Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban

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
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:23 PM
Original message
Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban
Source: The Hill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat no when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.


On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now, Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. I think it's clear the Bush administration didnt do that.

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who dont want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
<snip>

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-...



:bounce: :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes!!!!!
I'm going to go out and buy a gun just to celebrate!!!!


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good - Pelosi wants to keep the House in Democratic control
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 12:47 PM by RamboLiberal
and hopefully add enough members in the Senate that Repukes can't threaten to filibuster.

Holder stupidly gave the NRA one helluva talking point yesterday. And I'd bet there are a helluva lot of gun manufacturers and retailers smiling broadly today. Holder's quite the recession buster for the gun and ammunition industry!

From this sounds like the WH had an "Oh Shit - did he really say that moment as well yesterday." The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks.

I wish the Obama Admin would get that off their website as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedstDem Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thank God
If there is one.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Metta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is one reason America is in the shape it's in. Too many guns.
There are hundreds of times more gun deaths here than in all of Europe. This is really bad karma for those who support taking away the ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. And Eric Holder just caused the number of guns in circulation to increase
Heckuva job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
75. I'm gonna buy a couple more, right after I send the NRA a couple of grand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. Exactly...but right wing needs a violent America to stay in power . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. Weird how you step over the border to Canada and the gun violence plummets. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #25
52. Or the border into New Hampshire. Funny, that. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #52
56. People are spread out in NH, they're densely populated in Toronto. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #56
67. How many people have been mistakenly shot for a deer. . .. ???!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #52
151. The neighborhood across I-805 from my home has about 30 times the crime as my area
People over here definitely own more firearms (and more of everything).

It's pretty amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
One_Life_To_Give Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #25
103. And the streets are Clean, women can carry Pocketbooks
It's like your in a totally different country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
50. Yes,,,,
,,,, and there is nothing you or any stupid law can do about it. Grow up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wartrace Donating Member (920 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
60. Wow, you really are off in left field.
Did you know there are more people killed in drunk driving "accidents" than are murdered by firearms? Here I was thinking we are in the shape we are in due to eight years of mismanagement by the Bush regime. Silly me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
87. Truth of the matter is, one reason America is in the shape it's in is because Republicans win
Edited on Fri Feb-27-09 04:39 AM by Warren DeMontague
too many elections.

One big reason they win elections is because the majority of the American people don't want substantial gun control on a federal level. They just don't. And they think, wrongly, that the Democratic Party is the party that wants to take away their firearms.

Likewise, one big reason the GOP gets their ass kicked is because the Republican Base keeps pushing an agenda of outlawing not just abortion but contraception as well. They can't reconcile themselves with the fact that the majority of American people are pro-choice. But they are. The American people think, rightly, that the Base of the GOP would be perfectly happy throwing women in prison for getting abortions or using oral contraception.

Like Terri Schiavo, outlawing abortion and the pill are loser issues for the GOP. If they want to get anywhere, they'll need to figure that out.

Similarly, karma or no, we need to be able to accept that trying to outlaw guns is a loser issue for us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #4
163. Nobody is supporting taking away the ban
The ban expired automatically in 2004. People who supported it had ten full years in which to make a case for renewing it. They came up empty-handed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. My God, Nancy is finally starting to "get it"
Never thought I'd see the day! :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. much as I think the gun crowd is wacko
I think is is a good idea.

The ban generates a huge amount of political opposition, much of it from folks who would otherwise greatly benefit from Democratic policies.

There are better, more effective ways to reduce violent crime. Full employment for young adult males will do more than banning a particular type of weapon, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Right . . the drug dealers who would be deprived of assault weapons probably vote . .. ?
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 02:00 PM by defendandprotect
Hunters need assault weapons ... ?

Actually, the right wing and the NRA need these issues to keep violence in America

going and these "don't think about it, just eat the red meat" issues before their members.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Please define assault weapon.
Give it a try.

I was just in New Orleans on Tuesday and 7 people(including a toddler) were shot at Re x(parade) on St. Charles about 100 feet from me. And I don't recall an assault weapon being used. Just a plain old semi-auto pistol which is the gun of choice of most criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
35. I have an assault weapon hanging in the mantle of my fireplace.
For it's time, it was a state-of-the-art military rifle issued by the government of this country to the Regular Army and state militias.

Just because it is an 1863 Colts Rifled Musket manufactured in Springfield does not make it less of an 'assault weapon' than any other type of rifle now manufactured.

Probably even more so as it was actually issued and used in the Civil War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #35
68. OK . . . give everyone one of those . . .!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. You understand that it can kill you just as dead as a fully automatic weapon?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Yes -- one by one ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. You think banning the sale of certain guns would keep drug dealers from getting them?!?
Yeah, cuz drug dealers are real good about obeying the law.

Legalizing MJ and abolishing the 'war on drugs' is how you disarm drug dealers.


And, though I'm sure you know, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

There are plenty of democrats who understand that the Bill of Rights has that inconvenient little right written in there for a reason. For those of us who do, your perception of the situation is as flawed as any republican's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #19
28. We need to ban the manufacture of these weapons . . .!!!
And the old REAGAN argument that you are using is for those who don't think --

propaganda -- hear and live it -- don't think!

I'm for legalizing drugs -- marijuana and anything else necessary.

The 2nd amendment is farce -- as at least one former justice has pointed out --

and especially if you read the opening phrase. And if it's not about hunting,

then you're suggesting that armed citizens could face up to weaponry that our military

or police enforcers have available?

Guns are being used to kill fellow citizens --- and the climate of fear that the right

wing produces -- including with the Drug War -- is what fuels this paranoia.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. *crickets*
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. Seems tough..
Are you sure HK and Mikhail IZH(AK-47), Glock would obey US law? Seems unlikely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lagomorph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. There are over 100 million...
AK-47's around the world in the hands of people who would, for a price, be happy to introduce them to the streets of America.

Drug dealers have the smuggling routes, already, the flow of arms would simply be piggybacked onto the flow of drugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. not only that
It's not like gun making is rocket science or something. It's a centuries old art that a ban is not likely to stop. This is a very interesting video on the subject.

http://www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGFE2305DC&sc=13631...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #47
62. I guess David Koresh didn't think of that . . . !!!
Had he been making his own guns instead of buying them he might still be

in business!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #62
82. Fucking little kids was his issue...
had the ATF seen fit to arrest him in town, or remove the top of his head with a BOLT ACTION Remington 700 at distance, the problem could have been averted. Longstreet documented a 7:1 loss of people on assault of fortified position, in our civil war...

Guess the gvt was a bit slow

My understanding is that they had him on glass but did not drop the pin. What a shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #82
105. I think you're missing the point, that an armed government doesn't like
competitors ---

They will stop you from stockpiling, they will take your guns from you -- and/or kill you ...

they are supremely anti-NRA in the end.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #105
110. There are lots of people who own massive
numbers of weapons. Legally and without the interference of the government.

The NRA is kept in business by idiotic laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #110
115. They are usually right-wing domestic militia ....
who they've refused to investigate as terrorists . . .

Maybe Obama will start to change that --!!??

The NRA is kept in business as all right wing enterprises are by corporate money --

and corrupt officials ....

and as I understand it the NRA used to be quite different until taken

over by right wing.

NRA money and right-wing propaganda has played a large part in targeting Democrats.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #115
118. Targeting people for stupid laws..
gun control is a joke, dead issue. It was pushed by morons who were to lazy to actually fix the sources of violence in this country. For those of us who have visited places like geneva and zurich where weapons are owned by civilians and crime is almost non existent this is very clear. During my year in what was left of Yugoslavia there was almost NO crime involving the bezillions of weapons in circulation. Not sure what they did with them all, but the population did not revert to crime sprees with them. Their use in the war is not comparable to this topic.

Reasonable regulation is good. Stupid bans just piss people off who actually follow the law. When the ban on weed and hookers (both are ILLEGAL) starts working then they should try a gun ban. Or maybe fix root cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boilinmad Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #47
102. Ahh, the beautiful art....
....of death and destruction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #46
61. Hey, the CIA can't find it's AK-47's . . . but when we find them we can still burn them...!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #61
80. I can PM you the STEP code
to mill an entire AKM from a metal of your choice. It would take a CNC mill no time to crank out thousands an hour. Guys in pakistan make them by hand. This is the most common shoulder fired weapon in the world.

Plastic and steel, pretty easy to do. This is milled high dollar process, stamping out shit parts that they are made of is even easier.

When you people ban weed and coke, and hookers then move on to gun control. Until then, ta ta.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #80
106. Evidently Mexico hasn't figured this out --- we're arming their drug dealers!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #106
108. No they will not admit THEY ARE
Edited on Fri Feb-27-09 01:08 PM by Pavulon
we are not sending M4's,M16s, M249s, 240Golf, M2 Brownings, and fragmentation grenades to their dealers via our civil market.

That gear is shipped from direct manufacturers to the Federal government of Mexico, who then sells it for cash.

This does not come from bob's gun rack in arizona. I am surprised they still think they can sell us this bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #108
114. And what is the CIA giving them . . . ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #114
116. CIA generally gives Russian
equipment out. AK variants are cheap. They will not be going to bubba's gun hut and buying used ar-15 semi autos.

If you entertain the notion, which is silly, they would not be giving out equipment that traces to the US or them.

I bet those weapons SN trace back to LOTS sold to the Mexican government or police.

If I was a drug dealer and needed to kill the competition WTF do I want a shitty semi auto redneck replica for when I can just visit the military arsenal. Ar15 is a REPLICA. Not a military weapon.

I can pick up grenades, AP mines, explosives and det cord, a few SAWs, m4s, and cases of IMI or Lake City made M193 ammo. Just what you need to fight a small war. Pay everyone off with dirty money and have them schlep that shit for me too. Like domino's delivering a pizza. Bet my last fucking dollar the brass is NATO issued M193 ball and the weapons were stolen from the federal police or military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. Hey, maybe the CIA is making weapons . . . stamping them "Cuba" ......?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #117
119. It would take me and two guys
a week to start replicating any shoulder weapon that has EVER been made. Now this involves a room full of millions of dollars of equipment and some spin up time but it is not like a moon shot.

A modern fabrication shop can crank out molds, for injection of plastics, and the actual parts from aluminum, (or platinum, or uranium for all i care) in no time at all.

This is a really silly line of discussion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boilinmad Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #28
101. Bravo!!!...
....GUNS FUCKING SUCK!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #101
135. Then don't own any.
We'll keep ours, thanks. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #28
145. I don't believe you are clear on the concept of what it takes to manufacture "these weapons"
During the failed ban, the difference between an AW and a non-AW version of the same firearm consisted in most cases of parts that can be added or removed easily, by a person with no special skills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
54. Drug dealers primarily use handguns, not small-caliber rifles with handgrips that stick out.
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 06:09 PM by benEzra
Rifles are not very portable, which is why only 3% of U.S. murders, and an even smaller number of nonfatal assaults and other crimes, involve rifles of any type.

Hunters need assault weapons ... ?

Hunters are relevant because...?

Only about 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners hunts. "Assault weapons" are the most popular civilian nonhunting rifles in the United States, and more Americans own them than hunt. They dominate competitive and recreational centerfire target shooting, for example.

BTW, this is an "assault weapon":



So is this:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #54
107. ..whatever Mexican drug dealers need, we seem to be the suppliers .....!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #107
111. Yep, Direct from COLT, FN, and others on letterhead
to their corrupt army or police who then resell it for cash. Maybe we should stop selling their government small arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #107
144. OK, show me where in the USA you can stroll in and legally buy quantities of RPG's
Edited on Sat Feb-28-09 08:20 AM by benEzra
and uncontrolled machineguns or selective-fire assault rifles.

You can't; there aren't any, unless you a police or military procurement officer.

We did ship hundreds of thousands of machineguns and M16's to Central America during the 1970's and 1980's, though, and the Soviets shipped hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of automatic AK-47's and RPG's. They're still there, and a lot of them end up on the international black market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frog92969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. I wouldn't mind the ban...
...if they defined "assault-weapon" the same as the military.
But slapping that label on "support-weapons" is nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. I understand Obama's thinking and the sentiment on this but..
Personally I think the gun ban while it has good intentions, should not be high priority at the moment. Plus the political hit we'll take from it is not worth it. If Obama wasn't seriously considering it he should give a good talking to the aide who let this slip because I assume it's already making the pro-gun circles and stirring their usual anti-Democratic paranoia up.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. This came from Holder, not Obama.
And I doubt Holder's comments were cleared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Well in that case, Holder's opinion is his own...
Since this would have to clear legislative hurdles and I doubt this would be a war Obama's team would be willing to fight at the moment.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDFbunny Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
10. Praise be to Polosi
This could have been 1994 all over again.

Im happy that most here see the wisdom of Polosi here.

Some DUers are just determined to give congress right back again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. Consider the trial balloon popped, for now.
Didn't take long either. No matter whether your opposition was to the infringement upon the RKBA, or simply opposition out of political expedience, thanks if you spoke out against this. The response everywhere was overwhelming, and the overwhelming majority who saw this to be a bad idea here on DU inspired me to finally stop lurking and sign up. I'm happy to see Holder got his ass handed to him in short order on this.

Now start working on whipping the DEA into line, Mr. Holder. I'm tired of this disrespect for states rights re: med marij.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
13. ....because hunters need assault weapons . . . !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Please see post 17. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
38. Bambi can only be brought down by a rifle mounted rocket launcher.
You obviously don't know the danger of today's "super-deer."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Today's deer aren't like the ones you smoked in the 60's.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #38
63. I don't know if you've ever heard this story about LBJ and "deer" . . .
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 08:13 PM by defendandprotect
It seems he used to take people out deer hunting from his ranch in Texas ---

and he'd take them out in the middle of the dark night and then up into

some tower he had built in the midst of forest.

They'd all be ready with their rifles ----

And then LBJ would throw on the flood lights --

and there would be all the deer blinded by the light -- and ready to be "hunted" --!!!



That's what I think about deer hunter mentality --

If a deer ever bit them on the ass they'd probably want the militia called in!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
55. Hunters are irrelevant. Target shooters use "assault weapons"...
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 06:17 PM by benEzra
because "assault weapon" is merely scare-speak for the most popular centerfire rifles in the United States. Geez, John F. Kennedy owned more than one (including an AR-15). They dominate competitive and recreational centerfire target shooting in the USA.

People who keep handguns, shotguns, or small-caliber carbines for defensive purposes also use "assault weapons."

Perhaps I should quote the former present of what is now the Brady Campaign, the late Pete Shields:

"(O)ur organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable." ---Nelson T. "Pete" Shields, Guns Don't Die--People Do, Priam Press, 1981, pp. 47-48, emphasis added.

That statement is no less true now than it was then. According to the FBI, all rifles put together, including civilian AK's, AR-15's, ALL of them, account for only half as many murders annually as shoes and bare hands do, or about 3% of U.S. murders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #55
64. Bet JFK wouldn't if he could see the GOP/NRA violent America today . . .
Paranoids need to be sure they hit some kid out on Halloween who knocks on their door!

Perhaps I should quote the former present of what is now the Brady Campaign, the late Pete Shields:

"Our organization, Handgun Control, Inc. does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable." ---Nelson T. "Pete" Shields,Guns Don't Die--People Do, Priam Press, 1981, pp. 47-48, emphasis added.


They can only be used from towers -- and in David Koresh collections -- in schools and

restaurants -- !!!

Violence in America is a problem with or without guns -- but guns are an accessory we don't

need to add.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #64
69. Per capita rifle homicide is roughly the same now as it was in 1961.
And yes, President Kennedy would have certainly owned one today, for the same reasons he owned one 1961-1963. He was also an NRA life member, FWIW.

And the very deliberately created hysteria about rifle homicide is indeed misplaced.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. 'US IS A VAST ARMS BAZAAR FOR MEXICAN CARTELS . . ." NY Times
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 09:30 PM by defendandprotect
Michael Moore was an NRA member and tells how right wing and neo-con it's become ---

But, let's give an assault weapon to everyone --

In fact, let's demand everyone has at least one --- maybe two!!

MEANWHILE . .

US IS A VAST ARMS BAZAAR FOR MEXICAN CARTELS . . . . (MYT)

Mexican authorities have long complained that American gun dealers are arming the cartels. This case is the most prominent prosecution of an American gun dealer since the United States promised Mexico two years ago it would clamp down on the smuggling of weapons across the border. It also offers a rare glimpse of how weapons delivered to American gun dealers are being moved into Mexico and wielded in horrific crimes.

----------------

Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ?
az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5136770&mesg_id=5138106

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. The machineguns and rocket launchers being used by Mexican cartels
aren't coming from the USA, because they aren't available in the USA except to police and military. They are as tightly controlled here as howitzers and 500-lb bombs, by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalis...

I don't doubt that a considerable number of handguns are flowing south (which have nothing to do with an AWB), and there may be some non-automatic civilian rifles in the mix. But M16's, military AK-47's, and RPG's aren't coming from this country unless they are coming from the military, police, or their suppliers. Most probably come from Columbia, the detritus of decades of U.S.-Soviet proxy wars.

Want to help Mexico? Legalize cannabinoids at minimum and take the profit out of it. The cartels' disposable income is currently larger than the entire defense budget of most NATIONS, and that is squarely the result of Prohibition. (And I say that as a non drug user who used to be a convinced prohibitionist, but faced the facts.)

Good article on that subject:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-8901796/Corpora...

Corporations or cartels? A choice of ink over blood
By Bill McClellan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/18/2008

One week after Edgar Millan Gomez was killed in Mexico City, Anheuser-Busch announced it was giving up the right to import Grolsch, a Dutch beer. "The time is right to end our importation," said David A. Peacock, vice president of marketing for Anheuser-Busch. Analysts said the announcement was no surprise. In February, London-based SABMiller, the parent of Miller Brewing, bought the Dutch brewery that makes Grolsch. So it made no sense for Anheuser-Busch to use its considerable muscle to import a beer that is now owned by its chief rival.

Perhaps you're wondering what that has to do with the death of Millan Gomez. He was Mexico's federal police chief, and he was gunned down outside of his home by assassins who are assumed to have been working for a drug cartel. The cartels have been targeting government officials because the government has been trying to crack down on the cartels. The government is making this effort because the violence between the cartels has gotten out of hand. Authorities estimate more than 2,500 people have been killed in the last year as the cartels have battled over the control of the cocaine traffic from South America to the U.S. In other words, importation and exportation rights.

There was a time when we had cartels fighting over the booze trade. Perhaps the most famous booze cartel leader was Al Capone. In 1929, some members of his cartel killed seven members of a cartel headed by Bugs Moran. That incident became known as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. The dispute that led to the massacre had to do with importation rights from Detroit. The Capone cartel had the rights to whiskey from Detroit, but the Moran cartel had been hijacking some shipments. Largely because of incidents like that, the feds made a real effort to stamp out the booze cartels. But they couldn't. There was too much demand. People liked to drink. Call it a weakness, if you want, but as long as people wanted to buy booze, somebody was going to provide it. For a long time, it was guys like Capone and Moran. Eventually, law-abiding people got tired of the killing and the bribery. Prohibition was ended. In essence, we traded Al Capone for August Busch. So now, when there is a conflict about importation rights, we have an announcement from a vice president of marketing.

...

Because these drugs are flowing through Mexico, that country runs the risk of becoming a narco-state. The illicit drug trade creates such immense profits that public officials can be bought or assassinated. Plata o plomo. Silver or lead. Millan Gomez was the 10th federal police official to be murdered in the past two months. The week before he was killed, Roberto Velasco Bravo was killed. He was the head of the organized crime division in the public security ministry. Local police officials are being targeted, too. Earlier this year, the commander of public safety for Juarez was murdered, and before him, the police chief of Tecate was murdered. On and on it goes. It is always clear who gets the lead. It is not so clear who gets the silver.

(article continues)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #76
112. For all we know . . .
Edited on Fri Feb-27-09 01:15 PM by defendandprotect
the CIA may be supplying them to the drug dealers -- !!???

Let's not be naive -- CIA is involved in drug running ...


And I say that as a non drug user who used to be a convinced prohibitionist,

but faced the facts


There's always room for someone to change their mind --

I'm sure if Koresh and his followers were still around they'd probably rethink guns!


I'm all for legalizing drugs based on natural plants ---

and let's get hemp back -- I could use some real rayon!

Meanwhile, it is obvious that the drug trade cannot go on without the complicity of

corrupt government officials and police enforcement!

The drug trade is as good as gold -- but only after it has been made criminal/illegal.

Otherwise, it's just another plant.


















Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #112
134. A lot of those guns probably WERE supplied by the CIA or KGB, during the 1970's and 1980's
as the U.S. and Soviet Union waged proxy wars in Central America.

The full-auto M16's and AK-47's in Central America didn't come from the U.S. civilian market; they came from military stockpiles, either via military aid to now-defunct resistance movements, or via military aid to corrupt governments that later turned around and sold them on the black market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. Holder is quickly becoming Obama's Andrew Young
as some of us expected he might.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. ouch. Shoe fits, though. n/t
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost in CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
40. I agree and at light speed as well.
For God's sake it's only February.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. In a weak defense I would just say
it is probably not unusual for the head of Justice dept to take the position generally of law enforcement. Personally I think gun control could use reform but it needs to be done smartly and with common sense towards the views of gun owners and not until we have had some time to work through those issues which means we have more higher priority shit right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Agreed- yet these shooting from the hip type statements seem to be becoming a pattern
leaving some to wonder: what's next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
23. If we eliminate guns as a wedge issue, would that leave only choice, gay rights and
Schiavo type issues?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Don't forget the all time favorite
... tax cuts for the wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. IMO, only a relatively small number of voters oppose tax cuts for the wealthy, but that
is just my gut reaction. Nothing to back it up, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
65. I think you're wrong . . . Americans understand that issue quite well, IMO . . .!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Titonwan Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
27. Thank you. I love my weapons.
I'm a true Liberal and intend to stay that way. NO Government or redneck rethug will take this DFH's hardware. I'm a repunk's worst nightmare, an armed hippie!
Peace & Love and all that, but you best be meaning it with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brucie Kibbutz Donating Member (704 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
30. This is good news.
:patriot: :woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AyanEva Donating Member (428 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
32. I'm all for tougher gun control
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 02:51 PM by AyanEva
...but I also understand and agree with Pelosi's decision. I just wish cities and towns had more power to determine their own individual gun laws. What works in rural PA doesn't really work all that well in Philadelphia. I'm not saying ban all weapons because there is the second ammendment and it does serve a purpose. I'm just saying that I think it would make sense for different localities to be able to make laws that suit them.

I don't know if that's really even possible to do, though. I can already think of a number of ways that could go all pear shaped and get innocent people in trouble. Like if you're complying with the law in one town but accidentally break it in another because the laws were different and you didn't know. So yeah, concentrate on enforcing the ones that we have. Provide more funding for various programs that work to get illegal guns off the street, like the one we have here in Philly where you get paid a certain amount of money (or I think they also do grocery vouchers or something) for each gun that you turn in. It's the illegal weapons that cause the most problems, not the the ones that are held with valid permits.

I've considered getting a permit and training just for safety's sake. I'm female and not very big and I'm often out and about in neighborhoods that aren't the greatest because of my job (non-profits are rarely in "good" areas). I know I'd feel safer having a better way to defend myself besides my RAD training because I definitely don't feel all that safe walking to the El with shadows and plenty of places for attackers to hide. I always keep very alert and frequently check behind me. But someone has to work in these neighborhoods, so it's a trade off that I accept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #32
113. The second amendment doesn't serve any purpose, unless you're naive enough ...
to believe that the government won't take your guns!

Think New Orleans . . .

Think David Koresh . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #113
146. The gun confiscations in New Orleans were illegal
Did you ever think about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #146
159. So is the war in Iraq . . .
but, nonetheless, we seem to have been there for 7 years now?

The guns were also no less missing -- illegal or not!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
appal_jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
33. Good call by Pelosi
Good call by Pelosi, and good news for the American people.

-app
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
34. When I first heard of this I knew there wasn't a hope in hell that it would pass in Congress.
Thank you Nancy for tamping down this GOP rallying cry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACTION BASTARD Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
36. Good! It's time Dems got in line with the rest of the country on this issue.
Dems love the gun just as much as the other side. Another talking point for them --squashed--!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
42. Doesn't everyone need an assault weapon?
Especially households with 11 year old kids who get pissed off. I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. No
Only people who really want them need them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. That kid murdered with a plain old "youth" shotgun
which is not an assault weapon!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #48
90. I'm aware of that. Think of how many more he could have taken
out with an assault rifle. But as long as Bambi can be riddled with bullets . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #90
109. "Assault weapons" fire exactly once when the trigger is pulled,
just like any other civilian rifle. Rate of fire is the same.

Unless you're speaking of NFA Title 2/Class III restricted assault rifles, which are tightly controlled in the United States (police/military only unless you obtain Federal authorization to possess one, i.e. BATFE Form 4).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brucie Kibbutz Donating Member (704 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #42
49. Everyone needs fewer Republicans getting elected.
Not bringing back the AWB will help us achieve that. Besides, only a small fraction of gun deaths in the US are from rifle fire. Even fewer of those are from semi automatic rifles. Obviously rifles like the ones you want banned are not the scourge you make them out to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #42
88. I don't trust the government to "decide" what guns I need
A future George W. Bush administration could just as easily say that Arabs, Muslims, blacks and Hispanics are not allowed to own guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #88
156. Oh Please....
The government already decides what guns you "need."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
43. good!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doremus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
44. Good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
51. Ah, Nancy...
... you fail us once again. I am a gun owner, but assault weapons are designed, made, and used for one purpose only: to mow down human beings. End of story, no matter what the gun freaks say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. The most popular centerfire target rifles in America are used only to "mow down human beings"?
That's funny, since more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt, yet all rifles combined account for only 3% of U.S. murders.

What guns do you own, if you don't mind my asking? They may be "assault weapons," like a Ruger Mini-14, or a Browning BAR with a screw-on muzzle brake, or a Benelli 12-gauge:





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #53
121. Answer....
... fully auto I consider assault, as do most cops, etc. semi-auto I own... and are still legal. I'm talking about machine pistols with large magazines firing full auto, these humongous 50 cal armor piercing monsters that have been showing up more on the streets in California... stuff that common sense is not about pure self defense or hunting.... these things are made to mow down lots of people, or to blow up vehicles, etc.
What I own is my business, but nothing is fully auto, and all are legal. Your pic of the Ruger looks legal to me... as long as it isn't converted to fully auto. You know exactly what I am saying, so why put those pics up? They all look fine to me... if not fully auto.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #121
129. Because every single one of those rifles would be banned as an "assault weapon" by H.R.1022...
and the Ruger mini-14 is banned by name.

ALL "assault weapons" are non-automatic, NFA Title 1 civilian firearms. Machineguns and guns easily convertible to full auto are already controlled under Title 2 of the NFA and have never been part of the "assault weapon" issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TXRAT2 Donating Member (103 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #53
139. Target rifle's?
I'd hardly consider either of those a target rifle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #139
141. No, this is the target rifle I was speaking of:




The AR-15 platform, which is by far the most popular centerfire target rifle in this country. The top one is configured for F-class long range precision competition (300 to 1200 yards), and the bottom one for Camp Perry style competition (limited to iron sights only).

More pics here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I posted the pics of the Ruger, Browning, and Benelli to counter the misconception that the "assault weapon" fraud only covers modern-looking guns. It also covers many more traditional looking rifles and shotguns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnyawl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #51
58. right, and handguns too!
...assault weapons are designed, made, and used for one purpose only: to mow down human beings.

I suppose you want to outlaw handguns too?

That was not failure on Nancy's part, that was the smartest thing she could do.

I'm a gun owner, and I approve this Speaker. I don't own an assault rifle - YET - but if Fox news continues to preach armed rebellion to the right-wing whackos, I'm gonna go buy one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brucie Kibbutz Donating Member (704 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #51
59. Despite your opinion of what they are designed for,
that is not what they are being used for. If they were being used for that purpose, it would seem there must be very few of them in the hands of the public. That isn't the case, though. Americans own millions of semi auto AR's and AK's but they are rarely ever used in a murder involving firearms. FBI statistics show that rifles of *any* type are rarely ever used for murder. It's almost always a handgun that is used in murders involving firearms. Knives are used far more often than rifles for murdering people. Should we ban those as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #59
122. Answer
semis are fine.... assault type weapons I consider fully auto, as do most cops.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #122
132. I have no problem with the existing tight controls on full autos.
But "assault weapon" legislation affects semis only.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #51
66. Agree . . . thanks for telling the truth -- !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #66
74. The truth?
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 09:37 PM by benEzra
assault weapons are designed, made, and used for one purpose only: to mow down human beings.

Agree . . . thanks for telling the truth -- !!!

That one is pretty darn easy to debunk, given that "assault weapons" are the most common centerfire rifles used in competitive target shooting.

The AR-15 platform dominates centerfire target shooting in this country. The ammunition it uses is the #1 selling centerfire rifle caliber in the United States, every year (7.62x39mm is #2, and .308/7.62x51mm #3).

F-class (long range) precision competition, 300 to 1200 yards:


http://www.f-classinfo.com/page11/page11.html

Hmmm, an AR-15 not being used to mow down human beings.



Camp Perry style target competition (restricted to iron sights only):



Hmmm, another AR-15 not being used to mow down human beings.



IPSC/USPSA carbine and 3-gun:



Gee, another AR-15 not being used to mow down human beings.


And another...




And another...




And hunting (with a .308 model, since .223 isn't powerful enough for deer):




And a book about how the AR-15 came to dominate precision target competition:


http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?s...


And a police officer using a civilian non-automatic AR-15 to serve and protect. I don't think the department issued her the rifle so she could "mow down people," do you?




Face facts. More Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt (16-20 million or more), yet all rifles combined account for only 3% of murders. The overwhelming majority of "assault weapons" are made and used for lawful, responsible civilian ownership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #74
79. Ah, "Girls Gone Wild," eh . . . guns are sexy . . . ???
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #79
85. To equate a female police officer with girls gone wild, congrats todays worst person in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #79
91. Huh?
Edited on Fri Feb-27-09 07:10 AM by benEzra
Ah, "Girls Gone Wild," eh . . . guns are sexy . . . ???

Huh? A gun isn't any more sexy than a circle saw. You think those are sexy, too?

I take it that you've never seen a female police officer before? And you thought all competitive shooters were old white males with beer bellies and no teeth? Uh-huh.

Dude, I shoot competitively, and have had my ass handed to me by female shooters. Unlike most sports, men and women compete directly against each other in most shooting competitions.

But back to the original point, care to try to defend the asinine proposition that the MOST POPULAR CIVILIAN TARGET RIFLES IN AMERICA are only used to "mow people down"? Because you can't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lilith Velkor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #79
95. What a sexist attitude.
FAIL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #74
123. Nope...
you show legal semi-auto rifles... perfectly fine with me, as are pistols for self defense in the home. Assault weapons, in the practical sense, are fully auto, and made to mow down lots of people for those who don't like to, or can't, aim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #123
131. No, all Title 1 "assault weapons" are NON-automatic
and by law may not be easily convertible to full auto.

This rifle is banned BY NAME as an "assault weapon" by H.R.1022:


http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model...

Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1022 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1022

To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 13, 2007

...

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:

...

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14


H.R.1022 also bans any non-automatic civilian rifle with a detachable magazine and a handgrip that sticks out; any semiauto shotgun with a detachable magazine, regardless of capacity; and any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun that has ever been procured by any Federal law enforcement agency, unless specifically exempted by the Attorney General.

If you think the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch covers any automatic weapons at all, you've been had. It covers ONLY non-automatic civilian guns---and the most popular civilian rifles in America, at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #123
152. Fully automatic firearms have been strictly regulated since 1934
The expired AW ban was about semiautomatics. In fact, the actual term in the US Code for them was "semiautomatic assault weapons".

I've personally been battling that propaganda-fed disinformation for over 15 years now. I'm sure you are in intelligent, educated, and generally well informed person badgervan, but you've had the wool pulled over your eyes on this issue.

The reason polls show public support for a renewed AW ban is precisely because so many people have been fooled into thinking that it's about machineguns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #74
125. You Make a False Equivalency....
.... the Assault Weapons Ban that we are talking about banned FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms, and that is what I am for. The semi stuff is fine with me, and with that ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #125
130. No, the "assault weapon" issue is solely about non-automatic, NFA Title 1 civilian firearms.
Edited on Fri Feb-27-09 06:19 PM by benEzra
ALL automatic weapons are regulated under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, and were not affected in any way, shape, or form by the 1994 "assault weapon" fraud.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalis...

Possession of ANY automatic weapon, or any weapon easily convertible to full auto, outside of police/military duty or their suppliers, is a 10-year Federal felony right now, under current Federal law, unless you obtain a BATFE Form 4.

I reiterate--the "assault weapon ban" is TOTALLY about non-automatic civilian guns, and does not affect the legal status of a single automatic weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #125
136. We're Talking About Two Different Bills
I've been referring to the bill outlawing automatics and large magazines, and I thought that's the one you all were talking about. I am fine with semis, and the Ruger in the pic is ok with me, and from what I've heard, pretty reliable and something I would keep handy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #136
138. There is no bill outlawing automatics
that's the point. Any "assault weapons" legislation bans semi-automatic weapons only.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #136
143. Automatic weapons were restricted 75 years ago, under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Edited on Sat Feb-28-09 08:15 AM by benEzra
Automatic weapons were restricted 75 years ago, under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The "assault weapon" fraud is about banning the most popular civilian semiautos in America, and doesn't touch a single automatic weapon.

The most recent version was H.R.1022, but it's the same every year.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022 (click "Full Text" to read it)

All models and variants of the Ruger Mini-14 (photo below) would be banned by name by Section 3.(a)(30)(A)(xviii).


Ruger Mini-14

Section 3.(a)(30)(A) also bans, by name, the M1 Carbine, AR-15's (the most popular centerfire target rifle in America), AR-10's, FAL's and variants, Kel-Tecs, and a bunch of other civilian autoloading rifles and carbines.


AR-15

3.(a)(30)(D)(iii) and 3.(a)(30)(H)(ii) bans all civilian autoloading rifles and shotguns with protruding handgrips or thumbhole target stocks, and rifles with threaded muzzles. That nails a lot of popular autoloading guns that aren't banned by name, a lot of defensive-style shotguns, some hunting guns, etc. That would include the Remington 7400 with a thumbhole target stock and the Browning BAR with a BOSS harmonic damper.


Benelli turkey hunting shotgun, 12-gauge


Browning BAR Mk II Safari Grade, .300 WSSM

3.(a)(30)(H)(iii) bans all civilian autoloading shotguns with detachable magazines.

3.(a)(30)(H)(iv) bans all civilian autoloading shotguns that hold more than 5 shells of any length.

3.(a)(30)(L) bans the SKS, M1 Garand, and other autoloaders that started out as military weapons, unless exempted from the ban by the Attorney General--unlikely, since the VPC labels them "assault weapons," and they are absolutely no different from the M1 carbine, the AR-15, Saigas, etc. that are banned by name. It also bans any autoloading rifle or shotgun that has ever been adopted by any Federal law enforcement agency, unless specifically exempted by the Attorney General. That would also nail a bunch of civilian autoloading shotguns, including a lot of Benellis.


M1 Garand, .30-06


SKS

Again, not a single automatic weapon in the bunch.

It also doesn't just ban "large" magazines; it bans any magazine that holds more than fricking 10 rounds, which turns the clock back to the 1860's as far as civilian firearms go. That is outrageous, considering the most popular centerfire pistols and rifles in America hold 12-30 rounds. Of course, banning or hobbling the most popular civilian guns in America is precisely the point of the legislation.

BTW, your confusion about what the legislation really covers was intentional on the part of the gun-control lobby. From the 1988 Violence Policy Center strategy paper that launched the "assault weapon" fraud:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun--can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.


You've been had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #125
142. The Assault Weapons ban..
.. has NOTHING to do with fully auto, those weapons were and are heavily regulated and very few people, even gun nuts, disagree with that regulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #125
148. Sorry I missed this one earlier - Thanks for proving without any doubt that you are misinformed
Edited on Sat Feb-28-09 08:50 AM by slackmaster
...The semi stuff is fine with me...

So you aren't really in favor of a renewed AW ban after all.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #51
77. assault weapons are designed, made, and used for one purpose only: to mow down human beings.
Unfortunately, only idiots say things like this.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #77
126. Thanks
but anyone who wants to live in a country where everyone walks around armed to the teeth is paranoid and should move to Afghanistan. I am simply saying that all types of weaponry should not be legal to the citizenry; cops and military are of course a different story - they should be armed to the teeth. Should fully auto guns be ok for all to own and carry?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #126
133. Who's talking about un-restricting automatic weapons?
Edited on Fri Feb-27-09 06:08 PM by benEzra
Nobody.

We're talking about civilian semiautos here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
81. Thank you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #81
104. Thank you --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #51
89. Hmm, I wonder...
... you fail us once again. I am a gun owner, but assault weapons are designed, made, and used for one purpose only: to mow down human beings. End of story, no matter what the gun freaks say.


Than why are we issuing them to local police???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #89
124. Do You Equate....
... the police with the civilian population, in terms of types of weapons carried? Now that is beyond stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #124
128. Police ARE civilians, and (outside of SWAT) usually use civilian weapons.
Edited on Fri Feb-27-09 06:20 PM by benEzra
A "civilian" is someone who is subject to the civil law, as opposed to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Your local police officer is a civilian; in THIS country, the police are not a branch of the military.

Most departments only issue civilian weapons to regular patrol officers (pistols, shotguns, or non-automatic civilian rifles like AR-15's), reserving military weapons (M16's/M4's/MP5's, explosives, and whatnot) for SWAT. That is not always the case, but is the most common approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #128
137. HuH?
... so civiians = police. Then police = SWAT. SWAT = civilians. Right? Police don't have rules that civiians like you and I don't have? And I've seen enough cops carrying military hardware to refute your argument.. Police are given much more latitude with weapons and enforcement than Joe Blow... you must realize this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #137
140. SWAT teams are generally organized along paramilitary lines...
but yes, legally, they are still civilians.

What military hardware are you talking about?

You do realize that when you see an officer with something like this:



...that it is usually not a real M16/M4, but a non-automatic civilian AR-15, yes?

True, there are exceptions (and some SWAT teams have even bought APC's, egads), but for the most part police departments try to stick with civilian guns for their regular patrol officers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #51
147. No, "assault weapon" was an arbitrary category based on appearance, not function
Edited on Sat Feb-28-09 08:32 AM by slackmaster
The differences between the AW and a non-AW version of a particular type of firearm consisted of ergonomic and cosmetic accessories that had nothing to do with how the weapons fired.

Many firearms used by target shooters and hunters today would have been classified as AWs during the failed ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
57. Good news indeed, and I was going to buy a Romanian AK
This weekend....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
70. Good
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crowman1979 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
78. Good! Now the Rethugs can't make the "They'll take away your guns!" arguement.
Rush is running out of material! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #78
83. Actually, even with Ms. Pelosi dousing the flames ...
Holder's announcement hurt. It's like the guy on the other side of the table got a flash peek at your cards in a poker game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #78
149. Oh yes they can, they are, and it's working
Go to your local gun store and see the empty racks and display cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OffWithTheirHeads Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
84. My Godess, are the Dems actually starting to get it?
Guns is as big of a political posturing issue with no basis in fact for the Dems as stem cells are for the Republinuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 04:29 AM
Response to Original message
86. Good
All these whiny people calling for endless "common sense gun laws" (usually suburban Mommies and affluent Lexus liberals who don't have to worry about crime in their ritzy neighborhoods) neglect the fact that we already have many common sense gun laws on the books already. Let's enforce them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
92. This person who grew up in a rural area says THANK GOD.
Edited on Fri Feb-27-09 07:52 AM by Odin2005
Like I said a couple days ago when this first popped up, Dems need to simply drop the gun issue, it's a killer (no pun intended) for rural voters, and I can't blame then given how we are stereotyped as "gun nut hicks" by urban liberals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnionPatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
93. Good for Nancy.
We just got into power and are starting to fix things. The last thing we need is a gun ban so we can be swept from power in the next election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riverdeep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
94. Well, I originally thought a statement like this by Holder had to be cleared
by the White House first, because of the enormity of it, but now I'm thinking Holder has way of going "off reservation". Or they were putting up a trial balloon with someone who was willing to take a hit.

I can't believe I've agreed with Pelosi three times this week, the statement she supports prosecution not a truth commission, saying she thinks leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq is too much, and this. The world has spun off it's axis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #94
96. Somebody needs to get a hold of Holder
And explain this stuff to him. He shouldn't be making such declerations without Obama's approval. I'm a little worried because this is the 3rd time it's happened since he was confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #96
97. I nominate Feingold, Tester, and Webb
They could explain to Holder why this is the new shit and why he should back off real quick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #96
98. I'd like to hear that conversation.
Obama: Eric... WTF is wrong with you? Jesus-Fucking-Christ!!! I have enough bullshit to deal with as it is right now, and you go
and fuck things up.

Listen... next time you have something to say to the press, clear it with me first...OK?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #98
99. Self delete.
Edited on Fri Feb-27-09 09:04 AM by -..__...
Response should have been posted to OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
100. This is certainly cheerful news.
Lets hope this turn of events is sincere and permanent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
120. American Hunters and Shooters Association tells Holder to back off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-27-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #120
127. Good. My opinion of AHSA just went up quite a bit.
Looks like Mr. Schoenke meant what he said earlier, and I am glad of it.

It appears to me that Mr. Holder is rather uninformed about Federal gun law, and non-criminal gun issues in general. In the same press conference, Holder mentioned the need to ban "cop-killer bullets", which were already banned by Federal law 23 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #120
150. Amazing, and I had written them off as a bunch of Elmer Fudds
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #150
153. Helpful Definition For Real-Word Forum Types

"Elmer Fudds" is the scornful term that the assault-style rifle and pistols crowd applies to users of traditional-style firearms, mainly hunters. Boiled down to the basics, this is name-calling by the people who favor firearms designed to kill human beings vs. those who own guns designed to hunt deer and ducks with. If you want to see the sort of ugly political views and sick fantasies that the people-killing group carry around, abundant quantities are available in the DU Gun Dungeon, every day. Strong stomachs only.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #153
154. No, just those who want everyone else's guns banned.
I have no problem with anyone who chooses to own only traditional-looking guns, and would never call them a Fudd; to each his own. Someone who defends their right to own a high-powered sniper-style Mauser derivative but fights to outlaw the guns I own would be the only type I'd even consider applying that term to (and I do not believe I have used the term here).

Schoenke is most assuredly not a Fudd, because although he himself does not own modern-looking civilian guns, he is not trying to ban the guns of those who do lawfully own them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #153
157. Great....
.... forty plus years of hunting and target shooting and I find out I'm an "elmer fudd". Judging by your definition, I'm a proud fudd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #157
162. badgervan, I sincerely hope you have learned one thing in this thread
That the "assault weapons" ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badgervan Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #162
164. I Did....
... learn a lot here. According to you folks, the Marlin 20ga. I've been using for decades has been illegal, as it has a 2 shot clip w/one in chamber. That is nuts. I truly did not realize that this bill pertained to anything but fully auto, armor piercing ammo, etc. I also have been using a Remington semiauto 12ga w/4 in tube, 1 in chamber. Hope that one is ok. Good to learn the facts, which I did not realize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #153
161. The funny thing about that is, every rifle used by "traditionalists" was also originally designed
Edited on Sun Mar-01-09 09:20 AM by slackmaster
To kill human beings.

Most bolt-action hunting rifles in use today are based on military rifle designs developed by the Mauser brothers in the late 19th century. They've evolved into weapons more suited for hunting, mainly by losing weight and bulk. Likewise, firearms like the civilian semiautomatic AR-15 type rifles and the Kalashnikov derivitives, have been modified to suit the civilian sporting arms market by losing automatic fire capability. There are reduced-capacity magazines available for both kinds, so hunters can use them in compliance with state laws that limit ammunition capacity. There are also plenty of available modifications to make the AR type rifles particularly suitable for precision target shooting, and for hunting small to medium game animals or varmints.

Nearly all technological development in firearms over the centuries was driven by military applications. That's why it's ridiculous to try to stigmatize one kind of firearm or another as inherently bad because of the original intent of its designer. Obviously firearms of every kind have proved themselves useful for purposes other than that for which they were originally intended. The US 105 mm howitzer makes a fine avalanche control gun. Even the few kinds that have no military roots are just as suitable for killing humans as ones that are based on military patterns.

The artificial distinction between "assault" type firearms and other semiautomatic firearms was intentionally crafted to create a wedge among gun owners, by people who have as their core intent a desire to ban all firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
155. Senate Majority Leader Reid puts more kibosh on the "ban popular guns" talk...
Edited on Sat Feb-28-09 03:03 PM by benEzra
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-joins-pelosi-i...

Reid joins Pelosi in opposing ban revival
By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 02/26/09 10:17 PM

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.

"Sen. Reid would oppose an effort reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future," Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.

It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.

Reid's stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat no when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.

On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now, Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. I think it's clear the Bush administration didnt do that.

More good news.

BTW, I don't think it's entirely fair that the articles says this puts them at odds with "the Obama administration." I don't think Holder was speaking for the administration; I think he was just spouting off without thinking, personally. (If he were thinking, he probably wouldn't have called for a ban on ammunition that was already banned 23 years ago, either...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-09 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
158. Now THIS is something that should rightfully be kept OFF THE TABLE!
As much as I dislike guns and NEVER want to own one, I don't think that THIS is our highest priority right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-01-09 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
160. One of the first things she's done right. 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 Sat Apr 19th 2014, 05:43 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