Is it finally time to have a discussion about gun control?

[zanne]

If this doesn't do it, what will? When will we finally admit that we are a nation of violent people, incapable of handling the responsibility that comes with gun ownership? Just listen to any freeper's response to the looting problem in NO--"just shoot 'em". When will we stop acting like children?

[wtmusic]

1. .

:popcorn:

[losdiablosgato]

2. Firearms are an integer part of my hurricane survival kit.

A pistol, a shotgun, and a ar-15. History shows time and time again that in natural disaster lawlessness and violence are legion. As a responsible person I see to my anf my families protection.

[davepc]

5. Now now, in a major disaster the governments response will be swift!

No need to arm yourself from lawless hooligans taking advantage of the breakdown in society, the National Guard will be there to protect you within hours.

[MrBenchley]

9. Hey, it's no coincidence

that the most incompetent pResident in US history and his corrupt gang of hacks, crooks and crazies are ALL pushing that "goitta getta gun" horseshit.

By the way, when you run out of drinking water, do you turn into one of the "lawless hooligans taking advantage of the breakdown in society" with your popgun?

[davepc]

17. I don't know, do I? Does the firearm make me a hooligan?

Or absent a firearm, would I just wait till I could prey on a weaker person (maybe a child, or the elderly) and take their water.

Woe would be me if they had a firearm though. Then I'd be a shot hooligan.

And shot hooligans don't have long life expectancy in places where medical care is hard to come by.

[MrBenchley]

24. You didn't know about the gun show loophole, either....

"Woe would be me if they had a firearm though. "
Unless you took it away from them. But of course that's impossible, because just having a sacred fetish object makes the gun owner invulnerable and virtuous. As we see in New Orleans. (snicker)

[davepc]

29. Sure makes sense to attack someone who has a gun and not wait for someone

who doesn't.

Of course, if nobody had a gun then that wouldn't even be an issue. Just wait for the smallest and weakest person to take what you want from them. Since there is no government to protect them, and they don't have any tools to equalize the equation or put it in their favor, they're easy pickings.

Who's easier to smash in the head with a brick to steal their water? An elderly unarmed woman, or a elderly woman with a firearm and the will to use it?

[MrBenchley]

34. That IS rich....

WalMart had a shitload of guns that weren't even locked up...they turned out to be some hot-shit deterrant to crime, didn't they?

"Who's easier to smash in the head with a brick to steal their water? An elderly unarmed woman, or a elderly woman with a firearm and the will to use it?"
So instead of providing drinking water to share, let's descend to lord of the flies so you can justify your toy and the under-regulation of a corrupt industry ....

(And let's all pretend that "a elderly woman with a firearm and the will to use it" can't be hit from behind...or will never shoot any innocent bystanders with her popgun.)

[davepc]

40. Because if the walmart guns didn't exist, NO would be a paradise right now

brother helping brother, singing kumby-a in the floodwaters. But since people have those wal-mart guns they're turing into roving packs of desperate people searching for the increasingly rare bare basic necessity of life in a hostile environment with no help in site.

In a situation where no-one has any water, doesn't know where the next drink will come from, you think they'll be happy to elevate themselves to magic models of moral and social justice by sharing what they have?

Me, I think most people will slip into basic survival mode, and such instances of human courage will be the exception rather then the rule.

Of course, we can ask the people stranded in New Orleans with nothing facing certain death if its "lord of the flies" or one big giant love-fest on par with woodstock 1969.

And since the elderly woman in our little scenario *might* be ambushed or miss her target its obviously a much better alternative that she not even have the opportunity to defend herself, and just become a victim de-facto.

[MrBenchley]

45. They sure were a shitload of help, weren't they?

"since people have those wal-mart guns they're turing into roving packs of desperate people searching for the increasingly rare bare basic necessity of life in a hostile environment with no help in site."
Yeah, but what do you care? They've got guns! Yippee!!

"In a situation where no-one has any water, doesn't know where the next drink will come from, you think they'll be happy to elevate themselves to magic models of moral and social justice by sharing what they have?"
Gun owners sure don't want to....as we see from the "urban vermon" remark....

[davepc]

53. I care very much, despite your attempts to allude that I do not

Those people need help, the desperate ones slipping beneath the boundaries of civilization, and the people they would prey upon.

And thats a nice broad brush you use to suggest that all firearms owners are incapable of thinking of anyone but themselves, especially in a time of crisis where the strong prey on the weak with no fear of retribution from the state.

[MrBenchley]

57. It shows....

"all firearms owners are incapable of thinking of anyone but themselves"
Geeze, whow as that jeering and sneering about "brother helping brother, singing kumby-a in the floodwaters"? It sure as shit wasn't me.

[davepc]

64. Civility and justice are the exceptions not the rule in the absence

of government.

If you believe otherwise, then good for you, but I hope you belief is never tested in a situation like the one that exists in New Orleans. You might not like what you find out out human nature when society no longer exists, and people quickly run out of food and wate

[MrBenchley]

69. That IS rich....

"I hope you belief is never tested in a situation like the one that exists in New Orleans"
My belief is that the sale and distribution of guns ought to be more tightly regulated...and I'd say New Orleans proves the case in spades.

"You might not like what you find out out human nature when society no longer exists"
Hell, you can go to ANY online gun owners forum online and find out what sorts of fuckwits are beating their meat publicly over their cheesy hobby and gleefully daydreaming about shooting their fellow citizens, even when there isn't a temporary breakdown of civil authority.

[SlipperySlope]

150. There is NO gun show loophole

The system works as designed. Sales between private individuals were NEVER intented to go through federal checks.

[losdiablosgato]

11. What are you drink, and why are you not sharing with the class.

}(

[MrBenchley]

13. Don't worry! You've got a gun and can take it away

or shoot him for it! Yippee!!!

[losdiablosgato]

21. Or I can use it for hunting and to protect my family and myself

Twice in my life I have had to pull a firearm on someone to protect myself from and armed person. Never even pointed it at them, they saw it and left. And I do have a legal carry permit.

[MrBenchley]

23. Or you can become an armed looter....

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

28. "these urban vermonin Lost Orleans"

Wonder why so many "pro gun liberals" are all "pro gun" and not a speck of "liberal"?

[losdiablosgato]

30. In this case I am pro law abiding people surviving

That is what this is a survial situation. Law is for all practical purposes gone for the time being. People who prey on others for profit and gain are lowest of the low. I have little pity for them. Yes I can understand taking food adn drink from a store. But there is murder adn rape going on as we type in the big easy. People have a right to protect themselve, particularly when the state can't or won't.

[MrBenchley]

32. It shows...(snicker)

"Law is for all practical purposes gone for the time being. "
Good thing there wasn't much in the way of gun laws before hand, eh?

[losdiablosgato]

33. It is a good thing that people have the means to protect themselves yes

They are not using just guns but I read of a man that had to fire a warning shot to protect himself earlier theis week in NO. The assalents were armed with knives and a machete. He fired one round in the dirt the ran.

[MrBenchley]

35. Especially when faced with "urban vermon" eh?

Disgraceful.

"He fired one round in the dirt"
Well that certainly justifies having the corrupt gun industry run wild and free like a rabid hyena....NOT.

[losdiablosgato]

42. I disagree with you view on th gun industry. But then again I have

Used them to protect my familt the same way that many now sadly in NO are. ANd If I would have been their I would have done the same.

[MrBenchley]

46. Gun manufacturers like Sun Myung Moon

or neoNazi Gaston Glock are the scum of the earth....

[losdiablosgato]

61. So? A gun is a tool, nothing more

It is not good nor is it evil. It is the person who has it makes that desision.

[MrBenchley]

71. It's not the only tool....

somebody who's trying to make a case that the gun industry ought to operate outside the law is also a tool....

[sierrajim]

89. It would help if you knew what you were talking about first

The firearms industry is THE MOST REGULATED privately owned industry in this country your statement above just makes you look like an extremist.

[MrBenchley]

96. I DO know what I'm talking about....

"he firearms industry is THE MOST REGULATED privately owned industry in this country"
Bullshit.

http://www.csgv.org/news/headlines/03_06_16_bulls.cfm

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=416


"Specifically, the Tiahrt amendment keeps the ATF from requiring firearms dealers to conduct physical inventories of guns, from denying licenses to low-volume gun dealers, and from demanding that some dealers document all used guns sold in a specific period."

http://www.gunweek.com/2003/tiahrt0820.html

[sierrajim]

102. Apparently you still DO NOT know

And listing anti-firearm sources who have their own agenda as the truth is really lame. I thought this was supposed to be the party of inclusion or is it only what you think is right?

[MrBenchley]

103. Apparently I do and you don't....

" listing anti-firearm sources who have their own agenda as the truth"
Better than referring to some lying shill for the corrupt gun industry. Tell us, what Is that "agenda" you're wringing your hands and moaning about?

"I thought this was supposed to be the party of inclusion"
It is...and it includes a big chunk of the 80% of Americans who want more gun control.

Meanwhile, the complete failure of current lax gun control policies is on full display in New Orleans.

[sierrajim]

155. Wrong again

"Better than referring to some lying shill for the corrupt gun industry."

And what lying shill was it I was referring to? And by the way the firearms industry is a legal and extremely over-regulated industry.

"Tell us, what Is that "agenda" you're wringing your hands and moaning about?"

The agenda that I'm talking about (sorry I'm not wringing my hands or moaning but please if you would like to be my guest) is that these organizations want to outlaw all private ownership of any and all firearms.

"It is...and it includes a big chunk of the 80% of Americans who want more gun control."

Are you ever way off on this one, I think you turned your percentage points around.

"Meanwhile, the complete failure of current lax gun control policies is on full display in New Orleans."

Lax my ass do realize that the morons that are running around with STOLEN weapons are already breaking the law?

[benEzra]

135. "Low-volume gun dealers"

Are you aware that Federal law requires both gunsmiths and custom shops to have a dealer FFL? Not every licensed gun dealer is a gun retailer.

[losdiablosgato]

62. Oh and by the way because of the looters and gangs in NO rescue op off

They have suspended the boat rescue for the now because of the gangs. The suspened some chopper work earlier as well. Safety reasons.

[MrBenchley]

73. Yeah, those guns are sure a big help, aren't they?

Good thing there were no regulations beforehand to keep them out of the wrong hands....NOT.

[SlipperySlope]

151. Because the "anti-gun" liberals don't cut us any slack,

Once the movement can let go of useless ideas like closing the "gun show loophole", banning 50 calibre rifles, reinstating the assault weapon ban, etc, etc, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda, then our common ground would be clear.

Instead, every time I turn around, one of my so-called "fellow" liberals has come up with some newfangled way to attack my gun rights.

[Squatch]

3. Do you think the people who looted guns

are the same people who could have gotten them through legal means?

[MrBenchley]

6. Since they can walk into any gun show in Louisiana

and buy guns without undergoing a background check...yeah, I do.

[Squatch]

8. Then why didn't they? Nah, they waited to STEAL them.

[MrBenchley]

12. That Is hilarious

You're telling us the guns suddenly would have turned into a boon to society if the people waving them around now had only PAID for them?

Hahahahaha....

[davepc]

14. Can you please show me the federal or state law that makes "gun shows"

areas where federal firearms laws cease to exist?

I am unaware of any. And since Federal firearms law requires a background check to be performed by any licensed firearms dealer, irregardless of if they are at a "gun show" or not, the allegation that one can magically buy guns at "gun shows" without a background check is a blatant lie.

[MrBenchley]

15. Google the words "gun show loophole"

and you'll find out.

"the allegation that one can magically buy guns at "gun shows" without a background check is a blatant lie. "
Bullshit.

"Background Checks
Background Checks for all Gun Sales at Gun Shows: No state law exists requiring background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows.
Access to Mental Health Records: Although individuals adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed for mental health treatment are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm, Louisiana law enforcement and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) do not have access to mental health records for the purpose of completing a background check.
Access to Domestic Violence Restraining Order Records: Although Louisiana maintains a database of protective orders, the Office of Judicial Information indicates that local law enforcement and judicial agencies often do not submit the necessary information required to transmit the information to the National Instant Criminal Check System (NICS). It is very important that NICS is provided with all protective orders because NICS conducts all firearm purchase background checks in Louisiana.
Access to Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Records: The Office of Judicial Information and the Louisiana State Police advise that local law enforcement and judicial agencies are responsible for uploading record information into the National Crime Information Center Database (NCIC). Therefore, it is unknown if any domestic violence misdemeanors are being reported to NICS.
Coordinated Investigation/Gun Trafficking
Coordinated Investigation – Firearm Trafficking: No legislation exists to mandate statewide coordination between federal, state and local law enforcement activities concerning firearm trafficking.
Mandatory Crime Gun Tracing: No state law exists requiring that all guns used in the commission of a crime and recovered by law enforcement be traced to their original owners if the original ownership cannot be determined by other means. "

http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues_state_initiatives.asp?stateid=19

[davepc]

20. No STATE law exists, BECAUSE ITS A FEDERAL LAW

National Instant Criminal Background Check System does not cease to exist at gun shows.

Try going to a gun show, buying a firearm from a dealer, and not going through a NICS check. Good luck.

[MrBenchley]

22. Background checks are not required at gun shows

"Try going to a gun show, buying a firearm from a dealer"
No, I'll buy from what are dishonestly called "private collectors" and avoid the background check. And that is a FACT and common practice in most states, thanks to the corrupt gun industry and the GOP.

Hell, dealers can even put on their "private collector" hat in their own stores and avoid background checks, as this story from Washington state shows.

"A Monroe man who shot and killed his 5-year-old grandson before turning the gun on himself last week had purchased the pistol less than three hours before the murder-suicide, police said.
But police said that because he bought the gun from a private dealer's personal collection, a background check and a so-called "cooling-off" period weren't required. Still, police said they have asked federal agents to determine whether any laws were broken in the sale.
Because the gun was in the dealer's personal collection, instead of from store inventory, it wasn't necessary for Hetherwick to undergo a background check, fill out lengthy paperwork or wait several days before taking his weapon home, Quenzer said. "

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002005208_gun14m.html

Gun shows are little more than tupperware parties for criminals and crazies.

[davepc]

31. If you want to ban private party sales, then say so. Don't hide behind som

non-existent loophole that only exists at "gun shows" in some fantasy.

[MrBenchley]

38. So in other words there IS a gun show loophole

and collectors can sell without background checks, just as I said.

And that's NOT fantasy but FACT.

[davepc]

41. Private Party sales aren't the same as gun shows being fed law free zones

Where federal firearms laws cease to exist.

[MrBenchley]

48. But private party sales are most common at gun shows....

which is FACT. And the claim that "there is no loophole" IS a big fat honking lie.

Gun shows are also havens for white supremacists and other hate groups....

[davepc]

50. If gun shows were banned but private party sales were unchanged

then the "gun show" loophole would no longer exist. Of course the problem you profess exists -- transfers between non-dealers -- would continue unabated.

No Child Left Behind Act
Freedom to Farm Act
Patriot Act

Seems Republicans have the market corned on doublespeak except when it comes to gun control.

If you want to talk about banning private party sales then say you want to ban private party sales.

Don't prattle on about some "loophole" that exists at "gun shows".

[MrBenchley]

54. So in other words, there's a gaping gun show loophole....

"Of course the problem you profess exists -- transfers between non-dealers -- would continue unabated. "
But you wouldn't find a shitload of unregulated gun sellers arming a shitload of loonies and criminals under one roof.

"If you want to talk about banning private party sales then say you want to ban private party sales."
So tell us, since you're pretending that there is a gun sdhow loophole that ought to be called something else, are you for banning private party sales?

[slackmaster]

132. More bullshit

"But private party sales are most common at gun shows...."

Without facts to back it up, the statement is just hot air.

[slackmaster]

131. MrBenchley has been repeating this nonsense for years here

"Background checks are not required at gun shows"

That is simply not true.

For any given state, laws and rules and procedures for gun sales are the same at gun shows as they are everywhere else in that state.

[MrBenchley]

4. Long past time...

At the WalMarts that were looted, the guns were not even stored under lock and key. I would bet the same was true at many sporting goods stores and pawn shops. Nor was there any legal requirement for WalMart to take any such precautions.

By the way, survivors are forbidden by law from suing WalMart for being so careless, thanks to the GOP and the NRA.

Meanwhile, this is exactly what gun rights imbeciles have long been wishing for out loud--"guns in the hands of people during a breakdown of authority." And we can see what a frigging disaster it is, too.

[bloom]

7. We have someone here

saying shoot anyone with a gun.


If anything - all this will get more people buying guns.

[losdiablosgato]

19. It will

[DanCa]

10. The way I shoot your safer keeping my from a gun but seriously

I believe that everyone has a right to own a gun in his own home, and car. I believe that people have the right to hunt and go too shooting ranges, or down to the dump to shoot rats if the want. I just feel that the reasons that you indicated are why people shouldn't be allowed to walk around armed, save that for the police, guard and army. I also believe that if I get capped in my bum I have the right to sue the gun owner. Anyhow that's my feelings on this whole subject.
But what would be really cool if i could walk around with some of those dynamite arrows from Dukes of Hazzard, or if we had melee like back in tolkien. See it's not guns that bother me so much it's the crossfire.

[Mairead]

16. If it weren't "just shoot 'em", it'd be "just kill 'em". The problem is

not the guns, it's the entrenched classism that strips people of humanity.

Let's focus on causes, not symptoms.

[MrBenchley]

27. Jeepers...

Tell us, the politicians supported by the National Rifle Association and the gun industry...do they make those causes BETTER? Or do they exacerbate them?

[Mairead]

44. I haven't noticed any politicians making anything better.

There are a few who are trying, but they aren't having any effect.

In general, the NRA-supported guys are making things worse. But that doesn't impeach the value of the Second Amendment, so let's not try to conflate the two.

[MrBenchley]

49. None at all?

"that doesn't impeach the value of the Second Amendment"
In fact, we see Louisiana dependent on its National Guard, which is the "well regulated militia" that the Second Amendment covers, as court after court after court after court has ruled.

"let's not try to conflate the two"
Why not? It's certainly the NRA's outright lies about the meaning of the Second Amendment and a non-existent individual right for any fuckwit tto run around with a popgun that have contributed mightily to the present crisis in New Orleans.

[Mairead]

60. I believe you need to spend more time reading founding documents

and analysing the Bill Of Rights. Your ideology doesn't have the foundation you'd like to believe it does.

And, since there's no point in discussing religion with the religious, I'll stop here.

[MrBenchley]

68. That IS rich....

Every court that has ruled on the Second Amendment has put the right to keep and bear arms in the context of a collective right to a well-regulated state militia. The closest gun loonies have gotten to a court victory is in Emerson in the Fifth Circuit, when the most conservative and backward court in the country shoehorned a shitload of NRA propaganda into a decision before ruling that the Second didn't apply in that case. (And after all that hoohah, they still took the fuckwit's guns away; Emerson had threatened his ex-wife with his toy).

Worth noting that the NRA has never sued to overturn any gun law anywhere on Second Amendment grounds...although if their lie was even remotely true they could have them all struck down overnight. What does it say when someone won't put their moeny where their mouth is?

The last NRA legal challenge to an assault weapon ban took place in the Sixth Circuit in 2002, where the gun loonies sued under First Amendment grounds. (Evidently "I'm a crackpot with an assault weapon!" was supposed to be free speech.) Why do you suppose that was? Do you think they forgot there was a Second Amendment?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/6th/002371.html


The Founding Fathers also put the Second Amendment in terms of a collective well-regulated militia. The only time the question of individual ownership was raised was during the Massachusetts ratification debates (the proposal is often falsely attributed to Samuel Adams)...and the provision was voted DOWN there.

[Mairead]

72. The courts have also upheld the 'patriot' act.

That should tell you something about their probative value.

[MrBenchley]

74. That would be NRA life member AshKKKroft's Patriot Act

"That should tell you something about their probative value."
It tells me mostly how desperate and silly the "gun rights" argument can get.

[Mairead]

78. What it tells me is who AshKKKroft's fellow-travellers are.

That you can call defence of the Bill Of Rights 'desperate and silly' tells me something very important about you.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Mairead]

82. As I said, it's useless to discuss religion with the religious

so I'll stop here.

[MrBenchley]

85. And even more useless to expect facts from gun lovers....

They've got nothing but right wing propaganda and revisionist history to back up their case.

And the dangerous social cost of not having comprehensive national gun control is in full view in the tragedy in New Orleans.

[Mairead]

88. As I said, I'll stop here. (nt)

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

115. I'm not making up ANY facts, so I'll keep going....

Wonder how many of these were on hand at gun stores in New Orleans?

"The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today joined Representatives Jim Moran (D-VA), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), and Henry Waxman (D-CA) at a Capitol Hill press conference in support of federal legislation sponsored by Rep. Moran to ban 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles. Fifty caliber anti-armor sniper rifles can penetrate armor plating, pierce rail cars carrying toxic chemicals, and destroy aircraft. An ArmaLite AR-50 sniper rifle was displayed at the press conference.
Currently being used by U.S. troops in Iraq, 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles are accurate at distances of more than a mile, yet under federal law are sold in the United States with fewer restrictions than a standard handgun. Recognizing the terror threat posed by these military rifles, in September 2004, California became the first state in the nation to ban them.
Tom Diaz, VPC senior policy analyst and author of numerous VPC studies on the threat posed by 50 caliber sniper rifles, states, "These weapons of war are ideal tools for terrorism. They can take out light armored vehicles, are capable of turning commercial jetliners into bombs on the ground, and of knocking helicopters out of the air. They are capable of igniting railcars and stationary tank farms containing extremely hazardous, volatile, and explosive chemicals. And yet, under federal law and the law of the vast majority of states, 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles are as easy to buy legally as a standard hunting rifle and easier to buy legally than handguns." "

http://www.vpc.org/press/0502sniper.htm

Good thing the GOP has got that bill bottled up in committee...NOT!

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[ScreamingMeemie]

18. No, it is time to rescue people....save them, grieve and then

try to help them put their lives back together. You argue politics, I'm writing a check.

[zanne]

36. I think it's more than that...

I think that part of the "conservative revolution" is the cessation of ANY discussion about gun control. Even here on DU, I read threads that look like they're coming from a militia group or something. It seems like ANY excuse will do if you want to walk around with a gun. But, we have to be careful about the sale of certain cold medicines--THAT could be dangerous!

[MrBenchley]

39. Exactly so....notice the "urban vermon" line above

And it's worth noting that on gun loony forums, the dittoheads boast aloud about trolling here nine and ten times to shout down any discussion of gun control....

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33227&highlight=%2ADemocratic+Underground%2A

Meanwhile, the folly of having under-regulated gun dealers is plain to see....there was a relief helicopter fired upon earlier today. Good thing the GOP put assault weapons back in gun stores, eh?

[Mairead]

56. Red herring. It should be beneath you to do that.

'Assault rifle' is like 'partial-birth abortion' -- it's a made-up term designed to drive the ignorant into a frenzy.

The only difference apart from cosmetics between a so-called 'assault' rifle and a common-or-garden-variety deer-hunting rifle is that the 'assault' rifle typically uses a smaller bullet, .22-cal. vs .30-cal.

[MrBenchley]

58. BULL SHIT.

'Assault rifle' is like 'partial-birth abortion'
So few people confuse sex with their cheesy hobby.

"it's a made-up term designed to drive the ignorant into a frenzy. "
That;'s true....gun loonies all over the country were creaming their jeans over the ban not being renenwed, thanks to GOP corruption.

"The only difference apart from cosmetics between a so-called 'assault' rifle and a common-or-garden-variety deer-hunting rifle is that the 'assault' rifle typically uses a smaller bullet, .22-cal. vs .30-cal.:"
Geeze, if that were true, there woudln't have been any opposition to renewing and strengthening the ban, would there?

But then if that were true, fuckwits wouldn't NEED assault weapons.

[Mairead]

70. Screaming 'bull shit' doesn't change reality, you know.

There are no differences apart from cosmetic ones, and the one of bullet size that I already mentioned. That happens to be the simple truth. Sorry if it doesn't fit with how you want the world to be.

[MrBenchley]

77. Neither does pouting about the Patriot Act

But then reality has so little to do with triggerhappy fantasies...

"There are no differences apart from cosmetic ones"

Then all those imbeciles who fought against renewing the ban sure look like silly asses, don't they? Imagine, making such a fuss so that they can have "cosmetics" on their cheesy little toys.

[Mairead]

79. Yes, some boys do really get silly about their toys

Is that a news flash for you?

[MrBenchley]

84. I don't expect anything else from "pro gun liberals"

By the way, worth noting that besides putting assault weapons back in gun stores, the GOP has also fought any attempt to regulate .50 caliber anti-armor weapons like the Barrett....wonder how many of those were floating around New Orleans gun stores?

http://www.vpc.org/50press.htm

[ScreamingMeemie]

95. Nope, I disagree. I'm for forget it and saving people.

:hi:

[theboss]

25. If I were there, I would want a gun

And I'm not even sure which end the bullet comes out.

[mtnester]

37. Me too n/t

[mknmehappy]

66. Fantastic Response!

Could not agree with you more!!

[lildreamer316]

105. So join with me and learn

See my post downwind. I have never even held a gun
I'm gonna learn within the month.

[Bouncy Ball]

43. It HONESTLY isn't the guns.

I know some will jump me for that, but hear me out.

My husband and I own two guns. We are both very well-trained on both of them (he is former military). I took a six hour course, then several refresher courses, because he insisted I do so if we were going to own them. Mine is a handgun. We keep them both securely locked up, in our home, ONLY for home self-defense. We do not ever take them anywhere, except when I had to take mine to my class and indoor range to know how to use it.

The only reason in the WORLD we would ever actually use them is to defend our family from someone who would otherwise harm or kill us.

That's it. No other reaason.

The problem is that our culture GLORIFIES guns. They sex them up, if you will. Have you ever seen pictures of freepers POSING with their guns??? Yeah, they have framed portraits and shit, hanging on the walls of their homes, I've seen them.

That's just freaky. Why would you want to pose with your gun unless you just happen to be holding it after you went hunting and someone is taking your picture with the whatever you just killed?

We have this weird obsession (by we, I mean the US, not me) with guns. This freaky worship culture of them.

And that's just fucking unhealthy. Guns are simply defense tools, only to be used in the most dire, most extreme of emergencies (in my opinion). Oh yeah and people hunt. I always forget about that. I'm a vegetarian.

Anyway, gun control isn't really one of my "issues." But I just thought I'd throw that out there. Canadians own plenty of guns, but they don't glorify them to the extent Americans do. And they aren't as violent of a culture.

[MrBenchley]

52. Do you think looters are pointing fingers and shouting BANG!

"The problem is that our culture GLORIFIES guns."
Actually the problem is that the sale and distribution of guns isn't regulated.

[Bouncy Ball]

76. Hey I'm all for the regulation of the sale of guns.

I think we have far too little of that. We're like the Gun Candy Shop of the World. And that's ridiculous.

You'll find no argument from me on THAT.

But a culture that glorifies guns as much and as insanely as we do is GOING to have problems with guns....regulation would help a lot.

[MrBenchley]

86. Amen to that!

"a culture that glorifies guns as much and as insanely as we do is GOING to have problems with guns....regulation would help a lot. "
Remember, Chimpy and the GOP SAID they wanted to renew the Assault Weapons Ban, but didn't do a goddamn thing except block Congressional action. They should be held to account for that as surely as they should be held to account for tearing down FEMA, letting the levees fall into disrepair, and not planning an adequate response.

[ManiacJoe]

143. Not well enforced maybe, but definitely regulated.

You definitely need to raise your knowledge of gun laws by a large amount. They are all online. Take the time; educate yourself.

We don't need more laws, enforcing the existing ones would be enough.

[RPM]

47. Fuck that - i am going to go buy a gun so i could protect myself...

you want to shoot at me - i'll shoot back

[titoresque]

51. well if you talk of taking guns away from

citizens you better take them away from Govt too!!!!!.......citizens must be able to protect themselves!

[MrBenchley]

59. They're doing a great job in New Orleans

so far there's a National Guardsman shot, and a helicopter fired upon....

[-..__...]

55. The situation in NOLA only reinforces my belief...

that we need the 2nd amendment more than ever.

As a law-abiding gun owner of some 30 years, I refuse to compromise any further on firearms related issues.

[anarch]

63. how is a gun control law -- or any law, for that matter

supposed to help when "mere anarchy" has been unleashed?

I agree with your cynical view of American society -- hell, I don't think most of the world's population is any better: people are stupid, violent, selfish, and have the potential for all kinds of evil mischief the whole world 'round.

But I can take your train of thought above and extend it a little bit to say, "the nation's people are violent, ignorant, and incapable of handling the responsibility that comes with the right to vote. Let's restrict their activities, and make sure all the important decisions are left to those who are clearly superior in reason and intellect...the common people should respect and obey their betters" and so on.

Besides, I live in DC, where we have some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the country, and I hear gunfire nearly every week. I don't think it's the gun laws or lack thereof that leads to crime and anarchy...it's probably more the lack of any effective social safety net or public assistance. You know, poverty and lack of recourse, set against privilege and conspicuous wealth. The rich getting richer and the poor being cast aside as a matter of policy.

I don't know what the answer is, or when we as a species will grow up, but I do know that one of the first things a really repressive government will do is legislate any and all weapons out of the hands of their subjects--so I just don't trust anti-gun laws.

[DemBones DemBones]

67. Well said. nt

[Mairead]

75. Well said indeed. (nt)

[MrBenchley]

80. As it happens though...

the lack of gun laws has helped "mere anarchy" to be unleashed....and makes it much worse.

"one of the first things a really repressive government will do is legislate any and all weapons out of the hands of their subjects"
Why, just look at Saddam or the Taliban...oh wait, those were two of the most heavily armed societies on earth.

"I don't think it's the gun laws or lack thereof that leads to crime and anarchy...it's probably more the lack of any effective social safety net or public assistance."
Funny thing about that...it's the people who are trying to pass gun control laws who are also trying to create an effective social safety net...and the pro-gun fuckwits of the GOP who are most opposed to that. You'd think that would make some of our "pro gun democrats" think...but I'm too cynical to even pretend that.

[anarch]

117. "yeah, well that's just...like...your opinion, man...."

Sorry, can't help but think of the Big Lebowski when conversations about guns start up..."You were over the line, Smokey!"

I think this is one of those issues, similar to abortion and drug legalization, where proponents of one side will never be able to convince the other side to change their minds. You've got some good points here, though, and thanks for the food for thought.

As far as restrictive legislation, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, and so on...I know, I know, the same crap that the NRA always drags out...but it's there, and it's true. And in medieval Japan's occupation of Okinawa and other areas, similar restrictions on weapon ownership...not even guns in that case, but swords and knives. Even in your heavily armed societies mentioned above, was it possible for, say, the average woman (in the Taliban's version of Afghanistan for instance)to head down to the gun store and stock up?

You're certainly right about our legislators...generally the liberal ones are for gun control, and for progressive social legislation. Undeniably so. It just seems to me that restrictive legislation isn't very effective...wasteful, even, I mean look at the "War on Drugs"...whereas well thought-out social programs and well-funded emergency assistance infrastructures can really change our society for the better.

I dunno. Like I said, you'll never convince me to change my point of view on this issue. For the record, I don't think I'm really "pro-gun" so much as "pro-freedom". I just don't want to be told what I can and can't do with my life...not by the state, or by anybody else. But again, thanks for the food for thought....

[MrBenchley]

119. I love the Big Lebowski....

"As far as restrictive legislation, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, and so on...I know, I know, the same crap that the NRA always drags out...but it's there, and it's true."
Uh, not even close. Or did you really think Russians were toting guns around czarist Russia?

By the way, if Nazi Germany REALLY had gun control, why does every humhole with a swastika today oppose it? Answer: What Nazi Germany had was armed bigots, just like the NRA has.

[anarch]

128. indeed

The worst thing is to have a bunch of armed bigots and thugs, and an unarmed bunch of victims.

At any rate, I stand by my conviction that only by alleviating awful conditions - poverty in general, and in a very specific instance right now, total chaos and urgent need - will we reduce the amount of crime and violence. Strict gun control sure hasn't done shit to reduce the crime rate in my town....

[Massacure]

65. The bigger the gap between people who own firearms, and those who don't

The more violent the society is. That is why there is very little crime in Japan where very few people own guns, and very little crime in switzerland where it is illegal for someone of military age not to own a gun.

The U.S. has a lot of guns, but a wide gap between ownership, unfortunately.

[stevietheman]

83. I think this is the #1 issue that hurts Democrats, in all honesty.

The Democratic Party, especially now, needs to be seen as defending the Constitution as it's being torn to shreds by the Bush regime. And the 2nd amendment is obviously part of this document.

If "gun control" means taking guns away from lawful citizens, I'll be the most nonconfrontational I can be in response by saying this just won't ever happen. It's a lost cause for the Democratic party to pursue what is perceived by many to be an affront to their freedom. And I think they perceive it correctly.

Yes, guns are instruments of death. And they make it easier to kill people. But the lawful have to have the means to defend themselves against the unlawful, as we all know the police and other authorities won't be there to do it for us. I'm not suggesting that we all need to own firearms, but for those who live in particularly dangerous areas, it is a must.

In short, Democrats/Progressives need to defend the Constitution, and we can't do that in an "a la carte" manner. It's all, or nothing.

[MrBenchley]

87. Rubbish....

If that were true, the GOP wouldn't have paid gun control lip service (while doing nothing about it)...

pResident Weakenstupid didn't run around the country shouting that "assault weapons are the same as other guns" or "assault weapons ought to be back in gun stores" last fall, did he? No, he paid the Assault Weapon Ban renewal lip service (while doing nothing to get it passed). He didn't do that because gun control is unpopular.

But if he had tried to pass that rubbish off in public he;'d have been deserted by moderates in droves. And that IS a fact.

[stevietheman]

90. I don't see how your response has anything to do with what I said. n/t

n/t

[Mairead]

92. Good catch (nt)

[MrBenchley]

99. Nope...just the same old fantasy....

[MrBenchley]

98. And I don't see how what you said has any basis in reality

But it's poignantly funny to hear that the sort of scumbag who was creaming his jeans over getting an assault weapon might vote Democratic in a million years.

The gun nut voter hates blacks, Jews, gays, and uppity women more than he loves them guns....he's not voting Democratic unless Strom and the Dixiecrats climb out of the grave...

[Mairead]

91. Regretably, our politicians seem to come down on the "nothing" side

They're perfectly willing to violate their oaths and trash the Constitution they swore to uphold.

[MrBenchley]

100. Who ARE you trying to kid?

Take a look at the pro-gun politicans in Congress and you'll find a doughy band of fuckwits who hate freedom. Start with the "Second Amendment Caucus"...they're the crowd pushing for theocracy, racism and ignorance.

[Mairead]

110. I've stopped talking to you. Why can't you accept that?

[MrBenchley]

116. Jeepers!

Perhaps you ought to have someone explain to you how a public forum works.....

[Mairead]

125. How nice that we only share virtual space.

I'd hate to have my skull caved in.

[meisje]

93. yes! We should all own several!

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

101. Funny, what makes ME sick

is listening to people spout off about "urban vermon" or "The problem is not the guns, it is the people. "

"it would be only a matter of time that they mobbed National Guard troops taking their weapons."
So you're telling us that the National Guard's guns wouldn't protect the National Guard, but that your little popgun will protect you. Uh-HUH.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

118. Oooooh.....gun porn....

[lildreamer316]

104. I'm getting a gun next week.Let's talk

I have never even HELD a gun in my life (I'm 32). My husband is the son of a police officer and Navy veteran and my best friend was a Special Forces sniper.They are going to teach me. I think I need to learn to protect myself and my 1 1/2 year old son.
That said; I do not think there are solid reasons for ppl to own assault rifles or cop killer bullets. Then again; I don't know. I know enough to know that I DON"T know.
BUt please don't advocate a world where I am unable to defend myself. The need for this should be abundantly clear now.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[derby378]

122. Don't encourage MrBenchley...

We need to give him time to step back and cool off.

I just want the violence in NO to stop. Period.

[benEzra]

134. Those are already banned by current law...

That said; I do not think there are solid reasons for ppl to own assault rifles or cop killer bullets. Then again; I don't know. I know enough to know that I DON"T know.

Assault rifles such as M16's, military AK-47's and AK-74's, etc. are very tightly controlled by current law, specifically the Title 2 provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934. This law also restricts submachineguns (like Uzi's), firearms over .50 caliber (except civilian shotguns), sound suppressors, disguised firearms, smoothbore handguns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices like grenades and explosives. To own anything on this list, you have to undergo a six-to-eight-month background check that is similar in scope to getting a Secret level government security clearance (interviews with your neighbors, your chief law enforcement officer has to sign off on your application, annual home inspection, etc. etc.).

Kevlar-piercing handgun ammunition ("cop-killer bullets") was banned by Federal law in 1986; this law also covers some lower-powered rifle ammunition (.223 Remington, 7.62x39mm) as well as .308 Winchester. The law doesn't cover most rifles because any centerfire rifle (including Grandpa's antique hunting rifle) will go through NIJ Level II or IIIA Kevlar body armor like it's Saran wrap.

You can legally own guns that look like assault rifles, but they have to function like ordinary civilian guns or else they fall under the draconian Title 2 provisions of the NFA. I personally own a civilian AK-47 lookalike (a 2002 model SAR-1, not a real NFA Title 2 AK-47).

[Qibing Zero]

107. Look, this is a simple, simple argument.

The utopian society has no guns.

The utopian police force, if it exists at all, has no guns.

The utopian society has no military, because it has no neighbors it may need to defend itself against, and surely has no reason to be aggressive.


We do not live in utopia. The military and the police both have guns. The heaviest bush supporters sometimes are that way because they think YOU want to take their guns away from them. All of these people have guns, and you do not. That... is a recipe for disaster.

Gun control laws, ones enacted to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, simply do not work. The same way drug addicts get drugs, criminals will get guns.

My stance is - either no one has guns, or everyone should be able to have them.

[hdbint]

111. And you'll never acheive a no gun society...

as long as the constitution still stands. If we don't have the constition......we would be in a very bad situation.

[MrBenchley]

112. Simple to the point of silliness....

"Gun control laws, ones enacted to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, simply do not work."
Except that they do, and work spectacularly well....the UK, with more than 60 million citizens, has less gun crime in a typical year than a medium-sized American city like Birmingham, Alabama.

Texas and Australia both have 20 million citizens...Australia has about 200 gun deaths in a typical year and Texas has 1,300...but according to the gun nuts, it's Australia that has the problem.

"The same way drug addicts get drugs, criminals will get guns"
Yeah, it's so easy for a bunch of yokels to cook up an assault weapon from some cough syrup and a hot plate...(oops!).

By the way, I love the notion that instead of making it more difficult for criminals and loonies to get their shaky, sweaty hands on guns, we should lean back and grin while the gun industry cashes in....

"My stance is - either no one has guns, or everyone should be able to have them."
So you and Charlie Manson should be able to enjoy target practice together. Hokay.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

136. Balderdash!

In a true Utopian society there would be no criminals, so everyone could be trusted with any type of weapon.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

114. I'm actually hearing this sentiment expressed by Repub gun owners at work.

That it's time to look at some kind of gun control. Ya think?

[MrBenchley]

120. Long past time....

There's no reason to let gun stores leave guns laying around unlocked at close of business....much less with a natural disaster looming.

[derby378]

121. Bring up gun-grabbing, and you'll lose the 2006 elections

The people in NO need water, food, sanitary conditions, and a way out of NO. Provide that, and the gun violence will drop dramatically.

Treat us like children, and you'll reap the whirlwind.

[MrBenchley]

123. You mean you think the gun lobby isn't going to slander Democrats in '06?

That's hilarious....I mean pathetic.

Kerry hunted and shot guns in a war, and he wasn't pro-gun enough for those crazies, who spent millions spreading the Swift Boat slime. The NRA even started its own "media organization" to get around campaign finance laws.

"Treat us like children"
Why not? It sure seems like the entire case against gun control is based on childish posturing and silly fantasy....

[derby378]

127. Neither Kerry nor the NRA are part of this equation

Go read George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant! and then we'll talk.

[Autonomy]

124. Let's keep the Consitution and Bill of Rights out of the discussion

as they have nothing to do with the "right to bear arms" issue.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/1994/01/nra.sidebar.html

"On the first question, the Court ruled definitively in United States v. Cruikshank that the amendment "means no more than (the right to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed by Congress." This 1876 ruling established that states and localities are not prevented from enacting their own gun-control laws--and they remain free to do so to this day.

In 1886, in Presser v. Illinois, the Court reaffirmed the concept of a state's rights, as it were, to control guns, and this position has never been modified. Therefore, it re-mains the Court's last word on the subject. Lower courts have time and again held to this precedent.

Regarding the second broad question of individual versus state-militia rights, the Court held in its 1939 United States v. Miller decision that individuals have in effect no right to keep and bear arms under the amendment, but only a collective right having "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Lower courts have consistently applied the Miller decision in upholding various gun-control laws over the years.

The Supreme Court most recently revisited this question in 1980, when it reconfirmed that "these legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." One significant part of that case is that then Chief Justice Burger and current Chief Justice Rehnquist both supported that interpretation. Burger has denounced the NRA's edited version of the amendment as a "fraud.""

[Mairead]

129. Surely you're joking! They have EVERYTHING to do with it!

To the extent that a court--ANY court--can interpret constitutional provisions out of existence, we are subject to the rule of men, not the rule of law.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution were intended to be completely immune to contrary or 'interpretive' lawmaking. That's why the provisions are IN the Constitution to begin with. The Constitution is fixed, sine-qua-non law. It can only be changed by Amendment, not legislative interpretation. That's the whole point.

So when you quote court decisions that purport to erode the rights enshrined in the Constitution, you're standing with the wrong people.

That we have the Bill Of Rights at all is due to George Mason of Virginia, at 62 one of the oldest and most respected delegates to the Convention (the 'Architect of Oligarchy' James Madison, by contrast, was 35).

Like Jefferson, Mason--who had authored Virginia's Bill Of Rights--was a strong democrat and when the delegates refused to include a federal BOR, Mason walked out and refused to sign off on the proposed Constitution. We have the BOR as the first Amendments because the other delegates were afraid that Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and especially Mason could prevent ratification altogether, dumping the whole process back to Square Zero. And the federalists above all didn't want that. They reeeeally wanted that Constitution because its oligarchic provisions would protect their wealth and power from democratic erosion. So they gave in on the BOR as the lesser evil.

[benEzra]

138. That sort of turns U.S. v. Miller on its head... (and other thoughts)

Regarding the second broad question of individual versus state-militia rights, the Court held in its 1939 United States v. Miller decision that individuals have in effect no right to keep and bear arms under the amendment, but only a collective right having "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

Miller didn't say the 2ndA was a collective, rather than an individual, right. It said the individual right applied to firearms having some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of said militia (defined at the time as all males of military age). The court upheld Miller's conviction for his illegal possession of an NFA Title 2 restricted sawed-off shotgun, because Miller's counsel presented no evidence that an illegal sawed-off shotgun had any conceivable militia purpose (actually, Miller didn't even show up for the case). In the Court's words,

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

In other words, the Court felt that a sawed-off shotgun would not be protected by the 2ndA because sawed-off shotguns are not similar enough to firearms used by the military. Were the gun in question a handgun, a rifle, or an 18" barreled shotgun, on the other hand, that objection would not have applied.

Most importantly, note that the Court DID consider Miller to have standing, as an individual, to bring the case on Second Amendment grounds. If the 2ndA were a collective right, then Miller would not have had standing to bring the case on 2ndA grounds.

Finally, it should be noted that the "collective right" interpretation appears nowhere in the decision; the U.S. attorney argued that position before the Court but the Court did not adopt it in its decision, even though it was not contested by opposing counsel because the defendant didn't show up.

Also, what do you do with the various state constitutions that very explicitly spell out that the right pertains to the individual, or to the near-consensus of peer-reviewed legal scholarship that recognizes the individual-right interpretation? (see a review of the literature at "Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment" (45 Emory Law Journal 1139-1259 (1996)). Or, if you subscribe to the living-Constitution view rather than original intent, what do you do with the fact that 70% of the public believe the Second Amendment recognizes the right of the individual rather than of the State? Besides, the Democratic party platform explicitly recognizes the individual-right interpretation, and Senators Kerry and Edwards both endorsed the individual-right view during the 2004 campaign, so that's hardly a freeper view. (The 2004 ticket's problems on the gun issue stemmed from misunderstanding of what types of guns Americans own and why (as well as some major technical misunderstandings about guns and Federal gun law), rather than their view of the Second Amendment itself.)

And strictly from a pragmatic standpoint, as the policy of a political party that seeks to be inclusive, the not-an-individual-right position won't fly with the electorate at large, except for a few highly urban states. Simply raising the price on over-10-round handgun magazines and requiring that civilian guns have smooth muzzles (the "assault weapons" bait-and-switch) helped cost the party control of the House, Senate, and two presidencies. Trying to redefine an amendment that 70% of the voting population considers an extremely important protection of an individual right is a good way to join the honored ranks of the Whig, Tory, and Temperance parties in the political dustbin.

[slackmaster]

130. Short answer: No.

When will we finally admit that we are a nation of violent people, incapable of handling the responsibility that comes with gun ownership?

That is complete bullshit. Most people are perfectly trustworthy with firearms. Hell, we trust them with cars!

[benEzra]

133. Speak for yourself...

If this doesn't do it, what will? When will we finally admit that we are a nation of violent people, incapable of handling the responsibility that comes with gun ownership?

Speak for yourself. The overwhelming majority of American gun owners, including my wife and I, are not in your category of "violent people incapable of handling the responsibility that comes with gun ownership."

Between us, my wife and I have never had so much as a speeding ticket. Both of us have studied the law in great depth concerning firearms and the defensive use thereof. We are both very competent with firearms, train regularly, store and use them intelligently, and have even gone through the expense and hassle of being licensed by the State to carry a firearm.

Approximately 36% of registered Democrats, and at least as large a percentage of unaffiliated swing voters, own firearms, mostly for defensive purposes (only a small minority of gun owners are hunters). Piling yet more restrictions on what the law-abiding are allowed to own (like, say, outlawing civilian rifles with the stock shaped a certain way, as the anti-gun lobby is pushing the party to do) affects US just as much as it affects freepers or whoever else.

If any candidate wishes for me to vote for her, she had better not be rummaging around in our family's gun safe declaring which ones she'll "allow" us to keep and which ones aren't "suitable" for mere plebians such as ourselves.

[EDT]

137. If anything, New Orleans will convert more honest people into gun owners.

Bad guys will always get guns, just like they still get tons of drugs despite all our efforts.

The Los Angeles riots converted alot of fence sitters, so will New Orleans. I heard a story today on the news of looters going home to home for food and whatever they can take. If you could ask anyone without a gun if they'd like one the moment someone is breaking down their door for all their food, I bet you'd know the answer, eventhough you wouldn't like it.

You can be a lifelong victim, that's your choice. Don't force your lifetsytle on everyone else. Criminals with guns are a fact whether they are banned or not.

[slackmaster]

139. Yes, just like the Los Angeles riots did

Gun sales in California remained at record levels for several years after the Rodney King riots. I know several people who went from indifferent to hard-core RKBA advocates.

[NorthernSpy]

140. wouldn't it make more sense...

... to evacuate people before major hurricanes, and to invest adequately in a disaster response infrastructure? A society doesn't have to turn into a war zone, even when the storm rolls in and the dam breaks. Peace starts with not leaving people behind to drown.

I mean, when it gets to the point where you're about to shoot someone for eyeing your jar of peanut butter, maybe the situation is just a lost cause that even guns can't fix.

[EDT]

145. Everyone was ordered to evacuate, some people couldn't or chose not to.

[Fescue4u]

141. Yes. Its clear that Gun control is immoral and wrong

The events in New Orleans display that clearly, folks deserve the right to defend themselves.

Thank God for 2nd amendment, otherwise anti-rights folks would have us defenseless.

[aikoaiko]

142. welcome to the gungeon, all we ever do is talk about gun control

but if what you really meant was that you want to increase or strengthen gun control regulations, then, um, no.


The crisis in NOLA reinforces the need for people to be able to defend self with firearms in ways that more regulations might hinder.

[BurningDog]

144. A disaster like this...

shouldn't be used to push an agenda. I've been glued to the news since last friday, and I haven't heard of one firearms related death yet. (I'm more than willing to admit that there probably has been murders in the city, but I dont' think the lack of firearms would stop that) However, the fact is that compared to the rest of this horrid situation, its actually fairly minor.

You can't base policy for an entire nation on a scenario of "people in one of the most violent cities in the country can't be trusted with guns after a major catastrophe"

[zanne]

146. Any excuse to have a gun.

When people carrying guns get emotional, the use the guns. We have to wear seat belts in our cars and helmets on our heads when we get on a motorcycle. And god forbid we should use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Why? Because these things are DANGEROUS! But for people who want their guns, the deaths of thousands of people every year in this country isn't a good enough reason to control the use and sale of guns. You sound like a bunch of twelve year-old boys crying "I WANT MY GUNS"! "I WANT MY GUNS"!

[benEzra]

147. You seem to be conflating two largely distinct groups...

the 80 million or so of us who own and use firearms responsibly and legally, with the few hundred thousand people who do most of that killing and who are largely prohibited from so much as touching a gun under current law.

In all but two states (Vermont and Alaska), a permit is required to carry a concealed handgun on your person for defensive purposes. Here in NC, obtaining a permit requires training, a thorough Federal and state background check, fingerprinting, demonstration of firearms proficiency, a mental health background check, and plenty of $$$. Those of us who have jumped through those hoops are statistically less likely to commit violent crimes than even law enforcement officers...meanwhile, your local criminal carrying an illegal gun couldn't care less what the law says.

As I mentioned above, my wife and I have never so much as had a speeding ticket. I have never even hit anyone in anger, have never participated in a fistfight, have never even gotten in someone's face and yelled at them. People like us are NOT the problem, and if you declared martial law and sent soldiers door-to-door to break into our homes and take all the guns people like us own, the crime rate wouldn't go down a bit because the law-abiding aren't the problem.

I'm not on the forum jumping up and down and saying "I want guns, I want guns." I'm stating a fact that I own them, my wife owns them, a majority of voters in many swing states own them, more than a third of registered Democrats own them, and circa 80 MILLION of us nationally own them. And another statement of fact is that anyone who wants to rummage around in my gun safe and tell me which ones they're going to confiscate is NOT going to get my vote.

The rather cynical way in which the anti-gun lobby plays to the fears of those who erroneously think that you can walk into a gun store and buy an automatic weapon, or who think that a piddly 9mm Luger can "blow a deer to smithereens", or imagine that most gun owners are hunters, certainly makes it harder to have an intelligent discussion on the issue sometimes. But there is lots of common ground on ways to prevent criminal gun violence, but such common ground will NOT be found in the domain of "What New Restrictions Can We Foist On Nonviolent Non-Criminals?"

Stereotyping people you've never even met as so unstable that they're on the verge of killing someone, just because they choose to responsibly own a firearm, is no more rational than making such a blanket stereotype on any other grounds. My wife and I are made no less human, and no less rational, by the mere presence of a gun safe in our home.

[iverglas]

148. I'm not going to read or comment on the thread ...

because I'm just plain not in a mood to read apologetics for any aspect of the horror show playing out in the hurricane area.

For anyone who hasn't seen the various threads in LBN about Canada's persistent (and finally, increasingly strident) offers of aid in rescue / evacuation / distribution efforts in New Orleans, I just wanted to let you know that we up here are getting increasingly desperate to be allowed to help, if you can believe that a ridiculous statement like that actually makes sense.

We have a thing called DART, which is essentially an emergency hospital / water purification / communications command centre on wings, that has been ready to leave the ground at an hour's notice for several days now (it's been back from Sri Lanka for a few months). We have medicines stockpiled and inventoried and authorized for delivery, and medical personnel ready to go. Our military is geared up and ready to send *anything* accepted the minute the request is received.

A heavy urban search and rescue team from British Columbia -- at the direct request of the Governor of Louisiana -- and possibly a dozen electrical-system workers from southern Ontario are the only aid workers that have been permitted by Bush to enter the US so far.

I'm not satisfied that we have been quite persistent enough in our demands to be allowed to help, but we seem to be getting a bit more so, late hour that it is:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050902/STORMCANADA/TPInternational/Americas
(This ship is in addition to everything else we can do)

OTTAWA -- The Canadian Forces are putting together a shipload of goods that will be ready to sail down south if the U.S. military needs help to deal with the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, General Rick Hillier said yesterday.

... To that end, Gen. Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, said the ship will be carrying generators, water-purification equipment, other emergency resources and a helicopter, and that it will be ready to go to the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. authorities have been briefed on the Canadian offer, but have yet to state whether they need help.

"We're prepared to sail a ship at first opportunity with as much of that kind of package as we could put on it to be able to bring as much assistance as we could. Again, if we are requested to provide it," Gen. Hillier said.

We're not going to sit around and have a request come in and then say, 'Oh, we'll need four or five more days to get it ready.' " ... "We just need to make sure that our American friends realize that we're their friends also," he said.

I've emailed an MP in my party asking whether our parliamentarians could not appeal directly to their US counterparts asking *them* to demand that Bush let us in.

Short of putting the planes in the air and saying "shoot 'em down or tell 'em where to land, your choice", I'm not sure what else we, let alone I, could do. Not that I don't think we maybe shouldn't do just that ...

[aikoaiko]

152. Thanks Iverglas....

Your and your fellow countrymen's efforts are laudable. Almost everyone (even the gun nuts on my favorite boards) are stunned at how badly our government responded this large scale crisis. There's a lot of blaming the survivors too, but still, there astonishment over the response.

You should probably post your message in one of the LBN or General Discussion threads on other countries offering help or even make a new thread.

[iverglas]

154. and you too

There's been a lot of discussion in LBN (and the Canada forum -- and at DailyKos and so on) about our requests to be allowed to assist (those words just look so fucking stupid ...). People at DU know all about the offers from us and others -- I only hope that one day, people in the US more generally do, and add the refusals of those offers of help to all the other reasons to get rid of the pig asshole scum fool sitting in your White House.

He hasn't bombed me or cut me off medicare or made me stand in a pen to express my political opinion ... but he has made me weep from frustration and anger and sadness at what's being done to those people. (I only realized today, btw, that there are about 90 Canadians unaccounted for among them.) I'll take that personally.

[benEzra]

153. Canada's efforts to help are deeply appreciated

and our own governments' bungling (both federal and state) is absolutely tragic. A 20-year-old New Orleans resident can commandeer a school bus, drive around rescuing people, and bus them to Texas, while FEMA and the National Guard were standing around waiting for someone else to fix everything so they could go in.

And why wasn't there a city bus brigade before the storm hit? Like Jesse Jackson said, the city had a whole fleet of school buses and transport buses; why the #@%?! were they moved to lowlying areas and parked instead of being used to transport residents without cars out of the city?

If this weren't so tragic, it would be a national embarassment.

Short of putting the planes in the air and saying "shoot 'em down or tell 'em where to land, your choice", I'm not sure what else we, let alone I, could do. Not that I don't think we maybe shouldn't do just that ...

Had you guys tried that a few days ago, I'm sure no decision would have been made on whether or not to let your plane land until about three days after you were on the ground in Louisiana...chain of command dithering and all that...

[Remmah]

149. How about this instead.

I have $30 in my pocket from my ammo budget. (The wife and I are reviewing the family budget, Red Cross gets a bigger check next week).

anyway.......

I'm going to stop in at the local Wilson Farms (store) and put it in their New Orleans matching water fund. Instead of 3 boxes of 9mm practice ammo I'll buy 30 cases of water to be shipped south. They'll match it 1 for 1 and the trucker/bottler is leaving tomorrow morning w/the first load south. That's 60 cases of water. I hope we send a truck a day for the next month.

The problem is, what the problem is right now in New Orleans. Right now all the pro-anti RKBA discussion in the universe won't help them. They need water. I'll load supplies on trucks this weekend if I can find a place to volunteer. Right now I'm going to put my energy into doing the best I can to help anywhere I can.

I can help and make things better or I can ignore them. The faster things go back to normal, the fastor the acts of violence will be over.

No arguement, no discussion, just make it happen.

Peace brothers.