The Bottom line on this gun issue and what it will mean in the end..PLEASE READ...

[TnDem]

As I scroll through these forums, I keep reading numerous posts regarding all of the proposals that are being touted by DU members as well as many others.

I have realized that many on these forums;

1) Do not have a real working knowledge of guns which then means they have a hard time fantasizing the new "laws" they want to pass.
2) Do not understand gun legislation currently on the books or proposed..(This and number one go hand in hand)
3) Do not understand gun culture, gun voter intensity or the damage it has caused our party.
4) Are EXTREMELY intolerant of anyone of anyone that doesn't share an urban and/or Berkeley style view on guns

I cannot even begin to tell you how many incorrect statements that I have corrected in the last 3 days about guns. Folks on here must just conjure laws up in their mind because they sound good or lax or menacing, (depending on the context). A few of us well versed in guns attempt to correct these positions, but the answer is lost in the cacaphony of anti-gun cheerleading. People are so critical of the MSM, but yet they continually tout "facts" they hear there that are incorrect about laws and background checks, machine guns...It never ends...KNOW YOUR FACTS OR YOU'LL LOOK LOSE CREDIBILITY SOMEONE WHO DOES.

How about this...If you don't know the law to be FACT, don't POST it as fact. If you don't completely understand the gun you are posting about, the barrel, the caliber, the method of action, the reliable statistic...whatever, don't post it as fact. Educate yourselves for God's sakes so you don't look like morans

And to the real meat of the whole matter..

Here's the bottom line...Some posters can post voluminous and wordy handringing manifestos about their solution to the perceived gun problems in the USA. However, they do not understand that we as a party are at somewhat of a crossroads with the southern/midewestern/rural voter.

If this party actively pushes a media based anti-gun initiative during this upcoming election, they will lose this election. That is the bottom line about guns. We have went from a 20 year open gaping wound to a "scab" on the gun issue in the south and midwest. Proposing a SINGLE law....A SINGLE ban....A SINGLE registration right now will mean for us death in 2008. We will lose 20-30 states right off the bat. This is exactly what the pugs want and for some reason, many here are irresistably drawn to it like moths to a flame.

Most of it has to do with posters that have no CLUE about the real southern, rural, gun-owning voter and his/her culture. Folks on here do not understand the level of distrust that this voter has with the Democratic party because of Feinsten, Schumer, Boxer, Gore and their constant pounding of the gun issues in the 1990's. It has pushed what should be easy votes far from us.

News Flash guys...What sells in Orlando/Chicago/Berkeley/Sacramento/Cleveland will not sell in Rome, Georgia or Bell Buckle, Tennessee or Beatrice, Alabama...The south or Midwest does not consist of Nashville and Kansas City...It is the tens of thousands of small towns and villages that will make a state turn either Democratic or not.

Remember, if Gore had won his home state,(my state), of Tennessee in 2000, he would have been president. Florida wouldn't have even been an issue..He would have won Tennessee if he had left guns alone...I was here, my Democratic friends and I watched it happen before our very eyes. I knew what was coming when he started pounding the NRA and touting his "tie breaking vote on the gun show loophole" right before the election...We knew he was killing himself politically in the south, but yet he couldn't see it. He actually thought it would HELP him!

Democratic Senator Jim Webb agreed in his book "Born Fighter" that Gore lost in 2000 not because of Florida, but because he lost the gun vote in Tennessee and West Virginia. Bill Clinton agreed with Webb in an interview. We also know he agreed that guns and his push for the now expired "assault weapons ban" cost him both houses of Congress in 1994 and got us 20 plus years of pug leadership in Congress. These are probably two of the most astute Democratic politicians in modern history.

Also, Hunting has NOTHING to do with it. Most gun owners do not hunt...I don't hunt, but I enjoy shooting and do so quite often. Trying to tie gun ownership with hunting was the classic "hunters and sportsmen" triangulation bullshit that Clinton started and Gore used as well. It attempted to split the hunters away from gun owners in general and in the meantime seem "reasonable". It doesn't fly down here.

Remember...Any proposal, serious discussion, implementation, media hype...ANYTHING that brings gun control as an issue to the attention of the voting public at large, will mean more alienation from the rural voter...When words like "common sense", "reasonable restrictions" and other such bullshit is used, it is immediately interpreted by the rural voter like we interpret, "Let's roll" or "with us or against us" or some other such propaganda...When you say things like that to a rural voter, he immediately knows its a bullshit smokescreen and that someone is attemtping to run their virtual hands into his gun cabinet and either make him register his guns, not allow him to buy that Semi-automatic Glock that he's been wanting or whatever..In other words, by proposing more legislation like this, the more he distrusts us as a party because it disrupts his gun owning routine...And although this voter may not like Bush or the war or other things, he will still vote for the person that promises to leave his guns alone and even would like to go target shooting with him..That's reality and until it is understood, we will continue to struggle for these rural votes and wonder why we cannot get them.

People on here think they are being helpful and adding just some very basic "reasonable restrictions" to the debate...Here's some advice...SHUT UP ABOUT GUNS PERIOD...Anything proposed will not be viewed as reasonable. Don't talk about them except if its positive, don't allude to them legislatively..Let guns cease to be an issue.

There is a lot of regional wisdom in this post...If a national candidate could really get a hold of it instead of holding stupid assed Kerry/Romney type duck hunting stunts...They do this shit and then wonder why he can't get the rural vote? What the candidate needs to do is have a photo op at a gun range rapid firing a Glock at a paper target...Then people would think, "hey...maybe this guy isn't a bullshitter"...Gun owners can spot a pile of bullshit three miles away. It's because these candidates, their handlers and advisers....NONE of them understand the culture..Hunting is only one small aspect of shooting.

And until one of them really does grasp this, we are 20-30 states down from the get go...Can we afford to lose another election? Remember, the current liberal bastion of the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, will be 90 years old around 2010. He can't last much longer...Who do you want appointing the next justice?

Print this off, because it is Politics 101 on how to win the south and midwest.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Everyone should have a rifle, NO ONE should have a handgun.

Compare our deaths by guns to those in Canada as a percentage of the population.

[jmg257]

10. Why? 1)I don't live in Canada, and 2) I can't carry a rifle concealed for self-defense. nt

[SlipperySlope]

86. Re: Everyone should have a rifle, NO ONE should have a handgun.

1: Does "NO ONE" include the police and military?
2: How do I carry a rifle concealed?
3: A rifle is kind of unwieldy in home defense, and hard to use in a struggle.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

133. Ah come on man, be creative, just carry a sawn shotty.

Find a nice double barrel ten gauge and go to town with that hacksaw. It's better than a handgun of course.

(Sweet Moses, please note the sarcasm in my post, or else whoever responds seriously will make baby Jesus cry)

[beevul]

90. You are aware I hope...

that rifle shots may well go right through walls and have potential to kill innocents in a home defense scenario?


Think a little.

[benEzra]

201. OK, so write off the 40+ MILLION lawful handgun owners...

Everyone should have a rifle, NO ONE should have a handgun.

OK, so write off the 40+ MILLION lawful handgun owners, half of whom are Dems and indies. There's a winning strategy...

The U.S. knife violence rate is far higher than that of Canada also, and it's not because knives are banned there and not here. It's because the U.S. handles some social issues (mental health care, rich/poor gap, social safety net, education, socialization of children/adolescents into adult roles, urban blight, militaristic war on non-approved herbs) way worse than Canada does--plus we have repercussions from slavery, reconstruction, and Jim Crow that Canada doesn't.

I think your post is a pretty decent validation of the OP's point, actually.

[Retired AF Dem]

311. I have been trying to get my supervisor to let me carry a Colt

M-4 (short M-16) but all he says is "great that is all we need is 30 people dead in front of Walmart) So I guess I'm stuck with my handgun.

[Lautremont]

2. Are you saying that a photo-op at a target range WOULDN'T be percieved

as bullshit by the keen sensitivities of the gun lovers?

[TnDem]

13. Not if I handled the candidate...

Don't be sensitive to the Schumer's and Boxer's and Feinstein's of the party, but craft a "new" way.

Hunting is always seen as a "safe" alternative that makes anti-gun Democrats think that they are appealing to pro-gun voters...It doesn;t work, but the majority of gun owners do not hunt..Many like to target shoot, plink, collect guns..There are tens of thousands of gun collectors in the USA that rarely even shoot their guns...They just like to collect them.

These silly photo ops would never appeal to those people because they have become a cliche' for "I'm doing this to appeal to you even though I don't know what in the Hell I am doing and it shows"

I would practice in private and then make an appearance at a range with a SigSauer or Glock or other fine quality, Hi-Cap handgun and I'd shoot a few sets for the camera's AND MEAN IT...

Some good bullseye shots and body language that said, "I am not afraid of this gun", would do wonders for a Democratic candidate.

[SlipperySlope]

89. Not if it was genuine...

Enough of the photo-ops that make candidates look like duck hunters.

Where are the pictures of our candidates at a national rifle match firing an AR-15?
Where are the pictures of our candidates practicing at a pistol range?

Choosing a shotgun for a photo-op is like sending a coded message that says "I don't support handguns, I don't support semi-automatic rifles, and I think guns are only for hunting".

Above all, it has to be genuine. No use picking up a gun for the campaign trail if you've never picked up one before.

[treelogger]

288. Sen. Schumer with a pistol

If you search for a while, you'll find a picture of Sen. Schumer, with a full-automatic pistol in his hand, shooting at the range. Since I'm not an expert in military style firearms, I don't know what kind of pistol this is, it might be a TEC or Mac or something like that.

The interesting thing is: The Senator has an absolute shit-eating grin on his face. He seems to be enjoying himself greatly. The other interesting thing is: The Senator is fervently anti-gun. Most gun owners would probably (and quite justifiable) call him rabidly anti-gun.

Disclaimer: I do NOT know whether that picture is real or not. It might be a photoshop job. But I've seen it many times on the web, in many different places, that more likely it is real.

And my personal opinion is this: Senator Schumer is entitled to shoot a gun, if he wants to. Good for him that he enjoys it. He is also allowed to have strongly anti-gun positions. This is a free country, and freedom of speech applies to everyone, even Senators. I think his anti-gun positions are pointless, asinine, even dangerous to the survival of the democratic party, but he is free to have espouse them.

What he is not allowed to do is: Use his exalted position to gain access to a gun that a "normal" citizen can not get to. I have no evidence that this occured in this case through. However, this is exactly what Senator Feinstein does, when she uses her position in the senate to be classified as a Federal Marshall, just so she can carry guns concealed on her, without having to go through the public embarassment of being one of the 8 people who have a CCW permit in her hometown of San Francisco. A permit that would be denied to 99.99% of her fellow inhabitants of SF. So she is a hypocrite. And Senator Kerry is even worse: He is a hypocrite and a liar, for that one staged picture with the shotgun.

From an honesty point of view, I actually have to prefer Vice President Cheney on this matter: he is unabashedly pro-gun, and acts the part. The big problem is that he seems to be blissfully unaware of gun safety rules. If I had been the range officer, I would have thrown him off the range for the kind of gun handling he supposedly demonstrated when hunting (but then, I was not the range officer there).

Did you know that Vice President's Cheney approval rating went up after that hunting accident? Because he shot a lawyer! OK, this paragraph is just an old and tired joke being trotted out again.

[benEzra]

202. It certainly wouldn't be seen as "gun rights for hunters only"

Are you saying that a photo-op at a target range WOULDN'T be percieved as bullshit by the keen sensitivities of the gun lovers?

It certainly wouldn't be seen as "gun rights for hunters only" like the stupid goose hunting photo ops are, IF it were done right.

Do you know what percentage of U.S. gun owners are bird hunters?

FIVE TO TEN PERCENT. (20% of gun owners hunt, 75% of hunters are primarily deer/big-game hunters).

Do you know what percentage of U.S. gun owners own handguns and so-called "assault weapons" (a.k.a. small-caliber target rifles)?

OVER FIFTY PERCENT.

See the problem in the "talk up hunting, promise bans on nonhunting guns" approach?

[crispini]

3. I will freely admit that I am ignorant about guns.

However -- speaking hypothetically here -- if there were some piece of legislation that could be crafted that would REALLY, TRULY prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals and mentally ill, I would endorse and advocate for it wholeheartedly, even if it meant losing your "rural" vote. Because it would be the right thing to do.

LBJ said when he signed the civil rights legislation that we would lose the south for his lifetime, and we did, but he signed it anyway.

[goclark]

6. Cho was deemed mentally ill but not a trace of that on his

gun application.

[TX-RAT]

67. Or on his record

Had it been, he would have been unable to purchase the pistol. Thank the magistrate who changed the ruling from committed, to out patient treatment, for that one.

[gaspee]

7. But... but... but

That's what you'll hear from the people who think access to guns should be easier than access to drivers' licenses. Using their logic, Johnson was wrong to sign the civil rights legislation. We already have people telling women to shut the hell up about abortion and gays to "just wait a little longer" to be treated as human.

Sometimes, the right thing to do is the right thing to do.

A lot of people don't have a problem with 30,000 Americans being killed BY GUNS every single year. I do have a problem with it.

[jmg257]

14. Because you blame "guns". Gun owners do not.

"A lot of people don't have a problem with 30,000 Americans being killed BY GUNS"

We DO have problem with THE PEOPLE who use guns to kill, including those who choose to kill themselves, but the percentage is SOOO small, that it is not good justifcation for disabling an unalienable and protected right of the other 99.88% of us, especially when such attempts are ineffective in curbing those deaths.

[gaspee]

27. Damn straight I blame guns

I'm hapy I live in a state with strict gun control laws. I don't care what you do in your area until it affects what goes on in my town. I don't lobby anyone for strict gun control and I don't vote on the issue. Do what you want locally. My state has sane gun control laws. My state is 47th in deaths per 100,000 from gun violence. The only lower are NJ, CT, MA, and Hawaii. Excepting Hawaii because I don't know the law, they all have STRICT handgun control.

Do whatever you want in your state. And live with the consequences.

[TnDem]

31. This is what I mean....RIGHT HERE FOLKS...

Typical myopic view on the subject..

This has nothing to do with state laws...Re-read my post.

Basically it says, "To Hell with what it takes to win the next election"

If you're OK with that, then just don't cry on here later when we lose the election..

[gaspee]

35. You need

reading comprehension. I do not lobby for strict gun control laws because I already have them where I live, and I like it that way.

By your logic, we should outlaw abortion. Because if we did, we'd be guaranteed to win the next election. Do you know how many single issue voters vote on abortion alone?

We should also denouce gays.

Between abortion and gays, the dems would win alot more races.

Why can't you accept that there are plenty of people who feel as strongly as you do but on the other side of the issue.

Unbelievable.

[TnDem]

Hardly...

Because Guns are routinely polled at 50% ownership on DU and the subject of gun control is actively viewed on DU as detrimental....And that is from the most left of the left sites.

You may have morphed this into a Democratic issue in your mind...It is NOT. It may be a regional concern somewhere on your list of priorities...However, It will be number ONE priority with thousands of Southern and Midwestern Democratic and Swing voters.

..Oh, and I comprehend just fine.

[SlipperySlope]

91. He isn't talking about "single issue voters"

He isn't talking about losing a bunch of single issue voters, he is talking about alienating entire subcultures in the United States.

These are voters that should be ours; hard-working, blue-collar, union members. But when you attack guns you attack their way of life and their culture. They look at what happened in Virginia and see a sick individual. You look at what happened and see guns.

When you go after their guns, you tell them "I think you are the cause of things like Virginia". You insult them, and you drive them away.

THIS IS SUCH A NO BRAINER

Our party has dropped gun control as issue. It is an **election loser**; it is the wrong thing to do; it needs to stay dropped.

For the love of the Democratic party, I hope the Supreme Court comes out soon and finds the Second Amendment and affirms the Parker ruling. Once it is made perfectly clear that gun control is unconstitutional, hopefully we can put this mistake behind us and focus on winning elections and helping the country.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

132. All I can say is RIGHT FUCKING ON!

Socially, I am right there with Hugo Chavez but don't fuck with my guns.

[treelogger]

291. Typical union member

This little anecdote is a few months back. I went to the shooting range. Standing outside in the parking lot was a big, older guy (big meaning: large diameter), working on some conduit in the back of a typical electrician's truck. Having been an amateur electrician myself (we wired our own house), and being a connoisseur of conduit, I start chatting with him. Turns out he is replacing some of the wiring in the range. His truck is covered with union stickers. He wears a T-shirt with the logo of some electricians union local #suchandsuch. More chatting reveals that he is also a real gun expert (seems to know everything about AR-style rifles), and the instructor for the women's shooting classes at the range. He volunteered to improve the lighting, because some people in his classes didn't enjoy the bad lighting conditions. He is also the boss of the local California NRA chapter for the county. We start chatting about politics, starting at gun laws. He hates republicans. He is anti-religious, pro-choice, pro-union. He is sort of mixed on Schwarzenegger. The amazing thing is: Here we have a salt-of-the-earth tradesman, and a european-educted PhD-wielding silicon valley type, and they basically agree on politics. He should be the perfect democratic voter or maybe even activist.

Except for one thing: He basically hates democrats. Why? Because having been involved with guns for decades, he has seem him take many of his gun rights away, one by one. By the way, this is not rural america, this is California, Silicon Valley.

[Madspirit]

207. Actually

More people support choice on the abortion issue than not. Obviously by the fact that we can still get them. If more people didn't support abortion they would not be legal.

Most people don't support gay marriage but as a lesbian, if you want MY vote, you frakking better at least support Civil Unions and that's a minimum requirement to get my vote.

No one seems to have a sensible middle ground on guns. Well, some do but not most. It either seems to be..."No guns period" or "I want an Uzi and a AK whatever and a nuclear bomb of my own and..." If our side came up with a reasonable middle ground, they might get supported. I think most people actually don't want them completely outlawed but do want strong controls and registration and background checks, waiting periods, etc.
Lee

[benEzra]

224. I understand where you are coming from.

Most people don't support gay marriage but as a lesbian, if you want MY vote, you frakking better at least support Civil Unions and that's a minimum requirement to get my vote.

And if some dumbass told you to support Jerry Falwell for President because it was in your "economic self-interest", you'd probably not change your mind, either.
I understand where you are coming from. I and most gun owners are EXACTLY that way on guns. We want people to stay the hell out of our gun safes, just like you want people to stay the hell out of your bedroom. (And yes, I support civil unions.)

No one seems to have a sensible middle ground on guns. Well, some do but not most. It either seems to be..."No guns period" or "I want an Uzi and a AK whatever and a nuclear bomb of my own and..." If our side came up with a reasonable middle ground, they might get supported. I think most people actually don't want them completely outlawed but do want strong controls and registration and background checks, waiting periods, etc.

Possession of an actual Uzi or AK is a 10-year Federal felony (unless you are police/military, or have Federal authorization, i.e. BATFE Form 4), and even the NRA is OK with the mandatory point-of-sale background check.

I suspect that guns are a lot more regulated already than you are aware.

[Madspirit]

225. Honey I'm a Texan...

<g> Our toddlers carry guns....
Lee

[benEzra]

230. LOL! (n/t)

[zanne]

125. We never lost an election because of guns...

I know you gun people like to say that. I don't know, maybe it makes you feel better about being selfish and childish and not caring about the safety of other people. When you say a stance on gun control loses elections, you're full of crap. Most Americans want stricter gun laws, not less. Live with it.

[TnDem]

127. Lost elections...

Well Bill Clinton and Jim Webb both disagree with you publicly and in print...

So If you know more than they do, then I suggest you may be in the wrong line of work...A political campaign somewhere needs your clairvoyance badly.

Live with it..

[zanne]

130. Read this and weep, 35 percenter. People WANT gun control.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0420/p03s02-ussc.html

[jmg257]

186. Read THIS - 1/07 Gallop poll - "ONLY 49% want more gun control". (and dropping fast) nt

[jgraz]

212. Really? Post your link then

I'm especially interested in the part where the poll says it's "dropping fast". I've never heard of a poll that can measure that kind of a trend in one shot. This must be some new statistical breakthrough that I've missed.

Edit: and not to the CNN story, to the poll and the methodolgy. CNN has a history of mis-reporting its own polls.

[jmg257]

217. Sorry - Here ya go...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/17/schneider.gun.control/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Is the Virginia Tech tragedy likely to put gun control on the political agenda? Don't bet on it. In recent years, gun control has been an issue most politicians prefer to stay away from.

The last significant gun control measures to make it through Congress were the Brady bill in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994.

And what happened? Democrats lost control of Congress for 12 years. President Clinton said the gun lobby had a lot to do with his party's defeat. Democrats have been gun-shy ever since. (Watch why it is considered easy and simple to buy a gun in Virginia )

Then-Vice President Al Gore rarely talked about gun control during the 2000 presidential campaign. Gore even went so far as to say he wouldn't restrict sportsmen or hunters, "None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sportsmen or people who use rifles."

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, went hunting during his campaign. He defended 2nd Amendment rights said during a campaign debate, saying, "I will protect the Second Amendment. I always have and I always will."

Nevertheless, the National Rifle Association ran an ad railing against Kerry and Gore's stance on gun rights. "John Kerry, you are not fooling America's gun owners," the ad stated. "They know you voted against their gun rights for 20 years. So now you're running away from your record, just like Al Gore did."

This year, former New York City mayor and current Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, a longtime supporter of gun control, says the matter should be left to the states. Polls show the public supports gun control. Why don't the politicians get with the people?

Support for gun control dropping
Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990.

Why such a decline? It seems related to the steady drop in the nation's violent crime rate since 1994. After a shocking incident like the one at Virginia Tech, public anger over gun violence rises. So does support for gun control measures.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, issued a statement saying, "I believe this will re-ignite the dormant effort to pass common-sense gun regulations in this nation.''

But public anger is not usually sustained very long, whereas gun owners remember every gun control vote as a threat to their rights. Gun owners vote the issue. Supporters of gun control typically don't. So politicians believe they will pay a price at the polls if they support new guns laws, even when most voters agree with them. When it comes to public opinion, intensity matters. Not just numbers.

[jgraz]

221. Nevermind, found it for you...and as usual your "reasoning" is bogus

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1645

As I suspected, the poll uses a different question than the Washington Posts agree/disagree methodology. The Gallup question is as follows:

Would you like to see gun laws in this country made more strict, less strict, or remain as they are?

They key here is that respondents are given an out. They can pick "remain the same" if they are ignorant or apathetic on the issue.


When forced to choose, the results look more like this:

Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country? Is that strongly or somewhat favor/oppose?

            ----------- Favor --------    ---------- Oppose -------   No
            NET    Strongly   Somewhat    NET   Strongly   Somewhat  opin.
10/8/06     61        45         16       37       22         15       2
5/12/02     57        39         19       37       22         15       6
1/15/01     59        46         13       39       26         13       2
5/10/00     67        50         17       30       22          9       3
4/2/00      64        49         14       34       21         13       2
9/2/99      63        52         11       35       25         11       2
8/15/99     63        46         16       34       22         12       3
5/16/99     67        55         12       31       21         10       1
10/13/93*   64        40         24       33       20         13       3
6/8/89*     60        28         32       34       23         11       6
*Gallup: "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose enacting
tougher gun control laws?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_100906.htm


You also fail to point out that the poll you cite has consistently shown that only about 14% of the population shares your view, that gun laws should be loosened.

At any rate, I'd be interested in seeing what all of these poll numbers say now. I'm sure Gallup is gearing up for another poll on this subject.

[jgraz]

226. Holy crap -- CNN is even more full of shit than I thought

Look at the raw data from Gallup, which CNN somehow forgot to reproduce

                     more         less           same          other     no opinion
2007 Jan 15-18        49           14             35             *             2
2006 Jan 9-12         51           14             32             *             2
2005 Jan 3-5          52           12             35             *             1
2004 Jan 12-15        53           12             34             *             1
2003 Jan 13-16        51           15             35             *             1
2002 Jan 7-9          53           14             32             *             1
2001 Jan 10-14        54           14             31             *             1

See there's this little thing called margin of error. A 2% drop in the raw numbers of a poll is completely meaningless, and any decent reporter knows this. Their entire story is bullshit.

Edit: And even without all the fancy math, can you honestly say that a 2% reduction is "dropping fast", jmg257? See here again we have the complete dishonesty of the gun fetishists. Again and again they post lies to make their indefensible beliefs look reasonable.

This, more than anything, is what gets me pissed off. I'm up for an honest debate, and I'll be particularly grateful if you show me where I'm wrong. But this kind of continued bullshit shows a lack of respect for the people on this board. We're smarter than this, and we all deserve better from fellow DUers.

[jmg257]

243. "Dropping fast" was not a prediction of the future, but an acknowledgement of the past.

And it wasn't quoted as being such, OR part of the article. But thats OK - you can rely on polls as much as you like (you will only like the ones that agree with you). Even let the USSC, at least when they agree with you MAYBE 1/2 the time, tell you what to think. You like to post Brady as "facts" too - in a gun discussion - good call! You would make a good polician - or a GREAT propaganda minister! Although as an anti-gun nut, only SOMEWHERE between 49-51% of the people MAY vote for you! Good luck! I posted the article at your request, quoted the results - PERIOD - you can interpret it any way you like - just like you do with the constitution. Your guys are doing great! remember - gun Bans are very effective - it just depends what your goals are! Ask Hitler - they worked GREAT for him! And slave owners, and racists in the south. You are in GOOD company! Enjoy!

In the mean time, I will take my constitutionally protected personally owned guns, and go to the range - its the weekend!!

Peace!

[jgraz]

247. No, it was a lie

To others reading this post, let's put on our boots and take a walk through the BS contained therein:

1. you can rely on polls as much as you like
   He posts the poll, not once but twice in CAPS with EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!111 And then after his premise is destroyed he discounts it.


2. (you will only like the ones that agree with you)
   Notice here how I destroyed his analysis of a poll that DISAGREED with me.


3. Even let the USSC, at least when they agree with you MAYBE 1/2 the time, tell you what to think
   I don't even know what this means, but it has nothing to do with our conversation


4. You like to post Brady as "facts" too - in a gun discussion - good call!
   There is no such thing as "Brady". It's a code word to other gun nuts that they need to watch their backs because rationality is about to crawl up their asses. What I did quote was actual facts that happened to be cited on Sarah Brady's site. Those facts have not been refuted by anyone.


5. You would make a good polician - or a GREAT propaganda minister!
   Ad hominem with a twist of Goebbels. I sense a Nazi analogy in our future. (And what the fuck is a "polician"?)


6. Although as an anti-gun nut, only SOMEWHERE between 49-51% of the people MAY vote for you! Good luck!
   We have a new tactic here, so nonsensical that it doesn't even have a name in the catalog of logical fallacies. Pick one number, already discounted, and say that it has some meaning that has never been attributed to it. Why don't we call that The Fallacy of Complete Fucking Horseshit.


7. I posted the article at your request, quoted the results - PERIOD
   Translation: "I've shown I can respond to simple requests. May I have a cookie?"


8. - you can interpret it any way you like
   Thanks. I choose the true way of interpreting it.


9. - just like you do with the constitution.
   "You also kicked my ass on Constitutional Law, so I'll whine about it here. I'm hoping it's far enough away from the previous conversation that nobody will remember it."


10. Your guys are doing great! remember - gun Bans are very effective - it just depends what your goals are!
    Here he decides to forego standard methods of punctuation and parseable content to set up...wait for it...


11. Ask Hitler - they worked GREAT for him!
    DING DING DING! We have a winna!! The NAZI analogy finally makes an appearance. Not only over-the-top and offensive, but also absolute horseshit


12. And slave owners, and racists in the south. You are in GOOD company! Enjoy!
    And he throws in a slavery reference just in case we were unclear on his complete lack of rhetorical skills. Yes, Virginia, the slaveowners tended to keep their slaves from arming themselves. That's always the biggest complaint African-Americans have about the history of slavery.


13. In the mean time, I will take my constitutionally protected personally owned guns, and go to the range - its the weekend!!
    "I got nothing left, so I'll just wave my cock at you."


14. Peace!
    "Unless you get within range of my 50 cal"

Well, there you have it: 14 statements, 14 piles of steaming excrement. This is what the pro-gun fanatics offer in the place of rational discourse.

[jgraz]

194. More crap. Dishonest, ignorant crap

Clinton also told Kerry to oppose gay marriage. Do you think we should all pretend to be homophobes, too?

Here's some actual facts for you. I know you're already aware of these facts, but I'll repost them so you can't continue to pretend:

Tim Kaine (NRA rating F) won in VA against a pro-gun opponent, Russ Feingold (NRA rating D) has been elected to the Senate 3 times so far. Also from my home state: Herb Kohl (NRA rating F), Tammy Baldwin (NRA rating F) and Governor Jim Doyle (NRA rating F).

That's just a few.


Now name one person who lost an election based solely on his or her views on gun policy.

[TnDem]

213. There is no such thing as "solely" in politics...

But what I said in the original post was dead correct.

You can heed it and stand a good chance of winning a NATIONWIDE election..Or you can do it the Berkeley way and lose your ass off nationally but win big in most urban areas.

[jgraz]

234. Again we have the "Berkeley" way

Are you that intimidated by smart, urban Americans? Seriously, your ignorant bigotry just makes it harder and harder you take you seriously.

And as far your admission that there is no "solely" in politics...congratulations, you've just taken a huge dump on your own line of reasoning. If gun policy has never "solely" resulted in the defeat of a candidate, then there is ALWAYS something else the candidate could have done to win. Your entire premise has just crumbled into dust.

[TnDem]

245. Are you bored?

Sure seems so..

and as to intimidation, I would say that self sufficient and intelligent rural people might intimidate you with all of your "toothless" and "redneck" denigrations...

So much for the tolerant left coast.

[mitchleary]

So, you must have a problem with cars

they kill way more than guns. Why not just ban everything that causes death? Again you are blaming an inanimate object for death. Do you blame the Iraqi deaths on bombs, guns or on Bush using them?

[SlipperySlope]

92. Lowest states for gun deaths

The five states with the lowest gun homocide rates per 100,000 are (I believe):

- North Dakota
- Wyoming
- Hawaii
- Vermont
- New Hampshire

Of those five states, only Hawaii has "strict" gun control. The other four have some of the least intrusive gun control laws in the country.

New Jersey is number #26, Massachusetts is #34, Connecticut is #38

[Captain Hilts]

149. Those states have the lowest population density also. THAT's why. nt

[SlipperySlope]

152. RATES

The order is based on rates, not on totals. It is already adjusted for population.

[Captain Hilts]

153. Numbers don't matter as much as density. nt

[ileus]

191. Jump on the gun ban bandwagon assure a GOP win in '08

[Irreverend IX]

96. Vermont has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country...

You don't even need a license to carry concealed there. And it ranked 48th or 49th in the number of homicides in the last set of stats I looked at.

[benEzra]

216. What state do you live in?

Damn straight I blame guns

I'm hapy I live in a state with strict gun control laws. I don't care what you do in your area until it affects what goes on in my town. I don't lobby anyone for strict gun control and I don't vote on the issue. Do what you want locally. My state has sane gun control laws. My state is 47th in deaths per 100,000 from gun violence. The only lower are NJ, CT, MA, and Hawaii. Excepting Hawaii because I don't know the law, they all have STRICT handgun control.

What state do you live in?

BTW, your figures are wrong, per the FBI. Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Kentucky, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Delaware, West Virginia, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Oregon, and Washington all have homicide rates lower than New Jersey's, and those states are all as pro-gun as Virginia, IIRC. If current trends continue, NJ's murder rate will be higher than Florida's next year.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_04.html

[treelogger]

290. May I ask: What state do you live in?

Out of curiosity.

And for a point of comparison. I live in CA. It has extremely tough gun control laws. And a high murder rate.

I think one of the states with low rates of murders is VT. Which happens to have very lax gun laws. Do you have the statistics handy to check that for me?

[treelogger]

289. Problem yes, but no solution

You say you "do have a problem with it."

I agree, and I also have a problem with it. If we could greatly reduce the number of gun accidents and homicides, I would be willing to tolerate some large cost and great inconvenience in obtaining guns.

BUT: Do you have any concrete proposal on how to get to such a dream world? Banning all guns is as realistic as banning all alcohol. This was tried in the 20s, and it directly lead to the worst episode of violence in the US (which then directly led to the first major gun ban, namely the 1930s NFA which banned machine guns a.k.a. fully automatic weapons, and sawed-off shotguns). We have been trying to ban drugs, and what do we get? Inner cities are turned into slums, where the most profitable way for a young male to make a living is to deal drugs, except that this occupation suffers from a high incidence of lead poisoning, by flying lead.

Even if we banned all sale of new guns, and actually sealed the border, there are hundreds of millions of existing guns in the US. We have stringent gun laws on the books. Nearly noone in inner-city slums owns their guns legally, yet there are lots of guns there (and lots of homicides, the majority with guns).

All you would accomplish (if your proposals are along the lines that has been tried) is to make it hard, expensive, inconvenient, and often impossible, for law-abiding gun owners and shooters to perform their hobby. Most likely for no gain in public safety.

I think Germany is an interesting lesson in this. Germany has very strict rules about who can buy new guns - you have to be stringently licensed, you have to have a good reason (like being a hunter or active target shooter), and you can not buy many guns (my brother-in-law, being a hunter, is restricted to exactly two handguns). In spite of this very strict control, the number of households that own guns is not zero at all (I vaguely remember a statistic that the fraction of households that own guns is about 8 times lower than in the US, where it is somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of the households). Yet, illegal weapons are extremely easily available; every area of bad repute (where you also find drugs and prostitutes) will have a local Russian mafioso, who can get you a Tokarev for a few hundred Euros (much cheaper than a legal H&K or Sig or Glock).

This brings me to one of my favorite points: Nearly all gun control measures being shopped around today are pointless. They are offered as a kneejerk reaction by democrats, both to appease their constituencies (to demonstrate that they have "something", in particular to the very loud-mouthed and hyperactive tiny constituency in organizations such as the Brady campaign and the VPC), and as a salvo in a battle with the other side (that being republicans, in cahoots with similarly loud-mouthed and hyperactive organizations such as the NRA). Senator Feinstein and Representative McCarthy are not pushing gun bans to make the US a safer place; they are working on their next election campaign, in very liberal states. Problem is, they will likely cause the democrats to lose house, senate, and white house, in the process. But they don't care, as long as they can save their own hides.

[TnDem]

8. It's all in the details...

Or as I often say in life, "everything is specifics"..

And speaking politically, we still lose the south and midwest unless we completely drop the issue period.

I would hardly compare the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with a silly feelgood gun control proposal that WILL FAIL in Congress.

Re-read my post, specifically about the next Supreme Court Justice.

[crispini]

40. As I said, I don't know anything about the specifics of any given gun proposal that may be out.

And I completely understand the political math that you are doing, but to be perfectly honest, I find it more than a little cold and calculating.

All I know is, that countries with more restrictive gun ownership laws than ours have way fewer things like this happen.

[benEzra]

273. The UK had the Dunblane massacre under laws

so strict, they would probably provoke a civil war if somebody tried to enact them here.

If you compare the U.S. to all of Europe (which, population-wise, is more of a fair comparison), Europe has had its share of mass shootings in the last decade. Some have been in places with VERY strict laws (UK), some have been in middle-of-the-road nations (Germany), some have been in nations with laws more similar to the U.S. (Switzerland). But they've had them.

[derby378]

17. DING! DING! DING!

Criminals and the mentally ill are, by definition, not part of the "well-regulated militia," and they have no more business owning guns than George W. Bush has sitting in the Oval Office.

:toast: :hug:

[tridim]

28. But a CA militia member & DU'er said yesterday that his militia doesn't screen for mental illness..

at ALL. He seemed proud of it too.

IMO, the CA militia is unconstitutional because of that fact and I plan to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities.

[EstimatedProphet]

36. It's a private militia, not the one defined by the Constitution

[tridim]

37. That's not what he claimed. n/t

[slackmaster]

57. PMFJI but I think tridim is making an intentionally misleading statement here

I provided the definition, from California law, of the state militia. The requirement is "able-bodied", which as I see it says nothing about mental health.

And as I have said repeatedly over a period of many years, militia membership has NO RELATIONSHIP to eligibility to own a gun in California or any other state.

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE

SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State....

Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[crispini]

Hi derby!

:hi: :hug: I agree -- what a sensible position to take! :)

[jmg257]

18. Yes - many would, BUT the problem is...

most (anti) gun laws are sponsored and promoted by anti-gunners who want to ban ALL guns no matter how UNreasonable or NON-sensible that is. The gunnies know this, and so take each attempt to do so personal.
Freedom is a tough thing to surrender willingly, or even to intrust to those who can not be trusted, and who don't trust you back.


From the same CNN poll story (49% favor more control)quoted below:

"But public anger is not usually sustained very long, whereas gun owners remember every gun control vote as a threat to their rights. Gun owners vote the issue. Supporters of gun control typically don't. So politicians believe they will pay a price at the polls if they support new guns laws, even when most voters agree with them. When it comes to public opinion, intensity matters. Not just numbers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The majority of Americans want strict gun controls,.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?...

[jmg257]

9. ANOTHER recent poll shows ONLY 49%! Gallop 1/07 via CNN...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/17/schneider.gun.control/index.html

"Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990."

[jgraz]

231. For an explanation of why this is complete bullshit...

See posts 221 and 226

[aikoaiko]

12. The longitudinal polling report data is interesting.

Its showing an decreasing trend for "more strict" and an increasing trend for "keep them as they are".

I think we've hit our gun control equilibrium -- at least for now.

[TnDem]

16. Re-read my post...

You didn't read my post, but instead put your standard cut and paste statistic about this..

All voters are for a lot of things and against many others...However, most gun owners have intensity that will far, far, far exceed any issue this side of abortion..In fact, rural gun owners are generally some of the most like minded and single issue voters on the planet.

Again, re-read my post.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. I did read your post(s).

Which doesn't at all diminish the accuracy of the polls. Your assertion that rural gun owners "have intensity" that causes them to vote against Democrats over a single issue that is a phony issue - nobody is going to "grab" their beloved guns - doesn't deal with the issue at hand.

What you are advocating is that the Democratic Party abandon a majority of voters as a matter and pander to a vocal minority of voters as a matter of political expediency.

[TnDem]

39. There is no "majority of voters" to match the intensity...

If Barack Obama was our nominee and had the same credentials as he has now EXCEPT he stood for the RKBA and he shot and collected firearms, he would lose NO votes from our side and yet gain a LOT of votes from their side..

It's all about the intensity..And pro-gun folks far outweigh that intensity..

Regional ignorance folks....

[jgraz]

195. And he'd gain votes if he were pro-life

or anti-gay, or...hey...NOT BLACK!

It's not regional ignorance. It's honesty. You're not the only one on this board who's from a pro-gun state. And unlike you I actually grew up there. My pro-gun state, WI, voted for a RKBA amendment to the state constitution by a 2/3 margin. Yet we continue to send politicians to Washington who advocate for sane gun policy.

Once again, just so you can't pretend not to know what I'm talking about:

Russ Feingold (NRA rating D) has been elected to the Senate 3 times so far. Also Senator Herb Kohl (NRA rating F), Representative Tammy Baldwin (NRA rating F) and Governor Jim Doyle (NRA rating F).

[TnDem]

218. Wisconsin is not the south dude....

Far from it...Even though a heavy farm state, they are a quirky, independent sort of liberal libertarian mindset....Nothing like the rural south..

Feingold and his cadre wouldn't make it through the primary in Tennessee with those shitty gun ratings...Apples and Oranges.

You seem intelligent and instead of seething with so much virtual anger against this issue, why not just put all pretenses aside and read my original post with your hat in your hand. Try to understand the reality of a nationwide election what it is going to take to win.

I mean, no meaningful gun leglislation is going to pass anyway...We know that...So any that is brought up simply hurts the Democratic party...

[jgraz]

239. You also said midwest in your post

And of course, I'm guessing you've never been to Wisconsin either. Just more ignorant blowharding.

I've read your post, and I've shown you the respect of dealing with you in good faith. The reason I'm "seething" has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with the fact that you and your pro-gun buddies are treating the rest of DU like we just fell off the fuckin turnip truck.

Make an honest, rational argument and you'll see my attitude turn around pretty quickly.

[Irreverend IX]

101. Who votes for more gun control?

Polls I've seen have shown that among people who favor increased gun control, gun issues take the 7th or 8th priority when they're choosing which candidate to vote for. Among people who favor gun rights, gun issues are often the first or second priority. The number of people who make gun control a high priority is very small, while people who make gun rights a high priority are much more numerous and organized. Which of these two demographics do you think has more political pull?

[Mojorabbit]

166. Yes I have two

otherwise liberal friends who voted on this issue in the last election. It amazed me. It was guns and the second amendment that was the deciding factor. Sad but true. I am a gun owner but would have chewed off my leg before I would have voted for *.

[tnlefty]

164. Ssshhh, we enjoy being the red-headed stepchild of the nation

and the armpit of the free world, so don't even try to spoil it for us, okay?

How many guns were confiscated during the Clinton term??? There are people who think that background checks are just too inconvenient, and that any weapon should be available for them to own no matter what. If they get their way, I'd really like a bazooka, a tank, and a shoulder fired rocket launcher just so I can have a shot at keeping up with them.

Being 21 to buy alcohol is one thing, but even younguns should be allowed to have a firearm, and don't close down the gun shows or people selling guns privately where there aren't background checks. It would slightly malign our image to allow for such things that might be considered common sense gun control.

[hooptie]

188. Did you know...

people selling guns privately where there aren't background checks

I am a private citizen without a Federal Firearms License (FFL). As you said, since I am am NOT an FFL I am not required to do a background check to sell a firearm. But did you also realize that I am NOT ALLOWED to do a background check in order to sell a firearm. NICS is only available to FFL holders. Instead of banning private sales, why not allow private sellers to call the FBI and do a NICS check just like an FFL?

[EstimatedProphet]

22. Please quit using polls that don't say what you claim they say

[gollygee]

24. If elections were based on popular vote, that would be useful information

but we have to win states, and in most states, most people want guns.

[slackmaster]

48. Yet no sign of DETAILS

Those poll questions, as I have stated previously, are about as vague as they could possibly be. They provide NO useful information.

[UnyieldingHierophant]

5. Yup, you've figured this issue out. It's not the main issue to a lot of "rural" folks, but it is

make or break for them.

[TheMightyFavog]

11. K and R'd

:kick:

Remember the NRA's "Vote Freedom First" bullshit in 2000? The NRA actively targeted gun owners who were union members as part of this campaign, and it worked.

TnDem is right. We need to drop the gun control issue for now. It's costing us votes. Without votes from the South and Midwest, there is NO WAY we can bring about change.

[nomo]

15. So maybe I'm ignorant

...about guns, but I still want them banned.

[UnyieldingHierophant]

20. Good...contact your represntatives and demand they do all they can

to do just that...it's what they want you to do.

[UnyieldingHierophant]

21. I know what I've mispelled BTW*

thanks

[TnDem]

23. That's because of the great divide that exists...

On this forum and in this party...

Let me explain...I recently took a vintage 1942 Springfield M1 Garand .30-06 semi-automatic rifle to a local abandoned rock quarry early in the morning. The walls of the quarry had huge long 40 foot icicles growing from the rock that had frozen. I spent a leisurely hour shooting at the huge icicles and watching them fall to the bottom of the quarry floor.

I highly enjoyed this as would have thousands of other gun owners...If you cannot understand this, (which would not surprise me), then that is indicative of this divide I speak of...

The Southern Democratic part ain't all eclectic taverns in downtown Atlanta...In fact, the vast majority isn't

[UnyieldingHierophant]

I understand it...and I'm totally with you on your analysis of the whole issue!*

*

[UnyieldingHierophant]

32. ...BTW...I'm from West Virginia, and by the saying "it's what they want you to do"..

I mean the Republican party.

[EstimatedProphet]

38. I would enjoy it until I paid the ammo bill!

Damn! Use a .22 for stuff like that!

[tridim]

41. Did you worry at all about ricochet?

Shooting at a vertical rock face is stupid and dangerous to you and anyone else in the area.

[gaspee]

44. I was just thinking the same thing

And yes, I've shot guns before. I quite enjoy target shooting, just not with handguns. I don't consider myself rabidly anti-gun because I want handgun control and no easy to obtained conceal carry permits. Silly me for thinking I was a moderate on the issue!

[TnDem]

46. If you want handgun control, then you are not moderate...

"Specifics are Everything" of course...What do you mean by "control"? Not that that would matter to a rural voter. If you are proposing anything harsher for them than what is in effect, you will be viewed as a lefty loon and you will end up losing that entire state's electoral votes come 2008.

You may be moderate compared to someone from San Francisco, but California is already a Democratic state...Compare your view to someone is Louisiana, and it will be extreme left and will be frowned upon no matter what party you affiliate with. Re-read my post.

Which makes my point, that guns should not even be an issue with the Democratic party.

[TnDem]

83. And I might add....

Guns are generally not an issue with anyone in the southern Democratic party...

Until someone starts talking about regulating them...and then they are a big issue.

[benEzra]

220. Around half of gun owners own handguns...

which is at least twice the number of hunters (1 in 5 gun owners hunts).

[slackmaster]

49. Another vague "I WANT" rant, totally lacking in details or a useful plan

No thanks, nomo.

[XOKCowboy]

131. Nice Try Troll - I notice you posted and ran...

Even if you're not a troll you'll be one of the first whining when we lose the election by advocating more gun control.

[renate]

19. I hate being reminded that Gore lost Tennessee....

(Just imagine, if Florida hadn't been relevant....)

This post is very persuasive. It bugs me that those of us who want stricter gun control will have to sit down and shut up about it, but you're right... you're also right about the appointment of the next Supreme Court justice. The next election cannot be lost.

Sitting down and shutting up, and thanking you for your dose of reality. :thumbsup:

[BeFree]

26. As long as

People who love their guns stick them where the sun don't shine, I ain't got a problem.

But the loose laws on guns allow crazy assholes with guns to kill people. So find away to keep guns out of crazy peoples' hands. 'Cause that's all we are asking.

[gaspee]

30. Pretty much

sums up how I feel. I also don't want the people around me to have concealed handguns. I'm glad I live in a state that strictly regulates who can have a concealed weapon on their person. I don't care what you keep in your house (until a criminal steals it.)

I hated living in Texas. The armed populace and frequent gunshots only a small fraction of the reason.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

29. K&R

I don't own guns but I do recognize the fact that many of my fellow Westerners vote solely on the gun issue. I know in NM it could be the determining factor in whether we go red or blue next election.

[EstimatedProphet]

33. Well put, and a couple of other points...

1) Lobbying for gun control is trying to slap a bandage on a cancer. Our country has serious problems, serious enough that some people think the answer to those problems is violence. The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is true in one sense - for some reason in our societ people decide to kill one another. It is deplorable in any kind of situation, and has to be stopped. But banning guns won't stop that impulse at all. People will start using swords, baseball bats, knives, razors, fireplace pokers, bricks - whatever they get their hands on.

The problem with this is, banning guns as a solution doesn't work. It's just a misdirection and a way of avoiding the hard work of really dealing with our sociey's problems. People are trying to sell banning guns as a fix for the problem, and when they think that way, the problem won't ever get fixed after it gets misdirected to another weapon of choice.

2) Everyone likes to compare violent criome in the US to Europe and Canada, and claim that gun prevalence is the reason why it is higher here. But is that really why?

Could it be because Europe and Canada respect the workforce much more than the US? Could it be that Americans are more worried about losing their jobs, and much more stressed from having little to no vacation?

Could it be that the quality of life is so much better than in the US?

Could it be that pay for the average worker is much more reasonable, rather than the McWages which are now so common here? Could it be that employee management is so much better than the McManagement people get here, for that matter?

Could t possibly be that health care in other countries so so much better than it is in the US, and people who have mental issues get found and receive the care they need?

Could it be any or all of those things? In comparison, gun prevalence looks like so much less of an issue.

[TnDem]

45. Good analysis....

America is a violent society in many ways, but for some reason we have always been that way. I guess it dates back to the rough and tumble ways of frontier life...I am not sure, but as it applies to us now, your number 2 is dead on.

People in this country work theirselves to death compared to much of Europe...Vacations are actually frowned on by many companies..It kind reminds you of attempting to force the 1980's Japanese business attitudes onto this country.

No downtime and boiling stress are hidden killers and certainly don't help for a long term "nice" society.

There are a lot of unhappy people in the USA that don;t even know why they are unhappy.

You have hit on more of the solution, but I am not sure where to start fixing it...2008 would probably be a good start.

[calimary]

63. No kidding. Good post.

Great points.

These issues are NEVER simple or cut-n-dried. It's not a nice straight little ruler. It's a squirming, slithering octopus.

[Na Gael]

143. Nicely stated

[piedmont]

34. k&r

[agtcovert]

42. K&R

Well said.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

43. Whenever I hear the phrase 'we dont want to take guns from hunters' I want to scream

Because I know the next part is 'BUT there is no place for assault weapons', or 'I support the assault weapons ban'.

I dont hunt.

Havent for nearly 30 years.

But I know that there is no functional difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle.

I own several dozen misnamed 'assault weapons'.

I build 'assault weapons' as a hobby/side business...

[TnDem]

53. You and I see the picture then...

And some of the more vocal Berkeley posters on here do not...

I am just like you...if guns were only for hunting, I would only cobble together a few for self defense and have no interest in anything beyond that.

Again, that whole "hunters and sportsmen" shit came from Clinton trying to triangulate the hunters away from the gunowners at large when he was trying to get the AWB passed at it's inception in 1993...As being knoweldgeable about these taglines, we immediately see what people like Kerry and Gore cannot see as utter irrelevant and offensive horseshit...These people need more down to earth real-world handlers like you or I.

Good post.

[SlipperySlope]

93. 'we don't want to take cars away from pizza delivery men'

Make about as much sense.

[slackmaster]

47. Applauding, K&R, great post

Thank you.

[BlackVelvet04]

50. You are ABSOLUTELY

correct. Even my non-political husband, after the shooting at VT said , "Oh God, here come the gun grabbers." And he was right.

I'm a gun owning liberal. I don't hunt but I do target practice.

Education is the way to cut down on gun deaths.

[baldguy]

51. The GOP and the NRA have systematically lied about the 2nd Amendment for too long.

There is no absolute individual right to own any type of firearm.

[slackmaster]

54. baldguy, your response doesn't address anything the OP said

:argh:

And while it may not be enumerated, there is an individual right to own a gun.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Saying "The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee it, therefore it does not exist" is fallacious.

[baldguy]

59. People who don't know anything about guns aren't qualified to comment on them.

People who don't know anything about the Constitution aren't qualified to comment on it.

[slackmaster]

61. Your reply does not address anything I said in my reply

Feel free to try again.

[baldguy]

121. Reading comprehension given a short shrift in your educational career?

[slackmaster]

181. I could ask the same question about you

The OP's point seems to have completely escaped your understanding.

[Elwood P Dowd]

62. So the 2d amendment gives rights to the military and not the people?

Only the military and militia can own firearms?

[baldguy]

126. The 2nd Amend grants the right to bare arms to "the people" collectively in the form of the militia.

The 2nd would have been much simpler if they intended it to be an individual right - but it doesn't say "The right to bare arms shall not be infringed." All those other words have meaning & purpose.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

176. guess those whackos that made a career of

constitutional law should just drop everything and ring you up for the answer then...

:eyes:

sP

[jgraz]

249. Let's take a look at what some of those whackos say, shall we?

"Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

"Construing according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982)

"Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992)

"We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." (Hickman v. City of Los Angeles, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, April 5, 1996)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

260. wow...you found quotes from

a couple of different Courts of Appeals...one of those isn't even about bearing arms, but rather the manufacture thereof.

Just wow...

sP

[jgraz]

261. Ignorant lying sarcasm does your argument no good

I'm not going to bother walking you through the fourth-grade reading comprehension required to actually read what I posted, so I'll just say this: anyone with even a passing interest in the gun issue is familiar with the four decisions I posted and knows EXACTLY what they mean. The fact that you choose to parade your ignorance as some sort of badge of honor shows you to be someone who is incapable of having a rational, adult discussion on this (or any other) issue.

Buh bye.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

284. lying, aye? now insulting me...nice

all of your cites are from the Circuits...and the Ninth is arguably the worst when it comes to 2nd ammendment issues. One of your cites is about the manufacture of weapons...not the possesion thereof. So...where did I lie? Yep, I was sarcastic, because your cites and the cases they come from have not one iota affected my right to bear firearms. But hey, calling me names seems to work for you, so stick with that...I am going to the range...

sP

[slackmaster]

182. That's just completely wrong

The Second Amendment, like all other laws, doesn't grant a right to anyone. If it was intended to create a new right it would say "shall have the right" or something similar language (as you will find in the constitution of Cuba). No, it enumerates and protects a right that was already understood to exist at the time it was written. The way our system works is that all rights exist save those that have been curtailed by due process.

Whether you interpret it as protecting the rights of individuals or the rights of the people as a whole doesn't change the obvious fact that its core meaning is to restrict the power of government. It's written in passive voice, but it's quite clear that someone's power is being limited by the phrase "shall not be infringed".

[benEzra]

204. Just like it grants the right to assemble and petition to "the people"...

and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures to "the people"...

That's not a collective-right construction, unless the others are as well.

[jmg257]

55. Sure there is. It says so right there in the Bill of Rights, along with all the other

individual rights. And we know it absolute 'cause the author (Madison) said he would avoid articulating/proposing those rights which weren't.

[proud2BlibKansan]

73. Yes you are right

The 2nd amendment is about maintaining a weel-armed militia.

[SlipperySlope]

94. "absolute rights"

There are no absolute rights at all.

Your right to free speech is constrained by laws against slander.
Your right to freedom of religion doesn't entitle you to perform virgin sacrifice.
Even your right to life can be extinguished using the death penalty.

I think even the most passionate firearms advocate would agree with your, that there is no "absolute" individual right.

There is, however, an individual right. And that is where the debate lies.

[zanne]

140. Id like a right to be safe from gunowners.

Gun fanatics don't care about anyone's rights but their own. They don't care if we're less safe with them around; they don't care if we FEEL less safe with them around. They want their guns, and they'll tell you anything they think they have to to get as many guns as they want. They're selfish children.

[phylny]

160. THANK YOU!!

You're expressing the way I feel.

Lots of people around me have guns to hunt, since I live in a semi-rural place. There are deer and turkeys all over the place, and if people get their jollies from killing those animals, I say more power to them. I just hope they eat the meat.

What I have a really hard time understanding is why WE THE PEOPLE don't have more protections against gun owners. Does someone really need a 15-round magazine and hollow-core bullets to "defend" himself against the evils of the world? That's why you all want guns, right? To defend yourselves? Because if Cho hadn't been able to purchase a 15-round magazine and hollow-core bullets, it wouldn't have stopped him from shooting people (not defending himself, but just shooting them), but perhaps without the mega firepower, students WOULD have been able to rush him or victims may have survived with less devastating injuries.

Sorry, I think guns suck and I want more protection over the idiots in the world that want to hurt people.

[slackmaster]

185. You do have the right to be safe from gun owners and everyone else

Gun fanatics don't care about anyone's rights but their own. They don't care if we're less safe with them around; they don't care if we FEEL less safe with them around. They want their guns, and they'll tell you anything they think they have to to get as many guns as they want. They're selfish children.

You've created a circular description of an ill-defined Bogeyman. Utterly useless.

[slackmaster]

184. "A well formulated sauce, being necessary to the preparation of a good pizza,

the right of the people to grow and use fresh ripe tomatoes, shall not be infringed."

Clearly that sentence is intended to ensure that pizza chefs have access to good ingredients.

But does it say anything about the right of people other than pizza chefs to get tomatoes?

What if an amateur wants to make a pizza? Does he or she NOT have the right to get good tomatoes?

Does it mean that ONLY pizza chefs have the right to grow tomatoes?

OF COURSE NOT!

[Paladin]

269. Try Some Ben-Gay On That Stretch

It must hurt like hell.....

[joe_sixpack]

270. Not much of a stretch

I believe it was understood by the founding fathers that there were many reasons for possessing firearms. Hunting for meat. Farmers for destroying varmints, protection in remote areas and the one reason they enumerated, a militia that might be called up to defend the populace. Since a militia back then might include anyone and everyone in a local area, the right surely would not have been limited to one group of people. And, since it was understood that there were other uses for firearms, obviously guns weren't confiscated after the militia was disbanded.

[treelogger]

292. Prove it

with supreme court citations.

Sorry, I don't do appeals court decisions that have not (yet) been verified by the supreme court. I do understand that we currently have a circuit split, with some federal appeals courts having written that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, other circuits having denied that. The Parker decision will likely change that, because the circuit split is now too obvious to ignore, and the supremes will clarify the issue. Note that Parker only applies to DC and federal law, for lack of a 14th amendment case.

In the end, you'll have to go back to Miller, I fear. Most likely, you will not be able to back up your statement.

[Uncle Joe]

52. Al Gore was not going to take your guns away, and I contend

the primary reason he lost Tennessee, is because the mass corporate media relentlessly trashed and slandered him, thereby brain washing a sizable percent of the people. Or to put it another way, you became Pavlov's dog to the mass corporate media's bell. I believe their motivation for doing so was in large part, because he empowered us when he championed the internet.

As passionate as you may feel about guns, information is more powerful, case in point at one time 70+% of FOX "News" viewers believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, the result, we go to a war based on lies. Estimates range from 30,000 to 600,000 dead Iraqis, men,women and children. 3000+ dead Americans, tens of thousands of wounded, many severely, hundreds of billions of wasted dollars.

I believe if you voted for Bush over Al Gore because of the gun issue, you basically cut your nose off to spite your face.

[TnDem]

60. That may be your belief, however.....

Senator Jim Webb, (D. VA), disagrees with you...He said in his book "Born Fighter" that Gore lost Tennessee and West Virginia primarily on the gun vote...Bill Clinton agreed with Webb in an interview. Clinton also stated in his book, (My Life), that there was basically no doubt why the Democratic party lost the House and the Senate in 1994 and it was because of the passage of the now expired "Assault Weapons Ban"...

I live here...I saw it happen. You may convince yourself of whatever you want. I watched Gore implode in a state that he had should have at least been far more competitive in...The bragging about his "tie vote on the gun show loophole" had chilling effects on rural voters and any intensity there for Gore before that was chilled greatly.

But then that's OK, if you don't want to believe Webb and Clinton, two of the most astute southern politicians ever, then that's fine because I surely cannot convince you.

[brentspeak]

66. Gore didn't campaign in Tennessee until the very last minute

He spent so much time campaigning in Florida that he had no time for his home state. I think that was the key.

[Uncle Joe]

69. I've lived in Nashville most all my life and I understood why he focused on Florida.

It goes back to the mass corporate media's role in this, Tennessee was a more conservative state than Florida. Running against the mass corporate media as well as Bush made the odds of winning in moderate to conservative states much more difficult, Al Gore had to focus his resources where he stood the best chance of winning.

I believe Al Gore still would have won, had he also not had to deal with the corruption in Florida by the likes of Katherine Harris, et al and the Republican dominated partisan Supreme Court which believed in States Rights except in the case of a Democrat winning an election for the White House.

[brentspeak]

88. I think that Gore did a great job campaigning in Florida

It wasn't even supposed to be that close, but he worked his butt off there. You're right: he did win that state.

[TnDem]

70. So Bill Clinton and Jim Webb are fools?

It's like not agreeing with two known political experts and deciding to put fingers in ears and say;

"lalalalalalalalalaalalala"

[Uncle Joe]

72. See post 71. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

71. I sort of agree with them,

the gun vote had an impact, but it was blown way out of proportion by the mass corporate media, and does anyone believe Clinton would come out and say the Lewinsky Scandal was a primary cause?

Why do you believe Bush ran on a platform of "restoring honor and integrity to the White House"? I believe it's because he knew the mass corporate media would carry his talking points for him. For example the Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet slander, only reinforced Bush's message. If you ever believed Al Gore actually said that, you were brain washed.

[TnDem]

77. Let's sum this up...

Gore lost Florida, (another issue..not for now).

Gore lost Tennessee and West Virginia

If Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, Florida wouldn't have mattered

Pres. Bill Clinton and Sen. Jim Webb both agreed that Gore's 2000 loss in Tennessee and WV were because of his poor stance on guns.

Were there other factors all over the US involving many other media issues, etc? Possibly and probably..

Bu the bottom line was that if Gore had been stronger on guns, he would have probably carried Tennesse and WV..

Had he done so, the election would have been his and the Florida issue would have been irrelevant.

[Uncle Joe]

80. Here's my summation

Al Gore empowered you to post pro gun threads for as long as you live for the entire world to see and have access to the internet when he championed the internet.

The mass corporate media hated him for giving you this power, not necessarily because they disagree with the gun issue per se, but because the power to influence was not solely in their hands anymore. Keep in mind, about six corporations control 80%-90% of everything the public reads, hears and sees, through television, radio, and print.

They trashed, obfuscated and slandered him relentlessly for the better part of two years prior to the coup of 2000 beginning in March of 99 in retaliation.

Clinton; whom you cite, only hurt Al Gore's chances for election in the moderate to conservative states with the Lewinsky Scandal.

This combination of events is what cost Al Gore, Tennessee.

Al Gore won Florida but lost Bush vs Gore.

Had Al Gore never made waves such as empowering the people when he championed the internet, he
would probably be in the White House today.

[TnDem]

81. Hooo Boy.....

Philosopher George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[jgraz]

203. Prove it

Simple request. Prove that guns cost Al Gore the election. (of course, first you'll have to prove he actually lost).

Remember, you have to show that is was his view on guns, not his stance on abortion or his association with the Clenis or the fact that his progressive street cred was so shredded that many Dems didn't want to vote for him.

Using all your same reasoning, I can make a case that if Gore were more liberal he would be president today.

[TnDem]

222. Nothing in politics can be proved, however...

We have the written and audio wisdom of several of the south's most shrewd politicians on the matter that both agree, (Bill Clinton and Jim Webb)....And I was HERE and I saw it happen...

Let me ask you this...Have you ever been in a situation where you heard someone start into a conversation about something and you just KNEW they were fucking up royally, but all you could do is watch it unfold and happen?

That is exactly the way it happened in Tennessee when a few weeks before the election, all Gore wanted to crow about was his "tie breaking vote on the "gun show loophole" bill....He just went on and on and on about it...I was going, WTF?

I would have sworn it was a GOP double agent convincing him that touting this losing line was going to win him the south?

You cannot prove anything subjective...However, most in this state that were involved know that guns were the tipping point that cost him this state...

[jgraz]

237. many things in politics can be proved

just not your ridiculous assertions. Come back when you have something real to talk about.

[SlipperySlope]

95. Al Gore would have taken my guns away.

Under a Gore presidency, would the assault weapon ban have been extended?

- My guns are assault weapons.

Under a Gore presidency, would person-to-person transfers have been restricted?

- My guns are bought and sold as I see fit.

Under a Gore presidency, would 50 caliber rifles have been banned?

- My guns are 50 caliber.

Every gun control law restricts someone; Guns are already too restricted, the last thing we need are more laws telling us what we can and can't own.

[jgraz]

236. And to this I say: fuckin bully to Al Gore

You sound like the typical irresponsible gun nut who shouldn't have access to a slingshot. Are you telling me you have no problem selling 50 cals and assault weapons in untracked private (read: no background check) sales?

Then yeah, somebody needs to take your guns away. And soon.

[Uncle Joe]

241. Is that the same 50 caliber

that was on 60 minutes which can fire armor piercing bullets and kill a man from a mile away?

[jgraz]

242. Yeah, cool aren't they

I'm gonna buy one for my 12 year old. They're great for huntin varmints.

:sarcasm: (of course)

[benEzra]

272. All rifles can fire AP ammunition, all rifles can kill at a mile...

the 60 Minutes piece was, shall we say, very credulous toward the ban-more-guns lobby. They not only overstated the capabilities of the .50, they understated the capability of smaller-caliber rifles to try to make the .50 seem more different from "regular" rifles than it actually is.

You may find this photo interesting, from the UK, no less.



That gun could not only kill at a mile, it could hit a basketball at a mile, and it's only a 7mm WSM (.276).

FWIW, scoped .50's can't shoot down airliners, and a .50 BMG has to my knowledge NEVER been used in a homicide in this country in the quarter-century or more they've been on the civilian market. The reason they're even on the agenda is that the Brady Campaign and others want to shatter the traditional divide between civilian and military-only weapons embodied in the National Firearms Act (.50 and under, civilian; .51 and over, restricted to military, with a few exceptions) so they can redraw that line much, much lower. The Violence Policy Center, architect of the .50 hysteria, has already stated that they want that line in the low .30's.

BTW, armor-piercing ammunition is banned for handguns and small-to-intermediate caliber rifles. Once you reach .30-06, though, AP or non-AP becomes pretty much irrelevant, since even a softpoint hunting bullet from a .30-06 deer rifle will shoot through a half-inch steel plate (simple physics).

[benEzra]

229. He PROMISED to ban them...

Al Gore was not going to take your guns away

He PROMISED to ban them. He talked up hunting and hunting guns, while promising to outlaw guns Sarah Brady calls "assault weapons." Namely, the most popular small-caliber civilian rifles in America, and which millions of Tennesseans own.

Only 20% of gun owners hunt. Over 50% of gun owners own handguns and/or "assault weapons." See the problem?

[mmonk]

56. Here's the bottome line:

A mentally ill individual that had no good reason to be in posseion of a firearm had some and killed a lot of college students. Go from there.

[SlipperySlope]

98. "Go from there"...

Had he been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or ever "committed to a mental institution"?

If so, then the next step should be to investigate how the law was violated. Presumably the FFL obeyed 18 USC 922(t)(1)(A) and contacted NICS for an UIN. If the FFL sold without a UIN, he broke the law. If a UIN was issued, the DoJ broke the law (specifically 18 USC 922(t)(2)).

On the other hand, if he had not been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or ever "committed to a mental institution", then how was the system supposed to stop him?

[phylny]

162. Maybe you should have stopped him with all of your assault weapons. nt

[mmonk]

177. It's my understanding his problems were well known

and had been treated before. There needs to be some sort of reform of the mental health system whereby its included in health insurance premiums. Also, the right to own a firearm is not some holy untouchable right to me through gross misinterpretation of the second amendment.

[treelogger]

293. Well known does not mean well defined

You say "His problems were well known and had been treated before".

Agree. But current law in Virginia defines mentally ill in a certain fashion, and by that definiion, he was not mentally ill enough to be reported to the systems that greatly restrict him in his liberty. You can spank the judge to have rendered a wrong decision, that about all you can do.

You could propose changing that definition, and make the bar lower. That any form of mental health treatment should be federally registered, go into all forms of databases, including the one that prevents gun purchases. From a medical privacy point of view, that would be a debacle. Gun owners don't need to fight any such proposals - the medical profession will do extremely effectively.

You also say that mental health should be included in premiums. In theory, I would agree. In the current health care system, which is a set of civil contracts between employers, employees, and insurance companies, this is wrong-headed to enforce. The government has no business telling people what types of contracts they can enter into. However, the proposal you did NOT make is: Medical insurance should be socialized, run by a central authority, with mental health treatment included. To this proposal I would whole-heartedly agree.

But be VERY VERY careful in using the case of Mr. Cho to discriminate against people who are in need of psychological or psychiatric treatment, by denying them some of their rights, any more than is actually necessary. Let's not create yet another disenfranchised and suppressed class in this country, we already have too many. Zillions of people get some mental health treatment. A visit to a "shrink" provided by your HR person because one of your colleagues goes on your nerves does not mean that your civil rights need to be curtailed.

[AZBlue]

58. You're railing against intolerance while being blatently intolerant yourself?

Yeah, I never got beyond this line:

"Are EXTREMELY intolerant of anyone of anyone that doesn't share an urban and/or Berkeley style view on guns"

So much for facts, huh? I don't live in Berkeley, never even been there and don't even know anyone who is there, yet have my own opinion on guns from what I've studied and read up on. But thanks for the stereotype.

[TnDem]

65. C'mon now....

Read the original post again and quote the post, in context, correctly...

I didn't just mention Berkeley, but Orlando, Chicago, Sacramento, Cleveland....ANY urban area and that includes Atlanta and maybe even some of Nashville and Chattanooga...

It's all urban v. rural instead of Democratic versus Republican.

The problem is the Democratic party has adopted it as an issue that they cannot seem to let go.

[brentspeak]

64. You're conflating Mitt Romney with the average American who's sick of the unending gun massacres

I don't see a connection between a Republican governor who wants the NRA-crowd to think he's a lifelong Charlton Heston fan with the general public who's sick to death (literally) of the NRA.

[TnDem]

68. Another great lie put forth on the Democratic party...

The NRA is the "Great Satan" or so everyone thinks...

Let me say this and shock everyone...The NRA is almost irrelevant in gun issues on the minds of individual gun owners. Sure, they are the flag bearers and a rallying point in the fight, but they are not this great powerful lemming calling force over all gun owners. All the NRA consists of are people that own guns for various reasons.

I am not currently a member, but I have been on and off in the past.

If the NRA ceaed to exist tomorrow, Al Gore would still have problems in the south when he made statements like "closing the gun show loophole"...Actually, with the blogosphere the way it is now, the NRA is actually less relelvant than it was in 1994.

Their main point is lobbying power...and they do have that with Congress....And Congress needs to take heed, because if the NRA generally feels a certain way about a bill, (passage or not), they generally have the pulse of the electorate pretty good.

Again, this constant NRA bashing shows a lack of understanding of the culture...It's as simple as that and goes back to my original post...Most gun owners simply smile to theirselves when someone blasts the NRA as the enemy of all humanity.

Personally, I prefer the GOA, (Gun owners of America). They make the NRA look like they are wussies.

At any rate, the NRA is only a big bad boogeyman because you have allowed propaganda from Al Gores speaches and the MSM tell you so..

Remember what I said in the origal post about arguing about something you don't know anything about....Always know your subject.

[brentspeak]

79. I don't know where you get the idea that only you and a select few

"know what (we're) talking about" on the matter of guns. Much of the rest of society does in fact know a lot more of "what it is they're talking about" than you might imagine. Furthermore, if we really are discussing gun issues and how they relate to electoral politics -- and that is the topic of your OP, right? -- then it would ludicrous to dismiss mention of the single most important player in that arena -- the NRA. Your own words:

"Their main point is lobbying power...and they do have that with Congress....And Congress needs to take heed, because if the NRA generally feels a certain way about a bill, (passage or not), they generally have the pulse of the electorate pretty good."

So, what is it? Are you talking about the relationship of gun issues with electoral politics, or something else altogether? If it's something else altogether, can you tell us what it is?

[TnDem]

82. Once again...Gun issues and electoral politics

The NRA is A player, but they do not work thousands of lemming/marionettes that simply don't have a voice or an opinion without the voice of the NRA.

What I am saying is that I read over and over and over that the NRA is some kind of seething, devilish organization that is out to make the public swimming in guns. Most gun owners that are involved in the hobby know that is bullshit. The NRA generally voices what many of us feel, but not always...In other words, we would have the same opinions if there WERE no NRA..They don't cause the opion like many on here seem to think, but merely represent a fraction of those who feel the same way.

The NRA is by and large, a micocosm of society's gun owner's..They only represent a small portion of them as far as actual dues paying members, but generally the mood of the NRA can be safely mulitplied several times over as to the voting effect. This effect has nothing to do with the masterful, satanic ways of the NRA, but to do with the like mindset that most gun owners share when it comes to legislation that will affect their rights.

The NRA are a player, but they are not masters of the entire game. The issues of gun control transcend any organization and always will. If the anti-gunners understood that, they would understand the culture better.

The NRA and GOA are to gun owners as NARAL or NOW is to abortion supporters...If NOW ceased to exist tomorrow, do you think people are going to feel any different about the issue of abortion or the lack of availablility therof? Of course not. They are simply organizations that have represent a token few dues paying members, but a HUGE number of other "members" in the sense that they think the same way as the organization and share a common goal legislatively.

If that doesn't clear it up, I don't know how clearer I can make it.

[brentspeak]

84. No. Your claim that the NRA reflects the mindset of "most gun owners"

is dead wrong. I know a lot of gun-owners who aren't opposed to the Brady Law, gun registration, mandatory gun-safety lessons, etc. But opposition to things like the Brady Law, gun registration, etc. are what characterizes the NRA and similar organizations. I'm not sure why you think the NRA represents a "like mindset" of the average gun owner.

[slackmaster]

97. Not to put to fine a point on it, but the NRA does not oppose the Brady Law

They helped write it.

They were opposed at first, and the law that resulted from the ensuing discussion is what we have today.

It was implemented in two phases - First five years of mandatory waiting periods, followed by implementation of the National Instant Check System (NICS).

NICS has some deficiencies, but it has stopped hundreds of thousands of sales to prohibited people. I will try to find some stats.

And heeeeeeeere are the figures for 2005:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/bcft05.htm

[TnDem]

107. Brady? Maybe...Safety classes? maybe....Registration? NO FRIGGING WAY..

I would venture to say that you might have a few that agree with parts of Brady....I mean NICS isn't bad and it does streamline the process over a waiting period...

However, the gun owners that you talk to that want gun registration? I find that very hard to believe. Virtually nobody in rural America wants the Feds poking in our closets writing down the serial numbers of all of your weapons and keeping a master list of what all has been compiled by you and a running list of what you own.

You have lost your mind.

You "gun owner friends" are a helluva lot different than any I know and certainly not the pulse of the average American gun owner...That idea wouldn't even net 50% on THIS forum of people that actively own guns.

[brentspeak]

109. Why are we supposed to take your word that you know what the "average American gun owner" thinks?

I live in suburban NJ, not the rural south. But I sure would never claim myself as the spokesman for suburban New Jersey residents -- or the rural south, if I lived there.

[TnDem]

115. I can assure you of one thing....

New Jersey is the gun hating capital of the East Coast, so I can see you probably come by it naturally...Lautenberg and Corzine may as well have been from Communist China on the issue...People like that attempting to push their New Jersey attitudes on rural voters is highly irritating to most...It loses national elections.

As to "speaking for them", I dont have to..Bill Clinton and Jim Webb did it for me...I am just a local observer of their predictions.

[brentspeak]

135. Allriighty, then

"New Jersey is the gun hating capital of the East Coast, so I can see you probably come by it naturally..."

It's so "gun hating" that thousands of New Jersey residents I've come across during my lifetime have owned guns. They must hate the guns they own. My own plan to purchase a rifle or two whenever I purchase a home must also be due to the fact that I "hate guns".

(Also, I thought Mass. was the "gun hating capital of the East Coast". Other times, I read that it's New York. Occasionally, it's Rhode Island. I guess it's New Jersey's turn, now).

"...Lautenberg and Corzine may as well have been from Communist China on the issue...People like that attempting to push their New Jersey attitudes on rural voters is highly irritating to most"

Frank Lautenberg and Jon Corzine "pushing their New Jersey attitudes on rural voters" -- I missed that. The elitist jerks. I would have been happy to have written them in protest for arrogantly meddling in the internal affairs of other states. (Er, when did this happen, again?????) :crazy:

[TnDem]

145. Here's when....

When they get up in front of the cameras and promoted the Brady Bill, Assault Weapon Ban and numerous other press conferences dealing with the same...They think they are being great warriors for the cause, meanwhile everytime they open their mouths, we lose seats in the House and Senate....If they both did that on the state level, that would be fine, but they are touting that shit on a national level as US Senators.

Actually, Mass. and NY are right up there with NJ as far as gun control...Their only redeeming quality is that at least their states don't look like 150 miles of backwater Pittsburgh....But that's irrelevant to this discussion.

[benEzra]

211. New Jersey has the LOWEST gun ownership rate in the nation, 13%

if I remember correctly.

NJ policies and views do NOT extrapolate to the other 49 states. Maybe five or ten of them, but not 49.

[brentspeak]

256. New Jersey has a population of at least 8.7 million people

Thirteen percent of that would mean at least 1.1 million people in the state own a gun.

I don't know if you intended that fact to be pointed out, though.

[reformed_military]

74. Great Post

n/t

[GumboYaYa]

75. Local gun laws are the only thing that make sense.

I grew up in rural Louisisana. Hunting was a big part of my lifethen. I still hunt and fish some, but not like when I was a teenager. Now I live in a larger city.

Having both perspectives, it is easy to see why what makes sense and applies in a rural area is very different in an urban area. If you live out in the country where it is difficult for law enforcement to get there, you need guns. If you hunt you ned guns. But if you live in the city where there are large concentrations of people, the laast thing we want is concealed weapons laws where any psycho can sneak a gun into a public place and kill lots of people. In the city, we need to be able to keep psychotic killers from easy access to guns so we need strict background checks, waiting periods etc.

I think that you should have to comply with the laws of your county/parish of your permanent residence to get a gun. We should let each locality determine its own gun laws.

[ToeBot]

76. Sit down and shut up!! "Experts" say that allot, and nothing changes.

Bye bye, for good.

[benEzra]

227. I don't think he was saying "shut up," so much as

I don't think he was saying "shut up," so much as he was saying "get the hell informed about what you are talking about before you say something," unless I misread him.

Like people who claim we need a new federal law to ban automatic weapons when, in fact, possession of ANY automatic weapon has been a 10-year felony for 73 YEARS, and the legislation they are talking about bans the most popular civilian target rifles instead. That's the kind of thing he's talking about.

The OP was addressing the fact that people who make dumbass statements about guns and Federal gun law make Dems in general look bad on the issue.

[greyghost]

78. Well said...

the uninformed need to heed your advice.

[Possumpoint]

85. Agreed

K&R

[SlipperySlope]

87. K&R

You got it bud, tell 'em!

[Missy Vixen]

99. Maybe those of us who don't own guns should simply leave the party

>SHUT UP ABOUT GUNS PERIOD<

Nope, sorry, buddy. We just witnessed 32 lives snuffed out in a matter of seconds on Monday. Of course, they don't matter. It's more important for someone who never should have owned one to buy a Glock with a magazine capable of shooting 99 rounds in a matter of seconds than those 32 to live, and it goes on, all day long every day, across this nation.

Got news for ya': I live in a rural area of Washington State. We've been doing it your way for the past 230 years. It's time for that "common sense" discussion you abhor. How many more massacres will have to happen before you and your gun-owning friends admit that there is a problem?

If people in the South and Midwest are more worried about their guns than they are the economy, the mess in Iraq, the unemployment rate, the imploding sub-prime market, public education, the cost of healthcare, on and on, rinse, lather and repeat, they sure don't know what they're talking about, either, do they?

Julie

[beevul]

104. Get your facts strait, jeez

"We just witnessed 32 lives snuffed out in a matter of seconds on Monday."


That is most certainly NOT what happened. This scumbag reloaded quite a number of times.


"It's more important for someone who never should have owned one to buy a Glock with a magazine capable of shooting 99 rounds in a matter of seconds than those 32 to live, and it goes on, all day long every day, across this nation."


I too have feelings about what happened, and for the people that lost thier lives and the families left to mourn. You however don't appear to have any of the facts about what really DID happen. There was no 99 round clip involved. It was no such matter of seconds as you claim.

This massacre was enabled by alot of things. Tops among them, is the fact that the suport system that is suppose to flag individuals like this scumbag as legally disallowed to buy a gun FAILED. He passed the federal background check, something that gun controllers support, BECAUSE of failures that woulkd have otherwise PREVENTED THE SALE. This guy was stalking women, and starting fires. He was at one point involved in the mental health system. That involvement failed. He was also involved in the legal system. Again, that involvment failed. Thats why he passed the federal background check.

You'll get alot more milage dealing with those failures than you will with hyperbole about guns.

[Missy Vixen]

106. Oooh, you really told ME, didn't you?

>This scumbag reloaded quite a number of times.<

The initial report I read on Monday on CNN stated that he carried a gun that had a 99-round magazine capability. I haven't been wallowing in all Cho, all the time like the enthusiasts and NRA apologists have been. Of course, I suppose those of us who aren't self-proclaimed "experts" should just sit down and shut up.

You know, you seem to think that your point about the shooter's reloading shows the rest of us up, doesn't it? Why would it fucking MATTER how long it took him in the first place? Thirty two innocent people are still DEAD, whether it took ten seconds or three hours! Just imagine how lovely it was for those who weren't instantly killed in the initial attack and were unable to escape, who got the fun of watching their professor and/or their friends murdered before their eyes, for instance. It took longer than ten seconds, though, so that's probably not important.

>I too have feelings about what happened, and for the people that lost thier lives and the families left to mourn.<

Really?
What are you willing to do in the future to prevent people like the shooter above getting their hands on a gun?

>You'll get alot more milage dealing with those failures than you will with hyperbole about guns.<

You'll get a lot more mileage if you were willing to listen to those of us who know from personal experience that the likelihood of someone getting their hands on a firearm that shouldn't have one is still highly probable. My experiences, and the life experiences of those who've either been menaced by someone with a gun or lost someone due to a random shooting are not "hyperbole".

Julie

[beevul]

171. Look, I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x710431

"The initial report I read on Monday on CNN stated that he carried a gun that had a 99-round magazine capability. I haven't been wallowing in all Cho, all the time like the enthusiasts and NRA apologists have been. Of course, I suppose those of us who aren't self-proclaimed "experts" should just sit down and shut up."

Has nothing to do with being an expert. Has everything to do with being informed. Ya know. So you can for a well informed ipinions on things. If someone came to you, and said that Democrats don't want social safety net, and weren't for a womans right to choose, you'd inform them. I informed you. When you form an opinion on something, an uninformed opinion, and state it as fact publicly, someone will step up and say something. Or at least should. Don't take it personally. I wouldn't.

"You know, you seem to think that your point about the shooter's reloading shows the rest of us up, doesn't it? Why would it fucking MATTER how long it took him in the first place? Thirty two innocent people are still DEAD, whether it took ten seconds or three hours! Just imagine how lovely it was for those who weren't instantly killed in the initial attack and were unable to escape, who got the fun of watching their professor and/or their friends murdered before their eyes, for instance. It took longer than ten seconds, though, so that's probably not important."

Showing you up? Nothing of the sort. Again, I believe it is in everyones best interest to be accurate and informed when we discuss things. Hard to have any rational discussion at all when 30 different people make claims as fact when its not, or do nothing but exchange hyperbole. Would you agree?

"You'll get a lot more mileage if you were willing to listen to those of us who know from personal experience that the likelihood of someone getting their hands on a firearm that shouldn't have one is still highly probable. My experiences, and the life experiences of those who've either been menaced by someone with a gun or lost someone due to a random shooting are not "hyperbole".

I'll have you know that I lost around a dozen friends/aquaintences to suicide in the late 80's/early 90's. Some used guns. One, a GOOD friend, took his own life with a shotgun in the back of his own van. Another with a shotgun in his bedroom. Noone to this day can understand why. Four parked a car inside a mini storage and left the car running in the middle of january. One of those, also someone I called a friend, left the car before it was too late and froze most of his fingers and some of his toes off, then spent the rest of his life in a tortured existance, until he jumped off the high bridge in the twin cities. The other 3, 2 of whom were friends of mine, asphyxiated. So don't act for one second like I "don't know" or I haven't experienced...Just don't. I am really not trying to be snippet, but I really feel like theres a veiled assumption in there that because I believe in being accurate or factual, or because I believe in gun rights, that I must never have experienced a personal tragedy involving a gun - or that I'd spit on someone elses experiences - and it makes me feel pretty damn mad, because nothing could be farther from the truth.

[treelogger]

294. Please back up your facts

You write "The initial report I read on Monday on CNN stated that he carried a gun that had a 99-round magazine capability."

Please demonstrate the existance of a 99-round magazine for a Glock. I have not yet heard of such a thing. I know that magazines with about 30-round capacity exist, but they are very rare, and have very little practical applicability (other than for the Glock 18, which is full automatic, and already long banned in the US, but not all that uncommon in Europe, a friend of mine from Sweden used to shoot it regularly before he came to the US).

It is possible that the people at CNN have absolutely no clue. It is even possible that the people at CNN are being fed lines (lies?) by anti-gun people. Maybe the people at CNN called the Brady Campaign for clarification, hoping to find "gun experts" there. Given many of the utterly ridiculous statements made by the Brady Campaign (for example, the pistol grip on an assault rifle is so you can shoot from your hip accurately without having to reload), I wouldn't doubt for a moment that they spread such "information", whether from lack of knowledge or from outright dishonesty is left as a question for the reader.

You also write "that the likelihood of someone getting their hands on a firearm that shouldn't have one is still highly probable".
Absolutely agree, and I have pointed that out in several of my posts. Look to any inner city slum, and you'll find scores of people with illegally owned guns (under current laws). It seems that our society is unwilling or incapable of doing something about that.

[Morgana LaFey]

108. But it's okay with you that he was mentally ill without anyone to help?

Get rid of guns, and you'll STILL have massacres like this. Ever heard of explosives? Explosives made with fertilizer? Are you going to ban fertilizer too? Hell, don't understimate the potential destructiveness of bows and arrows these days.

My point: it was the mental illness not the guns per se.

[Missy Vixen]

122. Where do you get the idea that I believe it's "fine" if someone's mentally ill?

I've read gun enthusiasts all week here that refuse to admit that ANYONE over 18 in this country should have any restrictions at all on the ownership or use of a firearm!

>Get rid of guns, and you'll STILL have massacres like this.<

Considering the fact that it's just not as easy these days to blow up a building and create a high body count as a result, you might want to rethink that argument.

Would you like me to refresh your memory on the dates and locations of random gun violence with a high body count over the past ten years? It's pretty damn hard to conceal a truckful of fertilizer, but it's pretty easy to conceal a handgun and a large number of bullets inside a handy clip, isn't it?

>My point: it was the mental illness not the guns per se.<

The shooter used a gun to kill those who are now dead, did he not? A gun he should never, ever have had access to with a history of mental illness.

Julie

[Morgana LaFey]

141. Why I got that idea from you, of course. And you've confirmed it.

Considering the fact that it's just not as easy these days to blow up a building and create a high body count as a result, you might want to rethink that argument.

Actually, it's a lot easier than even I was thinking at the time. Vehicles loaded with gasoline...stolen explosives...

But that's not the point. The POINT is that what caused this massacre was a profoundly sick human being, not the guns he was carrying. You have NO care about that -- his illness and the fact that he'd slipped thru so many cracks -- you're just overreacting to the guns. That's not just short sighted, it's stupid. And callous.


I NEVER thought I'd find myself in a position to be defending guns, for God's sake, but your blind, mindless argument just pushed me over the edge. It doesn't even make any sense: so he GOT guns you think he shouldn't have had because of his mental illness -- do you really think it would've been impossible for him to have gotten them elsewhere if he wanted (e.g., stealing them, buying them off the street, etc.)?

The CAUSE of this massacre was the mental illness, not the guns. I don't care that you don't like guns -- but the illogical mental processes going on here (or not going on, as the case may be) just astound me.

[Missy Vixen]

170. Nice to know I have that kind of power

>your blind, mindless argument just pushed me over the edge<

Interesting. I disagree with you, so you feel free to namecall.

>You have NO care about that<

I'd advise you to rethink the personal attacks, considering you know nothing about me, my family or our situation.

>but the illogical mental processes going on here (or not going on, as the case may be) just astound me.<

More namecalling.

I'm sure you've heard the following -- the first to start namecalling loses the argument, don't they?

Julie

[Morgana LaFey]

268. Good grief, you don't even understand what namecalling is

your blind, mindless argument

I criticized your "argument," which is hardly namecalling. (You are identifying way too closely with your thoughts. YOU are not your thoughts; or perhaps in your case you are -- ??)


but the illogical mental processes going on here (or not going on, as the case may be)

This time I criticized your "mental processes" and from the looks of your follow-up, I was right on target.


the first to start namecalling loses the argument, don't they?

I wouldn't think so necessarily, but then I'm not delusional and no namecalling has gone on in any case.

[Missy Vixen]

271. Hyperbole much?

>This time I criticized your "mental processes" and from the looks of your follow-up, I was right on target.<

My mental processes are just fine. Are you a psychologist? You started this argument over your accusations that I had no compassion for the shooter's mental illness, but you feel quite qualified to question mine. I might add that diagnosing someone you've never seen is inappropriate at the least.

>I wouldn't think so necessarily, but then I'm not delusional and no namecalling has gone on in any case.<

Keep insisting that. It doesn't make it true.

I'm done talking to you in any case.
Julie

[treelogger]

295. You haven't been reading

You state "I've read gun enthusiasts all week here that refuse to admit that ANYONE over 18 in this country should have any restrictions at all on the ownership or use of a firearm!"

Sorry, either you have not been reading, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what you read.

Several pro-gun posters have advocated some forms of gun control laws. I have suggested full licensing. Another poster suggested banning the .50BMG round. And so on and so on. I suggest that you re-read some of the threads here.

Your credibility is rapidly approaching Cheney's.

[Bullwinkle925]

123. Hi

I agree with you. From some of these posts, I think we should take Washington off the dollar bill and insert a picture of a Colt 45, perhaps, or a Glock?

Yes - we should JUST SHUT UP. What the heck do we know, anyway? The people who are massacred are only 'collateral damage' of the right to keep and bear arms. Just be glad that neither yourself nor one of your loved ones have been (so far) in an area of collateral damage.

Every time we have one of these rampaging massacres, the debate over gun control reheats. In my estimation - gun control means a ban on the sale of guns from this moment on, period. Any gun! We don't need more on the streets and in the gunracks than are already out there.

Whenever a person such as myself or yourself speaks up we are SHOUTED DOWN in a Rambo-style fashion. I only want safety in our society. I only want to know that children who attend primary schools, teens who attend middle school and high school, adults who attend colleges, adults who are employed in the workplace, families in the privacy of their homes, shopkeepers physicians and medical staff or anyone else in any type of setting imaginable would have the feeling of safety and security.

Keep the faith and know that you have every right to speak your mind. Just as they do.

[TnDem]

137. More Non sequitirs and exaggerations....Can anybody carry on a rational conversation?

The issues will be sorted out from this shooting, but there were fundamentally no problems with the way the NICS was handled or the sale..The only issue is should this type of mental evaluation data be included in an NICS check...Seeing as how it wasn't sent by the judge to be filed with the NICS because it didn't meet the criteria, I am not sure what the next step will be.

You said, "...In my estimation - gun control means a ban on the sale of guns from this moment on, period. Any gun! We don't need more on the streets and in the gunracks than are already out there..."

You're right...the debate over gun control reheats and this party is the eventual loser...It always looks at first like gun control has a chance "this time", but it ends up being a total wash out for our party.

That may be "your estimation" and your defintion, but the average voter down here and in the midwest doesn't see it that way...They see anyone that even MENTIONS it as someone that they cannot trust or vote for because they understand that the candidate simply doesn;t understand their life and their culture.

Please re-read my original post.

[treelogger]

297. You don't need to shut up

You say that you are being shouted down, and that you should just shut up.

I disagree. You are perfectly free to hold your views, and espouse them, in public, even loudly (in as much as the moderators of this forum allow you to be loud).

But I would like it if you understood a few things. Gun control, as practiced and proposed today, is not about making society safer. It is about political campaigning for politicians who live in anti-gun dominated districts, and who are pandering to a very active anti-gun lobby. Gun control, as practiced and proposed today, does not reduce the rates of crime. To my knowledge, there are no proposals around for gun control measures that would actually reduce crime. And most importantly: If the democratic party pushes aggressive gun control bills (as it seems to be doing, HR1022 has over 30 democratic sponsors in the house), it will most likely get a very bloody nose in the next election. I would much rather have a democratic president and democratic congress, but if you insist, you are free to sweep the next Newt Gingrich-style congress into power, by insisting on the "Son on AWB".

Feel free to espouse your views. Expect me to disagree. Hopefully politely.

[EstimatedProphet]

187. To be fair...

I've heard a number of times how gun owners aren't "real" Democrats, progressives, liberals, etc. on this board.

I don't think non gun owners should leave the party. I don't think gun owners should either. I think we all need to find a way to respect each other's opinions, and work towards the issues that really matter - social justice, equality, decent wages and a standard of living, accountability in government, etc.

[treelogger]

296. Worst massacre at a school

You write "We just witnessed 32 lives snuffed out in a matter of seconds on Monday."

You do understand that the worst massacre at a school in the US, ever, did not involve guns? Google for the "Bath School Massacre" sometime.

Do you also understand that the second largest mass killing in the US (I refuse to use the term "terrorism", as it colors people's judgement) was in Oklahoma City, and did not involve guns? Actually, that the perpetrator was caught BECAUSE he ignored gun laws? He was speeding away from OK City, pulled over by a cop for speeding, the cop saw guns sitting on the seat, and that actually got the guy in trouble.

I don't remember where I saw the following statistic: In the US, the majority of homicides use guns. In Great Britain, the majority don't use guns. But if you exclude inner city slums from the statistic, the homicide rates are actually comparable between the US and GB.

[tjwash]

100. So Dems are supposed to act like republicans now and hammer the three G's?

So the way to win the south is to to treat everyone in the southern states like stereotypical ignorant rednecks and just focus on Guns, God, and Gays now? I mean really that's what your post boils down to. That's nice. Treat everyone in the south like they don't know a damn thing except "blowin the shit outta stuff with my big ol' piece."

That and your little insinuation that if you are not an absolute expert on something, just keep your mouth shut and don't talk about it. Guess that little tidbit rules out any debate on universal health care because we are not all medical doctors, malpractice lawyers, or hospital administrators as well.

Look guy, I'm from the south. I was born in Jacksonville Florida, and grew up in Covington Tennessee. I joined the navy in 1971 and never went back. I do however have a myriad of relatives spread all over this great southern land of ours, and all have one thing in common. They will never, ever, EVER vote for someone who has a "D" after their last name on a ticket. If Jesus Christ himself appeared out of the sky and gave a ringing endorsement of a Barack Obama or a John Edwards candidacy, they would not vote for a Dem. It's not guns, it's not gay's, it not any one thing. There is just a large number of southern folks have an all encompassing hatred of liberals that is so deep that it makes their ears bleed.

I don't know if it's Fox news overload. I don't know if it's because a handful of corporations run all the newsprint in the country now. I don't know if it's just local "good-ol-boy" southern politics that keeps everyone divided and arguing among themselves over perceived differences (Hell, this GUNS GUNS GUNS stuff that has flooded DU the past couple of days is a great example of how easy it is to keep people arguing among themselves). Maybe it's a combination of all three. All I know, is that there is no way in hell a Dem will ever win a southern states by pandering to the G-G-G denominator.

If John Edwards showed up to a gun range, and placed six perfect bullseye shots in the middle of a paper target, one of two things will happen. There will either be complete ignorance of it from, every major aspect of the corporate media as another missing blonde, or another radio shock jock gets embroiled in yet another manufactured "crisis". OR, there will be round the clock screams of "PANDERRING!" from every media outlet from Tallahassee to Lexington. There will be round the clock spewing of "see how little respect these liberals show you? They think you can be fooled by this little act" from every AM talk radio station. There will be expert talking heads on Fox News telling everyone around the clock that he just wanted to actually shoot a gun once before he comes back later to grab all of them from us.

THAT'S politics 101.

If we are going to win the south, it's not going to be because we treat southerners like misinformed yokels that only care about guns god and gays. It's going to be because we approach them as reasonable human beings, and address the issues in a non divisive, non intrusive way, without acting as if we are talking down to them. I was just in Jackson Mississippi a couple of weeks ago, and let me tell you. People are fed up there. They are fed up not only with the blatant hypocrisy that they see coming from the White House; they are also fed up with being looked at like an easy source of republican votes.

Guns has nothing to do with it...

[TnDem]

110. Your opinion.....Now mine...

If you think that guns have nothing to do with it, you are so far out of touch with the rural voter that we probably can't even get in the same library much less the same page of a book.

I can tell you that James Webb, Bill Clinton and hosts of others disagree with you. Are you saying that Clinton and Webb are fools on their opinion of why Gore lost Tennessee and WV in 2000? Are you saying that Bill Clinton is wrong when he admitted that he lost both houses of Congress in 1994 because of his pushing and passing of the now expired "assault weapons ban"? Are they wrong, fools or what?

Answer this...Why do you think that the National Democratic Party is refusing to discuss any form of gun control right now?

By the way, I never mentioned God or Gays anywhere...Does that factor in? (maybe with your relatives), SURE it may..Your realtives are not the entire south...I am not saying that all rural swing voters would automatically become Seattle liberals..What I am saying is that you could peel enough off the total to swing the state...Right now we are not competitive there...

When you talk in the codespeak of bullshit terms like "reasonable restrictions", "common sense legislation" that immediately is seen as "talking down to them" in the south. In other words, I'm bullshitting you with bafflespeak, but I'm so good at it and you're so redneck dumb, that you'll just buy it"...News Flash...They don't buy it and they don't vote for that person either.

You have spoken out of both sides of your mouth, patronized an entire region of the country, and you don't even realize it.

Basically, you're just summing it up then:

"...Fuck it...gun legislation won't pass Congress and make it into law but I don't want to give up my anti-gun principles because those folks in rural America won't vote for it anywhow"

Don't cry then when we lose 30+ states in 2008...You heard it here first.

[Bullwinkle925]

156. Good response.

eom.

[Pyrzqxgl]

102. I've managed to get thru 68 years w/o a gun of any kind

and no I don't have a Berkeley attitude. I have a San Diego attitude. I've always thought that those people who need to shoot must not have much of a life. You've been sold a bill of goods by folks who want to make money selling guns. Somehow you're not viral unless you can shoot holes in paper,
innocent animals, or other people. There's so much good music to listen to, places to see, old movies to watch (let Gene Autry do the shooting) and
people to talk to. You just don't need guns! None of you Dammit!

[TnDem]

112. San Diego...Berkeley..What's the difference...

It is still a Universe away from Bridgeport, Alabama...

The bill of goods that has been sold to is you...You have bought the propaganda from Boxer and Feinstein that say that this issue is a winner...It may BE a winner in your little cove of San Diego...It doesn't fly here ANYWHERE...

There is a country in this country outside of California, New York and Washington State...

[porque no]

117. OK, I'll come to you

I'm curious, do you want the Democratic Party to take your advice on more than this issue?Should we just throw in with the Republics on everything and get it over with?

How far does this brilliant plan of yours go?

[TnDem]

124. Oh Godddddddd....Please read my post....

Point out where I ever said, "we just throw in with the Republics on everything and get it over with"? Tell me and show me where I said that? I don not advocate that on any level.

All I am telling is what I know...and what I know is THIS issue because I live it, and I hear it and I understand it intimately....For the life of me, I cannot understand why savvy political handlers cannot guide their candidates in a different paths....Evrybody always tries to out anti-gun the next one..

I would love a true leader to emerge from the Democratic party...One that had some balls and told Schumer and Feinstein and Lautenberg to fuck off when it came to guns, he was going to promote a "Democratic Self Defense initiative".

Steal this issue from the pugs...It shouldn't even BE a political issue in the first place.

I could advise a candidate on this issue and make the Republicans in the south want to vote for him...Seriously.

[porque no]

129. I read your post, it was ridiculous.

I have also watched you disparage a great many Democrats in a way that would make Hannity beam with pride. I dispute your conclusion that we need to throw in with the NRA and shut up about sensible policy regarding guns. The guns used on Monday should be outlawed, even for the "sane".

The rest was merely wondering how far you are willing to go with your whole "give in to win" plan.

Also that Berkeley stuff was a nice touch. Where have I heard that?

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

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

[porque no]

139. I think you forgot to mention Edward's haircut

along with your other cliches. Maybe if I shot some icicles I would understand. Watching them fall.........sigh. Oh the joy, the joy.

[jgraz]

197. You gotta just accept TnDem's Berkeley obsession

He's never been here, and he probably can't even find it on a map (Hint, Tn: it's to your LEFT), but he seems to be almost as consumed by thoughts of Berkeley as he is by his fetish for long shiny bits of metal.

Maybe it's that he's recently been intellectually outclassed by a Berkeley resident. Or maybe be got rejected by a college girl once, or twice. Or maybe it was that pansy-ass, over-educated, west-coast librul police captain who kicked him off the force.

Whatever the source, I'm guessing we won't have to put up with it for much longer.

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

173. San Diego...Berkeley..What's the difference...

The difference is San Diego County is Republican, Alameda County is Democratic. I don't know how many more times this can be explained to you, so I'll give it another shot. Not all of California is palm trees, beaches, "godless liberals", or the "land of fruits and nuts". Someone like yourself would feel very much at home in San Diego, Orange County, Inland Empire, Central Valley, or many of the land locked counties. I know that thar Bill O'Hannity dun told you differently, but trust me you couldn't be further from the truth. What exactly do you have against California, New York, and blue states in general?


BTW, Feinstein and Boxer are in favor for gun control because most of their constituents favor stronger gun control. I know you must think it is crime that the two Senators from California actually represent the views of the people that elect them. Gawd knows the lowest common denominators of the red states must always be pandered to!


(Really this is one of the only issues Feinstein listens to Californians on, so please don't take it away from us.)

[moondust]

252. Guns are a juvenile obsession.

In a land of juveniles of all ages.

[treelogger]

298. Good for you.

Excellent. You don't like guns, you don't have any. You seem to be an upstanding individual, because you actually live your principles. Unlike many democratic politicians, who rail against guns, then privately own them. I've brought up the example of Senator Feinstein several times; her husband supposedly has quite a collection of (legal and registered) assault weapons.

But the fact that you have survived well for 68 years without guns does not imply that everyone else needs to live their live in the mold of your principles. I enjoy target shooting. I have a small but pretty nice collection of target shooting pistols in my gun safe. Can you explain why I should not be allowed to make holes in pieces of paper?

Old joke: My right to swing my arm around ends at your nose. But what you're saying is that my right to swing my arm around should be taken away, because you don't enjoy swinging your arms around.

P.S. I think country & western music should be banned, because I like Rachmaninoff and Scriabin.

[beevul]

103. Good post, wish you luck...

Some of us have been saying exactly what your saying since before 2002, and Noone seems to want to listen.


4 out of 5 gun owners aren't hunters. It is generally agreed on that there are over 200 million guns in the country, and ownership rates generally accepted as 80 million or more. Thats 64 million gun owners or more that don't hunt. Thats how many times as many as the total number that voted for president? If they don't hunt, why would anyone suppose they own those guns, other than non hunting use? Like home/self defense, target shooting, collecting. 64 million people. Many of whom vote on all kinds of issues, but vote gun rights first. They see things like the new "assault weapons ban" proposal, which bans only self reloading rifles. Rifles used in 3 percent of all crimes, yet bills to ban them sponsored by a host of Democrats. Many rifles, targeted by this new ban, popular enough to be back ordered by months. All of them no more powerful than deer rifles. Some ARE in fact rifles used to hunt. So now its not just the non hunters getting ruffled feathers. A pool of 64 million PLUS votes potentially energized against Democrats. And the NRA boasts what, 4 million? How low would the true number of energized gun owner votes have to be before you could just discount it offhand?


Why is it so hard for people to connect the dots?



States where a pro-gun Democratic Governor gets elected yet Kerry got slammed:

"North Carolina:

Mike Easley (D) 55.6% -- NRA "A" Rating

Patrick Ballantine (R) 42.9%

Bush 56%

Kerry 44%

West Virgina:

Joe Manchin (D) 63.5% -- NRA "A+" Rating

Monty Warner (R) 34%

Bush 56%

Kerry 43%

Montana:

Brian Schweitzer (D) 50.4% -- NRA "A" Rating

Bob Brown (R) 46%

Bush 59%

Kerry 39%



How many times does it take, sticking ones political fingers into the legislative light socket, before it becomes crystal clear that there is just no way around getting jolted?

[porque no]

105. Do tell, what other sensible positions should we abandon

in order to garner the "destructive" vote?

[porque no]

113. What? No other genius suggestions from the

Great White Icicle Hunter? Maybe we should consider privatizing Social Security. That would help with the Wall Street set, no? I know, I know, let's LOWER the minimum wage. That's the ticket.

[slackmaster]

114. Just what "sensible position" do you think the OP is talking about?

In your own words, so we all can see what you think he means.

Please be specific, and welcome to DU.

[porque no]

118. I don't think that it is too much to ask

that some types of guns be disallowed. I think the whole slippery slope thing is hogwash and I think that most Americans would not mind if the types of guns that were used on Monday were banned altogether.

[slackmaster]

119. Many types of guns ARE already highly regulated

All guns except for antiques are at least somewhat regulated.

Could you get a little more specific? Do you really have a concrete suggestion, or are you just venting?

[porque no]

120. Venting? Hardly. Just stating the obvious,

we don't need the gunbot vote, so why pander to it. They are unreasonable, obviously.

[slackmaster]

180. It seems you think you are making some kind of stand on principle

Against a shadowy "enemy" you consider to be made up exclusively of unreasonable people whose votes don't matter.

Your moral high ground looks like political naivete to me, porque no. Every vote counts. With things as closely divided as they are, one vote could determine the future direction of the country.

Go ahead and pursue a ban on "the types of guns that were used on Monday" if it makes you feel like you are doing something constructive. Come November 2008, if the GOP wins by a razor-thin margin over social issues I will consider you to have been complicit in their victory.

The OP has it right. We can gain ground by simply avoiding subjects that alienate whole classes of people. I consider it our moral imperative to do that.

[Name removed]

263. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

286. It's not just smart politics; it's the right thing to do

The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right all humans have.

The Constitution recognizes and protects that right.

Defending that right is the correct thing to do.

If we want to be a less violent country like Switzerland or Canada, the answer is not to ban guns (both of those countries have more guns per capita than we do) but to deal with our social problems. It's frustrating to me because the Democratic party is pretty much on the correct side of every issue, but a few voices pull it to the wrong side on guns. And it's so very distressing to me to see people who freely admit they don't understand the technical implications of the gun restrictions they are supporting.

[treelogger]

300. No problem

Sure, if you consider me a gunbot, and you say that there is no place for people like me in the democratic fold, I have no problem giving a few thousand $$$ to republican candidates around here, and volunteer for their campaign.

Are you sure you want that?

Reminder: In the last election for AG of California, I gave $500 to a republican candidate. Not because I like him (I violently disagree with him on all his policy planks), but to punish an otherwise very reasonable candidate, namely Jerry Brown, for running anti-gun ads. This was done with the full knowledge of Mr. Brown's campaign; I had been in regular contact with them, trying to convince them to stay away from the anti-gun issue. I think I did send them a copy of the check I wrote to Mr. Poochigan, so they know what it cost them.

Oh, and by the way, by your logic Mr. Brown (a former democratic governor of this state, son of another democratic governor, brother of the democratic treasurer of the state) is not a democrat either: I happen to know that Mr. Brown personally owns and shoots guns. I will be sure to tell Mr. Brown, if I see him, that you have requested him to leave the democratic party, and join Mr. Schwarzenegger in the republican party.

Are you absolutely totally sure you want that?

[treelogger]

299. That's quite extreme

You suggest that "most Americans would not mind if the types of guns that were used on Monday were banned altogether."

The types of weapons used were completely generic semi-auto pistols. The Glock is probably the most sold pistol model in the US (partly because S&W has no dominant pistol line, partly because the 1911-style of pistols gets split of dozens of manufacturers). It is the sidearm most used (by far) by police departments. It is EXTREMELY common. So much so that gun snobs (like me) will not, under any circumstances, admit a Glock into their collection. <-- This last sentence is humor, with a large grain of truth in it.

The Walther P22 is a reasonably common .22LR pistol. Clearly, it is not the most common one (that title goes to the Ruger Mark... series), but it is around all over. I think the range I practice at most has a rental one.

From a classification point of view, both are usual examples of the special "handgun - semi-auto pistol", with one centerfire and one rimfire specimen. If you ban those, you would be banning 99% of all pistols that people own and buy; taking revolvers into account, banning those would probably wipe out 70% of the handgun business.

That is very extreme.

[Morgana LaFey]

111. Best Gun Post I've Ever Seen

As someone who was totally anti-gun who moved to a rural area, I know that this poster is 100% correct. Maybe more than 100%.

I've done a 180 as a result. I'm not a BIG fan of guns, but I now own one -- and gasp! a handgun at that -- and I've shot it a time or two (to learn how). We also have one or more shotguns in the house. And at least one more handgun.

The gun culture is real, and in rural areas it's not nearly as dangerous or damaging or horrific or scarey or threatening as most on the left are afraid it is.

We absolutely need to just fuhgeddaboudit. We are so far off the mark on this issue it's -- embarrassing.

Those of you who are rabidly anti-gun should either get a clue or go live somewhere where your fantasies on the subject are already a reality 'cause you ain't gonna make no progress here.

[XOKCowboy]

116. I completely agree

Even though I'm from Oklahoma and agree with you on the regional point I'd also like to point out that there are at least 3 people where I work in Denver who won't vote Dem because "they want to take our guns". These are guys that are disgusted with the dimwit they helped elect twice. They may or may not vote Democratic in '08 depending on who's nominated (they're Hillary Haters also) but like you said if the Dems propose even ONE "gun control" bill in response to VT they'll feel vindicated and vote Repug just for spite.

Back to your point, back home I was amazed at the number of Kerry/Edwards yard signs during the '04 election. Even in the rural areas of Oklahoma. We've made inroads into those Red States. I hope we don't mess it all up with an overreaction to VT.

[Elwood P Dowd]

128. The republicans would still control the senate if Tester and Webb

had even hinted that they supported more gun control during the 06 election.

[Bullwinkle925]

136. I seem to sense a bit of 'state-envy'?? Or an identity crisis?

It saddens me to even have the thought that gun ownership means that much to anyone. Good God - an election is only winnable by an individual being able to show the country what a stud he/she is with a gun? Or that the candidate worships the gun culture? As far as your discourse on Diane Feinstein, perhaps you've forgotten (or never had knowledge of?), that she was President of the Board of Supervisors in S.F. and had to make the announcement at City Hall that "Both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed (audience gasp) and the suspect is Supervisor Dan White". She has had a first-hand experience with the violence of guns.
The fact remains that the number one item used in this country to commit murder remains the gun. The fact remains that we have not been able to change laws in order to 'institutionalize' anyone whom we perceive to be a threat to society. If that were the case, I'd have called for the institutionalization of Bush,Cheney,Rove,Rice & Rumsfeld a long, long time ago.
I grew up in the Mid-West. I've seen my share of quail and deer hunters. We're all different - my choice is to be with someone who isn't one of the aforementioned. The 1700's and the 1800's are over. We have grocery chains now. We have organic grocery chains. There are dart boards for targets. There are horseshoe games, shuffleboard, bowling, golfing, archery and curling games to show off one's expert talent at hitting the mark.
Speaking of hitting the mark, I had to use a 'communal' facility today in a restaurant and it was so darned gross with all the urine on the floor next to the toilet. Why can't that target be hit? It's certainly large enough.
I'm sure our views and opinions differ due to our geographical/environmental surroundings. If one is raised in a gun culture, one doesn't see what harm there is. If one is not raised in the same type of environs, one cannot see what difference it makes to not have a gun in one's home, or why it is important to own one.
I hope that those who are so enmeshed with their guns and their sovereign right to keep and bear them, also have the same feelings towards the war in Iraq, no oversight by Congress of this evil, corrupt Administration, health care in this country, wages, education, our dependence upon oil and how this country interacts with other countries on this planet.

[porque no]

147. I feel the same way,

the gun folks are completely unreasonable. It's their way, however ridiculous, or the highway. Have you noticed their bullying? Even here at DU the gun-lovers believe they can push people around.

Push back.

[brentspeak]

151. Well, there's no need for confrontations

Though, that can seem hypocritical on my part, as I'm sometimes very opinionated. It shouldn't be an "us vs. them" kind of a thing, as "them" is "us, after all.

I know from my own experience that, like everybody else, gun owners are a diverse lot. As a group of individuals, I know for a fact that gun owners are not of one mind on the issue of various gun control issues.

[porque no]

155. Very true.

I own guns myself. I just think there is room for compromise, and Glocks ain't part of it.

[treelogger]

301. Hyprocrit central

First you complain that people push you around.
Then you suggest to push back.

You say its "their way or the highway".
In your posts you suggest that gun owners can't be democrats.

Has it occured to you to look in the mirror?

[Paladin]

138. Yet Another Spouting Of The Democratic-Bashing NRA Line

As usual for someone spewing these notions, your real agenda is plainly visible to anyone with a brain larger than a small pistol primer (yes, as a matter of fact I do know something about guns).....

[davepc]

142. a quick recap of the 2004 election:

21 Electoral Votes in 2004.

North Carolina:

Mike Easley (D) 55.6% -- NRA "A" Rating
Patrick Ballantine (R) 42.9%

Bush 56%
Kerry 44%

West Virgina:

Joe Manchin (D) 63.5% -- NRA "A+" Rating
Monty Warner (R) 34%

Bush 56%
Kerry 43%

Montana:

Brian Schweitzer (D) 50.4% -- NRA "A" Rating
Bob Brown (R) 46%

Bush 59%
Kerry 39%


see the trend? Pro-gun Democrats beat Republicans handily on the same day Bush beat Kerry in those same states by double digit margins.

Kerry's most publicized senate vote, one he came off the campaign trail specifically to cast, was for the (failed) reauthorization of the 1994 assault weapons ban.

[porque no]

144. What were the NRA ratings for

their Republican opponents? Or does that short circuit your hypothesis? Maybe they just had better ideas.

[davepc]

150. It dosen't matter

Of course they had better ideas, they're Democrats.

The Republicans could of all been rated A+ by the NRA, but since those Democratic Gubernatorial candidates weren't weighed down by the anchor of "gun control" in their red state races, they handily beat their Republican opponents.

Meanwhile, THOES EXACT SAME VOTERS in those states picked Bush over Kerry.

Unless one argues that that Mike Easley, Joe Manchin, and Brian Schweitzer are somehow DINO's or otherwise not as Democratic as John Kerry or vice versa, there was a real disconnect between those Democratic voters. With the gun issue being a wash, the Democrats kicked the Republicans asses. In a race where the gun issue came down to John Kerry's recent casting of votes for renewal of firearms bans, John Kerry lost.

Patrick Ballantine had an "A" rating
Monty Warner had an "A" rating
Bob Brown had an "A" rating

[porque no]

154. It is still anecdotal, but I won't deny that there was

something to it. However, I am not certain that the entire spread can be attributed to guns alone. Remember, we were "in the middle of a war" or some such predictable nonsense.

We can win the White House without those states. A couple more Vinginia Tech's and the gun issue goes away entirely, and it is just a matter of time. Not rooting for it, it's just gonna happen. Plus the "conservative agenda" is being revealed for the farce that it truly is.

I propose we be reasonable about the gun issue, both sides. The Slippery slope argument is not reasonable.

[beevul]

157. Reasonable...herein lies the problem.

You say you propose being reasonable. Both sides. And the slippery slope argument? Not reasonable?

Compromise has meant, in this arena, that party A gives a little, and party B gives a little. That sounnds like a compromise on the surface. The reality though, is that one party (A) gets HALF of what they want, and one party (B) loses half of what they want.

Then Party A comes back next session asking for another "compromise". If that aint a slippery slope, what is?

Show pro-gun proponents how what your asking is any different.


On edit: You can NOT claim to want to be reasonable in any way shape size or form, if you support a ban on rifles used in 3% of all crimes.

[porque no]

257. Don't recollect saying anything regarding rifles, so

your "ON edit:" portion is off base. But I do think that the guns used in Monday's massacre or spree or whatever it was should not be legal. Too small and too many rounds, quite simple really.

The slippery slope is a bunch of crap. If you cannot control what happens to your toys in the hands of the general public then maybe your toys need to be banned as too dangerous to the public. How many RPGs do you have? Isn't that an arm? Beyond that, the "tools" are fine. The ridiculous toys got to go.

Personally, I think it is your responsibility to keep those toys out of the hands of criminals and crazies, not mine, and you ain't doin' it. You should be held responsible. If it were up to me and many like me, they would be collected and destroyed. You are the ones that have to have these ridiculous items to play with at the expense of others. Whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, you are partly responsible for what happened last Monday because you insist upon fighting any effort to keep the rest of us safe by doing without your fun and games.

[beevul]

267. Fair enough...

I was just making a point about those that want to ban self loading modern civilian rifles that are almost never used in crime.

But I do think that the guns used in Monday's massacre or spree or whatever it was should not be legal. Too small and too many rounds, quite simple really.

Ok. The problem is that pragmaticly, it will never happen. What you are talking about, is making illegal one of the most popular handguns in existence. What happened in that massacre happened because there was a fundamental breakdown in a mental and legal apparatus, that SHOULD have flagged this perp as disqualified. Lets be clear here. The breakdown was not on the part of the NICS check. It checked for all the right and necessary things. The breakdown was that those things that the NICS system checks for, that otherwise WOULD have flagged this perp as disqualified - (that data) never entered the system to be flagged in the first place. At this time, its quite well known. And don't take that the wrong way. I am not saying that to "rub your nose in it". I am saying it because its commonly known amongst those gun owners that will fight any attempt you might make to ban that weapon because of this incident. And they would be right to. I would be among them. That doesn't mean we (those that would fight it, you, and I) don't share common ground on examining this incident and making whatever changes are necessary and prudent, so that the next time someone like this guy attempts to buy a gun, the data IS there to flag him as prohibited. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that would object to that goal anywhere at all. And as far as too many rounds, the perp had 2 guns, and was reloading one while covering himself with the other. It really wouldn't have mattered if he had been limited to 5 round magazines. Once again, if you try to ban high capacity citing this incident as justification, your in for a fight over it and you'll likely lose. The justification just isnt there, and you'll foster further distrust and add yet another reason why common ground wont be had.

The slippery slope is a bunch of crap. If you cannot control what happens to your toys in the hands of the general public then maybe your toys need to be banned as too dangerous to the public. How many RPGs do you have? Isn't that an arm? Beyond that, the "tools" are fine. The ridiculous toys got to go.

Heres the problem with what you said. Among gun rights supporters, thats highly inflammatory. Maybe that matters to you and maybe it doesn't. I am not going to sit here and ascribe intentions to what you said. If theres any common ground to be shared though, that wont help it. Beyond that, you make a connection where really, there is none. My "toys" have never been in the hands of the public at all, not have most gun owners guns. The average gun owner is ready to dismiss you now, as a gun prohibitionist. Then you go on to play the RPG card. RPG's are classified as destructive devices to my knowledge, and would require a class 3 permit for the unit, and one for each G that any individual possesses. 98 plus percent of gun owners accept that as justified and not a problem. Arms, where gun rights supporters are concerned, is widely accepted to describe small arms (firearms). then we get to "ridiculous toys". More inflammatory. Ridiculous is as a word the equivalent of reasonable. What might or might not fit the word, is different to everyone. once again, if common ground is to be found and shared, thats got to stop.

Heres an example of the slippery slope that almost was. The assault weapon ban. A ban that banned certain combinations features on self loading modern rifles. Features like a barrel shroud (something that protects the user from a hot barrel - the barrel gets hot after shooting some) bayonette lugs (thats a military style feature that allows one to attatch a bayonette to the end of the gun - any real and true justification in banning that?) adjustable stocks, flash supressors ( which direct the flash away from the users sight in such a way that it wont hinder accuracy) threaded barrel (it allows the attatchment of a noise supressor, which are also already regulated under the NFA of 1934) and I think a few other features. The ban while in effect also covered a few weapons by name. More than one if I recall correctly were fully automatic weapons that were already illegal under the NFA of 1934. And it banned the sale of high capacity magazines ( the item on a firearm that holds the ammunition - sometimes an integral part of a gun, and sometimes removable and interchangable. Not sure you know that, so I threw it in) made after a certain date. It DID NOT outright ban all high capacity magazines. It just made the ones manufactured before the specified date go up in price. That ban was in effect for I think it was ten years. These rifles are used in something like 3% of all crimes. Had gun owners NOT lobbied for a sunset clause, it would still be active. And for no good reason. If it WAS still active, you would still likely have been here and still said you wanted to ban that glock, would you not? And if you got your way, now we have 2 bans. Sorry friend. Thats the slippery slope right there. And well it may not have happened, gun owners that value thier rights are watching all the same. And as you can see, my mentioning on edit of a ban on modern civilian rifles is not so off base. You may not have mentioned it, yet as I type this, a new and further expanded version sits stalled in the House Judiciary committee. Not so off base at all.

Personally, I think it is your responsibility to keep those toys out of the hands of criminals and crazies, not mine, and you ain't doin' it. You should be held responsible. If it were up to me and many like me, they would be collected and destroyed. You are the ones that have to have these ridiculous items to play with at the expense of others. Whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, you are partly responsible for what happened last Monday because you insist upon fighting any effort to keep the rest of us safe by doing without your fun and games.

And in the eyes of most gun owners, and in general, I think when someone or some group proposes banning something, the onus is on them to justify it. This being a free society and all. People having rights and all. There will never be an end to people possessing a THING which society says they shouldn't - where society is saturated with that THING, or where that THING can be smuggled, grown, brewed, or fabricated, and where people desire that THING. I believe that with some critical thinking combined with historical analysis, this becomes self evident. Once again, that doesn't mean we don't have common ground to be shared. On the subject of guns, common ground can be had to minimize how many people that should be prohibited for reasons we can all agree on, actually end up in possession of them. I believe common ground can also be had on taking steps to minimize the damage that can be done when someone does get through the gauntlet of prevention. I believe both things to be both worthy of discussion, and easily sharable common ground if both sides can sit down and be peacable enough to have that discussion.

Well never get though all the misinformation and past all the misconceptions without a functional discussion, which will never happen with one side screaming ban, misidentification/mischaracterization of failures in policy or the infrastructure intended to implement policy, and inflamatory rhetoric - from both sides. And I am indeed guilty of some this myself. It is just not an easy topic to discuss, and there are some VERRY entrenched views both based on reality and not, at the heart of it.

[treelogger]

302. The slippery slope is real

You write "The slippery slope is a bunch of crap."

You need to get out more. Look at CA gun control laws, and see the succession. The best example is Roberti-Roos -> SB23. There are also fine examples with SB15 -> Mag disconnect and LCI. The California example has shown that it can be hard to start a new line of legislation, but it is very easy to make small changes and corrections to existing legistlation. In California, this has been mostly a slippery slope towards banning more and more guns. This trend continued pretty unabated from about 1989 to about 2003 or so.

This trend has been stopped in the last few years, and recently has been turned around. I think in the last legislative session, nearly all anti-gun measures failed or were vetoed, and some minor pro-gun measures passed. The pro-gun advocates in California have discovered that the technique of small changes and corrections can be used to their advantage. At the same time, several lawsuits have proven good-sized chunks of California gun control laws to be void (Harrott is the biggie, Hunt is currently progressing). The California AWB is all but a shadow of its former self - it has been demonstrated to be extremely badly written, so much so that 50 or 60 thousand AR- and AK-style rifles have been legally sold in California last year alone. The firearms division of the California DoJ has been turned into a joke which is no longer able to enforce laws, because they got too caught up in playing politics, and trying to enforce things they made up instead of enforcing gun control laws; as a result, they were recently demoted to be just a bureau in the DoJ (and their head "retired", and rumor has it that some deputy AGs in senior management positions are looking for new jobs).

This is what happens when you take an unsupportable and ridiculous public policy stance, and try to push it way beyond its limits.

Quoting an old east german saying: Comrade, it is time that you march along with the party, and follow the lead of Comrade Trend. Because the trend is away from gun control law. Now all we need to do is to make sure that the democrats don't self-destruct, because they didn't see the trend coming.

[Na Gael]

146. Well said

[porque no]

148. Well said?

It was condescending and anecdotal. More like "well disgorged".

[AnnieBW]

158. Guns Yes - NRA No!

I don't mind guns, as long as people are responsible about using them. It's the damn NRA that I can't tolerate! Apparently, many gun owners feel the same way. Keep sponsoring training, open events, etc., but stop making every politician suck up to you!

[treelogger]

303. NRA no, Brady no, VPC no.

I agree with you on the NRA: I am a gun owner and shooter (and democrat), and I refuse to join the NRA. Which means that I am excluded from a few of the local shooting ranges (I refuse to recite the NRA oath).

However, my feelings about organizations such as Brady and the VPC are even much more negative. Compared to them, the NRA is a paragon of virtue and honesty.

[nemo137]

159. The flipside to this is that what sells in your magical townships won't sell in the cities

I know about the urban/rural gun divide. My friend Mike is an example of the rural gun culture. One of his great delights was taking us city kids out and teaching us to shoot. He was teaching us to do something useful, something he loved. I, on the other hand, grew up in west Rockford. A guy got shot on my friend's block when we were little. There have been shootings outside of bars, in densely populated areas. I don't think a year went by when I didn't see tribute shirts at my high school for someone's friend or cousin who'd gotten killed.

You might understand why us urban/Berkely types might have a slightly different view of gun culture than rural types.

Now, I think the solution to this that makes sense is, maybe, having different gun regulations based on population density, or some other related factor. But this won't happen so long as people don't understand that, yes, there's a rural gun culture that's incredibly strong, but on the other hand, guns do kill people in urban areas, in many cases people they weren't meant to, when bullets go through walls.

Yeah, having a candidate go target shooting would play well, and come off as less fake to most voters, but before you go off on crusade about how this horrible stance on guns is crippling us as a party, remember the other gun culture, please.

[divineorder]

307. The T-shirts would become less prevalent

If we also came to common sense issues regarding drugs too. Take away the illegal drug trade, end prohibition and replace it with a medical approach to addiction, and the gunfights will cease as illegal drug people find something else to do. Drug people enlist kids to do the shooting. Also with a few Democratic administrations, state and local, maybe we could get some money for counseling, job training, and the kind of reinvestments in struggling urban places so that people can have an honest chance to do an honest living.

[havocmom]

161. I live in a county so red, we DEMs can hold meetings in a VW Bug.

If Howard Dean had been the nominee in 04, he may well have carried this county, due to the facts that he spoke clearly, made sense, AND he maintains that guns should remain a state issue.

I am tired of losing elections to people who are selling America down the toilet. I am tired of hearing 'The DEMs wanna take away the guns.' I am tired of losing the war for our future for trying to win the battle for an issue which can never be won in the first place.

I am too old to tilt at windmills anymore.

And I live in a place where the only law and order is that which YOU can assure in your space. Law enforcement is few and damned far between. There are times when I carry a gun. There are times when it would be fucking foolish not to. I accept reality. Don't like that particular reality, but I accept that there are times when the only thing defending my personal safety is me. The delusion that security is a job I can trust others to take care of is one I have not been able to afford for some time.

On guns, best we just STFU. There are issues that are costing more lives and we can't address them constructively if we are locked out of power due to the gun control issue.

[beevul]

165. WOW.

"I live in a county so red, we DEMs can hold meetings in a VW Bug."

"And I live in a place where the only law and order is that which YOU can assure in your space. Law enforcement is few and damned far between. There are times when I carry a gun. There are times when it would be fucking foolish not to. I accept reality. Don't like that particular reality, but I accept that there are times when the only thing defending my personal safety is me. The delusion that security is a job I can trust others to take care of is one I have not been able to afford for some time"


You just described my situation there, and my sentiments overall.

I live 5 plus miles away from a town of 40 people...with no law enforcement in that town. 5 miles of nearly unmaintained dirt road. Not gravel. Dirt. After a day of rain, they are impassable without 4 wheel drive, and sometimes even with. Just before christmas last year, we had an ice storm that left us without power for many days. And the year before another. Lost 2 maltese, a number of cats, and nearly one of our pomeranians to a pack of verry brazen coyotes. The kind that don't just disappear when they see a human or a big dog moving thier way. It is not uncommon in these parts for escapees from a nearby penal institution in kansas to cross state lines into NE and come right past here on these back roads. Occasionally I carry a gun on the property too. Theres just no getting past the fact that it is necessary.

[havocmom]

167. add mountain lions and wolves to the coyote neighbors you have

and toss in a bunch of drunken ya-hoos from the city come hunting season in the fall... that's my reality.

[beevul]

168. Yeah...

I don't know that theres mounbtain lions in these parts, though there are bobcat, rattlesnake, but we do get our share of hunters. We call the 3 hunters trucks parked up the street a trafic jam...

Stay safe out there, where ever you may be.

[havocmom]

169. While I can't actually SEE Canada, the only radio station I pick up is from there

I'm a tad north of ya.;)

[beevul]

172. You'er not in Minnesota are you?

I grew up and spent a little over 30 years there. Beautiful country up north.

I miss it.

[havocmom]

178. Nope. MUCH drier where I am

Montana

[treelogger]

304. Same here

So I live in Santa Cruz county. I think it is the second most liberal county in the nation, after San Francisco county (not counting what fraction of the population is registered democratic, but the extreme-ness of their viewpoints). Berkeley might be bigger than UC Santa Cruz, but it is highly diluated by being in the much larger Alameda county. We also live near Silicon Valley, a democratic strong-hold, full of highly educated and wealthy voters. People like my wife and me.

Last Saturday, I was working in the yard. With a six-shooter on my belt. And a shotgun leaning on the fence, right next to the shovels. The armament was a necessity, because I was digging out a rattlesnake nest, which was about 3 feet from our deck. We had already removed one full-grown rattler from the nest, and I wanted to make sure that there isn't a swarm of babies in there. Having a small child at home, baby rattlesnakes right next to the deck are a no-go. I got lucky - the nest was completely empty (other than a few lizards). Still cost me a few hours of digging followed by rebuilding the hillside against erosion, all with holster and a loaded revolver.

The life of a typical democratic voter. Who might start voting republican soon, because the people on this forum are telling me that I'm a nut, a retard, not a democrat, have penis size issues (strange, my wife never mentioned that), and so on.

The democratic party: With friends like this, who needs enemies.

[Duppers]

163. IEDs Don't Kill People, PEOPLE Do

Can you imagine a pro-nuke sign: "Nuclear weapons don't kill people, crazy leaders do" ?


Iraq: I.E.D.s Don't Kill People, PEOPLE Do

by Rosa Brooks

If that sounds like an idiotic and insane thing to say, ask yourself how gun control opponents can continue to make the equivalent claim in the domestic context.

No, hunters, I'm not after your shotguns: keep 'em with my blessing. But how many more school massacres is it going to take before this country figures out that yes, there is a connection between the number of automatic weapons sloshing around, the laws that enable their easy purchase and concealment, and the amount of lethal violence? Sure, you can kill someone with a knife or a shotgun or by squishing them to death under sixteen tons of marshmallows, if you're really bent upon murder-- but without easily concealable automatic and semi-automatic weapons, it's a whole lot harder to kill 30+ people in a few short minutes.

Factoid: fanatical as the Bush Administration is about the right to bear arms-- and opposed as they are to the most common-sense of gun control laws.

One of the very first orders promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq was... yes, that's right, an order stating that "no person shall possess, carry, conceal, hide, bury, trade, sell, barter, give or exchange" heavy weapons, defined to include "all weapons firing ammunition larger than 7.62 MM." CPA/Ord/23 May 2003/03 also prohibited the possession of small arms in public places and the carrying of concealed weapons.

Funny, our commitment to bringing freedom to the Iraqis didn't include a commitment to guaranteeing the right of the people to bear any old arms they felt like bearing. On the contrary-- in the Iraqi context, even the Bush Administration readily understood that a society awash with weapons is more likely to see a lot of lethal violence than a society in which deadly weapons are more strictly controlled. Of course, we didn't do a very good job confiscating or controlling weapons and materiel in Iraq, but that's another story....
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/04/iraq_ieds_dont_.html





By posting this, I am only helping to stir this heated debate. My feeling on the subject are so mixed. I wish this were a simplistic issue.

My basic mantra on this: I think we need more specific, more stringent gun control through MUCH better BACKGROUND CHECKS. It would be very hypocritical of me to say that I support the elimination of guns altogether because, gulp, I own one.

WHY does anyone own a damn gun? Some reasons are marginally reasonable, some are ridiculous.

I used to work in a very bad environment, bad neighborhood, and my husband insisted that I carry a weapon. That weapon once saved me from being raped! I swear. There are criminals who do not value their fellow man and I did not want to be a victim. Is that not the basic reason any SANE person would possess a weapon? Protection.

However, the present day, too-easy access to weapons ensures that criminals will be better armed. And which party doesn't seem to give a shit about this fact? Do we Dems just want to echo that?

Btw, I am from the south and live in Virginia. I know only one person who'd base their vote on the gun control issue. And I have a son in a Virginia university and my husband knows two of the professor who were killed at Virginia Tech. This is personal for me.


Hats off to the person above who said: Criminals and the mentally ill are, by definition, not part of the "well-regulated militia," and they have no more business owning guns than George W. Bush has sitting in the Oval Office.

[Sirveri]

174. Urban vs. Rural. Another split of the rich.

That's all this arguement really boils down into. Urbanites see all the problems of guns, Ruralites see all the fun and recreational value of guns. What we need is a candidate who has the balls to say what they REALLY feel about guns, and what their plans are for them if any. Having Kennedy or Gore at a shooting range with a Glock 17 or an AR-15 or doing target shooting with marines with a M-16 or M-4 doesn't make sense. Because most people consider them to be pro-gun control. But I think if they explain their position and where they are comming from a lot of people would happily listen and take their opinion seriously.

But since the media just does what it can for ratings, their speach would quickly get taken out of context and skewed to either make them look like liars or in favor of draconian gun control laws.

As for outlawing things, more people are killed by drunk driving than by guns, why not outlaw alcohol and see how well that goes over. Then we can watch as all the 95+% responsible users get PISSED because some jerkoff just caused a knee jerk reaction to infringe upon their rights.

[jgraz]

200. Excellent, excellent points

Few rational people are calling for an outright ban (though I can understand the emotional reaction to this week's events). However, I find it hard to see how a "responsible user" could justify concealable weapons with 33-round clips and sub-second changeouts. Just how many burglars are you expecting?

[Sirveri]

250. I think you are asking the wrong question.

It doesn't really matter if they can conceal carry a glock 17 with 33 round extended mag. What matters is if they are going to use it to shoot someone else who doesn't deserve it. For instance, if I were to own an assault rifle, that wouldn't be an issue, because I'm not going to take it and use it to kill a bunch of people. I might take it to the range, if I had one, and target shoot with it. Ultimately it doesn't matter what the responsible users have, it matters what the irresponsible users and criminals have. You shouldn't remove rights from those who haven't done anything to justify it. There should however be more stringent controls in place to insure that weapons do not end up in hands in which they do not belong.

[treelogger]

306. Wrong on the facts

You say "Few rational people are calling for an outright ban".
Well, in that case about 30+ house members who support HR1022 are not rational people. Nor is Senator Feinstein. Nor are many many posters on this fine forum.

You also say "However, I find it hard to see how a "responsible user" could justify concealable weapons with 33-round clips and sub-second changeouts."

Sorry, nearly all pistols are concealable. Some easier than others (that is purely a question of size). Matter-of-fact, much of gun control law defines handguns as those weapons that can be concealed (that class includes pistols and revolvers).

Second, no production pistol has 33-round magazines. Aftermarket magazines with such capacities are available for a few pistols; they are rarely used in practice. I would not be heart-broken if magazines with capacities over 30 rounds were restricted, for example to people who have to pass stringent background and psychological tests. By the way, I picked the number "over 30" carefully, because there are classes of firearms for which the 30-round magazine is the standard size (those being ARs and AKs).

Third, sub-second changeouts are unrealistic, for all but the best shooters. It takes most shooters about 2 seconds. Go to a range and measure it sometime. That being as it may, it would be extreme to ban all weapons that use detachable magazines (which all have pretty much the same changeout time, excluding exotics such as $2K olympic pistols, where the magazines are well hidden and take serious effort to remove). Banning those would mean a blanket ban on all pistols.

[treelogger]

305. That leads right into classism and racism

You say, correctly: "Urbanites see all the problems of guns, Ruralites see all the fun and recreational value of guns."

Absolutely. What would really help is the following system: Only white people and middle class and rich people can buy or own guns. Actually, I kid you now. If we removed guns from the poor (whether rural poor or inner-city poor), and from the inner city slums (which are mostly inhabited by blacks, and recent immigrants), then we would solve a very large fraction of the gun violence issue.

Obviously, such a proposal is totally unacceptable, on the face of it. Except for the fact that it would work.

We, as a society, are not willing to accept that there exists a class of people, who live in a 3rd-world lifestyle, in slums, or in poverty, or in segments of society that are outside normal regulatory mechanisms, and are extremely violent. For reasons of convenience they happen to use guns to settle their scores. One has to admit, guns are a very good tool for violence. We can not fix the violence by fixing the tool; we need to fix the underlying problems (like the drug prohibition, which leads to a particularly violent drug economy). Or we can give up on those parts of society, openly disenfranchise them, and put them into "reservations"; I find this latter solution unacceptable.

Unfortunately, many of the gun control proposals are just slightly dressed up versions of such racist proposals. How about discrimination against people who had slight mental health issue? The vast majority of people who have needed counselling a long time ago in their lives are not like Mr. Cho. How about discrimination against immigrants? Many times I've heard suggestions that the correct fix to the problem Mr. Cho caused would have been if guns are only sold to US citizens, not to non-citizen permanent residents. You have to remember: Much of gun control and anti-civil-rights legislation was to make sure blacks were unarmed. For fun, read the Dred Scott decision sometime (which still stands, but has fortunately been mooted by the 14th amendment): The reason the plaintiff could not be considered a citizen of the US is that if he were, he could arm himself, and we can't have a black man armed. A lot of the gun control of the 19th and early 20th century was aimed at making sure blacks (who had recently become citizens) would not be able to have guns. We don't want to continue this trend.

[Hippo_Tron]

175. Man, Hubert Humphrey totally lost because of the backlash from the Gun Control Act of 1968

Oh wait... there was no backlash because the NRA wasn't a powerful right wing lobbying group that scared people into believing that Democrats want to take their guns away.

Your solution may work great for one election. But it doesn't address the bigger problem which is that we need to take on the NRA and expose the fact that their real agenda is to contribute to the phony culture war and keep people voting against their own economic interests.

[benEzra]

209. Good illustration of the OP's point.

Oh wait... there was no backlash because the NRA wasn't a powerful right wing lobbying group that scared people into believing that Democrats want to take their guns away.

IIRC, the NRA supported the GCA of 1968, or was neutral on it. But the GCA didn't ban anything; it established paperwork and tracing requirements (individual serial numbers and Form 4473's).

Since the early '90s, some Dems HAVE been pushing bills to ban people's nonhunting guns, and THAT is why the gun issue has been such a loser since 1994.

Your solution may work great for one election. But it doesn't address the bigger problem which is that we need to take on the NRA and expose the fact that their real agenda is to contribute to the phony culture war and keep people voting against their own economic interests.

This is an excellent illustration of the OP's point. Do you realize that approximately 50% of gun owners are Dems and indies? That at least a quarter of registered Dems, a third of indies, and a third of women personally own a gun?

Most people consider economic interest less important than life-choice interests. (Would you vote for Jerry Falwell for president if you KNEW it would increase your take-home pay by 25%?)

The party threw away the House, the Senate, and at least one (possibly two) presidencies over a bill that raised prices on pistol magazines and required some new civilian rifles to have fake adjustable stocks instead of real ones (and rifles are almost never used in crimes, anyway). How much progress was lost on health care, the environment, and social infrastructure (not to mention the Iraq fiasco) because the party considered those things less important than petty harassment of lawful gun owners?

If the national party hadn't ditched the ban-more-guns message after the '04 loss, the Senate (and possibly the House) would STILL be in repub hands. Is that what you'd prefer?

[jgraz]

179. If we followed this reasoning in the 60s the south would still be segregated

[TnDem]

183. Segregation....Huh?

Nothing like a good fluffy strawman for breakfast...

Segregation has ZERO to do with it..We are talking about an "issue" that shouldn't even be mentioned in our platform except maybe to support personal self defense.

Equating the civil rights struggle and a fringe pacifistic agenda is shameful....Even from Berkeley..

[jgraz]

189. "fringe pacifist agenda"

Maybe fringe over in Toothless Hollow, but here in the rest of the country, we have a different view.

The fact is the the vast majority of the country favors tighter gun control, and has for quite some time. For example, check out this data from the Washington Post:

Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country? Is that strongly or somewhat favor/oppose?

            ----------- Favor --------    ---------- Oppose -------   No
            NET    Strongly   Somewhat    NET   Strongly   Somewhat  opin.
10/8/06     61        45         16       37       22         15       2
5/12/02     57        39         19       37       22         15       6
1/15/01     59        46         13       39       26         13       2
5/10/00     67        50         17       30       22          9       3
4/2/00      64        49         14       34       21         13       2
9/2/99      63        52         11       35       25         11       2
8/15/99     63        46         16       34       22         12       3
5/16/99     67        55         12       31       21         10       1
10/13/93*   64        40         24       33       20         13       3
6/8/89*     60        28         32       34       23         11       6
*Gallup: "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose enacting
tougher gun control laws?"

And again we have the core problem with the gun fetishists: you know this is true, you've been on threads where this information has been presented, and yet you will continue to spew your bullshit NRA talking points again and again and again. No one with even a passing understanding of the gun debate thinks that reasonable gun control is a "fringe pacifist agenda". We're left with the conclusion that you're either so shivering-bunny crap-yourself scared of going out in the real world without your shiny little protector that you're willing to lie through your remaining teeth, or you're simply too stupid to feed yourself.

[hooptie]

196. This presumes that most people

know what current laws regarding firearms are. That is not necessarily a valid presumption.

Many people would tell you that the "Assault Weapon" ban outlawed machine guns. There are newspaper articles saying that it is easier to buy a machine gun than it is to get a drivers license.

Who defines "reasonable gun control?" Simply using that phrase or "common sense gun control" is divisive. It immediately colors the discussion to mean that anyone who disagrees with you is "unreasonable" or lacks "common sense." Why is it reasonable to require regular law-abiding citizens be defenseless in the face of an armed attacker? Why is it reasonable to punish people who have committed no crime? Why is requiring licensing, background checks, excise taxes in order to "keep and bear arms," an enumerated right in the U.S. Constitution, reasonable, but requiring a literacy test or poll tax in order to vote is not. Keep in mind that voting is NOT an enumerated right in the Constitution.

If you don't know what the current laws are how can you say you want stronger laws? I bet I could start a thread titled My Ideas for Gun Control. list some current Federal gun laws and get many people to agree that we should implement those laws. Things like:

• Machine guns, grenades, short barreled rifles/shotguns (< 18" barrel) are only available to law enforcement and people who have undergone a strict background check, have written permission from local law enforcement(sheriff, chief of police etc...) and pay a special excise tax;


• Non-machine guns (rifles/pistols that only fire once every time the trigger is pulled) are available to anyone who can pass a background check that excludes: felons, people subject to a restraining order, people adjudicated mentally insane etc...;


• For any firearm, require "secure" storage to keep them out of the hands of children/thieves (Not a Federal law, but most states require something like this already).

Many here would agree with these and say "See, we don't want to TAKE your guns, we just want some "reasonable" measures like these!" The problem is, these "reasonable" measures are already law!

[jgraz]

198. Thanks...I was just on my way out to buy some hand grenades

Glad you caught me.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do people in TX really not know you can't own a machine gun? Please tell me you're joking.


Can you show me any poll that backs up what you're saying? I'm constantly astonished by the stupidity of the general public, but I'm guessing even in Texas people aren't that ignorant.

[hooptie]

214. Thank you

for illustrating my point.

No, I can't show you a poll, but I can show you Federal Law that backs up what I'm saying.

Notwithstanding any state laws to the contrary, it is legal to own machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns. Don't believe me? Check the ATF's Frequently Asked Questions about the National Firearms Act. Now, machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986 are not allowed to be entered into the NFA registry, but any machine gun made before then is legal and transferable. Grenades would fall under the "destructive device" provisions of the NFA. This has been Federal Law since June 26, 1934.

[jgraz]

232. Sigh, more obfuscation from the gun fetishists

Your technique of pointing out finer and finer detail in an attempt to appear to be making sense is a transparent tactic. You cannot support your original statement, plain and simple.

Get back to me when you're ready to have an honest discussion.

[hooptie]

235. Get back to you? I never left.

I was simply illustrating that many people, and apparently you in particular, do NOT know what the current Federal regulations are with regards to firearms. How can you honestly say we need more gun control laws, when you do not know what the current laws are?

You supported my original statement when you started swearing and implying that I am an ignorant Texas yokel.

[jgraz]

238. Again, just show me your data

And I promise to stop implying that you're an ignorant Texas yokel.

And then, please, can you explain what the fuck your premise has to do with anything? Why do people need to be constitutional scholars to understand that a crazy person was just able to legally purchase 2 concealable, military grade weapons and blow away 32 people and himself in the bargain?

The conclusion that we need to change our insane gun policy is that START of the discussion, not the end of it. And it's a discussion that the gun fetishists are desperately trying to avoid.

[hooptie]

244. Ok

Lets start with your presumption that it was a legal sale. Presumably he lied when filling out ATF Form 4473 which is required when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. Question 12f asks "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective(which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage our own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" On December 13, 2005 Cho was found to be "...mentally ill and in need of hospitalization..." So, he lied on the form and apparently the Commonwealth of Virginia fouled something up in not notifying the FBI of his adjudication. I'm not familiar with the minutiae of Virginia law, but it could be the case that the Commonwealth was prevented from notifying the FBI by various "privacy" statues.

Laws to prevent this are already in place, but the States (or Commonwealth) and Federal governments screwed up.

No one needs to be a Constitutional scholar to understand that laws were broken, not by the licensed gun dealer but by various governments, and a pistol was illegally transferred to an ineligible person. If the various governments won't follow their own rules, how will making more rules help?

Gun fetishist? You may be projecting. I do not get "habitual erotic response" from any firearm. I do find shooting to be an enjoyable activity and and nice way to spend an afternoon with my 10 year old daughter who keeps bugging me to take her back to the gun range. Some of my firearms are examples of historically significant weapons: A Mauser made in 1917, a No.4 Enfield and a U.S. Rifle .30 Caliber M1 (commonly referred to as the Garand) when were used by England and the US in World War 2. Some I use to hunt with. Some are for target shooting. Some are just toys; expensive and possibly dangerous toys, but toys none the less. If you are ever in the Dallas area let me know, you can go shooting with us.

[jgraz]

253. You're giving me fact to back up a different argument, but ok

The point is not that Cho broke a law to get his gun, but how easy it was for him to break that law. Of course he was going to lie on his form. Why was he still able to obtain not one, but two firearms along with extra clips and an ammo vest? Isn't part of the issue that the price for such a mistake is far too high?

What we need is an honest discussion of how to prevent this from happening. If your position is "I don't care if more people get shot, I want absolute freedom to buy guns", then be up front about that and we can discuss it. What gets me annoyed (ok, more than annoyed) is when I feel that people aren't interested in addressing or even acknowledging the problem, but rather winning a debate or just obfuscating the facts.

As far as going shooting, I've done it and had a good time (used to date the #2-ranked women's skeet shooter in CA). I was also surprisingly good at it for a complete noob. However, I'm able to separate my enjoyment of the sport and my typical guy "cool factor" reaction to guns from the effect they have on society.

[TnDem]

223. Re-read my post...

You didn;t read my original post obviously, or you wouldn't have wasted your time posting that.

Voter intensity...I am having to explain this to you, which tells me and all ofther gun owners on here that you don't understand.

Re-read my OP...It explains it well.

[jgraz]

233. I've read your post, it's nonsense

And you've been shown that it's nonsense over and over again. Your small sample from Burt's Barbershop in Bumfuck Valley proves nothing.

There is one thing I do like in your post, though: "If you don't know the law to be FACT, don't POST it as fact"

Apply that to your own posts and we may have something to talk about.

[One_Life_To_Give]

190. You missed the history of bans

IMHO the same people who vote guns first. Also believe that any attempt to regulate their guns, will follow the same pattern as smoking regulations. First you can't smoke in the conference room, then at your desk, afterwards you must go outside. But then your too close to the door, etc. until ulitmatly you can't smoke or have any firearm.

Otherwise yes I know people who vote the same. If a candidate ever voted to restrict firearms, they remember it and it's the most important issue to them.

[jgraz]

193. People said the same thing about raising taxes..

..gay rights, death penalty, defense spending, war votes, etc, etc, etc. Progressives have for years voted for pro-gun candidates who are otherwise good on progressive issues. And the opposite has happened: Tim Kaine (NRA rating F) won in VA against a pro-gun opponent, Russ Feingold (NRA rating D) has been elected to the Senate 3 times so far. Also from my home state: Herb Kohl (NRA rating F), Tammy Baldwin (NRA rating F) and Governor Jim Doyle (NRA rating F).

Stricter gun laws currently enjoy over 60% support from the general public. Are you saying that the remaining 40% is so batshit crazy that they won't vote for anyone who doesn't let them own their own tactical nukes? Or is it really just a tiny sliver of that 40%?

And even in the bizarro-world where 40% of the populace will only vote for ultra-pro-gun candidates, do you really want to elect candidates who are so spineless that they'll abandon their positions just to get votes? If so, we'd be better off only nominating fundamentalist evangelicals, or anti-abortion fanatics, or slobbering homophobes, or simple run-of-the-mill racists.

The Republicans have followed this model for years, and they've had some success with the drooling masses. But I'm guessing these past six years have woken up quite a few people. And even if it hasn't, when's the last time a Democrat was successful pretending to be Republican Lite? And even if Democrats can be successful this way, is that really the party you want to support?

[Strelnikov_]

199. Don't know, jgraz. Can we really afford to lose the rural white male vote

just because we have the audacity to require the same level of oversight for gun ownership as we have for, say, owning and driving a fucking car?

Oh, wait . . .


Couldn't agree more with your post.

[jgraz]

206. To this I respond: FUCK the rural white male vote

Yeah, I know you're agreeing with me, but you raise a point that's been bugging me for a while. The fact is that there simply aren't enough dumbass rural white males to stand up against the crushing progressive majority in this country. All we have to do is to get them mobilized.

And while we're on the subject, I used to be one of those rural white males. You'll find there are quite a few progressive populists in rural communities. What we need is someone who's a strong enough leader to get the rest of the sheep to fall in line.

[Strelnikov_]

219. I keep seeing alleged 'progressives' on this board using Reich talking points

"urban and/or Berkeley style" "gun-grabber" or worse.

Thing is, being a 'rural white male' (that owns a gun) I have that midwest down-home insight that asshole David Brooks crows about so much. In this case, instead of just taking at face value the whole 'gonna lose a lot of gun lovin Dems' meme that seems to be the theme of the week, I actually take my life experience into consideration. And, unfortunately, my experience over the years with people that spout the kind of shit I am seeing here would never vote for Democrat, no matter what their stance regarding gun lovin.

Oh, well. Does make for nice talking points, though, along the lines of such classics as 'they hate us for our freedoms'.

[One_Life_To_Give]

205. Democrat was successful pretending to be Republican Lite

Well there are several new members of Congress who apparenly claim such.

Charlotte Observer - Nov 10, 2006Many of the Democratic gains came with conservative Or centrist ... "While Democrats benefited from an energized party base, the key to the victory was ...

I havn't personnaly done an analysis. But remember reading article citing that much of the gains in congress was made by Concervative and Centrist Democrats. Although that label seems to shift quite a bit depending upon where one is standing. As does peoples positions on Gun regulation.

[jgraz]

208. Well you're in luck, because I actually HAVE done the analysis

And here it is:

To those of you who still think centrists won this election

The myth of a centrist win was promoted by the DLC dems and specifically Rahm Emanuel to steal thunder away from Howard Dean and his 50-state strategy. The fact is that the progressives gave us the congress in 2006. If all the elected centrists had lost, we'd still own the house by 8 seats. However if all the elected progressives had lost, we'd be out in both the house and senate.

[Strelnikov_]

210. Hear, hear. Sammy Seder addressed this myth also on his (now cancelled) show

after the election.

[jgraz]

215. Sigh, if only Sammy had been pro-gun, he'd still be on the air

:evilgrin:

[Strawman]

192. I may not know every detail about guns...

But I know this much:

1) There are too goddamn many of them in circulation
2) They are too easy to get
3) We are less safe because of this
4) I'm sick of tolerating it

But you have a point. Maybe it is too hard for me to imagine myself as part of the same community as people who are so into guns. I don't like guns. I never will. Maybe it is silly and phony for so many of these Democratic candidates who are not into guns to pretend that they are and pander to these single issue gun voters. There is something pathetic about it and it is doomed to fail because they're trying to speak a language they don't really share. But I don't know if the answer is to have the party recruit gun credible candidates who do not share our values.

I know there is a solid majority of people in this country who share the same three beliefs I have listed above and the bottom line is we aren't being represented. This patchwork of ineffective laws we have now don't give us the outcomes we want in terms of gun violence. Not sure what the answer is, but we shouldn't just submit to a gun culture we want no part of. You can't always have the luxury of picking your battles. I'm sure you're right about how what sells in urban counties on gun control does not sell in rural ones. I'm just getting very tired of this situation where the urban majority is held hostage by the disproportionately represented rural minority.

Maybe the idea of the American nation is just untenable anymore. I feel like I have nothing in common with gun lovers and they feel like they have nothing in common with those of us who proudly espouse what you derisively refer to as "urban/Berkeley style" views on guns, gay rights. etc. etc.. It's become a bad marriage.

[chaska]

228. Guns as an issue aren't a big deal compared to the corporate takeover of the country. We lose...

much needed support on that issue by opposing guns. Guns are not going to go away. They are part of the mythology of the country. G-U-N = U-S-A. You can not take guns away from Joe Sixpack. Ain't gonna happen. Opposing him on this means Dems lose, period. ...and not just on this one issue.

[jgraz]

240. Guns are part of the corporate takeover of the country

Like anything in this society, it comes down to money. There right-wing talking point we keep seeing? Straight from the gun industry's own private lobbying firm, the NRA.

If guns weren't such a money spinner, you'd see them off the shelves tomorrow. No more 50 cals, no more AR-15s, no more Glocks. Maybe some hunting rifles, shotguns and small revolvers for home protection would still be available.

It's like it's always been: just about corporate profit and power. And the gun nuts are playing right into their hands.

[Name removed]

246. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

248. Rational discourse is a bitch, ain't it?

If all you're gonna do is come in here and shit all over everyone elses posts.

Is that the term you use for calling you on unsupported assertions and outright fabrication? If so, then I plan to continue shitting. You also might want to notice that I'm not "shitting" on "everyone's" posts. Just the disingenous ones.


You are rude, condescending and probably the most highly arrogant person that I have ever met on DU.

Gee, thanks. :blush: However, I'm not even close. But being lied to and treated like an idiot does tend to raise one's hackles.


With that said, let's boil this down to two questions...Do you really think that gun control will prevail in ANY form during the next year? And if it does, do you really believe that it will help the overall Democratic prospects for winning in 2008.

Both questions that are orthogonal to whether gun control actually should be passed. However, if gun control is not passed, or sane gun policy hurts our candidates, it will be because of people like you who consistently refuse to tell the truth about guns and their effect on society.

And since you said this in an earlier post,

'...FUCK the rural white male vote..."

That kinda tells me that you don't want to solve anything but simply want to waste bandwdith and offend up to half of the members of this board.

Wrong again. It just means that I'm sick of pandering to some ridiculous splinter minority that votes overwhelmingly Republican anyway. What we saw in the 2006 elections is that there is a huge majority of progressive populists out there who have been completely disenfranchised by the mainstream of both parties. You give those people something to vote for and you'll never see another GOP majority in your lifetime.

[slackmaster]

251. I think the point of the OP is that by ditching gun control we don't LOSE any voters

Nobody would quit the Democratic party and join the GOP if we simplified our platform statement on gun control to "We support the right of Americans to keep and bear arms and support reasonable gun regulations", or dropped it altogether. But when we talk about gun bans, as our current platform does - http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf - that is guaranteed to result in a net loss of votes.

[jgraz]

254. But we don't actually *believe* that

And changing our policy on something this important simply to gain votes is just plain evil. We need to have a rational discussion on gun policy. Part of what makes people progressives is a complete lack of fear of addressing difficult issues head-on and looking for the truth. What you're describing isn't even a conservative tactic, it's the tactic of cowardly, dishonest politicians who value power more than principle.

[slackmaster]

259. Agreed that a rational discussion is agreed

What you're describing isn't even a conservative tactic, it's the tactic of cowardly, dishonest politicians who value power more than principle.

You could be a bit more diplomatic and call it Machiavellian, but I see it as a necessary practical approach to preventing the other side from regaining a monopoly on power. If we lose that, we lose on every issue. I see letting this one go as an honest acceptance that it's been a political loser for the Democratic side.

Long term, this matters a lot. This week's SC decision on abortion is just the first of a long series of setbacks we are already doomed to seeing in our lifetimes.

[Neecy]

255. well....

You breezily dismiss the "urban/Berkeley" types who don't share your love of guns but consider this:

It's the "urban/Berkeley" people who are getting slaughtered by the glut of cheap handguns, assault rifles and hollow-point bullets that you so dearly love.

I, for one, am bone-tired of having urban gun laws decided by YOU. You show not one fucking shred of sympathy for the skyrocketing gun death rates in our cities - just me, me, me and my love for shooting at fucking rocks in the middle of fucking nowhere!

Spend five minutes in Oakland with me and sit around waiting for the kill shot. You'd piss in your pants. So much for the tough talk.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

258. You confuse "what would save lives" and "what would win votes".

The answer to the former is "gun control, the more draconian the better".

The answer to the latter is "opposing gun control".

Sadly, I think that the Democrats have no choice but to sell out to you and yours - I agree that there is no way that they're going to get support for sane levels of gun control and that trying to do so would be electoral suicide.

Your leap from "we can't do it, and trying would lose us the election" to "it wouldn't be a good thing if we could do it" is fallacious, though. If there *was* political will to repeal the 2nd ammendment and introduce UK-style gun laws, it would benefit America immensely. But that's just a dream, sadly.

[jgraz]

262. or...the Democrats could try leadership

The fact that the Dems need to sell out on this issue is a myth. The vast majority of the people in the US (60% or more) favor stricter gun control. You just need good, honest, courageous leaders to advocate for it. Sadly, this is not the strong suit of the Democratic party.

I'm not in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment, but I would certainly like to see it made very clear exactly where the boundaries of that freedom are. I think that could be acomplished by the right kind of dialogue in this country.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

264. I think the costs would outweigh the benefits.

If the Democrats push gun control, it's just about possible that they could get it somewhere, saving somewhere in the low tens of thousands of lives every year.

However, in doing so they would massively increase the chances of a Republican victory in subsequent elections, losing the chance to pass legislation on Iraq, the economy, abortion, the environment etc that could save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.

It's an extremely coldhearted position, but I think that it's the only one that works. The goal of politics shouldn't be to act nobly, it should be to make the world a better place.

[Name removed]

265. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

266. To use one of your catchphrases: you have lost your mind

I won't bother addressing your new strange accusation, since the fact that you made it demonstrates that you wouldn't believe any response I can give. I'll just point out that your idea of "disrupting" is very strange, considering that all I've done is point out where you are posting falsehoods and unsupported assumptions. And I've backed up everything I've said with facts.

At this point, I'm really hoping that TN is not one of those "no retreat" states where you can shoot if you feel threatened. Cuz if it is, I'm guessing your neighbors are walking on eggshells.

[benEzra]

274. There are no states where you can shoot for merely "feeling threatened"...

the standard now in place in Florida, and every other state that I am aware of, is that of reasonable belief, i.e. the average person of ordinary mental firmness would have concluded that the shooter was indeed in imminent, unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony, from an unlawful attack. Florida did have a quirky duty-to-retreat-from-a-lethal-attack statute that the new law eliminated, bringing its self-defense law in line with California's and that of most other states, as it applies to public places.

Shoot someone because you "feel threatened," in any state, and you will go to jail for manslaughter to second-degree murder, depending on the extenuating circumstances.

The only presumptions of justified use of force in the new Florida law are the traditional Castle Doctrine (i.e., you can always use force to stop an unlawful forced entry into your home, just as in most other states) and a new provision that allows you to use lethal force against a carjacker.

[jgraz]

277. uh huh

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/06/news/shoot.php

New U.S. self-defense laws loosen trigger fingers

In the past year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

<...>

Thanks to this sort of law, a prostitute in Port Richey, Florida, who killed her 72-year-old client with his own gun rather than flee was not charged last month. Similarly, the police in Clearwater, Florida, did not arrest a man who shot a neighbor in early June after a shouting match over putting out garbage, though the authorities said they were still reviewing the evidence.

<...>

Florida does not keep comprehensive records on the effects of its new law, but prosecutors and defense lawyers there agree that fewer people who claim self- defense are being charged or convicted.

The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends the principle to vehicles.

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now that same person, in the law's words, "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force." The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.

The central innovation in the Florida law, said Anthony Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, is not its elimination of the duty to retreat, which has been eroding nationally through judicial decisions, but in expanding the right to shoot intruders who pose no threat to the occupant's safety.

"In effect," Professor Sebok said, "the law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property."

<...>

Many prosecutors oppose the laws, saying they are unnecessary at best and pernicious at worst. "They're basically giving citizens more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review," said Paul Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association.

<...>

Jason Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, Florida, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law there. "Had it been a year and a half ago," Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen, "he could have been arrested for attempted murder."

"I was in T-shirt and shorts," Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Allen's door. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

"I was no threat," Rosenbloom said. "I had no weapon."

The two men exchanged heated words. "He closed the door and then opened the door," Rosenbloom said of Allen. "He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn't even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest."

Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Rosenbloom denied.

"I have a right," Allen said, "to keep my house safe."

[benEzra]

279. OK, self-defense law 101...

The general criteria that must be met for a homicide to be ruled justifiable are very similar in every state. The best phrasing I have found so far is in Steve Johnson, Concealed Carry Handgun Training, North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4, but these criteria would apply in every state, and definitely apply in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and other stand-your-ground states. (Note that like Florida, my state of North Carolina is also a Castle Doctrine state.)

(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

(Emphasis added.)

Note that ALL FOUR conditions must generally be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable (there is an exception for someone kicking your door in, but we'll get to that in a minute). A handful of states used to add a FIFTH criterion to the list above, that of running away from the imminent lethal threat before turning to defend yourself (and hoping the attacker doesn't kill you while your back is turned). Florida was one of those states, and eliminated it with the new law; most states have never had such a provision to start with.

OK, the really important part. Where a lot of people get spun is the deliberate distortion of the phrase "reasonably believes" in self-defense statutes. Reasonable belief does *NOT* mean merely "feeling threatened"; the phrase is a legal term, and its definition in the context of self-defense law is that in paragraph (b) above--i.e., that "the facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault." Merely "feeling threatened" isn't reasonable belief; the belief has to be objectively rational, i.e. there is in fact a guy standing in front of you holding what appears to be a knife in a threatening posture.

Also, it is important to understand that a claim of self-defense is not an automatic exemption to the laws against homicide. Rather, it is what is known as an "affirmative defense"; unlike the regular innocent-until-proven-guilty standard applied to a criminal act, the onus in a self-defense shooting is on the shooter to demonstrate that the shooting WAS indeed justifiable self-defense. In other words, in a self-defense case, the standard is "guilty unless shown innocent," and if the shooting is questionable, it is much more likely to swing against the person claiming self-defense than it is to swing in their favor.

There are a few other conditions that may constitute justifiable self-defense; for example, there is a provision in U.S. legal tradition called the Castle Doctrine that says that if someone is making an illegal forced entry into your home (whether by door or window, whatever), you are authorized to use whatever force is necessary to stop them and it would ordinarily be ruled justified; the presumption is that if the guy is kicking your door down, he's not there to sell magazine subscriptions. A majority of states explicitly spell out the Castle Doctrine in their laws, I believe, but the principle is there in every state, even Massachusetts. Florida, and most other states, also allow the use of lethal force to stop a "forcible felony," i.e. rape, aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc. Texas used to also allow lethal force in defense of property in some circumstances, which probably dates back to frontier days when stealing your horse or your food would cause you to die of exposure or starvation); they may still, but it is my understanding that in general, shooting in defense of property in Texas can get you in big trouble.

OK, back to the new Florida law. The Florida law's primary effect was to eliminate the "duty to run away" provision, which was very subjective and had been abused by overzealous prosecutors; as I mentioned, most states don't have them, and a truly questionable scenario (you could have walked away in complete safety, but didn't) would fail points (a) and (c) anyway. The new also law reaffirmed the Castle Doctrine as it applies to your home, and also extended it to your car, so that if somebody actually tries to carjack you, you can use force to stop them as if they were breaking into your home (a response to South Florida carjackings which I think is reasonable). Finally, the new law states that if somebody attacks you and you use force in self-defense, and your use of force is ruled justifiable, the attacker cannot turn around and sue you for the injuries you caused him (yes, that happens). I'd refer you to Gutmacher, Florida Firearms: Law, Use, and Ownership as the definitive text on Florida self-defense law. The latest edition is current with the revised statutes.

Now, Georgia and other states didn't have duty to retreat provisions anyway, so the changes there seem to be mostly just clarification. I actually posted the Georgia statutes a while back, before the "stand your ground" law was passed and after it was passed, and the new law didn't legalize anything that wasn't already legal.

And in ANY state, if you shoot somebody just because you "feel threatened," you will go to prison for manslaughter to second-degree murder, depending on the mitigating circumstances, regardless of any Bradyite BS to the contrary.

Jason Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, Florida, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law there. "Had it been a year and a half ago," Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen, "he could have been arrested for attempted murder."

"I was in T-shirt and shorts," Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Allen's door. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

"I was no threat," Rosenbloom said. "I had no weapon."

The two men exchanged heated words. "He closed the door and then opened the door," Rosenbloom said of Allen. "He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn't even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest."

Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Rosenbloom denied.

Considering that Florida was a Castle Doctrine state BEFORE the revised statutes were passed, if the shooter was acquitted now, he would have been acquitted before the new law was passed. Either because he was a retired police officer, or (more likely) because the jury felt that Rosenbloom was trying to make an illegal forced entry.

The central innovation in the Florida law, said Anthony Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, is not its elimination of the duty to retreat, which has been eroding nationally through judicial decisions, but in expanding the right to shoot intruders who pose no threat to the occupant's safety.

The reporter apparently garbled the professor's statement here. A majority of states allow you to shoot an unlawful intruder in the act of forcing entry into your house, without having to prove he is a threat to your safety, because the very fact of him unlawfully forcing entry is considered prima facie demonstration of harmful intent. That is the Castle Doctrine in a nutshell, and far from being an innovation, it predates the founding of the United States (the concept comes from English common law). North Carolina is a Castle Doctrine state, as are a majority of states IIRC. The Castle Doctrine is a presumption of justification that goes beyond the ordinary self-defense statutes.

The innovation in the Florida law was in extending the Castle Doctrine (already law in Florida and most other states) to your car, so that if you were being carjacked, you could use countervailing force without having to first prove the carjacker meant harm, on the same grounds as if the carjacking were a home invasion.

[jgraz]

281. Thanks for the primer, but not all FL gun owners are law students

I'm guessing they're not gonna check a law book before pulling the trigger.

Apparently, a few who do have access to law books disagree with you:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-deadlyforce1106jun11,0,2402838.story

Gun law triggers at least 13 shootings

Cases involving the new deadly force law are handled in a broad range of ways.

<...>
The head of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association said the law has given people who are too quick to fire a weapon "another defense."

"In my mind, it was an unnecessary law," association President Bruce Colton said.

<...>

"You're not talking about freaks and geeks slinging guns around like Dirty Harry. . ." said Brady, 43, of Winter Haven, who in April killed a stranger who was threatening him with his fist. "I do believe in Americans having a right to protect themselves, but strapping on their hips and going back to Western days -- absolutely not."

<...>

The new law requires claims of self-defense to be investigated but prohibits police from detaining or arresting a suspect without clear evidence of another motive -- such as anger, frustration or malice.

Whether the new law has added too much gray area for investigators is unclear. But there is a wide range in how investigations of self-defense claims have been conducted. Some have involved more than 20 hours of detectives' time, while other cases were never reviewed by detectives.

<...>

In one case, for instance, an off-duty Maitland police officer was arrested after shooting and wounding his host and another guest at a Jan. 15 party near Casselberry.

<...>

Prosecutors, who spent about 15 hours interviewing witnesses, focused their questioning on Metevier's state of mind before the shooting and why he was carrying a police-issue sidearm while drinking.

"I wasn't so inebriated I didn't know my name. I was thinking logically," Metevier said. :wow:

The Brevard-Seminole State Attorney's Office decided not to prosecute Metevier, a reserve police officer, because of "insufficient evidence to rebut defendant's . . . case of self-defense," records show. An administrative investigation to determine Metevier's future as a police officer may be concluded by Maitland police by next week.

<...>

Carlos Avilez, 15, was suspected of attempting to steal a car near Orlando when the owner's husband opened fire with a 9 mm pistol, hitting the teenager in the back of the leg. A witness told deputies the teen may have been shot as he was fleeing.

The only account from the shooter, Michael Graham, 34, is a brief, barely legible statement saying he felt threatened by the teen.

No decision has been made on whether Graham will face charges.

<...>
The shot that killed the stranger in Michael Brady's front yard upended his life and worsened a neighborhood dispute he blames for the shooting. He claims the man -- a friend of a neighbor -- began taunting him after drinking for hours and then threatened to punch him.

Friends of the man Brady shot to death, Justin Boyette, are angry that a grand jury cleared Brady. They say Boyette, 23, was a friendly bear of a man at 6 feet 2 and 270 pounds. They claim Boyette simply wanted to shake Brady's hand.

"A lot of people are going to die as soon as people figure out this law," said Eric Wagner, who hosted Boyette that day and has not stayed at the home across the street from Brady since then. "All you have to say is, 'I was afraid,' and you can blow someone away."

They also include this sidebar on the law:

Enacted Oct. 1, the law says that a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is attacked has no duty to retreat and has the right to 'stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.'

To me, average citizen, this says that I can use deadly force against someone if I feel that I'm in danger of death or bodily injury and that I am under no obligation to attempt any other method of defusing the situation before killing my attacker.

How does this square with your self-defense 101 law? Doesn't this make it a helluva lot harder to prosecute a gun owner for killing someone during an otherwise harmless altercation?

[benEzra]

282. Note the legal term "reasonably believes" in the statute

Enacted Oct. 1, the law says that a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is attacked has no duty to retreat and has the right to 'stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.'

Note the legal term "reasonably believes." That's point (b) below:

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

Some who irrationally believes they are in grave danger would pass point (a), but fail point (b), the reasonable belief test. An unreasonable belief is not grounds for self-defense.

Under the new law, the claim of self-defense is still an affirmative defense (i.e., guilty unless shown innocent by a preponderance of evidence), so in the cases the news article cites, either (1) the prosecutors were incompetent, or (2) there is more to the stories than we are being given. My guess would be (2).

Now, if you shoot someone breaking into your house in Florida (or NC, for that matter), or trying to carjack you, you do NOT have to mount an affirmative defense, as long as the person shot was clearly making an unlawful forced entry; in such Castle Doctrine cases, the person claiming self-defense is innocent unless proven guilty.

Carlos Avilez, 15, was suspected of attempting to steal a car near Orlando when the owner's husband opened fire with a 9 mm pistol, hitting the teenager in the back of the leg. A witness told deputies the teen may have been shot as he was fleeing.

The only account from the shooter, Michael Graham, 34, is a brief, barely legible statement saying he felt threatened by the teen.

No decision has been made on whether Graham will face charges.

In this case, unless there is more to the story than we are being told, Graham is definitely chargeable, and a jury could convict if they find that he did not have reasonable grounds to fear death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony (defined in Florida as a serious crime against your person, not somebody trying to steal your unoccupied vehicle). Now, if he was IN the car, or getting into or out of it, then the carjacking provision could apply, and if that were the case then the shooting would be most likely ruled justifed.

The shot that killed the stranger in Michael Brady's front yard upended his life and worsened a neighborhood dispute he blames for the shooting. He claims the man -- a friend of a neighbor -- began taunting him after drinking for hours and then threatened to punch him.

Friends of the man Brady shot to death, Justin Boyette, are angry that a grand jury cleared Brady. They say Boyette, 23, was a friendly bear of a man at 6 feet 2 and 270 pounds. They claim Boyette simply wanted to shake Brady's hand.

Note that the new law did not protect Boyette from prosecution in this case. It did go before a grand jury, and the jury decided he acted in lawful self-defense.

"A lot of people are going to die as soon as people figure out this law," said Eric Wagner, who hosted Boyette that day and has not stayed at the home across the street from Brady since then. "All you have to say is, 'I was afraid,' and you can blow someone away."

See above. If you try that, you'll be prosecuted for manslaughter or murder, depending on the circumstances.

Now, I agree with you on the fact that not everyone who owns a gun is going to have a copy of Gutmacher's Florida Firearms: Law, Use, and Ownership on their nightstand. To qualify for a Florida carry license, you do have to be familiar with the law, though, and Florida gives permit applicants and holders very good educational materials on the law. So at least the people carrying guns in public will know the law.

I do wish the Brady Campaign and others would stop trying to give the impression that you can shoot anybody you "feel threatened" by, though, because I'm afraid that eventually, someone is going to fall for that crap and get themselves a conviction for manslaughter or murder (and Avilez may have done just that; the BC has been passing out flyers and putting up billboards all over the state telling people if they "feel threatened," they can shoot). I'm not quite cynical enough to believe the BC is doing that on purpose, though; I think they are just fundraising.

[jgraz]

283. You're talking law, I'm talking effect

I agree with your points on the legal aspects, but that doesn't change my worries about the effect of the law. My mother, a pro-gun Reagan Dem, lives in Spring Hill, FL. She's scared shitless of this law.

Just about everyone who lives in FL (or, I'm guessing many other places in the US) knows what I'm talking about. They all know at least one gun nut who seems to really want to use his weapons. This is the concern: we have a LOT of gun owners in this country, and no one can argue that every one of them is responsible and stable. This gives the lurking Dirty Harry's the cover they need to finally realize their fantasy of putting a couple holes in a "bad guy".

[benEzra]

285. That is a real concern...

but it's not the fault of the law, but of people making misleading statements about the law for PR/fundraising purposes. I agree that those statements could give somebody the idea that they could use a gun in a situation in which it would actually illegal to do so. I'm not particularly worried about carry license holders, though (the state of Florida has good training materials that I can vouch for; I was licensed to carry in Florida for several years, until I moved back to NC in 2003).

[benEzra]

276. I think those boundaries are very clear already, and have been for 73 years.

I'm not in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment, but I would certainly like to see it made very clear exactly where the boundaries of that freedom are. I think that could be acomplished by the right kind of dialogue in this country.

Personally, I think those boundaries are very clear already, and have been for 73 years, settled by the compromise that is the National Firearms Act.

Tightly controlled (NFA Title 2): all automatic weapons, sound suppressed weapons, disguised firearms, firearms over .50 caliber (except some hunting weapons and shotguns), M203-type grenade launchers, explosives, smoothbore handguns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, rifles and shotguns less than 26" long, etc. etc. etc.

Civilian guns (NFA Title 1): All non-automatic firearms under .51 caliber that meet the barrel length and overall length criteria for civilian guns, plus some over-.50-caliber hunting and sporting weapons.

That line has been clear and unmolested since the 1930's. Pistols go back to the 1600's, over-10-round magazines to the 1860's, semiautomatic pistols to the 1890's, small-caliber 30-round carbines to the 1930's and 1940's, AR-15's to 1961, SKS's to the late '60s, mini-14's to the early 1970's. Nationwide bans on such guns were not seriously considered until the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch of the late '80s/early '90s. The '80s saw a few minor restrictions (ban on AP ammunition in '86, requirement that guns be detectable by X-ray, and the background check), but the classes of guns available to non-LEO civilians was not seriously contested.

It seems to me that the only people who think the NFA '34 line is blurry are the ones who want to move it, IMHO.

[flying_monkeys]

275. TnDem, I have hesitated to reply for 2 nights now.

But I suspect you are right.

*If* we want a Dem President to make the next USSC choice, we have to roll over on this issue (until after the elections at least). Inside, I feel like I am making a pact with the Devil (in whom I don't believe, so used figuratively) - - but I would rather have a sane rational court the next 10-20 years than stop guns the next 2 years.


Gah, I hate weighing justices vs guns....


You win. I will sit down and shut up, too.

[benEzra]

280. "...until after the elections, at least."

*If* we want a Dem President to make the next USSC choice, we have to roll over on this issue (until after the elections at least). Inside, I feel like I am making a pact with the Devil (in whom I don't believe, so used figuratively) - - but I would rather have a sane rational court the next 10-20 years than stop guns the next 2 years.

Don't forget that we had a Dem House, Senate, AND Presidency in 1992. Don't forget what happened after the Feinstein ban passed in 1994...

Leave it to the states, would be my suggestion. NJ/MA/NYC style gun control will NOT fly nationwide.

Webb and Tester are the ones who put the Senate over the top. A very strong argument can be made that the day they vote for new gun bans is the day they lose their seats in the next election. The same would be true for a lot of Congresspeople from pro-gun-owner districts.

[OnionPatch]

278. As a person who

grew up in rural Ohio and Pennsylvania, I just want to add my two cents to agree with you. I have always been a Democrat and when I was younger, most of my neighbors and friends were too. That all changed because of the gun issue. I know many of my fellow liberals have a hard time believing that, but I have seen it with my own eyes and experienced it in my own friends and family. They love their guns, it's just in the culture. They have not experienced the kind of gun violence that happens in the big cities and really don't understand the concerns others have about gun ownership. A lot of them bought the RW talking points on the gun issue. They've been voting Republican since Reagan. Lately I've been thrilled to see many of them are wising up. They are starting to see the truth about the Republicans and are actually considering voting for Democrats. All we have to do is nominate someone perceived as anti-gun, and all will be lost with them. And maybe the election...and you're right, the SCOTUS. That's a frightening thought. Frankly, that scares me a bit more than our current gun problems.

[Recursion]

287. As a DC resident, I have two natural rights abridged

The first is the right to a voice in the legislative body that levies taxes and decides questions of war and peace.
The second is the right to keep and bear arms.

They have not experienced the kind of gun violence that happens in the big cities and really don't understand the concerns others have about gun ownership.

Funny, my neighborhood in DC has had 3 shootings this week (admittedly that's an unusually high number for here). Handguns are for all practical purposes illegal here (I think maybe 12 people still have grandfathered-in legal handguns) and long guns are nearly illegal (though to my knowledge no long gun has been used in a crime in DC in living memory).

If legal restrictions on gun ownership are effective at reducing violence, why have three people died within 2 blocks of me this past week?

I'll tell you this: I think it's no coincidence that DC, one of the blackest cities in America, is denied those two rights. Gun control legislation was rampant in the Jim Crow south for the same reason: it's ok for these people (good, honest, middle class, suburban white people who hunt and go to pistol ranges) to have guns, but it's not ok for those people (dastardly, dark-skinned, poor people who no doubt only want to come into the suburbs to ravish white women) to have guns.

The end result has been a population in DC that has for decades been unable to defend themselves against criminals.

[Elmer1007]

308. comments and quotes.

I have no desire to tell anyone whether they can have an abortion or not. I want a strong Social Security Program. I want single payor health insurance program. I dont care whether a gay gets married or not, but would support his or her right to do so (with benefits) I wish that the war was over. However the second amendment provides for an individual right.

"I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand".~~SUSAN B. ANTHONY

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it."~~Joseph Goebbels Nazi propoganda minister

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Haynes vs. U.S.(390 US 85, 1968) that criminals are exempt from firearms registration based on 5th amendment grounds. What do you call a government that recognizes constitutional rights for criminals, but can not grasp the definition of, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" for law-abiding citizens?" Author: James L. Mullen

"Rome remained free for four hundred years and Sparta eight hundred, although their citizens were armed all that time; but many other states that have been disarmed have lost their liberties in less than forty years".~~Niccolo Machiavelli

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as it's interpretation by every major commentator and court in the 1st half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."~~Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session, 2/82

[Wilson 1911A1]

309. The OP was absolutely correct in his observations.

I am a rural white male and part of the gun culture. I carry a concealed handgun everywhere I go and have for two years now.
I do not identify with a particular party, but rather vote according to how the candidates position themselves on the gun control issue. This rating of candidates mostly applies to state and federal positions as local offices and policies rarely have a dramatic on my right to keep and bear arms.
I have voted for democratic candidates in the past, and will undoubtedly do so again in the future. I voted republican in the last national elections solely on the gun control issue because it is the one issue I will not compromise on.
There appear to be a few people here who have no idea how the gun culture thinks. They don't seem to understand the depth of the convictions held by me and millions of others like me. I doubt very seriously that most of the anti-gun people are willing to put their lives on the line for this issue, I can tell you a large number of gun people are.

[mpickering]

310. Great Post and an Introduction

I agree with you.

Allow me to make some points for the record so when folks here start seeing me reply to their posts, they know where I coming from.

Ironically, I am Canadian. I am a lawful permanent resident of the USA. In two years, I earn my US citizenship. To allow me to state rather emphatically that I have a very deep appreciation of the US Constitution, of what it means to have Rights under it (because I am having to earn them) and what those Rights are. Many people here point out rights that don't exist under the Bill of Rights (such as the "right" to feel safe). There is no such right.

I am able to vote non-Federally. I will be voting Federally in the 2010 and 2012 elections. I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I consider myself independent and I am an issues voter. Whichever candidate (preferably from the Democratic or Republican parties) in my area has a stance on issues closest to mine, gets my vote. With a couple of exceptions (which I will get to).

I am a gun owner. I own at least one of every type of regulated and non-regulated firearm that exists save for Class 3 NFA'34 weapons (only due to cost and the lack of citizenship at this time). As a result, you attack guns on any front (e.g. ban handguns), you are coming after me and my property.

I live in a heavily suburban area (outside Washington DC). Thus, the usual "urban" vs. "rural" stereotypes don't work on me. I am not a hunter but I can if I want to. I am college educated. I am licensed to a carry concealed firearm in 38 states. I am an NRA certfied instructor. I am a gun collector.

I am tired of reading about lies about what guns can and cannot do, about politicians trying to "do something". I fight them actively (as in I go and testify at my local and State legislatures on issues that concern me, for or against).

There are two issues that will automatically cost a candidate my vote: gun control and illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration is my number one issue and gun control is right behind it. If you support amnesty for illegals, benefits or anything that forgives them for breaking the laws of this land that I have had to follow religiously for the past 10 years (or face deportation), you will never get my support. In fact, I will go out of my way to fight you. The gun control position should be obvious (since I am posting here). On that, I can and do fight. Hard.

I believe the 2nd Amendment is a guaranteed individual right. It is the highest right I can exercise other than free speech without full sovereign franchise. I do exercise it.

For those of you who cannot understand why anyone would want guns, what the big deal is about banning or restricting them or their ownership, you answer lies with the problem of having to understand people like me. If you cannot, then you won't ever have the ability to win my vote. Gun owners like me see right through most Democratic candidates and their supporters because we are voting on the basis of reason, facts and a culture of self-reliance. Those can be Democratic values too but are often absent in favor of emotion, screaming about intolerance, calling for rights that don't exist or an inability to examine and modify your worldview based on the facts rather than trying to make facts fit your worldview.

Sorry for the long introduction. If I choose to respond here, you're going to get a cross-section of views and I am not going to fit a mold. On gun control, you might as well consider me a staunch conservative. I cannot understand folks who want to take away my property in the name of "society" when the BoR of this country guarantees me a right that I value deeply. My exercise of that right strikes to the core of my values (of personal responsibility to oneself and them alone, knowing the world is unfair and adapting to it, a moral courage to do what is right, to not blame others for my own failings and the desire to be simply left alone).

Matt
aka Armed Canadian