken a firearm safety course and try to always be an example of responsible gun ownership.

In other words, I'm not a nut. :P

[CTyankee]

120. I know so well. My neice, age 24 and recently married, was killed by a handgun wielded by her

stepgrandfather. He had gotten drunk and started shooting (the gun he kept for "protection"). It was incredibly sad; the ushers at her wedding became her pallbearers at her funeral.

This happened in my hometown, Dallas.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

130. That's heartbreaking.

There's no excuse for what he did, drunk or not.

Alcohol and guns don't mix. Period.

The world would be a better place if some weren't allowed near either. :(

:hug:

[CTyankee]

132. Unfortunately, there was nothing to stop him, so she died. n/t

[WGS]

109. There you go again, using that term.

Define a "gun nut" Thanks

[Lone_Star_Dem]

113. LOL!

See my post above. I'll use that term where ever I see fit as I see fit. :D

[OzarkDem]

50. All wedge issues should be avoided

and voters are less likely to be swayed by them this time around, when the poor economy and growing unemployment are affecting so many more of them.

[stranger81]

51. That's right, stick to repug talking points. Nothing controversial.

Last thing I'd want my Democratic representatives or nominees to discuss is an issue that's important to Democrats.

If we look, act and talk like republicans, they'll vote for us, won't they?

Maybe that hoped-for RW influx will make up for all the actual Democrats the party drives away in the process.

[Tejas]

55. Confucius say: cut off nose make glasses fall down.

Gun control cost seats in '94, to ignore that possibility in '08...well.

By the way, the OP stated that there are "far more important issues".

[stranger81]

59. This isn't 1994.

What's the point of accruing power for the Democratic Party if it's not to be used to forward a Democratic agenda?

[Renew Deal]

62. Is Gun Control really part of the Democratic Agenda?

Here's what I found in the 2004 Democratic platform:

We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

That's the only reference to guns. The platform defines two very specific agenda items which are "reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole."

Those are quite limited items.

[Tejas]

69. ...and a B-52 will fit in my closet.

Your highlighted text is exactly what the problem is.


"Those are quite limited items."

Please, you're joking, right?

[Renew Deal]

71. Not at all

Those are limited when considering the breadth of potential gun rights issues. The platform names two very specific agenda items. There's nothing about rights, qualified ownership, registration, safety, etc. That's not a coincidence.

[Tejas]

75. Your "narrow limits" vs the election results of '94

If you'd rather have pistol grips outlawed than have a Democratic success in '08, then by all means do your part.

History showed us the err of getting on the AWB bandwagon, yet there are 57 on the hill lining up to jump under the bus...and the Republicans will sit back and watch the melee on election night.

[Renew Deal]

77. I'm not sure where the confusion is.

I think we agree.

[Tejas]

91. if so, then my bad

"reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole"

That part of the platform is what chaps my butt and has Republicans salivating. Keep it in there and (possibly) assure doom at the polls.

[benEzra]

117. "Assault weapons" is as narrow as banning "all abortions after the 12th week"--i.e., it's NOT.

in other words, it isn't narrow at all. That was the mistake that gun-404 party strategists made in '94--failing to understand the demographics of lawful gun ownership in this country.

Currently, "assault weapons" include the most popular civilian target rifles in the United States. More people own "assault weapons" than hunt (only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter). See the problem?

[stranger81]

72. While it may be a limited provision, these restrictions are important.

And if Democrats like the OP have their way, they will no longer exist.

Why should we, particularly with the level of momentum the party has now, back off of ANY of the core portions of the Democratic platform to make nice with republicans?

[Renew Deal]

73. We should not back off.

We should consider the societal and political effects of our actions. Do people support the AWB enough that it won't cost us power and hurt us in other areas? Will this truly help people/society? I don't know what polls around this issue look like. I'm sure it depends on the locality.

This brings up other issues. I think localities can do a good job of tuning gun laws based on their environment. It makes sense to ban hand guns in NYC. It might not be necessary in other parts of the country. etc. etc. etc.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

150. Stepping on a mine the second time won't make the result any different...

When I was a teenager and a young college student I was an activist in the Democratic Party. I don't recall any anti-gun "core portions" of the Party platform. These attempts at bans are rather recent and a gold mine for the GOP. It bothers me that guaranteed health care for all Americans is not as brightly written as the suicidal AWB platform plank.

IMO, the Democratic Party does not have that much momentum. But in any case, if the Dems starting feeling their oats again and float the AWB again, they will get slammed again; slammed as in ears ringing with black and silver pixel dust serving as a sky.

[derby378]

216. Outlawing firearms that have been in civilian hands for 100 years...

...is not what I consider a "core principle" of our party. There is no actual definition of the term "assault weapon;" the only thing that all "assault weapons" have in common is that they are all semi-automatic. And semi-automatics have been in the hands of American civilians for just over a hundred years. The National Firearms Act did nothing to change that.

[EstimatedProphet]

239. At what point did gun control become part of the Democratic core platform?

What is is a core value to is not the Democratic party, it's the modern day Carrie Nations.

[benEzra]

125. Banning the most popular civilian target/defensive rifles in America...

is hardly a "quite limited item." More people lawfully and responsibly own "assault weapons" than hunt.

[Yavapai]

164. Thank you for pointing that out, Beachers

"Here's what I found in the 2004 Democratic platform:

We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own
firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals
and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the
assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as
President Bush proposed and failed to do."

I will now have to start looking to see which Republican to
vote for since it is apparent that all the democrats want to
do is shut up about the right to bear arms until AFTER the
election, then it will be back to Brady.

It seems that we have to choose which constitutional rights we
want to give up by voting.  We lose some by voting for the
Democrats and others by voting for the Republicans.  Gee,
maybe they (the Dem's and GOP)are just two different sides of
the same corporate coin.  You know left wing / right wing,
both attached to the same corporate bird.

I naively thought maybe there had been a change in attitude
about our rights :-(  

One more swing voter swinging away!

[Recursion]

178. The "assault weapons ban" is precisely the problem

The problem is that its supporters don't know the first thing about it.

The people who actually understand the assault weapons ban are against it. And it really, really, really pisses us off. And it pisses off those of us who are Democrats and progressives even more.

It was a bad law. It was a dishonest law. It was a bait and switch. It needs to be buried and forgotten forever and if I have to go door to door persuading my fellow progressives how pointless, dishonest, and stupid the law is I will.

[abmand]

185. agreed

if any of the gun control initiatives id like the dems to stop harping is assault weapons. the ban is based on no concrete facts, it doesnt even ban guns, just makes them change their name, (it tries to go after a set of guns that are used in about 3% of gun crimes). If you look at all the ATF trace data, all the top 10 guns used in crimes are non assault weapons. I also dont believe that gun control is a democratic platform- just more of a hobby of a few of the party's prominant members

[Renew Deal]

57. I disagree.

There are many left wing gun owners. The majority of DUers support gun ownership rights. Don't believe me? Start a poll. It has nothing to do with right wing talking points. Democrats believe in the right to own guns.

[stranger81]

58. I don't doubt that, but I also have no doubt the vast majority of DUers,

even those who support gun ownership, also support sensible gun control laws (e.g. you don't need to hunt rabbits with your AK). And cutting that out as a Democratic issue is just another attempt to trade party principles for pure power.

[Renew Deal]

60. This is where the philosphical discussions get complicated

The difference between what you consider sensible and what others consider sensible. The problem is that this debate is usually conducted in public and attracts too much negative attention. Also, I'm not convinced that restricting gun ownership, or even gun control are Democratic party principles. They're more like bad habits from the 80's and 90's.

[stranger81]

63. so why do you think gun control is a "bad habit" the party needs to abandon?

And how many other social issues would you apply the same logic to? Gay rights? Affirmative action?

[Renew Deal]

65. Gun rights is overplayed by members of the party

There is a wide range of issues even within the gun rights debate. I think that micro-disagreements in the gun debate prevent us from success in other areas. We're willing to go all out on gun rights while other issues are missed.

I can get sucked into this trap as well. I believe that common sense gun ownership and care is important to our overall society. The problem is the difference between what I consider common sense and others. Either way, I'd be an NRA reject, but I would also piss off many dems by not saying that I want to ban guns.

It's just an argument over a very small issue that gets treated like a big issue. I think gay rights and affirmative action are much more important issues because they are about human rights. I'd rather fight about someone's right to live freely and equally than the number of weapons someone (non-felon) can own.

[Recursion]

186. On all those issues, I hope my party takes the correct stance,

that is, the one consistent with individual rights and trust in the people. My party takes that stance about gay rights and affirmative action. My party for the past few decades has taken the wrong stance on gun rights. And we've paid a heavy price for it.

When our party stops using gun laws as a way to fight a culture war that we're on the wrong side of (as moral panic crusaders generally are), we'll start seeing a lot of our problems evaporate.

[NickB79]

76. Some of us DU'ers actually do hunt rabbits with assault rifles

:evilgrin:

[Tejas]

96. take your pick...

Gun control = Republican control.

Me = gun nut (I'd vote for PeeWee Herman before I vote for Gun Control)


"you don't need to hunt rabbits with your AK"

I've been doing it all wrong! ;)

[benEzra]

114. An AK is more of a small-deer caliber (similar to .30-30 Winchester)

I don't doubt that, but I also have no doubt the vast majority of DUers, even those who support gun ownership, also support sensible gun control laws (e.g. you don't need to hunt rabbits with your AK). And cutting that out as a Democratic issue is just another attempt to trade party principles for pure power.

An AK is more of small-deer caliber (similar to .30-30 Winchester), though like the vast majority of gun owners, I am a nonhunter. My AK is entirely suitable for deer hunting here in NC with the mandatory 5-round hunting magazine, and if I ever do take up hunting, it will be with that rifle, but currently the only thing I shoot is paper.

Here it is in hunting configuration (4x scope and 5-round hunting magazine):



Like all U.S.-market AK's, of course, it's a non-automatic civilian (NFA Title 1) carbine, that works just like an ordinary pistol or your typical .22 rifle. Caliber is 7.62x39mm, a shade less powerful than .30-30 Winchester, and about half as powerful as a .30-06 deer rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun.


I do shoot competitively with my AK, BTW (ISPC/USPSA). Here it is in competition/defensive configuration, with 1x optic and 20-round magazine:




FWIW, the AR-15 is the most popular civilian target rifle in America:



and a good number of DU'ers own AR's.

[Recursion]

179. Sigh...

(e.g. you don't need to hunt rabbits with your AK)

An actual AK-47 has been illegal to buy for more than half a century.

Did you know that? Of course not. But you feel competent to share your opinions on gun policy.

A civilian rifle that looks like an AK is actually very good for hunting rabbits.

It's bad for hunting deer. Do you know why? It's not powerful enough.

Why shouldn't I hunt rabbits with a civilian low-caliber semiautomatic rifle (aka "assault weapon")?

[derby378]

182. "Actual" AK-47s aren't illegal - just tightly regulated

Full-auto firearms are NFA Class 3 weapons, meaning that you need a Federal license in order to own one. If you're a squeaky-clean law-abiding citizen, however, you can get both the license and the gun - but it's gonna cost you a pretty penny thanks to the 1986 Firearms Owners "Protection" Act outlawing all new manufacture for civilian ownership.

That said, full-auto is legal to own IF you have the permit. Some states (including Iowa, Kansas, New York, and Illinois) refuse to honor the Class 3 license, so in those states it's illegal anyway.

[Recursion]

191. By that definition cocaine isn't "illegal" either...

This gets down to the fact that Congress doesn't actually have the power to declare a substance or thing "illegal" for the most part, they just have the power to tax it and refuse to issue the appropriate tax stamp to the public (though generally with enough money there's a way around any of those problems -- Coca Cola still has a legal coca farm in New Jersey, IIRC, just like Mississippi State has its pot farm).

[derby378]

214. I see your point...

It's illegal to use cocaine without a legitimate prescription, and it's illegal to own a full-auto AK-47 without an NFA license. Gotcha.

[benEzra]

124. I'd remind you that the Senate was recaptured in '06 by PRO-GUN DEMS...

after being lost in '94 by people pushing to outlaw some of the most popular civilian guns in America. The ban-more-guns message had its chance in '00 and '04; it lost. Pro-gun Dems won in '06. It's hardly hypothetical.

BTW, the right to own guns IS important to a lot of "actual Democrats"...one in four Dems personally owns a gun...

[Tejas]

128. and Congress got their share of......

.......clueless rubber-stamping antis.

With all due respect to the lady:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
(Yes, it's the "thing that goes up" video)

translation: "I don't know and don't care what a barrel shroud is, and I have 57 fellow members of Congress that don't care either, all we care is that it becomes law."




note: benezra...not disagreeing with you, enjoy your insight.







edit - spelling

[benEzra]

135. McCarthy was already there, and wasn't running in a gun-owning district...

but she is in the House, and represents rather anti-gun jurisdiction (rather the exception).

Three of the Senate seats that flipped in '06, flipped because pro-gun Dems beat repubs on their own turf. Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Bob Casey...

AFAIK, gun owners have picked up seats in every national election since 1994--both (R) AND (D).

Of governorships, Ted Strickland comes to mind as well (flipped from (R) to (D) in '06).

[Tejas]

136. my bad, had a flashback

Had '94 on the brain.

'94 '04 '94 '04

aaaahaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

:)

[Renew Deal]

56. I agree in general.

I agree that Americans have a right to own guns. I do think that responsible gun ownership is also a right of our society. Trigger locks and secured guns (gun safes) should be a requirement.

[NewJeffCT]

61. It's certainly clear we should not try to appease the NRA crowd

by swearing to uphold the piece of the 2nd amendment about keeping & bearing arms by not implementing an assault weapons ban or similar...

It does not matter what any Democrat says on this issue, the NRA crowd will never vote for Democratic politicians on gun issues, even if said Democratic politician has an A rating from the NRA. The party as a whole does not have any sort of pro-gun credibility with the NRA.

It's like CNN trying to bend over backwards to appeal to conservatives - yet, conservatives don't trust what they call the Clinton News Network and would never choose it over Fox no matter how RW they become; meanwhile, they alienate moderates & liberals by kowtowing to conservatives and becoming a Fox clone.

Meanwhile, most of the country favors things like assault weapons bans or restrictions.

[beevul]

207. Meanwhile...

"Meanwhile, most of the country favors things like assault weapons bans or restrictions."



Meanwhile, the part of the country that favors things like "assault weapons bans or restrictions" doesn't have a clue what past or proposed assault weapons bans would actually ban, or what legally constitutes an "assault weapon".

That being the case, just favoring a ban really doesn't mean alot.

[Cleita]

64. No one is talking about gun control except you.

Gun ownership is becoming more popular among Dems these days, especially when it looks like we are becoming a lawless nation with the rush to privatize everything including our police and fire departments. Many Dems, who were formerly anti-gun, are looking at gun ownerhip to protect their property as an option. It's happening in my area anyway.

[Renew Deal]

68. We've seen this on DU as well

I can't find the threads, but I have seen such proclamations here.

[benEzra]

122. Here's one poll that ran in General Discussion...

[U4ikLefty]

171. I answered "yes" to that poll & I am for greater gun legislation.

Just sayin.

[Tejas]

81. Cleita...

More people on both sides of the aisle than you can imagine are talking about it. HR1022 is pretty much the '94 ban all over again and then some. To ignore it and act like it's a non-problem and bet that the Republicans won't capitolize on that is IMHO not the way to go.

Use whatever excuse need be, claim a blond moment or UFO interference, but it's highly likely that HR1022 is not going to help the Democratic party in '08.

As far as Biden goes, I can only wonder who it is on the hill that he's trying to get rid of.

[Cleita]

93. I don't think Biden is after anyone, but trying to court a

demographic that doesn't exist anymore IMHO. He is going to shoot himself in the foot with this one. It's not going anywhere. One thing that I have learned is that you aren't going to separate any American from his/her guns especially in the southern and western states. Any candidate who is asked about gun control would be wise to take the approach Howard Dean did in 2004. His opinion was that gun control should be local and handled locally that the federal government had no business in regulating it.

[cali]

106. lol- right no one but little old me and

dozens of other people. And it's a fact that gun control has been a big issue nationally for years. But it's just me talking about it. Suuurre.

[aikoaiko]

74. First step: Refuse to support gun bans

[Perry Logan]

78. Nu-uh! Most Americans want MORE gun control.

http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report

"There is a vivid disconnect between politics and public opinion on guns. Gun control is considered by some Democrats to be a "third-rail" issue they should fear to approach. Even after the terrifying tragedy at Virginia Tech, many cautioned against any legislative action on gun control.40

Typical of major news outlets, the San Francisco Chronicle reported it this way:

The Virginia Tech campus massacre may reignite a national debate over gun control, but with an election year looming and a powerful gun lobby geared for battle, Democrats probably will be reluctant to push such a divisive issue that could threaten their control of Congress and effort to win back the White House.

"Democrats tend to be worried about their electoral prospects with the gun-owning public,'' said Bob Levy, a senior fellow and constitutional scholar with the conservative CATO Institute, a Washington think tank. "They haven't been particularly vocal, because they understand that people in this country want their guns.''41

This conventional wisdom assumes broad American opposition to the regulation of firearms. This is simply not the case. Although there are important regional variations and millions of Americans who like to hunt, most Americans support reasonable restrictions. For instance, a 2006 Gallup poll revealed that 56 percent of people wanted laws governing the sale of firearms to be made more stringent. In recent years, most polling on gun control produces similar results: Majorities of Americans favor at least some regulation of firearms, particularly handguns, as the data below demonstrate. The recently expired assault weapons ban was overwhelmingly supported by the public.

[fascisthunter]

88. Exactly

this phoney message of dems losing elections due to guns is pure conservative BS.

[Tejas]

104. you have the floor

Enlighten me, what happened in the '94 elections.

[fascisthunter]

141. ONE ISSUE DID NOT DECIDE 1994'S ELECTION

or any other election. nice try..... you have the basement or bridge

[virginia mountainman]

147. Even Bill Clinton said that is why we lost in 94

...he said it in his book....

[fascisthunter]

184. Clinton Said Lots of things

Only a fools would believe one issue decided an election.

[SteveM]

153. That "conservative BS"-er Bill Clinton said the AWB sank one Al Gore. PUre enough?

[SteveM]

159. "At least some regulation..." Like what? Even Texas' CCW law is a regulation.

Though BenEzra sums it up best, the AWB didn't actually ban anything except the "scariest" features of the "black guns": bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, vertical grips, extra capacity magazines, etc.; in other words, you could go right out and by an AK (semi-auto carbine) or AR (semi-auto carbine) the day after the ban took effect (you just wouldn't get the "scary" stuff). And the "pre-ban" clause allowed you to purchase older semi-auto carbines which DID have these features.

Specifically, why do YOU want to ban these type guns, esp. when they are now owned by millions of Americans and have -- in my adult lifetime -- supplanted the ol' .30-06 turnbolts and lever actions I saw on the ranges outside of Austin? In considering your answer, keep in mind:
(1) most of the so-called "assault weapons" (a term of art employed by gun-controllers) are
significantly weaker than the average deer rifle;
(2) many much more powerful auto loaders have been on the market for generations (Remington 742,
Browning, etc.) without starting a "ban the bomb" movement, perhaps due to the quaint Bambi
engravings and better grade walnut stocks;
(3) they now come in a range of colors (pink is a big one) which mute the evil black look; and
(4) ALL rifles account for less than three (3) percent of homicides in U.S. "Assault weapons" is just
one category of rifles.

[derby378]

183. "Overwhelmingly?"

I'd like to see Media Matters prove it. :popcorn:

[Lorien]

209. Oh, stop making sense with facts

such things tend to muddy up perfectly good flamebait.

[MadHound]

84. Gee, that's funny

In poll after poll, even among NRA members, people consistently support reasonable gun control measures.

Why is it we should abandon a position that the majority of people support?

[slackmaster]

86. The devil is in the details, MadHound

Every person on Earth thinks his or her position about every issue is "reasonable".

Without specifics, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion about anything.

[benEzra]

121. Banning the most popular target and defensive rifles in America...

and outlawing all civilian guns with post-1861 magazine capacities are not reasonable gun control.

I support reasonable gun control (background checks for purchase, criminal possession/use prohibited, the NFA Title 2/Class III controls on automatic weapons, the over-.50-caliber restrictions, etc.).

I do *NOT* support outlawing civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, or otherwise restricting civilian nonhunting guns when 4 out of 5 gun owners are nonhunters.

My guns:



My wife's guns:



We'd like to keep them, thanks...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. The opposite was true here in '94.

Our "liberal" congresswoman sold her soul to the NRA with her pro-gun stance. The result was that a lot of liberals sat on their hands and she became an ex-congresswoman.

[cali]

107. know how bernie sanders became Representative Sanders?

by not supporting gun control in Vermont when the 1 term repuke rep was supporting it. Guess it all depends on where you live.

[SteveM]

155. Vermont's gun laws:________________________. Quiz follows (nt)

[PassingFair]

129. I actually agree with you ...

100% on this, Cali!

[hiphopnation]

146. gathering a consensus on the matter will be a monumental task in this country

so i don't disagree -- 2008's not the time to try. too much other important shit to focus on. but it doesn't mean that the principle of gun-control as manifest in the brady bill and other legislation should be abandoned writ large, imho. in principle, we still support doing away with firearms.

[Tejas]

149. you're probably already on a watch-list

"the time will come again"

"the principle of our fight will rise above truths"

"manifestation by insistance"

"in principle, we will prevail"


Then again, it might be a hire-list.

[SteveM]

156. In principle, you will be resisted vigorously.

You cannot get a consensus with opponents who know that "...in principle, still support doing away with firearms." BTW, who is "we?" The Brady Bunch or some other organization?

[benEzra]

158. Who's "we"?

in principle, we still support doing away with firearms

Who's "we"?



We'll keep ours, thanks...

[Recursion]

180. we support that?

I had no idea. If that's something this party is actually for I (and a lot of people) are going to find a new party.

[beevul]

208. Who is "we"?

"...we still support doing away with firearms."


Who is this "we" you speak of?


Inquiring minds want to know.

[Flabbergasted]

162. Nor is it a priority issue. Good one Cali. nt

[upi402]

165. agreed

The house is on fire, weed the garden in a few minutes

[Whisp]

167. there should be more gun control over crazy assed guys like Bush.

and most of the leaders before him.

I know a lot of people with guns, and none of them are as violent or stupid, as the * is with his arsenal.

Basically, I have no problem with guns, just with certain people who may be able to have them. and if we lived in a just society (hahahahahahah) there may not be so many gun slinging desperados out there.

I dunno. I was soooo anti-gun a few years ago... but I'm changing my mind.

[salin]

181. It depends where one lives, and one's experiences.

I have lived urban (during the crack wars), suburban and semi-rural. One's perception to the issue really takes on a different tone depending on one's situation. To many urban voters - especially where drug or gang violence is high, the opposite is true. However, in political calculus - I would guess that most candidates view the pro-guncontrol voters in urban districts as safe dem. voters regardless of the issue (ala on many other issues the voter would tend to side with the candidate).

From life experience, I am very sympathetic to both sides of this issue. And I am very torn. But I do not know that I would so quickly dismiss the millions who live in urban areas with high gun violence - the issue has a very difference valence in those areas than in others. The problem is the perception that any gun control (trying to stem the flow of guns into the illegal/black market) is bad - that is NOT a winning position in many mega-urban markets.

While one might state that the position of extreme guncontrol is bad for democrats, I would suggest that extreme positions preventing any control of guns (and their flows to gang activitity) is also a losing proposition per large concentrations of voters in urban areas.

Perhaps it is just me, but I think the issue is very complex - and a disservice is done when reducing it to an all or nothing issue.

[benEzra]

222. No one wants to see criminals with guns...

the problem is when people use criminals with guns as an excuse to restrict gun ownership by non-criminals, which seems to be the Brady Campaign's standard modus operandi.

It would be relatively straightforward to trace guns used by inner-city criminals and prosecute straw purchasers, but that wouldn't further the Bradyites' goal of disarming the lawful and responsible. And I suppose scaremongering about popular target rifles makes for better fundraising than talking about inner-city criminals with .38's.

[David Zephyr]

196. It's a sad truth, cali, but it is the truth and I agree with you.

n/t

[B Calm]

204. The right to own guns and the 2nd amendment is a very LIBERAL idea..

[Paladin]

213. Yeah, Right. "A Very LIBERAL Idea"....

....that's been embraced by every right-wing fuckwit in this country for decades.

Bring that "Liberal Idea" shit around again, if and when the Court comes up with a decision on the 2nd Amendment that you're happy with---undoubtedly fashioned and shoved through by Roberts, Thomas and Scalia, the most hyper-conservative, anti-liberal troica of justices we've ever been burdened with.....

[beevul]

217. Not that shit again...

"Yeah, Right. "A Very LIBERAL Idea"...that's been embraced by every right-wing fuckwit in this country for decades.

Bring that "Liberal Idea" shit around again, if and when the Court comes up with a decision on the 2nd Amendment that you're happy with---undoubtedly fashioned and shoved through by Roberts, Thomas and Scalia, the most hyper-conservative, anti-liberal troica of justices we've ever been burdened with.....

Well, right wingers, at least SOME of them, undoubtedly get on the pot and take a dump in the morning. Can we assume you will be holding it from now on? Or hanging it over a log at the verry least? Wouldn't want to be like those republicans now would you? OMG, some republicans are going to eat turkey today...OH NOES!!CANCEL THANKSGIVING!!!

And, in the big picture, its hardly meaningful for you point out anything about the second amendment being supported by right wingers or a decision coming from a right wing court, while you hide behind helmke and brady...theyre republicans too...but you knew that. They just happen to agree with your uhh...feelings about guns...so that makes them acceptable republicans, in your eyes.

Oh, and again, it takes 5 justices for a decision, last time I checked.

[Alexander]

220. Well said.

Some people immediately go into hysterics when the issue of guns is brought up.

Nice to see there are many here who can actually think about things.

[B Calm]

227. Excuse me! But personal freedoms is not a conservative idea!

The ONLY Freedom conservatives care about is Corporate Freedom. Liberals believe in Corporate Responsibility and Individual Freedom!

[EstimatedProphet]

225. Yes!

Good to see someone recognizes this.

[sendero]

215. This time...

... I agree with you :)

[Warren DeMontague]

226. I agree. The theocratic nuts control the GOP. We should define ourselves as the party of freedom.

Regardless of where I personally sit on the issue of guns, it's a proven loss leader for us. We should drop it, articulate that we are the party that wants gov't out of individuals' personal lives, bedrooms, bodies, bloodstreams. End the drug war, end the war on consenting adult entertainment, end the war on contraception and reproductive rights, end the war on the constitution. Stop pissing away hundreds of millions a year on Jesus-based "abstinence only" bullshit. Bring some sanity back to our military spending and the like.

If electoral reality - not to mention consistency on personal freedom- demands that we drop gun control, I'm okay with that.

[virginia mountainman]

232. THATS RIGHT!

Regardless of where I personally sit on the issue of guns, it's a proven loss leader for us. We should drop it, articulate that we are the party that wants gov't out of individuals' personal lives, bedrooms, bodies, bloodstreams. End the drug war, end the war on consenting adult entertainment, end the war on contraception and reproductive rights, end the war on the constitution. Stop pissing away hundreds of millions a year on Jesus-based "abstinence only" bullshit. Bring some sanity back to our military spending and the like.

If electoral reality - not to mention consistency on personal freedom- demands that we drop gun control, I'm okay with that

That is, what we need to do to win elections.....

[Tejas]

248. Can't believe the lynch mob isn't here yet. n/t

:)

[benEzra]

238. Absolutely. Well said. (n/t)

[tomreedtoon]

247. Nobody here watched "Bowling for Columbine," did they?

The point was not that guns are evil. The worship of guns is evil. The same way that money is not the root of all evil, it's the LOVE of money that's evil.

Moore's point was not that gun ownership is wrong, it's the attitude driving people to kill each other and act in paranoid ways that's wrong. And that's more of a moral and spiritual problem than a legal problem. Taking away guns won't solve that, and is making people even more paranoid.

The real problem is that progressives are really uncomfortable with arguing moral problems, because they believe that is the province of the evil right-wing religions. They need to learn that they have valid stakes in arguing morality too, and not to run whenever someone waves a cross or an Islamic sickle in their face.