PLEASE participate in this poll about 2nd Amendment rights and Democrats

[Trajan]

Poll question: PLEASE participate in this poll about 2nd Amendment rights and Democrats

I have always been a Democrat, and I have always been a proponent of reasonable gun regulations ... from the Brady Bill, to waiting periods, Conceal and Carry laws, and the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) ...

I, like MOST Democrats, thought them valid expressions of the collective will of the american people ... and the polls have generally borne this view out with consistent numbers of Democrats STILL holding to the view that gun regulations, and those specific types of regulation in particular, are indeed in the public interest and are considered to be worthy goals of a representative democracy interested in maintaining a safe public environment while simultaneously allowing for a decent freedom to possess weapons that do not fall into the disallowed categories ...

Here at DU, surprisingly, there is what I believe to be a small group that promotes the view that Democrats, in large numbers, actually REJECT gun regulations in general, and the Brady Bill, the Waiting Period, Conceal and Carry laws and the AWB in particular ...

This group is what I believe to be a small element within DU who, while they proclaim the banner of popular support, are actually exaggerating Democratic support for their rather extreme gun-rights position, which essentially holds the belief that NO gun regulations of ANY kind should be considered to be worthy goals of a free society ...

They promote the view that those 2nd amendment philosophies that are held largely by NRA, GOP, right wing, gun enthusiast types are ALSO regular positions held by mainstream, run of the mill, grass roots, dyed in the wool, true blue Democrats ...

In other words: they claim that MOST Democrats support the REPEAL of most ALL gun regulations, including the Waiting Period, Registration, Conceal and Carry regulations, and the Assault Weapons Ban ...

So: PLEASE express your position on the issue of gun regulations here, and show the world EXACTLY where you, as a Democrat, stands on these important matters ...

Democrats ??? ... WHAT, if any, GUN REGULATIONS do YOU support ? ...

PLEASE vote ...

Keep this KICKED if you can .. and lets try to keep it civil: this isnt J/PS you know ...

PLEASE Note: I will be scanning the usual haunts of gun enthusiasts that visit here, and will be seeking threads THERE of those trying to enlist NON-DU help to attempt to spoof this poll HERE ... Lets try to keep this honest (expect some very low post counts) .... Let's see what transpires all day June 15th.

Mods: Im looking for the expressions of MAINSTREAM Democrats, so please dont place this thread into J/PS ... no one likes going there ..

[Renew Deal]

1. We had a poll in GD about this last year.

Most DUers own or have owned a gun and are pro second amendment.

Here is the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=623128

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Yup. And, I support all the regulations and then some.

What part of a "well regulated militia" don't they get?

[Seabiscuit]

56. I support

a future Supreme Court, appointed by Democratic Presidents, some day in the future, which will re-examine the intent of the Second Amendment, declare that a "well regulated militia" has historically evolved into what we know as the National Guard, and that the Second Amendment gives absolutely *no* right to average citizens to possess guns. IOW, let's "regulate" guns out of existence except for the police, military, and national guard.

The typical citizen who owns a handgun is responsible (either directly or negligently) for more killings in this country than all other killings combined. This country is the most deadly violent country on the planet for one reason and one reason only: average citizens have for far too long been allowed to own guns.

As for the hunters? I say Fuck 'em. Let them use stones/slingshot/bows and arrows and give their "game" a fair and fighting chance. What kind of "sportsmanship" or "manliness" is there in shooting defenseless animals with rifles????

I voted with the majority on this one, merely because the poll didn't include a choice declaring all guns in citizens' hands should be banned.

[op6203]

93. wow

:wow:

"except for the police, military, and national guard"

I'm sorry, but that's not a world I care to live in.

Honestly, do you think if we outlaw all guns, criminals will just turn them in? There's a lot of criminals out there that have guns that are ALREADY ILLEGAL - but they still have them. What's a gun violation on top of a murder charge?

"The typical citizen who owns a handgun...."

I really don't think it's the "typical citizen". You have any links to that information?

"As for the hunters? I say F$ck 'em."

That's a great attitude.

"What kind of "sportsmanship" or "manliness" is there in shooting defenseless animals with rifles????"

I'm guessing you've never done it, so you really don't know, do you? It's not always about making it a "challenge". A well-placed rifle shot is a lot more humane than the methods you describe.

OP (thankful that my congress critter is a pro-gun Democrat!)


Edited to add: I didn't vote since none of the choices really fit my opinion. For example, I don't agree with a waiting period - but I do agree with an instant background check.

[Seabiscuit]

99. YMMV

I knew my views would meet with some rather polarized reaction. But they're my views.

Perhaps I should have written at the bottom of my post: YMMV.

You may not like the idea of living in a country where only the authorities have guns. I don't like living in a country where virtually every yahoo that wants one can get one, and people are killed daily by handguns in the hands of ordinary citizens. I don't like living in a country where the massacres at Columbine have become commonplace. I don't like living in a country where personally owned handguns are responsible for more killings than all other factors combined (n.b. - I figured someone would ask for statistical sources for this one); my answer: it's been in the news for decades. You'd have to be asleep not to notice it.

I also don't buy the NRA argument that if you outlaw guns only criminals will have guns. Criminals get their guns from illegal gun trade fairs, for the most part, where current gun control laws are not enforced. Getting rid of those black markets would of course be a necessary part of a national ban. And no, criminals won't turn their guns over willingly, of course - no one would - law enforcement would of course have to forcefully confiscate them all from everyone.

This country would be a much safer place with all those millions of guns destroyed.

Of course I've never shot an animal with a rifle. But that doesn't disqualify me from commenting on the subject. What's the point of it? The thrill??? Wouldn't it be a greater thrill to kill an animal with a bow and arrow if you're crazy enough to think you need to go around killing animals for "sport"? Why not just stick to target practice if you're obsessed with weapons. Or is it some neurotic need to see some animal head above your mantlepiece so you can brag to your redneck buddies??? I personally find animal "hunting" repulsive and lacking in all human dignity.

That's just my opinion. Nothing personal.

YMMV. :-)

[DoNotRefill]

104. How are handguns RESPONSIBLE for homicides?

You DO realize that something like 2/3 of the people in the US that are killed with firearms commit suicide with them, don't you? I often see the "30,000 gun fatality a year" figure bandied about. Yet of that number, fewer than 8,000 are murders, and fewer than 1,000 are accidental shootings. The rest are suicides. Do you oppose the right to die?

You say the massacres like Columbine have become commonplace. Really? How common? A daily occurence? Once a week? Or once every few months to every few years? In the past 50 years, there have been what, under 2 dozen school shootings nation-wide? How commonplace is that?

Something like 99.5% of guns are never used in a criminal fashion. Considering that there are 300 MILLION guns in the US (65 million handguns), I have to conclude that guns are NOT the problem, societal issues are the problem.

"Criminals get their guns from illegal gun trade fairs, for the most part, where current gun control laws are not enforced."

Do you mean gun shows? Because if you do, you're 100% wrong. Most criminals get guns from friends or family. And gun control laws ARE enforced at gun shows. EVERY dealer must conduct background checks, paperwork, et cetera.

"of course - no one would - law enforcement would of course have to forcefully confiscate them all from everyone."

This was tried once before in what became the USA. The Government sent troops to seize privately owned arms and ammunition in two towns, Lexington and Concorde. The people gave them their guns, bullets first, in what was later termed "the shot heard round the world", the start of the American Revolution. Are you TRYING to precipitate a civil war? Because that's EXACTLY what your program would result in. Massive noncompliance to registration laws (like California's AW registration scheme, which had a 5% compliance rate) and armed resistance to forcible confiscation. How many people are you trying to get killed?

[op6203]

106. Yeah, I guess opinions are like.....

"Of course I've never shot an animal with a rifle. But that doesn't disqualify me from commenting on the subject."

LOL. My point was how can you know how difficult it is if you've never done it? Okay - giving birth is really not that bad - I've never done it, but that doesn't disqualify me from commenting on it. And no, I don't do it for a THRILL. Did you miss the part where I said I don't do it for "sport"? Yeah, I don't "need" venison, but I like it. I only shoot what I can eat (hope that sentence didn't make you puke up your hamburger).
I know it's your right to RANT, but I was expressing my opinion, just as you expressed yours. I didn't call you "crazy", "obsessed", "neurotic", or "redneck".
Where'd you get that I was "obsessed with weapons" anyway? You'd think I had gun posters on my walls, guns on my PC's wallpaper, can't go a day without talking about guns, etc. I'm sorry, but that's not me. So if I disagree with you, I'm obsessed?

"I don't like living in a country where personally owned handguns are responsible for more killings than all other factors combined"

More that motor vehicle accidents? I really don't know, but think that would be hard to beat.

And FWIW (not much), I am in one of those "authory" positions that you listed, and I still don't think "we" should be the only ones allowed to have firearms. "We" can't be everywhere all the time and the courts have ruled "we" have no obligation to protect you.

OP

[Seabiscuit]

113. I guess you missed...

the "Just my opinion. Nothing personal. YMMV." at the bottom of my post. I wasn't talking about you personally. I was merely expressing my thoughts on the subject.

I don't personally care what you do about it all.

[op6203]

114. I didn't miss it

I saw it, but thought your last paragraph had a lot of "you" and "your" in it that you must have been joking about it not being personal.
OP

[Seabiscuit]

115. Well...

Pardon me for using the "you" and "your" words. My intent was to generically address issues you'd raised. A different choice of words would have been an improvement.

I meant no personal offense. And I have no desire to begin a flamewar here.

I realize my views about guns are not popular in the U.S, where virtually everyone feels equally strongly about their "Constitutional right" to own firearms and to use them to hunt game and defend their homes/families from intruders. But I do think that DU is a place where all points of view can and should be expressed, as most of us agree pretty much on most issues, especially dumping Dubya.

Interestingly, I formed a neighborhood watch group years ago and a police officer addressed the residents pointing out that if you own a gun and plan to use it to protect yourself/your family/your home from criminal intruders, you're better off not using it - you're far more likely to get yourself or a family member killed by brandishing a gun in such circumstances, or to go to prison for murder/manslaughter than to achieve your desired result. Remember, deadly force may only be used in defense of *imminent* use of deadly force, and legally it's a very fine line to tread. And deadly force may *never* be used in defense of property.

As for the Columbine massacre, it was followed in the next two years by three or four other similar high school massacres around the country. That to me is appalling and just one such massacre is far too many.

"You may call me a dreamer. But I'm not the only one." I'm just one of those people who has never been convinced by any of the arguments that there is some merit to gun ownership.

[DoNotRefill]

119. Ummmm....wrong...here....

"deadly force may only be used in defense of *imminent* use of deadly force,"

Deadly force is justified to prevent what a reasonable person thinks is immediate risk of death OR GREIVOUS BODILY HARM. "I thought he was going to break my arm" or "I thought he was going to stomp me to death" are both acceptable justifications for the use of lethal force, if a REASONABLE person would be thinking the same thing. If somebody starts storming up to you, is bigger than you, and is screaming "I'm gonna strangle you, you pencil-necked geek!!!" you're quite justified legally to draw your sidearm and put two rounds in his head as soon as he's close to you (as a local rule, 21 feet is considered standard). The fact that he doesn't have a weapon is not generally material.

[Seabiscuit]

144. Deadly force

You sound like you're a policeman using statutory language. I'm a lawyer using common-law language (i.e. the language used in Appellate and Supreme Court decisions) from which many variations of statutory language drive. It all means the same thing. Your use of the word "immediate" is equivalent to my use of the word "imminent", as a legal matter.

The "reasonale man" or "reasonable person" standard is of course applied to use of deadly force, as in most areas of criminal law.

So no real disagreement here. The "fine line" one has to walk, however, is to conform your behavior to what would be viewed as "reasonable" in the eyes of the law/before a jury. Here I would take exception to a blanket statement that: "'I thought he was going to break my arm' or 'I thought he was going to stomp me to death' are both acceptable justifications for the use of lethal force, if a REASONABLE person would be thinking the same thing." It's not the "thought" that matters, it's *all* of the facts of the case - the actual *actions* taking place that are weighed in the "reasonable person" standard, in deciding whether any particular use of force is justified. If your *only* defense to killing is "I thought he was going to..." you're going to be convicted of murder or manslaughter.

Example: An armed intruder enters your house. You pick up your gun and shoot him to death because you "thought" that he was going to either rob you at gunpoint or shoot you in order to rob you. Guess what: You're going to jail for murder. Why? The intruder didn't aim his gun at you and express any intent of imminently killing you. Even if he just waved his gun around, you still are not justified in shooting him.

There are a lot of people doing time behind bars as a result of shooting an armed intruder without adequate justification.

Now imagine you don't own a gun and an armed intruder breaks into your home. If he points his gun at you and says he's going to kill you "if you don't give me your wallet" you are still not justified in using deadly force, because it's a conditional statement, not a direct threat of imminent use of deadly force, and you have no right to use deadly force to protect your property (your wallet). If you pick up a fireplace poker and smash him in the head in response, causing his death, you're going to jail for murder. You're better off not having around or attempting to use any kind of weapon (other than your hands) in such a situation. You may lose some property in the process, but you're still alive and not accused of any crime.

Again, for the most part in this post, I'm using the words "you" and "you're" and "your" generically, not personally.

[FeebMaster]

145. Priceless. (nt)

[DoNotRefill]

154. Different states have different rules.....

I'm an ex-LEO that quit to go to Law School many moons ago. I'm drawing my examples from actual cases in the state that I practice in. Here, at least, the Castle doctrine is still good law (and the majority rule nation-wide). If somebody is in your house, and you're frightened by them and shoot them, it's legally justified here unless there's some mitigating factor. The fact that they're in your house alone is enough. Mitigating factors would be if they were leaving your house with their arms filled with stereo equipment or a TV, and you shot them in the back while they were trying to flee.

If you don't have a gun, and they do, and you kill them with a fireplace poker (your example) there's not a SINGLE prosecutor in this entire state who would DREAM of trying to bring charges, regardless of if you're in your house or not. This is because the law here supports the victim, not the criminal, and because their ass would be out of office so fast that it'd make their head spin if they did.

I shudder to think what it might be like living in a State with laws like you've enumerated. Self-defense against an unlawful attack is a BASIC Human Right. We still take it seriously here.

[Seabiscuit]

162. Interesting -

What state to you live in?

I realize the language of statutes on the subject very widely from state to state. I was speaking purely in terms of the common law, not w/r/t any particular state statute. And according to the common law, the mere presence of an intruder in your home who is in possession of a gun is *not* grounds for killing him. Fear alone is no justification.

Again, it's the common law in each state which governs, not the language of any particular statute, as you surely know. That is, the appellate court decisions interpreting the language of the statute on a case-by-case level determine how the statute is to be applied such opinions generally arrive at certain guidelines which control the rules applied at the trial level in each state.

Of course, it's a universal rule that "self-defense against an unlawful attack is a basic human right", but that's not the issue here. We're talking about an intruder who has done nothing yet to attack you. His presence might frighten you, but self-defense doesn't come into play until there's an attack or an attempted attack.

[Seabiscuit]

165. Addendum

First, my apologies for all the typos in my posts.

Second, my apologies if my views have trampled on anyone's strong feelings. They're just my views combined with my perspective as a lawyer.

Third, I have no problem with anyone who owns a gun or subscribes to the popular notion that it is their "Constitutional right" to do so - because, in fact, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the subject, so the Second Amendment is pretty much up to anyone's interpretation.

Fourth, I personally dislike war (well, I do believe in wars of self-defense-wars of necessity to prevent genocide, etc., although I am strongly opposed to unnecessary, unilateral, really, really "offensive" wars like Vietnam and Iraq - I would have been one of the first to volunteer to storm the beaches in Normandy during WWII), and dislike guns in civilian hands for a number of reasons. I personally wish I live to see the day where there are tougher and more highly enforced gun control laws, and less negligence on the part of certain gun owners. I don't realistically believe any Supreme Court decision in my lifetime is going to ban "the people" of the U.S. from gun ownership (the "wild west" culture in America is deeply rooted), though I see no harm in wishing it would someday come to pass.

Fifth, forget about my comments about hunters. I realize a lot of you out there are really into it, and may find my views offensive. I'm just not interested in hunting any kind of game and really see no point in it. Sorry about all the sarcasm.

Finally, in view of the most recent discussions about using guns in your home for protection, and in view of the differences in the law from state to state, I would strongly suggest that any of you owning a gun and seriously contemplating using it to protect your home from an intruder, to not only read up on your state statute, spend plenty of time reading the appellate court decisions interpreting that statute in your state. Hopefully, you'll never have an occasion to have to make the choice about what to do. But forwarned is forarmed (no pun intended).

I've pretty much worn this issue out, so I'll reappear elsewhere on DU from time to time. I've been reading DU for well over a year and only began posting here during the past month.

[DoNotRefill]

168. Virginia...

the appropriate section is §18.2-32, annotated.

Here, fear most certainly DOES play a LARGE role, and the fear itself must be reasonable. Fear, coupled with the presence of the armed person committing the felony of burglary (which supplies ability, opportunity, and jeopardy in one fell swoop because he's in your house with a gun, he's not supposed to be there, and his presence there demonstrates ill intent) is QUITE enough to satisfy the requirements for self-defense. Here, at least, the attacker doesn't have to kill you before you can defend yourself.

I have to wonder where you are, that the presence of an armed, unauthorized person in your house would NOT qualify as a situation where lethal force was allowed.

[Seabiscuit]

175. The question still remains...

about intent to kill. "ill intent" is not sufficient to imply intent to kill. Typically, burglars do all they can to avoid contact with others while committing burglaries, and very few actually carry guns (which is why you're really safer not having a gun that you might be tempted to use in a burglary situation). I'm sure the case law in Virginia can help you out in seeing how the law there handles what specific words + actions on the part of a burglar entering your house with a gun allows a homeowner to shoot to kill him. I suspect the case law will require, as it generally does in all states, some combination of words and actions on the part of the burglar that would lead a "reasonable person" to believe that his life was in *imminent* danger, before the homeowner has a right to use *deadly force* prior to shooting to kill the buglar. IOW, that is the component that would make "fear" a "reasonable" fear.

Of course you can "defend yourself" when any burglar enters your house. The narrow issue I've been addressing, however, as how much force you may use to defend yourself, up to and including such "deadly force" as shooting to kill. For each level of threat, there is an equal level of force which the law deems "reasonable" under the circumstances. In my experience and research, *only* words and actions which would cause a "reasonable person" (an "objective test", not a "subjective test" - which is why I'm wary of statutory language that uses words like "fear", because court decisions go beyond such words) to believe he was in imminent danger of being killed/maimed would justify the use of "deadly force" in self defense. This applies in general, not just to home burglaries.

[DoNotRefill]

178. As a general rule in VA....

if you surprise a burglar in your home and the burglar does not IMMEDIATELY turn to flee, you are legally justified in capping his ass if you feel the person poses a threat to you or your family. The fact that he is in your house, coupled with the fact that he doesn't run away when confronted with the gun-wielding owner, establishes enough that a reasonable person would think he poses a threat.

This, of course, is dependent upon what you tell the police. If you say to them "I shot him because he was stealing my Barry Gibb album collection", you're most likely going to jail. If you tell the police "He was coming right for us!", you're not going to be charged, much less convicted.

Now if you shoot him in the back, that gets stickier, and will probably (but not certainly, especially if there are kids in the house) go to trial.

[Seabiscuit]

183. With all due respect...

I suggest you research the case law in Virginia regarding self defense and under what circumstances "deadly force" is justifiable.

Do you have a citation to any case that holds that "if you surprise a burglar in your home and the burglar does not IMMEDIATELY turn to flee, you are legally justified in capping his ass if you feel the person poses a threat to you or your family"?

I personally find that proposition legally ludicrous, as I've pored over hundreds of cases on the subject and never come across such a holding that allows someone to shoot and kill a burglar simply because the burglar didn't immediately flee when confronted just because you *subjectively* thought the burglar posed "a threat". To rise to a "reasonable person" standard there must be a lot of other related facts that rise above subjective thought to an objective totality of the circumstances, and I simply cannot believe, based on my knowledge of the subject that there is any case (which hasn't been overruled) which holds that mere failure to immediately flee justifies killing a burglar.

Forget about burglary during your research for a while. Burglary, after all, is a property crime, and the felony involved is theft of personal property, so one *must* begin in such a case, with the universal rule of law that deadly force may *never* be used in defense of property. So focus instead on self defense and deadly force: the issues are... (1) "What conduct reasonably consitutes a threat to oneself or others justifying use of self defense", and (2) "In exercising self-defense, when is deadly force justifiable, and when is it considered excessive force?"

The answers to those questions will apply equally to our hypothetical burglar situation as it will to all "threatening" situations that involve life and limb and not just personal property.

[JayS]

181. What...country are you from? n/t

n/t

[Seabiscuit]

186. The United States of America

Got a problem with that?

:silly:

[JayS]

189. What part? What you are saying jibes with nothing I know...

...from my neck of the woods.

[Seabiscuit]

192. Not at all surprising...

You're from Dubya's neck of the woods.

You post like a thoroughly misinformed rabid NRA gun-nut. What are you doing on DU, pray tell?

[JayS]

193. Share with me one post in which I am "misinformed"

Show me one post in which I am wrong. I'm sorry that what you post does not jibe with the law here...but oh well.

Believe it or not, there are lots of liberals and Democrats that own guns or know about gun issues.

And what state are you in. That was the original question.

[Seabiscuit]

194. What do you know about the law

and where did you get your law degree?.

I'm posting as an experienced attorney who knows the law on this subject. Your pretense that I'm crazy and that the law in Texas is entirely different is just that - pure pretense.

People like you spread disinformation that could place numerous *otherwise responsible* gun-owners mistakenly following your advice in jeapordy of killing someeone without just cause and spending many years behind bars for murder/manslaughter.

Your presence on this DU thread merely appears to be motivated by a desire to incite, and I'm not taking your bait.

[JayS]

196. Well, fortunately it is regularly reported in the news just what...

...rulings the grand jury makes and why...so I guess if one gets in trouble they will know exactly what case they want their attorney to go and research. :)

I'll go by what the police tell me is justified and what the CHL classes say is justified. You refuse to say where you are from but hopefully I will never move there; I refuse to live under a regime that would expect a person to interview a burglar doing a hot breakin to see if he has a weapon and if he plans to use it.

And I'll just take your refusal to provide examples as evidence that you cannot find any lie or distortion that I have made. After your accusal, providing examples would be the polite thing to do. If I am wrong on something I would like to know. Or are you just motivated by a desire to incite?

[Seabiscuit]

201. This post is a perfect example

of your lies and distortions.

Nowhere here have I advocated, as you assert, that one should "expect a person to interview a burglar doing a hot breakin to see if he has a weapon and if he plans to use it."

This, after all, is your style of posting.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about it yet you bloviate and flame constantly - e.g. "What country are you from?" - as if what I was saying was un-American.

What's un-American is *your* views about using lethal force in burglary situations. I hope a burglar never enters your home, because with your mindset, you'll probably end up in jail for a long time, and probably get hit with a huge damage award for personal injury/wrongful death, and personally, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

That's why I've posted what I have, to look out for the interests of those responsible gun owners who feel they need a gun to protect themselves in their homes.

I have no obligation to you or anyone else here to reveal my identity or whereabouts (beyond the fact that I'm an American citizen, and am a proud-to-be-traditional-liberal Democrat). I was warned by my wife long before I began posting here that the very controversial nature of DU in this horrendous political climate has attracted numerous "freepers" and simply mean-spirited wackos, some of which have been banned, but many of which remain under cover here with over 1,000 posts on their record, who could use such information for hostile harassment purposes.

When I see flamers behaving here as you do, always itching for a fight/argument, it's pretty reasonable to suspect you may be such a person.

End of discussion.

[JayS]

203. The question of what country/state you are in was to...

...ascertain what location you are posting from, as what you post appears quite foreign to me. For my area, it is quite misleading.

Your post about burglars does look to me like you are advocating what I would call an interview with someone breaking in to my home. If you don't like the way this is said or disagree with it, you are welcome to post a clarification.

I have no worry about using lethal force in burglary situations as our laws in my area are quite clear in the area of using deadly force to protect one's life in one's own home. (The "night time laws" can be confusing though.) Your location is apparently different; hence my question about your location that you perceive as an attack.

If you feel it your duty to look out for the interests of those responsible gun owners who feel they need a gun to protect themselves in their homes, it would be a big help if you told us just what jurisdiction you are talking about. Otherwise, your information is not very useful.

You have not been here long so I'll give you a friendly reminder that the rules against accusing someone of being a "freeper" are quite clear. If you suspect that someone is a "freeper" hit the alert button and the moderators will be happy to deal with it. Note that just because your statements, or those of others, are not holding water and are proven incorrect does not make me a disrupter. If someone feels that I am incorrect they are welcome to prove me wrong as this is something I would appreciate. And I would not worry about anyone using any information you provide for hostile harassment purposes; the administrators of this board are well-equipped to protect one's anonymity.

A good way to describe posting at DU is if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Being a liberal, and/or a Democrat, varies greatly by region. You just have to live with it.

[DoNotRefill]

208. I graduated from a first tier law school...

and everything you've said flies in the face of everything I know about the laws of self-defense in most of the country. And no, I'm NOT in Texas.

I find that YOUR advice of when a person can use self defense to be disinformation likely to cause *otherwise responsible* gun owners mistakenly following your advice to end up being KILLED by an intruder while trying to figure out if they're allowed to shoot the person killing them.


Better tried by 12 than carried by 6.

[JayS]

155. Your post made me very thankful...

...that I live in Texas!

[Seabiscuit]

187. Your posts have made me very thankful

that I don't live in Texas.

[JayS]

190. Good. n/t

n/t

[Seeking Serenity]

195. DH is a lawyer, and he says that, in this state

this example

An armed intruder unlawfully enters your house. You pick up your gun and shoot him to death because you "thought" that he was going to either rob you at gunpoint or shoot you in order to rob you. Guess what: You're going to jail for murder. Why? The intruder didn't aim his gun at you and express any intent of imminently killing you. Even if he just waved his gun around, you still are not justified in shooting him.

is wrong. If an armed intruder comes into your house, the homeowner may presume the intruder means to do bodily, even deadly, harm. The homeowner has no duty to "retreat to the wall" in his own home. Thus, if an armed intruder unlawfully enters your home, the killing of the intruder would not be "murder," but "justifiable homicide."

He says even this example

If he points his gun at you and says he's going to kill you "if you don't give me your wallet" you are still not justified in using deadly force, because it's a conditional statement, not a direct threat of imminent use of deadly force, and you have no right to use deadly force to protect your property (your wallet).

is false. While it is true one may not use deadly force to protect property, if the armed intruder is in your home, one may use such force as a reasonable person would use in like circumstances.

[op6203]

161. Gotcha

I respect your right to have your opinion.

Regarding defending yourself in your own home, different states have different laws. In most cases, it's legal to shoot an intruder here. But I believe you when you describe the laws in your state.

OP (agreeing to disagree ;-) )

[Seabiscuit]

163. Thank you.

nt.

[MISSDem]

172. I almost agree with you except that some people

hunt to kill their own food - something I would do, I believe. if I were going to eat meat. And if you tried using a sling shot or bow and arrow your family might go hungry.

[Mr. Blonde]

135. You do realize

that hunters keep the animals out of your home right? Without the population control hunters provide the animals would have no place to go but into town.

[Seabiscuit]

146. LOL!!

No that WAS funny!!!!

:think:

[Mr. Blonde]

153. I take it

you don't live near wooded areas with lots of wildlife? I would rather not be looking out for deer on the road going to school, but maybe its just me.

[DoNotRefill]

156. Have you ever seen deer in suburbia?

I have, all the time.

[JayS]

157. I have too...and they are tasty. :)

:)

[DoNotRefill]

159. the problem is....

when you take them with your car, not your shotgun.

[JayS]

160. That is why you have to get them before they can get you!

I have friends that bowhunt and for some unknown reason (hehe) keep a bow in their trucks most of the time. One of my friends came up on a lady that had stopped to try and "help" an injured buck that had been hit by a car in a very wealthy part of town. The lady kept trying to approach the deer and my friend cautioned her that this was not a good idea. He started to get his bow out and the lady went to her car...and summoned the police. (the really rich do not call the police, they summon them) As this was in an extremely posh part of town, the police really do materialize out of thin air when you call them. The officer talk to the lady for a bit. She finally gave a smug look (that you have to be really rich to do properly) to everyone to show her displeasure and drove off. The officer looked at the deer, nodded at my friend, got in his car and drove off. :)

Tip for deer meat: When you grind the meat up, throw in a jalapeno for about every patties worth of meat. Takes the gamey taste away and burps good for hours. :)

[TexasMexican]

60. What part of the 2nd amendment....

limits gun rights to those in a well regulated militia? :shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

120. the only way you can come up with that reading...

is to take the word "people" and substitute the word "militia".

[TexasMexican]

125. yeah and that clearly doesnt make sense...

because the word "people" is used several times in the bill of rights, and obviously it doesnt mean "the well regulated militia."

[Trajan]

6. I seen that ...

Thanks Bleachers ...

This one will probably reach a different conclusion, though perhaps not by much ? .... perhaps ...

I wonder how many extremists will leave the comfort of J/PS and see this ?? .... They are a pretty focused bunch ...

It reminds me of I/P in there ...

[Renew Deal]

15. Here's one more.

That was a funny day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=625032

[FeebMaster]

21. Here's a couple good ones.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x541677

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x542884

[Kenneth ken]

48. gosh

211 votes is a majority of DUers? I'd be more inclined to think 211 votes represented about 1 percent of DUers maximum, even a year ago.

I would contend that 211 votes means "Most DUers" simply didn't vote in that poll.

Regarding the original post, what little I've read from the RKBA people here is that they believe Dems would fare better in elections if Dems didn't support restricting firearms access as much as most do.

That's different than saying the majority of Dems are against legislation. It's more akin to saying a number of single-issue voters, or those who are strongly RKBA would support Dems if Dems would ease up on "anti-gun" legislation.

[Redneck Socialist]

136. gosh

Someone who is trying to accurately present how the issue is usually framed, how novel.

Few of the RKBA folks have called for the repeal of all gun laws. Fewer still have claimed that a majority of Democrats support that position.

What we do often claim is that the perception that the Democratic Party is anti gun cost us votes. This is a far different proposition than the one put forth in the original post.

[Kenneth ken]

140. thanks

you said that more succinctly than I did. Also thanks for confirming that I'm reading most of the RKBA posters correctly.

:hi:

[JayS]

209. bump

[Trajan]

2. I cant vote twice ??? ...

Shucks ...

jk ...

Im going to BED, so DONT ARGUE ! ....

See ya's tomorrow ... (today, this morning) ...

[JohnLocke]

3. I support the waiting period on handguns and the assault weapon ban.

[FeebMaster]

8. Why do you support the AWB? (nt)

[JohnLocke]

9. Do people really need assault weapons?

[FeebMaster]

11. Does it matter?

Since the AWB doesn't ban any guns how is that relevant?

[JohnLocke]

13. It doesn't?

Explain. I am ignorant of these matters.

[FeebMaster]

18. The AWB

bans from manufacture for civilians, not from possession or sale, semi-automatic weapons that can accept a detachable magazine and have more than one of the following features: A pistol grip, a collapsible stock, a grenade launcher, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel, or a bayonet lug. That's the list of features for rifles, the one for pistols and shotguns is a bit different, but probably most of the weapons affected are rifles.

All of the weapons manufactured before the ban are still legal and all of the ones manufactured after the ban had enough of the offending features removed, usually the bayonet lug and flash suppressor, to not be affected by the ban.

[Trajan]

14. Polls in GD ....

Fights in J/PS ...

[FeebMaster]

19. Who is fighting?

I just want everyone to have as much information as possible on the options they're voting for. Especially concerning the Assault Weapons Ban and all the misinformation about it floating around.

[Trajan]

25. um ....

[FeebMaster]

27. What? (nt)

[Trajan]

31. Um .....

....... means: Im not asking you anything

[Guaranteed]

63. Yes.

At bare minimum assault weapons, to defend their homes against infantry.

They don't need to carry guns on them out in public, they don't need grenades or other explosives or artillery, but they need some firepower to defend their homes.

[stavka]

90. Does everybody need a fire extinguisher?

Or a chainsaw? To answer 100% no, would require men to make the leap to "people don't need guns".

I'm not prepared to make that leap.

[stavka]

89. Read my text above.

Like I said in my text - I support parts of the Ban, in that something had to be done to make it more difficult for a 16 yearold to get ahold of an AK-47 and convert it to full auto.

[op6203]

94. As far as I know -

The ban doesn't do anything extra to prevent a 16 yr old from getting an AK and converting it to full auto. 16 yr olds are already not allowed to buy/possess firearms (of any kind) and converting an AK to full auto has been illegal for a very long time. Without the AWB, the 16 yr old is still breaking the law.
OP

[TexasMexican]

61. Why do people support waiting periods?

It certainly wouldnt protect people from those that already have a weapon and want to kill someone.

IMO it only hurts those that have had a sudden threat against thier life.

[stavka]

91. I think the police fill that void nicely...

It provides a little more security for things like felony warrants to catch up with a potential purchaser.

It makes everybody a little safer for minor inconvinience.

[Bandit]

97. A waiting period (or cooling off period) is a very good thing

A husband and wife may have a few drinks and get into a tiff that gets out of hand. If the wife (or husband) could run down to the corner gun shop and buy a pistol and get back and blow his brains out before sobering up a tragedy has occured. If she/he had to wait three days that tragedy would have been prevented. It is amazing how many gun injuries or death have occured because of a temporary rage.

[DoNotRefill]

109. Ummmm....it's illegal to sell guns to a drunk....

by federal law. It's illegal to sell guns to somebody who is intoxicated, too.

I'd like to point out a few facts. First off, it's possible to buy guns on the black market. Looking for a gun? Talk to the guy you buy your pot or coke or whatever from. Criminals WILL get guns, without waiting periods. The ONLY people this kind of law harms are the people who abide by the law.

Let's say you're a woman being stalked by your psycho redneck ex, who has vowed to kill you. Odds are good that you've taken out a restraining order, so he's not able to buy guns legally. Given that he's intent on commiting murder, do you REALLY think breaking the waiting period law is going to deter him? Is he going to say "I really want to kill her, a crime that entails at least 20 years in jail and may be a capital offense, but I'm not going to do it because buying a gun on the black market will violate gun control laws, which might result in me being put away for 5 years, so I better not do it." Now look at the other side. You're that same woman, whose psycho ex is coming to kill you. You are not going to break the law, you just want to stay alive, so you go to the gun store and try to buy a gun to defend yourself with. They tell you to come back in five days, because you can't defend yourself until you have "cooled off". You leave, go home, and die when he finds you.

Gun control is the idea that a woman who has been raped and strangled to death in an alley with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to that same woman, standing unharmed in the mouth of the alley, wearing her pantyhose, explaining to the police how her attacker came to have two holes in his chest.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

5. Never mind.

I got it.

[Trajan]

7. The poll function is limited ...

So ALL possibilities cannot be included ... But this should cover most beliefs about the subject matter ...


And no: it's late ... a Gin and Tonic now may lead to immediate sleep ....

[Gothmog]

10. No Individual right under Second Amendment

Other than one poorly written case in the Fifth Cir., no court has ruled that there is an individual right under the Second Amendment and the 9th Cir. has a well done opinion as to why there is no individual right.

Tribe has concluded that if there is an individual right under the second amendment, it is a very weak right and that all existing forms of gun control and registration would past constitutional muster including the assault weapon ban and the waiting period laws.

The 5th Cir. decision is arguably dicta in that the panel concluded that it was permissible to prohibit any husband undergoing a divorce in Texas from carrying a firearm during the pend ency of the divorce. If this broad restriction on the right to bear arms is constitutional under the one case upholding an individual right to bear arms, I can not imagine what type of gun control would be illegal under this view of the Second Amendment.

I have a couple of guns and hunt occasionally. However, I do not believe that Second Amendment stands for an individual right to bear arms and believe that gun control is a proper area of state regulation.

[stavka]

92. Great logic in that case....

Only amendment I can think of that enforces a right only for a group in the bill of rights.

But you are right, those are the facts.....

[sventvkg]

12. I do not care what any of you support..Gun laws are unconstitutional

Read the constitution then tell me that you think ANY gun law is constitutional..My bet is that any of you that supports Gun laws has never read the constitution. It's pretty clear about it. I think some Gun laws are a good idea but since the right to bear arms is pretty clearly written out, it's hard to argue in their favor...Although we have some 20,000 Gun laws currently on the books in the US.

[Trajan]

16. No man is an island ....

[uberotto]

20. What the constitution says is...

"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."

Which tells me that the founding fathers thought everyone should be able to own a gun, but the government has the right to tell you how, when and where you can use it.

On Edit, the constitution never says anything about gun ownership, it just says "Arms" which could be taken to mean a spear, mace, lance, sword, Bow and Arrows, baseball bat or giant kitchen knife.

[Seabiscuit]

57. Right...

And at the time that was written, the founding fathers viewed the "Militia" as the average citizen ("the people") who "bore arms" against the British during the Revolutionary War. Yet they added the caveat "well regulated" - meaning they intended to reserve to the U.S. government control of how any such "Militia" might "bear arms". And after the war, as farmers went back to farming, and merchants went back to trading, what was then known as the "Militia" eventually became the National Guard. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the meaning of the Second Amendment and today's society is vastly different from the society known to the founding fathers at the time that amendment was written (shortly after the Revolutionary War). The Constitutionality and meaning of the Second Amendment has been ripe for decision for centuries, yet we had them bothersom Injuns to get rid of for all those decades, ya know, and all those slaves to keep in check for all those decades, ya know, so it's not at all surprising "custom" during all those decades trumped the Constitution and the rule of law. I still hope that I'll see the day in my lifetime that the Supreme Court will rule that "the people" (as a phrase understood in *our* time, and not as understood in the 18th Century under British rule) will declare that "the people" - i.e., the "average citizen" have *no* right to own or use firearms, and that only the military, police and present-day "Militia" (the National Guard) have a right to keep and bear arms.

I never have, nor will I ever own a gun of any kind. That's the last thing I need my kids or their friends to get their hands on.

[Spinzonner]

41. The 2nd amendment doesnt say 'guns'

it says arms. SO we have to presume you support the right of everyone - individuals - to have cannon, mortars, howitzers, etc. all the way up through thermonuclear weapons.

They're all 'arms'

Hope you dont have any beefs with your neighbor when they start stocking up on those babies.

[JayS]

85. They are actually ordinance and would be categorized as a...

...destructive device.

[sangh0]

107. Nice try, but we don't call them nuclear ordinance

They're nuclear arms.

[JayS]

139. That has got to be the strangest response I have seen. n/t

n/t

[uberotto]

17. I Support...

Requiring all gun owners, and future gun owners to sign up with their state militia before being allowed to own and carry a gun.

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.

Anyone can own a gun and anyone can join.

No service requirements, no drills, no 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year, just who you are, where you live and how to reach you in times of emergency to provide a pseudo-defence force for the state, not the country (i.e. Terrorist Attack, Natural Disaster).

Actually, I would like the gun owners to have to report in once a year and qualify at a shooting range, just to make sure that the people are aware of the basic safety features of a gun and know which end to point away from their own face.

[tom_paine]

22. The poll choices aren't great

For instance, I'm for waiting period and mild regulation, particularly in high density or high-crime areas.

Many shades of this answer. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

[Elwood P Dowd]

23. Here is what these guys say ......

"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..."

-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...nothwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

-James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46, at 243-244.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all the world would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them..."

Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).

"A free people ought...to be armed..."

-George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

-Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution...Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, ...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 (2d ed. Richmond, 1805). Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June 1776.

"Arms in the hands of citizens be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..."

-John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

-Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850.

[louis c]

32. You think the founding fathers

would allow me to own a tank? How about a jet fighter, a machine gun, a mortar, a battleship, hand grenade. Tell me where you draw the line?

[FeebMaster]

33. All of those things are legal and none of them have anything

to do with this poll. Tanks, jet fighters, and boats aren't regulated by gun laws. Mortars, machine guns, and hand grenades are regulated by gun laws, but not any of the gun laws mentioned in this poll.

[louis c]

37. Reading your quotes

I notice the founding fathers use of the word arms. That seems to me to mean more than just guns, don't you agree?

[FeebMaster]

42. They aren't my quotes.

Arms does mean more than guns. Bombs, artillery, knives, swords would also be included. Tanks are just armored bulldozers and wouldn't be included, their guns would, but the tank itself wouldn't. Jet fighters are just jets. Battle Ships are big boats. Tanks, battle ships, and jet fighters aren't arms.



On edit: Spelling

[louis c]

50. Thanks for making it so clear

[Pachamama]

202. I want a Jet Fighter....Way Cooler than a big boat... :) n/t

[DoNotRefill]

112. There was a case in Washington State, IIRC...

that held that Billy Clubs were arms under the Second Amendment, so an ordinance banning them was unconstitutional.

[Trajan]

44. You seem desperate to downplay these results ...

on the basis that they do not include all possibilities ...

Obviously: this is a GENERAL measure of sentiments on the gun rights issue .... DU polls can only contain 10 elements ...

[FeebMaster]

46. I'm not trying to downplay anything.

We're obviously talking about gun laws here. What do tanks, boats, and aircraft have to do with anything?

[Elwood P Dowd]

35. No,

but if the Democrats keep up this gun control talk, the voters will allow you to own copies of George Bush's 2005 acceptance speech.

[louis c]

52. By the way....

These were the same guys who thought it was a great idea to have an electoral college, and slavery, so they were far from infallible.

[DoNotRefill]

111. Don't forget...

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State" --Heinrich Himmler

"Power flows from the barrel of a gun" -Mao

Personally, I have GRAVE reservations about allowing only the State access to the tools of force. If the Government has a monopoly on the use of force, they'll USE it. You think first amendment zones are bad now??? Just wait...

ANY Democrat who still supports gun control given the actions of the Bush Administration in the past 3 years is certifiably INSANE IMHO. Disarming the people while the Government is on an anti civil-rights rampage is SUICIDAL.

I'll pass on the kool-aide, thanks very much.

[Kellanved]

116. the first quote is BS

I don't deny that Himmler said that, but fact is that the Nazis allowed all citizens (quite a reduced field by then) to have long guns. The laws for handguns were eased as well, mainly to give a reason for joining the brown shirts.

German gun fans demand the Nazi law's return to this day.

[DoNotRefill]

118. the operative word being "citizen"...which does NOT mean "untermenschen"

If you were a citizen in Nazi Germany, you had all kinds of benefits. If you weren't ethnically pure enough, you didn't get the rights, and possessing a firearm, ANY firearm, was a capital offense.

That's like saying that we'll let all members of the Republican Party have guns, and everybody else is SOL.

[Paladin]

121. Wesley Clark Sends His Regards

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

129. Ah, yes. Mr Clark...

Let's see...a guy who had a long career in the Military, a field not known for it's large population of Democrats in the higher ranks....a man who wanted to be a Republican, but Rove wouldn't talk to him...a man who kept us all in suspense regarding if he was going to be a Democrat or a Republican until two weeks before he announced that he was running for President...and a man who has a fondness of paraphrasing Himmler on civil rights issues.

I don't know why, but Clark has always struck me as an opportunist with fascistic tendencies. Of course, that's generally how fascists come to power, through opportunism.

I'm not terribly pleased that Kerry got the nod. There were better candidates available. I AM glad that Kerry beat Clark, since I feel that Clark has a tad bit too much of a fascist streak in him. If the primaries had been only between Kerry and Clark, I'd have been humping Kerry's leg.

[T Town Jake]

150. You know what...

...I'm going to say, since you've doubtless heard it down in the Gungeon many times before (and it's to ALL here):

The Day the Democratic Party quits carrying those slop buckets for the gun control crowd is the day we become the Majority Party for the next one hundred years.
EOM.

[FeebMaster]

24. At what point in your answers

does gun registration kick in? It's only mentioned once.

What about background checks?

[FeebMaster]

26. Also,

are we to assume that people who voted just for waiting periods or just for the assault weapons ban want to repeal all of the regulations on buying guns mail order or the taxes and stuff on machine guns?

[Trajan]

30. Red herrings ....

[Trajan]

28. The Waiting Period

The waiting period encapsulates a backround check ...

[FeebMaster]

29. Never heard of NICS?

The I stands for Instant.
The C stands for Check.

[Trajan]

34. NICS is similar to the 5 Day waiting period ..

and actually replaces it in those states that have it ...

But you know that ...

I added it to Waiting Period, because NICS also is a waiting period, albeit a short one ...

[FeebMaster]

36. Have any of the states not implemented the instant part

of NICS yet?

[Trajan]

39. Irrelevent ....

Technicalities not relevent to the poll, which is to gauge popular support in MAINSTREAM Democratic circles for or against gun regulations ...

[FeebMaster]

43. The specifics of the laws you are referring to are

technicalities and not relevant?

[Trajan]

45. I didnt ask for many specifics ...

YOU did ...

[FeebMaster]

47. Because they're relevant.

I'll ask again: Are we to assume that people who voted just for the Assault Weapons Ban, or just for background checks, or just against concealed carry are for removing the restrictions on machine guns, explosives, silencers, the laws regulating the importation of firearms, and laws preventing the purchasing of firearms by mail order?

[Trajan]

49. Fallacy Definition: Red Herring

Red herring

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.

Example:

"You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent against crime -- but what about the victims of crime? How do you think surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay for their son's murderer to be fed and housed?"

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

The Poll questions are what the poll questions are: there are no other questions ....

[FeebMaster]

51. So then it's fair to assume that people who support

waiting periods only are for removing all of the other restrictions I mentioned in my previous post.

[Trajan]

54. You mean the one about machine guns ? ....

Hardly ....

Good Night ....

[Redneck Socialist]

134. DU's mainstream?

I'm hanging out at the wrong place. ;-)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. I think the laws as they are now are fine. Which choice is that?

I was a little confused by your choices, but I think the laws that are in place right now are pretty much alright. I don't feel like my rights to keep and bear arms have been infringed. I have three. It's been suggested that trigger locks be required with handgun sales. I could support that. I bought one with each of my pistols and they weren't very expensive.

[Trajan]

40. Well: it seems you are happy with the status quo ....

What laws exist now ? ..

Obviously: we cant include EVERY possibility ...

[Trajan]

53. Goin to Bed ...

As of Now: with 34 votes registered:

Participating DUers have voted 84 % FOR TWO or MORE of these specific regulations, without consideration of the MANY variations of millions of possible alternate choices not included in this poll ...

Good Night ....

KICKEROOOOOO !

[FeebMaster]

55. That's funny.

The way I interpret the results, 100% of Duers want to remove the additional restrictions placed on machine guns, explosives, buying guns by mail order, and silencers.

[neverborn]

59. Negative. In my opinion, the poll was about four things, not all regulatio

ns.

[Trajan]

WE can see you are well positioned ...

For J/PS 'Debater of the Month' ...

Congratulations ...

YOU get the 'special' parking space, next to the Andy Gump ...

AND ? ... a weeks supply of Russet Potatos .... FREE ! ...

[FeebMaster]

98. The poll options are quite clear.

I support the Waiting Period (including NICS), but NO other regulation

I support the Assault Weapons Ban, but NO other regulation

I support the laws AGAINST Conceal and Carry, but NO other regulation

I support Gun Registration, but NO other regulation

You even capitalized the NO.

[neverborn]

58. Support Conceal and Carry and Waiting...

[Sirveri]

62. I support NICS and Registration

As far as I am concerned, I don't have a problem with the government knowing I'm armed, in fact I prefer it, it keeps them honest. Pbft, yeah right. I also subscribe to the sphere of influence method, whereby weaponry that exists outside a individuals capable sphere of influence would not be allowed for them to possess. In other words, a person should be allowed to possess weapons that allow him to kill or otherwise maim or deter a mass of people. But weapons designed for area effect and mass casualties should not be allowed. A Machine gun does not fall under this, as you can use it to shoot only one person, if you desire. A Flame thrower however is indescriminant, it will throw flaming jellied petroleum over everything in its path. That's the thin line(since some flame throwers throw a thin stream and could in theory be used to pick out one person). Needless to say nuclear weapons and high explosives are designed to cause mass casualties, and thus violate the sphere of influence rule.

[Guaranteed]

64. No AWB, but no CCW either.

Yes on registration, yes on waiting period.

The bottom line is that people need weapons to protect themselves from their own government. That's what the 2nd Amendment is there for.

People don't need explosives or artillery or anything crazy. They don't need to carry weapons in public. This is a civilized society. But they do need to be able to defend their homes against those who would ignore the Constitution. That's why I'm against most AWBs.

[VC of reason]

65. wait, wait don't shoot me!

ok, kick me.

I am one of the ones who voted for the waiting period only. I know folks on both sides of this issue and neither the ones who support some kind of control nor any of the others, to include some gun collector type friends have committed any crimes or murders.

With all due respect I think this is an overworn issue, as responsible folks who own guns of some kind, , seem to have a healthy respect for them.

Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

[Trajan]

69. Im actually trying to gauge DU sentiment .. not argue 'The Issues', per se

Thanks for contributing ...

[VC of reason]

123. right to choose means I have the right to defend myself also

...I understand. I guess I was speaking more rhetorically, didn't mean to come across like I was directing my opinion toward you.

Personally, I must be the exception to the democratic rule as I own a shotgun (home defense for my wife), a .45 (concealed weapon permit included) for my daily protection, and an AR-15. I don't hunt and don't claim to be a hunter and do NOT support the NRA. I just think the right to bear arms (or arm bears) is a right just like a women's right to choose.

I didn't use to feel that way until I was held up at gunpoint and robbed on one occasion, and my whole viewpoint changed. The world is a scary place.

[stavka]

66. I support the waiting period/background checks and part of the AWB

...I also would like to close the gun show loophole, and the buddy sales.

I am in favor of the 10 round magazine restriction, and I think the AWB goes to far, but something was needed to stop gangsters from so easily converting AKs and Uzis.

I wouldn't mind a one gun a month restriction either, and restrict sales of all firearms to 21 year olds.

I think the books should be opened up for new class 3 licenses

I think penalties for violating clear gun laws should be stiffer.

------
I am an owner of both a legal assault rifle, and several handguns.

If I had more disposable income I would own what most would consider a "small arsenal" - in part because of my interest in WWII firearms

[qb]

67. All. Guns should be at least as well-regulated as motor vehicles.

[Vickers]

68. As one of about 10 DUers with a CCW and multiple weapons, my advice:

Regardless of your feelings about the legality or necessity or applicability in this day and age of the 2nd Amendment: get a weapon (or two) and learn how to use it (or them) safely.

[Trajan]

70. Some wise counsel ....

Thanks for participating

[Trajan]

71. AS OF 9:16 EDT, 6/15/2004

with 79 votes: These observations ...

79 % agree that TWO or MORE of these specific regulations are acceptable to them .... I consider that a RINGING endorsement FOR Gun control measures by DUer's in general

94 % approve of at least ONE form of gun regulation

5 votes, 6% of the total, consider NONE of these regulations to be worthy of their support ...

It is also fair to report: 21 % believe in one form of regulation (lets call that light regulation) or less ... Such a number is significant, in that it indicates most DUers, even if they dont like gun laws, do see that SOME form of regulations are ok ....

Mind you: we must fairly assume that those who do not support THESE specific measures most likely support the Machine gun bans, and all other peripheral measures that would ban individuals owning or using, Tanks, RPG's, Helicopter gunships, AC130's, B2 stealth bombers, ....and any sort of MIRV type weaponry ....

So: even those who reject the choices in this poll, most likely support laws against ownership of such weapons as in the previous paragraph ....

I'll keep this kicked today, as I can ...

Thanks to all who took part, and all who will take part ...

[Trajan]

72. KICK before work ...

[Trajan]

73. Again ....

[Trajan]

75. AND Again ....

Trying to keep it on page one ...

[RhodaGrits]

74. This was timely because

I received a tirade against Kerry by the NRA last night forwarded by someone I know that could be safely be described as a "Gun Nut" - he's a single issue voter on the topic. We exchanged a half dozen emails on the subject because he knows that several people in my family are law enforcement and pro-gun.

I am opposed to being able to walk into the local sporting goods store and walk out with enough ammo to arm my own militia. I am opposed to suicidal and disturbed teens being able to take out a school. I am horrified by the fact that some of these guns will be used in domestic violence or stolen in burglaries and used in urban terror. I believe that there is a large population of irresponsible idiots out there that should be collared and neutered and certainly not allowed to possess a gun. (And no, I'm not advocating this because there is no group I would trust with making the decision of who meets the criteria - which is also why I am anti-death penalty.)

But none of this compares with the fear that this administration has instilled in me that my basic liberties are at risk of being taken from me.

They argued: what happens when only the criminals have guns? I fear what happens when only the military and law enforcement have guns. I think this is precisely what the founding fathers were trying to prevent - that future generations would never have to live under the tyranny of repressive government.

For the record, there is one trigger-locked shotgun in the house so that I can blow away a rabid raccoon if necessary.

[Trajan]

77. Well spoken ....

and wise ....

Personally: I am for rational regulation decided by legislatures acting on behalf of those 'citizens' they represent (NOT Corporate 'citizens' .. REAL ones) ...

I dont want guns to be taken away, but I dont think the 'Founding Fathers' intended, nor could have known, just what kind of weapons would exist 200 years later ...

I wonder: Would Washington have tolerated an uncouth neighbor the 'right' to keep loaded cannon, ready to fire, pointed at his home ? ...

It seems to me that that framers, living in a different, SIMPLER age, were attempting to assure the nation in general that THEIR security can only be founded on THEIR participation in militias, and to be ready to join whenever necessary, and to be prepared by using the weaponry of the age .... I doubt he expected nor desired that they maintain Cannonage or gunpowder stores in their homes as a defense against either 'invasion' or 'overbearing government' ...

THEY maintained communal powderhouses a decent distance from homes, if I am not mistaken, under whatever control they could muster ... so the notion that the framers wished EVERYONE to possess EVERY possible weapon seems a ridiculous notion ...

Anyways: thanks for your input ...

[JayS]

84. How do you feel about...

mandatory minimums, prosecuting gun possessing violent felons in federal court, charging gang members under RICO, and actually prosecuting the people that lie on the Form 4473.

[RhodaGrits]

87. I have many problems with mandatory minimums -

I think that is legislating what should be the judicial branch's job. I think there should be strongly recommended guidelines but not mandatory minimum sentencing. Our prisons are overflowing yet the violence and crime continues. There has to be a better way.

I think that prosecuting gun-possessing violent felons in federal court sounds like a better system and that criminals should be more accurately tracked interstate. I would not call this an informed opinion however.

Link or elaborate as to why charging gang members under RICO would be better?

I think we have tons of laws on the books that are unenforced. If there is a problem, they throw a law at it then little happens beyond that. I would like to see better investigation of applications to own a gun and see them applied evenly and fairly to all applicants. Lies on the form should be prosecuted severely.

[JayS]

96. I have some problems with them also.

I agree that sentencing guidelines should fall more under the purview of the judicial branch...but they have not done a very good job. Maybe that will change now that the ATF is part of justice but I still have my doubts.

Here is one case where I don't like the idea of mandatory minimums:

Bank president befriends soldier who robbed him
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2625401

Here is one case where I do:

Confession leads to murder charges in dispute over tennis shoes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x64220

Our prisons are crowded here also. They way we are addressing this is to back off of the early release of the worst offenders, run petty drug cases through a medical court and not a criminal one, and most likely...build more prisons. Both the stronger gun control laws and the medical courts are facing opposition...but I am not yet sure why. The only real source of information I have is somewhat biased.

Charging a gang member under RICO means that when he/she gets out of jail, his/her main concern will be in procurring a stash of Depends. It takes the gang crimes to a vastly different level. Our murder level was supposed to be high in 2003 because of the amount of gang members that would be getting out of jail and trying to get back in their former leadership positions. Mid-2003 there was a big roundup of these people following a lengthly investigation. Something like thirty nine was arrested and charged in one day. Our murder rate was not as high as expected and this may be related to the arrests.

This is perhaps a little harsh...but what these people did makes it hard to be sympathetic. Watching a twenty year old blubber and cry at sentencing, knowing what he did, did not even bother me in the slightest; this knowing he would be forty five at the earliest before he knows any degree of freedom.

I would like to see laws enforced more also. I hope it happens. Whenever I would see Clinton talking about the "five hundred thousand felons prevented from getting guns" (or now Kerry with seven hundred thousand) I wanted to throw something at the TV. I just don't like it when politicians lie so openly.

As for the Form 4473...the request for enforcement goes back a long ways. Here is a letter written by one of my favorite politicians...that had little if any effect:


August 1, 2000



The Honorable Janet Reno

Attorney General

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Reno:

I read with great interest Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder’s June 4, 2000, announcement regarding the release of two Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports on Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers. As you are aware, effective and timely enforcement of our nation’s federal firearms laws is of tremendous importance to the Congress. As we continue to look for effective strategies to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and reduce gun violence, reports such as these are useful in evaluating the progress of the Administration on this front.

As Mr. Holder notes in his statement, "the Brady Law has stopped 536,000 felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other persons not legally allowed to have a gun from getting a gun." This is indeed an impressive record. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is one of the most effective tools we have to crack down on gun criminals and prevent crime. However, stopping the sale of a firearm to a prohibited person is only one component of an effective strategy to reduce violent criminal behavior. Prosecuting those felons, fugitives and domestic abusers who attempt to purchase a firearm is the other half of the equation.

The BJS report on Firearm Offenders states that an average of 6,700 defendants were charged with a firearm offense in U.S. district courts between 1992 and 1999. On its face, that number of prosecutions seems incredibly low given the number of prohibited persons stopped by the instant check system. An analysis of the BJS reports confirms that the number of federal prosecutions is severely inadequate.

As you are aware, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) makes the attempted purchase of a firearm by an individual who knowingly provides false information on a firearm transfer application (ATF Form 4473) a federal felony offense. In simple terms, it is a federal felony, punishable for up to ten years in prison, for felons, fugitives, domestic abusers or any other category of prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm if they knowingly falsify the purchase application.

Of the 204,000 attempted purchases stopped by NICS in 1999, the BJS report states that 71 percent of the rejections were for a felony conviction or indictment, 12 percent were for a disqualifying domestic violence conviction and three percent were rejected because the applicant was a fugitive from justice. Thus, 86 percent (approximately 175,440 persons) of those rejected by the instant check system had de facto committed another felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. However, federal firearm prosecutions in aggregate totaled only 6,728. Although the report indicated the statistics for 1999 are preliminary data, that is a prosecution rate of only 3.29 percent. To put it another way, for every thirty rejected applications for a firearm transfer, there was only one prosecution.

If we are to concern ourselves with 1998, the latest year for which we have final data, the record is demonstrably worse. Of the rejected applications, totaling 90,000 in 1998, a mere 102 cases were federally prosecuted. That equates to a prosecution rate of less than one percent. Thus in 1998, for every 882 rejected applications for a firearm transfer there was only one federal prosecution. And while some have made the case that these cases are difficult to prosecute, I would note the statement of former federal prosecutor Andrew McBride of the Richmond office, now in private practice, that such cases are as easy to prosecute as "picking change up off the street."

Needless to say, these statistics are less than impressive. It is not hard to understand why this Administration has been criticized for being lax in enforcing existing federal firearm laws. In an effort to better understand why the Department of Justice is not doing more to prosecute violations of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), I would appreciate your answers to the following questions:

Some of the reasons for this poor prosecutorial record are indicated in the BJS Federal Firearm Offenders report. Citing table 1,"Firearm suspects declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, by reason for declination, 1998," some of the reasons listed for not prosecuting known gun criminals include: minimal federal interest and DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy. I find this very curious. Please tell me:
What exactly is the policy for prosecuting violations of 18 U.S.C(a)(6)?

Why there would be a DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy not to prosecute those who violate federal firearms laws?

Why there would be "minimal federal interest" in prosecuting those who violate federal firearm laws?

Another reason that was cited in table 1 for declining to prosecute was "weak evidence." Without knowing the facts of each individual case, I would note the following: If an individual knowingly makes a false statement on ATF Form 4473, that is a felony. Form 4473 requires the prospective purchaser to state whether or not he/she is disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Furthermore, each disqualifying criterion is listed on Form 4473 and requires a yes or no answer. Form 4473 also requires a signature by the prospective purchaser and the seller. Form 4473 also requires many other identifiers to verify the identity of the transferee. Thus, if an individual is rejected because NICS system reports that a prospective purchaser is a convicted felon and falsified a document in an attempt to obtain a firearm, that is a violation of U.S.C. 922(a)(6). It seems to me that this should be a relatively open and shut case.
However, of the 204,000 individuals denied the purchase of firearm "nearly 3 out of 4 rejections for firearm transfer occurred because the applicant either had a felony conviction or was under felony indictment." Therefore, it follows that over 150,000 individuals committed a federal felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. Yet, a February, 2000 General Accounting Office report on the Implementation of NICS showed that in FY 1999, U.S Attorneys filed only 278 cases involving alleged false statements of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and 316 cases were pending at fiscal yearend. Please explain the lack of federal prosecutions for false statements on ATF Form 4473. Also explain towhat degree "weak evidence" contributes to the unwillingness of U.S. Attorneys to prosecute 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) violations.

Appendix III of the GAO audit describes federal enforcement policies regarding falsified firearm purchase applications. It states:
In November 1998, EOUSA provided Brady Act prosecutive guidance . . . The guidance stated that thousands of potential Brady false-form cases would likely reach ATF field offices annually, and that the system "would grind to a halt if ATF investigated all the denials."

The report goes on to say that the EOUSA guidance recommended that U.S. Attorneys should "make every effort to increase the number of Brady false-form prosecutions (from the current annual level of 50 cases)."

The GAO audit also states that in deciding which false form violations to forward to U.S. Attorneys, ATF’s policy is to refer those cases where the "denied purchaser’s criminal history has records of violent felonies, serious drug trafficking, or prior firearms convictions." Yet the GAO report indicates that over half of the referrals of violent criminals were closed without investigation or prosecution.

In light of these GAO findings, I would like answers to the following:

Why were half of the referrals of violent criminals closed without investigation or prosecution?
What efforts has the Department of Justice undertaken to increase the number of false form prosecutions? Has EOUSA issued any additional guidance regarding 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) violations?
Since November 1998, how many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) violations have been referred to U.S. Attorneys by ATF field offices?
How many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) false form prosecutions have U.S. Attorneys undertaken since the November 1998 EOUSA guidance?
I do not believe that violent felons, upon learning they are disqualified from firearm ownership, give up their search to obtain a firearm. Please explain why U.S. Attorneys are unwilling to enforce 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) even for violent felons who attempt to purchase firearms?
At a June 21, 2000, hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding improvements to NICS, Mr. David Loesch, Assistant Director in charge of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI testified that the law prohibiting felonious misrepresentation of firearm eligibility "is essentially unenforceable." Would you please expand on this statement and explain why your representative characterized this law as such? Do you share the view that this law is unenforceable? Please comment on the enforceability of U.S.C. 18 (a)(6) in all its specifics and in general.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your response. If you have any questions about this matter, please have your staff contact Michael Hacker of my office at [phone].

With every good wish,



Sincerely,





John D. Dingell

Member of Congress

[JayS]

76. Your poll is lacking so I'll just say that I support the Brady...

...checks as amended by the Supreme Court, no waiting periods, yes to concealed carry (which brought y'all George Bush :)), and no to the "assault weapons" ban and registration. You left of stronger enforcement of current laws and mandatory minimums so I'll vote yes here to both of those.

Sorry, reasonable gun regulations is a vague term. I support regulations that achieve some sort of goal, not those that just make people feel good. It would be nice to see this distinction observed more in our party; I would hate to see Kerry get "gored" down here.

[Trajan]

78. IF the majority of DEMOCRATS believe that gun regulation is a worthy goal

Then shouldnt they be represented ? ...

It is instructive to note the wide ranging support for a considerable amount of regulation by the participating posters ... These are numbers that are consistent with polls taken throughout the years ...

The purpose of this poll was to gauge sentiment among DUers, just to clear the air on WHERE we, as a whole, stand on these issues ...

I know that many in J/PS believe their whole package of gun beliefs, from denying AWB to demanding the right to conceal and carry, is somehow a set of beliefs that ALL democrats possess ... that such a stand is popular with Democrats on the whole ...

I say: nonsense ...

Furthermore: I think that this poll shows that Democrats can be RATIONAL and not 'extreme' in the manner of gun control issues, whereas they wish to regulate a narrow range of possibilities, and not deny 'OUTRIGHT" any and all weapons, unlike those in J/PS, who prefer to term the majority of their Democratic friends in DU as 'Gun Grabbers' ...

MOST of us believe in reasonable measures to control rampant usage of dangerous weapons as a matter of public safety ... not as an idealistic attempt to control others or create a utopia free of all pain ...

[JayS]

82. Your emotions prevented you from seeing the point of my...

...post. Perhaps on second reading it will be clear to you.

There have been some good posts here. Some just show a lack of knowledge about the issues, others just show the usual belief that Democrats = Gun Regulation whereas in reality there are many brands of gun regulation. We just have been suckered into believing that there is only one brand and that if our political heroes are advocating it then it must be good. Gun regulation is a prime example of why one should read information from multiple political viewpoints and not just the ones one agrees with.

[Trajan]

79. Kick ....

[Trajan]

80. Kick again ....

[Trajan]

81. Kick one more time ....

Just to boost it before I REALLY go to work ...

[FlaGranny]

83. I support ALL of them

AND I own a couple of guns.

Edit: P.S. - I know how to use them and accurately, too.

[JayS]

86. I assume this is a tongue in cheek statement? I have read...

...a lot of the posts in J/PS and have never seen anything that would even remotely support this claim. I see many posters there that are well informed of the laws and of many types of firearms. Just because they correct a lot of misconceptions does not make them the tools of the NRA.


In other words: they claim that MOST Democrats support the REPEAL of most ALL gun regulations, including the Waiting Period, Registration, Conceal and Carry regulations, and the Assault Weapons Ban ...

[Trajan]

88. I will admit ...

THAT is an overly broad statement ... nevertheless: The feelings in J/PS can get pretty hot, and the assertions can get a tad ridiculous .. as usual ....

The point was: to provide SOME measure of sentiment, without getting overly technical and obtusely complex, of HOW people in DU felt about these issues ...

I believe it is WRONG to insist that Democrats on the whole support the large measure of positions taken by the NRA and its supporters ... quite the contrary .... and it is unfair of those who say so, to say so ....

I would agree: MANY Democrats DO believe in wide ranging gun rights, and more power to them, but they do not form a large segment of the whole party ....

Nevertheless: Let's keep it real: Democrats, on the whole, do NOT agree with the assertion that gun rights should be unbounded .....

I appreciate your statements here, and consider them quite reasonable ....

[JayS]

95. "The feelings in J/PS can get pretty hot..."

You are the proud winner of the Understatement of the Year Award! :)

To get a better measure of sentiment it would take a pretty long poll with some explanation of what each question means; there has been so much misinformation all across the spectrum that some explanation would be needed. Maybe we could hammer something together in J/PS and post it. We should get a good measure of how the "far left" to "left moderate" feel about the issue.

Just out of curiousity, what do you know about the positions of the NRA? This is an area where I find some interesting responses...and most of the misinformation seems to be coming from the NRA and the VPC, which I am not entirely convinced are not the same organization. :)

I think much of the gun rights issue is regional. Here an endorsement by the Brady Bunch is the kiss of death. Other areas may see this as a good thing. I do find that once all the terms such as "bullet hoses" and "cop killers" are taken out of the discussion and more accurate terms are supplied, then Democrats are by and large for gun rights, just not for everyone. This is pretty much what you get from Republicans also. No one wants to arm the "gang bangers" and violent felons, and neither side wants unlimited gun rights, or freedom of speech, or privacy rights...

[Trajan]

100. Kick

[Trajan]

101. Kick

[Trajan]

102. AS OF 3:42 PM EDT, 6/15/2004

with 138 votes: These observations ...

80 % agree that TWO or MORE of these specific regulations are acceptable to them .... Again: a RINGING endorsement FOR gun control measures by DUer's in general

95 % approve of at least ONE form of gun regulation

7 votes, 5% of the total, consider NONE of these regulations to be worthy of their support ...

It is also fair to report: 20 % believe in one form of regulation (lets call that light regulation) or less ... Such a number is significant, in that it indicates most DUers, even if they dont like gun laws, do see that SOME form of regulations are ok ....

Two conclusions:

1) Most DUers, like most Democrats in general, support multiple forms of these gun regulations ... overwhelmingly

2) EVEN those whom I have considered 'extremists' in J/PS DO in fact support 'some' gun regulation, whether those types of regulation are those defined here, or other established norms, like those against machine guns, mortars and grenades and such ... really: 7you arent all that extreme after all ... Maybe the rhetoric just gets a bit more ugly than its worth ? ... at any rate: REAL 'extremists' are rare here ... we know them ...

I know that in MY case: I resent the false representation that AWB, CCW laws, and the Brady Bill stuff are REJECTED by mainstream Democrats ... that is simply a lie, and even a DU poll can tell us this much ...


Let's see if anymore come'a'knockin before this day is through ...

KICK it to the MOON ! ...

[FeebMaster]

105. LOL

As of 4:15 EDT 100% agree that restrictions on machine guns, silencers, guns by mail order, and a bunch of other restrictions should be removed.

[drb]

103. As I understand it, the constitution...

...gave citizens the right to own guns specifically so they could rise up and overthrow an oppressive government, if push came to shove.

As this particular time in the United States, with John Ashcroft's jack-booted thugs goose-stepping down the boulevards, may I ask why in five kinds of fatuous ficky-fick we are debating about guns??

Go buy one! Go buy a bunch!

Me thinks you're gonna need 'em.

[Trajan]

108. KICK, and an answer ...

Primarily to indicate what level of support DUers had for gun regulation measures, and whether they agreed with radical gun rights enthusiasts that most ALL gun control measures should be tossed out ...

I think it is clear: DUers widely support the gun control initiatives manifest by those specific measures ....

So: no: they do NOT support the lifting of the AWB, nor do they wish to lift the current bans on conceal and carry: no matter WHAT is being said elsewhere on this website ...

I personally agree: fell'as like Bush, Cheney, Delay and ASSKKKroft surely imply that we should ALL be armed to the teeth ... but the more level headed part of me thinks that we, as citizens, cannot ever obtain the firepower needed to overcome directly ANY government sanctioned repression if the organs of government utilized the full power of the american military against its own citizens ...

Obviously: fighting tanks and jets with missiles would be a tad difficult even with the BIGGEST rifles ... so in that case: some other means would have to be used to deflect such an implausable but devastating initiative ...

[Trajan]

110. KICK for the afternoon ...

[JayS]

117. Kick for Trajan.

[Scout]

122. kicking

[Columbia]

124. What is the point of this poll?

[FeebMaster]

126. To show how many Duers support

removing all kinds of restrictions on guns.

[Columbia]

128. Ah, I see

That's good to know that so many DUers understand that rights are not up for public vote and encourage the removal of such unconstitutional, immoral, and misguided restrictions.

[FeebMaster]

132. Well, 50% apparently want registration

according to this vote, which seems higher than when it usually comes up. So, right now, it's split about 50/50 for more restrictions and fewer restrictions.

[Selwynn]

148. Ha. Split 50/50. LOL.

[FeebMaster]

149. Well, at the time it was.

Now it's 51/49, with 49% in favor of registration.

[Selwynn]

179. Are you fucking high?

49% support ALL of the measures listed. The combined total of people who support TWO or MORE listed is 74% Those supporting ONE or LESS or NONE = 23%

The vast majority of DUer's favor gun control. And I'm sick and tired of a handful of people trying to make it out as though that's false.

[FeebMaster]

180. How is this so hard to understand?

Currently 50% support just registration or all of the measures listed. If all of the people who support 2 or 3 are for registration that would make 75% for registration.

Did you read the poll options? There was something in there about NO other regulation in every one of the options. If someone supports the AWB and a waiting period and NO other regulation clearly that person has voted to remove the extra restrictions that are currently on machine guns and silencers and treat them like any other gun.

I support the Waiting Period (including NICS), but NO other regulation
I support the Assault Weapons Ban, but NO other regulation
I support the laws AGAINST Conceal and Carry, but NO other regulation
I support Gun Registration, but NO other regulation


No one is making the claim that most Duers don't favor some gun control.

[Selwynn]

188. I understood the poll, but misunderstood the point you were making

I was in this big gun debate elsewhere, so I probably assumed too much. I thought your primary point was trying to act as though somehow, if you spin the numbers enough, you get a result where DUers are somehow evenly split on the overarching issue of gun control.

I get that you looking to make a point about support for registration. Sorry bout that.

[FeebMaster]

191. No problem. (nt)

[Michael Costello]

127. Gun control support - Democrats or the working class?

Your question is somewhat tautological. You say Democrats support gun control generally. Well, anyone whose big issue is the second amendment is obviously not a Democrat. I mean someone whose big issue is abortion will either be a Democrat (pro-choice) or Republican (pro-life). Someone whose big issue is labor and is in one of the two major parties will either be Democrat (pro-organized labor) or Republican (pro-wealthy).

I myself am pro-labor, and think the military should be shrunk (to paraphrase Grover Norquist, down to the size that it can fit in the bathtub so I can drown it). I am also a supporter of the second amendment, but being as labor is more important to me, I will vote with the Democrats more as I agree with the Democrats on more issues than the Republicans, except gun control, I'm not going to be anti-labor, pro growing the military and going to Iraq and so forth and all of that just for the second amendment.

The real point though is that working class people, especially in swing states, are for the second amendment, and this middle class suburban Democrat gun control stuff turns them off and sends them to the Republicans. That is the main issue, as everyone knows, which you don't mention. Of course, there is also the Green party, and even people like Buchanan have been talking a more and more populist line recently, so you might lose some people to those voters. Gore wrote off the desires of Florida Nader voters in 2000. He might have lost if he had addresses them anyway, but we know his strategy lost anyhow, so no change in hindsight could be bad.

[stavka]

130. Great Post!

People also need to remember that many blue states, even according to the Great and Powerful DEAN are hunting states (Vermont, Michigan, West Virginia) and often are miles away from law enforcement officers.

To appear you are wanting to take away their guns AS A PARTY or to be easily construed as trying to do so is a needless liability.

For many, especially the rural poor, it would be like saying you are going to take away their sprinkler system, police, and their access to 25% of the protein they are going to get in a year* - to use a more urban comparison.

* I am not too far out of Detroit, and I know plenty of Working Class families that depend on venison, duck, and self-caught fish for much of this over the course of the year.

[T Town Jake]

143. Exactly...

...well stated and you're absolutely right.

:yourock:

[MrSlayer]

131. Three for me.

Register, yes. Background check, yes. Assault Weapons ban, yes.

[FeebMaster]

133. Maybe you could explain something to me.

Why do you want to remove the current regulations on machine guns but keep the ban on the manufacture of semi-auto weapons with flash suppressors and bayonet lugs for civilians?

[Trajan]

151. As per typical J/PS balderdash ....

Pure Red Herring ....

You KEEP insisting that the failure to 'enumerate' those regulations not defined in THIS poll is a tacit acceptance that they are being declared null and void ...

Not in your wildest "MY gun is MY cock" dreams ....

One DOESNT HAVE to declare ALL various laws when referring to specific laws in order to 'maintain' them ...

Your taking a ridiculous point to a ridiculous extreme ....

AGAIN: Red Herring Fallacy ....

Your not fooling anyone, except yourself ...

[Columbia]

158. Maybe you should make a better poll next time then

Not our fault people are voting they want no other regulations other than the ones mentioned.

And please quit it with the penis references, we get enough of that in J/PS.

[Trajan]

166. There are limits to DU poll functions ....

I realize you may wish to ignore that salient fact, but your wishes mean nothing in that regard .. the fact remains ...

Further: to say that someone wants to ban 'assult weapons', but allow machines guns, bazookas, RPGs and the like fly in the face of logic ... it is simply asinine to make that assertion ... so please: make that assertion here and now .... so we can see you ...

Feeb is a thoughtful man, as you may be, nevertheless: to condemn this poll because it doesnt take into account the various existing regulations which are generally accepted by BOTH sides, and to assert that one is accepting there REJECTION by not enumerating them .... is a ludicrous assertion ....

You are free to make such assertions: it doesnt mean they are correct ...

[FeebMaster]

170. Asinine?

Further: to say that someone wants to ban 'assult weapons', but allow machines guns, bazookas, RPGs and the like fly in the face of logic ... it is simply asinine to make that assertion ... so please: make that assertion here and now .... so we can see you ...

But that is what the poll option about the AWB clearly states. Here it is: ""I support the Assault Weapons Ban, but NO other regulation"

[Trajan]

173. Say it again ....

Please ...

"Give'm enough rope .. "

[FeebMaster]

174. I don't understand.

No other regulation seems very clear to me.

[FeebMaster]

169. I'm not talking about regulations you failed to mention

I'm talking about your poll options:

I support the Waiting Period (including NICS), but NO other regulation

I support the Assault Weapons Ban, but NO other regulation

I support the laws AGAINST Conceal and Carry, but NO other regulation

I support Gun Registration, but NO other regulation

You even capitalized the NO.

As of right now, somewhere between 49% and 75% support the registration of guns.

9% support no regulations of any kind.

13% support a waiting period and NO other regulation.
2% support the Assault Weapons Ban and NO other regulation.
1% support registration, but NO other regulation.
14% support 2 of the options, but NO other regulation.
12% support 3 of the options, but No other regulation.


"One DOESNT HAVE to declare ALL various laws when referring to specific laws in order to 'maintain' them ..."

You're right, but your poll options clearly said "NO other regulation."


Not in your wildest "MY gun is MY cock" dreams ....

Cute. I'm not a gun owner though, so I guess you're out of luck on that one.

[Redneck Socialist]

137. You are misrepresenting the views of DU's RKBA crowd

"they claim that MOST Democrats support the REPEAL of most ALL gun regulations, including the Waiting Period, Registration, Conceal and Carry regulations, and the Assault Weapons Ban ..."

I have rarely, if ever, seen this view put forth. What I do commonly see is the idea that the Democratic Party is perceived as hostile to the interests of gun owners and that this perception cost us votes. This is a far different proposition than the one you put forth.

[stavka]

152. What's "RKBA"?

excuse my ignorance.....

[FeebMaster]

171. Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (nt)

[Trajan]

167. Nonsense ...

With all due respect: I have argued against DUers who demand that the AWB and CCW regulations MUST be overthrown utterly and completely ...

Some of them are in this thread ... some are not .... We know where they are ...

IF the 'perception' of the Democrats is the problem (it is), then shouldnt we STOP forwarding that MISperception ? ... shouldnt we seek to NOT promote the notion that the Democratic Party are 'gun grabbers' ? ...

DECENT regulation, like that currently in place, and some of what has been proposed ... is NOT 'overbearing'. and ISNT 'gun grabbing', even though this is EXACTLY how we are portrayed here in the Gungeon ...

I try to be careful and attach blame to whom it is due, and not to an entire 'general' group .... and if I offended you with untruths: I apologize to you specifically ...

[Redneck Socialist]

176. Not offended

I just haven't seen anyone claim that repeal of all gun laws is supported by a majority of Democrats. Those posts may be out there, I just haven't seen them.

What I have seen repeatedly is the claim that how the Democratic Party is perceived regarding gun control hurts us in elections.

Democratic Underground is not representative of the Democratic Party as a whole. It shouldn't be surprising that views outside the mainstream are expressed here. That some of those ideas can't be neatly wrapped in the traditional liberal Democratic ribbon may surprise some, but I find that encouraging. Broad coalitions are what win elections. That is why I and others call for a change to the so called "traditional" Democratic stance toward gun control. Because we think it will help the Democratic Party.

It is likely that we disagree about how to correct the misperception regarding Democrats and gun control. That is OK by me. For myself that is why I hang out here, to hash out these sort of issues. If we all agreed on everything DU would be pretty boring.

on edit: sloppy typing

[Wickerman]

138. All right, there you are - I found you guys - now, get back downstairs

or no more day passes! :grr:

[vision]

141. Guns kill

that is thier only use. I think that people have a right to protect themselves and provide for thier family, ie hunting. But we are kidding ourselves if we think that guns serve any other purpose than to kill.

As a dangerous item IMO it is necessary to regulate it.

Personally I don't care what a person has in thier home that is thier property and unless somebody is being harmed than IMO nobody should mess with personal property. But I seriously against concealed weapons as it is puts others at risk. I do not feel safer as a consumer or as retailer with others bringing weapons into social or shopping areas.

[JayS]

142. "As a dangerous item IMO it is necessary to regulate it"

Not to worry. Guns are one of the most regulated products we have.

[Selwynn]

147. I support them all. And big shock, so do most DUer's ... its..

..always just a vocal minority.

[Romulus]

164. only support NICS & waiting period

What I don't get is why the anti-CCW crowd wants me to have no way to effectively prevent from becoming the next James Byrd? :shrug:



http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/17/jasper/?CP=YAH&DN=110

Or the next Saurabh Bhalerao

http://www.swisspolitics.org/en/news/index.php?section=int&page=news_inhalt&news_id=4053513

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/usahate/usa1102-04.htm

The September 11 hate crime backlash confirmed the fears of Arabs and Muslims in the United States: a major terrorist attack gave rise to a nationwide wave of hate crimes against persons and institutions perceived to be Arab or Muslim. Unlike previous hate crime waves, however, the September 11 backlash distinguished itself by its ferocity and extent. The violence included murder, physical assaults, arson, vandalism of places of worship and other property damage, death threats, and public harassment. Most incidents occurred in the first months after September 11, with the violence tapering off by December.


Another thing I don't get is why people think banning this:



Will somehow stop criminals from using this (which does the same exact thing in the same exact way with the exact same ammunition):

[DaveSZ]

177. I support Howard Dean's position on guns

:)

Actually I'm also against the AWB, but favor strong background checks and waiting periods.


P.S.

Well said Romulus.

[JayS]

182. This is the brand of gun control I support.

Project Targets Gun Criminals
June 4, 2004
Reported by KPLC Staff
http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1919376&nav=0nqxNfmq


You may wonder why police seem to seize so many guns-- well, getting guns used for crime off the streets has been a high priority of Lake Charles Police Chief Don Dixon since he became chief in January 2002. The special emphasis seems to have reduced local crime involving firearms.

*SNIP*

Chief Dixon says it's an initiative targeting federal prosecution of gun criminals: "If you're a convicted felon and we catch you in possession of a gun, there is no good excuse. There is no good reason. You're up to bad intent. These are the people out there who are repeat offenders, habitual offenders, and that's basically how they survive-- by committing crimes with guns. You take just one of them off the street it's going to help."

So, Dixon explains, whenever they find a gun they run a trace on it through the federal ATF . If possible, they pursue federal prosecution which Dixon says has great results: "It speeds the system up. These cases, normally, by the time the incident happens, we send it over. It usually goes before a grand jury within three or four months, we have an indictment, 95% of the time they're detained in the federal system which means they're a danger to the community-- there is no bond."

But even better perhaps, Dixon says there's been a tremendous reduction in the number of guns on the streets and in crimes involving guns: "Our reduction in gun crimes from 2003 compared to 2002--which is armed robberies with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, I think is about a 30 per cent reduction."

*SNIP*





Cops to crack down on gun violations
By WILLIAM F. AST III / H-P Staff Writer
http://www.heraldpalladium.com/articles/2004/06/03/news/news3.txt

CASSOPOLIS -- Southwest Michigan law enforcement officials on Wednesday announced a new program that Dowagiac Police Chief Thomas Atkinson said will "send away the bad guys for a long, long time."

"The goal is to move them out of the community and away from this area," Van Buren County Sheriff Dale Gribler said. Project Safe Neighborhoods-Southwest will provide Berrien, Cass and Van Buren counties with a "gun detective" who will work full time on cases involving convicted felons with guns, according to Margaret Chiara, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan.

That detective, working with federal agencies, will send appropriate cases to the "federal system because our penalties are so much more substantial for this particular crime rather than the state system, where they are minimal," Chiara said. The detective's job will be mostly paid for by the federal government.

Felons found to be in possession of a firearm face two years in prison under Michigan law, Gribler said. The average sentence in federal court is 69 months, he said.

*SNIP*

[billbuckhead]

184. RBKA extremists have been routed 137 to 26 by those for sensible gun laws

O8) In a seperate poll 60% of Du'ers thought the NRA is a danger to society.

[JayS]

185. Define sensible gun laws. Are you talking about feel-good...

...laws or those that actually work to reduce gun violence?

[welshTerrier2]

197. sorry ... not a good poll

you can ask whatever poll questions you want to but i do think it's too bad you didn't offer a choice for the banning of all guns ...

my first step would be to ban the manufacture and importing of all guns ...

as for legitimate hunting rifles, i would require that they be locked up at a local police station when not "signed out" for use ...

i don't care if it takes a thousand years to reduce the number of guns in this country, you have to start somewhere ...

and for you pro-gun types, don't waste your breath ... i'm sick and tired of watching the news and seeing the death these weapons can cause ... guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people ...

and for those who make the argument that you are arming yourself for the revolution, it's a nice fantasy ... do you really believe that those who control the levers of power and hold all the money will not control the military as well? my revolution will follow the teachings of Gandhi, not the macho model peddled by companies who profit from human violence ...

find a different toy to play with, cowboy ...

[JayS]

198. Somehow I don't think your ideas would get very far. :)

I don't like seeing gun deaths either. I've seen the failure of the current brand of gun control for too many years. This is why I support a new brand now. Hopefully it will achieve the results we all want to see.



Project Targets Gun Criminals
June 4, 2004
Reported by KPLC Staff
http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1919376&nav=0nqxNfmq


You may wonder why police seem to seize so many guns-- well, getting guns used for crime off the streets has been a high priority of Lake Charles Police Chief Don Dixon since he became chief in January 2002. The special emphasis seems to have reduced local crime involving firearms.

*SNIP*

Chief Dixon says it's an initiative targeting federal prosecution of gun criminals: "If you're a convicted felon and we catch you in possession of a gun, there is no good excuse. There is no good reason. You're up to bad intent. These are the people out there who are repeat offenders, habitual offenders, and that's basically how they survive-- by committing crimes with guns. You take just one of them off the street it's going to help."

So, Dixon explains, whenever they find a gun they run a trace on it through the federal ATF . If possible, they pursue federal prosecution which Dixon says has great results: "It speeds the system up. These cases, normally, by the time the incident happens, we send it over. It usually goes before a grand jury within three or four months, we have an indictment, 95% of the time they're detained in the federal system which means they're a danger to the community-- there is no bond."

But even better perhaps, Dixon says there's been a tremendous reduction in the number of guns on the streets and in crimes involving guns: "Our reduction in gun crimes from 2003 compared to 2002--which is armed robberies with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, I think is about a 30 per cent reduction."

*SNIP*





Cops to crack down on gun violations
By WILLIAM F. AST III / H-P Staff Writer
http://www.heraldpalladium.com/articles/2004/06/03/news/news3.txt

CASSOPOLIS -- Southwest Michigan law enforcement officials on Wednesday announced a new program that Dowagiac Police Chief Thomas Atkinson said will "send away the bad guys for a long, long time."

"The goal is to move them out of the community and away from this area," Van Buren County Sheriff Dale Gribler said. Project Safe Neighborhoods-Southwest will provide Berrien, Cass and Van Buren counties with a "gun detective" who will work full time on cases involving convicted felons with guns, according to Margaret Chiara, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan.

That detective, working with federal agencies, will send appropriate cases to the "federal system because our penalties are so much more substantial for this particular crime rather than the state system, where they are minimal," Chiara said. The detective's job will be mostly paid for by the federal government.

Felons found to be in possession of a firearm face two years in prison under Michigan law, Gribler said. The average sentence in federal court is 69 months, he said.
*SNIP*

[welshTerrier2]

199. punishing irresponsible gun ownership

first, i don't think my ideas are politically viable in this country ... and that's too bad ...

second, and i don't profess to be an expert on the issue, i'm under the impression that many homicides committed in this country are done between people who know each other ... and i think it would be a safe guess to assume that some percentage, probably a very high percentage, involve the use of guns ...

while i would have no objection to harsher sentences for felons caught possessing guns, i really don't see how that policy would address the situation present in so many other homicides ...

if you want to try to solve the problem with harsher punishments, here's what i would propose (i'm confident this idea will go nowhere either): mandatory 5 years in jail if you register a gun that is used in a crime or is found in the possession of anyone else ... this means that if your gun is stolen, you could go to jail ... gun owners often point out that they are responsible gun owners ... well, fine ... if your gun gets stolen and is used in a crime, you go to jail for failing to protect the public from your weapon ... let the gun owner bear the risk ... if you want to keep these dangerous toys in your house, you damned well better make sure they stay there ... you put the public at risk, you get punished ...

Massachusetts has a mandatory year in jail for anyone caught in possession of an unregistered gun ... let's make it 5 years and let's make it a national law ... if we ever really wanted to get tough and stop looking the other way, we could do a whole lot better than we're doing now ... and the focus has to be on all guns, not just the guns obtained by felons ...

but then, it seems rather obvious we don't want to get too serious ...

[JayS]

200. Yes, many homicides occur between people who know each...

...other; I forget the percentage but it is very high. Not much is going to change this as far as tools used for killing though. Since so many of these killings seem to all come back to some money issue then maybe this is a good starting point for looking at the issue.

Taking care of the violent felons means that many of the other incidents of gun violence will be ones that the participants will have a degree of control over. You can choose to do what you can to keep firearms away from your children or seek help getting away from an abusive relationship. With someone robbing and shooting you, there is too often nothing you can do to prevent it. I like the drop in gun violence that these new laws seem to be bringing and am willing to give them a shot.

I doubt that you could ever truly hold someone responsible for their stolen weapon, if it was truly stolen. I know it has been done before but I don't know if these cases ever help up to appeal. If this law ever did come about, it would only be a matter of time before it spread to other products, and I doubt many want to take this risk.

I am aware of some of the gun laws in Massachusetts and hope not many others know of them, for obvious reasons. I know that if a law requiring prison time for an unregistered weapon ever passed here it would not be enforced and the politicians that voted for it removed. Proposing registration would likely get one strung up from a tree also. The prison space required and the costs associated with incarceration and loss of tax revenue would certainly kill any chance of such a thing being enforced. I had hoped that Kerry would keep his Massachusetts ideas of his brand of gun control at home but unfortunately this is not looking like it will be the case. I had hopes he would win in Texas but I am seriously doubting this now.

[Trajan]

204. At nearly 300 total votes ...

The results of THIS poll are rather clear ... and consistent over time ...

I was shocked to see this pop onto GD page one again ...

AS OF 9:07 EDT, 6/18/2004


with 296 votes: These observations ...

75 % (down from 79 %) agree that TWO or MORE of these specific regulations are acceptable to them .... I consider that a RINGING endorsement FOR Gun control measures by DUer's in general

91 % (down from 94 %) approve of at least ONE form of gun regulation

28 votes, 9% of the total (up from 6%), consider NONE of these regulations to be worthy of their support ...

It is also fair to report: 25 % (up from 21 %) believe in one form of regulation (lets call that light regulation) or less ... Such a number is significant, in that it indicates most DUers, even if they dont like gun laws, do see that SOME form of regulations are ok ....

Mind you: we must fairly assume that those who do not support THESE specific measures most likely support the Machine gun bans, and all other peripheral measures that would ban individuals owning or using, Tanks, RPG's, Helicopter gunships, AC130's, B2 stealth bombers, ....and any sort of MIRV type weaponry ....

So: even those who reject the choices in this poll, most likely support laws against ownership of such weapons as in the previous paragraph ....

[JayS]

205. The problem with this poll is the mutually exclusive nature of...

...the choices, as I understand them. (I am aware now that the limit is ten choices so that makes things a bit tough) I am for some degree of gun regulation, as is every group that I know of. I am also a big supporter of gun control...but of a different nature than, I assume, many people are for. I think getting an accurate reading of this will be a bit more complex.

How about we try for a poll somewhat along the lines of this.

*****

Rate the importance of each issue to you on a scale of one to ten.

Issue 1 : (explanation of issue one)
Issue 2 : (explanation of issue two)
Issue 3 : (explanation of issue three)
Issue 4 : (explanation of issue four)
...and so forth.


Convenient copy/paste area for easier answers:
Issue 1 : x
Issue 2 : x
Issue 3 : x
Issue 4 : x
...and so forth.

This would be fun to hammer out in J/PS.

I'll start:
You suck! Stupid idea! What a steaming pile of pantloads! Moron! Freeper! NRA pimp! Gun porn! :)

[Trajan]

206. GOOD start ! ....

Chuckles ... jk ...

We are both aware of the inadequacies of these kinds of polls ... so be it ...

MY objective was only to point out that, on the whole, DU Democrats DO support these initiatives by wide margins, unlike some of the bogus assertions made in J/PS to the contrary ... The point wasnt to argue the relative merits of these measures .... even though that is usually the inevitable result ...

I appreciate your input JayS, and respect both your opinion and your manner of expressing it ...

I personally think there is a middle ground that is effective in both affording a decent respects for the 2nd amendment AND helps society deter the most dangerous aspects of unfettered ownership of arms ... Im not sure it will please everyone, but it can be done ...

Thanks for your respectful tone, and your learned manner ...

BTW: if I ever use the term "Pantload", somebody knock me down ....

[rniel]

207. to compare

government enacts seat belt laws because they know they can save thousands of lives and all of these gun measure are basically doing the same thing, saving lives.

But then again I'm against the government NOT allowing people to own guns, but who needs a grenade launcher and AK-47 to hunt deer.