Don't get me wrong...I LOVE Boxer...but...just but...

[Guaranteed]

Seriously, she's the greatest. But, the best thing the fascists on the Yahoo Boards could come up with to use against her is her support for gun control.

She does support gun control, right (just assuming, I know Feinstein does)?

I'd really like for her to let go of that one. It would make her much stronger, I believe (along with the rest of the Democrats).

What do you all think?

[Swede]

1. I hope she sticks to her uh guns.

The US needs leaders that say what they believe is right,not what is popular.

[Guaranteed]

4. Well, I guess I'd feel differently if I agreed with her.

That's the thing.

I just feel like Democrats, in our newfound evolution, are going to have to change that one thing, in particular, in order to gain strength, and speak to the people we want to speak to.

On top of my own personal feelings, I don't think it's a good position to take if we're trying to shed our DLC image. Oddly enough, that was one of the things the DLC would actually fight for.

[sandnsea]

13. If you agreed with her

And there is the problem with the Democratic Party. Little tiny groups of people who think their pet issue is the one that needs to be changed for the benefit of the party. Standing around pointing our fingers at each other. What's really stupid about it, is that changing a position on a particular issue isn't going to work anyway. Just how dumb to you think rural people are? They might, might, believe a local Dem if he says he's not going to bother with guns. Like Schweitzer. But the second you bring in a national candidate, forget it and I don't care who they are. Same goes with any other issue. You think a fundie is ever going to believe Hillary has changed her position on abortion, no matter how many times she says God and tries to change the subject to pregnancy prevention? Just get accused of more pandering, which they can lump right onto the pandering charges of the past.

Howard is right in that you have to believe in what you stand for. Part of that has been a concern about gun violence in the inner cities. If you dump guns, you dump a whole other group of voters who are actually having their kids die. Besides, Dems dump one issue, Republians just come up with another to divide and conquer over. The bottom line is it really does come down to spine, but it's not the D.C. Democrats that lack it. It's the rank and file.

[Guaranteed]

17. LOL glad to see that you're coming around

to my side of things. :)

And I usually agree with myself, except for in this one instance.

I don't even know how she'd pull it off. Like you said, it would look pretty stupid.

If she can't, though, I don't know what she's going to do. She's going to get beaten with it, and even people like me are going to have to give the Republican idiots the point.

[sandnsea]

19. Why?

You support armed teachers in schools? Shootouts in the mini-mart? Rocket launchers in the backs of pickup trucks? I don't think Republicans have a point on arms at all. They have phony bullshit which Democrats like you helped them to get.

Becoming a society less dependent on killing would be a good thing. Admitting that we want guns because you never know when you're going to have to kill somebody would be a good first step. A good second step would be to give up that idea and the guns that go with it. Seems like a very life affirming Democratic value to support.

[Guaranteed]

22. Ahem. No.

This issue is about protecting one's home from a potentially oppressive government.

I'm against gun possession in public in any sense except when being transported for the purposes of hunting, home from the store or shooting range, etc., or by cops.

But our civil liberties have to be protected. I don't even own a gun, but we're living in some scary times.

[sandnsea]

26. There you go

You're for responsible gun legislation. Most gun owners ARE FOR responsible gun legislation. So why don't you just be for it instead of buying into the assinine right wing 2nd Amendment bullshit. The only way you're going to use an easily obtainable weapon to fight the government is if you manage to break into a national guard depot without getting killed. It's a red herring. Stop falling for it.

[Guaranteed]

29. You probably won't agree with my post #28. nt

[sandnsea]

38. Machine gun gramma

Yeah, I remember lots of folks having machine guns back in the day. :eyes:

I do not know where in the world common sense has gone in this country. Everybody used to know you didn't need a machine gun in your house.

[Crunchy Frog]

33. Just ask the Iraqis how well that works.

Even under Saddam Hussein, they were one of the most heavily armed societies on Earth. It doesn't seem to have done alot for their civil liberties. And how do you think an Iraqi fares nowadays if he tries to use his weapon to defend his home from US troops who want to come in?

I'm sorry, but I've just never bought into the idea that guns protect civil liberties as I've never seen any evidence to persuade me that that was the case. Maybe I'm missing something though.

[Guaranteed]

34. Well, there's the Revolutionary War.

And, it actually seems to me like the Iraqis are doing alright at the moment, even going up against the big, bad United States.

[Crunchy Frog]

35. An ordinary Iraqi who is just trying to keep strangers

out of his home, will simply get blown away if he tries to use his gun to prevent them from entering his home, if they happen to be American soldiers. This is an entirely different situation than the issue of insurgents. Even then though, we're demolishing entire cities and killing thousands, in response to the insurgents, and for every one of our soldiers they kill, we are probably killing dozens of them, both civilians and insurgents.

Anyway, they were well armed during Saddam's regime too and still had no civil liberties to speak of.

I think it's absurd to compare the situation today with the one that existed during the Revolutionary war. The government forces we were up against then were armed with muskets. We're talking about a little more firepower than that these days.

[Guaranteed]

36. The point, though, is that the more firepower they have, they

better resistance they can put up.

Now, this principle has to be balanced with public safety- hence, explosives are out of the question, especially in the age of terrorism. Also, I've at least heard that certain large caliber weapons can do things like shoot down airliners. Obviously, there's a public safety issue, here.

But, again, there has to be a good amount of firepower that American citizens can turn to if the day ever comes where their rights aren't being properly respected. They have to be able to fight with some considerable effectiveness. Automatic weapons will give them that ability.

If you want to argue that they should be allowed to have explosives or anti-aircraft guns, that's fine, but I entirely disagree.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. So basically what you are talking about

is militias, and a civil war type scenario. Not ordinary defense of our homes from intruders and from an intrusive government.

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't expect Boxer, or any elected official other than a really hardcore nutcase to promote gun laws that would enable that sort of scenario.

It may be a nice idea for some people, but very unrealistic to expect it of a sober minded Democratic elected official. Just a little bit too utopian, (or dystopian as the case may be).

[Guaranteed]

49. Can I ask what you would do if Bush decided

to suspend the Constitution?

[Crunchy Frog]

53. At that point, I think gun control laws become

a rather moot issue. I'm not at all saying that we shouldn't take up arms under that scenario, but if it happens, there will in effect be no law, and therefore, laws governing weapons possession will be meaningless.

I acknowledge that it could happen, I just think it's going too far to ask our representatives to lay down a legislative framework for such a scenario. That kind of thinking really isn't going to do our party any good. It would essentially make us the party of the survivalist/militia movement. Talk about marginalization.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. If Bush* Suspends The Constitution

the only thing a dissident with a rifle will be is dust...

[marions ghost]

63. well said, sandnsea

The idea that Dems pandering to "pet issues" will change things is defeatist thinking. Hillary's re-positioning about abortion is a good example of such a losing tactic. She would lose as much support as she would gain.

You say "Dems dump one issue, Repubs just come up with another to divide and conquer..." I totally agree.

As for guns -- I live in a "nice" neighborhood, in a "safe" community, but I can tell you about 5 instances of gun violence in my community that have directly affected me. Nobody can convince me we are safer if everybody owns guns, no use trying. I see clearly that guns are made to kill, and they often end up doing just that, tearing families and lives apart. I hope Boxer stands firm on that.

[oneold1-4u]

64. Around town

Living behind a locked down, patrolled housing community, and order-in all food and necessities isn't very appealing to me. Every other community I have known has other people in it: drug manufacturers, users, sellers, rapists, murderers, suicides, military and police errors, abusers, and more mental illness every day. These persons have weapons that they intend to use against another person somewhere sometime.
They are in my town and they travel throughout the country every day.
A person can't feel safer just because they have one or more guns but someone who is experienced with guns and personal security often saves more lives than just their own! Guns will never be totally controlled! Don't even dream about it! Move on!
When the people have real leaders in this country, we will find a way for more personal security and remain able to go out of the house!

[Warren DeMontague]

79. So you're more worried about having pot-smoking deadheads living next door

than the kind of folks who have Columbine Kids in their garage playing with their high-caliber automatic weapons?

Bully for you.

[Nitrogenica]

2. I've had enough of going along with things to be stronger.

Barbara is strong because she doesn't do that!

[seito]

14. Absolutely

The simple fact that she stands and fights for what she believes in, regardless of it's popularity is her greatest strength.

[Sandpiper]

3. No way

We have far too many Dems who are willing to compromise their principles to make nice with the Repukes.

Californians voted for her because she was an unapologetic, left wing liberal.

Waffling on her positions won't make her stronger.

[Rowdyboy]

5. What do I think? That you have thoroughly confused me with your post....

Are you saying you want Barbara Boxer to change her stand on gun control? Do you want the party overall to switch gears on gun control?

It's a difficult issue and I feel divided personally-I cant begin to imagine the pain a woman must go through before having an abortion, so I cant say how I'd behave.

Does it really matter?

[Guaranteed]

7. Yes, I guess I'm saying that the party should not be supporting

gun control, at least in the way that it is now.

To a certain extent, I don't agree with it, and I think it's a loser issue.

[Al-CIAda]

40. I'll back you up on Gun control. The Dems should drop it.

...and the ACLU should protect gun rights and every element of the Bill of Rights.

I know, 'we can't compramise', but I don't see this as an issue that Dems drew a hard line on. We can pick up the worker class who likes to own guns but is tired of getting f'd over by gov't. corporatism.

Armed liberals! The repukes would be shitting bricks.

[ebayfool]

52. I know better than to be eating while reading in DU, & this just reminded

me why! No kidding, I never thought of that ... gun totin' liberals. (liberals w/friggin' cereal in their sinuses now, thank you very much!)

Armed liberals! The repukes would be shitting bricks.

[Mojorabbit]

67. I agree

I think there are a lot of people out there that are liberal who own guns. I am one of them. I have a friend who actually voted for bush because she bought into the idea that the dems would take away her guns.
I am very left wing except on this one issue. I'd like to see some moderation on the issue by the Dems. Just my own opinion. If you don't want to own a gun fine but if you do fine too.

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Of course she support gun control

Didnt you see how well she control her gun point it in the right direction and blast away.

Whats the point of giving guns to people who dont know where to aim them.

[ZombieNixon]

68. LOL

[Crunchy Frog]

8. I wouldn't ask her to be something that she's not.

If gun control is a principle that she believes in, then she's better off sticking to her principles than looking unprincipled by abandoning them for the sake of percieved political expediency.

I think that Democrats look weakest when they abandon their principles in order to try to be what they think the voters want. That's how you lose people's respect. I think people will vote for someone they respect and disagree with before they will vote for someone they agree with but don't respect.

Let's stand up for our principles instead of trying to mold them to whatever we think is "popular".

[Guaranteed]

9. I agree with your whole post.

I really don't want her to be something she's not.

I guess I'm hoping that she was just going along with the DLC gun control line.

In any case, if she's for gun control on principle, I just disagree.

I disagree- I don't think it's part of our party's values- and I think it's a weak position.

Look, all I'm saying is that we need to shed that particular position- ONLY that one. We're wrong on it, and it really hurts us.

[Crunchy Frog]

18. So what you're really saying

is that you think the party, not Barbara Boxer, should change its stance on gun control. That's a completely seperate issue. I can see some merit to it, although I'm personally in favor of gun control.

In fact, I don't really think gun control is a black and white issue. I think the vast majority of people in this country are in favor of some types of gun control. The disagreements that people have are over how much, and of what type. I think that's a legitimate area for discussion within the party, although I think our opponents often hugely exagerate our party's position in order to score points, much in the same way that they mailed stuff to Christians this election claiming that Kerry would ban and confiscate their bibles if he were elected.

Maybe while reevaluating our party's official stance on gun control, it would also be a good idea to think about how to communicate effectively what our position actually is.

Not being a being a gun person myself, I confess to not really being up to speed on what all the issues are. I do have a nephew whose stepsister was killed recently by random gun violence in a part of the country where guns are rampant. She was a teenager who already had a baby of her own. My nephew kind of seemed to accept it as being just one of those things though. I guess maybe that's how most Americans view deaths from gun violence.

[Guaranteed]

20. Yeah, basically.

I have really high hopes for Boxer, though. I was just talking about her, earlier, and the issue came up, against her. Makes it tough for me when I actually agree with them on the point (at least in some respect).

And, no, I'm actually not very familiar with actual gun control legislation and the ramifications of it.

[Crunchy Frog]

25. Well, maybe you just need to accept

that there is no politician in the entire world with whom you are going to agree with on everything 100%. Even if you ran for office, you'd most likely find yourself taking some positions that you didn't necessarily agree with.

Maybe what you should have argued is that you disagree with her on this particular point, but overall you think she's a really great senator. Ask them if they have any politicians that they agree with 100%. Of course if they're Bushbots, then they will pretty much believe whatever they're told to believe without using their own brains to evaluate it, but most normal people will admit to not having anyone that they agree with on absolutely everything. Debating mindless Bushbots is kind of pointless anyway IMO.

Sometimes you can get further arguing with someone if you concede a point to them here and there. If I were you, I would probably start by finding out what Boxer's positions re gun control actually are, and then work your way from there.

[Guaranteed]

10. Look, folks, I know this is a very difficult thing I'm suggesting, here.

Mostly because I'm one of the loudest on this board calling for principle, leadership, and the like.

But, this one thing really bothers me. A lot. I think Feinstein and her gun-control people have gotten us wrapped up in something that we really shouldn't be in, and we really need to address this. This is a killer issue.

[noamnety]

11. What do you mean by "gun control"?

Specifically, what part of it do you object to?

Do you think violent felons should be allowed to buy guns?
Do you think we should require background checks before selling guns?

I'm guessing you don't really oppose all gun control. Maybe you have a difference of opinion on the details?

[Guaranteed]

15. No, not all of it.

I don't expect that people should be able to own .50 calibers or explosives. And, in fact, I'm HEAVILY against CCW.

HOWEVER- I believe that people need to be able to defend their homes from the government. That does take some firepower. Not tons, but sitting there with a .22 bolt-action isn't going to cut it.

BTW I don't even own one gun. This is not a pet issue, for me. This is about civil liberties, and making sure that the 1st Amendment is protected- by the 2nd.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Actually, defending your home from the government

takes a hell of a lot more firepower than any private citizen is going to get their hands on, if the government is really serious.

To illustrate that point, just look at what happened at Waco. Maybe they should have been able to equip themselves with tactical nuclear weapons in addition to all the other firepower that they had.:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

23. Right, well, I don't think it's reasonable for people to have artillery

and such in their backyard. I'm against that.

However, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any kind of firepower whatsoever.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. Although I'm not really up on these things,

I don't think it's ever been part of the Democratic party platform that people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms at all, so that's a bit of a straw man I think.

In my opinion, people should be able to own firearms to defend their homes with. Not from the government, since, let's face it, you're never going to be able to outgun the government (ask the people at Waco) but certainly to be able to defend your home from intruders.

I don't think anybody in political office disputes that. Anyway, I don't think I can argue one way or another about Boxer's position without knowing what it actually is.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. The only example you gave where gun ownership supposedly made a difference

was the Revolutionary War. That was 2 and 1/4 centuries ago. At that point, the muskets kept in the Minutemen's houses were essentially the same thing the Redcoats were showing up with.

The situation today is vastly different. I agree it's scary but I'm not convinced that individual gun ownership is any kind of realistic bulwark against totalitarianism. In my mind, bulwarks against totalitarianism are things like an informed populace with active minds that question authority. People who don't buy what the state/media/corporation/church tell them but rather search for their own answers. The bottom line is, if everyone collectively gave the finger to the power structure at the same time, people wouldn't need weapons to bring the mother down... That's one reason why they spend so much time trying to keep everyone in this consumer-narcotized haze of crap and bogus news and whatnot.

If gun ownership was really such a threat to the powers who run the Country, don't you think they would have it higher up on the priority list? It seems to me they're much more threatened by women who use birth control.

The most dangerous weapon we have is the knowledge of our own power.

[cascadiance]

66. The anti gun control folks keep using the constitution...

to defend their position of no-holds barred gun ownership in the spirit of a "well armed militia".

I really think Boxer and other Dems can intelligently frame the discussion by asking a fundamental question of whether the constitution would have been written the same way if the technology for suitcase nukes were available back at the time it was written. Back then, about the most damaging weapon anyone could own (government included) were cannons. Cannons are something that aren't that portable or usable unless you have an "army" (or "militia") of people to use it, which dismisses one kook individual using it very effectively. In those days a "well armed militia" could successfully and effectively fight off an oppressive government through just force of arms. Not so today. The more likely outcome today might be nuclear holocaust, which isn't a practical solution.

Therefore there *has* to be *some* legislation on conrolling indivdual ownership of arms. It is all a matter of degree that it is done and what individuals can realistically expect to have. Rules that allow people to hunt effectively and defend their homes from intrusions of other individuals seem like areas that Dems could agree with NRA types as long as the rules make for responsible and safe gun use that doesn't increase the liklihood of other criminal acts from those guns. I really don't think that they can "box" Boxer into a corner on that one.

I think she could also deflect the issue of a "well armed militia" being thrown away by pointing out that today freedom of speech, freedom and responsibilities of a "free" press, freedom of assembly, are far more useful weapons for the masses to own against an oppressive government. She can defend her stances on that and point out that the Republicans are trying to take that away through corporatization of the media, the Patriot Act, latest censorship activities of the FCC, the regressive "usage" taxes ('er make that "fees") that are now being considered by Republican congress critters on the net and other means of communications, etc. Those freedoms are far more necessary today to keep our government in check and not blow ourselves to bits in the process. I'm also guessing that the framers of our constitution would have written the protections for these freedoms a bit differently if the information technologies we have today existed then too.

[Guaranteed]

73. I don't think most governments, almost certainly not a western government,

would use nukes on their own land, against their own people.

In any case, the farther down the road the neocons get to destroying our democracy, the more important the 2nd Amendment becomes.

[Guaranteed]

72. In case you didn't notice, though, the media is fucked.

That's already a pretty bad sign for our democracy.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. You'll get absolutely no argument from me there. nt

[noamnety]

27. Fair enough

So you and Boxer both support gun control. You are in the gun control group, which is what I suspected. In fact, you probably agree with the majority of her positions on gun control, but disagree on one or two specific details.

So instead of slapping her or her views with a right-wing label that clearly doesn't say what you want it to say, define your position. What exactly do you disagree with her on?

[Guaranteed]

28. I don't know her positions.

But I'll tell you that I believe people should be able to have automatic weapons in their homes. IN THEIR HOMES- and, yes, fully automatic.

That's the most radical of my gun positions. Do you think she'd agree with that?

[noamnety]

62. You don't know her positions?

Then why are we even having this discussion?

Why on earth would you start a thread about how much you oppose her position without knowing that?

[Al-CIAda]

41. I agree.

This is about civil liberties, and making sure that the 1st Amendment is protected- by the 2nd.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Give Me A Break...

If the government wants you and you resort to force you will be in one of three places:

Heaven

Hell

Prison

[Guaranteed]

74. I want my due process.

This is non-negotiable.

[cire4]

44. Opposing gun control is very foolish in California

Even Arnold is pro gun-control. Three-quarters of the population here believe that we need much stronger gun laws. California is a very urban state with high levels of gun violence and the situation is dire in some parts of Los Angeles. I shudder to think of what would be the case if the Democrats in this state stopped fighting for it. Growing up in California and knowing people personally who have been victims of gunshots, it would be hard for me to support any representative of this state who abandons the gun control issue.

However, I do agree that supporting gun control is a probably not a winning issue nationwide. But here in California, not only is it a winning issue, but it also is the correct position.

[Guaranteed]

50. I grew up in California.

I never knew anyone that got shot.

In any case, if you'd read through the rest of my responses you'd know that I believe in stricter laws against gun possession in public. I'm totally against it. What I'm for is allowing people to keep guns in their homes.

[Warren DeMontague]

57. By the way...

From a National Political Standpoint, I agree with you that this one is a loss leader. I don't see any gain at all in pushing gun control on a national level.

Of course, most Americans are also pro-choice, but that hasn't stopped the GOP from pandering to its extremist base on the issue.

[Guaranteed]

75. Abortion is a civil liberties issue, too, though.

It's not that it should be legal for the same reasons, but to think that the Democrats halfway fight for abortion, but go all out for gun control is just nuts.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. I don't think they/we do.

I think there are a few Dems who push gun control, like Teddy Kennedy, but a good chunk of the party, particularly the red staters and the candidates competing for national office, haven't wanted to touch it with a ten foot pole. Every Presidential nominee with a (D) after his name for the past couple decades has made a point of being seen hunting during the campaign.

Now, for purposes of the argument, it might be worthwhile to define what you mean by "gun control". If you expect politicians, particularly Barbara Boxer, to come out full tilt for the proposition that US Citizens should be allowed to keep fully automatic weapons in their homes as a defense against a fascist takeover-- which, as I understand it, is the core of your argument in this thread- without even debating the validity of that proposition it's not a terribly realistic position to expect any Senator, much less a Democrart from California, to adopt. Most Republicans wouldn't get behind that one, either.

Beyond that, part of my problem with the idea is that I think the very people who would be the first to stock up on the automatic weapons would be the folks who would comprise the foot soliders in the worst kind of totalitarian America I could envision; white, Christian right-wing brownshirts. (Again, if you popped by a site like werenotsorry.com after the election, it was truly frightening to see such small heads paired with such large weapons)

I do think there are legitimate civil liberties arguments that can be made pertaining to gun ownership per se, but I think it's a stretch to take it to fully automatic weapons.

Lastly, I agree with you that it's not an issue that is winning our party any votes on a national basis, but I think what you've been witnessing is a gradual de-emphasis of it for years anyway. Think of it this way; If the party is talking about abandoning reproductive choice on a national level (at which point I register as a Green, of course), they're sure as hell not going to be pushing gun control any time soon!

[JI7]

12. gun control is very popular in California, she would be in trouble

if she opposed it. even Republicans like Pete Wilson and Arnold support gun control. in california that's pretty much a requirement to win statewide.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[marcologico]

16. She could put on a Patty Hearst outfit and pose with Field Marshal Cinque

and she still wouldn't get an NRA endorsement.

[proud patriot]

24. Accountabilty with Gun Ownership

That is what she supports .

Our opposition opposes Accountabilty with
Gun Ownership.

[Crunchy Frog]

31. That sounds like a pretty good position to me.

Although I don't know the details of Barbara's gun control position, from what you're saying, it sounds as though I would pretty much agree with it.

I personally would like to see a situation where guns are treated much like automobiles. They have to be licenced, you can only use one if you've demonstrated that you know how to use it properly, and know the relevant laws and about gun safety. I think gun owners should also be required to carry insurance to cover any mishaps that may occur with their guns. I think insurance would really increase the level of accountability.

[Guaranteed]

32. What I think is that we need to crack down on guns in public.

Guns should be left at home, locked up, unloaded, safety on, action open, away from the ammunition. There should be severe penalties for taking anything out of the house with any serious power, unless one is going to train with it or something else fairly innocent.

And then, of course, no crazy stuff like bazookas, or anything explosive, really, or really high-caliber weapons.

[rman]

51. so, you're in favor of gun control

-

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Actually, maybe if people could ONLY own bazookas...

:evilgrin:

It might make random gun violence a little more complicated, or difficult to pull off. Be pretty hard to sneak one into the liquor store. Gangs might think really hard before starting a turf war.

Sort of like Chris Rock's idea about making bullets cost $500 apiece.

[John_H]

39. We've got to cut her the same slack we cut red state dems

Like Dean, I think gun control is a state by state issue. Boxer needs to be for gun control. Dean is against it, as well he should be. I'm think gun control unnecessarily costs dems votes since the point is mute. There are so many guns on the streets that any legislation short of banning their possession is irrelevant.

[Al-CIAda]

43. Agree here as well.

Again I say, ARM THE LIBERALS.

Perception is they are wimps and weak. We can also pick up on southern joe six-pack who is tired of being screwed over and his job outsourced.


Liberals: Locked and loaded.

[American Tragedy]

42. I think that may be reflective of her constituency

I've thought for a long time that the Dems should probably drop the gun issue in most states, though.

[w4rma]

46. She's more moderate than Feinstein on gun control. (nt)

[Gyre]

47. Boxer represents her constituency

which apparently doesn't include you. I live in N. Calif., am a criminal prosecutor, and I and everybody in law enforcement I know supports gun control. Northern California believes in gun control; trust me on that.

Is it your belief that politicians should not advance their constituent's opinions on issues that affect them, when actual representation can sometimes be popularity-limiting with non-constitutents?

Gyre

[Guaranteed]

48. I grew up in Sonoma County.

I know liberal, thanks.

On edit: I even voted for her in '98.

[McFlyGuy]

54. Boxer...

now that's a woman. very sexy for an older lady. yeah i would definitely...

[Warren DeMontague]

55. I think this is close to the bottom of issues I give a flyin' hoot about.

Frankly, I'm not someone whose masculinity (or whatever) depends on being able to legally keep a large, lethal, hot lead firing penis substitute in my home. I think the things are dangerous as hell even when kept by non-violent types, and I really don't see the justification in owning one... But let me break them down anyway-

Hunting? Shit, Ted Nugent, go ahead and kill as many small animals as you like.. but your right to get your jollies doing so isn't anything close to something I really care about when evaluating my pols...

Self-defense? I humbly submit it's mostly in the head. I do NOT believe that keeping a gun in the house is going to keep your family safe. Rather, it makes you statistically much more likely to have junior or one of his friends accidentally blow their heads off.

Lastly, this idea that gun ownership is essential to the defense of liberty... 2nd Amendment crusaders always act as if their smith and wesson is going to be the final bulwark against a totalitarian state. Sorry, but do you really think that a well-financed and highly oiled 21st century fascist machine... with jackbooted shock troops and thermal imager equipped rocket-firing black helicopters... is going to be afraid of a messload of rednecks drunk on Early Times whiskey, with guns stashed behind piles of Soldier of Fortune Magazine in their paneled basements? Really?

Certainly, this is an area where my libertarian beliefs come into conflict with my belief that this planet, and this country, is full of a lot of marginally retarded people who really shouldn't be trusted with gardening tools, much less firearms. And unfortunately (as evidenced by websites such as werenotsorry.com) those yahoos seem to be precisely the folks most likely to be running around with massive amounts of firepower at their disposal. It's upsetting enough to someone like me that these nimrods can get behind the wheel of a several-ton outsized SUV and proceed to drive like complete chowderheads with no regard for the lives of others... So trusting them with gun ownership is a real stretch... sigh.. I do hold fast to a solid core of libertarian values, but in case no one has noticed, our society and our government doesn't really give much of a shit about libertarian values these days.. at least not when it comes to the rights of individuals... It's hard for me to get too worked up defending the right of people to keep deadly semi-automatic weapons in their homes when cancer-ridden grannies are being hauled off to the slammer for smoking pot.

As far as Barbara Boxer goes, I'm really not familiar with her stands on gun control. As far as I understand it, aside from the assault weapons ban most "gun control" is a local issue if it's an issue at all, so her views on it would, to my mind, be mostly moot both inside and particularly outside of California.

Either way, however, it's not an issue I care deeply about. I certainly worry about the epidemic of gun violence in our society, but I also doubt wholesale criminalization of guns would have much of an effect on it at this point-- beyond that, it's not practical considering where we (YEEEEEEeee-HAawww!) are, as a nation anyway. That said, I can't see any flippin' reason why not being able to buy an AK-47, or not being able to walk out of a gun show heavily armed without having to pass a background check, is some kind of onerous infringement on 2nd Amendment rights.

[Guaranteed]

71. It is essential to the defense of liberty.

And, I'm not one of these nimrods. Like I said, I don't own any guns.

That civil libertarian part of your mind is absolutely correct.

I'm not upset about this, either. But I'd be more comfortable if our party was on the correct side of this issue. This has been the one thing that Democrats are wrong about. In my mind, this goes against our liberal philosophy.

[Garbo 2004]

80. I don't understand your argument; one can have gun laws and

citizens who qualify can still legally own guns. You seem to have bought into the RW arguments that gun control means citizens can't have any guns. That's simply not the case.

Since you aren't specific about Boxer's position and don't specifically mention the portions of the current "gun control" laws that currently exist but you seem to be against, this argument appears more like the adoption of a specious RW NRA induced talking point.

And yes, liberals own guns and belong to the NRA. I don't belong to the NRA but I do have some guns and I didn't have any problem getting them legally in CA. Now of course I'm not currently in the market for an Uzi, but other than that one can certainly aquire significant firepower to meet concerns regarding self defense even in CA. (Unless one feels a shoulder fired missle or two is required to defend one's home against intrusion of course.)

Regarding taking arms against an armed gov't, going back to the technology available in the 1770's is a rather specious comparison IMO. Also, militias previously and subsequently were used for defense against the indigenous population that had not been sufficiently cowed or eradicated, let us not forget. It wasn't all about keeping bad Big Brother gov't in check. And for some folks, guns were just flat out necessary to hunt for food since there were no Safeway's readily available (or pizza either, imagine the horror). And the Brits in the 1770's notably lacked armored vehicles, tanks and air support, just for example.

Different times, different situation. But as far as I know guns are still available for purchase in the US and even CA, FWIW.

How can you argue against a position and laws when you don't appear to know what they are? How can you know you disagree if you can't say what it is you disagree with?

[Guaranteed]

81. You haven't read all of my posts, then.

I've mentioned my position- I think people should be able to own fully automatic weapons, on the condition that they keep them in their homes except when training with them.

Further, as far as technology is concerned, it's funny you mention Big Brother. Now, I'm actually not that big of a fan of 1984, but technology- and the media- have gotten to the point where our government has a much stronger opportunity to manipulate and oppress it's citizens. That makes the 2nd Amendment just that much more important. With the strength of the government, so must the strength of the government's constituents be increased.

But, again, this must be balanced with public safety.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Do You Really Think An Armed Citizen Is A Match For The Awesome Power Of

The Federal Government?


You have been suggesting that for the entirety of this thread...


I don't even think an armed citizen would be a match for Sheriff Andy and Barney Fife...

[Guaranteed]

70. Do you really think gun control laws work?

And, yes, some resistance is better than none, or very little.

The more ability for resistance, when balanced with public safety, the better.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. I really thought that sentence was going to end with...

... The Dark Side of the Force?

[Guaranteed]

83. LOL! nt

[leesa]

65. Right. This is regressive Merika and we gotta have those guns!

Americans are so easily conned by arms industry marketers!

[Guaranteed]

69. Nothing has changed. It's always been that way.

It's an important part of democracy.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[mvd]

76. It seems she's for sensible gun laws

Like background checks, waiting period, banning Saturday Night Specials, and the assault weapons ban (though that one needs some revision to make things less based on cosmetics.) I would add licensing and registration (so each gun used in violent crimes can be tracked.) One issue I'm not sure about is concealed carry in public property, as the vast majority of people can be trusted with guns - but I haven't seen proof that Boxer is against concealed carry anyway. I think we need to frame the debate, not abandon gun control principles. We are not out to take away guns - we want to stop criminals.

That said, gun control is not as high on my list as universal health care, getting out of Iraq, taxing the rich more, and ending the death penalty.