I'll support the Dem primary candidate who supports my Second Amendment rights

[derby378]

Make no mistake. Once the National Convention is over and you've been selected as the Democratic Presidential nominee for 2008, I'm your man.

But since 2006 hasn't quite ended yet, let me be honest. Most of the primary candidates so far are pretty much unified on health care reform, abortion rights, gay rights, lobbying reform, reducing our military presence in Iraq, and fighting pollution and global warming. Wonderful.

So here's your chance. Impress me. Declare your support for my Second Amendment rights.

Don't hopscotch, don't hem and haw, don't mumble "banning deadly assault weapons" under your breath. Just take a deep breath and tell me that even if you personally despise the semi-automatic AK-47 or AR-15 that I'm holding, you'll support my right to own it as long as I remain a responsible, law-abiding American citizen.

That said, I'll read over all your other stances on the issues of today. I'm anxious to see what all of you have to say about making America great again.

And I want to make sure that Democrats will control the House for the next 40 years.

I'll be waiting...

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Isn't it difficult to hold an assault rifle while typing?

"Just take a deep breath and tell me that even if you personally despise the semi-automatic AK-47 or AR-15 that I'm holding, you'll support my right to own it as long as I remain a responsible, law-abiding American citizen."

Got your helmet on too?

[derby378]

3. OK, I'll admit, that's cute...

But an "assault rifle" is full-auto. I'm only talking semi-auto, the same technology that's legally been in civilian hands for around a hundred years without nary a complaint until the late 80s.

[Zavulon]

26. Correct me if I'm wrong, but

the AWB listed a number of semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns. The semi-auto rifles banned by the AWB were defined as "assault rifles" in the wording, weren't they?

BTW, I'm 100% with you on your original post.

[benEzra]

83. No, they were called "assault weapons"

the AWB listed a number of semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns. The semi-auto rifles banned by the AWB were defined as "assault rifles" in the wording, weren't they?

No, they were dubbed "assault weapons"--perhaps because the Bradyites wanted to ban more than just rifles, but wanted to retain the scary word "assault", and play off the connotations of the military term.

[eallen]

7. No. It's difficult to hold a cat while typing, since it wants attention.

A gun is an inanimate object. 'Tis easy.

Like the original poster, I hope the Democratic party, on the national level, is past shooting itself in the foot by vilifying gun owners.

:hippie:

[krispos42]

147. My cat keeps my wrists warm while typing

She gets perturbed when I have to reach for the mouse, though...

[derby378]

160. My laptop has one of those pencil-eraser pointers, instead...

...so my kitty rams her head against the PCMCIA slots, instead. Good kitty.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. I'd love an AR-15 but California only allows 10 round clips.

That said, I agree. Leave my guns alone!

[derby378]

6. I feel for you...

If a state wants to pass restrictive gun laws, that's one thing. I just don't want such laws going Federal again.

[Deep13]

4. How about the governor of Montana?

He hasn't declared, but why should he? The election is not until 2008.

[Kolesar]

16. Gov Schweitzer does not know shitola about energy policy

I heard him on Ed Squirtz' show last week. The Governor was promoting COAL of all things! He thinks that we can run our cars on corn-alcohol. I guess you don't have to be well read to be governor of a small state. Just need some good sound bites.

[Deep13]

17. He can learn.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

133. You don't need to be well-read to be President

case in point: current white house resident

[krispos42]

148. He was probably promoting clean-coal technology

Coal-gasification, which boils off the volatiles before burning. Supposidly you can either burn the coal to make heat for a generating plant while only making carbon dioxide (which in this type of plant can be recovered and stored), or you can turn the volatiles into things like gasoline and diesel fuel.

Beats the hell out of an oil war.

[ForFuxakes]

5. Just out of curisity...

What does one NEED an assult weapon for if not to ASSULT someone? HMMMM?
:shrug:

[sharp_stick]

8. Well they are a lot of fun to shoot

Not everyones cup of tea I know but I once had the opportunity to fire a few hundred rounds of 50 cal machine gun, at a target, and it was a rush.

On edit: I love your username

[derby378]

9. Do you know where the term "assault weapon" came from?

It was born in the mind of Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center in the late 80s. Then he repeated the term over and over and over in the public square until everyone else was saying it, railing against it, passing laws against it - despite the fact that Sugarmann never actually defined what an "assault weapon" is.

I do not like to use the term. It is, by its very nature, subjective and pejorative. All attempts to define it have only produced lists of safety features, brand names, etc. So I'd rather not legitimize the term by using it any more than I absolutely have to.

As for the "need" angle, it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

[ProudDad]

92. A well regulated Militia

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

"The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

The jury's still out on your quaint definition of the 2nd Amendment...

[Deep13]

13. Why do we need color TV?

By the way, two "A's" in "assault."

Whether or not they are needed is not the issue. The real question is whether or not prohibition is justified. Frankly the numbers do not support it. Gun related deaths are very low, far less than auto accidents and far, far less than smoking.

[benEzra]

51. "Assault weapon" is a term popularized by the ban-more-guns lobby, not an actual type of firearm...

Just out of curisity...
What does one NEED an assult weapon for if not to ASSULT someone? HMMMM?

"Assault weapon" is a term popularized by the ban-more-guns lobby, not an actual type of firearm. The term is used to refer to any civilian rifle or pistol that holds more than 6 or 10 rounds; any civilian shotgun that holds more than 3 or 5 shells; any self-loading rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out; any pistol with a forward-mounted magazine; or pretty much any other gun they want to ban at the moment.

Here are some "assault weapons" as the prohibitionists define them:


preban Marlin Model 60 squirrel-hunting rifle, caliber .22LR



Benelli Steadygrip turkey-hunting shotgun, 12-gauge



Hammerli international target competition pistol, .22 caliber



My wife's antique Samozaryadniy Karabin Simonova (caliber 7.62x39mm), made in Tula, Russia in 1952 and very collectible, and her Glock 9mm pistol



My Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, suitable for small game hunting and defensive uses, caliber .223 Remington



My SAR-1 plinking and all-around fun rifle, caliber 7.62x39mm, in hunting/target configuration (no, this is NOT an AK-47)



All of the above are "assault weapons" according to the ban-guns lobby, even my wife's pistol, thanks to the 15-round magazine she has for it.

FWIW, I as a gun owner am OK with the tight NFA Title 2/Class III restrictions on automatic weapons that make unauthorized possession of any automatic weapon a 10-year Federal felony. I am not OK with banning half the guns our family owns just because the gun-ban lobby doesn't like low-powered rifles with handgrips that stick out, or 15-round pistols.

What do you need an "assault weapon" for? Whatever reasons you'd want to own a civilian gun for, because "assault weapons" are just civilian rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

[slackmaster]

128. Owning one automatically makes you a better speller

:eyes:

ETA Let me see if I can explain this better.

Your comment makes as much sense as the mythical TV character Archie Bunker's remark "People who live in communes are communISTS."

I have a rifle that I bought before the term "assault weapon" was coined. I bought it for target shooting. The invention of the artificial term "assault weapon" does not change my reasons for owning the rifle.

[krispos42]

149. Ah, the legitimate purpose argument

The feeling that, for some reason, people should be forced to submit a statement of need everytime they make a purchase.

"I, <state your name>, do solemly swear that I really have a legitimate reason for..."

Commuting to work in a car instead of a highway-legal scooter.

Buying a huge house when all I need is a small one for me and my doggy.

A 50" plasma TV.

A Playstation 3.

Turning the thermostat above 64º.

Owning a boat.

Owning a large SUV.

Having high-speed internet.

Owning a lawn tractor.

Et cetra, et cetra...

But let's look at the real reason people want them. The fun and enjoyment of shooting is not in working a bolt, or a lever, or a pump, or shoving cartridges into the breech of a break-action gun. It's hitting what you are aiming at, and a semi-auto rifle makes doing that much easier.

There are also many people in this country who are military veterans, trained on the AR-15 rifles (includng the M-16 family) or AK-47s and derivitives and when they return to civilian life, want to keep that same ultra-familiar rifle in the gun safe.

And there are some people that prefer to keep a rifle handy for self-defense. Perhaps they live in rural areas, where ranges might be what a shotgun or pistol can readily handle. Or perhaps they want a gun able to make a precision shot in the event of a hostage situation. Or maybe they want to use bullets that fragment (to avoid over-penetrating walls) while still delievering lethal energy into an intruder or attacker.

Many of the same features that make a firearm good for military use also make it good for casual plinking and home defense. Large ammunition capacities mean much fewer reloads because, at the range or in a firefight, nobody wants to reload. Semi-automatic fire means no fumbling with a mechanism between shots, a quality that is particulary important in a close-range engagement. Detachable magazines mean easy loading, reloading, and unloading. A low-recoiling cartridge of moderate power means it's easy on the shoulder, the rifle, and the wallet.

Take your pick. But ask yourself this: if you thought an intruder was in your house, would you grab a bolt-action or a semi-automatic rifle? How many rounds of ammo would you want to have in the gun, 5 or 30? And just how long do you want to take between shots?

[Taverner]

10. Although I'm a gun rights supporter

Gun rights have never been a showstopper for me

Abortion, Free Speech, yes.

[merh]

11. Why is it that gun enthusiasts warp the 2nd amendment?

As a US citizen, you have the right to "keep and bear arms" - regulating the availability of the arms that can be owned does not negate that right. Erm, a nuclear bomb is a weapon that falls under the definition of "arms", you have no right to own one. Explosives have been regulated for years, so too have other weapons (it is illegal to possess a knife with a blade over so many inches in some states, switchblades, etc.).

Regulation of weaponry is not an infringement of the 2nd amendment, it is a matter of public safety and national security.

It's that simple.

[derby378]

12. Regulation, yes - confiscation, NO

I'm not talking about repealing the National Firearms Act, here. I'm just talking about a common-sense approach to gun legislation that keeps our streets safe but also keeps Democrats in the driver's seat on the Hill.

[renie408]

15. Are you serious? Do you HONESTLY think that ANY politician

is going to so much as HINT that they would try to wrestle a single gun out of the hands of any gun owner?

The gun people are so weird.

[benEzra]

81. What if your guns look like this?

Are you serious? Do you HONESTLY think that ANY politician is going to so much as HINT that they would try to wrestle a single gun out of the hands of any gun owner?

The gun people are so weird.

What if your guns look like this?







Those are all guns that my wife and I own. Several legislators introduce bans on those guns every year, and a number of proposals for eventual confiscation of those guns have received a great deal of MSM and legislative support, from both corporatist repubs and corporatist Dems.

If you don't believe that there are politicians who want to ban "assault weapons" like the above, you haven't been paying attention to the Congressional legislative docket.

(And no, none of those are automatic weapons.)

[ProudDad]

93. Nor are they remotely usefull

except to kill people or boost fragile egos....

[SanCristobal]

100. ...or to hunt, or to target shoot, or to protect yourself and loved ones.

[derby378]

102. Have you ever handled one?

I can at least say about most AK variants that they are darn near indestructible. They will not jam, they will not break, they will not fail. You can immerse most AK models in water, sand, or even mud, then pull them out again, and they'll fire reliably as though nothing happened to them. That makes them eminently useful for protecting yourself and your loved ones, should you ever need to.

Now, if you were talking about weapons such as a TEC-9, I'd be inclined to agree with you. I have to admit that the TEC-9 and similar guns are basically toys - the safety design leaves something to be desired, the sights cannot be adjusted, and the gun lacks real accuracy even at close range.

Having said that, welcome to DU! :hi:

[benEzra]

107. I don't know how to say this gently, but you don't sound very familiar

Nor are they remotely usefull except to kill people or boost fragile egos....

I don't know how to say this gently, but you don't sound very familiar with firearms or their uses? All of the above are a heck of a lot more versatile and useful than the skeet guns and high-powered bolt-action rifles that you presumably approve of.

The first gun pictured is a Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, marketed as an all-around farm/utility rifle suitable for small game hunting (up to coyote-sized), recreational shooting, and defensive purposes. It's not powerful enough for deer hunting (it's just a centerfire .22), but that doesn't mean it's not useful.

The second one is the most all-around useful rifle I own. It's just barely powerful enough to hunt deer with, should I ever choose to do so, although (like most gun owners) I'm a nonhunter; it's just a shade less powerful than a .30-30 Winchester. It's accurate enough for recreational target shooting (2.5 arcminutes, with optics), and reliable enough to use for defensive purposes.

The third one is a highly collectible antique that belongs to my wife, who is a history buff and a student of Russian history and culture.

If your statement were true, you'd expect to see rifles actually being used in crimes on a regular basis, since the above three guns alone are owned by millions of Americans. Like all rifles, they're almost never misused; per the FBI, all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides nationwide, and many states report zero rifle homicide in any given year.

But I was responding to renie408's assertion that nobody wants to ban anybody's guns. There is a small but very well funded lobby that is, indeed, trying to outlaw nonhunting-style carbines--and since 80% of gun owners are NONhunters, that is a big problem for those of us who choose to own guns.


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

[krispos42]

151. Killing people is not neccessarily a bad thing

It depends on who killed whom, and for what motivation. Since long arms are very rarely used in homicides and other criminal activities in the first place, the banning of loosely-defined 'assault weapons' will have about zero impact on crime while limiting the ability of ordinary people to defend themselves.

And when it does not work, there will, of course, be more calls for more gun control.

There are about 9,500 gun homicides a year, and about 250 civilian justified-homicides a year. I frankly think the world would be a better place if those numbers were reversed.

We live in an era where our basic freedoms have been horrendously chipped away in the "Global War on Terror". Do you really want to see any more gone, even if it's one you don't use?

[merh]

18. So, if you possess dynamite, should that dynamite be subject

to confiscation? What about the components for a dirty bomb? a pipe bomb?

If you want dems in the drivers seat, stop the conservatives from defining the message.

All dems are liberals, liberals are bad, dems are against the 2nd amendment, yada yada.

Reacting to their definitions in a defensive manner, allowing their messages to define our purpose, is just assine.

Now is the time to say what we stand for, to define the messages and our purpose, not to continue to knee jerk react to their distortions.

The total irony of your "warnings" is that the majority of the democratic leaders and members I know fully support and respect the Constitution, including and not limited to the 2nd amendment.

It is the right that has been willing to fore sake the rights guaranteed to us, free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom from illegal search and seizure, freedom from illegal detainment and cruel and unusual punishment. They are willing to give up those rights to protect us from the evil "terrorists" yet they aren't willing to recognize that regulation of weapons is vital to our national security. For every one assault weapon made available to the law abiding US citizen, there are five made available to the would be terrorist and the bad guys on our streets that hate authority.

Get a grip on the message, don't let them dictate the message. Own your rights, all of them. They are not champions of the constitution, if they were, they would have run GWB off a long time ago.

IMO. :patriot:

[renie408]

19. BINGO! The only national gun regulation legislation was flogged by a REPUBLICAN!

Brady Bill??

Does that ring a bell for some of you guys? Why is it that gun people are always so quick to swallow the GOP "libruls is after yer gunz" BS so quickly and thoroughly??

[benEzra]

123. Because of some NON-liberal *DLC* types...

that keep proposing to ban half the guns in our gun safes. Dianne Feinstein would be exhibit A, and because she has been such a crusader on the issue since the early '90s, to many people she is THE face of the party on the issue, which is a bummer.

There were repubs on that bandwagon, also. One of them (Bush the Elder) got the electoral boot in '92. Some more got the boot in '94, '96, and '98, as I recall.

FWIW, I have no problem with background checks. I DO have a problem with protruding handgrip bans and pre-1861 capacity limits.

[derby378]

22. I can play the framing game, too...

I've been begging more Democratic candidates to at least consider George Lakoff's approach to defining the issues.

But if a Democratic candidate tells me that he supports the Second Amendment and then, in the same breath, tells me he'll "get deadly assault weapons off the streets," I'm gonna call BS on him. Either you're for the right to keep and bear arms, or you're not. Trying to segway into pipe bombs and nuclear warheads is a non-starter, and I think you realize that.

You want me to get a grip on the message? Here's the message. We support the Constitutional rights of all Americans. No ifs, ands, or buts. No illegal wiretaps, no torture, no infringement on my ability to worship God. That was easy.

And if you think I'm caving in to the Republicans, I used to vote Republican a long, long time ago. I switched because I realized the Democrats made more sense in the long run and because I saw the venom and vitriol that was corrupting the GOP. So let's not talk about Republicans defining the issues - instead, let's make the GOP obsolete.

:hi:

[Kolesar]

23. Please elaborate

How is this an application of George Lakoff's methods?

[derby378]

105. Lakoff's strategy was about defining the message instead of letting the GOP do it

Don't Think of an Elephant! is a how-to manual, and one that I wish more Democratic candidates took seriously. And although Lakoff himself supports gun control (last I heard), I've learned that the techniques he employs can be used to frame effective arguments against gun control as well by neutralizing some arguments from the Brady Campaign, VPC, et al.

[Kolesar]

106. Lakoff is an analysis of the unconcious meanings of words.

Lakoff's theory is about addressing the public in terms that they are comfortable with in existing frames that are already in their minds. For example, the Republicans would speak to their people in frames of small-government, strength and militarism--all of which are frames that the pro-gun NRA (weapons lobby) uses.

To develop voters as Democrats, one must speak to them in terms of shared interests and safe communities. Talking up pro-gun positions gets us none of that. The issues to run on are protecting jobs and protecting the climate for our children. Health care for all.

What you are advocating, as far as I can tell in your terse three sentences is called triangulation, an unconfident means of trying to get back a few voters who the gop wedged away. That is playing into the gop's strength.

I read enough of Lakoff's Moral Politics and his essays in Sierra Magazine and other places to figure that out.

[derby378]

112. To borrow an analogy from the Three Stooges...

There are three different ways that people deal with frames - for the sake of the argument, let's call them Larrys, Curleys, and Moes. Larrys are pretty much immune to the whole concept of framing, and tend to be apolitical to begin with - they'll show up at the voting booth on Election Day, but that's about it. Curleys are very much aware of the need for message-oriented campaigning as in the frames you shared above - safe communities, environmental protection, etc. - but they do not actively participate in any attempt to define frames or refine existing frames. Curleys already have an intuitive idea of what they want out of government, even if they can't always articulate it like policy analysts can; Republican Curleys rally around the whole "traditional family values" concept, while Democratic Curleys promote the "health care for all" frame. That leaves us with the Moes - not only are they fully aware of framing, but they also study it, use it, tweak it, and sometimes exploit it.

I reckon that means I'm a Moe, though not a particularly powerful one, but I still believe that if you really want to develop voters as Democrats, you constantly have to challenge them to ask "What If?" Sometimes you do want to use existing frames that are already in people's minds, but when that doesn't produce the desired turnout at the ballot box, you've got to start coming up with new frames and deconstructing old frames that are counterproductive to Democratic ideals. Which brings us back to the pejorative and subjective term assault weapon. I do not use that term any more than I have to, partially because the term comes packaged with one of those frames that I believe needs to be deconstructed. Change the frame, and you change how people discuss the issue at hand.

So if you want to say I'm using triangulation, I have to ask - what's so bad about wanting to convert Democrats into Republicans? I used to vote Republican a long time ago, but look at me now. Trust me, you want me to pull voters away from the GOP, especially with 2008 looming in the horizon. And that means that occasionally we have to entertain new ideas, new ways of looking at the world around us. Lakoff had the perfect way of describing how we perceive the issues, but now it may be time to take the next step. If so, the future of our nation depends on it.

Sorry if you considered my earlier response to be terse, but I do have to break away from the screen for chores, work, etc. Didn't want you to think I had forgotten you.

[merh]

25. You have accepted the rights' message and made it your own.

Can you legally carry a switch blade or brass knuckles or slap jacks in most states? How about tasers and certain forms of chemical weapons? No. Why is that? They are weapons that have been regulated, just as swords, broad swords, machetes, bayonets, etc.

Can you stock pile hand grenades, bazookas, dynamite, plastic explosives or the blasting caps?

Again, no. Weapons have always been subject to regulation as a matter of public safety. Now that public safety is more important, the regulation of weapons becomes a national security issue. What is readily available to the law abiding citizen is also readily available to the bad guys, whether they be the bank robbers that like to carry them and wear full body armor or the gang members that love to dominate their communities and find sport in killing as a rite of membership or the terrorists that want to hurt us or the deranged ex husband that wants to make his ex's divorce lawyer pay.

What about carrying box cutters or scissors or nail clippers on an airplane? The harmless weapons might help the law abiding citizens on the plane defend themselves if the terrorists take their plane, yet, it has been determined that the risk of their use by terrorists negate their potential benefits or the pleasure that they can bring about. We can do without the pleasure of clipping the hang nail for the good of society, thus we have no right to the nail clippers, even if we run the risk of infection if that hang nail is allowed to go unattended for too long.

arm: 1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

Sawed off shotguns have been illegal for years, I don't hear you complaining about those and I betcha it's fun to play on a range with them.

I call bullshit on your refusal to recognize that weapons have been subject to regulation for YEARS and your continued practice of allowing the right to define the message.

Assault weapons pose a danger to law enforcement and to the public. It is that simple. That you like to play with them is your right, I suggest you take your vacation to lands that allow them and have big fun.

:hi:

[ieoeja]

27. Box cutters, etc.

You actually AGREE with those bans? Everyone I have ever discussed this with think these post-9/11 bans are completely useless crap tossed out there by politicians to give the appearance of doing something. You can ONLY take over a commercial airliner with a box cutter if the passengers don't feel particularly threatened as they wouldn't have the morning of 9/11/2001.

That particular trick will never, ever work again.

[merh]

30. The point is not do I think the "weapons" pose a serious

security concern, the point is that weapons have been regulated for YEARS.

Public safey concerns have always been considered when intepretting our rights.

EG - Screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Free Speech at it's purist would dictate I have that right, the public safety concerns have negated that right.

Don't confuse the arguments. We have the right to keep and bear arms, regulating those arms is not an infringement of the right.

:hi:

[benEzra]

52. Ay, there's the rub...

Assault weapons pose a danger to law enforcement and to the public. It is that simple. That you like to play with them is your right, I suggest you take your vacation to lands that allow them and have big fun.

Ay, there's the rub--that's a false premise.

Considering that the primary definition of "assault weapon" is "civilian rifle with modern styling" (AR-15 type rifle, civilian AK lookalike, SKS, Ruger mini-14, etc. etc.), please look at the FACTS before declaring that modern-looking rifles are a public menace:

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon

In any given year, all rifles COMBINED (including so-called "assault weapons") account for less than 3% of homicides annually. Many states report zero rifle homicides in any given year.

Illinois, the state where the politicians seem to be doing the most scaremongering about modern-looking rifles at the moment, had 448 homicides in 2005. All rifles COMBINED accounted for only 4 of them. All shotguns combined accounted for 2 more. That compares to 17 murders committed with fists and feet and 51 committed with knives and other edged weapons.

Civilian rifles--even modern-looking ones--aren't a threat to the public and never have been. Step back from the scaremongering and look at the facts; the alleged "danger to law enforcement and the public" is smoke and mirrors.

[merh]

57. Can you give me the number of folks that have been killed by

nuclear bombs in the USA over the last 50 years? How about dynamite or blasting caps? How about sawed off shot guns or switchblades? How about those TommyGuns?

I'm not screammongering, I am pointing out the facts. The regulation of weapons in this nation is nothing new and is not infringement of the 2nd amendment.

[benEzra]

76. Claiming that popular civilian rifles are a menace to the public

when, in fact, those rifles are almost never misused--and on those rare occasions when they are, they are no more lethal than other civilian firearms--is, indeed, scaremongering.

Of COURSE weapons are regulated; so is speech and the press, and every other civil right in the Constitution. That doesn't mean that arbitrary regulation is OK. Child porn is illegal, snuff films are illegal, but that doesn't mean that banning anything Jerry Falwell disapproves of would be OK.

Ad hoc rationalization of nonsensical positions--like banning civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out--is precisely why the U.S. gun-control lobby is now in the sorry shape it's in.

FWIW, if you think I'm arguing against regulation, you're arguing against a straw man construct. I support the National Firearms Act, most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Kevlar-piercing bullet ban of 1986, etc. etc. I do NOT support banning some of the most popular civilian target/defensive rifles in the United States--including those my wife and I own--based on irrational scaremongering.

[merh]

78. If you do "NOT support banning some of the most popular civilian target/defensive rifles"

then your place is to work with the legislators to be sure that they properly define what is banned.

To attack me by alleging "I showed my hand" and then to carry on as if my posting has some hidden agenda is not only rude, it is assine given your post above.

My position has been and will remain very friggin simple -- the REGULATION OF WEAPONS in the USofA has gone on for years and the regulation does not equate to an infringement of the rights established in the 2nd Amendment as guaranteed to the states in the 14th Amendment.

I have not scaremoungered, I have pointed out the obvious. There are reasons why elected officials and experts don't want certain weapons available for public use and that is because they are dangerous.

If you feel weapons you love and use are wrongly on that list then work with your representatives and stop posting bullshit to me. I didn't fall of the turnip truck and I don't have hidden agendas.

The 2nd Amendment issue as alleged by the OP is a non-issue that is promoted by fearmongering conservatives that like to make everyone fear their shadows, their neighbors, fear those that are different, fear the "evil" that is out there, whether it be the communist or the terrorists. We have to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from our enemies is the greatest example of fearmongering I have every seen and it appears to be your tact.

Work with the folks who are writing the regulations and be worried about your other liberties. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is safe, whether we have repubs or dems in office. :hi:

[benEzra]

80. Which is precisely what I'm trying to do...

If you do "NOT support banning some of the most popular civilian target/defensive rifles" then your place is to work with the legislators to be sure that they properly define what is banned.

Which is precisely what I'm trying to do, actually.

I DO support tight controls on military automatic weapons--as I said, I am OK with the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act. What I oppose is attempts to pass a ban on modern rifle styling by framing it as a ban on machineguns, which is a bait-and-switch. Those guns are already tightly restricted.

If you want to see where I'm coming from, I wrote at some length on the topic here in 2004, and I think the election results in 2006 (after the party leadership finally stopped pushing the Feinstein bait-and-switch) tend to validate a lot of what I wrote, particularly the Virginia senate race in which Webb defeated Macacawitz.

To attack me by alleging "I showed my hand" and then to carry on as if my posting has some hidden agenda is not only rude, it is assine given your post above.

I wasn't party to that discussion; I think you have me confused with someone else.

My position has been and will remain very friggin simple -- the REGULATION OF WEAPONS in the USofA has gone on for years and the regulation does not equate to an infringement of the rights established in the 2nd Amendment as guaranteed to the states in the 14th Amendment.

I agree with you, and if I read derby378's posts correctly, so does he. The question is, how far can regulation go before it becomes an infringement. I say, the line of demarcation between civilian guns and restricted military/LEO only guns should lie between non-automatic and automatic weapons, and between .50 and .51 caliber, just like it does now. I think that can pass a strict-scrutiny constitutional test, whereas a protruding handgrip ban most certainly does not, IMHO.

I have not scaremoungered, I have pointed out the obvious. There are reasons why elected officials and experts don't want certain weapons available for public use and that is because they are dangerous.

True, IF you are talking about military automatic weapons. If you are talking about NON-automatic rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out, it becomes scaremongering, because such weapons are demonstrably not a threat to society, as demonstrated in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Rifles are dramatically underrepresented in violent crimes, as a simple comparison of the number owned vs. the number misused will show.

If you feel weapons you love and use are wrongly on that list then work with your representatives and stop posting bullshit to me. I didn't fall of the turnip truck and I don't have hidden agendas.

I have discussed the issue with Senator Edwards via email, have taken this straight to the Democratic National Committee, and discuss it quite a bit here on DU as well. The protruding handgrip ban is not only a political lightning rod, it is wrong.

The 2nd Amendment issue as alleged by the OP is a non-issue that is promoted by fearmongering conservatives that like to make everyone fear their shadows, their neighbors, fear those that are different, fear the "evil" that is out there, whether it be the communist or the terrorists. We have to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from our enemies is the greatest example of fearmongering I have every seen and it appears to be your tact.

I'm not worried about my shadow, my neighbors, or those that are different. I am concerned about the crusade by the repub-led Brady Campaign, and a few DLC'ers, to outlaw half the guns in my gun safe.

The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is safe, whether we have repubs or dems in office. :hi:

I agree, as long as those in power don't bow to the Bill Bennetts/Dianne Feinsteins on the issue. If a ban like S.1431/H.R.2038 (California style) does pass nationally, I have lost my rights. I personally don't care if I am 'allowed' to own a skeet shotgun or a powerful deer rifle; like most gun owners, I don't hunt and I don't shoot skeet. I DO choose to own modern-looking carbines (I'm a Gen-X'er) and a couple of handguns.

[merh]

97. The thing you miss about the 2nd amendment is that it does not

entitle you to keep and bear the arm of your choosing. You want your Generation X neat looking weapon, but that is not a guaranteed right under the 2nd Amendment, given it provides for a well "regulated" militia.

:hi:

[benEzra]

110. Show me where it limits itself to straight wooden stocks, then?

BTW, you might want to consult OED on the usage of the word "regulated" in the 18th century. A dominant meaning was "properly functioning," as in a "well regulated watch" (an example actually cited by the OED, as I recall). The meaning "subject to rules" surely existed back then, but it wasn't until more recent times that that usage became the dominant one.

But aside from 2nd Amendment considerations, what I'm saying is there is no rational basis for banning modern styling for civilian rifles. None. Rifles are, per the FBI, almost never misused, and on those rare occasions when they are, handgrip shape doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. This whole issue is like arguing whether or not the First Amendment would allow Congress outlaw speech that isn't in English (not as farfetched as it sounds, e.g. the "English Only" zealots), when in fact the real question would be, why the heck would you be fighting to do that?

Objectively--aside from ALL second-amendment arguments--rifles, no matter the aesthetic, are simply not a crime problem and never have been.

[merh]

116. You know it doesn't have specific restrictions.

It does allow for regulation.

And your argument relative to rifles is simply a matter of opinion. The folks that were wounded or the family members of the folks killed when the sniper in that tower in Texas decided he liked his rifles more than life might not agree with your statement "rifles ... are simply not a crime problem.." And one would think many of the family members of those killed by the sniper that terrorized the DC area or the people of Indiana that have been terrorized by a sniper firing on autos on the highway might have trouble agreeing with you about rifles and crime.

If you were being truly honest, you would admit that the weapons you like are considered easier to hide than long stock weapons, thus the fear is that they would replace the handgun as a criminal's weapon of choice (which is why sawed off shotguns are illegal.) If I am not mistaken, one of the reasons the stats for handguns are so high is because they are more convenient to carry and use when perpetrating a crime.

To continue your crusade it is not a matter of screaming second amendment rights, but of educating the legislators, both state and federal. that, in your opinino, no purpose is served banning your weapons of choice. It shouldn't be that difficult given you will have the backing of the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in our nation.

It always helps in such negotiations to go in with the facts and to be practical, not emotional.

The 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms, it does not guarantee that you can keep and bear the arms of your choice, as regulation is part of the amendment.

[derby378]

117. I think I see a breakthrough of sorts here

You say that the Second Amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms. We are agreed here.

Now in terms of "arms of your choice," here's where I'm willing to concede:

First of all, the Intratec TEC-9 and all its variants. I owned one briefly about 12 years ago, but never fired it. Turns out that the design is flawed - the safety isn't the most reliable on the market, the sights are not adjustable, and the gun just isn't that accurate to begin with. No military unit of any stature, including a "well-regulated militia," would consider this a suitable service firearm.

Then there's "Saturday night specials" like the infamous Lorcin P25 pistol used in more crimes in 1993 than any other firearm. These cheap pistols are often wildly inaccurate and unsafe to handle or fire, sometimes falling apart in the shooter's hands during firing. Melt them all down, and I won't shed a tear.

The Ingram MAC-10 was once considered as a possible sidearm for US military officers. In the end, though, it has a few jamming problems of its own, is probably less accurate than the TEC-9, and so on. Gordon Ingram, nice try, but no cigar.

If you wanted to ban all of these guns as a public safety issue in terms of application for a "well-regulated militia" as well as Josh Sugarmann's concept of consumer product safety, I could be talked into supporting this.

But AK-style rifles are a different story. They are reasonably accurate when used as intermediate-range rifles for targets at a distance of 300-500 feet, depending on the model and the ammunition used. There are very few moving parts to deal with, and the sight is adjustable. With very few exceptions, AK-style rifles never jam, never break, and never fail when lives are at risk. They are used as standard duty rifles by legitimate military units around the world, not just ragtag terrorists and boy-solider thugs. So I would argue that sure, ban the TEC-9, MAC-10, and the Saturday night special, but leave the AKs alone.

Not quite the compromise you're probably hoping for, but I am willing to budge a little.

[merh]

119. I've always said that the 2nd amendment guarantees you

and me the right to keep and bear arms.

That is a given.

It doesn't guarantee that we have the right to keep and bear arms of our choice as it specifically contains the language "well regulated."

Thus, as I have said since my first post, regulations are not new and are not violations of the 2nd Amendment.

Those regulations are subject to the interpretation and determination of the legislators. On a state level, they are allowed to pass laws that restrict or limit the weapons that can be maintained and owned by the citizens of their state and by visitors to their state. On a federal level, the numerous legal decisions which have reviewed and interpreted the power of Congress to regulate "interstate commerce" allow the federal government to pass legislation relative to weapons and their use or transport in interstate commerce.

As I have said, gun enthusiasts need to focus on the facts and not react emotionally. If weapons have a legitimate purpose and do not pose a safety hazard when properly used, then they need to work with their legislators on that premise. Shouting "you hate the constitution" doesn't work and adopting the right wing position that liberals and dems want to take away our gun rights is just wrong and a waste of effort.

[FyurFly]

131. "assault weapons" are here to stay

They are not going anywhere! Some of you folks are waisting time and energy and alienating democratic voting law abiding citizens in the process.

[slackmaster]

157. There's that subjective "legitimate purpose" thing again

The problem with that kind of test is that what seems a legitimate purpose to one reasonable person may not seem like a legitimate purpose to other reasonable people.

Better IMO to allow individuals to decide for themselves what they need and want to say, own, and do as long as their behavior does not interfere with the rights of others.

And no, "feeling safe" is not a right.

[benEzra]

118. Hmmm....

You know it doesn't have specific restrictions. It does allow for regulation.

I know that. However, as with the other Amendments, a strict scrutiny test would apply; regulations have to be narrowly drawn, objectively justifiable, and infringe as little as possible on the free exercise of the right, just as with the First Amendment. You can make a good case that background checks, prohibition against possession by criminals, minimum age to purchase, and restrictions on automatic weapons would satisfy the strict-scrutiny test. A ban on protruding rifle handgrips would not, in my opinion, as it lacks rational justification.

And your argument relative to rifles is simply a matter of opinion. The folks that were wounded or the family members of the folks killed when the sniper in that tower in Texas decided he liked his rifles more than life might not agree with your statement "rifles ... are simply not a crime problem.." And one would think many of the family members of those killed by the sniper that terrorized the DC area or the people of Indiana that have been terrorized by a sniper firing on autos on the highway might have trouble agreeing with you about rifles and crime.

I may be misreading you here, but you seem to arguing your way around the fact that all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides, less than 400 per year in a nation of 300 million people, and a ban on modern stock styling wouldn't reduce that number in the slightest. FWIW, according to the CDC, alcohol claims 250 times as many victims, but we're not trying to legislate the aesthetics of wine bottles.

The Texas Tower massacre, which you cite, was carried out using a bolt-action hunting rifle in .243 Remington, which even Sarah Brady supports the widespread ownership of. Am I to understand that you want tight controls on hunting-style bolt rifles also?

I'm not sure what "Indiana sniper" you are referring to. If you're thinking about the nutjob shooting cars on the Interstate in Ohio, it turns out he was using an illegally possessed 9mm Beretta pistol, as I recall. Any rifle, shotgun, or moderate-sized pistol can be misused in that manner, though fortunately few are.

If you were being truly honest, you would admit that the weapons you like are considered easier to hide than long stock weapons, thus the fear is that they would replace the handgun as a criminal's weapon of choice (which is why sawed off shotguns are illegal.) If I am not mistaken, one of the reasons the stats for handguns are so high is because they are more convenient to carry and use when perpetrating a crime.

Actually, all civilian rifles and shotguns must meet the SAME barrel length and overall length requirements set forth under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the NFA--16" minimum barrel length (18" for shotguns) and 26" overall length. My AK lookalike is 36" long, 8" high due to the protruding handgrip (nearly a foot high with magazine inserted), and due to the bulky receiver, is harder to conceal than a Winchester Model 1894.

Most "assault weapons" have full-length stocks (and AR-15's cannot be fitted with folders at all, due to the fact that the recoil spring assembly extends into the buttstock). If you're thinking of folders, though, here's a civilian sporting carbine with a short barrel and folding stock, compared to a moderate-sized 9mm handgun:


(Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle with aftermarket stock, and Smith & Wesson 3913 LadySmith)

There's just no comparison. Even with the stock folded for storage, the rifle is simply not concealable.

Another factor that comes into play here--I'm not sure if you realize this, but unlike a manually operated rifle, a self-loader won't function if you cut the barrel off short. The reason is that the rifle taps gas pressure at the barrel gas port to cycle the action, and if you cut off the barrel right in front of the gas port, you eliminate the pressure impulse to the gas system. You also can't cut off/shorten the stock of an AR-15 to a smaller-than-legal overall length, because the gas buffer tube extends into the buttstock.

Criminals have used some sawed-off rifles occasionally (the Florida tourist shootings in the early '90s involved a sawed-off Winchester model 1894 in .30-30), but they're almost always lever-actions or pump-actions, because those types will still work if the barrel is cut short, unlike self-loaders.

FWIW, my wife's "assault weapon" (collectible Russian SKS) is 40 inches long with bayonet folded and 49.5 inches long with it extended. Not exactly the hot ticket if you are a criminal wanting to "pack heat," no?


(Russian SKS and Glock 26 9mm)

There's a reason why the "weapon of choice of criminals" is the .38/.357 revolver, not rifles of any description.

To continue your crusade it is not a matter of screaming second amendment rights, but of educating the legislators, both state and federal. that, in your opinino, no purpose is served banning your weapons of choice. It shouldn't be that difficult given you will have the backing of the NRA, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in our nation.

Pragmatically, I agree with you.

It always helps in such negotiations to go in with the facts and to be practical, not emotional.

Agreed there as well.

The 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to keep and bear arms, it does not guarantee that you can keep and bear the arms of your choice, as regulation is part of the amendment.

Again, it should at least require strict scrutiny to justify regulations, the same test that is applied to the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. Banning rifle handgrips that stick out would not pass such a test, were it applied to the 2ndA, IMHO.

But I agree on pragmatic grounds that arguing the 2ndA with a legislator unfamiliar with guns is about as useless as arguing the 1stA with Jerry Falwell. I think pointing to the FBI stats on rifle crimes, dispelling the "assault weapons are more powerful/lethal/whatever" myths, and pointing out that most gun owners are nonhunters is a more effective approach with legislators who are "on the fence" on the issue.

[merh]

120. Here is your biggest mistake

I know that. However,as with the other Amendments, a strict scrutiny test would apply; regulations have to be narrowly drawn, objectively justifiable, and infringe as little as possible on the free exercise of the right, just as with the First Amendment. You can make a good case that background checks, prohibition against possession by criminals, minimum age to purchase, and restrictions on automatic weapons would satisfy the strict-scrutiny test. A ban on protruding rifle handgrips would not.

Again, it should at least require strict scrutiny to justify regulations, the same test that is applied to the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. Banning rifle handgrips that stick out would not pass such a test, were it applied to the 2ndA, IMHO.

Tell me, which one of the other amendments specifically provides for "well regulated" exercise of a right? There is the distinction, live with it, deal with it.

You can provide all the links and resources you like, it does not alter my posts or position and, as you are keenly aware, there are those that have a different opinion relative to the rifles you want to protect. If not, you wouldn't be concerned given the power and influence of the NRA. To not accept that simple premise would just prove you are not being honest with yourself, let alone the rest of us.

I do have to ask you, why on earth does your wife's rifle, which you say is for target use and just the pleasure of firing, have a bayonet? What purpose does the bayonet serve?

Keep that in mind when you argue your point, inconsistencies don't help.

[benEzra]

124. Thoughts...

Tell me, which one of the other amendments specifically provides for "well regulated" exercise of a right? There is the distinction, live with it, deal with it.

Wrong clause. The justification for the right mentions a "well regulated" militia, which per the OED is standard 18th-century locution for properly functioning or well trained. But if we grant your premise, that it actually means "subject to rules," it's still in the wrong clause. The right is not recognized as belonging to the "well-regulated militia"; it is recognized as belonging to the same "people" as the other Amendments, and the wording there is shall not be infringed. Not "shall be subject to regulations."

Given that, a strict-scrutiny test is appropriate.

Given that you are taking a hyper-literalist view of the 2ndA, would you apply that reading to the others? If you can't find that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in the 2ndA, how can you consistently find that the separation of church and state in the 1stA restricts anything other than Congress (after all, it says "Congress" shall make no law...), or that the 4thA provides the basis for the right to an abortion? I would suggest that you are reading the 2ndA the same way Jerry Falwell reads the 1st and 4th, i.e. as narrowly as possible.

You can provide all the links and resources you like, it does not alter my posts or position and, as you are keenly aware, there are those that have a different opinion relative to the rifles you want to protect. If not, you wouldn't be concerned given the power and influence of the NRA. To not accept that simple premise would just prove you are not being honest with yourself, let alone the rest of us.

The NRA is only 4 million people. The rest of us gun owners are NOT NRA members (I am not currently, though I used to be), and it is US, not the NRA, that make up most of the voting bloc.

If the NRA could buy legislation and elections, the Feinstein bait-and-switch would never have passed in '94. My dad's attitude at the time was "It won't pass; this is America, they can't do that." Unfortunately, it DID pass--because gun owners were apathetic and complacent, and it woke us up. I want to make sure that doesn't happen again.

I do have to ask you, why on earth does your wife's rifle, which you say is for target use and just the pleasure of firing, have a bayonet? What purpose does the bayonet serve?

Keep that in mind when you argue your point, inconsistencies don't help.

As I mentioned above, that's a collectible antique of Russian origin. She is a student of Russian history and culture, and that's a rare 1952 Tula SKS, in original condition, complete with the Soviet star on the receiver cover. The scope is aftermarket, on a temporary mount so that the collectibility of the rifle isn't affected. I also have an antique Polish bolt-action rifle (Mosin-Nagant M44, made at Radom, IIRC) with a bayonet. News flash--rifles with bayonets have been civilian legal in the United States since before the Second Amendment was even written, most collectible rifles made since the early 1700's have them, and I can't remember EVER reading of somebody killed with one. Even California doesn't ban those, AFAIK. The bayonet isn't the dangerous part of a rifle; the little hole in the end of the barrel is, unless you consider a very dull spear to be more of a threat than a rifle.

But, I'm not sure where you thought I was saying that civilian rifles, or hers in particular, can only be used for "target use and just the pleasure of firing." I said that rifles are rarely used in murders; I did NOT say that you can't own them for lawful defensive purposes, and a lot of people do. That's as true of small-caliber carbines as it is of shotguns or pistols. My wife bought that rifle as a shooter and collectible, but when we used to live in the boonies, she'd occasionally keep it loaded when she was home alone, before she bought her 9mm.

[rengali]

138. I'm already in a well-regulated militia, either way.

1. Regulated = "defined by law". I'm in the unorganized militia under USC 18 Sec. 311 because I'm between the ages of 17 and 45, and not in the National Guard or other armed forces.
2. Regulated = "trained". I take classes in the proper use of my militia weapon.

[krispos42]

153. Ah, a rational person to deal with. Most gratifying.

And I say that in all honesty.

I have not scaremoungered, I have pointed out the obvious. There are reasons why elected officials and experts don't want certain weapons available for public use and that is because they are dangerous.

That is entirely true. However, not all of the reasons that officials and experts (and politicians as well) want certain weapons prohibited are listed. And that does not mean that the methods they employ are effective, either.

The most common is that they need an 'issue' to stump about. The same reason that the Repubs keep hammering about the abortion issue. It's a distraction, it's mostly black-and-white, it brings people to your side, it gives you a verbal club to hammer your opponent about, and it emphisizes the need for the people to elect you. ("What about the unborn children?!?!?!?!?")

Has any Republican said "I'm not going to run on an anti-aboriton issue because the simple fact is that the Supreme Court said it is a constitutional right and I can't do shit about it."?

No, not now, and not for the foreseeable future.

So you will excuse me if I doubt the altruistic (sp?) sheen being given to the issue. The politicians support gun rights at their political expedience, just like they supported the USA Patriot Act and countless other pieces of legislation.

And regarding the regulation of guns... well, the problem is not that honest people have guns. The problem is that chronic criminals have guns. It always has been, and it always will be.

We must keep guns out of the hands of criminals and in the hands of the law abiding, yet the regulations that the Brady people want seem to work like this: get the guns out of the hands of the law abiding, and eventually we'll get the guns out of the hands of criminals.

Except that it doesn't work. They tried it in the UK. In the last 40 years, the UK homicide rate had doubled while the US rate is down by about 10%. It is still less than a third of our rate... but it used to be about one-eighth of ours. And in the UK there is a complete ban on civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, pistols, and revolvers. And we have a gun ownership rate dozens of times the UK's. And pistols and rifles and semi-auto long guns and high-capacity magazines and 'assualt weapons'.

And how is that California gun ban thing working out there? Man, banning those .50 caliber rifles really helped the homicide rate, didn't it?

The politicians and officials are not able to make rational public policy because the emotions and politics around it are irrational and strident.

I wish it was otherwise.

[rengali]

140. "Kevlar-piercing bullet ban of 1986"

You do know that all centerfire rifles will blow through a Level IIIA and lower vest like they're not there, right?

[sandnsea]

61. Yes they have

And I cannot understand why they don't see it. It's pointed out to them repeatedly, by person after person after person. They claim to support responsible gun regulation, and then when you start getting to the brass tacks of what that means, they roll out every NRA talking point from the last twenty years. :crazy:

[merh]

65. It's called ignorance

unfortunately, in this case, ignorance is not bliss, it is divisive and stupid. x(

[sandnsea]

70. Oh, I don't know

I think it's called something else, but we're not allowed to say. ;)

[merh]

74. I can assure you,

if any of them offered me colored liquid to drink, I would have to turn it down, no matter how thirsty I might be. ;)

[slackmaster]

130. The problem I usually have is that pro-regulation people are not informed

In particular about what regulations are already in place.

If you want to propose something specific and are prepared to back your proposal up with real facts, I'll be happy to engage in a constructive discussion.

If you show me you don't know what you are talking about, the best you can hope for from me is an education.

[rengali]

137. You're talking "ordnance", not "arms"

"hand grenades, bazookas, dynamite, plastic explosives or the blasting caps" are all ordnance and subject to regulation. Arms such as machineguns (if they are man-portable) should properly be construed as being covered under the 2A.

[krispos42]

152. Terrorists don't use guns

They use bombs. Big bombs, little bombs, shaped-charge bombs. Chemical bombs, biological bombs, radiological bombs. Bombs on a timer, bombs on a pager, bombs on a cell phone, bombs on a garage-door-opener, bombs tied to a car's starter circuit, bombs with a photosensor, bombs with a motion sensor.

They don't use guns because a) at the sound of a gunshot, everybody begins running and hiding, b) at the sound of a gunshot, everybody calls the cops, c) you have to actually be within a few dozen yards of your targets, and d) bombs kill more people.

The Dunblane Massacre was where some nut killed 16 kids and one teacher with guns. The July 7th, 2005 London bombings killed 52 innocents.

The Columbine shooters killed 12 students and 1 teacher. McVeigh killed 149 adults and 19 children with a bomb.

Terrorists, international terrorists, don't use guns. And if they aquire an arsenal to make sure any arrest attempt goes badly, they sure as hell are not going to limit themselves to civilian-legal.

And public safety is as important as it always was. The Bush Administration does not give shit about public safety. If they did, the Mexican and Canadian borders would be airtight, we'd screen 100% of the cargo coming into our sea and air ports, and we'd have bomb-sniffing machines right after the metal detectors. Oh, and we'd stop giving terrorists the tools they need to recruit more terrorists against us!

And if we're really going to worry about public safety, then why are we worrying about rifles? The entire spectrum of rifles, from muzzleloading Civil War rifles to bolt-action hunting rifles to civilian AK-47s only account for 3% of all homicides. Handguns account for dozens of times more homicides. You want public safety, concentrate on what matters.

[beaconess]

67. Gun enthusiasts seem to think the 2nd Amndt. is the only right that can never be restricted

[derby378]

75. That's not true...

You probably know by now that private ownership of an automatic weapon is a felony unless you have a special Federal license. Here's one of the reasons we have that law on the books, and it has nothing to do with organized crime...

The onset of the Great Depression coincided with the rise of labor unions in America. Businesses often called upon "private contractors" to disrupt union meetings and demonstrations, often with more than a small amount of violence. In fact, some businesses had taken to having their own security guards patrol the assembly lines with full-auto Thompsons in their hands in order to discourage union activity. If the unions also started buying machine guns, workplaces across America could easily have turned into slaughterhouses. Something had to be done.

With the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934, any owner of a machine gun had to register it with the government and pay a $200 tax to the Treasury Department. $200 is still a decent chunk of change today, but back in 1934, especially with the Great Depression underway, $200 could have paid for all your food, rent, toiletries, etc. for at least a month. So, one by one, all the businesses surrendered their Thompsons to the Feds rather than use them to intimidate the working class.

[rengali]

136. Nukes are ordnance, not arms.

Look at the definition. Arms (as implied by the "bear") refers to man-portable weapons in the 2A. That said, the Continental Army was equipped with privately owned cannon, and the first navy was composed of citizens' privately owned battleships. So your comparison to nuclear weapons isn't quite fitting with the correct definition of "arms".

Just MHO.

[krispos42]

150. Man, why do all anti-gun people want us to own nukes?

Every single argument...

"Oh, then does the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own nukes? Well, does it? Does it?!?"

Once and for all...

The first amendment does not give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor does it give you the right to slander and/or lie about somebody. It also does not a crowd of protesters the right to protest in the middle of an interstate or an airport runway or my backyard.

The second amendment does not give me the right to own nuclear weapons, or a Harpoon anti-ship missile. Nor would I expect it to.

[Joanne98]

14. Here is John Edwards voting record on gun issues....

It doesn't look bad to me..
http://www.sportsmenforkerry.com/voting_record.htm
Voting Summary:

Year
Senate Bill / Amendment

Edwards Vote
2004
Feinstein AWB Renewal
Not yet voted on.

Gun Manufacturer Lawsuit Protection

No Vote

Gross Negligence Against Gun Owners

No Vote

Armor Piercing Ammo Definition - Outlaw Hunting Ammunition, Fraternal Order of Police Opposed. See 'Cop Killer Bullets'

No Vote

Close 'Gun Show Loophole' - restrict private sale of firearms

Against Gun Owners
Extend and Greatly Expand the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban

Against Gun Owners

2001 Kill a HUD Gun Buyback Program

For Gun Owners

1999 Close the 'Gun Show Loophole'

Against Gun Owners

License 'Internet Gun Sellers'

For Gun Owners

Ban 'Cop Killer Bullets'

Against Gun Owners

Ban Importation of 'Large Capacity Magazines'

Against Gun Owners

Vote to kill 'Gun Show Loophole' Bill

Against Gun Owners

1998 Maintain current law on Trigger Locks

Not in the Senate

1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban

Not in the Senate

[benEzra]

77. Unfortunately, he did vote for S.1431 (rifle handgrip ban, 2004 session)

he was my Senator at the time, and through correspondence with him, I think he was misled as to what the bill actually covered.

[unpossibles]

20. I look at it this way (and yes, I am a gun owner)

I treasure all of the rights in the Constitution, not just #2. Frankly, not only are we in danger of losing several more important ones (I, IV, V, and VI are far more important, imo), but when it comes down to brass tacks (ie: if we actually do need to safeguard our liberties against a tyrannical government), I frankly won't care if my gun is legal or not, as my thoughts and actions will already have been outlawed.

Again, I am a firm believer in our right to bear arms, but I am also ok with regulation and stiff gun-crime penalties.

[renie408]

24. And I am NOT a gun owner

OK, we have a BB gun we use to shoot dogs when they chase the horses, but I don't think that counts, right?

But I don't have a problem with the lawful possession of guns. I do think it's wrong to pretend that the Second Amendment was intended to defend a person's right to own the kind of guns that are available today. But I wouldn't expect any candidate to commit political suicide by trying to limit gun ownership.

[unpossibles]

32. I can dig it. I do see a vast difference in "arms" then and now

Honestly, I would like to see a world where weapons were never used. I abhor all violence other than as an absolute last-resort of defense. But yes, it would be political suicide in America to be anti-gun.

For the record, I also have a compound bow, a rapier, some knives, and have studied a variety of martial arts. I find them interesting, but have not had to use anything stronger than my mind/words in many years and prefer it that way, and I don't even shoot dogs with BB guns. ( ;) )

My point was that I think people who are single issue gun voters are fools. Sorry - there is a lot more at stake than a gun.

Peace.

[renie408]

33. You probably don't partially make a living raising horses

in a semi-rural area plagued by feral dogs. We also have coyotes, believe it or not. But the ones I have had trouble with are just garden variety wild dogs.

I wasn't arguing with YOU, BTW. I really DON'T have a problem with the thoughtful ownership of certain kinds of guns. We have an archery range set up for the kids and they love it. I cannot for the life of me see why anybody needs a semi-auto assault rifle, though. Other than the obvious phallic symbol thing, that is. That's the only logical use for something like that I can see....as an extension of someone's machismo.

[derby378]

35. But if you allow gun-control advocates to define the "phallic" message...

...then of course you're going to see many non-sporting firearms as some sort of substitute penis wielded by hordes of unwashed, unrefined redncks straight out of Deliverance. I simply won't let the Brady Campaign or CSGV try to pull that number on me.

Responsible gun ownership is a progressive virtue. Someone else on this thread tells me it's a right-wing virtue, but this isn't left-wing vs. right-wing. It's authoritarians vs. libertarians (with a small "l"), those who prefer the closed fist vs. those who favor the open hand.

[renie408]

45. No, I would say I am basing

my suppositions more on the fact that you say things like "Responsible gun ownership is a progressive virtue."?? WTF?

Progressive = Libertarian?

Another memo I missed.

[derby378]

49. I mentioned "libertarian" with a small "L"

Markos Moulitsas has referred to himself as a "libertarian Democrat," FWIW. Just as there are conservatives who have a strong libertarian streak, there are many liberals and progressives who have that same bent as well.

And yes, I stand by that other statement, too. I believe it is possible to embrace progressive ideals and own a firearm at the same time. It's by no means mandatory, but it is a workable worldview.

[unpossibles]

38. I don't, but the inlaws (or the Outlaws as I call them) do -

not for a living, but for extra money, they raise Rocky Mountain Gaited, and I understand what you mean. Wasn't trying to attack you, just being funny. Or "funny"

Great horses, btw. And yes, wild dogs can suck for sure.

:)

[krispos42]

154. Yup, that counts in some juristictions

Just look for the stick up the ass... lmao

[ProudDad]

94. RIGHT ON!!!

Lots of hot air wasted on the 2nd Amendment when the important ones are going down fast!!!

[Kolesar]

21. That is soooo 20th century. Take on some real battles that will get votes.

It is time to quit fighting at the periphery of republican issues and fight the real issues: health care, globalization, and protecting the climate.

Governor-elect Strickland (OH) is an example of an outdated Democratic politician fighting ancient battles.

He is a reverend--the Democrats' answer to the morals issue. Or more correctly, trying to recover the church goers who got sucked away in the abortion fight. We won't get them back.

He is heavily funded by King Coal--he might say he is protecting Ohio jobs but he is actually protecting the worst polluting industry in the world. Ohio coal jobs slipped from tens of thousands to a mere 2000 in this century. There are more people than that in my office building!

Local gun laws--Strickland laid in the weeds and avoided most every other issue in the campaign. He did not need to endorse usurping local gun laws.

[derby378]

103. I think I can meet you on this one...

Find me a Democratic primary candidate who will explicitly promise to reverse this egregious nonsense, and I'll campaign for him/her until the wheels fall off:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2995921&mesg_id=2995921

[renie408]

28. What does a reasonable person think the REAL framer's meant

when they wrote:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you think that back in the days of single shot muskets, when this was written, they could have foreseen semi-automatic assault rifles? Do you think they were considering hand guns small enough to be hidden on your person? Is what we have in America today something that they would have admired? Come on. There is a REASON that the Founding Father's advocated the Constitution being reviewed every twenty years or so. Because they WERE really smart. They knew that shit happens and things change.

I know that you want to keep your guns. Clutched tightly in your sweaty fist. I get that part. I've seen the Charlton Heston "my cold, dead hands" video. Love your gun. Check. But it is disingenuous to pretend that your desire to own any damn gun you want is defended by the Second Amendment. Your gun is safe, and you know it. Why keep bringing this old crap up?

[derby378]

29. Why? Among other things, the Restricted Weapons Act of 1990

Submitted for your review:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c101:2:./temp/~c101u08KET::

[renie408]

31. Is there currently a big rush to revive this 17 year old bill?

Cause I missed that memo.

And why do you NEED a semi-automatic weapon? Seriously. I get why you WANT one. But why should you be allowed to have it just because you want it? As has been previously pointed out, there are all kinds of weapons you can't have that you don't seem to have a problem with. Do you REALLY think that assault rifle is what the framer's had in mind?

[derby378]

34. As I said earlier...

It's called the Bill of Rights. Not the "Bill of Needs."

And it's also an issue of trust. If you can't trust me with an AK-47, how on Earth are you going to trust me with something potentially more powerful - namely, a ballot?

[merh]

39. And you have yet to address the facts.

Weapons have been regulated for YEARS.

Do you fight this hard for the brass knuckles, the slap jacks, the sawed off shotguns, the hand grandees, the tazers, the switchblades, the dynamite, etc?

Or have you allowed the conservative meme to take root in your mind so deeply that you fail to recognize that regulation of weapons is a public safety and national security issue that does not infringe upon your rights under the 2nd amendment?

You do realize that the domestic violence laws provide that anyone convicted of domestic violence, whether it be a misdemeanor or felony, is no longer allowed to own or carry a firearm. There is a broad regulation of the ownership of weapons based upon the needs of society, the need to protect public safety and the Supreme Court has held that it is not an infringement of Constitutional rights of the offender.

It is your choice, you can deal with the facts and recognize that the regulation of assault weapons IS NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment or you continue to repeat the ludicrous arguments of the right.

[derby378]

40. We're not talking REGULATION, we're talking BANS and CONFISCATION

That is the real issue.

Regulation means I don't shoot off my gun in my own backyard during New Year's Eve.

Regulation means I don't carry a loaded rifle through downtown.

Banning and/or confiscating weapons means that government is telling the people that it's supposed to serve that it no longer trusts the people.

Banning and/or confiscating semi-automatic firearms is, and always shall be a violation of the Second Amendment. That's one reason why the Democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994. I do not want that to happen ever again.

[merh]

42. If you have a stock pile of dynamite, if you have a live grenade,

if you are stopped for a traffic violation and the cop finds a switchblade in your car, all of those weapons are SUBJECT TO CONFISCATION as they are illegal and/or BANNED.

If it is suspected that you have a display of sawed shotguns in your home, a search warrant, based upon a lawful affidavit, can be issued and your home searched and the weapons seized or CONFISCATED.

If you carry a magnum 357 in a state that requires you have it registered and licensed and if you are stopped and haven't properly registered it, it will be CONFISCATED. And if you have a roomful of handguns that are considered legal weapons, but you do not have them properly registered, again, they are subject to CONFISCATION.

Banning and confiscating weapons IS NOT and never will be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Regulating weapons has always been a public safety issue not a 2nd amendment issue.

Replace the term "semi-automatic firearm" with the words "sawed off shotgun", "nuclear bomb", "live hand grenade", "dynamite and blasting caps", et cetera, and you will find that your obsession with "semi-automatic firearms" is just that a twisted obsession reflecting that you have bought the message peddled by misguided and reactionary conservatives.

:hi:

[renie408]

44. O-Kay.....I think I see the essential problem here.

Go in peace.

[renie408]

46. PS. I don't trust ANYBODY with an AK-47.

And that is just an entirely RIDICULOUS thing to say. I don't know you from Adam's off ox. Why on earth WOULD I trust you with an AK-47? And comparing a deadly weapon to your vote is...at the very least extremely poor logic. Do you trust everybody in America with an AK-47??

Please don't answer that.

[derby378]

50. And you know what? That's a perfectly legitimate answer

There are some people in this world that I would not trust with a slingshot, let alone an AK-47. Their energies are best directed towards endeavors that are more constructive to their own sense of being and identity. I do not doubt you, here.

Take a look at George W. Bush. I wouldn't trust him with any government job, not even dog-catcher. And I certainly don't trust him to play toy soldier with our own troops - almost 3,000 soldiers have died because of his splendid little excursion in the Middle East, and it's going to get worse.

But collectively, we have to lean on each other and support each other as Americans to the best of our knowledge. Because right now, we're all that we have. I think that's the message I was trying to get out earlier, although it may not have come out that way.

[renie408]

84. Not trusting Bush for dog catcher...

Now THAT'S something we can agree on.

Look, I really don't want your guns. Really. To be dead honest, really big guns scare the shit out of me. I am even scared of the BB gun. My husband thinks it is funny. He grew up with guns. He has a shotgun and a couple of rifles leftover from the days when he used to hunt, but he has taken them apart and we don't have any ammunition for them. But he still owns them and I am pretty sure he wouldn't want anybody trying to take them away from him.

I also honestly think that there are a lot of people out there that REALLY have no business owning a gun. It's THOSE people I want kept an eye on. And maybe the way to handle it isn't from the 'taking the gun' end, but from a 'control the behavior that makes these people scary gun owners' end. Speaking of which, about two weeks ago, a pastor near here had his son shoot and kill his daughter because they found a gun loose in their grandmother's house and the boy thought it was a toy. That's the kind of thing that scares me. I worry about my kids. I worry about the kid who gets pissed off and takes his Dad's rifle to school to even the score.

[derby378]

85. Man, my heart sinks every time I read a story like that

One of my relatives came very close to winding up just like that poor girl. I grew up in a family where my dad kept guns, and we learned at a very early age that guns were nothing to fool around with - although we did enjoy our BB guns when we were kids.

Here's where I'm willing to trade off. I think everyone who's considering owning a gun should have to take a comprehensive firearms safety course - and that includes me, too. The Federal government does have a Civilian Marksmanship Program for those who are interested, but maybe a safety course should be universal and mandatory. Just an idea to throw on the table, but one that I've considered for some time.

And honestly, on a personal level, I prefer long guns over handguns. I just feel more comfortable handling a long gun, probably because I've heard of too many accidents involving pistols. That's just me, though.

[benEzra]

55. Actual AK-47's have been tightly controlled by Federal law for 72 years

and possession of one without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony. We're talking about non-automatic weapons here.

All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides annually, and many states report zero rifle homicides in any given year. Civilian rifles are not a crime problem and never have been.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

[virginia mountainman]

163. This dude, is GLAD he had his Semi-Auto rifle...

http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=5870322&nav=0RbQ

I bet it was not an AK-47, but a Semi-auto rifle BASED on the AK-47 assault rifle.

[derby378]

36. Then there's this bill from Re. Pete Stark (D-CA)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.1190.IH:

[renie408]

47. And that one is 18 years old. Have you got anything from the past ten years?? n/t

[krispos42]

155. They meant a local force able to engage another military force on equal terms

Parity, in other words.

They didn't intend for the National Guard to still have smoothbore flintlocks and horse-drawn muzzleloading cannon.

And, no, I don't know my guns are safe.

But I'm pretty sure they are. They aren't buried in the back yard or anything like that.

But why keep bringing this crap up? BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO LOOSE IN 2008 LIKE WE DID IN 1994!!!!

And, incrimentalism.

[sutz12]

37. I can live with your stance...

I'm especially thankful that you listed the other issues, which tells me that you are at least not totally a single issue voter.

However, I have a bone to pick. While Libs in the past have offered up some legislation to try and reduce gun violence and proliferation, I take exception to the idea that Democrats hate gun owners. In fact, many, maybe most, of them are gun owners. Most of the bad press has come from the right, who somehow made a case that Democrats don't support the 2nd Amendment. This is highly akin to the old "liberal media bias" meme that has distorted the debate for a couple of decades. Most of the "gun hating" rhetoric has been based, not on any real facts, but on Republican talking points and accusations that their supporters accept with no questioning or critiquing.

I'm for gun laws, sure. But I'm for enforcing the ones we have now and actually evaluating their effect before initiating any more.

I don't see this as a big issue this Congressional session and next election cycle. Although, if the typical Republican spin machine starts up ("Those evil libs are coming for your guns!), then I agree. Dems should come out in support of the 2nd Amendmant, and in favor of responsible legislation that tries to get the guns out of the hands of criminals.

[derby378]

41. I think you and I are in accord

Many Democrats that I know of have no problem with responsible gun ownership. But there are still many that do. And some of them are already speaking up about reviving the 1994 ban when so many Democrats are saying that gun control isn't even a priority issue for them anymore.

[merh]

43. And this comment of your's clearly proves that you have not

understood what I wrote in my original post here.

The right is willing to give away our rights to protect us from terrorists, the democratic party is the party willing to fight for all rights, not just the 2nd amendment.

If you realize that regulating semi-automatic weapons IS NOT an infringement of your rights under the 2nd Amendment, then you will be able to help others recognize that fact.

The regulation of arms is not a violation of anyone's 2nd Amendment rights.

Most dems know that and don't see it as an issue. You make it an issue when it is not.

Tell me about the other rights that I am guaranteed - do you see them at risk? If so, climb on your soapbox and scream about them. The 2nd amendment argument is just a wedge issue pushed by conservatives. You have made it your own due to your hard headed failure to realize and accept that the need to regulate weapons is a public safety and national security issue and said regulations have been going on for years.

BTW, do you own a TommyGun?

Just wondering :shrug:

[benEzra]

54. Tommy guns are automatic weapons, possession of which

is a 10-year Federal felony unless you are Federally authorized to possess one (BATFE Form 4). That's been Federal law for 72 years. You knew that, yes?

Banning rifles with handgrips that stick out, and other nonsensical restrictions with no rational basis, DO fail the strict-scrutiny test that is generally applied to limits on constitutionally protected rights.

[merh]

56. Yes, of course I know this.

And those who have been convicted of violating the law, whether it be the federal or state conviction, have tried the same argument over the last 72 years. The courts have held over and over again, that regulating weapons is not an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

But you know that.

Those who use the 2nd Amendment argument do not legally push for SCOTUS review because they know that there is case law that holds that the amendment deals with the militia (National Guard) more than it does with the individual rights.

[derby378]

58. You just tipped your hand...

Those who use the 2nd Amendment argument do not legally push for SCOTUS review because they know that there is case law that holds that the amendment deals with the militia (National Guard) more than it does with the individual rights.

The Second Amendment doesn't mention "the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms." What you're effectively telling me, it seems, is that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says. Look up US v. Emerson (5th Circuit Court of Appeals) and you'll see a more proper reading of the amendment.

[merh]

63. Better still you look up

United States v. Miller (SCOTUS case and not a circuit - oddly upholds federal laws outlawing the interstate transportation of SAWED OFF SHOTGUNS)
United States v. Cruikshank (SCOTUS again)
Presser v. Illinois (SCOTUS - be careful with this one - it deals with the militia and could actually be interpreted to limit the rights of the citizens that are not a part of the organized militia)

Oddly enough, the case you cite US v. Emerson, is the 5th Circuit case that UPHOLDS the domestic violence laws that provide one convicted of domestic violence cannot possess a weapon.

You need to understand what you are arguing and YOU DO NOT.

The Courts have upheld the regulation of ARMS (weapons - guns, rifles, knives, bombs, etc) for YEARS and have found that said laws and regulations ARE NOT an infringement of the rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment.

It would help if you knew the facts and knew about the issues before you told others what they should think.

:hi:

[derby378]

71. Read the EMERSON and MILLER cases more closely

United States v. Miller affirmed that a sawed-off shotgun is not the standard weaponry of a "well-regulated militia." Since some military and law enforcement units now use short-barrelled shotguns, the Miller ruling is now jeopardized.

United States v. Emerson did indeed uphold a domestic violence law - Timothy Joe Emerson is a first-class sumbitch. But the ruling also upheld the fact that "We, the People" - and not some arm of the military - are the "well-regulated militia."

The basic fact is that the SCOTUS has yet to rule on the exact and final meaning of the Second Amendment. You've finally declared your position, and I've stated mine. But be careful before you start proving my own arguments in favor of the people's right to arm themselves.

[merh]

72. and read the Presser v. Illinois

the organized milita is not necessarily the "average citizens" but the organization established by the states subject to the control of Congress.

I have declared my position since my first post -- THE REGULATION OF WEAPONS IS NOT NEW and is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

(and police do not use sawed off shotguns and they ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA as defined by Presser)

Stop making mountains out of molehills and believing the gospel according to the NRA. If you wish to be a part of the libertian party, then you are on the wrong forum, btw!

[hansberrym]

98. Presser does not deal with the regulation of weapons, or ownership,

but with the regulation of bodies of men under arms. (i.e. private militias)


From Presser:
We are next to inquire whether the fifth and sixth sections of article 11 of the Military Code are in violation of the other provisions of the constitution of the United States relied on by the plaintiff in error. The first of these is the second amendment, which declares: 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities <116 U.S. 252, 265> and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. <116 U.S. 252, 102> 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think <116 U.S. 252, 266> it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
(My emphasis in boldface)

[merh]

99. And thus you prove my point, the 2nd amendment is NOT JUST

about keeping and bearing arms, it deals with the militia.

Thanks :hi:

[hansberrym]

135. Reading is Fundamental

Presser:
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities <116 U.S. 252, 265> and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


That tells any reasonable person that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" does not include a right to parade or drill with arms in cities as a group.


But it simply does not follow that since the right to keep and bear arms does not include a right to drill or parade with arms as a group, then the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right.

Furthermore the rest of the Presser decision makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms does not belong only to the 8,000 man official illinios state militia.

[hansberrym]

159. merh, if your still around....

I read your post #119 and it seems we are in close agreement about the 2nd amendment.


But I still don't get your argument regarding Presser, as that case deals with the states' ability to pass legislation concerning assembly. It does not touch on which weapons a person may own or how they might carry them as individuals.

[Dr Fate]

48. I'd prefer the candidate who knows that the "militia" should be "well regulated"

As opposed to the candidate who thinks everyone shold be allowed to have machine guns.

I sure wish the Supreme Court would get the guts to make a clear ruling on the 2nd Amendment so that every arm-chair justice from Chuck Heston on down would quit interpreting it for us.

[benEzra]

53. Who the HELL is talking about machineguns?

Even the NRA supports the National Firearms Act, for crying out loud. (You do know that unauthorized possession of a machinegun by a civilian is a 10-year Federal felony and has been for 72 years, yes?)

[Dr Fate]

59. Oh- I forgot- you all have semantic tricks that regular people dont use.

What the average person would see as a dangerous combat weapon is now a "utility sports rifle" or some other such nonsense.

The OP was talking about Ak-47s. Most folks see that as a "machine gun" or a combat weapon, and they dont want them in their neighborhoods no matter what you all call them.

[derby378]

60. I would surmise that most folks weren't asked one way or the other

Instead, they were subjected to a fearmongering campaign that lasted for years and is still continuing today.

By all means, show me the polls. Chances are that the sample sizes were too small, the wording of the questions was skewed, etc.

[Dr Fate]

62. Fear mongering? Nah- regular people just dont want AK-47s in their neighborhoods.

I dont need a poll to tell you that no one I know wants them in their apartment building or on their block. I certainly dont want some of the folks several blocks away in gangland to have them.

The SCOTUS has yet to say that it is unconstitutional to keep these high-powered weapons out of people's neighborhoods.

Here is where we might hopefully come closer to agreeing- perhaps somewhere out in the sticks these powerful weapons are okay- and perhaps- just perhaps- it is okay and w/i Constitutional bounds to regulate them in areas with a high concentration of living, human targets.

I am not anti-gun- I am pro-regulation- and regulating and even banning certain weapons or "arms" is w/i Constitutional bounds until I hear SCOTUS say otherwise.

[derby378]

64. Seems like you're talking about local vs. Federal regulation

If the residents of a given city want to ban or outlaw certain firearms, I may grouse about it, but that's their right, and I have to respect their decision.

I'm even willing to extrapolate that ability to an entire state, provided all state and Federal laws are adhered to. San Francisco tried to outlaw handguns a while back, only to have a state appeals court shoot that law down as unconstitutional, IIRC.

But a similar law on the Federal level? No, thank you.

[merh]

68. But the federal government has the right and the obligation to

regulate INTERSTATE transportation of items and goods that could be harmful or that could pose a public safety concern or that is just not what Congress, our elected officials, feel is safe for our nation.

Again, you should do some reading on the subject and actually get your head out of the NRA material and look at the case law that has evolved over the years, the case law that has UPHELD THE REGULATION OF ARMS in our nation.

Do you own any nuclear weapons, dynamite, sawed off shotguns, TommyGuns, live hand grenades, brass knuckles, switchblades?

If not, why not?

[Dr Fate]

69. I think we could find more to agree on than not in that respect.

I cant find much to argue against in that post.

Doc

[benEzra]

82. As long as states have the authority NOT to ban...

then we can all peacefully agree to disagree.

D.C., Chicago, and the state of California have bans in place that absolutely would not fly in most of the nation. That is OK with me, IF North Carolina and Florida and Maine and New Hampshire are free to reject such bans, as they have.

I think California's ban on protruding rifle handgrips, and D.C.'s ban on keeping any gun for self-defense inside your own home, are asinine, but I'll live and let live; nobody is forcing me at gunpoint to live in those places. What I oppose is California's legislators trying to shove their ban down MY throat via Congress.

[rengali]

139. Guns and apartments.

"no one I know wants them in their apartment building or on their block"

Funny, the people I know do. I live in a major liberal city and out of the 30 people in my apartment building, 15 own guns (4 of them women) - one of them your dreaded AK-47 in semi-auto. And the AK shoots one of the least powerful centerfire rifle rounds - my buddy's Garand will probably blow through 12" of brick, but he doesn't keep that one loaded for self-defense, it's just too powerful to be safe. Our apartment building is brick, so shotguns, .38s and lower-powered rifles like the AK won't penetrate the walls.

It was rather funny at that dinner party (thrown for purposes of organizing the local Democrat races): "I don't see why anyone would own guns. None of us do, right?" "I do." "I do." "I do." "I do." *blinkblink*.

[benEzra]

79. Possession of an actual AK-47 is a 10-year Federal felony

Oh- I forgot- you all have semantic tricks that regular people dont use. What the average person would see as a dangerous combat weapon is now a "utility sports rifle" or some other such nonsense.

The OP was talking about Ak-47s. Most folks see that as a "machine gun" or a combat weapon, and they dont want them in their neighborhoods no matter what you all call them.

Possession of an actual AK-47--or any other machinegun--is a 10-year Federal felony under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, unless you have explicit Federal authorization to possess the weapon (BATFE Form 4). Actual AK-47's are indeed machineguns and combat weapons--but the law that controls them has been on the books for 72 years now. If you do jump through all the hoops to get a Form 4, a civilian-transferable AK-47 will set you back more than $15,000, has to be transferred through a specially licensed dealer, and the BATFE is authorized to inspect your home once a year.

The OP owns a non-automatic civilian AK lookalike, probably a WASR-10 or somesuch, not a real AK-47; he probably should have clarified that. I also own a civilian AK lookalike, a Romanian SAR-1. The thing is, those are CIVILIAN guns, completely incapable of automatic fire, unlike the real thing.

As I said, no one is talking about machineguns; those are very tightly controlled by Federal law and will stay that way. The Bradyites are fighting to ban popular NON-automatic rifles with handgrips that stick out, not automatic weapons.


--------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[Kolesar]

86. You are so deep in RW frames that you cannot even see it.

If it is so important for gun-404 residents of NYC or Boston or Chicago or San Francisco (where legal ownership of ALL types of guns is rather difficult) to have a ban on low-powered-but-scary-looking guns to make them feel better, let them work for a LOCAL ban, or at worst a state ban (which is already law in Massachusetts, California, and a few other gun-phobic states ) instead of trying to shove a national ban down the throats of people in other states who not only don't want one, but who will politically mobilize and fight tooth and nail to defeat any national candidate that calls for one. That is one key lesson the Democratic party needs to learn from the 2004 election.

And your language is quite aggressive.

[benEzra]

108. Since half of all gun owners are *NOT* repubs...

and 80% of gun owners are NOT hunters, defending the ownership of nonhunting-style guns is not a rightist frame. Portraying it as such is merely an attempt to rule the POV out of bounds.

The ban-more-guns position is NOT a traditional Democratic or progressive position; it was foisted on the party in the late '80s/early '90s by corporatist DLC types, as a way to appeal to right-wing "law and order" types by trying to look "tough on crime." The first Federal ban on "assault weapons" was reportedly the brainchild of arch-right-winger William J. Bennett, czar-something-or-other under Bush the Elder, who is credited with the initial "assault weapon" restrictions promulgated by a Bush I executive order that were eventually codified in 18 USC 922. Sarah Brady is a Reagan republican, and proud of it; the head of the Brady campaign is a repub ex-governor; and W is a pround supporter of the protruding handgrip ban.

If it is so important for gun-404 residents of NYC or Boston or Chicago or San Francisco (where legal ownership of ALL types of guns is rather difficult) to have a ban on low-powered-but-scary-looking guns to make them feel better, let them work for a LOCAL ban, or at worst a state ban (which is already law in Massachusetts, California, and a few other gun-phobic states ) instead of trying to shove a national ban down the throats of people in other states who not only don't want one, but who will politically mobilize and fight tooth and nail to defeat any national candidate that calls for one. That is one key lesson the Democratic party needs to learn from the 2004 election.

And your language is quite aggressive.

I wrote that in 2004, shortly after gun-404 party strategists threw away ANOTHER presidential election over the stupid protruding handgrip ban. Losing the House, the Senate, and one presidency just wasn't enough, they were determined to stake the party's entire future on the premise that banning rifle handgrips that stick out was the most important damn issue on the national scene.

I'm sorry, but anybody who says a non-automatic 9mm carbine will "blow a deer to smithereens," who thinks the shape of a rifle's handgrip affects its lethality, or who thinks that a rifle less powerful than a .30-30 is "designed to penetrate police body armor from a thousand yards away," or who thinks military AK-47's and Uzi's aren't tightly controlled by Federal law, is gun-404.

If someone got on national TV and said that Honda Civics need to be banned because they can "tow a boat to smithereens," that rear wings on cars should be outlawed because they enable Toyota Corollas to outrun police, that sport compacts with wings "can go 275 mph and get 150 mpg," or that NASCAR stockers are street-legal because your local Chevy dealer sells Impalas, would you consider them knowledgeable about cars, or not?

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of a topic. The problem comes when someone who knows nothing about a topic or the laws that govern it wish to impose their uninformed prejudices throughout the nation, at gunpoint. That's not progressive, IMHO.

Fortunately, the DLC's star is now declining, party movers and shakers are becoming more informed about the issue, and people like Russ Feingold and Jim Webb are now setting the party's tone on the gun issue, instead of Feinstein et al. I don't think you'd have seen the Webb and Tester wins, Strickland, Casey, etc. etc. in 2006 had this shift not occurred. Unless you want to repeat 1994-2004, I'd suggest letting the party take a more pro-choice position on the issue, and leave it to the states.

[ProudDad]

95. I don't want any f*cking guns in my neighborhood

I want the phony "war on drugs" ended immediately so that there will be no reason for the f*cking guns to be in my neighborhood!!!

Ain't gonna happen though...too many vested interests in keeping it going including the gun manufacturers and banks...

[benEzra]

109. Agree with you on ending the War on (some) Drugs...

I want the phony "war on drugs" ended immediately so that there will be no reason for the f*cking guns to be in my neighborhood!!!

Ain't gonna happen though...too many vested interests in keeping it going including the gun manufacturers and banks...

Agree with you on ending the War on (some) Drugs...which is also a useful pretext for distracting attention from poverty, homelessness, and other inner-city issues, propping up law enforcement budgets (plus asset forfeiture), and abridging the fourth, fifth, and (yes) second amendments.

BTW, you live in California, which is already a gun-ban utopia compared to almost every other state. I don't begrudge your state the right to set its own gun policies; you want to ban rifle handgrips that stick out, fine, go ahead (actually, CA already did). I'm just opposed to some of your legislators trying to force your bans on MY state, is all. Live and let live, and all that.

[slackmaster]

161. Must be frustrating to dwell on things you can't control

Personally I am glad that some of my neighbors have weapons. Every one who does is one fewer household I will have to arm in the event of a major earthquake or other disaster that causes civil order to break down.

BTW I know several families in Oakland. All have firearms. One is a serious collector.

[rengali]

144. According to the US Code, I'm in the militia, and likely so are you.

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

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

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

Therefore, we're in a "militia" that is "well-regulated" under US law. I don't see a problem. You were saying?

[Vektor]

66. Ooooh...

:popcorn:

;-)

[derby378]

73. I wouldn't mind a handful of that, myself...

Got any kettle corn?

:popcorn::popcorn:

[Vektor]

101. Ah! The good stuff.

I love kettle corn. I do have some in fact. Pull up a bowl.

[Sapere aude]

87. I don't care what gun you have. I don't think you interpret the 2nd Amendment correctly.

People always leave out part of it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't think you are a well regulated militia.

Like I said I don't care what gun you have. Keep it and enjoy yourself. I have a gun that I use for target practice and it helps get the world off your mind.


So we can't defend your second amendment rights because the amendment doesn't mean what you say it does and you can get all the court's interpretation if you really want to.

[derby378]

88. Aw, c'mon...

We just spent a decent part of the past 86 posts discussing the whole "well-regulated militia" angle, and there's still plenty of room for further debate.

I respect that you disagree with me, but I know what the entire amendment says, and yet here I am.

[Sapere aude]

89. There are a lot of posts on DU were people debate but refuse to accept defeat.

Why haven't the courts backed your interpretation?

[derby378]

90. Actually, the majority of them have...

This whole business that the military has become our "well-regulated militia" is just a passing fad.

The Second Amendment, in my experience, stands alone as the only amendment in the Bill of Rights where someone would tell me that it doesn't mean what it says. This puzzles me, especially with the Bush administration's wanton refusal to read the Constitution, let alone obey it.

[rengali]

164. Agreed. The courts' interpretations of a collective right is fairly recent.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/fedcases.2nd.html

[ProudDad]

91. Flamebait

Timely though.

I was driving around today and heard a report on the KPFA news (KPFA.ORG) about the hideous situation between Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. Basically, it appears that the "civil war" in Somalia is an extension of the "war" between Eritrea and Ethiopia. It also appears to be the case that the U.S. is a major beneficiary due to their arms sales to all of the combatants.

From there, it occurred to me that the U.S. perpetrates a "2nd Amendment" foreign policy. When it comes to arms sales they'll not only sell to nearly anyone for nearly any purpose but will supply financing to the fools who want to purchase the instruments of death.

If 2nd Amendment fundies would spend half as much effort working toward peace and justice as they do with their knee-jerk reactions to us innocent bystanders, who are only trying to cut down the carnage in the kill zones we live in, it would be a better world.

I will take the bait a little though; what the f*ck do you need with a AK-47 or AR-15??? If you plan on going up against the U.S. Army/Marines, the CIA, the Black U.N. helicopters or any decent sized police force, you're way outgunned. If you're planning on hunting rabbits or dear or dove -- not much left to eat if you can even hit it (which I doubt)...

If your grasping it in your cold, hard hands as a penile substitute, ok, I understand that pathology...

Happy New Year.

[derby378]

96. Well, as far as working for peace and justice are concerned...

...I've actively protested the occupation of Iraq even before it started, including several visits to Camp Casey to wilt under the hot Texas sun while staring down FReepers on the other side of the road.

Naturally, Iraq isn't the only place in the world plagued with bloodshed. There's also Sudan, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and so on. It grieves me, all the more so because the one nation that can do the most towards stopping the killing is under the control of a madman who's gotten us mired in Iraq.

And as for the question of "what do you need one of those guns for?", I've answered it already, but perhaps a different answer is needed in this case. I'm of that V For Vendetta mindset that government should fear the people, not the other way around. Our voices shape the government, our votes determine who makes up the government, and so on - government cannot exist without us. The very moment that government begins to see the people it was designed to serve as so much chattel that can be exploited and abused at will, that's when the people need to remind government how powerless it is without the people. And if owning an AK-style rifle helps keep our government afraid of its people, that's just fine with me.

Hope this helps a bit. Happy New Year to you, too. Be careful out there.

[Kolesar]

104. You're rough-tough, but you run from a real confrontation

And you don't have anything that will help Democrats to win an election. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3031401#3031477

[benEzra]

111. And there's where you're wrong...

And you don't have anything that will help Democrats to win an election.

Getting the party off the "assault weapon" hobby horse, and talking about REAL issues of REAL concern instead of promising to ban voter's guns, does help Dems win elections.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was arguably the single biggest factor behind the loss of the House and Senate in 1994 (President Clinton estimated it cost 20 House seats, IIRC). It was the single biggest factor behind Gore's loss of his home state of Tennessee, and heavily union West Virginia, in 2000, and had he not lost those states, he'd have won the presidency even without Florida (and the gun issue was a major factor in Florida also).

If you think for a minute that Jim Webb would have won the Virginia senate seat against incumbent George Macacawitz Allen last month, had Webb not run pro-choice on gun ownership and actively courted the state's gun owners, you are badly mistaken. My state has a Democratic governor and state administration largely because they are pro-choice on gun ownership; Democrat Mike Easley won this state 55/45 even as Kerry/Edwards lost it 45/55. Ted Strickland wouldn't have won Ohio's governorship had he not run a solid pro-choice-on-guns campaign.

The results of 2006 pretty much validate what I wrote here after the 2004 loss--that if you stop trying to ban people's guns and get that issue off the table, you can campaign on issues that are more important. THAT is a winning strategy.

[Kolesar]

114. Gore lost WV over coal. Gov Strickland won because his opponent was a freak

(Kenneth Blackwell)

I followed the Ohio governor race intensely and I think I know what the race swung on. I read every political article in the Cleveland and Akron newspapers this year and Strickland's gun policy was hardly written about (if at all!).

So now gun ownership is a Pro-choice issue? Hmmm. Did you ever see the movie "Thank You for Smoking"? That was the framing that the movie maker lampooned in that movie.

[derby378]

115. I haven't seen it, but I would like to

I've heard the movie was excellent, but that it also dealt with the dark side of framing.

[benEzra]

113. Thoughts...

I will take the bait a little though; what the f*ck do you need with a AK-47 or AR-15???

Considering that the AR-15 is arguably the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States, I'd say target/recreational shooting is a good reason.

Below is a photo of a competitive target shooter, from a book on the gun culture. See what she's shooting? Yes, an AR-15...very accurate, light recoil, top-notch ergonomics. What's not to like?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0195150511.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_V49835393_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195150511/104-1131320-8331947?v=glance

You are aware that actual AK-47's (and M16's) are very tightly controlled by Federal law, yes? Possession of one, or any other automatic weapon, without government authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony, and for practical purposes they are restricted to military/law enforcement only. AR-15's and civilian AK lookalikes, on the other hand, are NON-automatic, and fire no faster than an ordinary civilian pistol, self-loading rifle, or shotgun.

If you're planning on hunting rabbits or dear or dove -- not much left to eat if you can even hit it (which I doubt)...

I sense a misconception here. The AR-15 is a non-automatic centerfire .22 caliber rifle. The cartridge (.223 Remington) is the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle cartridges, and is suitable for hunting small game up through coyote sized. .223 is generally not considered powerful enough for deer hunting, and most states prohibit hunting deer with a caliber that small. Yes, you could easily hit a deer with it (civilian AR's are known for very good accuracy, with many manufacturers guaranteeing 1" groups at 100 yards), but you'd probably only wound it. A typical deer rifle caliber is more than twice as powerful as .223, and has considerably more frontal area.

For comparison, the .223 (AR-15, mini-14, bolt-action varmint rifles) throws a little 55-grain bullet at 3250 ft/sec or a 62-grain bullet at 3000 ft/sec, but a .30-06 deer rifle can throw the same weight bullet at 4080 ft/sec or a 125-grain bullet at 3140 ft/sec. The .30-06 can also handle much heavier bullets than .223 (max 75 grains for .223, vs. 220+ grains for the deer rifle).

You CAN hunt deer with a civilian AK lookalike and a 5-round magazine (here's mine in legal hunting configuration, but as it's even less powerful than a .30-30 Winchester, you are limited to close-range shots (100 yards or so). The light, draggy bullets drop below the 1000-ft-lb energy threshold after only 125 yards.

Don't take my word for it. Energy figures:

9mm carbine (such as civilian Uzi lookalike)(9x19mm)......450 ft-lb (0.33 kJ)
AR-15, mini-14, etc. (.223 Remington/5.56x45mm).........1,275 ft-lb (0.94 kJ)
Civilian AK lookalike, or SKS (7.62x39mm)...............1,527 ft-lb (1.13 kJ)
Deer rifle (.30-30 Winchester)..........................1,902 ft-lb (1.40 kJ)
Deer rifle (.30-06 Springfield).........................2,913 ft-lb (2.15 kJ)*
12-gauge shotgun (.729 caliber slug, 2 3/4" shell)......2,935 ft-lb (2.16 kJ)
Big-game hunting rifle (.375 Remington Ultra Mag).......5,041 ft-lb (3.72 kJ)
Big-game hunting rifle (.416 Lazzeroni).................7,000 ft-lb (5.16 kJ)

*Most common deer hunting caliber in the United States.

As far as shooting doves, rifles aren't used for shooting things in flight. You'd use a shotgun for that, which throws a lot of projectiles at once.

If your grasping it in your cold, hard hands as a penile substitute, ok, I understand that pathology...

I think the fact that many owners of small-caliber carbines are women (including my wife) tends to invalidate that particular ad hominem--along with the fact that owners tend to be younger (higher proportion of Gen-X and Gen-Y, from personal observation), with fewer hangups, than owners of rifles with more fogeyesque styling--or the population at large, IMHO.

BTW, what Freud actually said about guns and psychosexual hangups isn't what you think he said, I suspect...

[FyurFly]

125. Good post

but unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears. I own several milsurp rifles myself and just purchased a nice Stag Arms AR15 in left handed configuration. Most folks here at the DU just see a pistol grip and a large magazine and are scared shitless. If most folks saw how small the 5.56/.223 cartridge is compared to many rounds they might comment like my wife "You mean that is what they give our troops to defend themselves?" If the Democratic presidential candidate even mentions gun control they are toast.

PS. I'm feeling confident in my penis size :)

[SteveM]

132. Jeeez, more dick jokes? Fart jokes are funnier.

There is alway this style thing with old-line libs: they are the ones who rationally make arguments based on fact and not emotion. Then suddenly! a dick joke. How many times has that chicken crossed the road.

The credibility of this thread is, once again, in the hands of those supporting the Second Amendment. My contribution is to look at the 14th Amendment. It was used to support voting rights, public accommodations, and other civil rights legislation; in short, Congress AND the states could not restrict those rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. If court cases are decided using the 14th, then local/state laws severely restricting gun ownership would be unconstitutional. Further, if the courts hold that the right is individual and not a "militia-based right," then the rest of the arguments against gun ownership will collapse. Certainly, any attempt to infringe on 2A would have to originate in the Congress. If progressive Dems wise up and tackle the REAL causes of crime (poverty, bad family life, poor schools, little opportunity), then they wouldn't have to rely on that breach-burst of a "solution:" prohibition.

You can't prohibit guns and solve the crimes/violence you think stem from a piece of metal. Prohibition is a highly-stylized moral argument raised to the level of policy, a corruption of good government.

[DuaneBidoux]

121. The right to "bear arms?" Bazookas? Atom bombs? Why not? Where is the line?

My point is that they made an "absolute line" in the right to bear arms but there is in fact no absolute line. Their line was at a place so far down the totem pole that they would not even be able to imagine the ultimate weapons let along our "mild" weapons. Could the founding fathers have imagined automatic assault rifles? Could they have imagined hand grenades? How about bazookas? What about nukes?

They WOULD have drawn a line somewhere. The point I make is simply that it always has been, and always will be, a matter of degree.

Do you make a distinction between assault rifles and hand grenades? Why? What is your logical basis for making such a distinction?

[benEzra]

122. The line lies between automatic weapons, and non-automatic weapons...

My point is that they made an "absolute line" in the right to bear arms but there is in fact no absolute line. Their line was at a place so far down the totem pole that they would not even be able to imagine the ultimate weapons let along our "mild" weapons. Could the founding fathers have imagined automatic assault rifles? Could they have imagined hand grenades? How about bazookas? What about nukes?

IMHO, the line lies between automatic weapons, and non-automatic weapons; between weapons over .51 caliber (except shotguns), and weapons .50 and under; between sound-suppressed firearms and firearms without suppressors, and so on.

Federal law makes mere possession of the following, without government permission (BATFE Form 4), a 10-year Felony: all automatic weapons (including automatic assault rifles, submachineguns, machine guns, etc.), all sound-suppressed firearms, all rifles with barrels shorter than 16", all shotguns with barrels shorter than 18", explosives, M203-type grenade launchers, firearms larger than .50 caliber (shotguns and some hunting rifles excepted), disguised firearms (cane guns, cell phone guns), etc. The law also tightly controls armor-piercing ammunition for all handguns, and for rifles up through .308/7.62x51mm; firearms undetectable by X-ray or metal detectors; etc.

Those provisions (Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, plus a few other miscellaneous laws) are not controversial; even the NRA supports them. What is controversial is the attempt by some since the late '80s to move that line, and start banning NON-automatic rifles with modern styling, rifles smaller than .51 caliber, and handguns.

Do you make a distinction between assault rifles and hand grenades? Why? What is your logical basis for making such a distinction?

Federal law doesn't. Possession of either one is a 10-year Federal felony unless you have government permission (BATFE Form 4).

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch had nothing to do with automatic assault rifles. It was an attempt to ban non-automatic civilian firearms that hold more than 6 or 10 rounds (3 or 5 for shotguns), and ban certain rifles and shotguns from having handgrips that stick out, adjustable-length stocks, or folding stocks.

[virginia mountainman]

126. Keep fighting the good fight Ben!!

I tiered long ago of talking to people who's whole thought process where corrupted by REPUBLICAN Sara Brady, and her ilk.

For those that accuse 2nd Amendment supporters of being part of "the great republican conspiracy"..They need to look at WHOSE LINES they themselves keep spouting.

The "Brady Campaign" is FULL of and LEAD by Republicans...I am beginning to believe that it is to drain seats from Democratic control.

Democrats that follow Sara Brady usually end up REPLACED by a Republican. But some in our party refuse to see that FACT.

[FyurFly]

127. Ben should receive a medal...

For educating the uneducated masses about the differences between semi and automatic rifles.

[slackmaster]

129. IMO the line drawn in 1934 was placed correctly

Could the founding fathers have imagined automatic assault rifles? Could they have imagined hand grenades? How about bazookas? What about nukes?

I don't know what may have been in the FF's heads, but the National Firearms Act of 1934 covers all of those things.

Do you make a distinction between assault rifles and hand grenades?

Yes, assault rifles are "machineguns" and hand grenades are "destructive devices".

Why? What is your logical basis for making such a distinction?

It's the law.

[virginia mountainman]

141. Yea, Citizens used to OWN, and fight WARSHIPS

Privateers.. John Paul Jones, probably the greatest American navel hero of all time, did his great feats, standing on the deck of HIS, OWN PERSONAL WARSHIP.

The government did NOT, own it, pay or hire the sailors, or outfit it...HE DID.

http://www.usmm.org/warof1812.html

People today, lack all grasp of where they came from. We are talking about mear personal rifles and sidearms. But history has shown that we [as citizens}used to own much more than flintlocks.

[slackmaster]

145. Privateering is an interesting subject

How long has it been since the US federal government issued a Letter of Marque?

I don't really care, and am too lazy to look it up.

[sir pball]

158. 1860s

The Confederates issued a few during the Civil War, but I think that was the last of them.

IMO they'd be a good way to deal with modern piracy; outfit nice yachts as Q-ships and give them a letter, send them off to Somalia and SE Asia..

[piedmont]

166. That idea deserves a thread of its own.

Very interesting. Don't know how I feel about it.

[jody]

134. Every Dem candidate should support the Dem platform that says,

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

NOTE: The AWB sunset without renewal and it does not appear that it had any affect. The revised AWB that Kerry, Feinstein, Kennedy and a few others supported could have banned most semiautomatic shotguns. That revised AWB is a gun ban pure and simple.

If a candidate doesn't support the party platform, the party should not support that candidate.

[FyurFly]

142. Self deleted

[rengali]

143. Then the platform needs to be revised.

This statement should be:
We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms.

[slackmaster]

146. That would force it into a Second Amendment issue, which IMO it is not

It's basic liberty, a non-enumerated right as protected by the Ninth Amendment.

Second Amendment issues become tedious and nonproductive.

[hansberrym]

162. Which "it" did you mean when you said "It's basic liberty..."?

As Jody points out, the platform has already crossed the second amendment bridge as far as a general right to own (at least some) firearms.

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


Once it is established that the RKBA is an individual right, what is left is whether there is a right to own certain types of firearms (line drawing).

The second amendment would seem a much better vehicle for arguing for a right to own weapons useful for militia service (such a semi-auto rifles) than would be an unenumerated right through the 9th.

[krispos42]

156. THERE IS NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE

Oy, vey....

Do people really think that there is some magical land called Someplace Else? A wonderous, enchanted land where spent nuclear fuel, asphalt plants, petroleum refineries, the DM&E railroad expansion project, Hurricane Katrina refugees, low-income housing, strip clubs, adult 'novelty' stores, and gun shows can frolic and play together in perfect harmoney, in the green meadows, warm sunshine, and honeysuckle, free from federal and state regulations?

Please.

Surprise surprise, not every gun purchase is of a new gun. Some of them are used. And not every used gun is sold by a federally-licenced dealer, any more than every car is sold by a car dealer. Occasionally, there is a private transfer of a firearm from one citizen to another. And it is usually perfectly legal.

Sometimes it happens at a gun show instead of in somebody's kitchen or garage sale. And that is the so-called 'gun show loophole'.

[friendly_iconoclast]

165. At least one freeper thinks derby378's approach might work...

See reply #15 at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1763588/posts

(A discussion of the NRA's paranoid 'graphic novel')

"One of the most dangerous things the Democrats could do is to move to the right on RKBA, neutralize or throw overboard the Brady Bunch; they would pick up a LOT of people who generally support unions, are, by the standards of FR 'rabid environmentalists' and like the idea of a higher minimum wage but will not, under any circumstances support anyone against the RKBA. And they would pick many of these people up in swing states while only pissing off the city dwellers who will vote Dem, anyway. Just my .02"

[derby378]

167. Welcome to DU!

Although I'd take exception to the term "move to the right." Gun control is not a "left-vs-right" issue.

:hi: