Foreign Policy by the NRA? The Prospect of Gingrich and Bolton.

[ellisonz]

By Josh Horwitz
Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Posted: 12/20/11 07:25 AM ET

With the catastrophic collapse of Herman Cain's presidential ambitions, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has clawed his way back to national relevancy in the GOP primary process. But while Cain was mocked for a profound ignorance of world events and his inspirational speeches quoting Pokémon, former House Speaker Gingrich has been called a "one-man think tank," a politician of considerable "intellectual prowess," and even a "historian."

Some very good minds on both ends of the political spectrum, however, have pushed back against this idyllic portrait. Conservative columnist George Will went so far as to call Gingrich a "rental politician" whose "ideas" are based on who is paying his tab (also see recent commentary by Maureen Dowd). Interestingly, some in the right wing gun lobby are making similar accusations. One group, the National Association for Gun Rights, has targeted Gingrich with robocalls in Iowa, attacking him as weak on the Second Amendment because he supported a version of the Brady Bill and voted for another piece of legislation that prohibits domestic violence offenders from possessing/purchasing firearms.

Sensing his vulnerability, Gingrich has worked hard to "evolve" his position to get right with the NRA--the one player in the pro-gun movement that matters in a Republican presidential primary. In recent speeches, Newt has parroted the NRA line so effectively that he sounds more like a self-appointed militia leader than an erudite intellectual. Speaking to the organization's members in April, he said:

The right to bear arms is not about hunting. It's not about target practice. The right to bear arms is a political right designed to safeguard freedom so that no government can take away from you the rights that God has given you and it was written by people who had spent their lifetime fighting the greatest empire in the world and they knew that if they had not had the right to bear arms they would have been enslaved and they did not want us to be enslaved.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/foreign-policy-by-the-nra_b_1159972.html

It gets even richer: "Gingrich was likely aware of this fact when, on December 7, he tapped Neoconservative Iraq War architect and NRA International Affairs Subcommittee Chair John Bolton as his presumptive Secretary of State." - The GOP and gun-nuttery go hand in hand. I'm not contesting anyone's right to keep and bear arms - I'm question their right to keep and bear dangerous amounts of arms. I think we'll be hearing much more about gun rights as the GOP tries to use the whole brouhaha as a shank with which to stab our Democratic candidate in the back. They are going to do it no matter what we say, so why not take a responsible position on gun control?

[friendly_iconoclast]

1. What was Howard Dean's NRA rating during most of his career, again?

If we're to use the associational fallacy, we must be consistent- and besides, Newtie has as much chance of becoming President as he does
becoming mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[SteveW]

2. Hmm. Your thread seems to have lost direction...

You title it "Foreign policy by the NRA..." yet go to great lengths to show how Gingrich was attacked on Second Amendment issues. Seems you are confused about Gingrich: He is not to be trusted on most any issues, guns no exception.

Oh! Another quote for you:

"CONSIDER ALSO ANOTHER KIND OF SLIPPERY SLOPE, which we might call an "attitude-altering slippery slope." "The assault weapons ban is . . . symbolic," wrote the columnist Charles Krauthammer, a defender of a total gun ban. "Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. . . . Deescalation begins with a change in mentality. . . . The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first."

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2003/scene_marapr03_volokh.msp

You gotta love that bit about "...real justification is not to reduce crime, but to desensitize the public to... ultimate confiscation."

Yeah, even the right views Gingrich less credibly than you.

[ellisonz]

3. Dude, that's the title of the article...

Howard Dean had an A.

Read why:

On Gun Control, Dean Aims for the Center
By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 9, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1483-2004Jan8?language=printer

"A: I support the assault weapons ban. I do not support the elimination of liability for gun owners. I support background checks. And I support background checks for people who buy guns at gun shows. I come from a rural state where people hunt. We have the lowest homicide rate in America. So my attitude is, let's have those federal laws and enforce them. And then let every state make additional gun control as they see fit."

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm

Watch the video.

You're going to quote an article quoting Krauthammer, a well known Republican and conservative and try to use Howard Dean against me?

[SteveW]

10. It was your content that wandered. Dude.

You claim a real threat from Gingrich (and Bolton, for that matter) since he -- I guess you think this -- cow-towed to the NRA or some other group. The point you willingly miss is even those on the right don't trust Gingrich on this and other issues. Yet you seem to accord him some kind of credibility.

Got it now? Sheesh.

Please re-read your stuff. Not much there.

[ellisonz]

59. You're the one bringing up Howard Dean...Dude.

Bolton works for the NRA. Newt Gingrich actively seeks their favor. Newt is still very much a contender. Got it now?

"The point you willingly miss is even those on the right don't trust Gingrich on this and other issues. Yet you seem to accord him some kind of credibility."

How do you know this? I'm not according him any credibility, I'm simply pointed out the incestuous relationship and that seems to be touching a chord. I wonder why...

[SteveW]

192. Me? Howard Dean? Please reference where I brought him in...

I honestly may have forgotten.

I don't know about your "incest" remark either, or the "chord" it is "touching," so it is hard to understand your "wonder."

[rrneck]

4. Define "dangerous amounts of arms". nt

[ellisonz]

5. Sure.

More than you can reasonably secure or expect to use regularly in legitimate activities such as hunting, target shooting, and excluding licensed collectors.

Why do you think the GOP loves beating the gun drum so much?

[rrneck]

6. An articulate non answer.

Are you going to produce a number or advocate a bureaucracy to regulate people's personal recreational activities?

How do you plan to structure those regulations and enforce them.

[ellisonz]

7. That was a pretty damn clear answer.

What's not clear is your response, what exactly are "people's personal recreational activities" in a judicial context. I think that much more describes golfing than gun possession. You're not suggesting they have the same legal classification?

You're not suggesting we allow individual people to have a sufficient amount of arms to wage war against the Federal government are you?

Every man, his own John Brown.

"How do you plan to structure those regulations and enforce them."

In a similar fashion to other major Westernized countries with them, although perhaps a bit more lenient and focused. You can call it EllisonCare

[rrneck]

11. I call it bullshit.

I'll ask you again. How do you plan to regulate and enforce the recreational activities of private citizens? Different firearms are designed for different purposes. Other firearms are quite suitable for any number of purposes. How do you regulate who does what through the firearms they use, what kind of firearm it will be and how firearms are to be designed for each use? Furthermore, while the firearm may not change much, people's bodies do. If someone has an injury or infirmity that will no longer allow him to hunt bighorn sheep with his Weatherby 7mm, what will happen to the firearm? Do you plan to confiscate it? What if that same fellow dies and wills his firearms to his children? Will you confiscate them then if they don't use them to kill something?

""people's personal recreational activities" in a judicial context."

Right. Define your "solution" in a judicial context, which is to say, how do you plan to enforce these regulations?

I am really only responding to this drivel so that others like yourself who have never been within one hundred yards of a firearm will understand how foolish such notions are. These are inane ideas that if allowed to fester may find themselves once again to some noticeable place in Democratic political discourse. We need the gun owning political center to win elections and such foolishness should be answered periodically to help keep them from thinking all liberals are idiots.

[ellisonz]

12. I call such lines of attack repetative.

Damn right we'll confiscate. If such a law were passed, would you comply or would you fight the U.S. Government?

The rest is gibberish, how can you possibly compare gun ownership to a "personal recreational activities," I thought it was a sacred right.

I will not concede that we ought to placate such idiocy - this country can and must have real gun control.



By Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune - 11/17/2011

[rrneck]

13. That's what I thought.

You got nothin'.

[ellisonz]

16. I'm not comparing gun ownership to golfing. n/t

[rrneck]

17. Actually, you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sport
A shooting sport is a competitive sport involving tests of proficiency (accuracy and speed) using various types of guns such as firearms and airguns (see archery for more information on shooting sports that make use of bows and arrows). Hunting is also a shooting sport, and indeed shooting live pigeons was an Olympic event (albeit only once, in 1900). The shooting sports are categorized by the type of firearm or target used.

People are are at liberty to engage in any number of recreational activities, or not, at their pleasure. Each of those activities will require specialized equipment. But I hope you actually get your inane wish, I really do. That way I'll know what stocks to buy. Because if the government confiscates guns that it deems not being used regularly and in some specified manner and I assume destroys them, it will shoot nitrous into the engine of the firearms industry. Most guns are good for a hundred years or so, thus they are handed down from generation to generation. You are proposing planned obsolescence through regulation. The firearms industry is just gonna loooooooove you!

I think I've found your inspiration! Just stay away from cherries.

[ellisonz]

18. "people's personal recreational activities"

If you don't want people to make that comparison, you probably shouldn't describe gun control as regulating "regulate people's personal recreational activities" when clearly the Constitution views gun ownership as a public action. Hence, the Constitutionally of background checks etc.

"The firearms industry is just gonna loooooooove you!" - Nice fail at sarcasm. You sound like my step-mother telling me not to hate on Kobe Bryant...

If you liked the Fifth Element that much I hold little hope for you understanding what so many DUers will tell you about firearms in society...

Seriously, Marilyn Manson makes more sense than you...

[rrneck]

21. So what is the difference

between a Colt 1911 used for self defense and the same pistol used for recreational target shooting?

And what if that pistol is used at a shooting range for practice? At a IDPA competition? Please be specific.

[ellisonz]

27. None.

They are both public activities that are regulated by public law. There is no such thing as "private" gun ownership in this sense - there is nothing "personal" about gun ownership. This is why the notion that such ownership is disconnected with service in a militia is ludicrous and unconstitutional. The Roberts Court decision was legal reasoning bought and paid for by the NRA. That these justices did not go further in striking down governments ability to regulate gun ownership shows just how afraid they are of the gun nuttery.

I'd really love to see a case where some crazy with a whole lot of guns and ammo's house blew up, damaged his neighbors, was charged with crime and then dragged all the way to the Supreme Court so we could strike done this silly idea of personal ownership and use of firearms being conflated with some absolute notion of "privacy" in the home. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is fundamentally constructed in the Constitution as a civic responsibility subject to the social contract set forth in the preamble and codified in the Ninth Amendment.

Describing gun ownership and regulation use as fundamentally a matter of "people's personal recreational activities" is absurd.

One day this toting will end.

[rrneck]

83. Are members of any militia you care to name

human? (Aside from the odd ceremonial horse or guard dog).

[AtheistCrusader]

96. Oh man, not Michael Moore's huge pile of shit again.

Harris was a clinical psychopath. Klebold a manic depressive. The FBI has finally released all sorts of information on their psych profiles, and no, it wasn't video games, or music, or any of that typically hyperventilated bullshit everyone rushed to pin things on.

These two kids were, essentially, crazy. They did not receive the medical assistance they needed, and they detonated. End of story.

[ellisonz]

97. And they were able to use a straw buyers to obtain...

A Tech-9, a Hi-Point 995 carbine, and a Stevens 311D double barreled shotgun. I'm sorry but until we have a system that works to stop something like this from happening again, I'm not satisfied. You're telling me that they just detonated at their own and the arms industry has nothing to do with it? I'm sorry, but that's snake oil you're selling there.

Did you ever even watch Bowling for Columbine in full? It's available in full on youtube. Here enjoy the Charlton Heston looking like a jackass:

I didn't think all that much of Fahrenheit 9/11, but Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me were genius.

[AtheistCrusader]

118. You cannot pre-emptively 'stop' straw buyers.

You can track them down after the fact and punish them severely enough to have some deterrence effect, and end their 'leak' of weapons into ineligible hands. Also, the Tec-DC9 was a straight up ineligible sale, not a straw purchase. Keep your facts straight.

Bowling for Columbine is shot through with embarrassing factual errors. And I couldn't give a shit about Heston, before or after his mind went.


The 'Arms Industry' has nothing more to do with it, than the 'Auto Industry' has to do with the shithead drunk driver that ran down a killed a neighbor of mine on a pedestrial walkway earlier this week, after driving through or around multiple barriers and signs.

Anything can be mis-used in the wrong hands. Why no outrage from you on propane tanks for bar-b-ques? They rigged several to explode, by timer, in the parking lot when the paramedics arrived. Luckily for everyone, the timers didn't work.

[ellisonz]

180. You may be right, but we're not even trying hard to deter it...

1. You just don't like the answer because it offends your delicate sense of "civil liberties." Other countries put a good stop to such nonsense. If I had my way, there wouldn't be any new assault weapons like the Tec-9 available for sell. I'm sorry I'm not versed in the excuse making business.

2. That so many have gone to such lengths to attack "Bowling for Columbine" and Michael Moore just shows how unreasonably threatened they feel by his compelling message.

3. Bullshit. They make the weapons, they allow the sell of the weapons, and they take the profit.

4. Propane tanks argument: Reductio ad absurdum. How many people died from propane attacks in America every year?

[AtheistCrusader]

181. Oh please.

1. Fortunately, no one cares about 'your way'. We tried that for 10 years under the AWB, and we took a damn beating at the polls for it, because the law was stupid, made no sense, and was completely indefensible. Losing seats in state legislatures on up to the white house, is incredibly damaging to ALL progressive issues.

2. No, that's your excuse, but it's really a problem because it's an inaccurate propaganda piece with no link to reality.

3. And used lawfully, this is not a problem. Used unlawfully is not the responsibility of the manufacturer, any more than it was Ford's responsibility that asshole got drunk and ran over my neighbor. (same for the manufactuer of the alcohol he consumed)

4. Try and focus please, you brought up details of columbine, as a specific. Pay attention and focus.

[ellisonz]

182. Oh yeah...

1. That's you opinion. Please take a look at the most recent polls on gun control: http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm - hint a majority favor an AWB that works.

2. I think it's a reasonable opinion, I'm entitled to it. Don't like it don't engage me or put me on ignore. That's your right.

3. "Used unlawfully is not the responsibility of the manufacturer" - you're right - it's the responsibility of government. Doesn't mean we should excuse them from liability when it is their fault in the Courts ruling.

4. I posted: "Propane tanks argument: Reductio ad absurdum. How many people died from propane attacks in America every year?" - I'm not seeing how that's not a reasonable response. Was it the

[X_Digger]

186. New poll for ya..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx

[ellisonz]

189. What if we need to pass new laws to enforce the current laws?

[X_Digger]

208. Then you're screwed. :) n/t

[DissedByBush]

125. Bowling for Columbine was embarrassing

A complete wreck, full of factual holes and misrepresentations.

Getting the gun at the bank was a complete misrepresentation of what the bank was normally doing (nobody could just walk in and come out with a gun like he did).

He completely misrepresented the issue of the NRA convention in Colorado.

The NRA/KKK equivalency was a flat-out lie.

And on top of it he took advantage of a senile old man, something even most of Moore's regular defenders thought inappropriate.

I loved Moore for TV Nation and Roger & Me, then he had to lay this pile of crap on us.

About the only good part of the movie that made sense was the Marilyn Manson interview.

[Simo 1939_1940]

148. Agreed. Have you read Kopel's outstanding scene-by scene takedown of Moore's garbage?

Bowling Truths:

http://davekopel.org/NRO/2003/Bowling-Truths.htm

Edited to add:

Here's a great line (among many great lines) in the article:

"It's a humorous movie, but the biggest joke is on the audience, which credulously accepts the "facts" in the movie as if they were true."

[DissedByBush]

184. Interesting read, thanks n/t

[PavePusher]

32. "Damn right we'll confiscate."

The fuck you will.

[ellisonz]

68. Government has such rights.

Evade on your taxes, they'll punish you. Hypothetically, if the people were to choose to restrict possession of assault weapons, you would have no choice to but to accede and go to the Courts for relief. You're not advocating armed resistance to the government in a hypothetical situation are you?

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Not without compensation, it doesn't. How will you pay for them? And hypothetically..

...if 1% of gun owners decide that government *doesn't* actually have that right, you'll have 800,000 new "terrorists" to deal with.

Do you dislike guns that much?

[ellisonz]

84. Considering the public cost of the current regime of laws...

...which totals $100 billion, the savings alone should help pay for it. Otherwise, I think many people would be glad to get the guns out of the hands of the crazies anyway they can. Kinda like buying slaves...I suppose you agree with Ron Paul that the North should have just bought the slaves.

I object to the tyranny of a few over the rights of the many.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. And from whence do you derive this figure of $100 billion?

I find your expertise in economics to be on a par with that of your expertise in Constitutional law and psychology.
Not that I object to autodidacticism, mind you, but it only goes so far...

[ellisonz]

139. Here you go...

http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Violence-Studies-Public-Policy/dp/0195153847/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325112977&sr=8-1

[friendly_iconoclast]

166. "They said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

I didn't find that convincing when the first words were "The Bible said it...", and I certainly remain unconvinced now.

[PavePusher]

105. "I object to the tyranny of a few over the rights of the many."

Well, that's rich in irony, considering that tyranny of the few over the many is exactly what you continually propose here.

[ellisonz]

140. That's your opinion.

I'll state the obvious countervail which is that many Americans fear the effect of gun violence on their lives. If you can't appreciate that...

[beevul]

111. Fixxed it for you.

"I object to the tyranny of a few over the rights of the many. "

Here, let me fix that:

"I support the tyranny of a few over the rights of the many."

There, thats better.


In case you didn't know it, you ARE the minority of which you speak.

[rrneck]

207. Wait a minute.

Ron Paul?

[ellisonz]

188. Tax's on new sales.

"Do you dislike guns that much?"

I dislike what Bill Clinton described as the "insanity" of it that much.

"...if 1% of gun owners decide that government *doesn't* actually have that right, you'll have 800,000 new "terrorists" to deal with."

Are you advocating armed resistance as a response toward the government in any Constitutionally approved process for reigning in the gun "insanity"?

[PavePusher]

197. Gun and ammo sales already Federally taxed at 11%.

You ignorance is glaring. Again.

[DissedByBush]

185. The government has no rights

The government has only powers that were granted to it by the people.

Only people have rights.

[rl6214]

203. You gonna be the one to come pick them up?

[Remmah2]

41. Nice cartoons.

Hyperbole illustrated.

[ellisonz]

69. You're welcome.

Feel free to post your own cartoons - no reason for me to have a monopoly.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. No ex post facto laws.

Read the constitution, and learn a thing or two. Broadly banning a firearm AND attempting to confiscate is not a status offense, and is illegal, per the Constitution.

Which of course, is to be expected from people who have trouble parsing the simple data in the 2nd amendment.

[ellisonz]

98. Oh there's plenty of wiggle room on this one...

However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. One current U.S. law that has an ex post facto effect is the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. This law, which imposes new registration requirements on convicted sex offenders, also applies to offenders whose crimes were committed before the law was enacted.[10] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Doe (2003) that forcing sex offenders to register their whereabouts at regular intervals and the posting of personal information about them on the Internet does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, because this does not constitute any kind of punishment.[11]

Another example is the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, where firearms prohibitions were imposed on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses and subjects of restraining orders (which do not require a criminal conviction). These individuals can now be sentenced to up to 10 years in a federal prison for possession of a firearm, regardless of whether or not the weapon was legally possessed at the time the law was passed. Among those that it is claimed the law has affected is a father who was convicted of a misdemeanor of child abuse for spanking his child, since anyone convicted of child abuse now faces a lifetime firearms prohibition. The law has been legally upheld because it is considered regulatory, not punitive—it is a status offense.

Finally, Calder v. Bull expressly stated that a law that "mollifies" a criminal act was merely retrospective and not an ex post facto law.

A large "exception" to the ex post facto prohibition can be found in administrative law, as federal agencies may apply their rules retroactively if Congress has authorized them to do so. Retroactive application is disfavored by the courts for a number of reasons,[12] but Congress may grant agencies this authority through express statutory provision. Furthermore, when an agency engages in adjudication, it may apply its own policy goals and interpretation of statutes retroactively, even if it has not formally promulgated a rule on a subject.

Retroactive taxes are not ex post facto laws.[13] Substantive due process challenges to retroactive tax laws are given rational basis review per United States v. Carlton.

See also Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Bouie v. City of Columbia, Rogers v. Tennessee, Stogner v. California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

So basically government can do everything up to and including seizing contraband arms from select groups including levying retrospective taxation.

Good thing those radical right-wing Republicans are protecting your assault weapon ownership

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. You propose to tell 80 million people that you're going to take their property?

And then proclaim them criminals if they do not comply? While the most popular political group that represents *them* outnumbers the one that
represents *you* at a ratio of approximately 80:1?

No wonder President Obama has quit making pronouncements supporting gun control. Unlike Newt Gingrich, he isn't the kind of guy that would drive
over a cliff in an attempt to get at his enemies.

[ellisonz]

102. You propose to do little or nothing it seems...

...to address the festering problems caused by lax gun regulation. Why are you so content?

"No wonder President Obama has quit making pronouncements supporting gun control."

Actually, you're just not paying attention and the GOP is obstructing every effort (big surprise, they love the gun nuts).

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am
Full Length Editorial: http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

Gun control off the table as Congress feels heat from influential NRA
Little prospect of tighter regulation on guns, with America's powerful gun lobby arguing against new laws being introduced
Chris McGreal in Houston
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 8 December 2011 12.45 EST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/08/gun-control-us-congress-nra

And I would bet you brass to tacks that we're going to get a statement on January 8th, the 1-year-anniversary of the Tucson shooting.

Gun control will be an issue this coming election season - the GOP and the NRA will make sure of that

[AtheistCrusader]

121. No, people like YOU will make sure of that.

They get no traction without you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. What "festering problems" would those be? Can't be the violent crime and murder rates...

...as those have been declining steadily for years. Must be the guns themselves, right?

Arguments blaming inanimate objects and speech for defects in human nature are usually promulgated by the likes of Harry J. Anslinger, Fredric Wertham, and Focus on Family. Weird seeing a DUer doing it.

[ellisonz]

149. Simplification and obsfucation.

"Arguments blaming inanimate objects and speech for defects in human nature are usually promulgated by the likes of Harry J. Anslinger, Fredric Wertham, and Focus on Family. Weird seeing a DUer doing it."

Shall we even begin to discuss the right-wing terror groups the gun nuts are enabling...

[AtheistCrusader]

119. Nice of you to highlight the 'status offense' part I already pointed out.

It's like you're immune to factual information or something.


Also, you should review existing supreme court cases involving excessive tax/license fees amounting to a de facto ban, and thus impermissible per the 2nd amendment.

Heller Vs. DC would be an example

[friendly_iconoclast]

128. Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, for another.

Especially since more than one poster here has advocated higher taxes on firearms in order to limit them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=438082

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=458447#458463

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=380479#380596


I know some like to dismiss SC decisions they don't like by handwaving and shouting, or pissing on those justices that voted for them- but
I've noticed one thing about them:

None of them *ever* mention any cases they've worked on, or amicus briefs they've filed, or the Constitutional law classes they've taken.

[Union Scribe]

113. There is literally zero percent chance of that happening.

Cities already can't pay to keep enough cops on the streets and jails are overflowing. And that was during the good times. Now it's ridiculously worse. There are not enough resources to carry out such a plan even if it were politically feasible, which is even less likely.

[ellisonz]

152. Welcome to the United States of Fear!

[Union Scribe]

183. ...was that a reply to my post?

This thread is so random I can't tell anymore.

[ellisonz]

187. Yes.

You wrote: "Cities already can't pay to keep enough cops on the streets and jails are overflowing. And that was during the good times. Now it's ridiculously worse. There are not enough resources to carry out such a plan even if it were politically feasible, which is even less likely."

[Union Scribe]

190. Right, I know that part. I wrote it.

What I don't know is how Dennis the Menace's sister and a floatilla of candles counters the reality standing between your plan and it ever, ever happening.

[Common Sense Party]

114. "Damn right we'll confiscate."

Thanks for finally being honest.

You don't get to have my guns. Go get your own.

[Fair Witness]

133. "we" will confiscate? Do you have a turd in your pocket? You are more than welcome to

come to my neighborhood and get a headstart on the fascist bastards. I'll laugh as you try to pick little bits of lead out of your sorry butt.

[PavePusher]

167. He won't volunteer for the job.

None of those who advocate confiscation ever do. It might put them at risk.....

If they really beleived the tripe they spew, you'd think they'd have the courage of their convictions (or any courage) rather than hide behind hired thugs.

[Fair Witness]

198. Cheeto-munching fatass keyboard kommandos never do.

[beevul]

156. "Damn right we'll confiscate"

Really?

Will you be involved in that yourself? Or will you leave it to people with *gasp* guns to do your dirty work for you?


But hey at least theres a shred of honesty there.

[MicaelS]

194. "Damn right we'll confiscate."

You would not have the personal courage to walk up to someone's front door, and try to confiscate their guns. Because you know that people with nothing left to lose just might be willing to turn those guns on you. You would send some poor bastards in uniform to do your dirty work for you, then if something happened to them, you would be able to wring your hands, and say "See, we were right!"

[Hoyt]

19. Not such inane ideas at all. Maybe some of you need to get your "head" out of your gun barrels.

In response to your: "I am really only responding to this drivel so that others like yourself who have never been within one hundred yards of a firearm will understand how foolish such notions are."

I think people who haven't been brought up with guns around every corner have a reasonably clear view of this issue. A view that people who can't walk out the door without a gun or two will never have.

[rrneck]

20. Their ideas wont be clear at all

if they don't know anything about what they're trying to regulate.

This sub thread is a fine example of that.

[Hoyt]

22. Most folks don't know anything about bombs, poisons, etc., but we regulate them. Plenty of examples.

[rrneck]

23. You're funny.

American taxpayers fund the greatest war machine in history. Ours is almost half the military budget of the entire planet.

[Hoyt]

28. We are talking about private explosives, etc., not military. Besides, you want to arm populace.

Not only do we have to blow the hell out of everyone else in the world through our military (and mercenaries), you want to have us shooting each other by all the sides/factions arming up.

[rrneck]

65. Awwwwww.

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2011, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Not really. Explosives are useless for self defense. Actually I would rather nobody had to be armed. But some will need to be, and we won't know who that will be in advance.

[ellisonz]

30. Militarism according to Merriam-Webster.

mil·i·ta·rism
noun \ˈmi-lə-tə-ˌri-zəm\
Definition of MILITARISM
1
a : predominance of the military class or its ideals b : exaltation of military virtues and ideals
2: a policy of aggressive military preparedness

First Known Use of MILITARISM
1864

[rrneck]

81. Sounds about right. nt

[ellisonz]

29. I would add that I've been around guns...

My father had his father's old hunting rifle, he shot squirrels in Missouri as a boy, I've been around police all my life, I have friends and relatives who own guns and are toters. I've watched more war and crime movies, read more books on the subject, than many posters here would probably care to admit. I know what I'm talking about and I know why I believe what I believe. Trying to discredit and insult me just goes to show the intellectual dishonesty of the pro-gun lobby.

It's never to late to stand up for what is right.

[Remmah2]

39. Sounds like part of your gun phobia is based on fiction.

John Wayne, Rambo, Predator, Scarface?

[ellisonz]

70. Well that and the front page of the newspaper...

...the nightly news...and victims of gun crime I personally know. And yeah, I don't like them. Phobia, don't flatter yourself.

[Fair Witness]

134. Another variation on "some of my best friends are..."

you didn't just invent that meme, Goober, it's been around a long, long time.

[ellisonz]

158. Are you saying I'm a liar?

Would you like me to call you names too...?

[Fair Witness]

163. Feel free. I said you were not the first person to preface a bigoted comment with a disclaimer.

And you sure as hell are not.

[ellisonz]

169. I'll take that as a gruding apology. n/t

Also, I have no idea what "bigoted comment with a disclaimer" - I do have good friends who have semi-automatic handguns and AR-15's. I don't get their logic.

In fact, here's a taste of some of their arguments on this topic:

"I would much rather establish social welfare programs that can provide alternatives to violence - of any kind - to at risk youths who are by and large the biggest perpetrators and victims of gun violence in this country."

"Also for what it's worth AR-15s are actually ideal weapons for protection inside the home as their rounds are less likely to go long distances through walls and hurt innocent people on the other side. That among many other reasons are why they are becoming increasingly popular with law enforcement over shotguns."

"I've seen it but not recently. As for the Brady Campaign... yea... They're the same thing as the NRA, and neither I care to donate to..."

"If you think the 2nd Amendment's Militia Clause forecloses an individual right to bear arms, I'd suggest you read any of Eugene Volokh's research on this - http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/#GUNCONTROL There's probably no one alive who's more expert in the field. Also, for what its worth, even several leading Harvard / Yale liberal law professors concede that there's an constitutionally protected individual right to bear arms - Akhil Amar, Laurence Tribe, Jack Balkin, etc. This doesn't mean all restrictions are unconstitutional. Just as many limits on speech are constitutional (time / place / manner regs, defamation laws, obscenity bans, etc), things like registration / background checks / etc would certainly pass constitutional scrutiny. But "paramount control" over who can bring guns to town is like paramount control over who can speak."

"To me gun ownership and the "right" should be renewed regularly. Not to mention if proper checks we're followed a lot of the guns used in tragedies as this wouldn't be in the possession of the shooter. Another problem with gun control is it doesn't address the issue of illegal guns already in circulation. A lot of guns used in violent crimes are never legally bought and sometimes are stolen."

That's from our discussions on facebook over the recent Bloomberg tapes. Off your high horse dude...

[rl6214]

204. Of course you have

[ellisonz]

205. I just don't sleep with one

[PavePusher]

34. Sort of like your "long-range laser sniper sights", or whatever hoodooo you claimed? n/t

[DissedByBush]

115. How many arms do you have, of the biological type?

Even with 10,000 weapons, a collector can only carry a few at a time, shoot maybe two at a time.

Your absurd limit has nothing to do with safety, only a personal hatred of guns.

"You're not suggesting we allow individual people to have a sufficient amount of arms to wage war against the Federal government are you?"

Actually, that was the idea behind the Second Amendment in the first place, so the answer is yes.

But even then an individual only needs one weapon to do that, so stopping "hoarding" has no value in this sense.

[ellisonz]

138. Reductio ad absurdum.

"Actually, that was the idea behind the Second Amendment in the first place, so the answer is yes."

Nowhere will you find that written in the Constitution. That the Supreme Court cited "Anti-Federalists" to make such an argument shows clearly that it is nowhere in the Constitution and that it is clearly defined as treason. Mystification.

[DissedByBush]

155. "Free state"

Means free from oppression, as the current government becoming oppressive.

There is ample evidence throughout the Founders that this was the intent.

The Founders who themselves were guilty of treason.

[PavePusher]

202. It's only "treason" if you lose.

Note that this nation was founded on treason. We won.

[ellisonz]

206. You won't win.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted"

Insurrectionists make me

[PavePusher]

209. You can hold your rofl, as I am not endorsing such activity....

unless things become much, much worse than they are now.

We aren't anywhere near the conditions that set off the American Revolution.

[Remmah2]

36. I'm prepared to advocate reasonable security of firearms.

No problem. Government subsidized gun safes.

[img][/img]

[ellisonz]

37. Why should the tax payers at large pay for this?

I'd love to see gun purchasers fund such a program

[Remmah2]

40. Only the ATF provides that level of government support.

Unfortunately only to foreign nations.

[Atypical Liberal]

62. So do I own a "dangerous number" of firearms?

I own the following weapons:

(2) Ruger 10/22 rifles (small game hunting and target shooting, family heirloom)
(1) Colt Woodsman .22 pistol (target shooting, family heirloom)
(1) Remington 1100 20GA shotgun (hunting and skeet, family heirloom)
(1) Winchester Model 12 12GA shotgun (hunting, and family heirloom)
(1) Winchester Model 21 12GA shotgun( hunting, and family heirloom)
(1) Beretta 12GA shotgun (hunting, family heirloom)
(1) Weatherby .243 rifle (hunting, family heirloom)
(1) S&W Model 629 .44 Magnum revolver (target shooting, family heirloom)
(1) Ruger P90 .45ACP pistol (self defense)
(1) SAR-1 AK-47 7.62x39 rifle (self defense)
(1) Beretta CX4 9mm carbine (target shooting)
(2) 1851 Navy .44 revolvers (target shooting)
(1) 1853 Enfield musket (target shooting)

Does this constitute a dangerous number of firearms in your view?

I think the idea of a dangerous number of firearms is ridiculous. A man can only use at most two firearms at a time. Do you think that a man can carry such an arsenal as mine, with all the requisite ammunition, and go on a shooting spree? Look at all the mass shooters in recent history - how many firearms did they carry with them as they committed their crimes? Two? Three? Four?

Why do you think the GOP loves beating the gun drum so much?

Because they are pandering to a demographic who believes fiercely in self-reliance. That includes taking personal responsibility for your own safety and that of your family. Sadly these people have been duped into thinking that if a politician talks a good game about god and guns that he must be an upstanding kind of guy. Inevitably they end up having wide stances in public restrooms while passing legislation that curtails our civil liberties. But hey, if you ask your average republican they won't have a damn clue about the suspension of habeus corpus, about pervasive domestic surveillance, about extraordinary rendition, or enhanced interrogation techniques. And if they do, they'll think it all only affects brown people so they don't have anything to be concerned about.

[ileus]

8. Ron Paul is in the lead now...time to switch your focus.

[ellisonz]

14. Ron Paul is in league with the pro-gun lobby too.

IMHO.

[spin]

9. Why should we give the GOP the opportunity to use gun control as a wedge issue..

80,000,000 people are estimated to own firearms in our nation and it's well known that gun owners show up at the polls to vote.

Our party has been shooting itself in the foot for years by backing draconian gun control and we have lost many close elections over this issue. Your idea of limiting the number of firearms that a person can own would prove to be a total disaster and would guarantee losses in future elections. Look at how the Republicans were successfully able to use the assault weapons ban in past elections and your idea would have even far worse results.

In my opinion, Obama has followed a wise path on control. He does favor some improvements to the NICS background check but has never proposed another assault weapons ban or any other useless "feel good" laws. Even so, many gun owners distrust him and will refuse to vote for him in the next election.

No matter how you try to ignore it, the crime rate has fallen significantly in the United States in the last decade despite the sun setting of the assault weapons ban and the enormous increase in the sale of firearms to civilians.

I suspect that you favor the incremental approach to eventually banning all firearms. You feel it would be reasonable to limit a person's collection to a certain number. Let’s suppose that number is five. You would say that would allow a person to own two handguns, a shotgun and two rifles or other such combinations. You would argue that a person should be happy with that number.

How exactly would that reduce the problem of gun violence? I own over twenty firearms and compared to many gun owners I have a small collection. None of my firearms has ever been misused for a criminal purpose. In fact they have never been used to shoot any living creature. I've probably punched well over 250,000 holes in paper targets over the years. How has this endangered anyone?

However a criminal with just one firearm can cause a tragedy. Wouldn't it make far more sense to focus attention on criminals rather than honest people like me and the many shooters I have known and shot with on different ranges?

One big drawback to your idea is that it would probably require the registration of all firearms. Even the much less gun friendly nation of Canada has had significant problems with their gun registration program. The chances of passing nationwide gun registration in the United States are zero to none and even if a miracle happened and it was passed, a high percentage of gun owners would simply refuse to register their weapons. Would you have police swat teams invade houses to confiscate firearms? If so, you might foster a insurrection that would tear our nation apart.

Suppose a politician campaigned on your idea of limiting firearms. That might seem to be a really good idea to those who don't own firearms or those who have little understanding of the shooting sports and of course those who fear gun owners. It might be a winning issue in New York City or Chicago but it would never fly in many other urban and rural areas in gun friendly states. I and many other gun owners have a significant amount of money invested in our firearms and if we felt that we would be required to get rid of a significant portion of our collections, you can damn well bet that we would vote against any politician who even mentioned such an idea. We WOULD show up to vote!!!

God forbid that a Presidential candidate would embrace such an idea. Many experts feel Al Gore would have won the election without the fiasco that occurred in Florida if only he would have won Tennessee, his own home state. Some feel that his views on gun control might have cost him the election in Tennessee. There was only a difference of 80,000 votes between Gore and Bush in that state. That easily could have been the votes cast by gun owners.

Despite gallant efforts the gun control advocates have been unable to stop the "shall issue" concealed carry laws that have swept across our nation. One look at this map should show just how hard it would be to limit the number of guns a person can own. Only a small percentage of people actually get carry permits. In Florida the figure is about 6% of eligible adults and Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry for 24 years and has a higher percentage of licensed people than most other states with the same law. It should be easier to get people to vote against a concealed carry law that allows people to carry handguns in public than it would be to get them to vote for your scheme.

[ellisonz]

15. "I suspect that you favor the incremental approach to eventually banning all firearms."

Your suspicion would be deeply misplaced...Again, my beef is not with responsible gun owners, my beef is with irresponsible gun owners and those who enable the possession of weapons by dangerous individuals such as the criminal, deranged, and hate groups. You would be benefited to think how arms are obtained by these groups and why we do little to stop them.

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

Harry S Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action (17 May 1952

They are going to attack on guns anyway...they are going to attack and distort anyway so we might as well have a coherent position on gun control.

Here's a taste of what's to come:

If you think these are bad, wait until the outside groups get in the game...

Weaseling out on gun control isn't going to work, and it will come up.

"If so, you might foster a insurrection that would tear our nation apart."

Which just goes to show the danger of letting this non-sense go on and on...

Frankly, it's a fuckin miracle we haven't had a serious attempt on the President's life. We are going to have nuts with guns bringing them to political events including outside of Presidential events. This is going to come up. We're not going to dodge it; the Teabaggers are in full crazy mode. Pray for the President.

[spin]

25. There is absolutely no reason to support any form of new draconian gun law...

Including registration, gun bans or your limit on firearm ownership. These are basically "feel good" laws and do not address any real problem. Violent crime is and has been decreasing and now is back at the levels of the 60s. Whatever we are doing is working. Statistics show that more guns do not equal more crime.

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time

2010 was even safer.

According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2010 declined for the fourth consecutive year. Property crimes also decreased, marking this the eighth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined.

The 2010 statistics show that the estimated volumes of violent and property crimes declined 6.0 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively, when compared with the 2009 estimates. The violent crime rate for the year was 403.6 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants (a 6.5 percent decrease from the 2009 rate), and the property crime rate was 2,941.9 offenses per 100,000 persons (a 3.3 percent decrease from the 2009 figure).
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2010-crime-statistics

And the preliminary figures for 2011 are even better!

Statistics released today in the FBI’s Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report indicate that the number of violent crimes reported in the first six months of 2011 declined 6.4 percent when compared with figures from the first six months of 2010. The number of property crimes decreased 3.7 percent for the same time frame. The report is based on information from more than 12,500 law enforcement agencies that submitted three to six comparable months of data to the FBI in the first six months of 2010 and 2011.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-semiannual-crime-statistics-for-2011

Our party would be far better off to just forget about the gun control issue and simply suggest improving and enforcing existing gun laws just as Obama has. Every time a Democrat in some very liberal bastion of the nation comes out with a new gun control idea, the news rapidly spreads across the nation. Many gun owners who live in areas where even the Democratic politicians are for RKBA decide to not vote for any Democrat ever. It hurts our party which is why I say we are shooting ourselves in the foot by pushing for new gun control.



I do not oppose tweaking existing gun laws to make them more effective and strict enforcement of these laws. However there is little support for the implementation of more gun control in today's society.


[div class="excerpt"
October 26, 2011
Record-Low 26% in U.S. Favor Handgun Ban
Support for stricter gun laws in general is lowest Gallup has measured
by Jeffrey M. Jones










Implications

Americans have shifted to a more pro-gun view on gun laws, particularly in recent years, with record-low support for a ban on handguns, an assault rifle ban, and stricter gun laws in general. This is the case even as high-profile incidents of gun violence continue in the United States, such as the January shootings at a meeting for U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona.

The reasons for the shift do not appear related to reactions to the crime situation, as Gallup's Crime poll shows no major shifts in the trends in Americans' perceptions of crime, fear of crime, or reports of being victimized by crime in recent years. Nor does it appear to be tied to an increase in gun ownership, which has been around 40% since 2000, though it is a slightly higher 45% in this year's update. The 2011 updates on these trends will appear on Gallup.com in the coming days.

Perhaps the trends are a reflection of the American public's acceptance of guns. In 2008, Gallup found widespread agreement with the idea that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own guns. Americans may also be moving toward more libertarian views in some areas, one example of which is greater support for legalizing marijuana use. Diminished support for gun-control laws may also be tied to the lack of major gun-control legislation efforts in Congress in recent years.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

I agree this next election will probably be one of the nastiest in American history. However I believe there will be some improvement in the economy and that will enable Obama to win reelection. At this point it looks like the Republicans will make the mistake of nominating Romney and they will be wondering why he got squashed by Obama. Romney is not just a flip flopper, he is a shape shifter. The Republican base obviously dislikes him and if he gets the nomination they will simply not show up at the polls to vote. None of the other Republican candidates at this time look capable of even running a national campaign and they all seem a little strange and somewhat looney. Plus there is a possibility that someone like Trump or Palin will run on a third party ticket which would guarantee Obama's win even if the economy doesn't improve.

I too worry about Obama's safety but usually assassination attempts are tried by nuts such as Hinckley or are quite possibly hits carried out by professionals as may have happened during the Kennedy assassination. Obama hasn't proved to be a significant threat to the military industrial complex or any other powerful group for that matter. Therefore I have confidence that the Secret Service can deal with the nuts and nobody of any real power will feel threatened enough to hire the best hit men existing. Of course, if Obama were killed, draconian gun control would become possible even if a firearm was not involved. I pray for him not only to be a successful President but to survive. I did the same for every President after I lived through the Kennedy assassination as a teenager. Those were troubled times.

A question, you say. "my beef is not with responsible gun owners, my beef is with irresponsible gun owners and those who enable the possession of weapons by dangerous individuals such as the criminal, deranged, and hate groups." If that is actually true why do you want to limit the number of firearms that I own as I don't fit into any of those categories?

[ellisonz]

31. I don't think it's going to be Romney.

1. I think it's going to be Newt and we all know how dirty he can get. I wish it was Romney and you're right he's a cakewalk. Newt is not a cakewalk - he's dangerous.

2. "I do not oppose tweaking existing gun laws to make them more effective and strict enforcement of these laws." - They will attack this moderated reasonable position as "taking away guns" - this was the Democratic position in 2008 and it got use the full on crazy Tea Party. They have on plan: attack, attack, attack. So let's attack them as soft on crime, as enabling extremists, and as irresponsible for creating an environment of fear. Let's be clear about where we stand.

3. I don't want a hard limit. I want proper licensing of legitimate collectors and restrictions on those who are not. Can you please explain to me why it is imperative for someone to have 200 hundred guns, the vast majority of which are not collectors items, and why this should go largely untaxed and largely unregulated? I'm sorry, but if they've got the money to blow on guns, they've got the money to fund increased enforcement of existing regulations at the very least. I'd also like to see a hard and fast law on carrying weapons in government buildings and at political events.

4. Conspiracy theories not withstanding, the threat of gun maniacs or White Supremacists targeting the President is very real and serious. A particular poster here earlier today suggested that one should be allowed to carry a firearm in the presence of the President of the United States, this is an outrage. We need all the prayer we can get in this country, and not with a gun in hand.

[PavePusher]

35. #3.... How about 5 years after you have licences...

for all your First Amendment materials and tools.

We'll see how that works ourt... first.

[ellisonz]

42. I don't understand what the heck you're arguing for.

The Brandenburg test was the Court's last major statement on what government may do about inflammatory speech that seeks to incite others to lawless action. It resolved the debate between those who urged greater government control of speech for reasons of security and those who favored allowing as much speech as possible and relying on the marketplace of ideas to reach a favorable result, leaving the law in a state along the lines of that which Justices Louis Brandeis, and, post-Schenck, Oliver Wendell Holmes advocated in several dissents and concurrences during the late 1910s and early 1920s. As of 2011, the Brandenburg test is still the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg, so the test remains largely unqualified.
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

The First Amendment says nothing about regulation.

If posters can't take you seriously on the First Amendment, why should they take you seriously on the Second Amendment?

[PavePusher]

47. "The First Amendment says nothing about regulation."

Neither does the Second.

[ellisonz]

52. ...

"A well [font color="red" size="30" face="face"]regulated[/font] Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

"How about 5 years after you have licences...for all your First Amendment materials and tools."

Again, what do you mean by that? Are you snarking that a liberal Democrat should have his right to free speech limited? What are you saying?

[X_Digger]

55. "well-regulated..

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

[div class='excerpt']In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Well regulated like your watch, or your colon, not your taxes.

Also, re-read the preamble to the bill of rights..

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Abuse of whose powers? Restrictive clauses against whom?

[ellisonz]

71. Sophistry.

That would be the government limiting itself - nowhere have I claimed that the government has the right to infringement. I've simply said it has the right to "a well regulated Militia." You're also not persuasive that such gun controls as I would suggest in any way prohibit the "well functioning" of a Militia, which your side claims is unconnected to gun ownership. See the Uniform Militia Act of 1792.

Believe what you like, you're not going to convince me one bit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. He doesn't have to convince you- you need to persuade the Supreme Court of your stance.

Good luck with that. How many briefs have you filed in Federal court, again?

[ellisonz]

82. How many far-right Republican judges did you need to get that Supreme Court case?

"How many briefs have you filed in Federal court, again?" How many have you?

Compared to your post below in which you plainly distorted my words, you're now talking out of both sides of your mouth about the political motivations of the Court. Desperate.

This merits a cartoon:

[X_Digger]

116. Of course it's the government limiting itself- see the anti-federalists' writings.

For a 'historian', you're pretty damned unconnected to the facts.

[div class='excerpt']That would be the government limiting itself - nowhere have I claimed that the government has the right to infringement. I've simply said it has the right to "a well regulated Militia." You're also not persuasive that such gun controls as I would suggest in any way prohibit the "well functioning" of a Militia, which your side claims is unconnected to gun ownership. See the Uniform Militia Act of 1792.

If the government limited the people from owning arms, they'd have a hard time raising a well-regulated (well functioning) militia.

It's the 'why'.

[PavePusher]

38. #4... So, you agree with this guy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/peter-king-strict-gun-control_n_807323.html

"Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions."

You would, in effect, solidify the creation of the new American Royalty. Congrats.

P.S. Some two years before Rep. Giffords was shot, I was open carrying my sidearm at one of her "Congress on the Cornor" events outside a Safeway on my side of Tucson. I had no idea she was going to be there, I merely stopped to pick a few items on my home from other errands. At the time, being fairly new in town still, I really didn't know who she was until I saw the pamphlets on a table nearby. I got in line to ask a few questions, but had showed up just as they were closing down. No-one appeared concerned by my sidearm. Since she is known to carry herself, she may actually have been armed that day.

The sky, it did not fall.....

[ellisonz]

45. Not perhaps that exact phrasing of 1,000 feet...but yes, in principle...

I don't think you should be allowed to threaten government officials with firearms by displaying them at public events. Can you please explain to me again why you think people should be able to take their guns to town halls with their Congressman? To judges homes? To appearances by the President of the United States? What is your motivation? How does this not violate the First Amendment right to peaceable assembly? i.e. ";or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

"It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King's legislation to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary, would offer government officials the same protection."

"You would, in effect, solidify the creation of the new American Royalty. Congrats."

You think our politicians both Democratic and Republican to be "American Royalty" - does this mean Obama gets a scepter?

[PavePusher]

49. Mere exercise of a Constitutional Right within sight of a political figure....

does not, in and of itself, rise to the level of a threat.

But thanks for the accusation.

[ellisonz]

53. Bullshit.

So you think you ought to be able to take a gun if you're a CCW holder to a Presidential event? For what purpose? There would be armed Federal agents ensuring the security of the event? Are they not sufficient? Do you think there should be no Secret Service? Why do you think we have a Secret Service?

I didn't accuse you of anything, I questioned your understanding of the Constitution.

[PavePusher]

66. Those "Federal agents" would be there to protect the president....

not the civilian attendees. I think the SS is just fine and sufficient... for the President. They aren't there for me. But thanks for twisting my words. Again.

And the fuck you didn't accuse me. Retract it.

"I don't think you should be allowed to threaten government officials with firearms by displaying them at public events."

[ellisonz]

73. Dingbat.

You support allowing armed civilians within sight of the President for no explicit purpose than some cockamamy reasoning about why the Secret Service wouldn't protect you and I simply say that there is no good reason for such action than to try and threaten or make an attempt on the President's life. The Secret Service does not allow armed individuals other than Secret Service agents within range of the President, and for good reason, the mere threat of assassination is sufficient reasoning. Please, go ahead and try it, I dare you.

Again, you have a really messed up view of government employees. To assert that the Secret Service would do anything other than protect the President and neutralize the attacker as expeditiously as possible is libertarian bullshit of the highest order. I'm not retracting a damn thing, you're taking that position and I'll be damned if I budge on this one.

[PavePusher]

104. I haven't asserted anything other than that the SS is there to do a particular job...

and it doesn't include me.

Again you are twisting words and making accusations.

My being armed for my personal defense does not constitute a threat to any public official. To claim so is paranoia of a high order.

[ellisonz]

106. That's quite the delusion...

"My being armed for my personal defense does not constitute a threat to any public official. To claim so is paranoia of a high order. "

May I remind you of the history of assassination in this country...

[PavePusher]

108. Again you accuse me of nefarious intent.

How long do you expect me to put up with this?

[ellisonz]

136. I will not...

...submit to the notion that you have a right to bear arms deliberately in the presence of an elected official. As far as I'm concerned, the better a bill like Pete King's passes the better, because the next assassination attempt is not a question of if, but when. You do know under Federal law you can't bear arms "that have moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce" with 1,000 feet of a school right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

I think the public business of Federal officials will certainly fall within that authority.

[PavePusher]

172. Bzzzzzzt!! Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance... again.

B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;


So I'm covered in a number of states.

And how that law applies to "the public business of Federal officials", you'll have to explain. That should be a good contortion show.

I note that you've now conflated me with assassins. I'd sure like to see the evidence you cast these accusations from.

[ellisonz]

173. I've said you're belief enables them...

Do you not believe that the allowing people to tote in the presence of Federal officials would result in assassinations?

Please make an OP for your argument, otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

[PavePusher]

174. Well, your opinion of legal carriers is now well known. Nothing I can add to your vitriol and fear.

[ellisonz]

175. Now you're just obsfucating...

[PavePusher]

67. "How does this not violate the First Amendment right to peaceable assembly?"

Again you conflate exercise of a Right with intent to threaten.

You are wrong, and you are making accusations. Stop.

[ellisonz]

74. Well then denounce your previous position...

...and I'll think you're reasonable. Otherwise, you're nuts if you think it has any purpose other than to threaten or cause harm. Shame on you, sir.

[PavePusher]

107. What position? That the indeterminate proximity of a elected public servent...

nullifies my Civil Rights?

Not in this life-time.

[ellisonz]

135. "indeterminate proximity"

You funny...

I really like the tactic of going with the absurd to try and disprove the realistic. Please, try to take a gun into the US Capitol. I dare you.

[ellisonz]

86. Addition in response to your edit:

You do realize that there was a man CCWing in a store nearby that day. He couldn't stop it. Don't you realize that someone like Loughner could just hector our politicians like that?

Gabrielle Giffords gun control positions:

Ban semi-automatics; but allow concealed carry

Indicate which principles you support concerning gun issues.
Ban the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns, except those used for hunting.
Maintain and strengthen the enforcement of existing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
Allow citizens to carry concealed guns.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns.
Require background checks of gun buyers at gun shows.

Source: 2000 Arizona State National Political Awareness Test Nov 1, 2000

Giffords signed H.R.197&S.845

Establishes a national standard for the carrying of concealed firearms (other than a machinegun or destructive device) by non-residents. Authorizes a person who has a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state and who is not prohibited from carrying a firearm under federal law to carry a concealed firearm in another state:

Notwithstanding any law of any State, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm and is carrying a valid license to carry a concealed firearm may carry in another State a concealed firearm.
If such other State issues licenses to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply in that State.
If such other State does not issue licenses to carry concealed firearms, the person may not carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a courthouse, at a meeting of a governing body, in a school, at an athletic event, in an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages, or inside an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.

Source: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act 09-HR197 on Jan 6, 2009

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Gabby_Giffords_Gun_Control.htm

Giffords feared being shot at event
By Jordan Fabian - 01/19/11 08:37 AM ET

The husband of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords said his wife feared being shot at a public event with constituents.

In his first interview since Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 18 others were shot on Jan. 8 at a public event in Tucson, Ariz., astronaut Mark Kelly said that his wife and he had discussed the possibility of violence against her at least 10 times before.

"You know, she says, 'Someday, I'm really worried that somebody is going to come up to me at one of these events with a gun,' " he told ABC News's Diane Sawyer.

-------

"Maybe we could use this as an opportunity to make things better," he said. "Maybe it's time to just tone it down, try to get back to a better place, try to get to a place where we can just disagree, and get rid of the heated, angry rhetoric."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/138701-giffords-husband-said-she-feared-shooting

"Despite her stated support, gun rights groups typically give her low grades on the topic. She has a D+ rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA)[98] and a D from the Gun Owners of America (GOA).[99]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Giffords#Gun_rights

Gabrielle Giffords did not support your position on gun rights - wake up! And yes, I've been to Tucson...

Seriously, your positions are absurd...you have no right to carry at political events.

[PavePusher]

109. Firstly, no-one claimed any legally armed person can guarantee anyones' safety...

including their own. In much the same way that the SS is not there to protect me, it's not really the job of the Citizen CCW holder to protect any particular individual at random. And how a random stranger is responsible for protecting another person dozens of yards away, from inside a seperate store, is beyond my comprehension.


Secondly, I never claimed that Mrs. Giffords' thoughts on guns were fully parallel with my own, you drew that assumption out of thin air. Your cite is certainly interesting, but I have never heard that she favored banning semi-autos. I'd like to see a primary source or quotaion from her on that one, seeing as how she was known to own them herself.

Thirdly, I do not dismiss her/his concerns, but that is a risk one takes as a public servant. Being an elected official does not cancel out the Civil Rights of those in some indeterminate proximity to you, especially if you are putting yourself into public areas at random. Unless you are suggesting otherwise (and I don't know how you could enforce it) there is no Civil Rights-suspension zone around a free-range politician.

ETA: O.K., if you have enough personnel, you can put a cordon around someone. The SS is actually very good at this. But it's incredibly demanding in terms of training and manpower and expense. That's why we generally only do it for the President and a very few other select persons.

[ellisonz]

137. "No-one appeared concerned by my sidearm."

1. Now you know they were just probably being polite...either way she's certainly not in league with the gun culture and its wettest of dreams, carrying near elected officials as a right. Also, you misread, she was against the re-selling of semi-auto's (i.e. what's captured on the Bloomberg tapes), not for banning them. I'm sure the position is accurate. You can do your own digging...

2. On law enforcement: you seem to have a very dismal view of the mission they carry out to protect the general public safety. You know when they swear an oath to the Constitution, the preamble and remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't excluded dude.

3. "Being an elected official does not cancel out the Civil Rights of those in some indeterminate proximity to you" - it just makes many of us really fucking nervous when you start lugging instruments of death with the determination to make a show of force in the faces of our elected officials. That you do not understand this sentiment, which is shared by the Secret Service, shows how truly out of touch you are with most Americans and how radical the nature of your position is on the Second Amendment. Auwe! Auwe! (look it up)

[PavePusher]

168. You've moved all your goal-posts (yes, we saw that), and again accused me of making threats.

Again.

Please note that I will not Alert on such comment, as I want your self-proclaimed vileness to stand proudly for all to see. That is why you posted them, right?

[ellisonz]

171. Please make an OP declaring your belief that you should be allowed...

...to carry a gun in the presence of the President of the United States, Federal Judges, Senators etc.

Do *you* not believe such an act is your right?

Keep squirming.

[X_Digger]

43. "this was the Democratic position in 2008" -- selective amnesia? Or just ignorance?

from change.gov-

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

[div class='excerpt']They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Or the 2008 Dem platform-

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78283#axzz1hnRedXjE

[div class='excerpt']reinstating the assault weapons ban

Or then-Candidate Obama's website-

http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf

[div class='excerpt']"While he believes that guns must be kept from criminals, the mentally incompetent, and others who may pose a threat, he also believes that the rights of legitimate hunters and other law-abiding Americans should be protected, including the right to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."
...
"As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban."

Umm.. where does the second amendment specify hunting? And 'fully automatic weapons'?!?! Those are covered by the 1934 NFA.

[ellisonz]

48. You object to the Democratic Nominee's and Current President's position?

If guns are so important to you, and you don't like our candidates, who are you voting for in 2012? Or is it actually not all that important to you?

[PavePusher]

50. Disagreement on one issue =/= "don't like our candidates".

Stop. Twisting.

[ellisonz]

54. So tell me what positions of our candidates do you like?

You seem to post almost exclusively about guns

[X_Digger]

51. The president has changed his tune.

Whether from pragmatism or honest to goodness change of heart- I really don't care.

But I like how your ignored me pointing out your ignorance.

[ellisonz]

57. What if it's in the platform again?

"But I like how your ignored me pointing out your ignorance."

Do you wish to be more specific?

I was speaking in political terms, how is a new ban taking away? The old ban didn't take away, it just prevented further sales thereof? Are there not enough guns in circulation already?

What makes you think he still doesn't want a permanent ban and he's just playing politics? So are you going to vote for the man?

[X_Digger]

61. Shall I remind you?

[div class='excerpt']"I do not oppose tweaking existing gun laws to make them more effective and strict enforcement of these laws." - They will attack this moderated reasonable position as "taking away guns" - this was the Democratic position in 2008.

No, the Democratic position in 2008 was not a 'moderated reasonable position' consisting of 'tweaking existing gun laws to make them more effective and strict enforcement of these laws', as Spin endorsed as a proper course (that I also happen to agree with.)

If you want to wave away your ignorance with semantics, fine.

[div class='excerpt']What makes you think he still doesn't want a permanent ban and he's just playing politics? So are you going to vote for the man?

I don't care if he's just playing politics- it's a third rail he's not stepping on either way.

I'll do my damndest to again make sure that it's not in the Texas platform, along with other Second Amendment Democrats who caucused in the last election cycle. (You won't find that bullshit here- http://www.txdemocrats.org/issues/platform/ ).

[hack89]

191. The President is not that stupid

doesn't matter what he wants in his heart of hearts - he will not commit political suicide.

[Atypical Liberal]

63. What possible threat is a man with 200 guns?

1. I think it's going to be Newt and we all know how dirty he can get. I wish it was Romney and you're right he's a cakewalk. Newt is not a cakewalk - he's dangerous.

Newt has absolutely zero chance of the nomination and certainly not the presidency. This is a man who had an affair and divorced his wife while she was dying of cancer. The guy has been married three times. How can he possibly earn the votes of the "family values" crowd? This guy has no chance.

3. I don't want a hard limit. I want proper licensing of legitimate collectors and restrictions on those who are not. Can you please explain to me why it is imperative for someone to have 200 hundred guns, the vast majority of which are not collectors items, and why this should go largely untaxed and largely unregulated? I'm sorry, but if they've got the money to blow on guns, they've got the money to fund increased enforcement of existing regulations at the very least. I'd also like to see a hard and fast law on carrying weapons in government buildings and at political events.

What possible danger is a man with 200 guns? Do you think he's going to rent a cargo van and go on a shooting spree, trying out each firearm in his collection in turn?

A man with a 200-gun collection is probably pretty well off. So much so that it is very unlikely he is going to be involved in crime. He's going to be living a comfortable life. He's not going to be dealing with gangs or robbing the corner liquor store.

A man with one gun and nothing to lose is far more of a concern than a man with a 200-gun collection.

[ellisonz]

75. Don't give Republicans so much credit.

They're perfectly capable of nominating Newt. They nominated Shrub over McCain. I don't see them going to Romney, and Paul doesn't have a real chance.

"A man with a 200-gun collection is probably pretty well off. So much so that it is very unlikely he is going to be involved in crime. He's going to be living a comfortable life. He's not going to be dealing with gangs or robbing the corner liquor store."

Or he's just obsessive and a danger to himself and others...

Google "man arrested with firearms explosives" in quotations.

I think he could be engaged in illegal arms sales, I think he could be a profitable victim for theft attempts, I think he is often creating an explosive situation, literally. You seem like a police officer, what would you think if you were told to enter a home with hundreds of firearms strewn about?

I'm not talking about collectors items like antiques, I'm talking about the shit you buy at the Gun Shop.

[Atypical Liberal]

123. I would think he has a nice collection and disposable income.

Or he's just obsessive and a danger to himself and others...

Or he just has a nice hobby.

I think he could be engaged in illegal arms sales, I think he could be a profitable victim for theft attempts, I think he is often creating an explosive situation, literally. You seem like a police officer, what would you think if you were told to enter a home with hundreds of firearms strewn about?

I'm not a police officer, but I have plenty of friends with extensive firearms collections. One of my friends has 5 huge safes full of firearms. They are his retirement plan. He's a great guy and I have no problem with the fact that he has a large collection of firearms.

I'm involved in competitive shooting. Many of my fellow competitors own a dozen or more firearms. This does not bother me at all.

I don't know anyone who leaves firearms "strewn about".

I'm not talking about collectors items like antiques, I'm talking about the shit you buy at the Gun Shop.

How old does a firearm have to be before it is suitable for collection, in your view? What is it that makes modern firearms in a gun shop "shit", in your view? How does the "shit" in the gun store differ from a collectible firearm, in your view?

[ellisonz]

151. "I don't know anyone who leaves firearms "strewn about"."

Believe me there are plenty of cases...

1. Makes him a nice target for robbery/theft. It's also kinda bizarre when you really think about it that he's treating what's probably a suburban tract home like it's some 15th century castle with an armory.

2. Most firearms owners are responsible, it's the irresponsible ones who are the problem. Whats the point in continuing to enable them?

3. That's easy to define in legal code. Use your head.

[Atypical Liberal]

157. Really?

>"I don't know anyone who leaves firearms "strewn about"."
Believe me there are plenty of cases...

So you think it's a common occurrence for people with sizable collections of firearms to simply leave them "strewn about"?

It's also kinda bizarre when you really think about it that he's treating what's probably a suburban tract home like it's some 15th century castle with an armory.

If it doesn't hurt anyone, who cares what he does with his home?

2. Most firearms owners are responsible, it's the irresponsible ones who are the problem. Whats the point in continuing to enable them?

I'm glad we agree that most firearm owners are responsible. Let's not enact policies that affect the majority who have done nothing wrong.

So again, how old does a firearm have to be before it is suitable for collection, in your view? What is it that makes modern firearms in a gun shop "shit", in your view? How does the "shit" in the gun store differ from a collectible firearm, in your view?

[ellisonz]

159. Please use the google.

"gun hoarder arrested"

1. So then he should be allowed to make bombs in his house so long as he detonates them in empty fields?

2. "Let's not enact policies that affect the majority who have done nothing wrong." - That ignores the nature of weapon proliferation. Its the same reason stores need alcohol and tobacco permits.

3. We could debate about this, but I'm just going to tell you than plenty of other countries have no problem coming up with standards.

[Atypical Liberal]

193. No thanks.

Please use the google "gun hoarder arrested"

All this does is turn up some anecdotes of people with lots of guns being arrested, which I am sure does happen from time to time.

It does not address the issue, nor are you addressing the issue, of what makes a man who owns 200 guns more dangerous than a man who owns 1 gun.

The reason, of course, is that someone who owns 200 guns is no more dangerous than someone who ones 1 gun, because a man can't use more than 2 guns at a time anyway.

1. So then he should be allowed to make bombs in his house so long as he detonates them in empty fields?

How did we start talking about bombs?

2. "Let's not enact policies that affect the majority who have done nothing wrong." - That ignores the nature of weapon proliferation. Its the same reason stores need alcohol and tobacco permits.

I am not going to allow policies that affect the majority of law-abiding gun owners to be put in place for the sake of the very small minority of criminal users of firearm. I damn sure am not going to allow policies to be put in place out of some notion of stopping "weapon proliferation".

3. We could debate about this, but I'm just going to tell you than plenty of other countries have no problem coming up with standards.

But you are the one who floated the idea. I'm not interested in what other countries think about the issue, I'm interested in what you think about the issue. I'm quizzing you on your position because I don't think you know or can articulate what makes a modern firearm in a gun shop "shit". I don't think you know or can articulate how old a firearm has to be before it is "suitable for collection". In short, I don't think you know what you are talking about, which is why I want you to answer the question, so we can all see that you don't know what you are talking about.

For example: Let's say I own a WWII issue 1911 pistol. It's about 70 years old. Would this be "suitable for collection" in your view? Well how about I go down to the local gun store and buy a brand-new Springfield GI 1911, which is designed and intended as a near-perfect reproduction of WWII-era service pistols, just like the 70-year-old example I mentioned before. So is the 70-year-old 1911 "suitable for collection", and the brand-new, but virtually identical model "shit", in your view? If so, how?

Here's another example: Let's say I have a fully-automatic, legal, tranferrable, pre-1986 M16. This makes it 26 years old. Is this "suitable for collection", in your view? Let's say I go down to the gun store and buy a Bushmaster AR-15. Virtually identical to the M16 except it is semi-automatic and, of course, brand-new. Is this "shit", in your view? If so, how?

Here's another example: Let's say I have a 100-year-old firearm, suitable for collection in your view, but it's for sale in a gun shop as a used firearm. Does that make it "shit", in your view? If so, how?

[oneshooter]

132. And at what point does a firearm stray from a "antique"

to the "shit you buy at a gun shop"?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ellisonz]

150. At what point does the spoken word become obscenity? n/t

[spin]

130. It will be an interesting election year...

and the icing on the cake may the actions of the OWS group and the Tea Party.

I heard a talking head on TV discussing the possibility that the Republicans will have a brokered convention. That would be very interesting to watch as the last such convention was in 1952 when Adlai Stevenson won the Democratic nomination. I was too young at that time to have developed much of an interest in news, although I do remember watching news reports of the Korean War on my Uncle's TV in Pittsburgh.

The Republicans and the NRA will try to warn that Obama will "come for your guns" but it may not have the effect you expect. The Brady Campaign has tried for years to stop the passage of "shall issue" concealed carry laws by claiming that blood would blow in the streets. Running around squawking like Chicken Little works only for a short time.

Your idea of Democrats strongly supporting new gun control measures would give the NRA new ammo to shoot at us. It would be far better for the leadership of our party to simply admit the idea of disarming or making life hard for honest gun owners was a poor idea and that it would no longer be a goal of the Democratic Party. We could leave them holding their losing issue which is attempting to stop abortion. (Of course this will never happen.)

Gun rights were not the prime issue driving the Tea Party in the midterm election.

The Tea Party movement (TPM) is an American populist[1][2][3] political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4] and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[5][6][7] It endorses reduced government spending,[8][9] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[9] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[8] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

In order to discuss your idea of limiting gun ownership you will eventually have to come up with an actual limit. You are now saying that you don't favor a "hard limit." If you were able to pass a law that limits the number of firearms a person owns first you have to know just how many guns he has. That would require a system of registration. The assault weapons ban has a higher chance of being reborn than a national registration system being implemented. You suggested taxing the guns a person owns. Many gun owners would simply not report the number of guns they own and therefore would pay no taxes on them. Without a registration system I can't see how your plan would work. You also mention regulation. Who would regulate firearm collections? The most logical agency is the ATF. Would we have more Waco sieges?

I suspect the White Supremacists are smart enough to realize that assassinating Obama would be a very poor idea and would be counterproductive to their interests. But to be honest, I don't know any members of such groups. Therefore I can't really comment on their motivations or goals. One time at the pistol range a character showed up who we suspected was a militia member from the things he said. We managed to make him feel uncomfortable enough that he left and never returned. An attempt on Obama by such a group would backfire badly. Once again I pray for any and all Presidents and all politicians. I also agree with you that allowing people to carry a firearm in the presence of a President is a foolish idea.

[ellisonz]

147. "Gun rights were not the prime issue driving the Tea Party in the midterm election."

It was a strong undercurrent - I could post pictures of toters but that would just burn the eyes.

Hopefully the GOP will just collapse as an organized party and we can have gun control again...

The NRA is going to shoot at us anyways - watch those ads i posted.

I'll just refer to the European systems. It can be done - debating specifics on gun control is like debating specifics on healthcare. It just encourages the bastards...

"Would we have more Waco sieges?"

We're going to have more Waco's anyway...because the gun nuts in this country are getting crazy. Did you miss the Christian Militia in Michigan and the Waffle House Conspiracy?

"We managed to make him feel uncomfortable enough that he left and never returned. An attempt on Obama by such a group would backfire badly. Once again I pray for any and all Presidents and all politicians. I also agree with you that allowing people to carry a firearm in the presence of a President is a foolish idea."

Thank you. Please share your thoughts on that with this forum more frequently because it is in idea that provokes feelings of disgust in every fiber of my body.

Thank you for the reasonable posts

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Yet less than an hour before, it was "Damn right we'll confiscate".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11723908#post12

And then we have this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721111#post382

"How's it feel to be on the same side...as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas?"

followed by:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11723645#post40

which quotes- approvingly- Scalia writing for the majority


Did you think we would not notice that you advocate criminalizing that which is now legal? So of course you can say with a straight face you'd only
go after "irresponsible gun owners and those who enable the possession of weapons by dangerous individuals such as the criminal, deranged, and hate groups."

[Atypical Liberal]

64. Whoops! His agenda is showing.

"Damn right we'll confiscate".

[ellisonz]

76. What's your agenda? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

124. With regards to what?

I have many agendas in my life. Which one are you referring to?

With regards to the right to keep and bear arms, my agenda is to continue the advancement of firearm ownership rights, and to continue to defeat people with agendas like yours. To that end I work collectively with others through organizations like the NRA to make sure policies favorable to my position are in place.

[ellisonz]

77. Twisting my words.

Denounce your fellow Second Amendment fan above who wishes to allow the carrying of firearms in the same room as our President.

1. In a hypothetical...

2. In reference to the declaration of an individual right, not in reference to the ruling quoted in 3.

3. Preceded by: "This is already a legal standard, we just don't choose to properly enforce it - we deny those who "an imminent danger to self and others" and have been adjudicated as such. I see no reason why this is not part of a "well-regulated Militia" and the Court even in Heller supported this notion:"

Cherry picking and borderline stalking...

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Why should I denounce him for something he did not say?

You are neither a host in this group nor a DU administrator. Nor are you some sort of unofficial political officer here. You are in no
position to demand anything of anybody. If you feel that what he said was somehow threatening to President Obama, alert the
admins and the Secret Service. Otherwise, deal with it.

He noted that Peter King's proposal elevated government officials above other citizens, and righteously denounced it- as do I.
Your approval is neither sought or relevant.

[ellisonz]

87. So you support the right to carry near Federal officials and politicians?

Also, you're not denying that you twisted my words, so I'll just leave it at that. You're playing a game and losing at it; I suggest you cease your attempt to play mop up crew. It smacks of desperation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. I'm also not denying that I'm better looking than George Clooney and smarter than Stephen Hawking...

so I'll just leave it at that.

I play no game- You came here with a predetermined stance, and act as if you've "won" since no one has dissuaded you from it.
If that's a victory for you, you're welcome to it. The rest of us will console ourselves with political relevance.

[ellisonz]

92. Dodge.

And with a whimper and not a bang...

[Fair Witness]

201. It sure is a good thing those Secret Service guys don't carry guns

I mean who knows when one of them could snap and shoot the CIC just for kicks?

[krispos42]

24. Gee, then I guess the Dems had better stop being anti-gun...

....before the gunners vote in Gingrich.


Trust me, Gingrich will cause far more death and misery than any ban on assault weapons or assault magazines will prevent.

[spin]

26. +1000 (n/t)

[ellisonz]

33. They are going to play the gun card no matter what we say...

...so we might as well take the tea-baggery head on. It's going to happen - some yahoo is going to try and take his gun to a Presidential event and make himself a gun lobby star. Can we at the very least stand up for no guns at federal political events except for LEOs?

Don't believe me, here's NRA ads from 2008:

Do you really think they're not going to run the same ads this time?

Wouldn't we be better off taking a strong stand on gun control so it's not so easy distort our basic position?

Seriously, how is it we allow the continued support for the NRA on this site? I mean I understand what they used to stand for, but now they pretty much just stand for Republicans.

[Remmah2]

44. LOL

What NRA support? In your wettest dream. You've done more to promote NRA support via your lunatic babbling.

[ellisonz]

58. So you don't support the NRA and its positions?

Do you think waging an attack campaign against Barack Obama is discrediting?

Would you denounce these ads if they run similar ones in 2012?

"your lunatic babbling."

[Remmah2]

122. One can be pro2A, be a labor democrat and think the NRA is crazy.

The second amendment is not about the NRA.

[ellisonz]

143. So denounce the fuckers...

...and quite clinging to their coat tails.

Just tearing down reformers isn't very productive.

[gejohnston]

146. right, denounce the

vast middle of people who make up those unions, environmentalists, etc that also happened to be gun owners.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[X_Digger]

46. Lol, check this list..

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00053553&cycle=2010

2010 Democratic Campaign Donations:

[font face='courier']
House:
Altmire, Jason (D-PA)...............$9,900
Arcuri, Michael (D-NY)..............$2,000
Baca, Joe (D-CA)....................$3,000
Barrow, John (D-GA).................$9,900
Berry, Marion (D-AR)................$1,500
Bishop, Sanford D Jr (D-GA).........$7,600
Boccieri, John A (D-OH).............$6,100
Boren, Dan (D-OK)...................$4,950
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA)...........$7,950
Boucher, Rick (D-VA)................$5,950
Boyd, Allen (D-FL)..................$9,900
Bright, Bobby (D-AL)...............$10,050
Cardoza, Dennis (D-CA)..............$4,950
Carney, Chris (D-PA)................$8,600
Chandler, Ben (D-KY)................$7,950
Childers, Travis W (D-MS)...........$6,950
Costello, Jerry F (D-IL)............$2,000
Critz, Mark (D-PA)..................$2,500
Cuellar, Henry (D-TX)...............$2,150
Davis, Lincoln (D-TN)...............$9,900
Dingell, John D (D-MI)..............$7,950
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN)................$6,950
Edwards, Chet (D-TX)................$6,950
Gordon, Bart (D-TN).................$1,000
Green, Gene (D-TX)..................$2,000
Halvorson, Deborah (D-IL)...........$5,950
Heinrich, Martin (D-NM).............$2,000
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D-SD)...$7,450
Higgins, Brian M (D-NY).............$1,000
Hill, Baron (D-IN)..................$6,950
Holden, Tim (D-PA)..................$9,900
Jones, Vernon (D-GA)................$1,500
Jordan, James D (R-OH)..............$3,000
Kagen, Steve (D-WI).................$8,950
Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA)............$7,450
Kind, Ron (D-WI)....................$2,000
Kissell, Larry (D-NC)...............$9,900
Kratovil, Frank M Jr (D-MD).........$9,900
Marshall, Jim (D-GA)................$6,950
Matheson, Jim (D-UT)................$5,000
McIntyre, Mike (D-NC)...............$6,950
Mollohan, Alan B (D-WV).............$4,950
Murphy, Scott (D-NY)................$2,500
Murtha, John P (D-PA)...............$2,500
Nye, Glenn (D-VA)...................$5,100
Obey, David R (D-WI)................$3,500
Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX).............$2,000
Owens, Bill (D-NY)..................$2,000
Perriello, Tom (D-VA)...............$5,950
Peterson, Collin C (D-MN)...........$1,500
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND)................$4,500
Rahall, Nick (D-WV).................$6,950
Ross, Mike (D-AR)...................$5,000
Ryan, Tim (D-OH)....................$3,000
Salazar, John (D-CO)................$3,000
Shuler, Heath (D-NC)................$8,450
Skelton, Ike (D-MO).................$6,950
Space, Zachary T (D-OH).............$9,900
Stupak, Bart (D-MI).................$1,000
Taylor, Gene (D-MS).................$4,500
Walz, Timothy J (D-MN)..............$3,000
Wilson, Charlie (D-OH)..............$6,100
Total: $335,700

Senate:
Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND)..............$2,500
Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN)..............$9,900
Manchin, Joe (D-WV).................$4,950
Reid, Harry (D-NV)..................$4,950
Total: $22,300

Additional Independent Expenditures to Democratic candidates:

Altmire, Jason..............$10,346
Boren, Dan...................$8,175
Boyd, Allen.................$14,377
Cardoza, Dennis..............$4,322
Childers, Travis W...........$4,518
Davis, Lincoln...............$6,539
Dingell, John D..............$3,626
Halvorson, Deborah...........$4,216
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie...$8,711
Hill, Baron....................$850
Holden, Tim..................$8,594
Kilroy, Mary Jo................$595
Lentz, Bryan...................$595
Matheson, Jim................$8,704
Mollohan, Alan B.............$6,675
Murray, Patty................$6,706
Rahall, Nick.................$2,591
Ross, Mike...................$6,627
Shuler, Heath...............$23,161
Skelton, Ike.................$8,796
Space, Zachary T.............$4,610
Strickland, Ted.............$25,143
Taylor, Gene.................$3,201
Total: $171,618

Grand Total: $529,618

[/font]

2010 Democratic Endorsements:
Alaska
Scott Kawasaki
Jim Folsom, Jr.

Alabama
Jan Cook
Bobby Bright
Tammy L. Irons
Tom Butler
Zeb Little
Roger Bedford, Jr.
Lowell Barron
Larry Means
Phil Poole
Marc Keahey
T.D. "Ted" Little
Billy Beasley
John "Jody" Letson
Ken Guin
William E. Thigpen, Sr.
Johnny Mack Morrow
Randy Hinshaw
Butch Taylor
John Robinson
Jeff McLaughlin
Craig Ford
John G. "Jack" Page III
Steve Hurst
Richard Laird
Richard Lindsey
James M. "Jimmy" Martin
Demetrius C. Newton
Oliver Robinson
Alan Harper
Elaine Beech
Thomas E. Jackson
Betty Carol Graham
Alan C. Boothe
Terry Spicer

Arizona:
Rebecca Rios
Barbara McGuire

Arkansas:
Mike Beebe
Shane Broadway
Dustin McDaniel
Mike Ross
John Paul Wells
Robert Thompson
Paul Bookout
Bobby J. Pierce
Johnnie J. Roebuck
Randy Stewart
Monty Betts
James McLean

California:
Dennis Cardoza
Joe Baca
Lou Correa
Alyson Huber
Cathleen Galgiani

Colorado:
John Salazar
Betsy Markey
Lois Tochtrop

Connecticut:
Paul R. Doyle
Andrew Maynard
Joe Aresimowicz
Edward Moukawsher
Tom Reynolds
Steven Mikutel
Linda Orange
Claire Janowski
Roberta Willis
Jeffrey Berger
David Aldarono
John Mazurek
Bruce Zalaski
Emil Altobello
Terry Backer
Kevin Ryan

Delaware:
David B. Mcbride
Bruce C. Ennis
Nancy W. Cook
George H. Bunting, Jr.
Robert F. Gilligan
William J Carson, Jr.
Edward Bradford Bennett
Robert E Walls
John C. Atkins

Florida:
Allen Boyd
Bill Montford
Leonard Bembry
Debbie Boyd
Dean Cannon
Darren Soto
Ron Saunders

Georgia:
Sanford Bishop
Jim Marshall
John Barrow
Lester G. Jackson
Curt Thompson
Doug Stoner
Tim Golden
reddie Powell Sims
George Hooks
Hardie Davis
Steve Henson
Barbara Massey Reece
Rick Crawford
Alan Powell
Glenn Baker
Pedro Pete Marin
Hugh Floyd
Helen G. Sistie Hudson
Mike Cheokas
James A. Bubber Epps
Mack Jackson
Bob Hanner
Gerald E. Greene
Bob Bryant
Ellis Black
Amy Carter

Hawaii:
Shan S. Tsutsui
Jerry Leslie Chang

Idaho:
Mary Shepherd

Illinois:
Debbie Halvorson
Jerry Costello
Michael Bond
Toi W. Hutchinson
Arthur Wilhelmi
Deanna Demuzio
Michael W. Frerichs
Kevin A. McCarthy
Jack D. Franks
Patrick Verschoore
Careen M. Gordon
Frank J. Mautino
Lisa M. Dugan
Michael K. Smith
Bob Flider
Daniel V. Beiser
Jay C. Hoffman
Thomas Holbrook
Dan Reitz
John Bradley
Brandon W. Phelps

Indiana:
Brad Ellsworth
Joe Donnelly
Trent Van Haaften
Baron Hill
Timothy Dale Skinner
James Lewis
Richard D. Young, Jr.
Lindel O. Hume
Craig R. Fry
Scott D. Pelath
Charles Chuck Moseley
Dan Stevenson
Chester F. Dobis
Ron Herrell
oe Pearson
Dennis Tyler
Terri Jo Austin
Scott Reske
F. Dale Grubb
Clyde Kersey
Nancy A. Michael
Peggy Welch
Sandra Blanton
Kreg Battles
Terry Goodin
Robert J. Bischoff
David Cheatham
Paul J. Robertson
Steven R. Stemler
Russ Stilwell
Bob Deig
Gail Riecken
John F. Barnes

Iowa:
CHET CULVER
Leonard Boswell
Amanda Ragan
Bill Dotzler
Wally E. Horn
Dennis H. Black
Daryl Beall
Matt McCoy
Becky Schmitz
Keith A. Kreiman
McKinley D. Bailey
Sharon Steckman
Brian J. Quirk
John W. Beard
Andrew Wenthe
Bob Kressig
Doris J. Kelley
Roger Thomas
Ray Zirkelbach
Kirsten Running-Marquardt
Tyler Olson
Geri D. Huser
Mark Smith
Kevin McCarthy
Eric J. Palmer
Nathan K. Reichert
Phyllis Thede
Jim Lykam
Larry K. Marek
Curt Hanson
Jerry A. Kearns
Kurt Swaim
Michael J. Reasoner
Paul Shomshor

Kansas:
Steve Six
Dennis McKinney
Doug Gatewood
Shirley Palmer
Jerry Williams
Tom Burroughs
Melanie Meier
Melany Barnes
Janice Pauls

Kentucky:
Ben Chandler
J. Dorsey Ridley
Jerry P. Rhoads
David E. Boswell
Robin L. Webb
R.J. Palmer II
Mike Reynolds
Fred Nesler
Mike Cherry
Melvin B. Henley
Will R. Coursey
John A. Arnold, Jr.
John C. Tilley
Jim Gooch, Jr.
Jim Glenn
Tommy Thompson
Brent Yonts
Martha Jane King
Dottie J. Sims
Wilson Stone
Johnny W. Bell
Terry Mills
Jimmie Lee
Jeff Greer
Charles W. Miller
Steven Riggs
Tim Firkins
Robert R. Damron
Dennis Horlander
Larry Clark
Rick W. Rand
Linda Howlett Belcher
Kent Stevens
Royce W. Adams
Charlie Hoffman
Arnold R. Simpson
Dennis Keene
Mitchel B. Denham, Jr.
John Will Stacy
Sannie Overly
Don Pasley
Richard D. Henderson
Ruth Ann Palumbo
Thomas M. McKee
Susan Westrom
Fitz Steele
Rick Nelson
Ted "Teddy" Edmonds
W. Keith Hall
Leslie A. Combs
Gregory D. Stumbo
Hubert Collins
Tanya Pullin
Rocky Adkins
Kevin P. Sinnette

Maine:
Mike Michaud
Bill Diamond
Troy Jackson
John Martin
Herbert Clark
Benjamin Pratt
Stephen Hanley
Michael Shaw
John Tuttle, Jr.

Maryland:
Frank Kratovil
Norman R. Stone Jr.
Katherine Klausmeier
Roy Dyson
John C. Astle
James Ed DeGrange
Jim Brochin
Kevin Kelly
John P. Donoghue
Mike Weir Jr.
Eric Bromwell
Steven J. DeBoy Sr.
ames E. Malone Jr.
Rudolph C. Cane
Norman H. Conway

Massachussetts:
James Timilty
Michael Rodrigues
Steven Baddour
ames Eldridge
Marc Pacheco
Jennifer Flanagan
Richard Moore
Stephen Brewer
Demetrius Atsalis
William Pignatelli
David Sullivan
William Straus
Joyce Spiliotis
Barbara L'Italien
Stephen Kulik
Joseph Wagner
Angelo Puppolo, Jr.
John Scibak
James Arciero
James Miceli
Colleen Garry
William Galvin
James Vallee
Christine Canavan
Stephen DiNatale
Anne Gobi
Geraldo Alicea
Paul Kujawski
Harold Naughton, Jr.
John Binienda, Sr.
Jennifer Callahan

Michigan:
Gary McDowell
John Dingell
John J. Gleason
Richard LeBlanc
Jennifer Haase
Kate Ebli
Alan Lewandowski
Terry L. Brown

Minnesota:
LORI SWANSON
Tim Walz
Collin Peterson
Jim Oberstar
Leroy Stumpf
Rod Skoe
Tom Saxhaug
David Tomassoni
Thomas Bakk
Keith Langseth
Dan Sparks
Linda Scheid
Charles Wiger
Kathy Saltzman
David M. Olin
Bernie L. Lieder
Brita Sailer
Tom Anzelc
Loren A. Solberg
John Persell
Tom Rukavina
Anthony Sertich
David Dill
Mary Murphy
Tim Faust
Paul Marquart
John Ward
Al Doty
Al Juhnke
Larry Hosch
Andrew Falk
Lyle Koenen
Terry Morrow
Kory Kath
Robin Brown
Jeanne Poppe
Andy Welti
Joe Atkins
Will Morgan
Denise R. Dittrich
Jerry Newton
Julie Bunn
Marsha Swails

Mississippi:
Travis Childers
Gene Taylor

Missouri:
Ike Skelton
Frank Barnitz
Wes Shoemyer
Ryan McKenna
Tom Shively
Paul Quinn
Ed Schieffer
Kenny Biermann
Joe Aull
Jason Grill
Sam Komo
Timothy Meadows
Ron Casey
Joseph Fallert
Michael Frame
Linda Fischer
Luke Scavuzzo
Steve Hodges
Terry Swinger
Tom Todd

Montana:
Mitch Tropila
Robert Mehlhoff
Kathy Swanson

Nevada:
Ross Miller
Moises Denis
Mark Manendo
Marilyn Kirkpatrick
Olivia Diaz
James Ohrenschall
Elliot Anderson
John Oceguera
Kelvin Atkinson
Richard Carrillo
David Bobzien
Debbie Smith
Marcus Conklin
Irene Bustamante
John Cahill

New Mexico:
Gary King
Martin Heinrich
Harry Teague
Ben R. Lujan
Sandra Jeff
Eliseo Lee Alcon
Andrew Barreras
Patricia Lundstrom
Henry "Kiki" Saavedra
Bill O'Neill
Dona Irwin
Andy Nunez
Jeff Steinborn
Rodolfo Rudy Martinez
Nick Salazar
Debbie Rodella
Roberto "Bobby" Gonzales
Brian Egolf
Joseph Cervantes
Nate Cote
John Heaton
Thomas Garcia

New York:
Scott Murphy
Bill Owens
Michael Arcuri
Darrel J. Aubertine
David J. Valesky
Aileen M. Gunther
Bill Magee
Robin Schimminger
Mark J. F. Schroeder

North Carolina:
Mike McIntyre
Larry Kissell
Heath Shuler
Doug Berger
A. B. Swindell
Daniel Clodfelter
Steve Goss
John J. Snow, Jr.
Timothy L. Spear
Arthur Williams
William L. Wainwright
Dewey L. Hill
William Brisson
Joe Tolson
Michael H. Wray
Jim Crawford
Chris Heagarty
Jimmy L. Love, Sr.
Nelson Cole
Pryor Gibson
Lorene T. Coates
L. Hugh Holliman

North Dakota:
Earl Pomeroy

Ohio:
Ted Strickland
Richard Cordray
Linda Bolon
Kenny Yuko
Matt Patten
Stephen Dyer
Matt Szollosi
Matt Lundy
Ron Gerberry
Mark Okey
Lorraine Fende
Jay Goyal
Dan Dodd
Debbie Phillips
Lou Gentile

Oklahoma:
Bret Burns
Dan Boren
Sean Burrage
Neil Brannon
Roger Ballenger
John Sparks
Randy Bass
Dennis R. Bailey
Glen Bud Smithson
Mike Brown
Wade Rousselot
Ed Cannaday
Brian Renegar
R. C. Pruett
Wes Hilliard
Steve Kouplen
Danny Morgan
Cory T. Williams
Ken Luttrell
Samson R. Buck
Joe Dorman
Seneca D. Scott
Eric Proctor
Scott Inman

Oregon:
Kurt Schrader
Arnie Roblan
Brian Clem
Jeff Barker
Brad Witt
Mike Schaufler

Pennsylvania:
John Yudichak
Lisa Boscola
Richard Kasunic
Jim Ferlo
Timothy Solobay
Flo Fabrizio
John Hornaman
Mark Longietti
Chris Sainato
Jaret Gibbons
Robert Matzie
Dom Costa
Joseph Markosek
Anthony Deluca
Marc Gergely
Harry Readshaw
Bill Kortz
Nick Kotik
Jesse White
Peter Daley
Bill Deweese
Deberah Kula
John Pallone
oseph Petrarca
James Casorio
Ted Harhai
Bryan Barbin
Frank Burns
Gary Haluska
Camille George
Mike Hanna
Scott Conklin
Edward Staback
Todd Eachus
Mike Carroll
Neal Goodman
Tim Seip
John Siptroth

Rhode Island:
Dominick Ruggerio
Frank Ciccone III
James Doyle II
Michael Pinga
Walter Felag, Jr.
M Teresa Paiva-Weed
Frank Devall, Jr.
Roger Picard
John Tassoni, Jr.
Marc Cote
Beatrice Lanzi
Hanna Gallo
Michael McCaffrey
William Walaska
Erin Lynch
V Susan Sosnowski

South Carolina:
Paul L. Agnew
Harold Mitchell, Jr.
Boyd Brown
Mike Anthony
Jimmy Neal
Herb Kirsh
David Weeks
Laurie Slade Funderburk
Ted Martin Vick
Jackie E. Hayes
Denny Woodall Neilson
Jim Battle
Lester Branham
Cathy Harvin
James Smith
J. Todd Rutherford
Lonnie Hosey
Harry L. Ott, Jr.
Patsy G. Knight
Vida Miller
J. Seth Whipper
Anne Peterson Hutto
Bill Bowers
Kenneth F. Hodges

South Dakota:
Stephanie H. Sandlin
Jason Frerichs
David Sigdestad
Spencer Hawley
Mitch Fargen
Peggy Gibson
John C. Willman

Tennessee:
Lincoln Davis
Roy Herron
Doug Jackson
Lowe Finney
Dennis Ferguson
Jim Hackworth
Leslie Winningham
George W. Fraley
ohn Mark Windle
Henry D. Fincher
Mike McDonald
Stratton Bone
Eddie Bass
David A. Shepard
Judy Barker

Texas:
Silvestre Reyes
Chet Edwards
Solomon Ortiz
Henry Cuellar
Gene Green
John Whitmire
Stephen Frost
Mark Homer
Jim McReynolds
Joe Deshotel
Craig Eiland
Ryan Guillen
Solomon Ortiz, Jr.
Abel Herrero
Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles
Eddie Lucio, III
Armando Martinez
Aaron Pena, Jr.
Patrick Rose
Chente Quintanilla
Tracy King
Joe Heflin
Robert Miklos
Kirk England
Allen Vaught
David Leibowitz

Utah:
Jim Matheson
Neal Hendrickson
Christine Watkins

Vermont:
Jeb Spaulding
Peter Welch
Claire Ayer
Dick Sears
Matthew A. Choate
Jane Kitchel
Bill Carris
Jeanette White
Alice W. Nitka
Willem Jewett
Alice Miller
Kitty Beattie Toll
Jim Condon
Kathleen C. Keenan
Floyd Nease
Peter Peltz
Shap Smith
Larry Townsend
John S. Rodgers
Maxine Grad
Tony Klein
Michael J. Obuchowski
Carolyn W. Partridge
John Moran
Alice M. Emmons

Washington:
Steve Conway
Tim Sheldon
Steve Hobbs
Dean Takko
Brian E. Blake
Kevin Van De Wege
Dawn Morrell
Troy Kelley
Christopher Hurst
Kathy Haigh
Fred Finn
Kelli Linville
Pat Sullivan

West Virginia:
Joe Manchin
Nick Rahall
Orphy Klempa
Larry Edgell
Evan Jenkins
H. Truman Chafin
Ron Stollings
Erik Wells
Mike Green
Ronald "Ron" Miller
Joseph "Joe" Minard
Walt Helmick
John Unger
Randy Shwartzmiller
Tim Ennis
Roy Givens
Michael Ferro
Scott Varner
Dave Pethtel
Dan Poling
Dale Martin
Brady Paxton
Kevin Craig
Jim Morgan
Doug Reynolds
Don Perdue
Richard Thompson
Larry Barker
Greg Butcher
Ralph Rodighiero
Josh Stowers
K. Steven Kominar
Harry Keith White
Daniel Hall
Linda Goode Phillips
Clif Moore
Gerald Crosier
Mel Kessler
Virginia Mahan
Rick Moye
William "Bill" Wooton
Thomas Campbell
David Perry
John Pino
Margaret Staggers
Mark Hunt
Doug Skaff Jr.
Sharon Spencer
David Walker
Brent Boggs
Sam Argento
Joe Talbott
Bill Hartman
Peggy Donaldson Smith
Mary Poling
Samuel Cann
Ron Fragale
Richard Iaquinta
Tim Miley
Mike Manypenny
Mike Caputo
Linda Longstreth
Tim Manchin
Charlene Marshall
Stan Shaver
Harold Michael
Tiffany Lawrence

Wyoming:
Kathlyn Sessions
Saundra Meyer
Stan Blake
Michael Gilmore

Wisconsin:
Ron Kind
Steve Kagen
Russ Decker
Kathleen Vinehout
Amy Sue Vruwink
Marlin Schneider
Chris Danou

[ellisonz]

80. They give far more to Republicans...

...and please, find me a GOP candidate they haven't endorsed...I'd bet you probably can't - maybe a simple few.

Nice spamming though.

National Rifle Assn

The National Rifle Association goes to great lengths (and spends a huge sum of money) to defend the right to bear arms. It is opposed to virtually every form of gun control, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, background checks for gun owners, and registration of firearms. NRA’s influence is felt not only through campaign contributions, but through millions of dollars in off-the-books spending on issue ads and the like. Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the NRA supported proposals to arm airline pilots with guns. Between 2001 and 2010, the NRA spent between $1.5 million and $2.7 million on federal-level lobbying efforts. During the 2010 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level -- messages that advocate for or against political candidates. These messages primarily supported Republican candidates or opposed Democratic candidates.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. They give more to Democrats than the Brady Campaign ever has.

Last go-round in 2010, they gave over *60X* than the Bradys did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=346757#346767

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=346757#346775



Kind of odd, considering the claims that the people 'want' gun control. But then again:

There are more registered Democrats in the NRA then there are Brady Campaign 'members'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=426893

And as I pointed out:

If each BC member recruits 7 new members, they would be 1/10th the size of the NRA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=426893#426909

[ellisonz]

91. There are more powerful means of support than money you know...

The Brady Campaign isn't about buying politicians dependency...why are supporting a corrupt system? You think PACs play a positive role in our politics?

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. Money aside, why on Earth can't the Bradys get more members? They're outnumbered 80:1 by the NRA

I always thought that the Anti Saloon League and the WCTU were misguided, but I never once doubted their ability to motivate people.

They didn't buy their support- Their supporters BELIEVED in Prohibition, and the ASL made damn sure that politicians voted "dry" or were voted out.
How do you think the Eighteenth Amendment got passed? Read "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition", for example.

The Bradys came up with less than $3000 to support their candidates in the 2010 elections, and are currently riding the coattails of Michael Bloomberg.
That's pretty sad.

[ellisonz]

103. You're seriously justifying mob logic...

Do you really think all 80 million of those gun owners like the NRA and the assorted nuts...

I think maybe Brady has decided its resources are better spent elsewhere. I'd also point out that unlike the NRA etc. the gun control movement is far more dispersed and less monolithic.

I've read plenty about prohibition. Times have changed, people are ignorant: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100279058 - such facts make installing a politically motivated Supreme Court to rule over 200 years later that now suddenly there is an "individual right" to firearms ownership seem to be not a product of scholarship but of political ideology and convenience.

[Remmah2]

126. So is democracy "mob logic"? nt

nt

[ellisonz]

145. So here's my question to you:

would you have worn the blue or the grey?

[gejohnston]

162. dumb question

other than some of the border states, it was a matter of where he was and who sent him the draft notice.

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. I endorse electoral reality. Telling 80 million voters they need political and psychological tests..

...to continue to exercise what they believe is a right is political suicide. 1996 wasn't all that long ago, but you have apparently forgotten what
happened to the Democratic majority in that years' House elections.

[X_Digger]

131. He was 10 years old in 1996. Of course he doesn't remember.

Ahh the enthusiasm of youth- they think their ideas are unique and bound to be successful.

[friendly_iconoclast]

164. IOW, he was watching Zoom when I was picketing Newt Gingrich's residence with ADAPT.

That explains the ahistoricity. As a slight aside:

Newt was living in an apartment a couple of blocks from the Capitol. The building was owned by the United Methodist Church, and as the DC cops were preparing
to evict us, the UMC (who also had an office in the building) told them we were perfectly welcome to be there. Thanks, United Methodists!

[ellisonz]

144. It's okay. One day this country will be tired of this nonsense...

Until then the school kids will just have to practice...



Lockdown.

[friendly_iconoclast]

165. How many members does the youth wing of the Brady Campaign have?

[ellisonz]

170. Seriously?

*facepalm*

[friendly_iconoclast]

176. There's a job for you! Start the Department of Scientific Disarmament Instruction

You can't counter Eddie Eagle with nothing so you'd best get the keys a'clicking.

There's even a role model for you: Mary Hanchett Hunt. Most of the stuff promulgated by the Bradys, MAIG, and the Violence Policy Center
already reads as if she wrote it, so you've got a head start on the job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Hunt

[ellisonz]

177. You think you're funny...

...but you're really just dull. You're like an old man who can't wipe the mothballs off his grey flannel robe, or who forgets to put his dentures in before going to IHOP. [h3]I shall call you flailing in robe.[/h3]

[friendly_iconoclast]

178. No biggie- You're not the first "Billy Sunday of gun control" to show up here...

...and I doubt you'll be the last. I do have a question, however:

Why is it all y'all seem to appoint yourselves political officers/zampolits/inquisitors here, busily denouncing other DUers for
insufficient revolutionary zeal/heresy? I've noticed that the actual people running the Gungeon seem to pay little attention to
your calls to excommunicate some "offender".

[ellisonz]

179. You do realize of course...

...that the majority of DU has a pretty dismal view of this forum precisely because it allows some outlandish arguments to be permitted. There is a sort of groupthink that although you wish to assign to people in favor of reform, actually tends to reflect the monolithic nature of the pro-gun crowd. You see, it's not that we're against responsible gun ownership, it's that when we see the responsible gun owners making excuses for the mistakes as "rare" we become even more motivated to root out the misbegotten belief that we are somehow all in this life alone, and that what matters is not the victims of irresponsible gun ownership, but our own skin. Honestly, there are posters in this forum who I've never seen post much at all outside the Gungeon, in fact, I've looked and they've only made really benign posts and so we start to question who's side their really on. IMHO there are a couple posters here who have much greater allegiance to the Libertarian cause than they do to the Democratic Party. It's plain as day. You asked the question, if I get alerted on for answering honestly, so be it, but I suggest you consult a couple of the obvious one's yourself why they do not wish to share their political beliefs on anything but a near total absence of substantive gun control and full legalization of drugs. Show me proof to the contrary, and I'll accept it, otherwise I'm going to to go with my gut feeling.

[friendly_iconoclast]

196. When where you appointed to speak for "the majority of DU"- or any other DUer, for that matter?

I find your use of 'we' in the following passage telling:

You see, it's not that we're against responsible gun ownership, it's that when we see the responsible gun owners making excuses for the mistakes as "rare" we become even more motivated to root out the misbegotten belief that we are somehow all in this life alone, and that what matters is not the victims of irresponsible gun ownership, but our own skin.

Let's be clear: You (like myself or any other non-host or non-admin) speak only for yourself, not some consensus of The One True Position
On Guns At DU. If you'd like to know some other poster's beliefs beyond what they've posted here, ask them yourself. I don't
do others' research, nor am I (or anybody else) obliged to refute someone elses' arguments; it's *their* job to prove them.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Hahaha look at you. 8 PAGES of data and naaaa nahananahahana I can't hear you

[ellisonz]

99. I must be getting to you...

2012 PAC Summary Data
Select a Cycle:

Total Receipts $4,848,321
Total Spent $2,630,674
Begin Cash on Hand $3,129,516
End Cash on Hand $5,347,163
Debts $0
Independent Expenditures $12,311
Date of last report November 30, 2011
Contributions from this PAC to federal candidates (list recipients)
(12% to Democrats, 88% to Republicans) $271,338
Contributions to this PAC from individual donors of $200 or more ( list donors) $140,786

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00053553

See the funny thing is that organizations that aren't so partisan aligned and just want to buy influence in general hedge their bets and give to both parties. The NRA is pretty much all in with the GOP, there's no denying that with spam.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. Endorsements aren't spam.

Many democrats care very much about a candidate's position on firearms, and check the NRA ratings. Simple campaign contributions are not the only thing the NRA provides.

How interesting they give as MUCH as 12% at all, isn't it? Oh, right, the NRA is a single-issue entity. If more democrats fell on the correct side of this issue, they'd get a lot more than 12% wouldn't they?

[ellisonz]

142. Shall I start posting the names of victims of the NRA's promotion of gun violence...

"Simple campaign contributions are not the only thing the NRA provides."



"If more democrats fell on the correct side of this issue, they'd get a lot more than 12% wouldn't they?"

Perhaps you should be asking why more Democrats don't fall on that side...

[AtheistCrusader]

154. Candidates or voters?

Because you might be surprised how many gun-owning democrats there are, even here on DU.

Laugh all you want. Your problem, not mine.
The NRA doesn't promote gun violence, so post whatever you like.

[ellisonz]

160. Will do...

[X_Digger]

117. "now they pretty much just stand for Republicans" -- you agree that you misspoke?

I'm sure all those dems they endorsed or gave money to would disagree with you.

[ellisonz]

141. Numbers don't lie.

And the money is to pull them towards the Republican sphere...

[X_Digger]

153. Why would they endorse democrats over republicans then?

Why would they give money to democratic candidates and not republican ones in the same race?

You derp'ed hard.

eta: Here's another link for you..

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2010

In the 2010 cycle, in the house, they gave $359,600 to democrats and $447,900 to republicans (44% to D's, 55% to R's). 80/20 in the sentate.

[krispos42]

56. The NRA sucks like a neutron star

The issue is that, thanks to the 16 years prior to Obama's election, the Democrats, as lead by the DLC, staked out a position on guns that was expressly designed to look like they were doing something new and radical and wonderful and effective. "look like" is the operative phrase here, of course. In actually, it didn't help anybody and make the Democrats look (accurately) like limiting, discouraging, and reducing civilian gun ownership through any means necessary was their goal. And they would not move from this goal, regardless of arguments, rationality, or effectiveness. In other words, Democrats would cling to the idea of gradual civilian disarmament no matter what.

And Obama is a victim of that. He was based in Chicago, which is, politically, extremely anti-gun, and he used the established national planks of the DNC in his local and statewide political career.




So, here's the point we are at: do we continue to stand on losing ground "because we can't let THEM win"? We stayed in Iraq far too long, with the left arguing that merely standing on that ground was causing the very dangers we were there to prevent and to leave as soon as possible. Soonest begun, soonest done.


Eventually, of course, the tide of public opinion turned in our favor. The people that continued to support staying there were marginalized, their dire predictions swept aside, and we left Iraq.


So the sooner the DNC gets over their entrenched, emotionally-attached positions on guns and starts with a clean slate on the issue, the sooner the stupid, paranoid NRA ads grow distasteful in the ranks of the NRA and just... go away.



"Seriously, how is it we allow the continued support for the NRA on this site?"

The NRA is a single-issue political organization. The DNC has chosen to adopt a position guaranteed to get the NRA involved against Democrats. What's the issue?

Are you really surprised and confused as to why the NRA doesn't support Democrats?


I don't see a lot of support for the NRA as an organization on this site, but truth of the matter is that, if you strip away the paranoid examples and hollow chest-thumping patriotic dribble, the NRA's legal arguments are pretty sound. It's why they keep winning in court.

[ellisonz]

78. The seizure of power by GWB had quite a lot to do with such issues.

Also, your argument is not convincing.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

NRA gave overwhelmingly to RNC candidates from 1990-2012.

It's a Republican organization for all practical reasons - they only won Heller because GWB stole the elections. Do you not here Newt and friends talking about arresting judges? He's not talking about Roberts and Alito, he's talking about liberal judges. It's fascism and the NRA is only a pawn in the game.

[AtheistCrusader]

161. Yawn

[DanTex]

110. I disagree.

Starting with a "clean slate" on the issue sounds a lot to me like trying to placate the NRA crazies by caving on gun control. However, Democrats have been caving on things for years and it doesn't seem to have helped much at all. Obama, for example, has actually been a very business-friendly president, yet wall street hates him, and he still gets called a Socialist. And Obama has done basically nothing on gun control, but that doesn't stop the NRA from claiming that he's still somehow conspiring to ban guns. In general, what happens when you cave to the right-wingers is that the right-wingers move further to the right, and nothing else changes much.

Especially on guns, which is such an emotional/identity issue for the right-wing base. Obama was quite right when he pointed out that people "cling" to guns in the face of economic and social discontent. I think most pro-gunners even understand that the current lax gun laws are actually bad policy -- the statistics in terms of gun deaths in the US vs the rest of the developed world don't really leave much to the imagination.

But, for a certain strain of spiteful conservatives, gun militancy is a way of saying FU to the supposedly liberal elite. Is it really necessary to be able to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check? Of course not. That's just stupid. But the fact that the NRA has been able to push "gun rights" to these absurd extremes, even at the cost of thousands of lives every year, is a rallying point, and a point of pride, for so many right-wing ignoramuses.

If the Dems were to just cave, and give the NRA everything it wants, the NRA would simply make increasingly crazy demands, to the point where basic human decency would entail resisting. In fact, I would argue that we have already passed this point.

If progressives start caving every time they run into a little resistance, or anytime the Supreme Court has a right-wing majority, etc., then we would never make any progress on anything. Why not cave on abortion as well, after all, that would make a lot of wingnuts happy. And then start teaching creationism in schools. And privatize social security. And give up on global warming. Etc.

[MicaelS]

195. "Gun militancy is a way of saying FU to the supposedly liberal elite"

No, ANY elite that seeks to disarm the average citizen. Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Socialist, Communist, or WTF-ever.

Every time Gun Prohibitionists like yourself make a statement like "Why do they need all those guns for?" The simplest answer is "To piss off Gun Prohibitionists, and show great big middle fingers in the process."

[AtheistCrusader]

93. No, they aren't going to 'no matter what we say'.

The NRA has endorsed Democratic(TM) candidates, who fall on the correct side of this issue.

[ileus]

112. Thanks to this thread I decided to spring for a couple of AR stripped lowers.

Just to keep on hand.

Now the question is...

do they have to be assembled before a new ban? or will they be grandfathered in even though I don't plan on assembling them.

I can sneak a couple more AR's in under the radar bit by bit.


Lowers today

receivers next month

LPK's the month after

Barrel in June
6.8 barrel in July

gas blocks and tubes in Sept




Furniture here and there...