Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gun-rights ruling could ricochet across nation

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 » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:54 PM
Original message
Gun-rights ruling could ricochet across nation
Source: Chicago Tribune



By James Oliphant | Washington Bureau



WASHINGTON - WASHINGTON It's a shooting war, for certain.

Democrats versus Republicans, cities versus states, cops versus cops, scholars versus scholars, and most bizarrely, the Bush administration against itself.

The root of the conflict lies in a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, one as dramatic as any in recent memory.

For the first time in almost 70 years, the court will consider whether the 2nd Amendment grants an individual the right to own a gun. It's a day long awaited by gun-rights activists, and long feared by those who favor gun control...


Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-guns...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Prediction: SCOTUS punts, will not incorporate 2nd under 14th
They'll remand this on a jurisdictional question (it's unfortunate in some ways this came from DC, with its unique jurisdictional status).

I'm one of those "gun people" who would love to see the 2nd incorporated under the 14th. However, that scares conservatives: for all their talk about guns, they don't actually like seeing the general populace armed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Much less areas where there are a heavy number of Democrats.
They say they support gun rights, but they get scared if they see a large number of liberals buying guns. They support gun rights for conservatives without any discomfort. It's when liberals do it that makes them uncomfortable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. I don't think that matches with facts.
Alabama is certainly fairly conservative but you can own/carry a gun anywhere in the state including liberal areas like Birmingham.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. That's why I said they were uncomfortable, as opposed to banning guns in liberal enclaves.
Big difference. I oughtta know. I live right next door in Mississippi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VeraAgnes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Democrats are still getting
a bad awful rap from right-winger; " The damn Liberals, they want to take our guns away from us!"
If I heard this once, I've heard it a billion times. The NRA coined this and it sticks to us. I'd love to see Obama go hunting or visit a practice gun range. This could help shake-off the stigma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burf Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. It is understandable why
look at H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

Sponsor Carolyn McCarthy (D) NY
Sixty Co-sponsors All Dems

BTW, Welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VeraAgnes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
49. Why thank you....
That is so kind of you. I'm happy to be here. A fine collection of opinions, that is for sure.

Back to guns and Dems:

I sometimes grind my teeth together when co-workers who are of the GOP, these ones are men, and they try to speak with true insight and start off about the guns. It's a harder subject to make any progress with, even harder than "the right to choose".

I hope to see more of you here.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. also the problem is
many of the higher up dems (mr. photo op aka schumer, pelosi, T.kenneday) are very anti-gun, while there is a sizable portion of Dems who are very pro-gun....recently the anti-gun forces have been tamed and keep their mouth shut most of the time....we've come longway in less then a decade....i remember listening to how Bill Bradley and Al gore would try to out do each other on how tough on gun control they would be...now it seems like the dems candidates fight over who is more pro-gun
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #25
72. so those of disagreeing with you should "keep our mouths shut"
rather than talking about the high cost in lost lives and shattered families/neighborhoods -- especially urban areas -- where gun proliferation is unchecked, while the availability of such weapons is couched in 19th-century era rhetoric about the romance of weapons, the "frontier," each man for himself, etc., etc., et al...?

Well, about what I'd expect in terms of a "pro gun" "willingness" to engage in actual "debate..."

Alas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #72
81. Places where gun proliferation is unchecked? Like DC or Chicago?
Places where guns are effectively banned, and yet those places are anually repeat competitors for murder capitol of the country?


You can say what you like, but YOUR way isn't working. Theres just no getting around it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #81
160. This would be the DC right next to gun-happy Virginia?
Hmmm.... wonder where all those guns are coming from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #160
162. Hidden in bricks of coke or weed...
no short supply of coke. I guess marion left a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #162
164. uh, okay.
I can't argue with an insightful, well-sourced riposte like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #164
166. I could be more eloquent..
but banning something obviously has little to no impact on its availability. Only on its price.

Murder is banned.

We need to address root cause. Gun control is a crutch for those unwilling to address the reasons that cause violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #166
170. so according to you, there'd be less murder if it was legal?
And by the way, the "crutch" is gun-cultists refusing to acknowledge that their beloved guns play any role in... gun crimes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #170
174. SUV Crimes
I mean that suv kills. On the news, teen killed by suv, Not the person behind the wheel driving a truck like a car. Or jacking jaw on the phones.

Guns are the method a person is using to carry out the violence in their HEAD.

Personal responsibility. Own up.

Fix the root cause. The root cause explains why geneva is safe and many us cities are NOT.

People following the law, odd thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #174
179. Four road rage victims in SoCal in the last 24 hours -- all guns. Own up.
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 11:49 PM by villager
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #179
206. "Teenager today killed by suv"
you mean the new dod system that autonomously drives a vehicle and fires a weapon at targets, it went on a robotic rampage?

Oh you mean a PERSON shot another person. Yep that makes more sense.

quote from news. Teenager killed by person is correct.

You guys never address root cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boilinmad Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #206
216. I'd be all for......
...banning SUVs as well as guns. They suck about as much as guns do! Next ridiculous talking point, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #216
218. Why pick on guns or SUV's, why not minivans or stationwagons instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Centered Donating Member (295 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #218
236. Let's just ban all cars too
Save lives and improve health and reduce obeisity. Ban travel by Air or Train because people die in accidents just like accidential shootings. We could ban knives and axes too while we are at it... and ban ... screw it let's ban everything!!!

Maybe then people will have nothing else to blame except for the person who commited the crime and not the technology used to commit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #160
165. NYC
is right next to PA....we seem to have the gun problem under control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 03:33 AM
Response to Reply #160
181. The typical response of the prohibitionist.
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 03:35 AM by beevul
You'll take those "regulations" (prohibitions) and then declare it someone elses fault that they arenm't working, rather than acknowledging that it just might be th burden of the people wanting to and CLAIMING to restrict a thing...to actually restrict it - OR - own up to the fact that the prohibition is unworkable.

Ya know...kinda like alot of people say should be done with MJ, and people said to do with Alcohol.




But alas...thats just too based in reality and common sense for most gun grabber types.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SquireJons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #72
83. What is your solution to the problem?
I don't own a gun so I'm hardly a gun enthusiast, but I see two substantial problems for Democrats with regards to gun control. First and foremost is the Second Amendment, which is pretty damn clear. If it's ok to take that right away, than all of them are fair game. The second problem is political. Since this is a democracy (in theory), one must get elected in order to have any say in this country. Many of the republicans I know (some of whom are reasonable on many issues) speak first and foremost about their Second Amendment rights. They are single issue voters, and will not budge. Therefor, if Democrats allow themselves to get painted into a corner on the gun rights issue, then they will lose a lot of elections and have far less relevancy on the national scene.

I do understand the problems that cities face, but I don't see a gun ban helping very much and it certainly gives the republicans a huge issue to hammer us with. Keep it local and the Dem's won't have any problems. Guilani was pro gun control, so was Mittens. People where guns are a problem will support gun control, pug or Dem. But having a prominent national Dem try to force rural people to adopt urban sensibilities is not sensible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VeraAgnes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #83
87. I have to go to work...
I'll share later. My co-workers all have guns, so I hear this all the time. Oh, I wish I had more time...promise to be back tonight.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. Yeah, Like That Really Worked Well When John Kerry Tried It
I'd love to see Obama go hunting or visit a practice gun range. This could help shake-off the stigma.


That's never gonna work. It totally backfired on John Kerry when he tried it, and he's a decorated war hero.

The NRA works for THEM and always will. The NRA says it represents gun owners. They really represent gun manufacturers, and nothing increases the demand for their products like a nice big war. It's pretty obvious which party is the war party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. thats not true
as much as i don't like the NRA...they really do benefit us gun owners- without them our situation would be alot worse....as one DU member always says "they are the 800 lb gorilla defending my rights"

the "gun manufacturer" mantra comes from an attempt by anti-gun forces to take away a human face from the NRA. It is much easier to hate a giant corporation, than the actual employees of that corporation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traction311 Donating Member (229 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #26
75. It backfired for a reason
Kerry was horrible when it came to gun rights. His record in the Senate has always been anti-gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #75
77. Same Again for BHO and HRC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #75
183. My state always went blue till Clinton and his gun control and then Kerry and Gore's records on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #75
214. In your profile, you name cars and drinking as two of your hobbies...
I'd hate to see what you do with cars, drinking and guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #26
98. Only because Kerry misunderstood the issue.
That's never gonna work. It totally backfired on John Kerry when he tried it, and he's a decorated war hero.

That backfired only because Kerry misunderstood the issue, and badly.

Kerry ran on a message of protecting hunting and hunting-style guns, and banning nonhunting-style guns. Problem is, only 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners is a hunter, and the guns he promised to ban happen to be the most popular target guns in America.

The gun issue is NOT about hunting, but prior to 2006 most party strategists simply did not grok that fact.

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



----------------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #26
141. I think the NRA has distorted the voting patterns of working class men
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 11:31 AM by DBoon
I read a study that the gun issue is the number one reason why the rural working class consistently votes against their economic self interest.

I don't believe this is accidental - I think the whole gun rights issue is a red herring to distract voters away from other issues. I think it is deliberately designed to pull rural working class voters away form populist economic issues.

There are many Democrats who are pro-gun, Howard Dean for example. Has the NRA ever supported one? Why haven't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #141
158. Endorsements...,
" President Clinton and Handgun Control Inc. both denied the
elections were a referendum on "gun control," but 31 of 36
defeated House incumbents had voted for the crime bill. Not one
pro-gun incumbent targeted by HCI was defeated while 41 of 45
NRA-endorsed Democrats were re-elected -- and the losers were
replaced by equally pro-gun Republicans."


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zHxg-Q8tEzMJ:rkba....

Its a couple years old, but it illustrates my point completely:

(D) Howard Dean (D) Mark L. Doumit,(D) Jim Hargrove, (D) Jean Berkey, (D)Brian Hatfield, (D) Brian Blake, (D) William 'Ike' Eickmeyer, (D) Joe Baca, (D) Mike Schneider, (D) Barbara Buckley, (D)Genie Ohrenschall,(D) Ellen Koivisto, (D) John Oceguera, (D) Jerry D. Claborn, (D)Richard D. Perkins, (D) Mo Denis, (D) David Parks, (D) James Alexander, (D) Gino White, (D)Wendy Jaquet, (D) Mike McGrath, (D) Jim Elliott, (D) Lane L. Larson, (D) Kim Gillan, (D) Paul Clark, (D)Brennan Ryan,(D)George Golie, (D) Bill Wilson, (D) John W. Parker,(D) Margarett H. Campbell, (D) Ralph L. Lenhart, (D) Gary Matthews, (D) Monica J. Lindeen, (D)Gary L. Forrester, (D) Jayne Mockler, (D) Larry Caller, (D) Keith Goodenough, (D) Ross Diercks, (D)George W. Bagby,(D)Marty Martin, (D)Ann Robinson,(D) *Mary Meyer Gilmore, (D) Bill Thompson, (D) Jim Matheson, (D)Mike Dmitrich, (D) Eli H. Anderson,(D)Laren "Larry" C. Livingston, (D) Carl Duckworth, (D) Brad King, (D)Linda Aguirre, (D) Marsha Arzberger, (D)Pete Campos, (D)Shannon Robinson, (D)Mary Kay Papen, (D)Phil Griego,(D)Patricia Lundstrom, (D)Dona Irwin, (D)Andrew Nunez, (D) Joseph Cervantes, (D)Pauline Ponce, (D)Thomas Swisstack, (D)Bob Hagedorn,(D)Lois Tochtrop, (D) Liane "Buffie" McFadyen, (D)Max Sandlin, (D)Nick Lampson, (D) Henry Cuellar, (D) Mark Homer, (D) Chuck Hopson, (D) Jim McReynolds, (D) Robby Cook, (D) Dan Ellis, (D)Patrick M. Rose, (D) John Mabry, (D) David Farabee, (D) James "Pete" Laney, (D) Mike Villarreal, (D) Kevin Bailey, (D) Dan Boren, (D) Jim Wilson, (D) *Jeff Rabon, (D)Richard Lerblance, (D)Susan Paddack, (D) Charlie Laster, (D) Mike Morgan, (D) Jerry Ellis, (D)Glen "Bud" Smithson, (D)Neil Brannon, (D) Mike Brown, (D)Joe Eddins, (D) Ben Sherrer, (D)Barbara Staggs, (D)Ray Miller,(D) Terry Harrison, (D)Paul Roan, (D) John Carey, (D) Dale Turner,(D) Bob Plunk, (D) John Young, (D) Danny Morgan, (D) Joe Sweeden,(D) Terry Hyman, (D) Raymond McCarter, (D)David Braddock, (D) James Covey, (D) Purcy Walker, (D) Abe Deutschendorf, (D) Roy "Butch" Hooper, (D) *Joe Dorman, (D)Lucky Lamons, (D) Darrell Gilbert, (D) John Auffet, (D) *Debbie Blackburn, (D)Rebecca Hamilton, (D)Al Lindley, (D) Mark Gilstrap, (D)Chris Steineger, (D) Jim Barone,(D) Anthony Hensley, (D) Henry Helgerson, (D) Doug Gatewood, (D)Robert Grant, (D) Bill Feuerborn, (D) Jerry Williams, (D) James Miller,(D) Bonnie Sharp, (D) Tom Burroughs, (D) Margaret Long, (D)Candy Ruff,
(D) Harold Lane, (D) Jerry Henry, (D) Sid Regnier, (D) Jim Ward, (D) Janice Pauls, (D) Dennis Mckinney, (D)Stephanie Herseth, (D)Jim Peterson, (D) Gil Koetzle, (D) Garry Moore, (D) Frank Kloucek, (D) David Sigdestad, (D) Dawn Jaeger, (D) Gerald Lange, (D) Richard Engels, (D) Mary Glenski, (D) Gary Stodelmon, (D) Dale Hargens, (D) Paul Valandra, (D) Thomas James Van Norman, (D) Mike Wilson, (D) David O'Connell, (D) Larry Robinson, (D)Joel Heitkamp, (D) Dorvan Solberg, (D) Lyle Hanson, (D)Joe Kroeber, (D) Ole Aarsvold, (D)Ralph Metcalf, (D) Arden Anderson, (D) Bill Amerman, (D)Pam Gulleson, (D) Collin Peterson, (DFL) Kent Eken, (DFL) Loren A. Solberg, (DFL) Tom Rukavina, (DFl) Anthony "Tony" Setich, (DFL) David Dill, (DFL) Paul Marquart, (DFL) Mary Ellen Otremba, (DFL) Al Juhnke, (DFL) Lyle Koenen, (D) Leonard Boswell, (D) John Kibbie, (D)Dick Dearden, (D)Eugene Fraise, (D) Michael Gronstal, (D) Greg Stevens, (D) Marcella Frevert, (D) Dolores Mertz, (D) Roger Thomas, (D) Dick Taylor, (D) Geri Huser, (D) Jim Lykam, (D) Philip Wise, (D) Kurt Swaim, (D) Paul Shomshor, (D) Ike Skelton, (D) Victor Callahan, (D) Jim Whorton, (D) Rachel Bringer, (D)Wes Shoemyer, (D)Terry Witte, (D) Wayne Henke, (D) Thomas Green, (D) Gary Kelly, (D) Mike Sager, (D) Terry Young, (D) Ray Salva, (d)Paul LeVota, (D) Curt Dougherty, (D) Al Liese, (D) Allen Icet, (D) Tim Meadows, (D) Ron Casey, (D) Wes Wagner,(D) Harold Selby, (D) Belinda Harris, (D) Frank Barnitz, (D) J.C. Kuessner, (D) Terry Swinger, (D) Mike Ross, (D) Randy Laverty, (D) Jack Crichter,
(D)Jim Hill, (D) Jimmy Jeffres, (D)Gene Jeffress, (D) Percy Malone,
(D) Ken Cowling, (D) Robert Jeffrey, (D)Randy Rankin, (D) Lenville Evans, (D) Jay Bradford, (D)Scott Sullivan, (D) Dewayne Mack, (D)Bob Mathis,(D) Dawn Creekmore, (D) Dwight Fite, (D) Janet Johnson, (D) Sandra Prater, (D) Jeff Wood, (D)Will Bond, (D) Preston Scroggin,
(D)David Evans, (D) David Dunn, (D) Wayne Nichols,(D)Leroy Dangeau,
(D) Bill Stovall, (D) Charles Ormond, (D) Travis Boyd, (D) Dave Obey,
(D)Roger Breske, (D )Robert W. Wirch, (D) Julie Lassa, (D) Terry Van Akkeren, (D) John P. Steinbrink, (D ) Amy Sue Vruwink, (D) Marlin D. Schneider, (D)Barbara Gronemus, (D) Jerry Costello, (D) Pat Welch,
(D)William Haine, (D)Gary Forby, (D) Jack Franks, (D) Mike Boland,
(D)Patrick Verschoore, (D)Careen Gordon,(D)Frank Mautino, (D)Lisa Dugan, (D) Michael Smith, (D) Gary Hannig, (D) Robert Flider, (D) Kurt Granberg, (D) Bill Grunloh, (D)Steve Davis,(D)Jay Hoffman, (D) Thomas Holbrook, (D) Dan Reitz, (D) John Bradley, (D) Brandon Phelps,
(D)Gene Taylor, (D) Bud Cramer, (D) Sanford Bishop, (D) Tim Golden,
(D)Michael S. Meyer Von Bremen, (D) Steve Thompson, (D) Valencia Seay, (D)Steve Henson, (D) Mike Snow, (D) Barbara Massey Reece, (D) Buddy Childers, (D) Bill Cummings, (D) Jeanette Jamieson, (D) Don Wix, (D) *Stephanie Stuckey Benfield, (D) Hugh Floyd, (D) R. M. Channell, (D) Curtis S. Jenkins, (D) Lee Howell, (D) Robert F. Ray, (D) Bobby Eugene Parham, (D) Jimmy Lord, (D) Dubose Porter, (D) Johnny W. Floyd, (D) Greg Morris, (D) Penny Houston, (D) Ellis Black, (D) Ron Borders, (D) Jay Shaw, (D) Hinson Mosley, (D) Allen Boyd,
(D) Will S. Kendrick, (D) Dwight Stansel, (D) Sheri Mcinvale, (D) Lincoln Davis, (D) Jim Cooper, (D) Bart Gordon, (D) John Tanner, (D ) Tommy Kilby, (D ) Jerry W. Cooper , (D ) Jo Ann Graves, (D ) Rosalind Kurita,(D) Roy Herron, (D ) John S. Wilder, Sr., (D ) Harry Tindell, (D) Dennis Ferguson, (D ) Jim Hackworth, (D ) George Fraley, (D ) Frank Buck, (D ) John Mark Windle, (D ) Jere L. Hargrove, (D ) Charles Curtiss, (D ) Mike McDonald, (D) Stratton Bone, (D) Michael L. Turner, (D ) Ben West, Jr., (D ) Curt Cobb, (D ) Joe Fowlkes,(D) Eugene E. (Gene) Davidson, (D) David A. Shepard, (D) John C. Tidwell, (D ) Willie (Butch) Borchert, (D) Mark L. Maddox, (D) Phillip Pinion, (D) Craig Fitzhugh, (D) Ben Chandler, (D) Dennis L. Null, (D) Joey Pendleton, (D) Walter "Doc" Blevins, (D) Johnny Ray Turner, (D) Ray S. JonesII, (D) Denise Harper Angel,
(D ) Charles Geveden, (D) Fred Nesler, (D) Frank Rasche, (D) Mike Cherry, (D) *J.R. Gray, (D) *John A. Arnold JR., (D) *James E. Bruce, (D) *Joseph E. "EDDIE" Ballard, (D) Gross Clay Lindsay, (D) *Jim Gooch JR, (D)Tommy Thompson, (D) Brent Yonts, (D) Dottie J. Sims, (D) Jody Richards, (D) Rogers Thomas, (D) Rob Wilkey, (D) Jimmie Lee, (D) James H. Thompson, (D) Steve Riggs, (D) Perry B. Clark, (D) Robert R. Damron, (D) Rick W. Rand, (D) Royce W. Adams,(D) Charlie Hoffman, (D) Arnold R. Simpson, (D) Mitchel B. "Mike" Denham, (D) John Will Stacy, (D) Carolyn Belcher, (D) Don Pasley, (D) Adrian K. Arnold,(D)Susan Westrom, (D) Harry Moberly JR, (D) Rick Nelson, (D) Ted "TEDDY" Edmonds,(D)Ancel Smith, (D) W. Keith Hall, (D) Charles "CHUCK" Meade, (D) Robin L. Webb, (D) Hubert Collins , (D) Tanya Pullin, (D) Rocky Adkins, (D) Baron Hill , (D) Craig Fry, (D) Patrick Bauer, (D) Thomas Kromkowski, (D) Scott Pelath, (D) Dan Stevenson, (D) Chester Dobis, (D) Robert Kuzman, (D) Joe Micon, (D) Sheila Klinker, (D) Ron Herrell, (D) Ron Liggett, (D) Tiny Adams, (D) Terri Jo Austin, (D) Scott Reske, (D) Dale Grubb, (D) Clyde Kersey, (D) Alan Chowning, (D) Phil Pflum, (D) Peggy Welch, (D) Jerry Denbo, (D) Dave Crooks, (D) John Gregory Frenz A, (D) Terry Goodin, (D) Robert Bischoff, (D) Markt Lytle, (D) Paul Robertson, (D) James Bottorff, (D) William Cochran, (D) Dennie Oxley, (D) Russ Stilwell, (D) Dennis Avery, (D) Trent VanHaaften, (D) Win Moses Jr., (D) Ted Strickland, (D) Kimberly Zurz, (D) Charlie Wilson (D) Marc Dann, (D) Kenneth Carano, (D) John Boccieri, (D) William Hartnett, (D) Derrick Seaver, (D) Todd Book, (D) John Domenick, (D) L. George Distel, (D) John Dingell, (D) John J. Gleason, (D) Doug Bennett, (D) Jennifer Elkins, (D) Matt Gillard, (D) Stephen Adamini, (D) Rich Brown,

(D) John W. Drummond, (D) Glenn Reese, (D) Linda H. Short, (D) Thomas L. Moore, (D) NikkiI Setzler, (D) Gerald Molloy, (D) Kent Williams, (D) John Yancey Mcgill, (D) John C. Land III, (D) *E. Dewitt Mccraw,
(D) *Olin R. Phillips, (D) Walt Mcleod, (D) Mike Anthony, (D) Herb Kirsh, (D) Douglas Jennings, JR., (D) Denny W. Neilson, (D) James A. "JIM" Battle, JR., (D) C. Alex Harvin III, (D) Jimmy C. Bales, (D) Thomas N. Rhoad, (D) Harry L. Ott, JR., (D) Bill Bowers, (D) Mike Easley, (D) Beverly Perdue, (D) Roy Cooper,(D) Mike Mcintyre, (D) Marc Basnight, (D) Scott Thomas, (D) Clark Jenkins, (D) Robert Holloman, (D) Cecil Hargett, JR., (D) R. C. Soles, JR., (D) Charles Albertson, (D) A. B. Swindell, (D) Tony Rand, (D) Daniel Clodfelter,
(D) David Hoyle, (D) Walter Dalton, (D) Joe Queen, (D) Martin Nesbitt, (D) Bill Owens, JR, (D) Bill Culpepper, III, (D)Alice Underhill, (D) Russell Tucker, (D) Arthur Williams, III, (D) Edith Warren, (D) Marian Mclawhorn, (D) William Wainwright, (D) Dewey Hill, (D) Edd Nye, (D) Joe Tolson, (D) Jim Crawford, (D) Marvin W Lucas,
(D) Douglas Yongue, (D) Ronnie Sutton, (D) Lucy Allen, (D) Earl Jones, (D) Alice Bordsen, (D) Pryor Gibson,(D) Lorene Coates, (D) Hugh Holliman, (D) Walt Church, (D) Jim Harrell, (D) James Black, (D) Bob England,(D)D. Bruce Goforth, (D) Rick Boucher, (D ) Joe Manchin, III, (D ) Darrell McGraw, (D) Alan Mollohan, (D) Nick Rahall, (D) Jeffrey V. Kessler, (D) Robert H. "Bob" Plymale, (D) John Pat Fanning , (D) Earl Ray Tomblin, (D ) Billy Wayne Bailey, Jr., (D) Anita Skeens Caldwell, (D) Shirley Love, (D) Bill Sharpe, (D) Roman W. Prezioso, Jr. (D)Jon Blair Hunter, (D) Mike Ross , (D ) Joe DeLong, (D) Randy Swartzmiller, (D) Tim Ennis, (D) Kenneth D. Tucker, (D) Scott G. Varner, (D) Dave Pethtel, (D) J.D. Beane, (D) Brady R. Paxton, (D ) Kevin J. Craig, (D) Jim Morgan, (D) Don Perdue, (D ) Joe C. Ferrell , (D ) K. Steven Kominar, (D ) Harry Keith White, (D) Richard Browning, (D) W. Richard "Rick" Staton, (D) Eustace Frederick , (D) Marshall Long, (D) Gerald L. Crosier,
(D) *Virginia Mann, (D) *Robert S. Kiss, (D) Ron Thompson, (D) Thomas W. Campbell, (D ) Tom Louisos, (D) David G. Perry, (D) John Pino , (D) Sharon Spencer, (D)Jon Amores , (D) Mark Hunt, (D ) William F. "Bill" Stemple, (D) Brent Boggs, (D) Sam Argento, (D) Joe Talbott, (D ) Bill Hartman, (D) Bill Proudfoot, (D) Doug Stalnaker, (D) Mary M. Poling, (D) Samuel J. "Sam" Cann, (D) Robert "Bob" Beach, (D) Larry A. Williams, (D)Stan Shaver, (D) Harold Michael, (D) Jerry L. Mezzatesta, (D) Bob Tabb, (D) Paul Kanjorski, (D) John Murtha,(D)Tim Holden, (D) Vincent Fumo, (D) Michael O'Pake, (D) Tom Scrimenti, (D) Joseph Markosek, (D) Frank Dermody, (D) Victor Lescovitz, (D) Timothy Solobay, (D) Peter Daley, (D) Lawrence Roberts, (D) James Shaner,(D) Joseph Petrarca, (D) James Casorio, (D) Thomas Tangretti, (D) Edward Wojnaroski, (D) Thomas Yewcic,
(D) Camille "Bud" George, (D) Michael Hanna, (D) Robert Belfanti, (D) James Wansacz, (D) Todd Eachus,(D)Kevin Blaum, (D) Neal Goodman, (D) Richard Grucela, (D) William T. Stachowski, (D) Ginny A. Fields,
(D) Robert K. Sweeney, (D) Aileen M. Gunther, (D) Bill Magee, (D) Darrel J. Aubertine, (D) Francine DelMonte,(D)Robin Schimminger, (D) William L. Parment, (D) Michael Michaud, (D) Bruce Bryant, (D) Christopher Hall,(D) John Martin, (D) Troy Jackson, (D) Rosaire Paradis, (D) Jeremy Fischer, (D) Raymond Wotton, (D) George Bunker, (D) John Wakin, (D) Edward Dugay, (D) Thomas Watson, (D) John Richardson, (D) Sonya Sampson, (D) Rodney Jennings, (D) Susanne Ketterer, (D) Janet Mills, (D) John Patrick, (D) Robert Duplessie, (D) Timothy Driscoll, (D) Elizabeth Ready, (D) Jeb Spaulding, (D) Dick Sears, (D) James Leddy, (D) Virginia Lyons, (D) Robert Starr, (D) Sara Kittell, (D) Richard Mazza, (D) Susan Bartlett, (D) Mark Macdonald, (D) Ann Cummings,(D) John Campbell, (D) Matt Dunne, (D) Peter Welch, (D) Alice Miller, (D) Jim Mccullough, (D) Mark Larson,
(D) John Patrick Tracy, (D) Albert Audette, (D) George Allard, (D) Richard Howrigan, (D) Avis Gervais,(D) Kathleen Keenan, (D) Albert Perry, (D) Floyd Nease, (D) Shap Smith, (D) John Rodgers, (D) Maxine Grad,(D) Harry Monti, (D) Tony Klein, (D) Michael Obuchowski, (D) Carolyn Partridge, (D) Steve Darrow, (D) Alice Emmons, (D) Jim Masland, (D) Alice Nitka, (D) Daniel Adams Eaton, (D) Roland J. Lefebvre, (D) Claire D. Clarke, (D) Robert E. Martel, (D) Dominick J. Ruggerio, (D) Frank A. Ciccone III, (D) Walter S. Felag Jr.,
(D) John F. McBurney III, (D) Joseph A. Montalbano, (D) Michael J. Damiani, (D) Roger Badeau, (D) Marc A. Cote, (D) John J. Tassoni Jr., (D) Joseph M. Polisena, (D) Beatrice A. Lanzi, (D) Michael J. McCaffrey,(D) Stephen D. Alves, (D) Leonidas P. Raptakis, (D) Peter G. Palumbo, (D) Robert B. Jacquard, (D) Matthew J. McHugh, (D) Brian Patrick Kennedy, (D) Stephen R. Ucci, (D) Joseph J. Voccola, (D) Peter J. Petrarca,(D) Roger A. Picard, (D) Arthur J. Corvese, (D) William San Bento Jr., (D) Jan Malik, (D) Michael B. Forte Jr.,
(D) Robert O'Leary, (D) Marc Pacheco, (D) Stephen Brewer, (D) Richard Moore, (D) William "Smitty" Pignatelli,(D)Stephen Kulik, (D) Daniel Keenan, (D) Peter Kocot, (D) Geoffrey Hall, (D) Patricia Walrath, (D) Stephen LeDuc, (D) William Greene, Jr., (D) Bruce Ayers, (D) William Galvin, (D) Garrett Bradley, (D) Christine Canavan,(D) Thomas O'Brien, (D) Brian Knuuttila, (D) Anne Gobi, (D) Harold Naughton, Jr., (D) John Fresolo, (D) Biagio "Billy" Ciotto, (D) Joan V. Hartley, (D) Tom Colapietro, (D) Antonio "Tony" Guerrera, (D) Brian J. O'Connor,(D)Edward E. Moukawsher, (D) Steven T. Mikutel, (D) Jack Malone, (D) Linda A. Orange, (D) Michael J. Cardin,(D)Stephen M. Jarmoc, (D) Peggy Sayers, (D) George M. Wilber, (D) Reginald G. Beamon, (D)Jeffrey J. Berger,(D) Roger Michele, (D) Kosta Diamantis, (D) John "Corky" Mazurek, (D) Emil "Buddy" Altobello, (D) Peter J. Panaroni Jr., (D) Stephen Dargan, (D) Louis Esposito Jr., (D) James Amann, (D) Richard Roy, (D) Terry Backer,(D) Kevin Ryan, (D) Ruth Ann Minner, (D) Anthony Deluca, (D) Robert Venables, SR , (D) Bethany Hall-Long,(D)John Vansant, (D) Michael Mulrooney, (D) John Viola,(D) Bruce Ennis.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Democrats DO get nra endorsements, the problem is that we keep sending a candidate to the national stage that has a horrible record on firearms rights, or can be believably painted as such.

If people felt thier computers or flat panel television sets were under attack and might be banned, you would see a similar response. There is no question that those things do not "kill" and are not routinely "involved in crime" (though I suppose the argument could be made that computers are)...but the fact of the matter is that to people that are not anti-gun, guns are just inanimate objects that also happen to be expensive legally owned property that was worked long and hard for. Of course they're going to vote against other self interests they MIGHT get to protect what they ALREADY HAVE. And that doesn't even begin to cover those who are the rabid second amendment defenders.

Vote to maybe gain a maybe? Or vote to keep what yu already have - a sure thing? This isn't rocket science, and I mean that not as an insult, but rather to point out that theres no reason to be looking for a complex answer when its all very simple in reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #158
176. if valid, that sounds reasonable
I was quoting an argument made elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #141
215. By chance was that study done by the NRA? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traction311 Donating Member (229 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #13
74. Obama has already come in in favor of DC's right to ban handguns
N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinniped Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
82. Repukes always conveniently forget their hero Ronnie and his POS successor....
banned some stuff in 1986 and 1989.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #82
103. Reagan was the most anti-gun governor in California history...
he passed the Mulford Act, which was intended to keep guns out of the wrong (color) hands.

Reagan and California gun control

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control


----------------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #13
85. Obama hunting? If he has not been a LONG time hunter the
press would turn it into a JOKE.....rightly so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
198. can you imagine the images?
a black man shooting a gun? there goes the South.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pogue.Mahone Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
152. Hee hee hee...
i should give them the screaming meemees then! not only am i packin' heat, i look and talk just like 'em!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. Can I buy a nuke?
If the court rules the wrong way on this they are opening the door to absurdity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Maybe there will be WMD shows all around the country
I'm thinking of a grenade launcher myself, though I'm sure that bunker busting mini nukes will be all the rage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushmeister0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yes, you know well regulated militias these days are
more than just flintlocks and powder horns. RPGs, carbombs, IEDs, perhaps a few shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles . . . It depends on what you mean by "gun."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. I must admit I'd be partial to the mini-nuke, but
I expect they'll be a bit pricey initially. If so, I might be interested in a likely more affordable grenade launcher for now. Probably the cost of the mini-nukes will come down after they become prevalent. That should be the best time to buy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. You can buy mortars
,grenade launcher, flame thrower, blocks of explosives, etc right now.

Just comply with your local regulations.

That is the funny thing. People who purchase NFA regulated firearms and destructive devices dont use them in crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
53. Hey, Thanks! I didn't know that.
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 11:03 PM by anotheryellowdog
The people I deal with now for weaponry are Republic Arms on West 34th Street in Houston. I'll have to check with them for details. There is an apartment complex that borders on my back property line. Many of the drunks and drug addicts that live over there are pretty unruly. Last Thursday night one of them was so loaded he/she/whatever (I wasn't able to catch them) crashed their vehicle through my privacy fence. Of course I called the cops. I spoke with the apartment manager the next day about the incident. She was more defensive than helpful. Well, between the cops and my talk with the apartment manager the denizens of that slum lord seem to have quieted down, but my fence still has a big hole in it and nobody is stepping forward to do the right thing - kind of like Bush and Pelosi. Anyway, I figure maybe I oughta just fire a few bazooka rounds over there. If I wipe out three or four cars, maybe that will get their attention. It seems like nothing else will. In any case, I don't see why I should have to pay to repair the goddamn damage. I didn't do it. There's just no accountability these days. By the way, if you live in Houston and you're wondering where this occurred, it happened in Spring Branch. Demographically speaking, that should tell you something.

On edit: I've emailed Mayor Bill White (D., Houston) about this situation before. His office says there's nothing they can do about it. I take that to mean there's nothing they're willing to do about it. And we think 2008 will make a difference. Who was it said, "All politics is local."?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #53
97. Yellowdog--You're a poster boy for gun control...
People like you are the best argument for gun control. I guess you don't realize you sound like a right-wing asshole bent on vengeance, but you do. Y'know, the kind you read about in the newspapers every day; the gun who gets pissed, gets drunk and gets his gun. You're doing more to lend credence to the idea of gun control than I am. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #97
150. Thank-you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #53
229. hmm
By the way, if you live in Houston and you're wondering where this occurred, it happened in Spring Branch. Demographically speaking, that should tell you something.

It didn't, so I asked google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Branch,_Houston,_Te...

"Categories: Neighborhoods in Houston | Texas communities with Hispanic majority populations"

Is that what it tells me, demographically speaking?

But what does *that* tell me, and why do I want to know?


I've had problems with absentee landlords renting to drug dealers and pimps on my block.

I solved one by doing what I should have done a year or so before I did.

I wrote a letter to the owner of the property listing the behaviours of his tenants that were interfering in my quiet enjoyment of my property, ranging from late-night noise to spitting in my driveway. I offered to cooperate in any way he liked when he served notice of termination of their tenancy on the ground that they were interfering in the conduct of his business -- by exposing him to liability for the interference in my enjoyment of his property, which I was otherwise going to bring action against him for in nuisance -- if they did not cease violating the statutory terms of their tenancy or vacate.

(Of course, if they had actually caused damage to my property, I would have stated my claim, and probably offered to waive it, without prejudice of course, if the nuisance stopped, in the interests of getting what I really wanted as quickly and easily as possible.)

They vacated at the end of the month.

I can probably find that letter, if you'd like a copy. Probably a fair bit cheaper than your plan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
173. Save your time Pav
You really can't reason with these Scummer (D) NY bots
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
184. Check out the website for the Knob Creek Shoot in KY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushmeister0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Not that DC had a massive gun death problem or anything
but didn't they change the name of the NBA team from the "Bullets" to the Wizards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. And Geneva does not
the cause is not guns. It is much easier to impose gun control than to address socio-economic and racial disparity issues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plucketeer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. IF...
... you could ban guns, gang-bangers would just resort to drive-by bow 'n arrow attacks - or drive-by knifings! That's what kinda mentality you're dealing with the the gun-lovin' crowd! :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. You are half right..
which is the problem. The gang banger or his illegal weapon.

The "gun lovin" crowd isn't out bangin...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. or you could ban guns
cause riots...and bring about essentially a low level civil war in this country....cause thats really what is best for this country. If just .5% of gun owners decided to take up arms against the government- it would quickly overwhelm the local police forces and force us to bring back that army from overseas to put down the "rebellion"....midwestern towns look like battlefields with tanks.

and thats not even taking into account the peacful protests

always beware the law of unintended consequences
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
56. In your scenario I imagine there would be a lot of LEOs on the side of the rebellion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightthegoodfightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
64. Right......
..............laughing so hard it hurts.......... because that's been the experience of DC.

Laughing so hard it truly hurts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #64
91. D.C. is a city
there werent many legal guns to begin with--its different down in the swamps of florida or the backroads of alabama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightthegoodfightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #91
94. If You Say So
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 08:59 AM by fightthegoodfightnow
But I'm betting otherwise.

Even so, if you truly think the swamps of Florida and the backroads of Alabama are worth a civil war over guns, you need to get out more.

In another post......... you keep calling DC a 'shit hole'. Obviously, you prefer the swamps of Florida and the back roads of Alabama. LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #21
113. No, they'd still use guns.
In case you haven't noticed, 80 years of prohibition and harsh enforcement tactics haven't had any effect on the street availability of cannabis or diacetyl morphine. They could just disguise guns as routine cocaine shipments...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. problem with D.C. was the same with NYC
and it is not solved through gun control...its solved through gentrification, economic stimulus, and good city government....D.C. will be the same sh*t hole it is with or without the handgun ban...which btw only applies to civilians- off duty and retired Metro police can keep guns- because cops never beat/kill their wives or have their guns stolen from them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightthegoodfightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #28
58. Sh*t Hole?
Ok.......it takes a certain amount of civic restraint not to respond with .......... ok......... I'll refrain. Anyone who thinks DC is a shit hole doesn't know DC.

We have a great city government, a great bond rating, huge investment of capital, unprecedented new construction, a very diverse city, growing property values, and a host of other things that make DC a great place to live.

I'll leave you to argue New York is 'better'. I don't think any comparison is required or necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
209. How do you know DC wouldn't be twice as bad without the ban? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sergeiAK Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #209
210. How do you know it wouldn't be better without the ban? -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. If they do place it under the 14th, national regulations won't be overturned.
Simply because national regulations apply to everybody, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as opposed to state laws which may vary and thus offer unequal protection. That is where the 14th Amendment's power really kicks into play. If they say an individual right to own firearms exists, then naturally D.C. as well as every municipality in the US that currently bans guns would have to be consistent with municipalities that do allow and regulate individual ownership.

In the long-run, the side-effect of such a ruling could likely end up being a uniform code of regulations dealing with private ownership of firearms as a result of compliance with the 14th. Currently, the US has an ad hoc approach to the whole thing, and I'm not sure it's working out very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. You can now, not that hard
start a company doing advanced research on nuclear weapons. Pantex has nukes, for example.

So yes, with enough time and money you can buy a legal machine gun or a nuclear weapon.

The absurdity is moronic gun control. It is a divisive issue and does NOTHING to address the root cause of violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
163. The absurdity is insane Americans
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 06:03 PM by depakid
who have pathological obsessions with violence and firearms.

THAT's the major root cause of the problem- other nations realize that- which is why they have exponentially less gun violence and mass shootings than one sees as commonplace in the states.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #163
188. Obssessions and delusions.
Gun lovers in this country are as realistic as Republicans were about the Iraq invasion. You can try to reason with them until you're blue in the face, but they'll hang on their fantasies and their dream of a gun in every home. They're oblivious to the truth about gun violence and frankly, I don't think they care who gets hurt. It's all ME,ME,ME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. You can, actually
But the process is limited by the Non-Proliferation treaties to which the USA is a party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. the wrong way?
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 07:07 PM by bossy22
if they rule the wrong way you won't be able to buy nukes :)....well the wrong way for me...but thats another story. The 2nd amendment i believe only covers arms that are part of a normal infantry mans arsenal....that means rifles,shotguns, and pistols.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tchunter Donating Member (236 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. thats a straw man if i ever saw one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
48. yes, of course you can
Private citizens can and do own all sorts of weapons. They even manufacture them and sell them to the Pentagon and to other governments. You can own a fighter jet or a tank - for example, if you operate a museum you may want to do that. Laws about how you use those weapons, and where, and in what manner are legitimate and do not erode the line between government power and civil rights. You cannot store a nuclear weapon in your garage. That is a public safety issue, not a possession issue.

Why is it OK, and never mentioned, for wealthy individuals to possess arsenals and promote and distribute any sort of weapon at all, yet we don't apply the same standard to the everyday working person?

Laws against behavior are one thing. Laws against possession - be it pot or be it a weapon - are another.

Possession laws are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, never solve the supposed problem, lead to corruption in government and law enforcement, and are always unevenly applied and therefore disproportionately burdensome and oppressive for poor people and minority people.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #48
55. Many ignore the racist beginings of gun control and discrimnatory of its effects today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #2
54. Hyperbole
That is not what is on the table with Hiller. Being able to legally own and have a gun in your home to defend yourself in DC is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
88. Hmmmm, when the 2nd was written the militia took there
arms home at night. They hung their most effective and second most powerful weapon over the door or mantle. Today no one expects the National Guards person to take home their machine gun let alone the other weapons at their disposal down at the armory. The 2nd no longer means what it did 200 years ago and rightly so. What we need is an updated 2nd but to think about it we really need to update/redo the constitution but that will never be done.

A better idea is to split America into two or three separate countries with different constitutions and different social/economic systems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
106. The Nuclear Bogeyman Argument is the absurdity here.
Can I buy a nuke? If the court rules the wrong way on this they are opening the door to absurdity.

The gun debate in 2008 is about whether mentally competent adults with clean records can own non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed civilian (NFA Title 1) small arms subject to the existing barrel length and overall length restrictions of the NFA, and with carry of weapons subject to state licensure. The Nuclear Bogeyman Argument is the absurdity here.

FWIW, the 2nd Amendment refers specifically to "arms," not ordnance; nukes are crew-served ordnance, not arms to be kept and borne by an individual. In context, the amendment has always been understood to refer to small arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #106
137. Ok nukes are over the top. I just want basic modern military arms.
I'll settle for rpgs, fully automatic assault rifles, and mortars. The whole point of the second is that, as a last bulwark against tyranny, the citizens should be armed with the same basic infantry weapons as the state provides its soldiers. We should be as well armed as any modern insurgent force. I really do not want to have to face Blackwater Mercs with a hunting rifle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #137
144. You can get those now!
Just complete the paperwork. Perfectly legal. NFA controlled weapons and destructive devices can be transferred to those who paid the stamp.

You just never hear about them because no one who owns NFA weapons is out shooting up the block.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JBoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
128. Maybe if you're a collector. You could get one of these babies:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushmeister0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. Are you sure you want Cheney blasting away at quail in DC, though?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. He's already killed off most of the deer in the area....
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 04:15 PM by DeSwiss

Wonkette:Cheney's Victim Still Rots on Observatory Grounds

Its still there!!!






on edit: Its still there!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushmeister0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. OMG, he killed bambi? Did they ever find the killer of Chandra Levy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. He killed Bambi, but he was aiming at a lawyer.
As for Chandra Levy, it would seem that whether they "found" the killer or not, he still got away with it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
27. wouldn't it be so ironic to see the NRA a major supporter of
Republicans see this Conservative Supreme court get rid of gun ownership

if the NWO is going to be implemented gun ownership has to go bye bye

I will say gun ownership is going bye bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Doubt that...
you really think they are going to ban gun ownership?

Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. i think
the OP is being sarcastic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tchunter Donating Member (236 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. gun ownership will never go "bye bye"
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 07:43 PM by tchunter
it doesn't take a genius to build a simple zip gun or check out www.thehomegunsmith.com Its entirely possible to build your own firearm if you have the desire and skill you can build some nasty unregulated shit.



edited: just got home from work and am a little drunk from pouring for wine tastings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doug.Goodall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
34. The Gun-Pushers are slathering at the bit with the idea that everyone will be REQUIRED to own a gun
The whole F***ING country could become Kennesaw Georgia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Never heard that one..
but it would be to have one set of rules to regulate driving up the east cost with a legally purchased weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doug.Goodall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I hear the gun-pushers where I live talking
They say things like "If we could just get rid of these gun bans, everyone could have a gun".
This is followed by some other stupid comment like "An armed society is a polite society" and then they all laugh.

Right wing gun nuts make me sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Guns are expensive.
at least legal ones. If they are giving guns away I will put my name on the list.

The people who should make you sick are the people who kill other people with guns.

Take a quick google of swiss or finnish gun laws. They are similar or less restrictive than ours but people manage to refrain from killing each other.

There are very few gun banned cities in the US. And those bans only apply to people who can not buy their way around them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doug.Goodall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. It scares me the redneck just up the way in my condominium complex has a rifle
He says "it could shoot clean through this whole building!" which means to me it could shoot through the wall into my place. He is a fat beer drinking idiot, and I wish someone would come take that gun away from him before something bad happens.

People who are smart when they buy their expensive gun may not be so smart when they are mad and drunk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. I knew lots of "rednecks"
with access to explosives, earthmovers, and heavy weapons. No one ever got shot..

Who should come and take his weapon away for being "drunk and stupid".

Cars kill many more..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #40
57. Your posts are rapidly losing credability
For one thing no hand held firearm can shoot through a whole building...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightthegoodfightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. Let's Start with What is True
What part of this statement he said is not true?

"People who are smart when they buy their expensive gun may not be so smart when they are mad and drunk."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. I drunk as fuck.. should I post
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 11:33 PM by Pavulon
or go on a shootin spree. Should I go for a drive, clean my gun, or drink some more..

People who are smart when they buy their expensive car are less smart when they are drunk..

On Edit: Another beer. And aristotelian logic for me please....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightthegoodfightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. I'm Going to Go with Drink Some More
"People who are smart when they buy their expensive gun may not be so smart when they are mad and drunk."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I get mad and drunk on occasion
but manage not to shoot anyone. A miracle..

I don't drink and drive. I don't talk on my fucking phone and drive.

Killing a person while on the phone is no different than with a gun.

Tell me how you are any less dead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #66
119. The obvious solution is to outlaw alcohol...
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 10:39 AM by benEzra
:sarcasm:

FWIW, when we tried that, the alcohol ban was about as successful as D.C.'s gun ban, and for many of the same reasons.

(The CDC does put alcohol-related deaths at 100,000/yr, but I believe that number is probably overstated somewhat due to NHTSA inflation of "alcohol related" traffic deaths.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. How about does he even have a redneck neighbor
Nobody is smart when drunk. All other issues are irrelevant qualfiers at that point (mad, gun owner, sinner, saint, etc)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doug.Goodall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #57
182. The redneck has a rifle with a telescope on it that is about four feet long
It some kind of Winchester 300 magnum, and he does not mind showing it to people.
I live in a wood frame structure with a little brick firewall between each apartment. When he says he can shoot through the whole building, I believe him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #182
194. That's sounds like a very common hunting rifle
My grandfather used a bolt-action .300 Win. Mag rifle with scope to go elk hunting in Wyoming a few years ago.

It may be able to punch through an elk, but it can't shoot through a building, unless your entire building is sheetrock and plywood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #182
211. He is wrong and so are you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #40
89. Exactly, Doug. And "law abiding" citizens....
Are only "law abiding" until they shoot somebody. Domestic violence with guns is a good example of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #89
99. The same week a guy who had violated his probation
shot the student body president. A guy stabbed his wife 21 times.

YOU WILL NEVER stop violence by enforcing idiotic laws on people. That is why you do not see this in Switzerland.

There is are MANY cultural issues at work..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #89
100. Somebody called "ignored" keeps trying to argue with me! nt
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 09:22 AM by zanne
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #100
101. And my point is made...
gun control is all about ignored..Ignored underlying social issues. Ignored real issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #100
115. OMG! There you go again!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #115
121. !
!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #115
127. I can't see you! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #127
133. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #127
139. Some people never learn. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #139
146. Pinky...
Brain: Neo-cortex, frontal lobe
Pinky: Brainstem! Brainstem!
Brain: Hippocampus, neural node
Right hemisphere.
Brain: Pons and cortex visual
Pinky: Brainstem! Brainstem!
Brain: Sylvian fissure, pineal
Left hemisphere.
Brain: Cerebellum left!
Cerebellum right!
Synapse, hypothalamus
Striatum, dendrite.
Brain: Axon fibers, matter gray
Pinky: Brainstem! Brainstem!
Brain: Central tegmental pathway
Temporal lobe.
Brain: White core matter, forebrain, skull
Pinky: Brainstem! Brainstem!
Brain: Central fissure, cord spinal
Parietal.
Brain: Pia mater!
Menengeal vein!
Medulla oblongata and lobe limbic
Micro-electrodes...
Pinky: Naaarf!
P+B : THE BRAIN!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #89
143. Yet those law abiding citizens RARELY ever kill
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 11:41 AM by CRF450
Compared to drunk drivers and gang bangers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #89
195. And sometimes guns stop domestic violence
But you don't like to hear that, I'm sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #195
208. Oh, sure. We hear stories like that every day.
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 06:09 PM by zanne
:sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #208
212. I know I've posted my experience here at DU several times
And at least once in direct response to one of your posts.

But like I said, you don't like to hear those kind of stories. It messes up your rants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #212
213. I've read YOUR story...
Okay. So that's ONE compared to how many deaths by guns? You don't have a leg to stand on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #89
203. All male non-rapists aren't rapists until they rape someone
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #37
51. Your reasoning is correct . . .
unfortunately, we aren't the Swiss or the Finnish --- especially since the GOP has destroyed our
economy and our safety nets --- fired up the Drug War to scare the hell out of citizens ---
and began turning America into "third world America" ---

We are not the society we used to be ---
especially with corporate-media over the past 30 years frightening the hell out of citizens.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. what about
left-wing gun nuts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doug.Goodall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. I just don't like guns and I don't like people who want to spread their 'love of guns'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Great, I don't like Futons..
and those who spread love for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. thats fine
you have a right to not like guns, and you are certainly not alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightthegoodfightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #45
63. Amen to That
















.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #36
73. that "politeness" is sure working out well in shopping malls and college campuses
lately, ennit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #73
93. Not so much at firing ranges...(nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. nice overexageration
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 08:25 PM by bossy22
....if the whole country was kennesaw georgia we would have virtually no crime...it would be pretty peaceful

wooo...look at those crime rates

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Kennesaw&s...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doug.Goodall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. W00T! The threat of impending violence keeps crime down
Just what I want to experience; A publicly supported police state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. actually
i think guns have very little to do with it....its just generally a nice quiet small town...you know not everyone has a gun in that town- the ordinance was just symbolic- but you acted as if, if the United States were like Kenesaw Georgia, it would be a horrible thing- and i showed you how safe a place it was. It is also a very nice town, drove through it once on my eastern coast trip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #42
79. of course
What do you think the police do?

It is only those who have lived their life relatively insulated, enjoying privilege and status that is taken for granted, who can afford to indulge these fantasies about how life works. GIVEN that you have an aggressive suburban police force at your call, GIVEN that you live among those who are "winning" and at the top of the food chain, and GIVEN that you are at the protected center of a massively armed and highly deadly empire, then and only then can you skip through the tulips and imagine that you live in some peaceful and safe world. You are one of the chosen and protected ones, serving the killing machine by working at the headquarters of the killing machine - the nerve center that is protected by massive armaments and the continual threat of horrible violence to all of those outside of the privileged circle of corporate white suburbia - and enjoying the protection and perks that those who are in that position are given in exchange for their meek complicity and willing participation.

You trade physical safety for spiritual death, because that physical safety can only be purchased at the price of complicity and moral compromise.

The opposite of war is not peace, it is slavery - that is the reality for most of the people in the world. If you think peace is more important than justice, then you are probably taking the slave masters side in this struggle. That is what the slave master requires you to do if you want peace and security. You are calling for disarming the slaves, but not the masters. You are shocked by violence, but not by in justice and oppression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #79
140. I think you're living in a 19th century novel...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightthegoodfightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #34
61. EXACTLY
They actually believe the world is safer with MORE guns.

On another board, they actually argued that a restaurant or bar that wanted to bar guns should face increased liability for doing so.

It's soooooooo f*cking maddening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #61
202. Speaking only for myself
I do not believe that more guns necessarily makes the world less safe, or that less guns makes the world more safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #34
142. I dont see any pro-gunners wanting to require everyone to have a gun
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 11:59 AM by CRF450
Other than the sarcastic "every child, teacher, student, mother, etc etc etc should be armed!" remarks. Where the fuck do you people get this idea from??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #34
199. Writers who abuse hyperbole deserve to be TAKEN OUT AND SHOT!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #34
201. i fully support this
as a DC resident, I want every adult in the city to be issued and required to carry, at all times, a military grade weapon. I bet then they'd let us vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
46. BUSHCO now wants to take the guns away from individuals. Gee Wonder why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightthegoodfightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #46
59. Another Person Who Has No Idea What He Is Talking About
Someone explain to him what the DoJ's position is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
50. If they have any brains at all, they will see reason ---
and not repeat retarded right-wing thinking . . .

This isn't about "expansive" interpetation of the amendment ---
it would have to ELIMINATE the first 13 words in order for it to mean what the NRA wants it
to mean.

The Drug War is about money and violence and prisons, locking up as many people of color
as possible --- and eventually everyone, if they can.
Guns keep the Drug War in business ---
So if we want less of the Drug War, we should want more gun control ---

Anyone who has the ability to understand the plight of these cities/the harm to citiizen victims will vote for gun control and not a Wild West America ---

Anyone who lives in DC won't want to put more guns on the streets ---

Now, this is a very right-wing court, out to prove itself . . .
so they will be proving they don't have brains -- nor reason.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. don't have the time to go into this and im too lazy
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 09:25 PM by bossy22
"Anyone who has the ability to understand the plight of these cities/the harm to citiizen victims will vote for gun control and not a Wild West America"

Cause gun control works so well in D.C. right now.....DC has the most restrictive laws in the nation- its actually more restrictive than most places in Europe...and look at their murder rate.

the law will most likely get struck down- and the end result will be no change in the crime rates...and 5 years later no one will really remember the fight. NYC allows handgun ownership and theire murder rate is just a fraction of what D.C.'s rate is....and get this....they are near an "easy gun state" aka Pennsylvania...D.C. has no one else but itself to blame for its problems- other cities have figured out how to make their streets safe without banning handguns


i also suggest you go and read some of the info on www.dcguncase.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightthegoodfightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. You Mean Lower Today than the Year Prior to the Law's Enactment
LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #52
70. Increasing violence by putting more guns on the streets is not a very intelligent
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 12:24 AM by defendandprotect
idea ---

A more progressive idea would be to give DC statehood and to actually stop oppressing African-Americans and other people of color --- I think their jobless rate is still 50% ---
and to STOP the phony Drug War --

Let's try those things and then let's see who needs guns and why ---

More guns will never be the answer any more than more violence will ever be the answer ---

Additionally, note that police officers want gun control ---

Again, as I said, for anyone to support an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as meaning "individuals" . . . they will have to eliminate the first 13 words of the amendment . . .
and I guess that the founders didn't need those words and didn't mean what they say---

Meanwhile, while not directly related, certainly those who profit from violence and guns and weapons are not alone in seeking more guns --- and not alone in trying to create perpetual wars.
At the highest levels our nation is profiteering from violence --- from invasion --- from brutalizing people of color, people of another race and creed --- for OIL.

Not much difference between these two battles ---




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #70
95. It is really simple
we can address the reason people are using guns to commit murder and suicide or we can try to fake it with gun control.

Common sense gun control is fine. I have no problem with requiring a CCW co carry concealed. No problem with background checks.

It does suck to try to drive up the east coast because there are 10 different laws regulating how a handgun is stored in a car.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traction311 Donating Member (229 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #52
177. NYC has draconian handgun laws
Have you checked their rediculous 6 month waiting period lately? How about laws that make it nearly impossible to obtain a carry permit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #177
191. Why is that a problem??
Move if you disagree with the laws so you can go carry a steel penis in a more friendly penis purchasing state. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traction311 Donating Member (229 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #191
196. Sorry, "move if you disagree" is wrong
Should people in the South have moved when abortion was illegal? No, we needed to make it safe and legal in every state. Why is a six month waiting period a problem? Are you serious? I'm against waiting periods of three days.

This is the only issue I'm not liberal on. I used to be though, but my views on guns greatly evolved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #196
197. If you can't abide by the laws as written, you shouldn't own a gun.
Period. Find another way to main and kill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Traction311 Donating Member (229 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #197
204. If laws are unjust and classist
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 03:44 PM by Traction311
They shold be changed. You are allowed to get a carry permit in NYC if you carry several thousand dollars per day. That's classist. Classism is just a step below racism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #204
221. If a MAJORITY of people in a COMMUNITY think the laws are fair and you don't
MOVE to a community where people think like you. Why should a community change it's laws to accommodate your fixation on gun ownership??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sergeiAK Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #221
225. Why should a community change its laws to accomodate your fixation
on allowing abortion?

If you don't like it, you can just move, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #221
230. Holy shit
By this logic if a majority of people in a community think it's OK to teach creationism in schools it's OK and if you don't want your kids being taught it go move. Or if a majority think laws against homosexuality are OK it's fine and all homosexuals should move. Rather scary argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #191
220. I will speak up again
when ever I hear the penis thing. I am a gun owner and a female. I have no penis envy. I love being a woman. Guns are not penis substitutes for cripes sake. It is an adolescent statement that drives me up the wall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #220
222. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #220
231. I was pretty offended by that statement too
And I am neither female or a gun owner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #191
223. Damn right, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
69. K&R n/t
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
71. Rightardation of America, Making Life Much more Deadly for All
for a bunch of paranoid schizos to feel more at home in their world of the never ending end game, all while gun manufacturers make a "killing".

Lobbying for guns was never about "rights".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKthatsIT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #71
76. Yeah..when its an Amendment its solid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #71
92. Damn right. Most of these gun-pushers were hypnotized...


They're a big help to the gun lobbies who own so many of our congressmen. The gun manufacturers make out like bandits while more and more people become victims of gun violence. Nice going, guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #92
96. Who is making them victims?
It is so much easier to "support" gun control than to actually address root cause. IE the reason Zurich and Geneva are much safer than DC. Even with much less restrictive gun control laws.

More people are KNIFED to death than killed with "assault rifles" like the scurry lookin one in the cartoon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #92
102. The problem with that sentiment is...
(posted by zanne)


The problem with that sentiment is that you are primarily after lawful and responsible ownership, rather than criminal misuse.

You fight to outlaw popular civilian rifles, even though rifles are so rarely misused. You continually attack CHL holders, who are statistically even less likely to commit violent crimes than the police.

I don't oppose all gun regulation; I've posted before the whole litany of stuff I'm OK with. I do oppose senseless attacks on lawful ownership, though. The chronically law-abiding statistically are not the problem and never have been.

Between 65 and 80 million of us lawfully and responsibly own guns. We're keeping them. We're certainly willing to work with you on addressing criminal misuse, but not on further curtailing lawful and responsible ownership.



----------------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

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

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #92
104. More Guns=More Violence with Guns
they want their deadly weapons in society yet they don't want to take responsibility for the death hey cause in society. It's never their fault or the gun itself. They always find
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #104
105. Visit Geneva or the Swiss Rural Areas
Firearms ARE prevalent. People use them for sporting and some for hunting. People have machine guns.

That fact destroys the concept that just because guns are present means they cause violence.

The person responsible is the person pulling the trigger. How much easier could it be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #105
107. This isn't Geneva... this is America
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 09:45 AM by fascisthunter
nor will it ever be... your living in a fantasy and it's getting people killed in the mean time.

The person pulled a trigger, because the person had a gun. You live in denial....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #107
109. Really. Look at how gun crime
is distributed across poverty. Lots of bangin going on in golf club communities?

Not so much crippin in Telluride, Darien, and Greenwich. That is america.

They could have pulled the trigger with the muzzle to their head, instead they POINTED at person and FIRED.

They PULLED the trigger. Nothing is GETTING people killed, PEOPLE are doing the killing. They are responsible.

Not the gun, not the knife, and not the SUV.

You run a stop sign in your car while jacking jaw on the phone, reaching for a drink, or messing with your radio you are just as guilty.

Depraved indifference murder. Except those numbers are viewed in a different light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #109
112. Sorry... You Don't Want to Deal with Reality but Want to Change it
to suit your dream of a world with MORE guns even though proof says they are dangerous, especially in America. You don't want to deal with that reality at all.

I don't don't like the NRA's right wing agenda in pushing guns on America for profit. It's sick, disingenuous and immoral.

There is no purpose nor necessity for having more guns in an already violent country. The only need is a selfish need by gun enthusiasts, profit driven manufacturers, and paranoids who want to live in a militarized society.

All normal folks seem to enjoy what rights they already had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #112
130. Why should I be prohibited from buying beer
because some asshole drives drunk. The problem is the assholes, not the beer.

There are millions of people who responsibly consume alcohol. We tried banning it to stop assholes, did not work.

Gun control is for the lazy people, and pawned off on those to stupid or ill informed to know the difference. It is for people who are to chickenshit to address the following:

Black on Black crime, 1-9 black americans between 18-32 in in jail. Unacceptable.
Minorities are being trapped into gangs and lifestyles that lead to this outcome.
Media advertises death. We can not advertise for cigs or booze to kids. But thug life is cool. Listen to what is being put in peoples heads.
Think about it, media works, or companies would not pay billions for it.

Economic and educational disparity cause poverty and community decline. This crosses racial lines.

The "war on drugs" promotes violence by criminalizing shit that grows in the ground. It is insane.

Mental health care is not available. I have high dollar corporate insurance, and it limits access to mental health care. If you are poor and need help for bi-pole or clinical depression, you are fucked. Suicides are a lumped into "gun violence" numbers to blame the gun, rather than try to help those who need care.

That shit CAUSES people to ACT violently. It causes them to destroy lives.

Any attempt to blame the outcome of these things on "guns" is ignorant. This is what we HAVE that the SWISS do not.

The days of politicians passing bullshit gun control as a cover for actually doing their jobs and fixing that list is over!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #130
132. Go Push Guns Somewhere Else
I know that's your agenda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #132
135. One sentence response to that...
wow. Did you even READ that post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #135
138. Isn't it sad when truth cant get past ignorance?
I agree with everything you said. The democratic party needs to step away from the anti-gun position and focus on whats really causing guns violence, poverty and such is the biggest problem related to gun deaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #138
145. At the top they have
these guys are out of step with the direction the party is going. Thankfully.

A few will vote to appease their base but I think they got the picture after the events that led up to a republican congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CRF450 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #145
147. Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #135
153. He is a one trick pony and not interested in facts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tidy_bowl Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #112
172. I am so glad I do not...
....live in your fascist society given your skewed viewpoint. As your handle implies you need look no further for a fascist than your own mirror. I believe that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us all including you against yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #104
110. More guns IN CRIMINAL HANDS = more violence.
The problem with the gun-control lobby since the early 1990's is that they don't particularly care about the .38 in your local criminal's waistband; what REALLY upsets them is the small-caliber rifle with the protruding handgrip sitting in my gun safe, and the fact that I (37, squeaky clean record, college educated, never even had a speeding ticket, but a working-class peon rather than an Important Person) have a license to carry a weapon. Which is why they devote all their time and effort to banning small-caliber rifles (rarely misused) and attacking CHL holders (less likely to commit violent crimes than even the police), rather than looking for common-ground approaches to mitigating criminal violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #110
114. kid picks up daddies gun... BAM
there goes that talking point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #114
118. And that happens so rarely as to make national news when it happens...
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 10:36 AM by benEzra
and leaving a gun within a child's reach is already a crime in most jurisdictions, including my state.

On a per-owning-household basis, swimming pools are approximately one hundred times more likely to result in a fatal accident involving a child, yet on an absolute basis pools are not considered too dangerous to own; you just have to take appropriate precautions and treat them with respect, just as with guns or any other household item that would be dangerous in a child's hands.

FWIW, our family's guns are kept in a safe when not in use, but the repubs at the Brady Campaign still want to ban them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #118
120. it still happens, so your point above gets blown away (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #120
123. Nope.
Unless you believe we should also outlaw swimming pools because they are one hundred times more dangerous to children than guns in the home, which is a ridiculous position to take.

Between 65 and 80 million Americans lawfully and responsibly own guns, and half of gun owners registered to vote are Dems and indies. We're keeping them; our homes, our choice. You are certainly free to make your own home a gun-free zone, but stay the hell out of our gun safe, please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #123
126. yup... blown away... buh bye talking point (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #126
149. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing... (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #114
122. Parent fault
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 10:45 AM by Pavulon
This is really simple. Personal Responsibility.

You leave your car keys out. Your kid backs into traffic. Kills guy on motorcycle.

Will be a freak accident in press, but in reality you killed the guy on the bike. Same as if your kid used your gun to shoot him in the head.

Take responsibility for your shit. End of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #122
125. Why... You Never Accept any Responsibility
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 10:48 AM by fascisthunter
you are a hypocrite and a liar pushing guns.


Same type of crap when discussing South America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #125
131. Pushing..
who is pushing anything. Is someone giving away free guns?

Killing a person is a personal responsibility. The person who formed intent or indifference and killed a person is responsible.

Not their SUV, not a gun, knife, or bat. HUMAN HANDS.


nasty little post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #131
134. All Your Posts are Nasty, Disingenuous and Full of Spin
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 11:03 AM by fascisthunter
"The NRA's tools are fear and paranoia, but their goal is money and power. By putting guns into the hands of terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill they create a society where defense by guns becomes mandatory while the bank accounts of their leaders and lobbyists are enriched and Congressional coffers are replenished."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fightthegoodfightnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #134
148. WOW....... Thank You
I'm going to have to remember that one. Bravo and well said.

Let's put this out there again but his time in bold:

"The NRA's tools are fear and paranoia, but their goal is money and power. By putting guns into the hands of terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill they create a society where defense by guns becomes mandatory while the bank accounts of their leaders and lobbyists are enriched and Congressional coffers are replenished."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaryCeleste Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #134
154. PKB
damn thats funny
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #134
159. Now I KNOW your a BRADY SHILL.
"All Your Posts are Nasty, Disingenuous and Full of Spin"


That describes your posts in this thread to a tee. And thats typical behavior for a bradyite. Lash out nastily at everyone that disagrees and then ascribe that sort of behavior to your opponents.

Here. Heres a little something to comfort you:


"WASHINGTON, D.C. (Dec. 2) -- Incoming Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) today said in a taping of
the "Court TV" cable program: "I don't expect (the Brady and
semi-auto laws) to be touched."

That's wishful thinking by a guy who voted for both those
laws -- and who I once saw come down from his Judiciary Committee
perch to hug and be pecked by Sarah Brady."

Swell company you brady types keep there eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #125
168. "You Never Accept any Responsibility"
For things other people do? No, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #168
193. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #110
232. Great point
The gun lobby has pretty much been for nothing but "feel good" bills for a long time, much like that worthless assault weapons ban (passed in a year when more people were murdered by pillows than the weapons banned by it.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 02:30 AM
Response to Original message
78. Kick it.
Probably still a few people awake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
80. Grants? GRANTS? GRANTS?!?!?! What in the hell?
How has our media...the people in it...become so ignorant of reality?

The constitution and bill of rights do NOT grant anything. They AFFIRM the rights of people which are derived from enumerated restrictions on governmental power.


From the article:


"Benna Ruth Solomon, Chicago's deputy corporation counsel, said it's a matter of communities being given the authority to decide how best to ensure public safety. "Our City Council and mayor can be responsive to local residents," Solomon said. "And anyone who disagrees with the ban can find some other place to live."


Wow those authoritarian gun banner types aren't even hiding thier "love it or leave it" repuke talking points anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #80
84. A mere technicality. There aren't enough school shootings in this country.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Steel Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #80
86. What's your point?
Is it semantical or are you questioning the substance of article?

How are rights "derived from enumerated restrictions on governmental power?"

I think I agree with you but I'd say rights are restrictions on government's power and that they're declared rather than affirmed by the sovereign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #86
161. I guess you don't see the difference.
All rights belong to the people, and those rights existed as such before the people created our government.

The people have GRANTED the government powers, albeit limited powers.

In addition to those powers, the people created a list of restrictions on governmental power to PROTECT those rights that they already have.


Its a burden thing.

The government can NOT grant that which is does not have, and thats rights of any kind.

I left out a couple words in my previous post, I meant to say:

They AFFIRM the protection of rights of people which are derived from enumerated restrictions on governmental power.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Steel Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #161
185. Rights and Interests
"All rights belong to the people, and those rights existed as such before the people created our government."

Right and wrong.

All persons have natural interests. These exist before government. When the Community wishes to protect the pursuit of those interests, the soverign declares a right. In democracies, the People are sovereign and they declare rights.

A right is best understood not so much as the capacity to do something but the capacity to prevail against an objection to doing it. The "right" is the object which provides the capacity to prevail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Mojo Risin Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
90. Not sure I want to see Obama in Camo going Hunting
Maybe a bit transparent, I remember that bit with Kerry.

However, being a hunter, I looked up Obama's position wrt hunting and outdoors and I believe he gets it. He understands that, under the surface, there is a common goal between conservationists and hunters. Both want clean, protected lands and waters, with healthy populations of game and fish. There is a healthy natural benefit/balance that hunters offer. People have already changed the landscape, properly managed hunting will help to bring this changed landscape into balance.

Its also a way for Obama to open the door to a rural and often white population that he may not currently have on board.

My 2 cents
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
108. A bumper sticker conservatives hate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #108
111. Awesome! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #108
116. Here's an idea for a bumper sticker...
ARMED AND INSANE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #116
117. put that on a Postal vehicle.
I'm a retired mail carrier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #116
129. Notice How they Try to Push Guns
"Hey man... wanna piss off conservatives. Get a gun..." wink, wink.


Give me a fucking break
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKthatsIT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #116
155. like the DHS, USSS, DEA, ICE, CO19, SWAT,ATF ,FPS, USMS, TVA?
Well damn...I guess I'd be stupid if I didn't prepare for the worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SquireJons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #108
136. I doubt it...
They will just see you as coming around to their side of things.

I wonder how many of the anti-abortion pugs are gun lovers? And how about this for a bumper sticker:

What Gun Would Jesus Own?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #136
151. WGWJO? ---An UZI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #136
200. Jesus would own a Galil
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
124. "Well Regulated Militia"
oooops
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #124
156. Lets see it, mR. Collective.
"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.



So lets hear your explanation of why the "shall not be infringed" part of the amendment applies any less to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", than it does to "A well regulated militia".


This ought to be good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #124
169. The right doesn't belong to the militia...
but to the "people." Same "people" as in the other amendments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Steel Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #169
186. Exactly
As it is used in the Constitution, "people" is not the plural of person but a "term of art" referring to the collective sovereign. A right declared for the People is not a right declared for any person or persons but for the collective sovereign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #124
189. "Talk amongst yourselves. Neither well-regulated nor a militia. Discuss ."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
157. This could be bigger and more anticipated than Roe v Wade.
I look forward to Tuesdays arguments (decision should be announced in June). It'll be interesting to see which of the justices side in favor of the Bill of Rights and which ones take the cowards approach and side with the gun control status quo.

The Heller case has been a frequent subject of discussion on more than just a few firearms related forums for months now.

The general opinion (by a wide margin), is that the court will affirm the individuals right to keep and bear arms... in fact, the manner in which court phrased the question to be addressed by both sides is a bit revealing in itself...


THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS - D.C.
CODE 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), AND 7-2507.02 - VIOLATE THE SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH
ANY STATE-REGULATED MILITIA, BUT WHO WISH TO KEEP HANDGUNS AND
OTHER FIREARMS FOR PRIVATE USE IN THEIR HOMES?


What's uncertain (and is anyones guess), is what level of scrutiny/how narrow the court will rule in regard to what degree gun control laws are allowable.

Again... the general feeling is that the courts decision will be a very narrow one that will uphold the lower courts ruling and have no immediate effect on current federal and/or state gun control laws. Those issues that remain ("assault weapons bans", hi-capacity magazine bans, 1 gun per month purchases, etc), will take years and more court battles to sort out.

What is certain is that with an individual rights ruling, fully expect us gun owners to mount a legal offensive like you've never seen before to overturn most existing federal and state gun control laws (starting with the Chicago handgun ban and/or the ban on civilian ownership of post 1986 machine guns). Hell... I'll be first in line to challenge any and all of the disgraceful gun control laws we have in my home state of MA (assuming I live that long).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bossy22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #157
167. i would go attack
the NYS AWB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
171. If gun control is so bad, how come England and Japan are functioning societies?
And doing quite a bit better than we are these days. I also noticed how we took all of the guns away from the Brown people in Iraq? Why? didn't they have the right to self-defense too? Against us? Oh wait, we "liberated" them. How precious.


People use guns in this country to kill people more regularly than ANY other means. And if people are the problem, why can't the gunners allow us to keep the guns away from the crazies, gang bangers, and criminals? And don't tell me we do. The excuse is just to arm everyone so THEY can keep their precious steel penises.



Stop straw man purchases, limit gun purchases so you can't buy a gun every month (how fucking many do you need to kill anyway?), and track ammo sales. That will slow down this plague on our society. At least until our planet self-destructs (from the other issues so conveniently pushed aside while this issue is made central to the survival of society) and overwhelms us.

Has the poor man who owns guns eve asked why rich men don't need or care about guns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #171
175. All fight smoke..
straw sales are illegal. Felony.

Every house in Iraq can keep an AK. No rpgs.

I think a person should be BANNED from firearm ownership, for 20 years with a felony conviction. Unless a judge reverses it.

Gang bangers are part of the problem. Stopping people from becoming bangers is the real hard part.

I know lots of folks who have comfortable income who own firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #175
190. Felonies don't mean shit to a tree to a gang banger or criminal
Oooh, I'd better not buy that illegal gun, it's a felony. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Stopping gang bangers from becoming gang bangers is a problem because the gun lobby would rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars protecting their industry than stopping the problem for good.

I'll ask again, why does the rest of civilized world function so well without the freedom to purchase guns (and kill each other with them) that we have???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #190
207. The last time I flew into Zurich
and took the train to lucerne I was left alone. I drank, had a nice time, and stayed out very late and got really drunk. No one machine gunned me. No one robbed me.

Pretty odd, many homes have machine guns, 20% or so. Armed to the fucking teeth and they have less murder than japan. Where guns are BANNED.

Breaks your logic up a bit.

PS you do not have the freedom to kill a person with a gun anymore than you have the freedom to kill them with a rental truck full of explosives.

Stopping gang bangers has not jack shit to do with the NRA.

Why the fuck should I be restricted from owning a LEGAL weapon because of some asshole who will break the same law that screws me over?

Fix the root cause.

Gun control is for those to lazy or afraid to confront the hard problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #207
226. About Switzerland...

http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/index2.html

2. In the chapter titled "Is America Too Free?" LaPierre compares the U.S. to Switzerland. He points out that Switzerland has a higher rate of
gun ownership than the U.S. yet they have a lower murder rate and a lower overall crime rate. He goes on to say that "Swiss citizens are entitled to purchase and own all the firearms and ammunition they wish. Target shooting is the national sport....". He went on to conclude that "Switzerland entirely disproves the 'guns cause crime' thesis."

What LaPierre neglected to mention was that Switzerland has the very kinds of gun control laws that the NRA opposes so vehemently. Its true that all men in Switzerland are members of the militia and issued rifles by the government and these rifles are all registered and all ammunition must be accounted for. When it comes to handguns, the Swiss require a background check, a permit to purchase a handgun, and handgun registration. Apparently, Swiss gun owners don't consider this an infringement on their right to own a gun. If anything, Switzerland further proves that gun control DOES work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #226
227. I did that to get a handgun here
background check, yep
permit, check sheriff issued $5
register, yellow form that is still around somewhere, check.

Can I get a sig550 to keep in my house now?

PS you can buy 5.56 nato at any range in switzerland. they only track the ammo you are issued. Use of the issued weapon is encouraged.

our problem is not guns. lazy people like to scapegoat guns and dodge the tough issues.

cheers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #226
237. haha.... NRA liars (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #171
180. It's time for us to do the right thing and limit senseless deaths by banning...
GM cars. Can't trust those potmetal deathtraps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #171
224. Because rich men have people to carry guns for them.
Peons have to fend for ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #171
234. Because they're islands that have a chance of fully regulating commerce?
That ain't gonna happen in the United States, ever, because there are already 100 million firearms in circulation and the enormous unguarded borders both north and south of us happen to be with nations which also have craploads of guns. A little south of Mexico are half a dozen nations that the United States has happily destabilized by importing millions more weapons, and South America is well-armed and makes their own.

The chances of halting importation of guns into the United States are probably slightly less good than the prospects of prohibiting the importation of cocaine into the United States. How's that drug war goin'? Then there is the practical impossibility of collecting and destroying 100 million weapons already on hand, and reigning in the domestic manufacturers of the weapons.

If guns are outlawed in the United States, the United States will be just as safe as the one place in the US where guns are already outlawed: Washington, DC. In DC, the gun homicide rate has risen and fallen in strict accordance with socioeconomic and environmental factors, some of them rather disturbing, and changed not one bit for the better by banning firearms (or by changing the name of the basketball team while leaving a racist team name in place for the football team).

That's actually one thing virtually everyone in this thread will agree on: let's start fixing our fucked up poverty, education, public works and energy problems, like Japan and the U.K. have tried to do. Do that, and chances are we'll start shooting each other less as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidthegnome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
178. Interesting debate
Personally, I live out in the middle of no where, Aroostook County Maine, up by a lake. Forest on one side - water on the other. The most likely danger I'd run into up here is a wild animal if I was out wandering through the woods. I don't worry about it too much though, figure I can climb a tree if I have to.

Yet, I am in favor of the right to own guns. I don't have one myself - I'm no hunter and the area I live in isn't particularly dangerous. Yet I do realize that ultimately, our only response to a corrupt, fast declining government - the continued injustice, abuse of human rights, and the rest of the insanity going on in this Country... could lead to something more.

Ban fire arms, and who will have them? Those who get them illegally in the first place. Most honest people would turn them in. Thus, we would have an armed criminal underground with far superior weaponry, and an armed police force with far superior weaponry. While those of us in between, well, we'd better not make any waves eh?

There's more to it than that, of course. Someone enters your home to rob you - or worse, and they have a gun. What is your defense? Call the police? Sure... where I live, it would take them half an hour to reach me. No, I'd call my neighbor, HE has a gun and is only a hop away. Even then of course, there's the chance he wouldn't be home, or wouldn't get here in time.

So where does that leave me and my family if the robber, murderer (whatever) decides to have his way with my daughter and my wife (not that I have either - but, for the sake of argument), and shoot me dead? Excellent arguments for owning a gun - I don't, because I don't see the need, but circumstances could change, anything can happen.

So it is a risk I take. Willingly, and others take the same risk. To be defenseless against such a situation.

So... with that said, does the federal government, or any entity or person, have the right to tell me, or anyone else that they may not own a gun? I don't believe so.

We all have our own principles and opinions, of course... but it would be a severe injustice to deny us the right to defend ourselves. Every living being has that right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
187. Oh, let's see; which way will the Bush Court vote? Hmmmmmmm.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #187
192. Yup. As far as I'm concerned...
The gun pushers are just right wing gasbags in liberal clothing. They'd be thrilled with the ultra-conservative Supreme Court's ruling if they ruled to incorporate the 2nd Amendment under the 14th, but they're dreaming. Otherwise, it's commonly accepted that people have the right to own guns. That is not what the gun nuts want to talk about, however. They want to push their agenda to do away with gun control and help the gun manufacturers in their never-ending quest to put a gun into the hands of every American. That will never happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #192
205. Those wacky right wing gasbags...
"WASHINGTON, D.C. (Dec. 2) -- Incoming Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) today said in a taping of
the "Court TV" cable program: "I don't expect (the Brady and
semi-auto laws) to be touched."

That's wishful thinking by a guy who voted for both those
laws -- and who I once saw come down from his Judiciary Committee
perch to hug and be pecked by Sarah Brady."

Swell company you brady types keep there eh?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #192
217. I have no interest whatsoever in convincing non-gun-owners to own guns.
Otherwise, it's commonly accepted that people have the right to own guns. That is not what the gun nuts want to talk about, however. They want to push their agenda to do away with gun control and help the gun manufacturers in their never-ending quest to put a gun into the hands of every American. That will never happen.

Speaking for myself, I don't want to push guns into the hands of every American. I have no interest whatsoever in convincing non-gun-owners to own guns. What I DO want is for people like you to leave people like my wife and I the heck alone, and stop trying to outlaw half the guns we own via Brady-repub fearmongering about handgrip shape, post-1861 magazine capacities, and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugabear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
219. I don't have much faith in this right-wing SCOTUS
I wouldn't be surprised if they said it was perfectly legal for anyone to carry a trunk full of assault weapons onto a school campus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemEyeDick Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
228. Guns are bad period...
It has been interesting for me to read this thread. I have tried to see both sides of this issue, but I still have come to the conclusion that firearms (especially handguns) are bad. I know they are an inanimate object that cannot pick itself up and fire at someone, but they are too easily available to the masses who continue to use them for evil purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Popol Vuh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #228
233. You wouldn't be saying that
If you were visiting me when I had to defend myself against two home invaders. If I hadn't had a gun with me the 911 operator who I was on the phone with couldn't have done anything to help me. I am alive today because of the right to keep and bare arms. The ability to defend yourself is a basic human right.

Anyone who believes that outlawing guns will solve the issue of gun crime (not that I am saying you're suggesting that), only need look at the black market for drugs. You will only accomplish restricting access to law abiding people and create another black market for criminals. And even a scarier thought is, the criminals will know this too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemEyeDick Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #233
235. Were the invaders armed?
Were the two who broke into your residence armed? If so could you have retreated to a secure room with a baseball bat, crowbar, golf club or any other type of blunt instrument in order to defend yourself until the police arrived? I know and understand your fear. I live in an apartment building that had 5 (illegal) Mexicans stabbed to death several weeks ago. I thought of my safety and how I would respond if someone were trying to break into my residence. I have come to the conclusion that a can of mace in one hand and a Maglite flashlight in the other can be used to blind and incapacitate anyone who tries to break into my apartment. The light can blind them as they are being pepper sprayed. As a last resort I can use the Maglite as a blunt instrument like the police do.

I just don't think guns (especially handguns) are the answer. There are too many of them out there and they are getting into the hands of the wrong people. They create a whole world of pain for alot of people who are either the survivors of gunshots, or friends and families of those who are killed by their usage. I think the laws should be tightened up with regards to crimes that involve a firearm. The proliferation of handguns is out of control. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has shown this to be true with his work with the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #235
238. If you want to choose a sub-optimal way of defending yourself from armed attack
that's your busniess. The individual should have the ability to choose the best method for them, and for most people thats a firearm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Popol Vuh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #235
240. Baseball bat?
Secure room? You've got to be kidding me. First off my home isn't some kind of armored bunker or something. Once inside there is no such thing as a "secured room". Anybody can bust through any door inside a house.

Secondly, your chances of surviving an attack by two home invaders by using a baseball bat is dismally low. What happens after you swing and one or both of them grab your arm before you can wind-up for another swing? You don't have any experience in fighting do you? I can tell by your logic with baseball bats, mace, flashlights that you haven't any experience with these type of criminals. Why do you think cops won't resort to mace when confronting these types of encounters? Because they're not dumb and have plenty of experience with these types of assholes. In fact when the police got to my home, skidding to a stop a shot ways down the street, they jumped out of their cars and ran up my street all carrying shotguns. Geee, I wonder why they didn't have mace or baseball bats in their hands?

Those five people you cited in your example. I bet they wished they had been armed with a firearm to defend themselves until the police could arrive. I bet they tried to fight back too, and, they were FIVE people. Didn't do them any good now did it?

Simple fact is this: The to defend one's self is a basic human right. The right to keep and bare arms is a right that existed prior to the constitution and doesn't rely upon that document for its existence as so stated already by the Supreme Court in:
    United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

    The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence..


And like I said: If you think by outlawing guns you're going to solve anything, then you simply do not understand the nature of criminals.

If you don't want to own a gun then that's fine. But don't impose your will upon mine and other law abiding people's rights. That's all I have to say.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #228
239. Do you believe alcohol is bad? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
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