Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[derby378]

Source: ABC News

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

---

So much for Democratic control of Congress - it was nice while it lasted.

[w4rma]

1. Dumb. (nt)

[derby378]

3. In fact, the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas

And who will define the term "assault weapon?" The Brady Campaign, of course.

[w4rma]

10. This is the worst, most expensive use of political capital that they could have come up with. (nt)

[anonymous171]

127. Yep. This should be at the VERY VERY end of the agenda nt

[Abq_Sarah]

165. It shouldn't even be a part of the agenda

[anonymous171]

168. I'd agree to that. nt

[primavera]

98. Oh, that reminds me: I need to send $ to the Brady Campaign

Thanks, it had slipped my mind there for a minute.

[benEzra]

153. I'm sure plenty of repubs are contributing to that REPUB organization.

Newt Gingrich skillfully played DLC Dems into passing the first "assault weapon" fraud in '94. Looks like gullible Dems clueless enough to push a ban on the MOST POPULAR CIVILIAN RIFLES IN AMERICA are still around.

[sofa king]

128. I believe the government definition of "assault weapon" is "scary-looking."

That was my gripe about the original bill. It defined the weapons it was banning by how cool those weapons were. So silly things like forward hand grips and folding bayonets--most of which can be removed and later reattached, anyway--were what made weapons illegal or not.

I'll be the first to point out that if the Constitution mentions hunting and recreational shooting, I don't know about it. The purpose stated in the 2nd Amendment refers to the "militia," which at the time was every male citizen who could use a gun. The Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers both show that at least some of the Framers knew exactly why they didn't want to take away guns: because they didn't trust governments and wanted the power of government to spring directly from the people, and the way you guarantee that is to give the people at least the chance to come and take back their government back by force, if they must.

Now, I just spent the most miserable eight years of my life watching the most criminal Presidency in our history fuck up every single possible thing it could fuck up, make a mockery of every legal construct we had, scare the people into inactivity, and fill them with inaccurate propaganda. They did everything they had to do to build a Fourth Reich, except one thing.

And then they just walked away. Why?

I can guess why. It was because by 2008 three out of four Americans were ready to go and remove those bastards if they didn't leave peacefully, and we had a hundred million firearms--about twenty times what our armed forces can muster due to their manpower constraints--to make it happen. I don't know if we could have pulled it off, but it's pretty obvious the Bush Department of Defense didn't know, either, because I'm certain they would have tried it if they thought they could pull it off.

I don't much like guns, I don't own a gun and probably never will, and I have no plans to ever use a gun in anger or for coercion. But there is a gun already out there for every American who wants one, and while we pay a huge and tragic price every year for having them, we're not going to get rid of them. And they just may have saved our asses, again, from those who would wish to take away our power. I can't be okay with taking away our guns because I can't trust our government. And you shouldn't, either.

[girl gone mad]

36. Yep. dumb, dumb, dumb.

I'm sure Rahm's behind this agenda, too. It's like he wants us to lose power as soon as possible.

[saigon68]

73. Yes Mr Emaul is thinking with his ass again

Not really unbelievable--but the timing is very very bad

[Taverner]

2. Stupid nt

[Renew Deal]

4. Bad politics

Not smart

[primavera]

Why? Have you been drinking the NRA Kool-Aid?

Despite what the NRA would have you believe, public opinion polls consistently show a very solid two-thirds majority of respondents in this country favor strengthening gun control laws. So why is it political suicide for a public official to comply with the clear wishes of the majority of his constituents? Because the NRA doesn't want him to? I thought we were in favor of reducing the influence of lobbyists, or is that only when you don't agree with the lobbyists?

[Lost in CT]

109. Apples and oranges.

Strengthen gun control laws... yeah I am in favor as well.

Ban weapons based on ergonomic design and other cosmetic conciderations... effin insane and political suicide.

[primavera]

115. Interesting point, thanks.

One grows so accustomed to seeing such knee-jerk reactionism from the gun community against any kind of gun legislation, it's easy to overlook those that do favor gun control but may have valid criticisms of a specific piece of legislation. Hmmm, will have to think about that, but thanks for your reply.

[vet4life63]

124. RE: Why? Have you been drinking the NRA Kool-Aid?

I believe Hitler did the same thing. You see, first you must disarm the people before you can control them completely. I miss the old America where we had freedom. The nasty politicians don’t represent the peoples wishes, only there own greedy ego tripping, lying , kaniving, wasteful, BS agenda. THEY are SUPPOSED to REPRESENT US, NOT THEMSELVES!!!! I say its time we took this country back. Enough is ENOUGH! the 2A protects the 1st folks, so if you are going to be complacent and let the 2A be trashed then you can forget having rights under the 1st and the 4th. Another thing that burns my arse is that those rights outlined in the constituition are “God Given and unalienable rights, meaning they cannot be taken away. What are the politicians doing? Well, they convince the people those are “priveleges” and as we all know a privelege can be taken away! If we cant vote em out, then maybe we need to “protect this country against all threats foreign and DOMESTIC. DOMESTIC = crooked usurpers of the Constitution of the United States of America!!!!!!!!

[primavera]

125. Well, politicians certainly don't represent the people's interests...

... when they disregard the wishes of the substantial majority that wants stricter gun control laws, that's for sure.

[Name removed]

225. Deleted message

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

[bitchkitty]

243. Well, it might expend a lot of capital and energy

that the RW doesn't have to waste. So it might be a very smart move, from a man that I find to be quite brilliant.

Those "are you smarter than Barack Obama IQ ads" are a joke, too much of a joke to be an insult.

[Not Me]

5. You're entitled to your opinion...

but I welcome it.

[derby378]

8. You welcome Democrats losing control of Congress?

I don't know what to say about that. Wow.

[davepc]

13. Those were, in retrospect, the glory years," says Paul Helmke, former GOP mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind.,

Packing heat on the hill
The NRA is riding high; gun control is a political loser

By Will Sullivan

Posted Sunday, July 9, 2006

Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren's Washington office features his hunting trophies, including a stuffed wild turkey and a mounted deer head. The freshman congressman's enthusiasm for firearms might always have stood out in the Democratic Party, but Boren now finds himself among an even more endangered species: Democrats willing to discuss guns at all.

"When we as Democrats are trying to reach out and speak to voters in the center of the country, I don't think that we can support gun control," he explains. After seeing Democrats hammered at the polls for voting to regulate guns, many of his colleagues seem to agree. As a result, a number of pro-gun measures moving through Congress will most likely face little opposition, as advocates of gun control increasingly find themselves marginalized and ignored.

Not long ago, it was the gun lobby on the defensive from the passage of the Brady bill in 1993 and the 1994 ban on "assault" weapons. But some say support for gun control cost Democrats the House in 1994, and former President Clinton credited it with Al Gore's 2000 presidential defeat. "It's different than it was in the early '90s. Those were, in retrospect, the glory years," says Paul Helmke, former GOP mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., who recently took the reins of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.



Yup, lets go back to the GOP glory years.

[movonne]

15. I'm with you....why in the hell does anyone want an assault weapon..

[derby378]

17. What's an "assault weapon?"

Can you give me an actual techincal definition of the term?

[cliffordu]

30. No they cannot. Ugly suppressors and bayonet mounts.....Big magazines

scare idiots who won't learn the difference between semi-auto and full on machine guns....

[pasto76]

47. Hardly - "assault" means specific things

and yes, large magazine capacity is one of them. US doctrine is in fact (although it is a holdover of the cold war) "I have more bullets loaded and ready than you".

The M16A2 I carried in Iraq didnt have automatic as an option. But you know that. I still assaulted targets with it. The semi-auto rate of fire is HIGH, as fast as I can pull the trigger, and Ive burned through my 210 rounds of standard issue in a few short minutes more than once. In reality, an AR15 isnt that far behind a fully auto weapon.

Gun nuts (I am a gun enthhusiast) only want to talk about part of the 2nd amendment. Lets talk about the word REGULATE thats in it too.

[cliffordu]

55. Why the fuck would they give you a semi auto rifle if you were going to be

"assaulting targets" with it??

Fully automatic weapons are not a matter of having a bigger dick, either.

It's about survivability and efficiency in combat, but because you were in Iraq you knew that, right???

And you need to get hip to what the word 'regulated' meant when that phrase was written....

Well regulated meant fully outfitted.

But as a gun enthusiast you knew that, too.

[tanngrisnir3]

59. The army determined some time ago that....

a three shot burst is the ideal compromise in effectiveness between single-shot and a nervous newb spraying automatic weapon fire all over and wasting ammo.

Automatic weapons, unless mounted and chain-fed, are not more efficient.

[Pavulon]

220. In the hands of an 18 year old

if you go gonzo on a 240golf you are still not hitting jack shit and thus dead, or at minimum not hitting what you are firing at.. Every weapon I was behind had sights. The point of those being to aim fire at a target.

The M4 is fully automatic. However three shot bursts were expected. Not to say no one ever did a mag dump.

Any comparison to civilian rifles is moronic.

[primavera]

106. ROTFLMAO!!!

So now the word "regulated" in fact means "armed to the teeth"? OMG, that's priceless! You know, I've read lots of definitions of the word "regulated" and nowhere have I ever found a definition for the term such as the one that you suggest. Leave it to a gun nut to redefine the English language to better suit their political agenda! Thanks, it's good to start the day off with a hearty laugh.

[FudaFuda]

112. Sorry, 18th Cent. "well-regulated" means in good working order.

Well-regulated mind, well-regulated hospital, well-regulated clock, well-regulated militia. "well-regulated' was a common idiom in the 18th and 19th centuries, which has fallen into disuse in modern usage. But its usage had nothing to do with government 'regulation' in the modern sense.

[primavera]

117. Any chance you might have sources for that?

You may be right, I'm not personally acquainted with the definition you're employing here, but I'd like to check it out.

[FudaFuda]

119. yep.

Yeah, just run a google on 'meaning of well regulated 2nd amendment' and you'll get a plethora of discussions on this. But one problem with trying to extract objectivity out of the 2nd amendment debate is that almost any source of info you find on the subject is advocating one side or the other ... everyone's on a soapbox. But the meaning of 'well-regulated' in the 2nd amendment context has been discussed here before ...

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

And this .pdf has some examples of historical usage of the phrase 'well-regulated' which supports the 'in good working order' meaning ...

http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/gunstuff/writings/WellRe...

I was an English major before losing my mind and going to law school, and read a LOT of 18th and 19th century literature. My opinion through that experience is subjective, but I have no problem reading 'well-regulated' to mean fully decked out.

[primavera]

121. Ah, a fellow sufferer!

Truly, we must have been insane to sign up for the torment of law school! Thanks for the links, I'll check them out. As you note, it's tough to get straight info on these topics as they are so politicized, the credibility of the sources is sadly questionable far more often than not.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[cliffordu]

134. Or, you COULD have used the google and found THIS.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm


in .08 second.

[primavera]

136. Good examples

"Well-regulated courts," "well-regulated mind," "well-regulated clock," etc., all suggest a quality of control, orderliness, organization, discipline, and strict adherence to rules, not all that different from what we understand the word "regulated" to mean in today's context. Nothing in the examples listed suggests "equipping" or "outfitting" anyone or anything - what equipment does a mind need? What outfitting does a clock need? Employing this definition, how can a disorderly mob of untrained, undisciplined citizens, unsupervised by any, accountable to none, qualify as a "well-regulated" militia? Thank you for fortifying my point.

[cliffordu]

137. Well...Reading helps.

"If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


"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."


Well-regulated == fully developed.......

[primavera]

141. That's an assumption on your part

None of the examples you cite demonstrate that well regulated is synonymous with well-outfitted or fully developed; the sentences make as much sense or more when read employing the standard definition of regulated which implies order, organization, control, discipline, etc.. You are choosing to read into the sentences a meaning of the term which may or may not be accurate - I'm certainly no authority on the history of 18th century American linguistics - but the examples you provide neither refute nor support the definition you wish to perceive in the term.

[cliffordu]

151. 'Mkay.

[wickerwoman]

161. But the word "militia" implies organization and oversight too.

And nothing about the definition of well regulated as "in good working order" excludes the additional definition of "subject to appropriate oversight to ensure its proper functioning".

Militia means civilians *trained* to be soldiers but not part of the regular army. It implies that some organization (and please god, not the NRA) is responsible for training and monitoring the use of military-like equipment by civilians.

And if "well regulated" only means "in good working order", then technically it would be fine for civilians to have nuclear weapons as long as they stored them safely.

If people want to own guns, more power to them. But nobody needs armor piercing bullets or the ability to fire two hundred rounds a second. And I think the government is perfectly within its rights restricting access to weapons which serve no purpose except to kill large numbers of people quickly.

[cliffordu]

163. Your definitions of militia circa 1750+ are incorrect.

Fully automatic weapons are already extremely difficult to get and tightly controlled,

no one is looking to get nuclear weapons, there's already laws preventing that,

no one is advocating for 200 rounds a second anything...

And you know that. Your straw men, however, are getting tired.

Please try to come up with arguments next time instead of boogey man statements.

[wickerwoman]

188. Except we don't live in 1750

and if people want to argue that they have a right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia as it relates to the 21st century(such as the National Guard) I have absolutely no problem with that. If people want guns for hunting or to protect their home from burglars, I have no problem with that.

I'm not the one invoking Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot because Obama wants to revisit the issue of the assault weapon ban, nor am I the one advocating that people stock up on guns now because the democrats are coming for all of them.

I didn't say anyone was advocating nuclear weapons for all citizens, simply that if you insist on interpreting "well regulated" in the extremely narrow sense of "in good working order" then there is no argument against citizens owning nuclear weapons. Clearly, that's an absurd proposition so you do agree that the government has a right to restrict (or "regulate", if you will) Americans' right to bear arms.

Having agreed that the second amendment does not apply to all weapons, I'm sure we can have an adult national discussion of where that regulation should fall without it descending into straw men arguments or boogey men statements too. Nor is it necessary to let the discussion descend into a boring and cliched analysis of argumentative style instead of a genuine attempt to understand where the other person is coming from.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

199. The term "militia" is defined in 10 USC 311

The Federal law has had an operative definition of "militia" since forever. In short, members of the militia are defined as all able-bodied males ages 17 to 45 who are not members of the organized military service.

The "militia" is just a legal class of natural person in the US, like "minor". You do not have to do anything to be a member of the militia if you have the right body parts and are of the right age. There is no training implied either by statute or judicial precedent, and indeed the status of "militia" of people with no training is settled law (see: "the draft").


It is a bit discriminatory to use the narrow "militia" interpretation insofar as it implies that women have no 2nd Amendment rights.

[FudaFuda]

157. Response

Primavera wrote = "Employing this definition, how can a disorderly mob of untrained, undisciplined citizens, unsupervised by any, accountable to none, qualify as a "well-regulated" militia?"

I don't think the founders intended the majority of citizens to be untrained or undisciplined in the use of firearms, though we have allowed that to occur. But 'disorderly mobs' tend to get orderly pretty quickly when they assemble for a common cause.

If you had a time machine you could ask that question of the typical militiaman who showed up to fight during the Revolutionary War, who was not issued a weapon or uniform but instead came in his own clothes, with his own gun.

Or, you could refer to the U.S. Code and discover that all men (with some exceptions) in the United States aged 17 to 45 belong to the 'unorganized militia'.

Or, you could ask the VietCong, or the mujahideen.

[primavera]

160. Disorderly mobs do get organized, I'll grant you that

Take, for instance, the Minutemen vigilantes "patrolling" the border, or the self-described citizen militias who patrolled post-Katrina New Orleans assaulting and murdering African-American refugees left homeless after the flood. I'm just not sure that was what the framers intended to protect.

[cliffordu]

187. 'The Minutemen' are cowards and bullies and have nothing to do with the

original meaning of Militia.....

Neither do those scummy fuckers out of N.O. all need to be arrested and tried and executed after a fail trial....

[cliffordu]

164. That's exactly right. Welcome to Du.

Wear a cup.

[FudaFuda]

171. LOL. I hear ya.

All political power flows from the barrel of a gun. I would prefer that as much of that power as possible remains in the hands of the people.

[FudaFuda]

60. M16A2 is not a civilian rifle

An M16A2 is not the kind of rifle that this ban would affect. The M16A2 is a select-fire automatic weapon with semi-auto and 3-round burst modes. Semi-auto rifles sold in the US do not have full auto or burst capability. And there are LOTS of semi-auto rifles sold in this country that are not AK47's or AR15's. As for the rate of fire from a semi-auto being high, the same can be said of John Wayne's lever-action rifle, if the shooter is well trained. Or even a revolver.

Jerry Miculek shows how fast a revolver is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

So 'rapid fire' is not a valid argument against semi-auto firearms. And the poster above is correct that 'well regulated' in the context of the 2nd Amendment meant 'fully equipped,' which means when the redcoats are coming, every man shows up with his battle rifle.

[nedrgr21]

182. "Regulate"

"Lets talk about the word REGULATE thats in it too."


OK, let's:

from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Regulated refers to trained/disciplined.

[cliffordu]

186. I give!! Come and take all my guns!!!

[michreject]

192. Bullshit

nuf said

[Pavulon]

218. The M16Ax and M4 are NFA

weapons. That means rich people can buy them. And they do. Funny how you never hear about NFA weapons used in crimes.

ANY part of the M16 is regulated. And you cant own it.

Back in my day we were taught you weapon goes from safe to semi to full for a reason. An aimed shot is better than a blind burst. Spray and pray is not effective.

The AK goes from safe to full to semi. The Soviet model actually counted on waves of people firing full auto.

The M16 is a select fire rifle, I NEVER heard the term assault rifle in the army, not ONCE.

[FudaFuda]

222. As Stalin said ...

re: your statement "The Soviet model actually counted on waves of people firing full auto."


Stalin said : Quantity has a quality all its own.

[Renew Deal]

28. Have you ever been in GD:P?

I only go in there strapped.

[cabluedem]

77. Most people target shoot with them. Bye,bye to the Dem congress in 2010. nt

[slackmaster]

104. Target shooting, collecting, hunting, self-defense, teaching firearm safety to kids

Any kind of firearm is a useful tool that retains its value over time.

[davepc]

107. Why does the Administration need to not betray its voters?

[Lost in CT]

111. You mean a hunting rifle with a pistol grip... well hunters. nt

[Abq_Sarah]

174. Why does anyone

Want a computer?

[davepc]

6. God forbid we learn from history....so lets just repeat it!

Hopefully it wont cost us congress again.

I don't want to destroy the good atmosphere in the room or in the country tonight, but I have to mention one issue that divided this body greatly last year. The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it. And I know, therefore, that some of you who are here because they voted for it are under enormous pressure to repeal it. I just have to tell you how I feel about it. -- Bill Clintons 1995 State of the Union


And by "several" Bill meant the Democratic majority in both houses.

[tanngrisnir3]

7. This confirms that Holder's head's up his ass.

Legislating restrictions on US citizens to help nationals of another country.

And, of course, they can always get them elsewhere.

What a disappointed tool Holder is turning out to be.

[saigon68]

75. Holder was always a tool

Another individual with no understanding of the common person in my neck of the woods

I'm sure Chuck Scummer has his hand in this too

[OhioChick]

9. Bad move. n/t

[derby378]

11. Amendment II Democrats report on MySpace

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view...

[Odin2005]

12. The Dems shouldn't be touching the gun issue even with a ten-foot pole

I grew up in a rural area and I know a lot of people there who would be loyal Dem voters were in not for the gun issue.

[EraOfResponsibility]

14. lots of GUN OWNERS in this thread, I see

[Renew Deal]

16. I don't own a gun and I know it's bad politics.

They say we want to take peoples guns away, and what do we do? Take peoples guns away. Dumb

[Parker CA]

24. Technically, they aren't taking anything away, rather, banning future sales. Not sure how I feel

about this. Seems to be a tough time to be putting this idea forward with everything going on, and I agree with someone up thread, that this decision could result in spending some serious capital. GOP heads will explode over this.

The article does make it sound as if this could be some sort of a trial balloon to test public reaction. There is no definite time-frame, and Holder is quoted as saying he's not sure even when this would happen due to the amount of issues currently on Obama's plate.

Perhaps they are going to measure the temperature of the responses to this idea and decide against it which could be a very bright political move in the sense that it will look as if Obama really listened to those in opposition, but if they do in fact make the decision to move forward, they face the risk of heading directly into the quagmire.

[derby378]

26. Banning future sales IS taking our rights away, however

It is taking away your right to purchase something to which you, as an American, have a Constitutional right to own. You may never wish to own a semi-automatic rifle, but you have the right to own one if you so choose. Holder, on the other hand, disagrees.

[slackmaster]

101. Talk of banning something is the surest way to increase sales

Even discussing an AW "ban" is going to result in MORE firearms of all types being sold, often to people who have not been properly trained in firearm safety.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[derby378]

21. And thank your gods that we ARE here

Unless you'd rather we side with the anti-union, anti-choice, anti-science, bullshit-spouting cavalcade of corruption and shame that the Republican Party has devolved into. No, thank you!

[primavera]

110. So what you're saying is...

... that you'd support an "anti-union, anti-choice, anti-science, bullshit-spouting cavalcade of corruption and shame" before you'd support a party that attempted to move the country even a fraction of an inch closer to the standard of gun control legislation that prevails in the rest of the developed, industrialized world? Wow, that really says a lot about your loyalties and your priorities, doesn't it?

[derby378]

142. If you're done trying to twist me into a pretzel...

...I'll respect your right to speak out as long as you respect mine. 'Kay?

[primavera]

145. I quoted you verbatim

Not sure how that twists you into a pretzel, but of course, I respect your right to speak out, I just think you need to be mindful of the implications of what you're speaking out in favor of. If one implies or insinuates a conclusion one isn't willing to embrace, then one deserves to be called upon to explain it, wouldn't you agree?

[derby378]

167. Not quite, you didn't

"And thank your gods that we ARE here...unless you'd rather we side with the anti-union, anti-choice, anti-science, bullshit-spouting cavalcade of corruption and shame that the Republican Party has devolved into. No, thank you!"

That's the verbatim post. That was directed at anyone who thinks I should join the Republicans. Not gonna happen. I've been through that phase, already, and I'm not going back. Ever.

[primavera]

180. Oh good, I'm glad to hear it

Your comment "unless you'd rather we side with" the Repukes made it sound a lot like you were offering that possibility as the alternative to embracing your position on guns. I'm pleased to hear that whether Democrats share your views on guns or not, you still support them. With all of the references to the Democratic administration having its head up its ass and so forth, one can't help but wonder how many gun-loving Dems share your level of commitment.

[derby378]

181. My apologies for any confusion

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

213. Do you know the definition of quote or verbatim?

[aandrews]

185. Yeah,

worrying about what prevails in the rest of the developed, industrialized world really keeps me up at night.

[hack89]

74. Lots of supporters of the Constitution you mean.

I don't own a gun - never had. I still think this is a stupid move both politically and legally.

[primavera]

123. By which you mean...

... lots of supporters of what five ultra right-wing justices whose opinions we've never before considered to be worth the paper they were written on, and who gave us such fine rulings as Bush v. Gore, have subjectively decided the Constitution says, in direct opposition to what liberal justices whose opinions we've typically respected consider the Constitution to say.

[hack89]

190. I don't consider support for the 2nd amendment an ultra right wing position

supporting individual freedoms never is.

[cliffordu]

200. Another fake argument.

I believe in ALL of the contstitution and the amendments as well.

shall not be infringed....

[primavera]

211. What argument?

I presented no argument of any kind. I simply stated that the ruling you are trumpeting was penned by Tony Scalia, an ultra-right-wing judge, and supported by four right-wing justices, and was opposed by the four Democratic justices. That's not an argument, that's just a fact. If your adherence to views held by right-wingers who have historically been wrong in every ruling they've ever made and your opposition to views held by Democratic justices causes you discomfort, that's entirely your concern.

[cliffordu]

212. I trumpeted no court decision.

You obviously have an agenda...

and a piss poor one at that

I feel sorry for you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

214. Please show where he mentioned a ruling.

[DrCory]

227. The RKBA...

Was very much a "left-wing" concept when it was conceived. It still is, as it empowers individuals.

"and your opposition to views held by Democratic justices causes you discomfort..."

In the first place, the opinions of USSC justices are not officially defined nor controlled by political parties. Oh, and this may come as a shock to you, but Democrats are not always right.

[DrCory]

229. By The Way...

What about the court's ruling on U.S. v Hayes? Hmmm...looks like several of those same justices who decided in favor of Heller also decided to uphold the Lautenberg Amendment in this case.

[primavera]

92. Yes, they're an extremely vocal minority - n/t

[slackmaster]

100. Yes, there are a lot of us on DU and in our party

We intend to keep it that way.

[Abq_Sarah]

177. A lot of FREE SPEECH advocates

in this thread, I see.

Glad no one is bashing them.

[cliffordu]

219. Yep. WTF is wrong with that???

[Dukkha]

237. right, and everyone in the pro-choice threads had an abortion

[Captain Hilts]

18. Smart! Hunters don't use 'em. nt

[derby378]

22. Read the Second Amendment again...

I don't see any mention of hunters in there.

Haven't you read DC v. Heller yet? I'd be happy to send you a link.

[Captain Hilts]

25. Join a well organized militia.

I'm pro-rifle, anti-assault weapon and anti-handgun.

To be frank, I'd prefer assault weapons to handguns.

[derby378]

27. In other words, you haven't read DC V. HELLER

It affirms that "We, the People" are the well-regulated militia spoken of in the Second Amendment.

Sure you don't want the link to the Supreme Court ruling?

[primavera]

93. No, no, we all know what the five right-wing justices said

It's just always odd to see "Dems" worshipping Mad Dog Scalia and lambasting the dissenting opinions of the justices from their own party. It just seems so... inconsistent.

[derby378]

140. This is no longer a "liberal vs. conservative" issue

The Brady Campaign tried to make it so. Wayne LaPierre tried to make it so. But some of us know better. This issue affects all Americans, and it's time we stopped casting it as Left vs. Right. That paradigm doesn't work anymore.

[primavera]

143. Then why did only right-wing Republican justices support your point of view...

... while all of the Democratic justices opposed it?

[jody]

148. Please read the dissent and you'll find that Stevens & Breyer recognized RKBA but argued the 2nd was

for the militia. See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

The question was not raised on whether if RKBA was not protected by the 2nd as an enumerated right, was it protected by the 9th as an unenumerated right.

A careful reading of Stevens and Breyer's dissents will show that they recognize RKBA as preexisting our Constitution.

[primavera]

155. The dissenting (not concurring, mind you) opinion...

... makes no mention whatsoever of the Ninth Amendment. But I will re-read it and keep my eyes open for the argument you describe.

[jody]

156. I said the question re the 9th was not posed but read Stevens/Breyer, both recognize RKBA. n/t

[primavera]

159. Thanks, I'll keep looking

I'm seeing lots of stuff refuting Mad Dog Tony's assertion that the 2nd supports an individual's RKBA independent of the military context, but am not seeing the point you ascribe to them. But it is a very long opinion, I feel like I'm searching for a needle in a haystack, so it may well be there and I just haven't found it yet. Thanks though for the tip to look for it - I'll keep digging!

[jody]

162. Below is an old DU thread that discusses the two dissenting opinions.

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

[cliffordu]

204. Everybody drank their own kool aid.

[cliffordu]

203. Are you equating my stance on the second amendment with

"mad dog scalia"??

Funny. My belief was formed when I was a kid, 40 years before that idiot was appointed.

Just because those toads agreed with PART of what I believe does NOT invalidate my belief or make it fascist