Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Here come the guns…

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 10:34 AM
Original message
Here come the guns…
Gays have become a non-issue – by the time my children can vote, they won’t understand why homosexuals couldn't marry any more than I can understand separate drinking fountains.

God has been wrenched from the grasp of power hungry politicians. Those that are in the middle or lean left have retaken the Christian principles tolerance and love, and have told their churches not to tell them how to vote.

The only thing left for them to use to rev up the hate machine is Guns.

I am increasingly concerned about the possibility of a slow-but-steady campaign of scaring the right with "liberal-gun-grabbers" to gather votes from now until next November. They have already discovered how posting inflammatory material on the internet and waiting for, or providing their own, fringe, profanity-filled knee-jerk responses, is a great way to get quotes from “Democrats” to use on their ”news” shows.

Look at the commentary on YouTube clips of the clearly insane Ted Nugent. It’s all about Liberals trying to take away your guns.

So - that dead horse will likely be dragged out of the closet for further “interrogation”. Again. And there will be no resolution and lots of infighting.

See, we live in a REALLY big country. A whole bunch of Europe could fit within our borders. People can understand that the French and Spanish have different cultures, but have trouble with the notion that Alabama and California do. As tolerant Democrats, we need to embrace perspective to understand why this issue will never be black or white. Ever.

Rural residents hunt. You grow up around it, it is a communal activity. They also live miles away from law enforcement. Protecting their family until someone can get there is their responsibility. Guns will always be part of that culture (unless of course there is a natural disaster – then the George W. Bush administration will work quickly to take them away).

Urban residents face more violent crime. Can you blame them for working to find ways to get guns out of the hands of criminals? Getting guns off the streets is, and should be, a high priority for these areas of the country.

The way I see it – both sides are right. So when this all starts to go down. Please have a little perspective. And think before you give someone like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh a quotable quote to feed the fear and anger of their gullible mobs.

… In the interest of disclosure, I don’t own a gun. And I don’t care if you do. My father does – he liked to go deer hunting when I was growing up in upstate New York. Fine with me. I do, however, side with the Law Enforcement Steering Committee, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the National Black Police Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation on the Assault Weapon Ban. Simply because, they have to face these criminals, not I. They will always have my support on their collective decisions regarding this issue.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. excellent post!
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yorgatron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. very sensible...
K&Red :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Guns... the issue that won't go away.
Edited on Sat Aug-25-07 01:27 PM by D__S
"I am increasingly concerned about the possibility of a slow-but-steady campaign of scaring the right with "liberal-gun-grabbers" to gather votes from now until next November. They have already discovered how posting inflammatory material on the internet and waiting for, or providing their own, fringe, profanity-filled knee-jerk responses, is a great way to get quotes from “Democrats” to use on their ”news” shows".

It would help if candidates like Kucinich didn't propose banning handguns...


Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.


http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?Docu...


"Rural residents hunt. You grow up around it, it is a communal activity. They also live miles away from law enforcement. Protecting their family until someone can get there is their responsibility. Guns will always be part of that culture (unless of course there is a natural disaster – then the George W. Bush administration will work quickly to take them away)."

The order for the gun confiscations came from Mayor Nagin and were reinforced and carried out by police superintendent Eddie Compass...


No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms, said P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police. "Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," he said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspec...

It took legal action by the NRA to halt the confiscations...


(Fairfax, VA) -- The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

“This is a significant victory for freedom and for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The court’s ruling is instant relief for the victims who now have an effective means of defending themselves from the robbers and rapists that seek to further exploit the remnants of their shattered lives,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

Joining LaPierre in hailing the U.S. District Court decision was NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “This is an important victory. But the battle is not over. The NRA will remedy state emergency statutes in all 50 states, if needed, to ensure that this injustice does not happen again."

The controversy erupted when The New York Times reported, the New Orleans superintendent of police directed that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have guns and that “only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.” ABC News quoted New Orleans’ deputy police chief, saying, “No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons.”

The NRA also pledged that it will continue its work to ensure that every single firearm arbitrarily and unlawfully seized under this directive is returned to the rightful law-abiding owner.


http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6539

Furthermore... city officials denied that any confiscation had ever taken place, however, their lies soon became public...



Mayor Nagin Continues to
Snub the Second Amendment

Monday, April 10, 2006

Fairfax, VA—Law-abiding citizens of New Orleans who were forced to relinquish their legally owned firearms to the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) will have to wait, indefinitely, to regain their property. The City of New Orleans revealed they have not returned any firearms, as Mayor Ray Nagin and the city have yet to set up a return process.

“Mayor Ray Nagin continues to deny freedom by denying lawful citizens their Second Amendment rights,” stated National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “First, he confiscates law-abiding citizens’ firearms and lies about it. Then, he fails to comply with court orders. Now he refuses to return the legally owned firearms to their rightful owners by dragging his feet. It’s a disgrace.”

After denying the illegal confiscation for months, on March 15, 2006, Mayor Nagin and the NOPD conceded in federal court that they do have seized guns stored in locked steel containers. The city then agreed in court to a process by which law-abiding citizens may file a claim to receive their confiscated firearms.

However, a New Orleans official handling the gun confiscations stated that no guns have been returned because the NOPD requires background checks, and the city has not set up a process. The official acknowledged, “We've been told it was going to happen weeks ago…and still hasn't been done.”


http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=7468




"Urban residents face more violent crime. Can you blame them for working to find ways to get guns out of the hands of criminals? Getting guns off the streets is, and should be, a high priority for these areas of the country."


The Constitution of The United States, and Bill of Rights applies to all equally. It would be a travesty to allow one segment of society to exercise a right and at the same time restrict or disallow another segment that same right simply because of where they choose to live. Urban dwellers have every right to own the firearm of their choice
as do their rural counterparts.

"I do, however, side with the Law Enforcement Steering Committee, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the National Black Police Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation on the Assault Weapon Ban. Simply because, they have to face these criminals, not I. They will always have my support on their collective decisions regarding this issue."

The "Assault Weapons Ban" was one of the most useless and senseless pieces of legislation passed by Congress. It was "feel good" legislation at its finest.

My opinion on the matter is that any law abiding citizen should be able to legally own any type of firearm available to law enforcement officers.
Just because a person puts on a blue uniform and badge it doesn't entitle
them to special privileges that are denied to civilians.

Want to ban "assault weapons"?

Fair enough, but then law enforcement should be prohibited from possessing them as well.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warren pease Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Incredibly, I agree with most of that...
I was among the most virulent gun-grabbers for many years, but the Bush regime has shown me the error of my ways. It was always hilarious to listen to the wingnuts rant about their sacred second amendment rights, when the very same people were all for trashing the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th because of their "damn librul bias."

But watching BushCo's moves over the past three months -- presidential directives, executive orders, Chertoff's gut, troop movements in DC, Operation Noble Resolve going on now in Portland and elsewhere, the culmination of the "Noble" ops in October again in Portland called Operation TopOff (see this thread for more: http://tinyurl.com/2kmg5l ) -- it seems entirely possible that the next false flag event is just about ready to go, possibly coinciding with the attack on Iran.

Combine all that recent repressive garbage with the patriot acts and the military commissions act and I see every reason to be armed and dangerous.

Not that I'm delusional enough to imagine that I'm going to single-handedly pull a Bruce Willis and dust a dozen or two robocops or special forces killers. But it seems prudent to have some form of self-defense in these fucked up times. Never know when the freeps might get smart enough to link screen names with real ones and track people to their lairs. If that happened here, I'd feel remiss if I didn't perforate a few of them.


wp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. I'm sorry. Assult weapons need to be banned..
There is no purpose for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. "assault weapons" are the least of your worries
Trust me, you're more likely to be stranged to death than shot with a rifle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Sure there is...
Protection of citizens from tyrannical governments, for example.

Isn't that why the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment?

Just a thought...

Why, yes, I am a Second Amendment Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. The most popular civilian target rifles in America, you mean... (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. That's one of the beautiful things about the BOR.
One need not demonstrate or show need or purpose in order to exercise a right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. There's a video up about the NOLA confiscations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Interesting to watch the squads of SWAT team members break into people's houses and steal their guns. The part when the six bury police officers threw a 90-pound grandmother to the floor was really fun to watch, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. What's an "assault weapon?"
And how can you sure that only criminals will carry these weapons, whatever they are, and not law-abiding Americans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. the definition doesn't matter to me, nor who carries them
as I stated above, if law enforcement agencies, in almost complete agreement, supports their ban, I will support that - not parse terminology. I believe I was clear on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. There is a strong current of opinion on the DU...
...about how law enforcement is the tool of the administration and neocons, their goals and agends, etc. Much has been discussed about undercover police officers infiltrating liberal protest marches and instigating violence against the riot police. Or undercover officers photographing protesters.

And of course, the lovely "free speech zones" that the Secret Service has such a passion for.

In this context, if the various and sundry police fraternal organizations (or at least their leadership) want some piece of legislation, why do you think that is?







The police want powers that they think will make their jobs easier and/or safer. They don't WANT to have to bother with search warrants, but they have to. They don't WANT to bother with the Miranda warnings, but they have to. They would do away with that pesky 4th Amendment if they could.

It's something that they have to live with. It's part of the job. Our society is not set up to make law enforcement the top priority. It is to make freedom and liberty and rights that priority. It forces law enforcement and the judiciary into certain, restricted processes in order to bypass those freedoms and liberties and rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redneck Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. "the definition doesn't matter to me..."
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 09:07 PM by Redneck Socialist
Calling a cat a dog doesn't make it so.

Supporters of the AWB have long relied on the widespread confusion between full and semi-auto weapons in order to garner support for banning semi autos.

If you think bayonet lugs, folding stocks, removable mags, pistol grips and flash suppressors make for a more dangerous gun then by all means the AWB is right up your ally. If, on the other hand you think regulating guns based on their cosmetic features is, well, kind of silly, then the AWB is perhaps one of the worst pieces of legislation to ever come out of Washington.

Definitions are at the heart of the AW debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. You do relaize...
that a good portion of those organizations represent management... IE: police chiefs.

Here's some more food for thought...

under the provisions of the old 94 AWB, there was a process by which law enforcement officers could 'inherit'/be allowed to retain possession of "assault rifles" and "large capacity feeding devices" upon retirement.

As a current example, the MA AWB has this as part of the law...


Chapter 140: Section 131M. Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.


http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131m.htm

Now, what purpose or need does a retired LEO have for an "assault rifle"?

This provision of the law (and the fed 94 ban before it), really only has one purpose... to garner the support and backing of LEO organizations.

Would you realistically expect LEOs to back legislation if it meant that they were required to surrender their "assault rifles" and magazines once they left the police department?

Let them put their money where their mouths are and agree to an AWB that would without exception not allow them to keep their Evil Black Rifles upon retirement.

I'll bet they'll go quickly silent on the issue then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. They're gonna try to revive this issue out of desperation
It won't fly.

Even polls here on DU show that over 50% of the people who voted in the polls claim to own guns. No candidate will get duped on this issue again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 02:08 AM
Response to Original message
7. I don't own a gun, but I'm thinking maybe I should. My only
problem with it is I used to have night terrors, and if you've ever had them, you know what they are. Once I bought a can of mace, thinking that should do the trick if someone got in my house. Well, one night I had a nightmare, grabbed the can of mace, and sprayed the entire room. All my animals and I had to sleep on the living room couch that night. For this reason alone, I'm not sure I should get a gun - I might shoot my own foot or one of my animals. I really don't care if people want to own guns, but I draw the line on anyone owning an assault rifle or the like. These are only made to kill a lot of people in a very short time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AJ9000 Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. You probly should not own a gun. 1 alternative for you
might be a taser.

I'd rather be shot multiple times with an "assault rifle" than once with a shotgun. Those things DESTROY flesh at close range.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. You should get an alarm...
or call a cop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Oddly
"assault weapons" are not used in a statistically relevant number of crimes. Handguns, like the one you mention buying are the most common weapon carried and used illegally.

Because they can be concealed.



You way want an alarm or a dog..

Here is a hint on assault weapons. Fake word, used to dupe people into thinking "progress" is being made.

Same weapon, just looks a little scarier in its illegal form..

Legal:


Illegal:


Real "assault rifle" controlled since 1934


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Ah, yes, the second rifle has an evil evil flash supressor
My favorite quiz...



Which one of these is a deadly assault weapon?


This one?






This one?






Or this one?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Here's the answers
#1 is not an 'assault weapon'
#2 is an 'assault weapon' by definition in California.
#3 is an 'assault weapon' by definition according to the now-expired 1993 Assault Weapons Ban.

The problem is that it's the exact same rifle!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Even that snubnose S&W .38 is highbrow for a lot of crooks.
A S&W .38 is a decent firearm, which also happens to cost several hundred bucks.

Crooks looking to do drive-bys or robberies are more likely to use el-cheapo junk guns like Jennings or Bryco pistols from the infamous Ring of Fire gun manufacturers - sub $100 price range, absolute junk.

Then, when the cops are after them, they can chuck the thing in the weeds without feeling too much financial pain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Actual assault rifles are VERY tightly controlled in the United States...
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 08:47 PM by benEzra
I really don't care if people want to own guns, but I draw the line on anyone owning an assault rifle or the like. These are only made to kill a lot of people in a very short time.

Actual assault rifles are VERY tightly controlled in the United States. As in, mere possession of one outside police/military duty is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you have prior Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4). If you do get a Form 4, a civilian-transferable AK-47 or M16 will set you back $15,000 to $75,000, due to the extremely small number of civilian-transferable assault rifles (the supply was frozen in 1986 by the McClure-Volkmer Act).

When the ban-guns lobby talks about "assault weapons," they're not talking about assault rifles. They're talking about NON-automatic civilian guns, e.g. all civilian shotguns holding over 5 shells, all civilian rifles and pistols holding more than 10 rounds, all self-loading rifles with handgrips that stick out, plus banning the most popular civilian target rifles in this country even if they meet all the other asinine criteria.

At least twice as many gun owners own "assault weapons," broadly defined, as hunt. My wife and I own several between us, and we'd like to keep them, thanks.

I don't own a gun, but I'm thinking maybe I should. My only problem with it is I used to have night terrors, and if you've ever had them, you know what they are. Once I bought a can of mace, thinking that should do the trick if someone got in my house. Well, one night I had a nightmare, grabbed the can of mace, and sprayed the entire room. All my animals and I had to sleep on the living room couch that night. For this reason alone, I'm not sure I should get a gun - I might shoot my own foot or one of my animals.

That's scary! How close at hand was the mace when that happened? I'm assuming you grabbed it in your sleep?

You might still be OK if the guns were kept in a safe in a separate room, or were otherwise secured in a manner that required you to be fully awake and in possession of your faculties in order to access them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
19. Jim Webb showed in '06 how to defuse the gun issue
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 08:30 PM by benEzra
when he beat George Macacawitz Allen in a heavily gun owning state. Gore in '00 and Kerry/Edwards in '04 showed what not to do, but the latter seems to be what the OP is advocating.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

Salient points for 2008:

Hunting is irrelevant. Only 1 in 5 gun owners in the U.S. is a hunter, and many (perhaps most) hunters also own nonhunting guns. The "talk up hunting, ban nonhunting guns" strategy of of 2000 and 2004 is a guaranteed loser in states with high gun ownership rates.

Guns are not inherently a repub issue. Half, or slightly more, of gun owners are Dems or indies, not repubs. The Webb and Tester victories in '06 showed once again that Dems who will stand up for the rights of lawful and responsible gun owners CAN win the votes of gun owners. Jim Webb is a self-defense advocate, he opposed the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, and he let gun owners know that.

Rifles are not a crime problem in the U.S. and never have been; only 3% of murders in the United States involve ANY type of rifle. Maryland (worst homicide rate of any state, IIRC) had 551 murders in 2005; all rifles combined accounted for only 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. Washington state had 205 homicides, 8 by rifle. You tell ME if rifles are a crime problem. Check the figures for yourself: Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20). FWIW, the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police union, does not support the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch.

Fighting to ban the most popular lawfully-owned guns in America is just plain stupid. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch targets the most popular civilian target rifles in America--the AR-15 platform, SKS's, M1 carbine, M1 Garand, non-automatic AK variants--plus all civilian shotguns holding more than 5 shells, and civilian rifles and pistols holding more than 10 rounds (even .22's). Far more people own "assault weapons," broadly defined, than hunt. Want to know what the backlash against a comprehensive "assault weapon" ban would be? Think about the backlash against an outright ban on hunting, and double or triple it.

How the issue played in '04: Alienated Rural Democrat (by DU's own virginiamountainman)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qdemn7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
26. Very good post, but one problem.
The argument about urban vs. rural being able to have different guns laws is a dangerous position and a potential trap. If you're going to permit say NYC, Chicago and DC to place strong controls on, or even prohibit possession of guns, then what's to stop Omaha, St Louis or Salt lake City to do the same thing with abortion?

There's already precedent with the issue of Community Standards for sexual images under the 1st Amendment. You want to go further down that road?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. No - see - the point was that I can understand both views
and therefore - hopefully - those who are passionate on both sides - maybe can understand, too. And not offer up fodder for the other side.

Not have separate sets of laws.

Or something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Uh-oh... you compared abortion to gun control
It's only a matter of time now...

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qdemn7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Yeah I know.....
So what? I'm bored.... :evilgrin: :bounce: :beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Exactly!
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 11:18 PM by D__S
No one needs wire coat hangers anymore except for back alley abortionists, car thieves and child abusers.

Consequently... they should be banned from a 'civilized' society since they have no other useful purpose. :smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qdemn7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-27-07 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. No more wire hangers! EVER!!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-27-07 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. I swear...
even Ghandi would have capped her ass if he were there.
:smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 25th 2014, 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC