Biden Blasts Gun Owner

[pipoman]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gunguy25jul25,1,4485522.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Gun enthusiast doesn't warm to Biden
The senator's response to his video question about protecting gun rights was 'kind of off-kilter,' a Michigan man says.
By James Rainey, Times Staff Writer
July 25, 2007

Jered Townsend had the distinction of being one of three dozen Americans whose video question for the Democratic presidential contenders was broadcast during Monday night's debate — and the further distinction of being the only one whose mental stability was questioned.

Townsend, a 30-year-old from Clio, Mich., came next to last among the amateur inquisitors in the CNN/YouTube debate. But he made an indelible impression by asking the candidates if they would protect his "baby" — the Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle he cradled in his arms.

-snip-

"I'll tell you what, if that's his baby, he needs help," Biden said of Townsend. "I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious."

[woodsprite]

1. You know what. Biden may have shot himself in the foot, but I

love his answer. That was a stupid question, or way of asking the question, in a presidential debate. Can you imagine how the Repub candidates would have answered?

[Lasher]

2. I agree.

I'm a gun owner but I also think that was a stupid question, the way that jackass asked it. I think he was most interested in getting everyone to look at him and his new toy.

[zanne]

3. That video was poison to 2nd Amendment people.....

It only strengthens the opinions of people like myself who are calling for stricter gun laws. That guy looked like the image I have in my head of a gun "nut".

[guntard]

5. So what, why shouldn't he own a gun?

Is it really just down to Us vs Them? You think he's a flyover weirdo so you don't think he or anyone else should have a gun?

As I have said again and again, when the anti-rights people can't refute the facts, they confess the real purpose of gun control: Culture War. Bi-coastal urban sophisticates vs rural flyover Cletus.

I think the video backfired on CNN. They were hoping to pick a wingnut no candidate could possibly agree with, but Richardson had the balls to step up and say, yes, even people we probably don't want to invite in for dinner have rights.

[Xela]

9. good point,

I'm right there with you on Richardson.

Xela

[zanne]

33. "Even people we don't want to invite to dinner". Exactly

Image is very important. I was at a debate-watching "party", consisting of liberals AND moderates. When we saw that video, there was a loud groan coming from the group of approx. 40 people, then laughter. C'mon--do you really think that video helped you out?

[guntard]

36. Maybe the video didn't help us, but what's your point?

CNN is not in the business of promoting a pro-rights message, never has been.

Here are a few premises for this discussion:

1. It's still a moderately free country, and anyone can submit pretty much anything they want in a YouTube debate, even creepy redneck gun nuts;

2. CNN, rabidly anti-rights, selected the video questions, and it is fair to assume that wasn't the only one available referring to gun rights;

3. Biden thought it was in his interest to be a snide asshole;

4. Richardson thought it was in his interest to treat the question respectfully;

5. Even creepy rednecks enjoy civil rights and the protection of the Constitution (except Randy Weaver, presumably).

I'm not sure what the controversy is here.

[iverglas]

47. I'm still confused

they confess the real purpose of gun control: Culture War.

Isn't a war generally a means to an end, and not a "purpose"?

To what end is this "Culture War" being waged?

Are those bi-coastal urban sophisticates quaking in their boots at the idea that the rural flyover Cletus (I don't know what that means, but whatever) are going to round them up and intern them at Guantanamo if they don't attend NASCAR races of a Sunday?

I mean, I gather it's the bi-coastal urban sophisticates who started and are prosecuting this war. If they're the defending party, however, perhaps the rural flyover Cletus (is Cletus the plural of Cletu, or should we be saying Cletuses?) have outlawed quiche?

I'm itching to know what this war is all about, and who started it, and what end it is a means to.

[Like It Is]

65. guntard, is that as in retard?

It makes me wonder if you qualify to own a gun. Since all you gunnies want to play with your babies, maybe we should let every nut in the world own a gun so you can caress them and call them your baby.However make it illegal to own ammunition of any kind except blanks. Then you can still make a BOOM but not hurt anyone. If you want to hunt, you will go to the local police station and check out an adequate supply of ammo. Upon completion of the hunt you will return any unfired rounds and empty cartridges. This will be strictly enforced. Failure to abide by the law will result in confiscation of your weapon or weapons. Can you imagine how many lives will be saved every year?

[guntard]

75. Wow, this is a very well thought out policy

Can you imagine how many lives will be saved every year?

Fewer than 800. That, according to the CDC, is how many accidental gun deaths there are every year in the US.

So all your complicated strictures and regulations and laws and hand-waving and smug pontificating really wouldn't do much good. Which is a shame, just think of how it would enrage the flyover Cletuses you loathe so much!

[Like It Is]

76. I think it would be a lot more than that.

Statistics, Facts and Quotes 16750 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),; 11624 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),; 649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 ...

How about a goodly portion of these?

[guntard]

79. When you suggested qualifications for gun ownership, I assumed you were talking about accidents

Since I can assert with confidence that the people committing those crimes you mention would not have qualified in any case.

You lose.

[SteveM]

96. Ummm (eyebrows arching, licking lips)...mmm...more prohibition.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

143. Richardsons Agreed with this "Gun Nut"? That's News to Me

I didn't hear Richardson say one thing that would lead anyone to conclude that he agreed with this 'gun nut.'

[SteveM]

19. Zanne, your "image" of a "gun nut" includes millions.

[zanne]

32. I'm talking about the stereotype that the video only enforced

Believe it or not, alot of people see gun enthusiasts as people just like the idiot in that video. He didn't do your cause any good.

[guntard]

37. Are you suggesting gun owners are some kind of monolithic social group?

That we are all like the fellow in that video?

Or that we all should have some kind of influence on each other so that we can ensure images like that video never get out into the public domain? That it was some kind of lapse on our part that the dude in Michigan failed to get the memo?

I really am having a hard time grasping the point you are trying to make here, as it relates to gun rights and gun owners.

Certainly the episode is most revealing about CNN (who picked the video question), Biden and Richardson, but I can't understand what other conclusions you can derive from it.

[zanne]

41. I know you try so hard to get around it...

You can be as philosophical as you want, but that video just reinforced the views of gun enthusiasts as leass-than-intelligent, possibly dangerous individuals.

[guntard]

43. How come you refuse to answer any of my questions?

They really aren't that complicated.

[zanne]

45. Not complicated, but they're set-ups.

You manage to ask questions that can only be answered to prove you right. Any aspiring lawyer or even legal assistant can see that. I won't bite.

[SteveM]

97. It's the stereotype YOU want reinforced.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

99. Exactly

Was this guy the best spokesperson for gun enthusiasts?

Evidently some on this board think so.

I think they are doing themselves a disservice.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

175. Now Your Into the Minds of Others?

Deep.

[guntard]

4. Of course the question was presented badly

CNN was picking the question videos.

You don't think there were dozens of far more reasonable-looking videos they could have chosen to ask the same question?

[guntard]

12. Biden's response was glib, snarky and disrespectful

But I would love to understand why you loved it so much. What do you think made it great?

[zanne]

34. Maybe you should change your username.

"Guntard" isn't very complimentary.

[guntard]

38. I'm going to have to disagree with you on that

But thanks anyway for looking out for my reputation.

[zanne]

40. I linked to "Amercian Gun Culture Report"....

Now, you have to admit, that one's sick.

[guntard]

44. I really don't understand where you are going in this thread

BTW, I am working on an America's Gun Culture video series.

[zanne]

46. Maybe you just need some good PR....

You don't seem to understand that for most Americans, the words "gun culture" conveys aggressive, even violent individuals. Just as that video didn't do the Second Amendment supporters any good. It all conveys something negative--you don't win people over that way.

[guntard]

50. Many (most?) Americans think African-Americans are violent and irresponsible

So I guess you'd pin that on the African-Americans?

Reminder: ignorant bigotry remains ignorant bigotry no matter who the target is.

It's really not my problem if ignorant bigots, no matter how many of them there are, insist on harboring irrational prejudices against me based on their perceptions of unrelated third parties who seem to share some of my political opinions or even hobbies. Especially after I go out of my way to show how unrepresentative those prejudices are (by, for example, making videos).

[zanne]

51. OK--Now this is getting personal

Let's quit it.

[iverglas]

53. you think *that's* personal?

Stick around.

http://www.guntards.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=1626

... if guntard can link to his site -- a site that contains lies and bilge like this about a Democratic Underground member -- then so can I ...

[Like It Is]

66. Because it was the proper response! n/t

[aikoaiko]

6. As a gun owner, I wished the doofus from MI had been more professional

But Biden's response was classic anti-gun prejudice.

[virginia mountainman]

7. I concur..

I have the feeling that, that question, was "cherry picked" just for the way it portrays gun owners, but BOY did Biden's true colors show.

NO WAY could he win the general election, not in a MILLION YEARS.

[zanne]

42. And cheered by many, many people. nt

[virginia mountainman]

56. And BOOed...

By many that watched at home on TV...

[Xela]

8. "I am Jered Townsend..."

My wife and I give nicknames to our babies.

I guess according to Biden that makes us TWO Jered Townsend's.

Did Biden even bother to listen to Mr. Townsend? Jered bought his rifle during the ban Biden pushed...which makes Biden look more like a sourpuss than anything...eat your crow Biden.

And whatever happened to innocent until proven otherwise?

I thought Biden's response was very disrespectful, flat out insulting.

In contrast, Richardson came out looking increadily sharp.

Go Richardson,

Xela

[benEzra]

10. To some degree, Biden was set up by CNN, IMHO..

CNN is a lot more committed to the ban-more-guns thing than most Dems. Don't forget that CNN has repeatedly run footage of NFA Title 2/Class III restricted machineguns spraying bullets while voiceovers talked about the perceived need to ban civilian target rifles. I'm sure they purposely chose a video that would come across as wierd.

Having said that, Biden's response was about as bad as one could possibly come up with, insofar as the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme goes; he would have done a lot better to have engaged his brain before engaging his vocal apparatus. Of course, Biden was one of the triangulators who launched the I-vant-to-take-your-guns perception of Dems to start with, and who helped orchestrate the 1994 loss of the House and Senate, so considering the source, I am dismayed but not particularly surprised.

Richardson's response, IMHO, was good, and one which I wish more candidates had echoed.

[Like It Is]

67. Biden's answer was right on target.

Why don't you gun people help clean up your act. It was reported the other day that 57% of gun related crime was committed by people who obtained their weapons from 1% of the gun dealers. Why don't you help clean that up?

[benEzra]

84. And that relates to banning the most popular civilian target rifles in America, how?

Biden's answer was right on target. Why don't you gun people help clean up your act. It was reported the other day that 57% of gun related crime was committed by people who obtained their weapons from 1% of the gun dealers. Why don't you help clean that up?

And that relates to banning the most popular civilian target rifles in America, how?

Mr. Biden didn't say he wanted to go after the handgun black market. He talked up his prior involvement in placing silly cosmetic restrictions on what are now the most popular civilian rifles in America, which has absolutely nothing to do with your question. And since rifles are involved in less than 3% of U.S. homicides, rifle bans are not just quixotic, they're pointless; rifles are vastly underrepresented in violent crime.

Tell you what. Keep your bans out of our family's gun safe, and we'll talk about how to better enforce or augment the laws against handgun smuggling. But don't pretend that bans on popular rifles have anything to do with it.

[iverglas]

11. compare and contrast

That's Kimveer Gill (search for the name at google images and you'll find lots more of him posing with his babies). He posted quite a lot of pictures like that at myspace. Then he took three of his babies to Dawson College in Montreal and shot a bunch of people. Only one of them actually died; the others will just be non-entities in those stats about people getting killed with rifles ...

Now, who'd a thunk from looking at some photos of a guy playing with his shiny black guns that he was going to do something like that?

He WASN'T "mentally qualified" to own that gun, too obviously. Too bad it was too late when the world realized it.

Kinda like it usually is.

I thought Biden was a hoot, but then I've always been partial to Joe, not exactly democratic socialist though he is. He's kinda y'all's Pierre Trudeau. Yer old-time liberals have their uses.

[Howzit]

23. Why more people shot with this rifle didn't die

That carbine fires a pistol cartridge.

http://www.berettausa.com/product/rifles/series_page.cfm?currentseries=18

It is available in 9 mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. Due to the small cartridge (powder) volumes compared to something like a .308 Winchester, the 16.6 inch barrel does not produce significantly more velocity than if these were fired from a 4 inch barreled Glock.

As for your long standing debate with benEzra over rifles not being a problem in the US because only 3% of homocides involve rifles, consider this:


benEzra quotes FBI figures that seem to indicate rifles, including semi-auto AK47s, are not a huge problem in the US.

You point out that military surplus AKs (full-auto) are used around the world to facilitate atrocities.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=146101&mesg_id=146164

Your point is well taken, but so is benEzra's. That is, until semi-auto AKs sold in the US make it across the Canadian/Mexican border, or are criminally used elsewhere.

It would be stretching things to imply that there is a connection between military weapons being used in far off countries and civilian copies of said weapons in the US. That deaths caused by one are in any way correlated to the other. These AK47s may look similar, but the people, their motivation and circumstances are very different. Could US civilian AKs make it into Canadian criminal hands? I'm sure they could. If your crooks are shooting people left and right, then apart from trying to stop them from obtaining American guns, perhaps one should also look at reducing their motives for joining gangs.

80% of people shot in the torso with centerfire rifles die, compared to 20% of people similarly shot with handguns (will try to find an official source for this). If you can handle the concept of differential lethality for just a minute, it suggests that criminals are not shooting other people with rifles nearly as often as with handguns - hence the 3% benEzra quotes for homicides.

Could it be that criminals armed rifles tend not to shoot people, while their ilk with handguns do? I suppose this is possible, but I doubt it. I am pretty sure that it is not because they shoot and miss with rifles, because as anyone who has experience with rifles and handguns knows; it is at least 4 times easier to hit the mark with the former than the latter. Meaning, a person with a given skill level that can hit a 6 inch circle at 25 yards offhand with a service handgun can hit the same mark at 100 yards with a service rifle.

GUN AVAILABILITY AND GUN-RELATED DEATHS (UK)
http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn087.pdf

Mass killings are newsworthy and the dilemma exist as to how one can prevent these without banning firearms. The UK does not accept self-defense as the reason for owning a gun, so the concept of guns actually saving lives is never considered in changing the law. In the US, self defense is one of the primary reasons people own guns.

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/007046.html

Considering just how many handguns and rifles are held by civilians in the US, the death rate by gun is remarkably low. There are many idiots in the US, just as there are many criminals. Some idiots have guns, as do some criminals. By no means do the idiots and criminals represent the bulk of US gun owners. The bulk of US gun owners vote. I realize your frustration, but to write off all pro-gunners as closet republicans, or socially irresponsible is not necessarily going to sway the silent majority that read these pages without comment.

[iverglas]

31. but actually

80% of people shot in the torso with centerfire rifles die, compared to 20% of people similarly shot with handguns

The real reason why several of the the people in this case who were shot somewhere other than their legs didn't die is that they had the best medical care that the Canadian health care system can provide, i.e. the best in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_Shooting

The police confirmed the death of one victim, an 18 year-old woman who was shot in the abdomen and died at the scene. Canadian newspapers later identified the woman as Anastasia Rebecca de Sousa. The Montreal Police Service later reported that 19 other people had been wounded. One victim, 22 year-old Leslie Markofsky, who was reportedly at Dawson College to visit friends, suffered two shots to the head. Markofsky underwent intensive surgery; the doctors removed one bullet, and one week after the shooting remained in a coma as doctors determine whether they should try to remove the second bullet. As of (October 28, 2006), Markofsky is out of the coma in excellent condition and is recovering at a special facility.

Another victim, Jessica Albert, was in a medically-induced coma as of September 21, 2006, having suffering from extensive damage to the abdomen. She is no longer in a coma, and was released and sent home. Her recent physical condition was monitored and she has healed perfectly.

The woman who died was shot in the torso. The two who were at death's door for quite a while were shot in the head and torso, respectively.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/14/gunman-shooting.html

One woman was shot to death and 19 people were injured, at least six of them critically, in the rampage that followed. Montreal police said the victims ranged in age from 17 to 48.

... Paramedics realized very quickly that there was nothing they could do to resuscitate or revive the young woman. "Her wounds were fatal, and the death was declared on site," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/14/patients-critical.html

4 shooting victims still in intensive care
Last Updated: Thursday, September 14, 2006 | 8:10 PM ET

Four people remained in critical condition, with one in a "deep coma," in a Montreal hospital intensive-care unit Thursday after being shot at a Montreal junior college a day earlier.

Dr. Tarek Razek, director of trauma services at Montreal General Hospital, said six women and five men were admitted to the hospital following a gunman's rampage through Dawson College on Wednesday.

Late Thursday afternoon, he said four of the victims were still in hospital but out of intensive care, and three had been released. The other four were still in critical condition, Razek said — and one was in a "deep coma."

"There are wounds in the head, in the extremities, in the thorax, in the chest," he told reporters at a news conference.

Asked about their chances of surviving their injuries, Razek said it was a good sign that they had endured the first 24 hours since the shooting.

The thing is, a lot of us don't actually measure the significance of these horrific events by the body count. We consider things like the other injured victims whose lives are changed forever for the worse; their families; the hundreds of people who experienced the events and who, while not physically injured, will suffer the trauma for a long time; and the entire community -- the college, the city, the country -- that has suffered one more assault on its members' physical and social security.

When traumatic attacks on a society's security occur, some countries go out and bomb a couple of other countries into ruins. Some countries talk about doing something to make firearms less accessible to people who use them this way. Different situations indeed, but difference in the measuredness of the response is obvious.

What we don't do is write off the undead shooting victims as insignificant enough to bother mentioning in the statistics we cite, or use statistics that subsume an incident like this into "one dead".


If your crooks are shooting people left and right, then apart from trying to stop them from obtaining American guns, perhaps one should also look at reducing their motives for joining gangs.

Advice from the uninformed cheap seats is always so welcome.

Try reading any of the links I've posted here in the last year about firearms violence in Toronto, for instance.

Of course, Kimveer Gill, the individual that the post you replied to was about, wouldn't have known a gang if he'd tripped on it, so I don't have any idea why you bring this up here in any event.


to write off all pro-gunners as closet republicans, or socially irresponsible

"Pro-gunners". Someone who is in favour of gunners? Or, like "pro-choicers", someone who is in favour of guns?

I thought they were inanimate objects. How could anyone be pro or con them?

Unless I have some notion what a "pro-gunner" is, I have no idea why I would write them off as anything, so I don't know how I could have done that.


benEzra quotes FBI figures that seem to indicate rifles, including semi-auto AK47s, are not a huge problem in the US.
You point out that military surplus AKs (full-auto) are used around the world to facilitate atrocities.

Damn, you're good. Refer to something Person A says about Thing X, and then refer to something Person B says about Thing Y, and act as if they're somehow related ...



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/09/15/aftermath-shooting.html

Gill was carrying three firearms with him when he entered the college, including a semi-automatic Beretta rifle and a .45-calibre handgun. All three weapons are legal and were registered in his name, Montreal police said.

... On his website, Gill blogged frequently about his guns, and described firearms as "the great equalizer." He posted many pictures of his weapons, notably a Beretta CX4 Storm rifle.

... "I say, why you need .45? It's too big. For what purpose?" Sevunts {an armoured truck driver who belongs to a Montreal gun club} remembered asking Gill. Gill answered that he liked large-calibre guns.

[Boo Boo]

13. How hard is it to treat the subject seriously and give a rational, respectful

answer regardless of whether you personally think a person looks kooky, or whatever. It's mind boggling to me that Biden would resort to ad hominem attacks. How hard is it to exercise ordinary common courtesy?

Not very smart.

[iverglas]

14. how hard is it to behave rationally?

Too hard for the person who submitted the video, apparently.

Nobody but he chose to behave the way he did. Biden responded very rationally to him and what he said and did, if yer asking me.

[blakeywakey]

17. Umm...

Biden is running for POTUS, Mr. Townsed is not. You consider a rational response one in which a presidential candidate questions the mental stability of a concerned citizen?

[SteveM]

20. You have it right. This "U-2" guy had the social grace of a flatulent hippo...

...but the "intellectual" and flannel-mouthed Biden got sucked right in to a farting contest. No surprise.

[slackmaster]

21. Not mind boggling if you consider Biden's history of going off half-cocked

He's intelligent enough to have composed a rational, respectful answer given some time to think about it. Even a couple of minutes would have been enough time for him to think twice about the impact of his reply. But his inability to deal well with curve balls thrown at him rules him out as a serious Presidential candidate.

[Like It Is]

68. I'll bet you always go around half-cocked.

I thought his answer was brilliant. Richardson pandered to the NRA.

[slackmaster]

85. Wow, you managed to turn a firearm-related metaphor into a sexual ad homimem attack

Brilliant!

[iverglas]

15. meet Jered Townsend

http://www.dailypressandargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070725/NEWS01/70725005

The one thing I'm not seeing him being asked is whether he's ever voted Democratic. Strikes me this is kind of relevant in a discussion of whether he (or people like him) have been dissuaded from doing so.

Ah ...

http://www.mlive.com/news/flintjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-45/1185373252177060.xml&coll=5&thispage=3

Perhaps that's why Townsend, who has never missed an opportunity to vote, according to his parents, doesn't toe either party line.

"I don't consider myself a Democrat or Republican," he said. "I vote for who I like."

And at the moment, he likes Sen. Barack Obama.

"He's not afraid to make a move and go for it," Townsend said of the senator from Illinois.

Okay, that's just danged bizarre (aren't firearms owners supposed to fear and despise Obama?), and my bullshit metre reading just rose.

I mean, he certainly does sound like an Obama supporter ...

http://www.nbc25online.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=38305

Affirmative Action and admissions
Group says Proposal 2 hurting UM law school admissions

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 at 11:48 AM

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - A pro-affirmative action group says a new state law banning preferential treatment based on race and gender at public universities is hurting minority enrollment at the University of Michigan Law School. But law school officials cautioned not to read too much into the latest admissions numbers, saying it's too early to draw any conclusions.

... A group called By Any Means Necessary says the numbers show that Proposal 2 is having a catastrophic effect on minority enrollment at the law school. ...

Comments

Too Bad!

If admission numbers are down that bad, it just proves how favored minorities were at the UM Law School. Thank You Proposal 2!

— Jered Townsend, Thetford Township

http://reason.com/blog/show/121589.html

Reason: Are you really a Democrat?

JT: You know, I don't really vote by party, I go on a person by person basis. If you're asking whether I'm a liberal or a conservative, I'm a little bit more liberal, except on Social Security and oil prices.

Reason: And the Second Amendment.

JT: Yes! That's a sticking point.

... Reason: You were undecided going into the debate. Did the debate change your mind at all?

JT: I'm still mostly undecided but the odds of supporting Joe Biden have expired and disappeared completely.

I'll echo one of the commenters (echoing the question, not the prologue):

While Biden's an demagoguing fool, what does it mean to be less liberal on oil prices?

[iverglas]

22. so?

Y'all content to be standing up for a miserable racist against a man who has spent his life standing up for the public interest?

Not hearing anything ...

[qdemn7]

24. Biden is perfect example ....

Of what's wrong with politics in this country. He's spent his entire adult life being a fucking lawyer (and yes iveglas, I think the majority of lawyers are scumbags) and politician. He's been in Congress since January 3, 1973. That's 34 years. He's typical of what's wrong with Congress, and why voters complain so much. They get elected, it might as well be for life.

[Like It Is]

69. Think before you write. Like aim before you shoot.

Biden was elected to the Senate at 29, has been a senator for 34 years. You claim he has been a lawyer all his adult life. I don't think so. He may hold a law degree but he doesn't practice law.

[qdemn7]

25. Less liberal?

Maybe he works in an oil-relating industry and high oil prices means high pay for him?

[iverglas]

29. or maybe

you could read the bloody things I offered links to, and find that he doesn't work in an oil-related industry.

[Scout]

30. oh my god, that asswipe is from Michigan? shit. n/t

[iverglas]

48. google "michigan militia"

with "Gennessee County" (where Thetford Township is).

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:5wD8RDVyKRsJ:www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D2007704260394+%22genesee+county%22+%22michigan+militia%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca">For small-town trio, gun charges are big trouble

April 26, 2007

ROSE CITY -- Some folks say former Ogemaw County Prosecutor Frederick MacKinnon and his buddies were gun nuts -- a compliment of sorts in this tiny community in Michigan's north woods.

Others suspect the men may have been stockpiling machine guns, silencers and ammunition for a right-wing paramilitary group.

Federal officials say MacKinnon, along with former Chief Assistant Prosecutor Gary Theunick and ex-Rose City Police Chief Maxwell Garnett obtained the weapons illegally and failed to pay taxes on them. The men say they bought the equipment to protect residents.

... "My community consistently ranked in the top of the country in violent crime, but I never felt the need to have machine guns," said former Genesee County Prosecutor Arthur Busch of Flint.

... Before leaving office, MacKinnon and Theunick, the county's only prosecutors, decided to transfer the weapons -- at least on paper -- to the Rose City Police Department. The ATF approved the transfer. Garnett, the police chief who knew both men, appointed MacKinnon and Theunick reserve police officers so they could keep the weapons, court records show. Federal prosecutors say the men performed almost no work as reserve officers.

... Adding to the suspicion was a Michigan Militia shoulder patch that Theunick displayed on a wall of his office. He said it was a gift from a friend. Theunick, nicknamed Rambo, also carried a pistol in a shoulder holster and wore military fatigues to work, unusual behavior for a prosecutor.

The pic of their holdings, from the article:




Now there's some gun nuts.

[iverglas]

49. and they sure don't use rifles in Gennessee County

in connection with criminal goings on. No sirree bob.

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=local&id=4632367

(10/05/06)--A Montrose postal worker was caught with 40 assault weapons and thousands of dollars worth of marijuana growing at his home.

Pickell says Buhler had assault weapons loaded and live and strategically placed throughout his home, many of them automatic.

A 308 Russian sniper rife was just one of 40 weapons found inside his home. Authorities are still trying to figure out what this self-proclaimed survivalist/postal worker was planning to do.

"If he was a collector, that's one thing," Pickell said.

... "It's a crime," he said. "You can't have weapons and drugs. Even if you have the proper paperwork, once you combine it with drugs violate the law."

And combine it all with a postal worker ...

But noooooobody acquires rifles to get up to no good with. And this guy just had 'em for decoration.

[iverglas]

16. theories ...

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.

Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...

[lepus]

27. Why is it Jared Townsend's fault?

When Biden was the one who gave the disrespectful and arrogant reply. Biden was the one who did a disservice to the party with his inability to respond in an appropriate way that BTW alienated quite a few swing voters.

Iverglass

Just as you have this major problem in blaming inanimate objects for violence, instead of the person. You also blame individuals for the mistakes a professional politician makes. Personal responsibility for personal actions.

[iverglas]

28. hey, don't ask me

I'm not the people at waronguns hypothesizing that the moron in question was a plant to make them look bad.

Just as you have this major problem in blaming inanimate objects for violence, instead of the person.

Yeah. I guess that would be like your major problem in making false statements about other people. The only difference being that your problem actually exists.

You also blame individuals for the mistakes a professional politician makes.

Hmm. I'm blaming Jered Townsend for Biden's mistake? When Biden didn't make a mistake, why would I be blaming anyone for it? Most especially, why would I be blaming a third party? Because I'm really stupid? Or really evil? Or both?

You seem to have confused me with Jered Townsend, a racist moron.

Personal responsibility for personal actions.

I guess we should go back to the very olden days, when people who killed other people had to give the victims' families some cows, and then everything was all right again. Lots of personal responsibility, and a few dead people; but who cares about that?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

144. Confusion

You write: 'Just as you have this major problem in blaming inanimate objects for violence, instead of the person."

Perhaps the confusion comes when Townsend called an inanimate object his 'baby'.

Last time I checked, a baby is a living and breathing thing.

[pipoman]

154. Do you mean to tell me

you have never heard anyone refer to their car as their baby, their business as their baby, their object of hobby as their baby. It is a commonly used term for describing an inanimate object someone is proud of or has invested a lot of time in or on.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=baby

Definitions of baby on the Web:

* a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk; "isn't she too young to have a baby?"
* (slang) sometimes used as a term of address for attractive young women
* a very young mammal; "baby rabbits"
* the youngest member of a group (not necessarily young); "the baby of the family"; "the baby of the Supreme Court"
* child: an immature childish person; "he remained a child in practical matters as long as he lived"; "stop being a baby!"
* a project of personal concern to someone; "this project is his baby"
* pamper: treat with excessive indulgence; "grandparents often pamper the children"; "Let's not mollycoddle our students!"

Edit to fix link

[fightthegoodfightnow]

160. Cry Baby

LOL.

[pipoman]

162. Your response is to call names? n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

164. Oh........golly.........

Lighten up. It was a play on words and I can understand how you might not think it's funny. Nothing personal, like say, calling a gun .........."BABY". LOL. That would be real personal.




--------
edited to add last sentence.

[slackmaster]

18. I wouldn't vote for either one of them

Next issue, please.

[pipoman]

26. My opinion

is that this video was chosen by CNN to further an anti-gun agenda. As with all MSM CNN has a long history of manufacturing stories in attempt to sway public opinion. I don't consider this "debate" a debate at all, rather a show-and-tell. A debate is supposed to be tough questions answered by candidates where the answers to the questions make the story not the question. As we get closer to the elections and the field narrows we will see more cafeteria style "debates" where the candidates are picking the questions and the wording of those questions. This isn't debate it is carefully planned campaign commercials.

As for the guy who asked the question, it was a dumb approach, but unlike other dumb approaches submitted to youtube for this debate, CNN chose to use this one, for this issue...too bad, oh well...

[lepus]

35. Iverglass

I will admit, Biden did not make a mistake in letting his views be known. He did it very well, most likely too well. It just rendered him unelectable to the swing voters that own firearms or the 40 percent of democrats that own firearms. While not a mistake, it was not very career enhancing.

As far as Jared being a racist moron goes, Proof? Again we see your habit of throwing accusations like diaretic fecal matter without even trying to back them without any proof.

How did Jared do a disservice to the community? Biden chose the words he responded with, ie He was the one that did the disservice.

[iverglas]

39. if you would try using the board in the normal way

-- i.e. reply to the post and poster you intend to address, rather than plonking a post wherever the mood strikes you and titling it with some misspelling of my username -- you might be able to follow the breadcrumbs.


As far as Jared being a racist moron goes, Proof? Again we see your habit of throwing accusations like diaretic fecal matter without even trying to back them without any proof.

Post 15, in the thread for a day and a half before you wrote this:

http://www.nbc25online.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=38305

Affirmative Action and admissions
Group says Proposal 2 hurting UM law school admissions

Posted: Friday, June 15, 2007 at 11:48 AM

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - A pro-affirmative action group says a new state law banning preferential treatment based on race and gender at public universities is hurting minority enrollment at the University of Michigan Law School. But law school officials cautioned not to read too much into the latest admissions numbers, saying it's too early to draw any conclusions.

... A group called By Any Means Necessary says the numbers show that Proposal 2 is having a catastrophic effect on minority enrollment at the law school. ...

Comments

Too Bad!

If admission numbers are down that bad, it just proves how favored minorities were at the UM Law School. Thank You Proposal 2!

— Jered Townsend, Thetford Township

Now, if you want to disagree with my CHARACTERIZATION of Jered Townsend as a racist moron, and can offer something to support a different characterization, you feel free. I really don't have to (and obviously can't) "prove" a characterization. His comments above, and his behaviour in the national spotlight, sure do go a good way to supporting it though.

Anybody think he's a Democrat, btw? Or has, in truth, ever voted for a Democrat?


How did Jared do a disservice to the community?

Who said he did? Why are you asking me a question designed to make people think I said something I didn't say?

*I* think that Townsend did a service to the community, by looking like the moron he evidently is.

In post 16, I quoted SOMEONE ELSE who was of the opinion that Townsend did a disservice to the "hunting, shooting or gun rights communities".

And I have ALREADY ANSWERED (post 28) your first attempt (post 27) to portray me as the one blaming Townsend for anything ... and as thinking/doing several other things I have never thought/done.


Any more misrepresentations you'd like to offer, or other games you'd like to play?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

54. ah, whither the reasonable person?

As said person was called long ago and far away, the man on the Clapham omnibus. The person with good plain common sense.

Is this absolute proof that that was Jared? would you like to see someone named Iverglass posting on stormfront or other racist sights as proof you are racist?

Ah yes. Jered (that's "Jered") is obviously an important target of people who would do such things. Why, I'm sure that he has his own anti-fan club, just as I do. (Yes indeed, people do usurp my name to do things like sign Draft Gore petitions on line in the US., being careful to identify "me" as being in Canada, although taking the usual wild stab at just where, and people use my name to post in other places.)

There is every reason to believe that the racist comment posted by Jered that I quoted predated his emergence as a figure of national importance in the US. I wonder who might have been persecuting him?

Do we imagine that Jered has not googled his name in the days since the momentous occasion of his appearance by video on CNN? I dunno; on googling for him myself, it seems that I am the only one to be questioning his "liberal" credentials. But surely this impersonation should have come to his attention, if impersonation it is, and surely a reasonable person who did not share those sentiments would have demanded that his name be removed from them by the publisher of the material.

And surely you're not thinking that there could be another person in the township in question with the particularly gratingly ugly (and misspelled) name Jered Townsend.


I really do not give 2 cents about your Characterization of Jared.

Well then you would probably do well to quit yammering about it.


Considering that you did not attribute it to anyone and just plain texted it, this very much looks like your thoughts on the matter. In that case, it is your arguement ,like it or not.

Get a fucking grip, and/or a clue.

Here is what my post looked like:

http://waronguns.blogspot.com /

Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.

Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...

See what I've done there? I've INDENTED the quoted material. I INDENTED the material quoted from another place -- in this case my post 16, in which I had INDENTED the material quoted from the page linked to.

indented

not indented.

indented

not indented.

In my post 16, I first pasted the link, and then pasted the material taken from it in INDENTED format.

INDENTING is -- and has been for I don't know how many decades -- the standard formatting in published material for blocks of material quoted from another source. In this medium, the marking is <blockquote>...</blockquote>.

So no, I did NOT "plain text" it. If it looked that way to you, you may need to update your browser. What you do need to do is stop making false statements about me.

Ludicrously false at that. The idea that I would lament the public relations harm done by a moron to the "Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities" is so laughably stupid that no one, even here, could even pretend to believe it with a straight face. Pointing and guffawing at the person pretending to believe such a thing could be the only outcome. If you really want to keep doing this, it is, of course, your choice. Whether I like it or not. I find it vaguely amusing, but too silly to be really funny.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

60. obviously there's a problem somewhere

You claim that everything is clear to you on your monitor, yet you continue to misspell my username. You claim that everything is clear to you on your monitor, yet you continue to misspell Jered Townsend's name. You claim that everything is clear to you on your monitor, yet you have repeatedly posted in random locations in a thread rather than in reply to the post you appear to be addressing.

You claim that everything is clear to you on your monitor, yet you continue to falsely claim that something is not there that is there.

Got that "view source" function?

<div class="medtext"><br /><a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://waronguns.blogspot.com</a> /<br /><br /><blockquote>Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...<br /><br /> </div>

Like I said, your claims are actually too silly to be funny. That doesn't make them honest or smart.

[lepus]

63. when you say anything of note, hobby

I will start spelling your username correctly. As far as Jered goes, my bust, his name is more commonly spelled a little different.

As far as the quote that you attribute to someone else or to the article, where did you provide credit for the quote? It makes it presumably yours when you post like that.

[iverglas]

77. do you have health insurance?

I hope so. It's obviously time for an eye exam.



<div class="medtext"><br /><a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com " target="_blank">http://waronguns.blogspot.com< ;/a> /<br /><br /><blockquote>Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...<br /><br /> </div>



<div class="medtext"><br /><a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com " target="_blank">http://waronguns.blogspot.com< ;/a> /<br /><br /><blockquote>Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...<br /><br /> </div>



<div class="medtext"><br /><a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com " target="_blank">http://waronguns.blogspot.com< ;/a> /<br /><br /><blockquote>Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...<br /><br /> </div>



<div class="medtext"><br /><a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com " target="_blank">http://waronguns.blogspot.com< ;/a> /<br /><br /><blockquote>Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...<br /><br /> </div>



<div class="medtext"><br /><a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com " target="_blank">http://waronguns.blogspot.com< ;/a> /<br /><br /><blockquote>Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...<br /><br /> </div>



<div class="medtext"><br /><a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com " target="_blank">http://waronguns.blogspot.com< ;/a> /<br /><br /><blockquote>Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...<br /><br /> </div>



<div class="medtext"><br /><a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com " target="_blank">http://waronguns.blogspot.com< ;/a> /<br /><br /><blockquote>Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...<br /><br /> </div>



<div class="medtext"><br /><a href="http://waronguns.blogspot.com " target="_blank">http://waronguns.blogspot.com< ;/a> /<br /><br /><blockquote>Anybody from Michigan hunting, shooting or gun rights communities know this Jered Townsend character? If he is one of "ours," tell him he came off like a moron and did us immeasurable public relations harm. If, as I suspect, he's a plant with an agenda, we should know that, too.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, that's it. Biden hired this guy to make all firearms owners look bad ...<br /><br /> </div>



It's the coloured stuff. Can ya see it yet?


http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/


It's gone way down the page now, and it doesn't seem to have its own stable url, so you should get cracking.



Oh, and lest this too wasn't clear: I don't give a crap how you spell my name, or Townsend's name, or anything else. I just think it's mighty odd how you claim everything is clear to you, and get everything so very wrong. But hey, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Especially around here.

[Scout]

62. could you at least bother to spell her name correctly if you're going to repeatedly post it? n/t

[krispos42]

172. Ah, that's how you do indented text

I shall incorporate that into my programable keyboard.

Thanks, Iverglas, you're a peach! :-)

[pipoman]

58. Dude

If you are wanting to discuss post 15 and 16 what are you doing replying to post 26?

Just wondering what any of this has to do with my post?

[wonderment]

55. Good for Biden-- the guy was clearly deranged

And Biden was right to point it out. A courageous move.

[virginia mountainman]

59. Why do you say that??

Many enthusiasts, refer to the object of their enthusiasm as their "baby" Many people refer to their pets as "their baby"... Heck, even I refered to my first car, as "my baby" MANY, MANY years ago

Why is a rifle any different??

Biden's courageous (You words, not mine) stance just made him WILDLY unelectable in MOST of the nation, he could have disagreed, but he made it a personal attack.

I wonder if the fellow that asked the question, could SUE him for slander??

[guntard]

64. I'm not sure I would refer to one of my SKSes as "my baby"

But my M1 Garand, that's a different matter entirely.

[slackmaster]

73. I'd call my 1911 my friend, but not my baby

My M1 would simply be my go-to rifle.

[Like It Is]

71. I thought you were a shooter, not a suer. n/t

[krispos42]

173. Did he make the AR-15 himself, maybe?

Obviously I don't mean from scratch, but maybe he bought the just the receiver and added all of his own stuff to it, like the buttstock, barrel, foregrip, sights, etc.?

That's a lot more work that just buying an off-the-shelf firearm. Maybe it was his 'pet project', a.k.a. his 'baby'?

[slackmaster]

61. You think it's "courageous" to publicly make fun of a mentally ill person

What reasonable person does a thing like that?

Of course the truth is Biden didn't think the guy was mentally ill - Even he has the sense not to insult and try to humiliate someone with a disability. Biden just hates guns and people who own them. Apparently you do too, wonderment.

Welcome to DU. Celebrate the diversity of our thoughts, opinions, and attitudes.

[Like It Is]

72. I'll bet Biden owns a few guns himself. He doesn't hate gunowners. n/t

[Like It Is]

70. You got it right! n/t

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Pipoman: Do you disagree with the Democratic Platform?

Do you agree or disagree with the last Democratic platform that reads: "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do"?

[pipoman]

78. I disagree with

"reauthorizing the assault weapons ban,"

I completely disagree with this aspect of the platform.

"and closing the gun show loophole,"

I think that the Democratic party should abandon the term "gun show loophole". It is not accurate, and is an attempt by anti-gunners to promote a belief that gun shows are exempt from NICS which is patently false. What is referred to as "the gun show loophole" is actually the fact that private non-ffl individuals do not have access to NICS whether the transfer/sale takes place at a gun show, a kitchen table, or a garage sale, it has nothing what so ever to do with gun shows. The reason there is a problem with closing this "loophole" is based on non-interstate sale of private property.

Aside from these 2 aspects, no I don't disagree with the platform. I would like to see guns completely removed from the national political scene in favor of leaving Constitutional gun legislation to state and local government.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

80. Why do you suppose the Democrats took that position........

on the 'assault weapons ban' and the 'gun show loophole?'

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

81. 'cause Dems really want to be the minority opposition party

- kidding.

But I don't know what "gun show loophole" means. I can do a private sale of a gun at a show or anywhere else, as long as it's not an interstate sale (and in MI, handgun sales need a permit). Dealers at a gun show have to go through the formal process, NICS form, etc.

There's no point in bringing back the "assault weapons ban", since it's mostly just cosmetic restrictions, along with a magazine restriction. But HR1022 is much broader than the original ban, so it is even more of a threat to Democratic majority.

[pipoman]

82. I will pretend to

not know you are attempting to bait me into some silly point you are trying to make.

Both the AWB and the term "gun show loophole" are concepts first put forward or repeated ad nauseum by the Brady's.

The AWB is mostly supported by urban and self proclaimed intellectual Dems and Repubs who are not gun owners and know very little about guns generally. The Democratic party has gained the votes of some urban and "intellectual" repubs and indies on this issue but have, IMO, lost far more rural and blue collar Dems, especially when it comes to electoral votes, than have been gained.

The "gun show loophole" has the same effect. Those who know what this really means, know that it is a distortion of the truth, sort of the reefer madness of the anti-gun lobby. It has worked to a point, in that many who are not gun owners believe that gun shows are somehow exempt from NICS and/or are where many or most criminals get their guns which is total hogwash..just a lie.

So to answer your question, they are included in the Democratic platform to gain the support of the gun control lobby and gain the votes of gun control supporters who are not Dems.

IMO the geographic areas where votes are won on this issue are already shoe-ins for the party. If the party is going to win back the rural and blue collar states electoral votes they should proclaim gun laws the responsibility of state and local government. The Democratic party would have only needed 3 million gun owner votes in the last election to win the popular vote for Kerry. They would have only needed one rural state to unquestionably win the Presidency for Gore, gun owners could have delivered that state if Al and the party would have not taken anti-gun positions.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

87. I disagree, but thanks for the post

I disagree, but thanks for the post

[benEzra]

83. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was incorporated...

Why do you suppose the Democrats took that position on the 'assault weapons ban'...

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch appears to have been incorporated because the gun-control lobby managed to convince the DLC that modern-looking rifles were "the weapons of choice of criminals" (they weren't); that they were used in an alarming number of homicides (they weren't); and that banning them would be a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation, throwing a bone to the ban-guns crowd while supposedly not affecting legitimate gun owners, which were viewed as synonymous with hunters (it wasn't).

Unfortunately, the party leadership was badly misled on all three counts. Rifles of any type aren't commonly used by criminals; all rifles combined are involved in less than 3% of U.S. homicides; and 80% of U.S. gun owners are nonhunters. When the Feinstein non-ban was passed, "black rifles" were already well on their way to becoming the most popular civilian target rifles in America, a process which the Feinstein law accelerated by doubling or tripling "black rifle" sales during and after 1994. And, of course, the whole "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme was an unfortunate result.

I think the reason the bait-and-switch persists today is that the gun-control lobby started believing its own rhetoric about modern-looking rifles and gun-owner demographics, and if you swallow that, then making a rifle ban Priority One might seem to make sense in some way.

It has been said that the definition of a fanatic is one who redoubles his/her efforts after losing sight of his/her goals. I think that describes the U.S. gun control lobby perfectly, assuming the goal was ever the reduction of criminal gun misuse and not the curtailing of gun ownership and the shooting sports in general. The "assault weapon" ban is certainly aimed squarely at the law-abiding.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

88. Your last sentence is ridiculous

.......and diminishes any substanative point you were making. PS -I don't think pipoman was referring to the same 'bait and switch', but I leave that to you all.

[benEzra]

89. Who else is it aimed at?

(fightthegoodfightnow)
Your last sentence is ridiculous.......and diminishes any substanative point you were making. PS -I don't think pipoman was referring to the same 'bait and switch', but I leave that to you all.

The part of my post you were objecting to was this:

(benEzra)
It has been said that the definition of a fanatic is one who redoubles his/her efforts after losing sight of his/her goals. I think that describes the U.S. gun control lobby perfectly, assuming the goal was ever the reduction of criminal gun misuse and not the curtailing of gun ownership and the shooting sports in general. The "assault weapon" ban is certainly aimed squarely at the law-abiding.

Who else is it aimed at?

Since rifles aren't commonly used by criminals (less than 3% of homicides involve ANY type of rifle), and rifles are less prevalent in mass-murder scenarios than ordinary pistols and shotguns, but the rifles you want to ban ARE some of the most popular civilian firarms in America, you tell me who this ban is aimed at.

Look at the data we have:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Maryland (worst homicide rate of any state, IIRC) had 551 murders in 2005; all rifles combined accounted for 4 of them. Illinois had 448 murders, 4 by rifle. Massachusetts had 171 murders, 1 by rifle. New York had 868 homicides, 10 by rifle. My state of North Carolina had 566 homicides, 20 by rifle.

Of the very small percentage of crimes that DO involve rifles, the most commonly used rifle appears to be the lowly .22 rimfire, not any modern looking "assault weapon," per BATFE trace data--and that is despite the Von Restorff bias in the trace data.

I don't agree with banning revolvers and small pistols, but you could at least pretend that such a ban had something to do with concern about criminal violence. That claim cannot be made for rifles, and making rifle bans a priority shows that the gun-control lobby isn't about criminal violence at all. It's people like my wife and I, and other "black rifle" owners, that you seem to be the most concerned about.

[pipoman]

90. Here come the anecdotal evidence of the widespread use of rifles in crime..to hell with stats N/T

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. 35 Murders

You wrote: 'the "assault weapon" ban is certainly aimed squarely at the law-abiding."

You add: 'Who else is it aimed at?"

I think you answered your own question when with your own statistics.

But heh.......what are 35 murders in four states in one year to you.

[benEzra]

92. Your choice of legislative priorities shows your focus...

35 Murders

You wrote: 'the "assault weapon" ban is certainly aimed squarely at the law-abiding."

You add: 'Who else is it aimed at?"

I think you answered your own question when with your own statistics.

But heh.......what are 35 murders in four states in one year to you.

Your choice of legislative priorities shows that your focus is on lawful ownership. You're not trying to outlaw revolvers. You're not trying to outlaw 12-gauge shotguns. You're trying to outlaw some of the least likely guns to be misused, because you can't STAND the fact that people like me own them. You are a whole lot more torqued by people like me than by your local violent criminal with the illegal .38 in his waistband. For you, criminal violence is merely an excuse to justify banning lawfully and responsibly owned guns.

FWIW, most of those 35 murders weren't committed with "assault weapons"; that was the total for all rifles COMBINED, from .22 caliber squirrel rifles to .600 caliber hunting rifles and everything in between. To put that number into perspective, that same year, 274 people died every day from alcohol (100,000 total) according to the CDC. When I see you as concerned about outlawing alcohol as outlawing rifles, I'll believe your crusade is about concern for lives, and not about contempt for rifle owners.

I am only 36, and I am old enough to remember the Bradyites saying they would never go after long guns, because long guns are so rarely misused. That is no less true now than it was then. The background check for purchase of a gun was a good idea, and the gun-control lobby ran well with it. But once they decided to go after responsible, legal ownership, especially of guns that are so rarely misused, they lost it.

[pipoman]

93. Of those 35 murders

certainly some if not most or all likely would have occurred with or without guns, agreed?

I have to agree with benEzra that the concern over other more prolific causes of death are not cause for concern among most anti-gun advocates. I can bring in the statistics on drowning deaths among children 0-14 being the #3 cause of death with 15 times more deaths than guns, ranked #10. No movement to ban privately owned swimming pools to eliminate a good share of those senseless deaths. Why? Because there is inherent danger which accompanies life in a free society. This doesn't reduce the tragedy of individual deaths, but you know the old saying about sacrificing liberty in return for safety.

[Recursion]

94. ban bare hands

since people kill more people with their bare hands every year than with rifles.

[derby378]

86. I sure as hell do...

Eliminate the phrase "reauthorizing the assault weapons ban" and we may actually make progress.

On the Senate side, Feingold, Tester, Webb, Landrieu, Casey, Baucus, Nelson (NE), and Senate Majority Leader Reid all want the ban gone. I wholeheartedly agree with them on this point.

[cgrindley]

95. Biden's an idiot on this issue

I cannot even begin to imagine how many blue collar democrats would be happy to find a 2nd A friendly candidate.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

98. Townsend's Response

Townsend's choice of words was extremely poor and no doubt had just the *opposite* impact of what he thought it would get. Townsend used the word "baby" more than once. It was calculated to get a response and it did. It's no surprise that he made it easy for Biden to volley back by characterizing Townsend as needing help. Ultimately, Townsend's question and Biden's response didn't change the minds of anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if Townsend's answer made many gun enthusiasts uneasy and it certainly only reinforced the perception by many that gun regulation is necessary and appropriate for a safe society.









-------
edited to take word out for clarity

[benEzra]

101. You're quite right.

Townsend's choice of words was extremely poor and no doubt had just the *opposite* impact of what he thought it would get. Townsend used the word "baby" more than once. It was calculated to get a response and it did. It's no surprise that he made it easy for Biden to volley back by characterizing Townsend as needing help. Ultimately, Townsend's question and Biden's response didn't change the minds of anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if Townsend's answer made many gun enthusiasts uneasy and it certainly only reinforced the perception by many that gun regulation is necessary and appropriate for a safe society.

You're quite right.

I think it's pretty much a given that CNN picked Townsend's video because they wanted to provoke a reaction like Biden's and/or discredit black rifle owners. CNN shilled hard for the original Feinstein ban in '94, even going so far as to show footage of NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapons while the voiceover talked about banning non-automatic civilian guns.

And then there's this little gem from 2003:

CNN "demonstration" of preban vs. ban-era civilian AK's

(if anybody can find another site that hosts this, or knows how to convert .rm to .flv, I'd be grateful--this was the only one I could find)

In this video, CNN purports to show that a preban carbine will damage cement blocks, but a ban-era carbine won't even knock the dust off (the shooter intentionally missed the blocks with the ban-era rifle); implies that a preban carbine has the unique ability to penetrate a non-rifle-proof vest (any civilian centerfire rifle would go through that vest, including great-great-grandpa's .30-30 Winchester); and implies that the 30-round magazine in the ban-era gun is a 10-rounder, as if 30-round rifle mags were restricted by the law (they weren't).

CNN wants an AWB so badly that they were willing to run what is arguably an outright fabrication. We've certainly seen it on other issues (the runup to the Iraq war, for example), but an AWB has been a very high priority for the MSM, and you can bank on the fact that Townsend's video was selected very deliberately--either to undermine ban opponents, or to get the candidates to react in an anti-gun-owner way, or both.


-------------------------------------------
What the 1994 Feinstein ban did (ban-era gun shown)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

105. CNN

I'm not familiar with their perceived biases enough to speak to the issue, but do believe it's a stretch to accuse them of racism by attempting to ' discredit black rifle owners.'

[benEzra]

142. No, owners of "black rifles" is what I meant--sorry for the ambiguity.

I'm not familiar with their perceived biases enough to speak to the issue, but do believe it's a stretch to accuse them of racism by attempting to ' discredit black rifle owners.'

No, owners of "black rifles" is what I meant, i.e. small- and intermediate-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling, i.e. the AR-15 platform, civvie FAL variants, civvie AK's, Kel-Tec SU-16, HK's, and whatnot. Like the one Townsend had. I should have used quotation marks to group the phrase "black rifle"--my bad. Sorry for the ambiguity (my fault).

[fightthegoodfightnow]

145. Thanks for the Clarification

No need to apologize, but glad you clarified for my benefit.








-------------
edited for typos--of which I seem to always have a few.

[Recursion]

100. I think Townsend had three points

1: He had a legitimate question in asking the candidates if they favored banning or restricting rifles like the one he had.
2. He wanted to twist the tails of some gun control advocates by reminding them that his rifle was legal under the AWB
3. He wanted, frankly, to get somebody like Biden to say something like what Biden said, to force our party to decide if we want to continue this culture war. He wanted to see if any of the candidates would look out of touch with gun owners, and he found one who does.

[guntard]

102. Good points. Too bad it took 100 POSTS to arrive at this

Your third point is the most important and most subtle. It's revealing how many contributors to this thread have expressed their approval of Biden's rude and self-destructive response, even though Biden was playing right into the hands of the Michigan redneck. The Dems can only hope people like those applauding Biden here won't be influencing the primaries to any great degree.

The irony, assuming your analysis is correct, is that Jared Townsend, self-confessed gun nut and apparent cracker, is smarter than the US Senator from Delaware.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

103. So You Disagree with benEzra

.........who says that CNN planted that question because it was designed to provoke Biden to say what he did because CNN and BIden both support an AWB?

What's interesting here is that no one has brought up Richardson's response. Here you have the highest NRA rated advocate saying he supports instant background checks (which would require a national data base) at gun shows and linking poverty with gun violence.



----------
edited to take out word for clarity

[pipoman]

106. And what is the point?

Here you have the highest NRA rated advocate saying he supports instant background checks (which would require a national data base) at gun shows and linking poverty with gun violence.

There already is a national database which is used for instant background checks, NICS. Richardson was saying NICS should be expanded to private sales. He used the "gunshow" reference because of the long history of anti gunners using the idiotic phrase "gun show loophole". I also agree with him that addressing social issues will go much farther to curbing gun violence than gun bans.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

107. My Point

My point?

Oh, pipo, stop being so defensive.

I agree with Richardson that economic issues, including poverty, impact gun violence statistics.

I also agree that that background checks are a good thing. Of course, state participation in NICS is inconsistant, but alas, that wasn't my point. I bring it up only now because you did.

Basically, you are arguing with yourself. I was just waiting for your post to make my point.

[pipoman]

110. Not defensive at all, just can't figure out how someone can

spend as much time in this forum as you do and not know there is and has been National Instant Check System in place and used for 100% of retail sales between licensed gun dealers and non-licensed gun buyers. Further I believe the number is in the high 90%s of firearm purchases at gun shows which are subject to NICS because a high 90% of sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers. The only gun sales which are not required to go through NICS are sales between private parties (gun sellers who are selling their own personal property, not as a business) when both buyer and seller are residents of the same state and the transaction takes place within that state. The reason these sales are not required to go through NICS is because the Federal Government does not have jurisdiction over private party, intrastate sales of personal property. I have stated numerous times that NICS should be available for these types of sales and I wouldn't have a problem with a requirement to that effect as long as there was a low ($20 or less) statutory fee included in the legislation.

I haven't heard a single person on this board disagree that state participation in the NICS data base should be improved.

Basically, you are arguing with yourself. I was just waiting for your post to make my point.

I have been completely consistent in my above position. Why not point out the inconsistency in my position? The fact there is no inconsistency leaves you pointless once again.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

113. That's Your Point?

That I didn't know about NICS? LOL.

Ok...........perhaps I should have put through a meaningful, consistantly used NICS where each state interpreted and used it the same way. The democratic candidate with the highest NRA rating says the feds should have authority over 'private sales', but that point was also >completely< lost on you. You write: 'I have stated numerous times that NICS should be available for these types of sales...." Once again, you are arguing with yourself I agree.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

108. Oh........yea.........here's another point

No one heard a word of what Richardson said because Townsend made an *ss out of himself.

[pipoman]

111. I don't disagree

that Townsend wasn't helpful, but it was CNN's choice to air that particular video and Biden's silly retort which is most telling among gun owners.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

115. Biden's response was appropriate for Townsend's gun toting baby.

Biden's response was appropriate for Townsend's gun toting baby.

I can appreciate how you think Townsend didn't represent your interests very well. He didn't.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

109. Oh .... yea........and here's another point

Richardson came across as an advocate of gun control, via background checks by advocating what you say as 'NICS should be expanded to private sales' in sharp contrast to those who say the Second Amendment bans any such restrictions.

Hardly an endorsement of the NRA.








-------------
edited for clarity

[pipoman]

112. Again

I don't know anyone here who believes NICS violates the 2nd Amendment. The arguement about including private sales is, as I stated above, a problem with Federal control over intrastate transfers of personal property. Private sales have been excluded from NICS since it's inception in 1994. Neither party has addressed it because of the above reason.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. Actually

The Democratic candidate with the highest NRA rating has indeed addressed it by saying private sales should be included.

Yet another point lost on you.






------------------------
edited to change the word rated to rating.

[pipoman]

116. Many on both sides

have said they should be. The problem is that none have figured out a way to take jurisdiction over intrastate transfers of personal property. This could be partially addressed by at least allowing private sellers access to NICS on a voluntary basis which isn't currently an option.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

117. Jurisdiction

Ultimately and unfortunately, it's going to involve litigation, unless Congress speaks with one voice.

An intrastate phone call is subject to federal jurisdiction when a crime is involved because the network is interstate.
An accident in a single state is subject to federal jurisdiciton because the rail system is interstate.
Private sales of nuclear waste falls under federal jurisdiciton regardless of how or where or whom it is sold to.

I'm not comparing a gun sale to any of these things, but if I can be required to take off my shoes for an intrastate flight, it seems only appropriate that someone buying a gun should be required to have their backgrounds checked for say........terrorism.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. More Jurisdiction

You write: 'This could be partially addressed by at least allowing private sellers access to NICS on a voluntary basis which isn't currently an option."

Good point, but quite frankly, I doubt it would be taken up by most gun shows. Perhaps the feds would be on more solid ground if NICS was required for any gun show in which it was open to anyone from any other state.

Seems to me a reasonable case could be made that any gun show that allows sales to anyone (meaning anyone from out of state) should be allowed subject to NICS.

Perhaps these gun shows are only intrastate. I admit I don't know.

[pipoman]

123. Gun shows are almost entirely

made up of Federally Licensed Firearms dealers. The only exception is if someone wants to liquidate their collection or accumulation. Every gun show is crawling with local, state and federal LEOs. If a person is selling more than a few guns or they are regular sellers without a FFL they will soon be questioned, investigated, and/or arrested. EVERY other sale between a dealer and an unlicensed individual MUST AND DOES go through NICS in exactly the same way it would at Wal-Mart or any other Federally Firearms Licensed dealer. Further a FFL at a gun show CANNOT sell a firearm to a resident of any state other than the state of the gun show unless they mail the firearm to a FFL in the buyers home state where the buyer must then go and pick up after approval by NICS. There is NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE...IT DOESN'T EXIST...there never has been a gun show loophole!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

125. So Why the Fuss?

I'm mean.........it was the highest rated NRA Democratic candidate who indeed imply it was a loophole and needed revision.

[pipoman]

129. Richardson knows

what is meant among anti-gunners by "the gun show loophole". He knows that most non-gun owners believe the tripe which has been shoveled to them by the Brady's (the originators of the gun show loophole lie) and the anti-2nd left (who continue to beat the gun show loophole lie). It is a hot button issue among anti-2nd and non-gun owners even though it is a lie. Therefor he addressed the issue of private sales by referring to it as the gun show loophole so even the most uninformed would understand his position...gun owners know what he is talking about and non-gun owners and anti-2nd people would understand too.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

130. And this is your candidate?

Because he refers to a gun show loophole that you say he thinks doesn't exist because he's pandering to the anti-2nd left?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

141. Richardson is a Good Man

......but I'm not buying your explanation for why he brought up a gun show loophole that most people on both sides of gun control issue acknowledge there is.

[pipoman]

157. Define "The Gun Show Loop Hole" for me please if you know it is there?

Please define it? What is the gun show loophole? Explain to me how I can take advantage of this loophole?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

159. Post It on YouTube

Make a tape, submit it to YouTube and ask them to ask your candidate. He brought it up. I didn't.

[pipoman]

165. I contend, as I said, it is a deceitful term coined by anti-gunners

you say:

but I'm not buying your explanation for why he brought up a gun show loophole that most people on both sides of gun control issue acknowledge there is.

All I am asking for is your definition of 'the gun show loophole" I told you what mine is and you say you don't buy it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

166. Not My Loop

My statement has nothing to do with any claim I have or have not made about what you call a 'gun show loophole." I'm simply not buying your explaination that Richardson brought up what he called a "gun show loophole" because he was pandering to the anti-2nd left. He has the highest NRA rating and you are saying he's pandering to the anti-2nd left. If that's the case, why are you supporting him? Like I've said several times, it's your candidate's issue. Have a debate with him.




-----------
edited for word change

[pipoman]

168. I never said any such thing

that is you putting words in my mouth.

you are saying he's pandering to the anti-2nd left

[fightthegoodfightnow]

169. Post 129

Go up to the top of this thread to Post 129 where you tell me all about Richardson's understanding and desire to appease the anti-2nd left.

If I misunderstood your post, then you need to clarify your original words to make a better and perhaps different post.

[pipoman]

179. He didn't say "gun show loophole" at all

he said, "Nobody who has a criminal back ground or is mentally ill should be able to get a weapon. That is the key. And that includes gun sales, that includes gun sales at gun shows." Since the Joe Bidens have been so successful in convincing people gun shows are somehow exempt from NICS he rightly addressed it in his response.

This brings me to another thought. Why was the term "gun show loophole" originally adopted by the anti-gun legislators. I think there are 2 reasons. 1) They don't like the thought of hundreds or thousands of people at a large venue with thousands or tens of thousands of guns for sale and were hopeful there would be a movement to outlaw gun shows, which actually did occur early after the introduction of the term, it just didn't get any traction and 2) The term "regulating private sales" has an inference of big brother with it's finger on people's private property.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

180. And yet he talked about regulating gun show sales to address a concern

.......gun control advocates have. Hhhmmmm.

[pipoman]

181. So what is your concern?

You say, "And yet he talked about regulating gun show sales to address a concern......gun control advocates have." What specifically is that concern?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

183. Concern?

I thought Richardson's response was good to the extent that he tried to answer a question presented by what appeared to be a nut........seriously. It was, however, completely overshadowed by Biden who took the day.

Concern? Gosh.....I don't know.....what's yours?

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

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

[fightthegoodfightnow]

185. Telling Indeed

I thought Richardson did a great addressing an issue he so obviously thinks needs to be addressed. It appears to me that Richardson was trying to address the issue in a manner that addresses my concerns and those of the rest of the gun control crowd rather than the concerns of you and your babies. Your failure/refusal to acknowledge that is indeed.........telling.

[pipoman]

186. So again I ask...

It appears to me that Richardson was trying to address the issue in a manner that addresses my concerns and those of the rest of the gun control crowd rather than the concerns of you and your babies.

What are those concerns?

As for the "your babies" comment, once again you choose to go into attack mode rather than discuss. I have never referred to any of my own inanimate objects as "my babies". Earlier in this thread (post 144) you stated, "Perhaps the confusion comes when Townsend called an inanimate object his 'baby'.", as if you have never heard of anyone refer to an inanimate object as a baby. I merely pointed out that is is fairly common and directed you to the dictionary definition which acknowledged that fact.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

188. Gun Violence

Gun violence.

I leave you to be concerned about your babies. I'm more concerned about the ones that breath.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

189. Oh...that's right......they are not your babies

........got it.

[pipoman]

191. My point from the very beginning of this exchange

is that rather than use a deceitful term "gun show loophole" to describe a problem which isn't even related directly to gun shows does nothing to raise awareness of the actual issue, private sales of firearms being exempted from NICS. The Gun Control groups continue to beat this dead horse rather than define the issue....deceitful. Why lie when the truth might actually move toward a solution?

I contend groups like Brady have no desire to curb violence. That is why they attempt to control guns which are not the real problem, they never refer to the private sales issue for what it is, and they toss around completely erroneous claims and stats. As long as there is gun violence people will continue to support them. If the problem is curbed their support dwindles.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

192. Loopey

There is so much wrong with your post, I don't know where to begin.

If there is no loophole as you claim, your candidate certainly didn't say so in his attempt to address what is so clearly perceived, by everyone, including him as a problem. I think it's clear what it is..... gun shows are a problem for which he thinks something needs to be done. You might disagree. Just be honest and say you disagree with your candidate.

You write: "I contend groups like Brady have no desire to curb violence."

How to respond to one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. What medication are you on?

You write: ' That is why they attempt to control guns which are not the real problem..."

Uhhhmm....what part of GUN violence in the term "gun violence" makes GUNS not part of the problem?

You write: 'If the problem is curbed their support dwindles."

So, let me get this right.....you think the Brady bunch don't want to solve GUN violence because that would put them out of business?

What's your last name..........Townsend?

[pipoman]

196. Exactly

So, let me get this right.....you think the Brady bunch don't want to solve GUN violence because that would put them out of business?

This is my last response to you on this or any other thread. You cannot discuss without being insulting and rude, your immaturity is indicative of many anti-freedom activists.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

201. Loopey

You wrote: '"I contend groups like Brady have no desire to curb violence."

Your thinking can only be characterized as loopey. You cannot discuss anything without being illogical. Based on your logic and this statement of yours that this will be the last response make to me, I'm not betting on it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

190. Richardson

It appears to me that Richardson was trying to address the issue in a manner that addresses my concerns and those of the rest of the gun control crowd rather than the concerns of gun enthusiasts like you.

[pipoman]

193. I am not even what would be considered

a gun enthusiast. I own a couple of defensive handguns, deer hunting handgun, deer rifle, and a couple of shotguns for hunting and sport clay shooting. I don't own black rifles and probably never will. My interest in this issue is that the RTKBA is among the most important freedoms Americans have, right along with freedom of religion, the press, speech, unreasonable search, etc. The RTKBA is the only right which is constantly under attack. The right isn't related to sport shooting or hunting. The RTKBA is necessary to a) preserve freedom against encroachment from anti-freedom movements foriegn and domestic and b) for personal defense.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

194. The Debate

It appears to me that Richardson was trying to address the issue in a manner that addresses my concerns and those of the rest of the gun control crowd rather than the concerns of gun owners like you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

195. Why is every attempt to prevent gun violence perceived as a threat to the RTKBA?

Why is every attempt to prevent gun violence perceived as a threat to the RTKBA?

[benEzra]

198. Because in the last decade and a half, they have almost always been just that.

Why is every attempt to prevent gun violence perceived as a threat to the RTKBA?

Because in the last decade and a half, they have almost always been just that.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch. Bans on .50 caliber target rifles. The attempt to give the Attorney General the authority to ban any rifle ammunition he/she wants. The ongoing attack on carry licensure. The attempt to make Bushco's no-fly list an automatic disqualification for gun ownership without due process. The "smart gun" charade. Attempts to outlaw the keeping of a gun in a state of readiness inside your own home. Even the private-sale issue has been wielded by the gun-control lobby primarily as a means of banning gun shows, rather than addressing private sale background checks, if you look at the actual legislation they were pushing.

What top-priority gun-control proposals since 1994 have not been attacks on the RTKBA? I can't think of any, except for the recent bill to improve NICS recordkeeping in the wake of the VT murders (and the NRA did support that one).

[krispos42]

171. It's not a 'gun show' loophole, is the point

Saying "gun show loophole" implies that there is either a provision in the law or a deliberate LACK of law in a certain area of the legal code as it applies to gun shows. "You can't sell firearms without a background check UNLESS that sale occurs at a gun show" is an example of a deliberate loophole.

Such a loophole does not exist.

A person who is a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL, a.k.a. federally licensed gun dealer) MUST ALWAYS do a federal instant background check on the person he/she is selling to.

A person who is NOT an FFL does not have to (and is fact is is unable to) do a federal background check on the person he/she is selling to.

It does not matter where this is occuring. A gun store, a pawn shop, a Wal-Mart, a gun show, a kitchen table, a garage sale, or the back of a rented van in an abandoned parking lot at 3am.

Richardson is not proposing closing a loophole, he's proposing expanded background checks before sale. This would have the effect of 'closing' the mythical 'gun show' loophole. And the 'garage sale' loophole and the 'back of a rented van in an abandoned parking lot at 3am' loophole.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

174. So Richardson lied when he talked about the 'Gun Show Loophole"?

So Richardson lied when he talked about the 'Gun Show Loophole" that you says doesn't exist?

[krispos42]

176. Not directly, I don't think

During these debates the time is extremely limited. He was using the term associated with the concept to get his point across. Much like the term 'assault weapon' gets thrown around in lieu of "semi-automatic rifle of military design" or "semiautomatic rifle of modern design".

The ability of people to purchase guns at a gun show without going through a background check is not a loophole but the meme is that it IS a loophole, so he has to fight through that mindset first. A gun show is essentially a traveling mall of independent retailers, and the gun show itself neither buys nor sells guns, just like your local mall doesn't sell burgers or clothing, it sells a venue for people that DO sell burgers and clothing.

But explaining that in a 30-second response would not clarify things, I don't think.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

177. Got It

He was providing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

[krispos42]

182. The problem exists, but not in the popularly-understood way

Private transfers do not have to go through a background check. THAT problem he wants to fix.

[pipoman]

178. Actually he didn't say the words "gun show loophole" at all N/T

[fightthegoodfightnow]

127. Just a Few More Questions

Does NICS find every individual that falls within the federal guidelines?
Does every state consistantly report the individuals who fall within the federal guidelines?
Is every individual who falls within the federal guidelines identified in the same timely manner?
Does every state interpret and enforce the guidelines equally?

[pipoman]

131. Who knows?

The Feds only investigate a very small percentage of declined transfer applications...why? These people usually have lied under penalty of perjury on their application, they are trying to buy a gun illegally yet since the beginning of NICS <10% are investigated this is during both the Clinton and the W admins.

There was a thread a month or so ago about the NRA teaming with Senate leaders to find a way to get more accurate input from the states.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

132. How Convenient

Nothing is worth doing because folks lie. But alas, I'm not talking about applicants. I'm talking about state compliance.

Does NICS find every individual that falls within the federal guidelines?
Does every state consistantly report the individuals who fall within the federal guidelines?
Is every individual who falls within the federal guidelines identified in the same timely manner?
Does every state interpret and enforce the guidelines equally?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. Do You Support Increased Funding for NICS Compliance?

Do You Support Increased Funding for NICS Compliance?

[pipoman]

158. The additional funding

is enticement for the states to compile and submit information to NICS. And yes I do support an accurate system. It is a good system, it is quick and works as it should the only improvement which is needed is more reliable submission of information by the states.

[slackmaster]

133. Those are reasonable questions - Answer to all four is No

All problems that can be FIXED without adding any restrictions on who can buy what type of weapon.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

134. I'm Open to Hearing How

Most attempts to do so have been met with objections from the NRA who strongly objects to a national federal compliance standard.

[slackmaster]

137. There was a bill introduced after Virginia Tech that would patch a good chunk of it

One of the few firearm-related measures by Carolyn McCarthy that I agree with. It deals specifically with mental health adjudications (as well as crimes), which account for a lot of people who should be flagged as ineligible in NICS but are not uniformly reported by states.

Here's the summary. You can look up details on http://www.thomas.gov - BTW I believe the NRA supports it.

H.R.297
Title: To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn (introduced 1/5/2007) Cosponsors (19)
Related Bills: H.R.2640
Latest Major Action: 2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/5/2007--Introduced.

NICS Improvement Act of 2007 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to require: (1) the head of each federal agency that has records relating to persons for whom receipt of a firearm would violate federal or state law to provide that information to the Attorney General for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); (2) the agency, upon being made aware that the basis under which a record was made available no longer applies, to correct the record and notify the Attorney General; and (3) the Secretary of Homeland Security to make available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination that a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm and information about a change in such person's status for removal from NICS, where appropriate.

Directs the Attorney General to make grants to: (1) states and Indian tribal governments to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations; and (2) states for use by the state court system to improve the automation and transmittal to federal and state record repositories of criminal history dispositions, records relevant to determining whether a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments.

Requires: (1) the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to study and evaluate NICS operations and to report annually to Congress and to specified states regarding best practices; and (2) the Comptroller General to conduct an audit of the expenditure of all funds appropriated for criminal records improvement to determine how the funds were expended.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

139. NICS Improvement Act of 2007

Thanks for posting the bill.

I believe the NRA came out in support of it provided there were no amendments to it, which is politically easy for them to do, since they know amendments will be added to it. The bill, however, was not introduced after the Virginia Tech shooting, but prior to it, and I believe the NRA did not come out in support of it until after the Tech massacre.

But alas, it's progress and that's a good thing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

135. And let me say thank you for characterizing my questions as reasonable

... given the animosity I find on this board to my point of view.

[slackmaster]

138. Your questions address something I have been saying for years

NICS is less effective than it could be due to inconsistent and slow reporting of disqualified individuals by some states.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

140. Let's Hope that Changes So that Qualified Individuals Can Own and Operate Guns

......legally and the public can be assured that law abiding citizens are the ones with guns.

[benEzra]

148. That's the type of thing that IMO the Bradys should have been fighting for all along

and IMHO that is where most of the achievable common ground on the issue lies, i.e. in improving the background check system and cracking down on straw purchasers.

I think a lot of the blame for the gun-control lobby's going off the rails in the late '80s/early '90s was the fault of the Violence Policy. HCI (now the Brady Campaign) and NCBH did flirt with banning handguns in the '70s (which flopped outside of D.C.) but went more mainstream in the '80s when they made their goal the background check for purchase. Then the VPC rose to preeminence, pushing an agenda of banning as many civilian guns as possible (including long guns) regardless of how little they may be misused, usually propping up their proposals by pretty outrageous hyperbole. The Bradys fell to parroting the VPC's ban-more agenda, and came to be not much more than a distribution nexus for VPC press releases about the OMG!Scary!Gun! du jour.

If you step back from the whole gun-control movement and think about it, what the HELL was the Brady Campaign thinking when they endorsed the "assault weapon" ban, bans on long-range target rifles, the FiveSeven pistol, etc.; U.S criminals are killing each other (and innocent bystanders) almost exclusively with ordinary revolvers and pistols, most of which are not obtained through legal channels. (AFAIK, the number of U.S. murders with .50 caliber target rifles in the last quarter-century is ZERO.)

Because of crap like the AWB, "Fifty Caliber Terror," bashing of CHL holders, a lot of gun owners feel the end goal of the Bradys and others is to outlaw as many of our guns as possible, and to make legitimate armed self-defense next to impossible. That may not be true of all gun-control activists, but it is definitely true of the VPC, IANSA, SHV, and a lot of others, and that is IMHO why gun-owner groups are so wary. The British NRA cooperated in good faith with their domestic gun-control lobby, who stabbed them in the back in the end; so did Canada's and Australia's.

I don't want to go down that road. That does not mean I'm opposed to all efforts to curtail criminal gun access, but I am rather tired of legislative proposals that use criminal violence as an excuse to curtail lawful ownership.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

149. Mistrust

There is alot of mistrust on each side, but I suspect that the Brady Campaign's fears about lawabiding US citizens being killed with ANY and ALL guns are just as real as the gun enthusiasts thinking the state is going to take there guns.

[benEzra]

150. Perhaps. But I think they need to face the fact

that most of the killing is being done by people who can't legally own guns under current law, and the overwhelming majority of America's ~80 million gun owners are lawful and responsible. Strengthen the background check system if you will, prosecute gunrunners, and address the social conditions that make crime an attractive career choice for so many young men, but focus on the problem, not those of us who aren't the problem.

Our guns aren't going away, nor are they all going to transmogrify into the 19th-century-style guns the Brady Campaign would leave us. We won't give them up, and they can't take them away (even if they get the bans they want passed), so they might as well accept the fact that Americans will continue to lawfully own guns they don't like, and work to address criminal possession instead of lawful ownership.

According to Bloomberg, 90% of shooters and 50% of victims in NYC homicides had prior criminal records, IIRC, and fighting to ban the guns in my gun safe, or to render my CHL license worthless, don't do anything to address criminal violence.

There is common ground to be found, but it will not be found in the area of more bans, or in finding new and creative ways to hassle people who aren't doing anything wrong.

I'm no more in favor of criminal gun violence than you are, but attacking my wife and I isn't attacking criminal violence, and unfortunately that is a distinction that the VPC/Brady Campaign/SHV have forgotten. They're like the drunk who dropped his keys in the ditch, but is looking for them in the parking lot because the light is better there. Yes, on the surface, I'm an easier target than your local criminal with a .38 in his waistband, legislation-wise, but it's him who you have to worry about, not me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

151. Talk to Me about the Perhaps

Talk to Me about the Perhaps

[benEzra]

156. In what way?

(fightthegoodfightnow)
I suspect that the Brady Campaign's fears about lawabiding US citizens being killed with ANY and ALL guns are just as real as the gun enthusiasts thinking the state is going to take there guns.

(benEzra)Perhaps. But I think they need to face the fact that most of the killing is being done by people who can't legally own guns under current law, and the overwhelming majority of America's ~80 million gun owners are lawful and responsible. Strengthen the background check system if you will, prosecute gunrunners, and address the social conditions that make crime an attractive career choice for so many young men, but focus on the problem, not those of us who aren't the problem.

(fightthegoodfightnow)
Talk to Me about the Perhaps

In what way?

Here's the root of the disconnect, I think. A lot of prominent gun-control activists are people who have both been impacted by criminal violence, and have not been particularly exposed to the positive side of gun ownership. I think to some degree, they have come to see "guns" as the entity who victimized them, and see gun control as a way to lash out at that enemy. That victimization by people misusing guns also taints their view of gun owners, I think, that we must somehow be either ignorant, or evil, or some selfish mixture of the two, possibly with some sort of sexual deviancy thrown in (because some of those victimized see guns as sexualized power objects). As a for-instance, Sarah Brady's husband was shot by a nut with a .22 revolver; while I don't think that justifies her attempts to ban my rifles, it at least helps me understand it. I have gotten the impression in the past that billbuckhead had some connection with the 1999 Buckhead (Atlanta area) shootings, in which a day trader murdered his wife and two kids with a hammer and then killed nine people at a brokerage firm with a couple of handguns. And I think you said that you saw somebody murdered in front of you.

I'm on the other side of the coin. My great-grandparents were married in 1900, and one of the wedding presents was a nice his-and-hers set of defensive revolvers. My grandparents grew up owning handguns, rifles, and shotguns; so did my parents. My dad had a "save" with a semiautomatic pistol in the early 1970's, when I was around 5 years old (he didn't even have to draw it; the guys who approached him late one night in rural NC saw his holstered gun, looked at each other, and left).

Like most semi-rural thirtysomething people I know, I grew up with guns, learned the rules of gun safety and marksmanship while still in elementary school, wandered the woods with a BB gun by age 10 (not hunting, just plinking), was shooting .22's regularly at 16, had a semiautomatic .223 carbine and 30-round magazine at age 18 and a handgun at age 21, and obtained a carry license at 26 or 27. I shoot recreationally and competitively (IPSC pistol and carbine). My wife, from Maine, is a shooter who owns a Glock and an SKS. My sister (who graduated with degrees in mathematics and engineering from N.C. State) is an avid shooter. Most of my coworkers and friends are shooters. Pretty much everyone I know owns guns, and no one I know personally has ever been murdered, or participated in one. I'm 36 years old, I've never participated in so much as a fistfight outside of martial arts classes, and I would never even think about hurting an innocent person.

Most gun owners haven't experienced guns as a tool of oppression, but as a tool of liberation and a symbol of freedom and camaraderie; some (like my dad) have actually had "saves" with guns, but for most of us, guns and skill with them are a well-practiced martial art, a tool of personal security, a symbol and tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines.

It's not "any and all guns" that are involved in criminal mayhem; it's actually a tiny subset of guns, mostly illegally possessed handguns, in the hands of a violent few. And in fairness, it's not all gun-control activists that dream up creative deceptions to try to outlaw our most valued possessions, either. I think most of us on our respective sides are not as far apart as our legislative positions on the issue would appear to make us; I think we just have a huge knowledge and communication gap (on both sides).

As I've mentioned upthread, there IS common ground to be found. The bedrock of that common ground is, NOBODY wants to see criminals misusing any guns. People who hurt other people piss me off just as much as they piss you off. We all agree that bad guys shouldn't have them. The disagreement comes in when people on your side of the issue decide to slap sweeping restrictions (AWB, handgun bans, pre-1861 capacity limits) on everybody in order to affect the bad guys (so they hope), and we respond by opposing all new restrictions to avoid having wrongheaded restrictions slapped on the good guys. Hence the impasse.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

161. Well Spoken and Articulate

Thanks for sharing your experience and passion for the subject. I can appreciate your perspective.

[Recursion]

120. Are you unaware that NRA supports NICS?

Maybe you missed that fact.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

122. Hum...........Yea

Are you aware the NRA supports leaving it up to the states to decide how to comply?










----------------
edited for clarity

[ManiacJoe]

155. That is a bad thing?

HOW to comply should be left up to the states.

WHETHER to comply is not up to the states. The problem is the many states are not complying, hence the new bill with some teeth added to it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

163. States or Feds

Not if, in my opinion, it creates inconsistent reporting from dissimilar agencies creating ambiguity and untimeliness. Some states over regulate the reporting of the data and others have a 'don't ask, don't tell' philosophy. The reason many states are not complying is because it's yet another example of an unfunded mandate on states who do not completely endorse the premise of the legislation.

[benEzra]

146. I'm OK with that...

What's interesting here is that no one has brought up Richardson's response. Here you have the highest NRA rated advocate saying he supports instant background checks (which would require a national data base) at gun shows and linking poverty with gun violence.

I agree that poverty (and our insane approach to the regulation of certain herbs...) are the key contributing factors to our violence picture here. A big part of that is urban blight, and the lack of inner-city educational and economic opportunity that goes along with it. Our inner cities are largely dysfunctional societies.

The major difference between the U.S. and Canada isn't gun ownership (which until very recently was fairly similar, as far as what the average person could own without hassle); it's the fact that Canada has less inner-city social dysfunction, has better education across the board, does a better job socializing children and adolescents into responsible adult roles, and so on. Better mental-health care, a less predatory working environment, and other factors probably contribute as well.

As far as background checks, we already have an instant check system for gun purchases from any dealer, which does as you say involve a national database of those with criminal records (the NICS database and check system, run IIRC by the FBI). I am OK with that, and would personally be OK with extending that to most private sales if it could be done without allowing backdoor registration or California-style hassle.

I think if the gun-control lobby weren't so damn obsessed with taking rights from the law-abiding, the law-abiding would probably be less wary of private-sale background checks and whatnot.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

147. Obsessed?

You write: 'I think if the gun-control lobby weren't so damn obsessed with taking rights from the law-abiding, the law-abiding would probably be less wary of private-sale background checks and whatnot."

See this is where we have a disconnect and I think both sides share some responsibility for it. The 'gun control lobby' thinks you folks are obsessed with guns and you think we are obsessed 'with taking rights from law-abiding' citizens.

Neither is an accurate portrayal in and of itself.

[benEzra]

152. I'm thinking of this mentality:

You write: 'I think if the gun-control lobby weren't so damn obsessed with taking rights from the law-abiding, the law-abiding would probably be less wary of private-sale background checks and whatnot."

See this is where we have a disconnect and I think both sides share some responsibility for it. The 'gun control lobby' thinks you folks are obsessed with guns and you think we are obsessed 'with taking rights from law-abiding' citizens.

I agree on the disconnect there. I think on the gunnies' side, a lot of our misperception of you guys comes from legislation that your organizations push, that specifically targets lawful ownership, often of rarely-misused guns.

I'm thinking of this mentality:

http://www.50caliberterror.com/
http://www.licensetomurder.com/main.php
http://www.vpc.org/studies/hoseone.htm
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=aw_renew

Utter crap that has absolutely nothing to do with criminal violence. To put that shrillness in perspective, I believe the number of U.S. homicides with .50 caliber target rifles in the quarter-century they've been on the market is zero (and no, you can't shoot down an airliner with one); "stand your ground" laws don't allow you to shoot somebody because you merely "feel threatened"; all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides; and the small-caliber rifles the Brady page says "have no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible without reloading" are the most popular civilian target rifles in America (my wife and I own three between us).

Look at the effort the gun-control lobby is pouring into quixotic, IDIOTIC crusades like banning protruding rifle handgrips and fighting for more CHL red tape, when the violence problem in this country is almost exclusively disaffected young males with criminal records illegally carrying illegal handguns.

I think your misperceptions of our side ("Why are those people so obsessed with assault weapons? You don't need one to hunt with, do you?") may stem in part from the sheer complexity of the issue, from the fact that there is really no ready reference guide to the technical aspects of civilian-legal firearms and U.S. firearms law, and from the fact that gun-owner demographics aren't what the MSM typically portrays (only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter, and the #1 and #2 reasons for U.S. gun ownership are (1) defensive purposes and (2) recreational target shooting).

I sometimes wish I could just take a bunch of you guys to the shooting range, and explain what people like me own (mostly not hunting rifles), why we own them (not hunting), how they work, what laws concerning them are already on the books, etc. And listen to you guys, and talk about your fears of me and mine of you, and come away at least understanding each other even if we disagree. That's why I spend so much time posting here (with photos and everything), even though I have a life beyond guns (big time), because it is SO DAMN FRUSTRATING that we who agree so much on so many issues are so at each other's throats about the contents of my gun safe.

I'm actually seriously considering inviting my senator to the range to do just that (he's a cosponsor of H.R.1022), but I'm just a peon so I doubt that will ever happen. One can hope, though...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

153. Frustrating Indeed

You write: I sometimes wish I could just take a bunch of you guys to the shooting range, and explain what people like me own (mostly not hunting rifles), why we own them (not hunting), how they work, what laws concerning them are already on the books, etc. And listen to you guys, and talk about your fears of me and mine of you, and come away at least understanding each other even if we disagree. That's why I spend so much time posting here (with photos and everything), even though I have a life beyond guns (big time), because it is SO DAMN FRUSTRATING that we who agree so much on so many issues are so at each other's throats about the contents of my gun safe.

I can appreciate that. For my part, I have been on a shooting range and have enjoyed the sport, although I'm sure some would say clay pigeon shooting is not a 'real gun' sport. LOL. I enjoyed it nevertheless and to the surprise of some of my gun enthusiast friends was pretty darn good at it if I do say so myself.

I share your frustration and do think forums such as this are good for exchanging points of view, but they are only as good as the participants. Some listen and learn. Some put up a wall for their own positions. I've played both parts on ocassion.

You said you think the gun control lobby is going after law abiding citizens whose guns simply have no impact on crime. I just don't think that's the case. That's my personal opinion. I understand you disagree.

From my perspective, I've been a victim of gun crime several times. Decades ago, when I was in HS (eh gads), my boss was killed after I and others were locked up in a freezer...at gun point. Years later, on another ocassion, I was held up at gun point. I've witnessed shootings. I've sat on a jury for a murder case involving a gun. I've had two friends who have lost sons/daughters to gun violence. I've had to schedule employees off to testify in gun cases. So, yea, I believe we are in a war and it's time for arms controls. Obviously my life experience is, perhaps, dramatically different than yours. Going after your guns? No. Not me. But given all that I have gone through and seen, my emphasis is more on the public safety side. Perhaps in the same way you think every gun control advocate is going after your guns, I think on ocassion every RKBA advocate opposes any type of public safety law involving guns. I don't think either position is necessarily right, but I don't think either position is without justification.


-----------
edited for typos (yikes) and the addition of one sentence

[benEzra]

167. At least come away with this...

I share your frustration and do think forums such as this are good for exchanging points of view, but they are only as good as the participants. Some listen and learn. Some put up a wall for their own positions. I've played both parts on ocassion.

You said you think the gun control lobby is going after law abiding citizens whose guns simply have no impact on crime. I just don't think that's the case. That's my personal opinion. I understand you disagree.

From my perspective, I've been a victim of gun crime several times. Decades ago, when I was in HS (eh gads), my boss was killed after I and others were locked up in a freezer...at gun point. Years later, on another ocassion, I was held up at gun point. I've witnessed shootings. I've sat on a jury for a murder case involving a gun. I've had two friends who have lost sons/daughters to gun violence. I've had to schedule employees off to testify in gun cases. So, yea, I believe we are in a war and it's time for arms controls. Obviously my life experience is, perhaps, dramatically different than yours. Going after your guns? No. Not me. But given all that I have gone through and seen, my emphasis is more on the public safety side. Perhaps in the same way you think every gun control advocate is going after your guns, I think on ocassion every RKBA advocate opposes any type of public safety law involving guns. I don't think either position is necessarily right, but I don't think either position is without justification.

I spoke to this disconnect at some length in my other post, so I won't repeat myself here. I will say that this is the type of thread that makes me really like DU, when people with widely varying viewpoints on an issue can sit down and talk about it without ranting and namecalling, or cutting and pasting prepackaged talking points. I think I understand where you are coming from, not totally but perhaps more than you realize, and I've very much enjoyed this thread. I hope you realize that I'm in no way a professional advocate on the issue (I actually work in the aviation industry), just a physics and literature geek with a strong personal interest in the issue.

Before I head off to bed, I'd like to mention one last thing.

The VPC's Josh Sugarmann sold the "assault weapon" issue to the gun-control lobby as a "have your cake and eat it too" issue--as an easy win that wouldn't affect too many gun owners, as a "moderate" measure, etc. etc.

It's not. You'd have an easier time outlawing hunting; probably twice as many people own H.R.1022-class rifles and over-10-round magazines as hunt in this country.

I'm open to working with you on criminal-access-to-guns issues, but under no circumstances will another "assault weapon" ban or paramecium-like magazine restrictions fly with me, or with the gun-owning community at large. Not now, and not a century from now.

I understand the emotional reaction of some people to guns that look modern and bulky, regardless of how underpowered they may be or how rarely they may be misused; CNN's shenanigans and the VPC's histrionics certainly don't help. But "assault weapons"--small-caliber rifles with modern styling, ergonomic stocks, optics rails, etc.--are not just the future of civilian rifles in this country, they are the present. The #1 and #2 rifle calibers sold in this country every year, by far, are .223 Remington and 7.62x39mm (AR-15/Mini-14 and AK/SKS), and the '94 Feinstein ban only hastened that development. The gun-control lobby would be wise to accept that, drop the charade that the most popular civilian target rifles in America "have no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible without reloading," and focus on the real issues (chiefly background checks and gun smuggling, as I see it).

As long as the gun-control lobby approaches the issue with "which civilian guns can we ban next, and how can we scare the masses into supporting it" mentality, they are going to flop.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

170. Thanks for the Civil Thread

I think we can both agree it was a good night. I suspecct we will both have our moments in the future on this issue, but let's both try to remember this one. :)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

104. Three Points?

You write: '1: He had a legitimate question in asking the candidates if they favored banning or restricting rifles like the one he had.' Ok
You write: '2. He wanted to twist the tails of some gun control advocates by reminding them that his rifle was legal under the AWB." Huh?
You write: '3. He wanted, frankly, to get somebody like Biden to say something like what Biden said, to force our party to decide if we want to continue this culture war. He wanted to see if any of the candidates would look out of touch with gun owners, and he found one who does." So you think Townsend won the 'culture war' by asking the question the way he did? I think most, including many NRA and gun enthusiasts, would disagree with you, including some on this board.

[Recursion]

119. Not quite

So you think Townsend won the 'culture war' by asking the question the way he did?

Nobody "wins" this kind of culture war. When Democrats back poorly-thought-out, pointless restrictions on gun ownership that do not address the actual type of guns used in crime and manifest on their surface to someone who knows even a little bit about firearms both an incredible ignorance of firearms and an incredible disdain towards and moral disapproval of thsoe who own them, when we do that, Republicans win elections. And nobody wins when Republicans win elections.

He wanted to see if any of the candidates would go for the hook and Biden did. That told me Biden should not be our nominee.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

121. Baby Indeed

Biden made Townsend look like a fool regardless of his position on gun ownership.

You were not served well.

You say it was a 'hook' for Biden. Others on this board have argued it was a hook intent on making gun advocates look crazy.

It worked.

[Recursion]

124. Sorry, I didn't mean to deny that it made gun owners look bad

And I do think that notoriously anti-gun-rights CNN probably chose the worst among several gun rights questions. I was just speaking to what I thought Townsend's motivations were, not how effective he was at it (I frankly think he expected more candidates to follow Biden's path)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

126. Well.........I appreciate your statement

As I said, I cannot chime in on CNN's bias, because I do not know. I will, however, keep it in check for the future. The candidates had access to the questions prior to the show, so Biden's response doesn't surprise me because he has the most vested in this issue. Townsend came across as a loney. It would have been nice to hear others call him just that regardless of their support of the Second Amendment.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

128. Let Me Add

I'm glad you did.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

187. Biden and Richardson

Here was Townsend's question: '"Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe."

Richardson called for better screening.
Biden implied Townsend was a nut.

....and that was it.

Perhaps Democratic candidates are beginning to see that we should be more concerned about protecting living things rather than inanimate objects.

[benEzra]

197. My rights belong to a living thing...me.

Perhaps Democratic candidates are beginning to see that we should be more concerned about protecting living things rather than inanimate objects.

My rights belong to a living thing...me.

My opposition to having my guns banned isn't about protecting inanimate objects over living things, any more than my opposition to the administration's 4th-amendment-busting policies is about protecting pieces of paper, light pulses on a fiber optic network, or patterns of magnetized spots on little aluminum platters. It's about the people to whom those things belong.

Do you oppose alcohol prohibition? If not, is it because you believe in protecting an inanimate substance over protecting living things? That's not a fair question, is it?

As I mentioned above, banning the most popular civilian target rifles in America--like the one Townsend was holding--is NOT about "protecting people," when such rifles are very rarely used to hurt anyone (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of murders and even fewer assaults). Biden's answer had nothing to do with rifle misuse, and everything to do with the contempt he holds for owners of black rifles.

Richardson believes you can protect people AND protect the right to lawfully own and use guns; his history as governor bears that out. As governor, he supported carry licensure and opposed the "assault weapon" nonsense.

Rifle bans in the U.S. are not, and have never been, about protecting people, because rifles are not a crime problem in this country and never have been. They are about attacking people, namely rifle owners, in service of an idealogy that sees guns as intrinsically evil.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

199. You Presume I Want to Ban Gun Ownership

I do not.

You write: 'Richardson believes you can protect people AND protect the right to lawfully own and use guns"

So do I.

[benEzra]

200. Guns like this?

You Presume I Want to Ban Gun Ownership

I do not.

Guns like this?



And this?



Because those are the guns I own.

You write: 'Richardson believes you can protect people AND protect the right to lawfully own and use guns"

So do I.

Biden doesn't, as his legislative positions over the years clearly demonstrate. If he had his way, I'd be a felon for owning those guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

202. I have no doubt they are legal if you own them.

I have no doubt they are legal if you own them.

[benEzra]

203. I want them to STAY legal. Biden doesn't, and I was under the impression that you don't.

Am I incorrect in believing that you support restricting "assault weapons" and handguns?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

204. Gun Ownership

You'd be more accurate in saying I support your right to own a gun...........just perhaps not the gun you want to own. Not trying to be coy....just trying to accurately state my posiition. You'd also be more accurate in saying I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, which I have no doubt you agree is appropriate.

[benEzra]

205. Thoughts...

You'd be more accurate in saying I support your right to own a gun...........just perhaps not the gun you want to own. Not trying to be coy....just trying to accurately state my posiition.

Jerry Falwell didn't want to ban all books, either...just perhaps the books I want to own. Operation Rescue doesn't want to ban all abortions, Bushco doesn't want to imprison everybody without trial...

The thing is, those guns are what the gun issue is about. Not 19th-century-style rifles (you know Winchester folded their gun business last year, yes?); not "hunting" guns (only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts); not $5000 skeet shotguns. It's about small-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling (like mine), and about lawfully owned handguns. If you wish to take those from the American people, it is not bombastic or hyperbole to say that you'd have to fight a civil war to do it. But it would never get to that point, because the political party that tried it would be out on its ear in the next election.

I touched on this in posts 89 and 91 (on the extreme rarity of rifle crime) and 167 (on why rifle bans are political suicide).

FWIW, that's not an automatic weapon; it's a non-automatic, civilian-only carbine, identical in EVERY way except looks to a Ruger Mini Thirty (short-range deer rifle):

You'd also be more accurate in saying I want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, which I have no doubt you agree is appropriate.

As do I. We're in agreement there.

The problem is, the guns I posted upthread aren't in the hands of a criminal; they're in the hands of a 36-year-old politically active literature and physics geek, and dad to a special-needs kid, with a record so clean that he squeaks when he walks (I've never even had a speeding ticket, for pete's sake). My right to own them, and for my children and grandchildren to do the same, is not negotiable.

I'm not meaning to be brusque, but I don't particularly care if you'd "allow" me to own a .73 caliber skeet shotgun or a high-powered, sniper-style deer rifle; I don't shoot skeet, and I don't hunt, so I have about as much use for either as I'd have for a Brown Bess musket.

I don't understand how you can complain about gun owners opposing gun-control proposals, while simultaneously insisting that such proposals include bans on popular, lawfully owned guns. We can talk about criminal access to all guns all day, but the right of me, and my children and grandchildren, to own those guns (not just the guns you like the looks of) is not negotiable. Not now, and not ever.

As I have mentioned before, there is a great deal of common ground to be found on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. But as long as banning our handguns and small-caliber rifles is part of your agenda, I will fight that with every talent and resource I have--and so will the 40 or 50 million others who lawfully own and use them.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

206. No Wonder We Aren't Winning the War - Hope this Comes Up in Next Debate

190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols are http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/05/AR2007080501299.html?hpid=topnews">MISSING

Can't wait to see them illegally end up back in our country as they always do.

[benEzra]

207. Could you elaborate?

No Wonder We Aren't Winning the War - Hope this Comes Up in Next Debate

190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols are MISSING

Can't wait to see them illegally end up back in our country as they always do.

Definitely a screwup...

I have to ask, though--have a significant number of Middle Eastern automatic weapons and pistols been smuggled into this country? I know there have a handful of incidents in which returning soldiers would try to smuggle some illegal trophys in, but I wasn't aware of anything widespread. (You'd have to be pretty motivated to try, because mere possession of a post-'86 AK-47 in this country is an automatic 10-year felony, even with a Form 4, on top of any penalties for smuggling.)

I'd be more worried about smuggling from Central America via Mexico, I think, following the cocaine trade. Mexico has had some high-profile drug shootouts involving automatic weapons and RPG's recently, presumably from Central America.

Stiil, I'm not sure I grok the link between the Iraq story and the OP about Jared Townsend and the YouTube debate. Could you elaborate?

[SteveM]

209. I remember much the same was said after Vietnam/S.E.Asia

The markets did indeed become flooded; but the markets were other wars where the standard of weaponry was auto-fire. Most crime has little need for auto fire; hence, a smaller market, here. But I share your concerns with regards illegal drug trade. At the height of the "cocaine cowboy wars" in Miami in the mid-eighties, the use of auto weapons made a splashy (if spotty) premier. Just from my observation, they seem to be associated with ESTABLISHING territory where an old one has collapsed or been overtaken. Miami's old "Italian Mafia" dominance (and locally, the Bahamian community) was extirpated by the new Colombian-based "cartels." Once territory is staked out, most crime associated with dope dealing becomes the same murmur of the battlefield: handguns.

What bothers me the most about the situation in Mexico is with the near break-down of law & order, the competing gangs are operating strategically to ensure their power. After all, when social systems break down, criminal organizations suffer, too. And the border has always been unsettled.

[L1A1Rocker]

208. At least he's not hidding

I do respect Mr. Biden for standing firm on his anti-gun views. Wish more politicians would be truthfull about their gun rights stance.

[twilliams82]

210. Yea anti gun right s....he's a winner.....

Yea why would I support someone that doesn't stand behind the constitution????

Can for one time they give us a Democrat hopefully that will fight for my gun ownership rights and not try to take them away????

After 10+ years I can finally have an legal affordable adjustable stock, and our hopefulls want to take that away cause my rifle looks scary.

I try to tell all my friends there is hope and then they come out and start the ...were going to renew the Assault weapon ban crap.. and they say vote Democrat if you want, but bring your guns to the voting booth to be turned in.

I try to argue and then Biden comes on ruins it, \The gun owner was a dumbass in the video.. it was a set up.

Im loosing hope.....

God help us all!!!!