You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #55: Heller says a BAN on a class of lawful weapons is NOT constitutional. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-09 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Heller says a BAN on a class of lawful weapons is NOT constitutional.
Edited on Mon Jan-05-09 10:13 PM by Statistical
You seem to be arguing that banning is regulating which is pre-Heller thinking.
DC argued that under the DC handgun ban citizens still had the right to own rifles or shotguns.

The court disagreed:
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The Districts total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibitionin the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acutewould fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Supreme Court of the United States (Heller vs DC) 2008

SCOTUS clearly indicates that BANNING an entire class of weapons, even if other classes are available is unconstitutional if the weapons are used lawfully and are in common use.

My prediction is Chicago will lose their handgun ban and as a result the courts will affirm that the 2nd is incorporated via the 14th and applies to all states.
It will take a long time (Heller took 6 years). After that a suit will be filed using incorporation of 2nd as precedent against CA for their ban on "assault weapons".

Back to a federal AWB (which is easier to win in court because no incorporation issues)

Two major criteria that SCOTUS indicated. In common use & lawful purpose.

If we use the terms of 1994 AWB then "assault rifles" are the most commonly sold class of rifles today. There are about 20 million "assault rifles" (per 1994 def) in lawful use.
If we use some new more expanded def then it becomes even MORE weapons thus even more "in common use".
If you are talking about semi-auto pistols then it is the overwhelming majority of weapons in the United States.

All rifles (not just so called "assault" rifles) were used in <3% of all homicides and even less violent crimes (<1%).

So to get a ballpark number:
1.6 million violent crimes. Let's say 1% involved assault rifles (which is likely way to high because the # is LESS THAN 1% and that is ALL RIFLES) that is 16,000 assault rifles involved in violent crime.
Once again I only do this for sake of argument because since "assault rifles" are used in so few crimes the FBI has no stats other than <1%. Less than 1% could mean 1,600 or 160 or 16.

16,000/20,000,000 = 0.08%.
So 99.92% of assault rifles are used lawfully.

How exactly do you think the fed govt can prove that:
1) assault rifles are not in common usage (20 mil in cir)
2) assault rifles are not used for lawful purpose (99.92% used lawfully)
in order to pass constitutional scrutiny.

The truth is there is no way in hell they can. When they fail the law will be overtuned and any price (in terms of loss of support) paid for the law will be for nothing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -When will Congress make its first serious push for another semi-auto ban, if at all? derby378  Jan-05-09 01:54 PM   #0 
  - Another cosmetic ban is a waste of time and just pisses off legal gun owners. eom  smiley_glad_hands   Jan-05-09 01:55 PM   #1 
  - I agree...  derby378   Jan-05-09 01:59 PM   #4 
  - How is a semi-auto ban "cosmetic"?  MajorChode   Jan-05-09 11:41 PM   #61 
     - How is banning "scary looking guns" common sense regulation  Statistical   Jan-06-09 12:10 AM   #64 
     - Your point is?  MajorChode   Jan-06-09 12:51 AM   #65 
     - The ban never was and never will be all semi-autos it always has been by apearance  Statistical   Jan-06-09 07:30 AM   #67 
     - Back up  MajorChode   Jan-06-09 10:16 AM   #71 
     - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Jan-06-09 07:09 PM   #109 
     - If banning by looks makes no sense, why wouldn't a ban by function be the more logical next step?  Howzit   Jan-07-09 04:17 AM   #130 
        - Banning by function would encompass a whole lot of firearms that most people would call "sporting"  slackmaster   Jan-07-09 03:06 PM   #158 
           - You are correct that it would anger many people  Howzit   Jan-07-09 03:45 PM   #162 
     - cosmetics  -Wolverine-   Jan-12-09 03:40 PM   #198 
     - Statistical, you stole my post!  guntard   Jan-07-09 09:32 AM   #143 
     - "the majority of Americans favor more restrictive gun laws"  derby378   Jan-06-09 08:36 AM   #68 
     - You just won the Non Sequitur Medal of Valor  MajorChode   Jan-06-09 10:21 AM   #72 
     - Why the HELL do you think the gun issue is about hunting?  benEzra   Jan-06-09 06:57 PM   #107 
        - probably because the average ordinary, reasonable, decent person  iverglas   Jan-07-09 06:56 AM   #136 
           - Care to provide your data suggesting that more than 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts?  benEzra   Jan-07-09 07:14 AM   #137 
              - plainly you were addressing someone else  iverglas   Jan-07-09 08:33 AM   #140 
                 - Plainly, you are obfuscating.  benEzra   Jan-07-09 10:12 AM   #144 
                    - fascinating  iverglas   Jan-07-09 10:29 AM   #145 
                       - And...  benEzra   Jan-07-09 10:48 AM   #147 
                          - it's like swimming in mud  iverglas   Jan-07-09 11:00 AM   #149 
                             - As it relates to DEM policy on the issue, I think you have the vector precisely backward...  benEzra   Jan-07-09 02:36 PM   #157 
  - When it wants to ensure a Republican majority for a generation? NT  dmallind   Jan-05-09 01:57 PM   #2 
  - Exactly right. nt  XOKCowboy   Jan-06-09 12:26 PM   #80 
  - WHY? gun bans really don't do anything but piss off gun owners  napi21   Jan-05-09 01:58 PM   #3 
  - Let me put it to you this way...  derby378   Jan-05-09 02:01 PM   #5 
  - So? They don't vote Democratic anyway.  pending   Jan-05-09 04:18 PM   #17 
     - We didn't think we needed the evangelicals, either...  derby378   Jan-05-09 04:24 PM   #21 
     - I don't think we should dismiss any voters out of hand.  Occam Bandage   Jan-05-09 06:01 PM   #34 
     - SOMEBODY must destroy the idea that all Dems want to take away your guns!  napi21   Jan-05-09 11:50 PM   #62 
        - I honestly think NRA is happy Obama won.  Statistical   Jan-05-09 11:55 PM   #63 
        - Nobody is going to take away peoples guns  pending   Jan-06-09 09:46 AM   #70 
           - Weapons of war are already highly restricted.  wartrace   Jan-06-09 10:55 AM   #73 
           - Weapons of war have been restricted since 1934  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 02:12 PM   #93 
           - Why allow hunting rifles?  Howzit   Jan-06-09 11:09 PM   #122 
           - Considerably more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt.  benEzra   Jan-07-09 07:18 AM   #138 
           - Does it make any difference to you that many hunting rifles are significantly more powerful  Raskolnik   Jan-07-09 02:05 PM   #154 
           - Like the hunting shotgun the Unitarian Church shooter used.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jan-07-09 06:08 PM   #166 
           - what about self defense pistols  bossy22   Jan-08-09 01:28 AM   #173 
  - When the Democrats regain their electoral death wish. n/t  blindpig   Jan-05-09 02:08 PM   #6 
  - Certainly hope so.  pending   Jan-05-09 02:22 PM   #7 
  - What is your justification for this, though?  derby378   Jan-05-09 02:26 PM   #8 
  - And....  dmallind   Jan-05-09 02:36 PM   #12 
  - What exactly are you proposing banning, pray tell? nt  TheWraith   Jan-05-09 02:29 PM   #9 
  - Well its not my proposal.  pending   Jan-05-09 04:16 PM   #16 
     - Again, you said that the last ban was purely "cosmetic"  derby378   Jan-05-09 04:22 PM   #20 
     - See response below  pending   Jan-05-09 05:51 PM   #28 
        - And there's no reason for anyone to need a vibrating cockring.  Occam Bandage   Jan-05-09 06:08 PM   #36 
        - LOL  pending   Jan-05-09 06:21 PM   #37 
        - The word "need" in this context affects me like fingernails on a chalkboard  slackmaster   Jan-05-09 06:26 PM   #38 
        - The Second Amendment and DC V. HELLER take issue with that assertion  derby378   Jan-05-09 08:53 PM   #53 
        - But Heller affirms the constitutionality of reasonable restrictions  pending   Jan-05-09 09:33 PM   #54 
           - Heller says a BAN on a class of lawful weapons is NOT constitutional.  Statistical   Jan-05-09 10:01 PM   #55 
              - Then the question becomes what defines class?  pending   Jan-05-09 10:14 PM   #57 
                 - SCOTUS specifically said weapons that are in common use are protected.  Codename46   Jan-06-09 07:53 PM   #114 
        - Actually, there's lots of reasons for needing semi-auto rifles.  TheWraith   Jan-05-09 11:25 PM   #59 
        - As a left-handed shooter in a world filled with right-handed rifles, I couldn't agree more  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 12:19 PM   #77 
        - There is no need for cars with automatic transmissions  Howzit   Jan-06-09 11:16 PM   #123 
           - What about someone who has only one leg?  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 11:19 PM   #124 
              - You need to have your eyes checked again, old chap  Howzit   Jan-07-09 01:40 AM   #127 
                 - Sorry my sarcasm was not obvious enough  slackmaster   Jan-07-09 03:45 AM   #129 
     - Well, I'd like an answer. What are you supporting a ban on?  TheWraith   Jan-05-09 04:33 PM   #24 
        - assault weaponry of course  pending   Jan-05-09 05:50 PM   #27 
           - So, how would ownership of a semiautomatic rifle with a 20-round magazine  Occam Bandage   Jan-05-09 05:57 PM   #32 
           - That would be about 90% of firearms in united states.  Statistical   Jan-05-09 05:57 PM   #33 
           - Rest assured, I'm not writing policy  pending   Jan-05-09 06:27 PM   #39 
              - Yay!  Statistical   Jan-05-09 06:35 PM   #40 
              - Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people  Codename46   Jan-06-09 07:55 PM   #115 
           - You still haven't said what you think an assault weapon is.  TheWraith   Jan-05-09 07:01 PM   #44 
           - Well, how about this  pending   Jan-05-09 07:08 PM   #45 
              - Leaving aside for a second the ambiguous, subjective nature of that definition,  Occam Bandage   Jan-05-09 07:33 PM   #46 
              - That definition applies to virtually every modern semi-automatic gun.  TheWraith   Jan-05-09 11:24 PM   #58 
              - FYI, the California ban has been largely side-stepped  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 12:22 PM   #78 
              - Which would ban more hunting guns than "assault weapons"...  benEzra   Jan-07-09 10:52 AM   #148 
           - "reasonable price to pay for the lives saved "  Howzit   Jan-06-09 11:20 PM   #125 
           - Why aren't you promoting amputation as a means to save lives?  Howzit   Jan-07-09 01:45 AM   #128 
           - hahaha, they aren't causing an exraordinary number of deaths  tburnsten   Jan-08-09 10:22 AM   #178 
           - So, let's say I have a rifle worth about $5,000, that was legal when I purchased it.  AtheistCrusader   Jan-08-09 03:02 PM   #185 
  - What in the world is a "buyback"  ncguy   Jan-06-09 09:58 PM   #118 
     - 'Buyback' programs encourage theft.  AtheistCrusader   Jan-07-09 12:19 PM   #150 
        - Buyback programs also result in the destruction of a lot of antiques  Statistical   Jan-07-09 02:17 PM   #155 
           - Jeez, maybe I should upgrade to an 01 FFL and quit my job  slackmaster   Jan-07-09 08:21 PM   #168 
  - If we're lucky, the jackasses will shut up about guns entirely for the next 8 years  Rabrrrrrr   Jan-05-09 02:30 PM   #10 
  - That would be SO refreshing  derby378   Jan-05-09 02:32 PM   #11 
  - Never, I hope! n/t  frebrd   Jan-05-09 02:56 PM   #13 
  - I think the Democrats have learned not to touch that issue  gravity   Jan-05-09 02:58 PM   #14 
  - "unless the guns in the ban are becoming a problem for crime, I don't see it happening"  Howzit   Jan-08-09 02:44 AM   #175 
  - Democrats need to drop the gun control issue like a bad habit.  Alexander   Jan-05-09 02:59 PM   #15 
  - I agree but the DLC refused to let it go.  anonymous171   Jan-05-09 04:21 PM   #19 
     - The DLC members are split on this issue.  Alexander   Jan-05-09 04:28 PM   #23 
  - The DLC: Guns=bad. Corporations= Good  anonymous171   Jan-05-09 04:19 PM   #18 
  - When they get tired of being in the majority  RamboLiberal   Jan-05-09 04:24 PM   #22 
  - They better not even try...  virginia mountainman   Jan-05-09 04:41 PM   #25 
  - When Obama get tired of it being "too easy" with Dems in Congress  Statistical   Jan-05-09 04:47 PM   #26 
  - Gun control is SO 1999.  Bornaginhooligan   Jan-05-09 05:53 PM   #29 
  - I don't give a shit. A ban on semiautomatics wouldn't do anything except  Occam Bandage   Jan-05-09 05:54 PM   #30 
  - Never... unless Congress has become a hotbed of assholes.  pl259   Jan-05-09 05:54 PM   #31 
  - Why ?  MazeRat7   Jan-05-09 06:03 PM   #35 
  - Won't happen- too many Americans prefer repeated mass shootings  depakid   Jan-05-09 06:38 PM   #41 
  - How many of the last 10 mass shootings involved an "assault weapon"? n/t  Statistical   Jan-05-09 07:33 PM   #47 
  - I'm in favor of all sorts of regulatory efforts.  Occam Bandage   Jan-05-09 07:35 PM   #48 
  - Actually, the rate of fire- and the number of bullets in semi-auto clip are important  depakid   Jan-05-09 07:55 PM   #49 
     - I don't think anyone but you is talking about banning a ten-round handgun.  Occam Bandage   Jan-05-09 08:17 PM   #50 
     - Australia has- bought tons of 'em back after the last mass shooting in 1996  depakid   Jan-05-09 08:40 PM   #52 
        - I meant as regards this thread, either among previous thread participants or the Congress.  Occam Bandage   Jan-06-09 02:01 PM   #86 
        - Did the Autralian government own them to begin with?  tburnsten   Jan-09-09 08:01 AM   #195 
        - But their overall level of violent crime has increased since the ban, has it not?  derby378   Jan-09-09 08:57 AM   #196 
     - So do you think it would have changed anything if both pistols had had 10 round clips?  TheWraith   Jan-05-09 11:30 PM   #60 
     - He had a pistol  rangersmith82   Jan-06-09 09:53 PM   #117 
     - So is knowing what you're talking about  iverglas   Jan-07-09 04:57 AM   #132 
        - No evidence 10 round limit would have changed anything  Statistical   Jan-07-09 07:47 AM   #139 
        - did that have something to do with what I said?  iverglas   Jan-07-09 08:36 AM   #141 
           - Yeah, it did  tburnsten   Jan-09-09 07:59 AM   #194 
        - You can make up any definition you want  rangersmith82   Jan-07-09 09:11 PM   #171 
           - my dear chap  iverglas   Jan-08-09 01:37 AM   #174 
     - He was a one-handed reloader?  AtheistCrusader   Jan-08-09 03:12 PM   #187 
     - I met a one-armed wallpaper hanger  slackmaster   Jan-08-09 04:18 PM   #188 
     - How long it takes to reload matters most for sustained fire  tburnsten   Jan-09-09 07:49 AM   #193 
  - You in OZ, Surprised you can still get here  Pavulon   Jan-06-09 06:59 PM   #108 
     - first the homophobic bigotry, now the xenophobic ethnocentricity  iverglas   Jan-07-09 04:50 AM   #131 
  - Hopefully never, its useless and is a losing issue for us  socordsx   Jan-05-09 06:42 PM   #42 
  - hopefully never. like the above posters said -- a semi-auto ban will do nothing. nt  Double_Talk_Express   Jan-05-09 06:56 PM   #43 
  - If there are no semis and no autos  SoCalDem   Jan-05-09 08:20 PM   #51 
  - Nope. Nor should they  TheKentuckian   Jan-05-09 10:05 PM   #56 
  - Why can't gun people own bolt action rifles, or is that too restrictive of their "rights"?  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 01:17 AM   #66 
  - When our police and military start using only bolt-action rifles, I'll think about it  derby378   Jan-06-09 08:55 AM   #69 
  - Sure, buy as many guns as you can afford in case of Armageddon, I get it.  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 11:46 AM   #74 
     - Let's apply your reasoning to some other portions of the Constitution...  Raskolnik   Jan-06-09 12:18 PM   #76 
        - Books don't kill people, we're done  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 01:48 PM   #81 
           - You aren't terribly familiar with history if you think that.  Raskolnik   Jan-06-09 02:27 PM   #95 
           - so, if I think reeeaaally hard ...  iverglas   Jan-07-09 04:59 AM   #133 
              - It would prove there is a first time for everything.  Raskolnik   Jan-07-09 01:29 PM   #151 
                 - My point was clear; I wasn't using language to deceive  iverglas   Jan-07-09 08:17 PM   #167 
                    - If you disagree with my point, just state your disagreement.  Raskolnik   Jan-08-09 08:07 AM   #177 
                       - how does one "disagree with" bullshit??  iverglas   Jan-08-09 10:45 AM   #180 
                          - You are either unable or unwilling to make your point.  Raskolnik   Jan-08-09 11:02 AM   #182 
           - Deleted message  Name removed   Jan-07-09 03:45 PM   #161 
  - Are you "so sick" of any other portions of the Constitution?  Raskolnik   Jan-06-09 12:14 PM   #75 
  - "Click"  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 01:50 PM   #82 
     - Um...okay?  Raskolnik   Jan-06-09 02:29 PM   #96 
        - It isn't a rational or logical thought, it is emotional  Statistical   Jan-06-09 02:39 PM   #99 
        - I don't mind the "guns=bad" at all-it's a person's perfect right to like or dislike what they choose  Raskolnik   Jan-06-09 02:42 PM   #100 
        - I think you probably meant to address this to someone else  iverglas   Jan-07-09 10:34 AM   #146 
           - Perhaps if you want to make a snarky point about Jody, you should address the post to him/her.  Raskolnik   Jan-07-09 01:30 PM   #152 
  - Bolt action rifles for left-handed shooters are scarce and expensive  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 12:23 PM   #79 
  - Right, so we should allow these weapons so you aren't discriminated against as a lefty?  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 01:51 PM   #83 
     - Sure, why not?  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 02:00 PM   #85 
        - Read my first post, I don't need to give you any good reason for my disapproval  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 02:03 PM   #87 
        - I addressed your post in reply #79  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 02:04 PM   #89 
           - Until we get a majority in the Supreme Court, your phallic play toys are safe  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 02:07 PM   #91 
              - I view them primarily as financial investments  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 02:09 PM   #92 
              - Right, investments, that's another good one.  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 06:34 PM   #103 
                 - Your injury must have really blown out your logic center  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 06:40 PM   #104 
                 - Instead of baiting me, make your point the first time  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 06:46 PM   #105 
                    - You COULD have just looked at my profile  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 06:52 PM   #106 
                    - the natives have turned right nasty  iverglas   Jan-07-09 08:59 AM   #142 
                    - What injury did you have?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jan-07-09 03:50 PM   #164 
                    - I think he's gone - I was actually making fun of his handle, not assuming he had a real brain injury  slackmaster   Jan-07-09 04:17 PM   #165 
                       - DrainB was looking for a reason to write you off and put you on ignore  Howzit   Jan-07-09 08:41 PM   #170 
                    - Some curious, antiques and relics meet your bar for 'bannable guns'.  AtheistCrusader   Jan-08-09 03:05 PM   #186 
                       - I think DB doesn't understand that some C&Rs are semiautomatic  slackmaster   Jan-08-09 04:19 PM   #189 
                 - I have a $10k 50 cal  rangersmith82   Jan-06-09 09:59 PM   #119 
                    - Fuggin-A dude, I only have about $4K in mine  slackmaster   Jan-06-09 11:03 PM   #121 
                       - Maybe he went to get a tissue  rangersmith82   Jan-08-09 05:31 PM   #191 
              - Why are you gun grabbers so infatuated with male genitalia?  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jan-07-09 03:48 PM   #163 
              - So gun grabbers like cock??  rangersmith82   Jan-08-09 05:26 PM   #190 
              - YAY reversing supreme court decisions  bossy22   Jan-08-09 01:15 AM   #172 
        - I agree with you. When there's no social value residing in the ban of a substance or object,  Occam Bandage   Jan-06-09 02:04 PM   #88 
  - My answer is: because I haven't seen a convincing case suggesting that  Occam Bandage   Jan-06-09 01:57 PM   #84 
  - I don't have to prove shit, gunnies have a sympathetic Supreme Court  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 02:05 PM   #90 
     - The only gun I own shoots BBs, so leave the "you guys" aside.  Occam Bandage   Jan-06-09 02:12 PM   #94 
     - Freedom: a concept sadly not well understood on this "progressive" site (n/t)  Statistical   Jan-06-09 02:31 PM   #97 
     - Deleted message  Name removed   Jan-06-09 04:22 PM   #101 
     - snork; I read 116 first  iverglas   Jan-07-09 05:02 AM   #135 
     - The Government bans marijuana, and no one has ever been (proven) killed by smoking it  DainBramaged   Jan-06-09 07:15 PM   #110 
        - The cannabis ban is idiotic...  benEzra   Jan-06-09 07:22 PM   #112 
        - I think the ban of weed is misguided HOWEVER there is no constitutional right to get high (n/t)  Statistical   Jan-06-09 09:22 PM   #116 
        - you poor benighted savages  iverglas   Jan-07-09 05:00 AM   #134 
           - Iverglas as the defender of "liberty." Up is down, black is white, cats and dogs are living together  Raskolnik   Jan-07-09 01:34 PM   #153 
              - and you have always been at war Eastasia  iverglas   Jan-07-09 08:23 PM   #169 
                 - Are you being paid by the non sequitur?  Raskolnik   Jan-08-09 07:58 AM   #176 
                    - good lord  iverglas   Jan-08-09 10:41 AM   #179 
                       - You aren't saying anything at all. n/t  Raskolnik   Jan-08-09 10:52 AM   #181 
        - It doesnt matter  rangersmith82   Jan-06-09 10:13 PM   #120 
     - Authoritarians like you scare me.  Raskolnik   Jan-06-09 02:34 PM   #98 
  - Why can't reporters use Underwood typewriters and quill pens?  benEzra   Jan-06-09 07:18 PM   #111 
  - Not the dreaded threat of being ignored.  Fire_Medic_Dave   Jan-07-09 03:44 PM   #160 
  - 'gunnies' in 'trailers'?  AtheistCrusader   Jan-08-09 02:56 PM   #184 
  - 2 years at the earliest perhaps.  D__S   Jan-06-09 04:25 PM   #102 
  - I'm scared! Protect me government!  chrisa   Jan-06-09 07:31 PM   #113 
  - Hopefully never  X_Digger   Jan-06-09 11:23 PM   #126 
  - OTHER!  FORREST GRUMP   Jan-07-09 02:26 PM   #156 
  - For the near time, an AWB won't make it out of committee. Here's why:  SteveM   Jan-07-09 03:17 PM   #159 
  - You mean like this?  rrneck   Jan-08-09 11:21 AM   #183 
  - In additional we have 3 new factors  Statistical   Jan-08-09 06:09 PM   #192 
  - Never. I like to think the majority of Democrats are not stupid  old mark   Jan-11-09 07:32 AM   #197 
  - GUNS AND Y-O-U-R AMMO!!  gobhock   Jan-28-09 06:10 PM   #199 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC