This guys says it better than I can...

[zanne]

http://blog.nj.com/njv_bryan_miller/2008/01/gun_ownership_declining_in_us.html

"I also find the decline in American gun ownership encouraging because it signals a potential diminishment of the noise and power of the gun lobby. Although the gun lobby's main role is to act as the bulwark of the gun industry, to keep sales up by blocking regulation, gun owners often provide the on the ground 'soldiers' whose noise convinces legislators and pols of the fiction that gun regulation is unpopular among their constituents."

HINT: He's talking about you guys; the NRA "soldiers". Whether you realize it or not, you let gun lobbies supply you with falso info, then you use it against any suggestion for reasonable gun control. Gun control IS NOT UNPOPULAR among Democratic voters. Maybe it is for Republican voters, but Democratic voters who would knowingly urge people not to vote for them because of their stance on guns is, in my opinion, traitorous. The Repubs will get one more vote because of YOU, not because of the will of the people. Stop advocating for the other party.

[coriolis]

1. The constitution-hating gun-grabbing psychopaths won't get mine.

Tough shit, sweetie.

[zanne]

2. C'mon Punkin....

Be sweet.

[Warpy]

3. WAKE UP!!!!

There are only 2 ways to take your guns away:

1. A constitutional amendment overturning the second amendment, ratified by 3/4 of the states. Not bloodly likely.

2. A fascist government declares martial law and sends both military and police door to door to collect them. What party does THAT sound like?

Anybody with a death grip on a gun who shrinks from sensible regulation needs a wakeup call. This is yours.

[zanne]

4. It's a hysterical response to any mention of gun control...

Gunners see the words "gun control" and immediately think "THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY MY GUNS"! They really have to calm down and think.

[radioburning]

99. This is why we flip when we hear the words "gun control"...

"ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry... The assault weapon ban is a purely symbolic move real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, "Disarm the Citizenry," Washington Post, 4-5-96


"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Janet Reno

We're not as irrational as you think. We just know what the anti-gunners are up to!

[zanne]

107. So because these two people wanted to disarm the citizenry...

Every gun control advocate wants to ban guns altogether? That IS irrational thinking.

[iiibbb]

129. And if an accident happens or some nutjob kills someone...

...you want to take everyone else's guns? That isn't irrational?


I'm not opposed to "reasonable" restrictions; the problem is that most of the proposals for gun-control provide no mechanism for actually reducing violence or accidents.

Registration - most guns used in crimes are stolen or straw purchases

Licensing - actually we have a form of licensing (CCW permitS), but apparently "reasonable" people don't want it to actually convey an ability to have a firearm.

Bullet imprinting - Straw purchases, thefts, reloads... including the myriad of ways of defeating proposed marking technologies (as they now stand).

Smart guns - Unproven technology. Arguably makes guns less safe because people develop bad habits and fools people into thinking a gun is safe.

Assault weapons ban - Purely cosmetic restrictions on guns that are less powerful and no more lethal than hunting weapons.

Handguns - the defensive weapon of choice used by police officers. They are decidedly less powerful than rifles and shotguns... in that regard they are safer. May be used by a wider variety of people.

A ban really would just result in a significant underground market just like drugs.



Sensible gun control?

How about tax-credits for gun safe purchases.
Free gun-locks from the police.
Free gun-safety education.

[radioburning]

137. There's a lot more than two, and "gun control" is, by their definition, the foot in the door.

I'm not against background checks, age restrictions, laws against illegally obtaining firearms, and waiting periods. I don't want guns in the hands of criminals, kids, or people with mental problems-but we already have laws regarding these situations. Gun laws on the books right now just make it more restrictive, legally tricky, and expensive on law abiding, legal gun owners.

[krispos42]

102. What is the long-term goal of people like you, Zanne?

Is not the ultimate goal of the VPC and gunguys.com the effective disarmament of the American people?

Is not every proposed law, good or bad, intelligent or asinine, effective or blatantly political, another step toward that goal?




From what I can gather, gun ownership under anti-gun people would look something like this:


All civilian ownership of handguns is a major felony. No new handguns can be bought by any citizen. Citizens that already own them have to register them with the government. Existing handguns cannot be sold, given, traded, inherited, or otherwise transferred to anybody except the government.

Concealed or open carry of handguns is a felony.

All civilian ownership of semi-automatic and repeating long guns is a major felony. No new semi-automatic or repeating long guns can be bought by any citizen. Citizens that already own them have to register them with the government. Existing semi-automatic and repeating cannot be sold, given, traded, inherited, or otherwise transferred to anybody except the government.

No more transfers of Title III fully-automatic weapons or destructive devices will be issued. Citizens that already own them have to register them with the government. Existing fully-automatic weapons and destructive devices cannot be sold, given, traded, inherited, or otherwise transferred to anybody except the government.

All remaining firearms (single-and double-barreled rifles and shotguns) are registered with the federal and state governments.

All new firearms must have a microprinting system that etches the gun's serial number on every fired cartridge.

They are required to be stored in an unloaded and disassembled state in a locked safe. Ammunition is stored in a separate locked safe.

Periodic surprise inspections of firearms and ammunition are made by the police. This must happen at least once a year. Ownership of a firearm or ammunition means you are required to allow the inspections. Failure to allow inspections results in immediate arrest and confiscation of all firearms.

Anybody wishing to buy or inherit a firearm must go through a background check of criminal and mental-health records. If those are passed, the person must be screened for mental-health issues. There is no obligation to process these checks in a timely manner. The prospective gun owner will pay a hefty fee for those checks.

A person must also have a firearm owner ID card to buy or inherit a firearm. The ID card is issued only after the above criminal and mental screenings are complete. The ID card has all of the calibers and serial numbers of the guns the owner possesses and must be used to purchase ammunition. Only ammunition for the calibers listed on the card will be allowed to be bought.

A person must have their firearm ownership ID card on them at all times when carrying or transporting firearms. They are only allowed to transport or poses their own firearms, as listed on the ID card.

Every rifle sold, new or used, must be test-fired and the bullet given to the police forensics lab. During the periodic surprise inspections, the police will also test-fire the gun and take a new fired bullet to the forensics lab. The police will have a portable bullet-capture unit in a vehicle and will publicly perform such a test.

A person may only buy one firearm a year, for a maximum of 5 owned.

All person-to-person sales of firearms are prohibited. Firearms can only be sold to and bought from federally licensed dealers.

All ammunition sales will be recorded forever in a government database. All of the ammunition in the box will have a unique serial number, which is also registered. Posession of unregistered ammunition, even if it is of the proper caliber, is a felony. No secondary transfer of ammunition is allowed.

Reloading components are no longer allowed to be sold.

There will be a $1-a-round sin tax on all ammunition sold.

All firearms must carry $500,000 dollars worth of personal-injury insurance and $10,000 of property-damage insurance.






Of course, the gun-control people will look you dead in the eye after all this is accomplished and say "these are reasonable laws", "these are common-sense precautions" and "they are not an infringement or violation of your constitutional rights because you can still own guns".

[zanne]

112. You have a rich fantasy life, kirspos.

Is that from a science fiction novel? Projecting much? The goal of people "like me", Krispos, is to try to have a civilization in this country where people stop shooting children and innocent people, where the mentally ill and the addicted cannot carry a gun, and to try to limit the carnage that guns cause families in domestic violence cases.

The "goal of people like me" is to reduce gun violence. The goal of people like me is to prevent law-abiding citizens from being intimidated by people with guns so that they can "feel secure in their persons".

[krispos42]

122. Why, yes, I do live a rich fantasy life

Reading lots of hard sci-fi and alternative-history books will do that... :-)


But, no, my previous post is an amalgamation of various gun-controlling ideas that are either law, or have been attempted to pass as law.

All civilian ownership of handguns is a major felony. No new handguns can be bought by any citizen. Citizens that already own them have to register them with the government. Existing handguns cannot be sold, given, traded, inherited, or otherwise transferred to anybody except the government.

Example: Washington, DC, although because it is a local ban I presume DC residents can sell their guns to dealers out-of-state rather than have to have them get chopped up. Cook County, Illinois and San Fransisco, California either have something similar in effect or have tried to legislate something similar.

Concealed or open carry of handguns is a felony.

Licenced concealed carry is illegal in Illinios and Wisconsin, and virtually nonexistant in many states, counties, and cities.

All civilian ownership of semi-automatic and repeating long guns is a major felony. No new semi-automatic or repeating long guns can be bought by any citizen. Citizens that already own them have to register them with the government. Existing semi-automatic and repeating cannot be sold, given, traded, inherited, or otherwise transferred to anybody except the government.

Proposed gun-control law HR1022 would ban all semi-automatic rifles. In California and maybe a couple of other states, firearms designated "assault weapons" and registered with the State cannot be sold, given, or otherwise transferred to anybody else in the state except a gun dealer or the police. This includes bolt-action and single-shot .50 BMG rifles.



While pump-action, bolt-action, and lever-action guns are to date not limited or banned, I'm sure it's on the list somewhere. :shrug:

No more transfers of Title III fully-automatic weapons or destructive devices will be issued. Citizens that already own them have to register them with the government. Existing fully-automatic weapons and destructive devices cannot be sold, given, traded, inherited, or otherwise transferred to anybody except the government.

Considering the flash of panic that ensued here after Kansas repealed its machine-gun ban, I'm sure this will pass at somepoint just because there are so few owners of them they will simply be brushed aside.

All remaining firearms (single-and double-barreled rifles and shotguns) are registered with the federal and state governments.

While this assumes an as-let-unlikely ban on bolt-action, pump-action, and lever-action long guns, nevertheless, mandatory gun registration is often pushed.

All new firearms must have a microprinting system that etches the gun's serial number on every fired cartridge.

I believe this already passed in California. "Microstamping".

They are required to be stored in an unloaded and disassembled state in a locked safe. Ammunition is stored in a separate locked safe.

The "ammo in a separate safe" part might be a bit overdone, but the first part is more or less what is required in DC and the United Kingdom.

Periodic surprise inspections of firearms and ammunition are made by the police. This must happen at least once a year. Ownership of a firearm or ammunition means you are required to allow the inspections. Failure to allow inspections results in immediate arrest and confiscation of all firearms.

That is roughly how they do it in the UK. I don't know if the bobbies can arrest you if you refuse an inspection, but it seems to be a reasonable extension. After all, if you refuse a blood-alcohol test your driver-license is automatically suspended, right?

Anybody wishing to buy or inherit a firearm must go through a background check of criminal and mental-health records. If those are passed, the person must be screened for mental-health issues. There is no obligation to process these checks in a timely manner. The prospective gun owner will pay a hefty fee for those checks.

The first part we already do. The screening by a mental-health expert prior to buying a gun is something I've seen bandied about here in the Gungeon and in GD. The slowness of completing checks and fees are documented in the recent post about a guy in New York getting his permit.

A person must also have a firearm owner ID card to buy or inherit a firearm. The ID card is issued only after the above criminal and mental screenings are complete. The ID card has all of the calibers and serial numbers of the guns the owner possesses and must be used to purchase ammunition. Only ammunition for the calibers listed on the card will be allowed to be bought.

A person must have their firearm ownership ID card on them at all times when carrying or transporting firearms. They are only allowed to transport or poses their own firearms, as listed on the ID card.

These ideas are things that Illinois and Hawaii do. They don't print your gun's make, model, serial number, and caliber on your firearms licence, but in Illinois you need to have your FOID card on you at all times while in possession of your gun. In Hawaii they are trying to pass a bill (HB2999)that says you can only buy ammunition for the caliber of gun you have registered with them.

Every rifle sold, new or used, must be test-fired and the bullet given to the police forensics lab. During the periodic surprise inspections, the police will also test-fire the gun and take a new fired bullet to the forensics lab. The police will have a portable bullet-capture unit in a vehicle and will publicly perform such a test.

Several states, including Maryland, already mandate that new firearms sold in that state must each have a factory-fired and factory-recovered bullet and brass case turned over to the state police so that so-called "ballistic fingerprinting" can be done. To quote from a Ruger manual...

WHY ARE WE INCLUDING A FIRED CARTRIDGE CASE
WITH EVERY RUGER PISTOL AND REVOLVER?

Certain states and jurisdictions now require that all newly manufactured pistols
and revolvers must be accompanied by a cartridge case, which has been test fired
from that gun at the factory. The case must be placed in a sealed container
bearing certain information concerning this test cartridge.

At the time of retail sale in those jurisdictions, firearms dealers must forward
such test cartridge to a designated destination such as their State Police
Laboratory. As independent Ruger Distributors have nationwide markets without
territorial restrictions, we have decided to include a fired cartridge case with all
new Ruger pistols and revolvers, to minimize the possibility of inadvertent noncompliance
with these laws.

Retail customers located in other states, where laws or regulations do not require
the dealer to so act, may be assured that the fired cartridge case they receive with
the firearm at the time of retail purchase is proof that your new Ruger firearm
has undergone our normal test firing procedures during manufacture.

Now, trying to ballistic-fingerprint new guns is a pretty bad idea, simply because any mechanical. device undergoes the most physical changes when it is being "broken in". As the part of a new gun wear in, the rifling marks on the bullet and chambering marks on the brass is change more in the first 200 rounds than any other point in the gun's service life. Taking a fresh ballistic fingerprint every year or two is the best way to keep track of the marks a gun makes on the bullets and casings. And such a system could easily be mounted in a van.

A person may only buy one firearm a year, for a maximum of 5 owned.

Some states already have limits on the number of firearms you can buy a year. Once we've been reduced to single-shot and double-barreled firearms, how many do you truly need? A single-shot single-barrel .22 for target practice, a single-barreled single-shot varmit gun, a double-barreled big-game rifle, a double-barreled 12-gage for ducks, geese, and pheasant, and a double-barreled 28-gage for grouse and quail give you just about all possibilities for hunting beast and bird in North America.

All person-to-person sales of firearms are prohibited. Firearms can only be sold to and bought from federally licensed dealers.

Something that has several DUers, such as FightTheGoodFightNow, upset is private-party transfers without background checks. Solution: require all sales, public and private, to go through a federal dealer and the attendent background checks and waiting periods.

All ammunition sales will be recorded forever in a government database. All of the ammunition in the box will have a unique serial number, which is also registered. Posession of unregistered ammunition, even if it is of the proper caliber, is a felony. No secondary transfer of ammunition is allowed.

I think California's General Assembly just passed this law this year. I don't know if the Governator signed it, though. I believe that the law only included the most popular handgun cartridges, but I'm not positive.

Reloading components are no longer allowed to be sold.

Logical extension of above. Otherwise hand-loaders will be able to produced unmarked, untaxed, unregistered ammunition.

There will be a $1-a-round sin tax on all ammunition sold.

This tax was introduced in California a few years ago, a 10-cent-per-round tax. Didn't go anywhere, but they tried, and probably will try again.

All firearms must carry $500,000 dollars worth of personal-injury insurance and $10,000 of property-damage insurance.

Following the cars-are-registed-and-insured-so-why-aren't-guns? argument, it has been suggested that guns should have insurance policies on them so that if they ever choose to leap out of somebody's closet and shoot up a Denny's, the injured and dead will have some coverage.

Is that from a science fiction novel? Projecting much? The goal of people "like me", Krispos, is to try to have a civilization in this country where people stop shooting children and innocent people, where the mentally ill and the addicted cannot carry a gun, and to try to limit the carnage that guns cause families in domestic violence cases.

The "goal of people like me" is to reduce gun violence. The goal of people like me is to prevent law-abiding citizens from being intimidated by people with guns so that they can "feel secure in their persons".

Don't you think the plan I outlined above accomplish would accomplish these goals?

[Irreverend IX]

24. Not really.

All sorts of asinine laws have passed and not been overturned due to violation of the 2nd. Foremost is the "assault weapons" ban, which banned firearms that criminals don't use on the basis of cosmetic features that have nothing to do with a gun's utility for violence. For example, many AR-15 and AK-style rifles were banned by the AWB, but M14-type rifles, which are much deadlier than ARs or AKs, were not restricted due to their more traditional appearance.

The anti-gun forces have made clear their intention to ban and restrict any firearm that can effectively be used for self-defense and to increase the cost of gun ownership until only the rich can afford it. Free speech zones, the Patriot Act and the depredations of the drug war have all been allowed to stand, so the mere existence of the 2nd Amendment is no guarantee that similarly draconian restrictions will be brought to bear against the RKBA. Ultimately, the Bill of Rights is only as effective as the people who will rally in its defense.

[coriolis]

52. I simply said nobody is getting my guns. You guys are the ones imagining death grips

and other unhealthy mental images.

[Warpy]

54. "constitution-hating gun-grabbing psychopaths"

betrayed you, sunshine.

[coriolis]

55. If the shoe fits, Skippy.

:D
None of this bothers me because the grabbers ain't getting mine. I've never ever been in the NRA but I've owned guns for 58 years. Not about to quit now. Deal with it.

[zanne]

60. That's fine.

Just follow the laws concerning firearms, keep them locked up safe away from kids and don't shoot anybody.

[coriolis]

67. I've followed the laws for 58 years.

Just like 99.999% of all gun owners have...and do...but you keep harping on this like it's the only thing that's important in the whole fucking world. As for the 'kids'...that only seems to be a problem in places where they have no access to or education about guns, with a very few but visible exceptions (Columbine) There are millions of Democrats in what you might call flyover country who think you're completely full of shit on this issue and who vote accordingly. I don't know what you WANT to happen with respect to guns, you don't have the honesty to come out and SAY...and so all we can in infer is that you want us to give them up. Well, it ain't happening, sweetie. And your insistence on making this an issue just costs us Dems votes...so congratulations, your support of the Republican Brady Gang is working.

[zanne]

69. I wrote a very polite post.

Too bad that in all of your 58 years, you haven't seen fit to getting any manners. I don't have the time, energy or will to respond to your numerous insults about me. Here's a suggestion; don't read my posts. OK, sweetie?

[Tejas]

98. You need to get out more

because there are indeed "constitution-hating gun-grabbing psychopaths" in our society that would like nothing more than all firearms disappearing from the face of the earth.

psychopaths?

Yes, they are that disconnected from reality.


kum-bi-ya etc......

[zanne]

113. Are you calling me a psychopath?

That's a serious accusation.

[iverglas]

118. myself, I'd be wondering

about someone who closes a post with

kum-bi-ya etc......

Not seeing much connection to reality there ...

[iverglas]

119. and you need a dictionary

If you run across one, ask it what the difference between a PSYCHOPATH and a PSYCHOTIC is.

Maybe someone can help you use them in a sentence then.

Oh heck, I can do that.


A psychotic suffers from delusional thought processes that impair his/her ability to distinguish between reality and not-reality.

A psychopath knows the difference between "right" and "wrong" but is devoid of empathy and characteristically acts to further his/her self-interest regardless of the potential or actual harm to others.


A psychotic may think that you are the devil incarnate, come to steal his/her guns.

A psychopath knows who you are, and regards you as an object to be manipulated so s/he can get what s/he considers to be in his/her own interest.


Dog knows what you were intending to say.

[rdenney]

145. What'll you do if/when a SWAT team comes knocking on your door for your guns?

Seriously, you probably haven't thought this through all the way, like most law-breakers.

I know you answer will be that they won't, but what if they did, like they did in Orleans?

[pipoman]

5. It is statements like yours which will cost Democratic votes

Maybe more voters in your URBAN area feel the way you do, but RURAL and BLUE COLLAR Dems couldn't disagree more. Keep telling people who have been good Democrats for generations that they are not welcome in YOUR party because they don't think exactly like you and see how much damage YOU do to the party. You have abandoned MILLIONS of Democrats with your 'Johnny come lately' position on this issue and I am sure you are a die hard free trader too. Want to win elections? STFU about gun control, urge our candidate to STFU about gun control, don't try to back door a gun control agenda and maybe...maybe we can win this election with the help of rural and blue collar Dems.

[zanne]

6. Majority in U.S. favors stricter gun control.

Sorry, buddy, but you're wrong.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=471

If you'd really like to know more about my political positions, try checking out some other forums on DU and you'll find out that I am NOT a free trader. Quite the opposite.

Do some reading, for chrissake.

This paragraph in the Harris Poll is very telling;

By 29% to 25% a modest plurality thinks President George Bush would be better on the gun control issue than Senator John Kerry, but 22% see no difference, and 24% are not sure.

Kinda blows your argument out of the water, doesn't it?

[pipoman]

11. Why aren't you a free trader? It is an official Democratic position..

How do you explain 48 states with no restrictions or shall issue laws enacted in the last 20 years? You have previously stated that you think it was the NRA who did this. That doesn't explain why the state legislators are not out on their asses and the shall issue laws repealed in those states nor is there any real active movements to do so.

Further if you believe one poll makes you right you must be up and down like an elevator on virtually every issue.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[pipoman]

19. That is your answer to any position you can't counter

put the person on ignore...how grown up of you.

So again I state, you can disagree with official Dem positions and are still a good Dem, when others disagree with an official position of the party which you happen to agree with they are pugs...again real mature of you. Maybe if you simply stated your position without accusations of everyone being a pug because you disagree with them it would be helpful to your positions.

If you choose to place me on ignore, no loss as you can rarely counter my posts anyway.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[ManiacJoe]

26. That poll appears to be useless.

The only way to correctly poll about technical issues is to establish the level of technical knowledge of the polled sample. In the not-so-recent polls that have actually done that, the polls showed that (1) people had almost no knowledge of the current gun laws, and (2) when asked for specific restrictions their desires reflected the current laws. The only logical conclusion that could be drawn was that the current laws are fine and that enforcement of the laws is what was very lacking.

Unfortunately nothing has changed. Most people still have no knowledge of guns and their laws, and enforcement of the current laws still is very lacking.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[ManiacJoe]

59. Polls are only correct when properly conducted.

Even if the poll agreed with my view, I would still be complaining about it because I would not be able to use it for anything except as an example of how to wrongly conduct a poll.

[zanne]

61. Of course you know more about polls than the people at Harris do.

:crazy:

[ManiacJoe]

64. Probably not.

And I certainly would not want you to be mislead any more than you alread are.

However, one of the things I am good at is reading poll result and seeing all the holes in them.

[zanne]

65. We're all good at that. nt

[ManiacJoe]

66. Glad I could help. (n/t)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. The majority opposes gay marriage. Should we govern by what's popular?

Not expecting an answer here.

David

[radioburning]

100. Majority in U.S. couldn't find Iraq on a globe...

My point is, the majority is not very well informed on the details. They're in favor of laws they don't even know already exist! We already have background checks and waiting periods. Felons aren't walking out of prison, going to the gun store, and walking out the door with a gun. For every person that murders somebody with a gun there's 70 million gun owner who won't. Gun control only works on people who obey laws. To paraphrase the Columbine shooters from one of their "basement tapes"-"go ahead and pass your gun control laws...we got ours anyways"

[krispos42]

106. Interesting poll. Thank you for posting.

My issue with this poll come from this:

As near as Gungeon residents can tell, about 40% of households own guns, which means that 60% do not.

The inference from this is that a very large percentage of Americans, perhaps as high as 50%, have never bought a gun from a gun dealer!

Obviously, those that have never owned a gun have never bought a gun and as such have never deal with a firearms dealer, but there must be at least a few million gun owners that have only bought guns from friends and family, and have never done so from a federally-licensed dealer.

This means that a very large percentage of the population has no direct experience with federal and state laws regarding guns.

This also means that a very large percentage of the population gets their "knowledge" about federal and state firearms laws by other means, such as movies, TV, magazines, and newspapers, or by word-of-mouth.

How do we correct for this? If a significant portion of the population things that the local gun store is stocked with fully-automatic Uzis for $199.99, then their perception will be far from reality.

I suppose that the poll would have to establish how knowledgable about the general public is about gun laws, then present that information as well.

:shrug:



I would note that the percentages have been declining since 1998. I wonder if maybe the fierce gun-control debates of the 1990's actually wound up educating the population?



:shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[rdenney]

146. They still believe that most people like firearms, but they are wrong, as usual.

The NRA keeps their herd under tight mind-control, even if they are only 1% of the US population.

[Beregond2]

7. So

we should assume that just because someone is "rural," they are too stupid to understand the issues surroounding gun control, is that it?

[zanne]

10. You know better than that. Don't play dumb.

Nowhere in my OP did I say that I thought rural voters were dumb. I live in New Hampshire, for chrissake!

[Beregond2]

23. But

you are saying that anytime a politician mentions gun control, people in rural areas can only hear: "We are going to take your guns!" That sounds pretty dumb to me. And no, I'M not saying they are dumb. I am saying that was the implication of your post.

Any responsible gun owner supports gun control, because it is the best way to ensure that they will NEVER lose their guns. It is just common sense.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[aikoaiko]

8. you, who quotes the (anti-)gunguys.com, actually has the nerve to talk about "false info"

Supporting the right to keep and bear arms is about the Constitution, not so much about politicians.

If a citizen votes Republican because of anti-gun rhetoric, legislation from Democrats, then it is our own damn fault.

I tell everyone to vote Democratic, but to hammer our politicians who would damage the 2nd Amendment.

[zanne]

9. Again; IT'S NOT ABOUT TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY!

I hate to shout, but you guys have a one-track mind. What part of the words GUN CONTROL don't you understand? It's not GUN ABOLITION. When you argue like that, you can't be taken seriously. If you can't stay on point, don't bother; you're just damaging your argument.

I'm always amazed at how blind you guys can get when you feel threatened by a post. You don't even bother to read the OP all the way through before you get hysterical and start responding.

[bossy22]

13. it may not be taking our guns away

but it takes away our right to purchase....i dont think the government will do that.

people want gun control because frankly they don't know much about the issue- many people who i speak with who are pro-gun control argue for laws that we already have on the books- i remember one post said soemthing like this "i think is ridiculous that we allow criminals to own guns, there should be a law against people with criminal history from possesing guns" this person obviously never heard of the GCA of 1968....

the majority of the american public does not know diddily squat about firearms...all they know is what they see on TV and the movies

this is directly related to why our laws are written so badly- why the AWB had loopholes that you could fly a plane through- the people making and pushing for these laws dont know what the hell they are talking about and the general public is also ignorant

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[bossy22]

17. i truly believe they want outright bans on certain weapons

i think if they had their ways handguns would be banned, all semi-auto's would be banned, and a strict licensing system for rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes would be implimented- i believe they want a UK style system

This will always be their overall goal- even if the Heller Decision comes back favorable

[aikoaiko]

16. Don't be so disingenuous. When politicians stop talking about gun bans --- so will I and others

BTW oh hysterical one -- You're the one shouting at me in this thread.

Don't you remember that when we (Democrats by and large) voted to ban a set of guns it energized the wedge issue more than anything else.

If as you say, mere, sensible gun control is costing our party, then its because moderates (both those sligthly left and slightly right) don't want it.

[zanne]

20. You, my friend, are not a "moderate".

And neither are your buddies who oppose sensible gun control. I'll say it again, in hopes that it will enter your brain this time; We're not trying to take your guns away. If you can't accept that, there's nothing I can do for you.

[bossy22]

22. sensible?

how do we define sensible?

this is at issue- background checks can be seen as sensible because they don't infringe on our rights and just enfroce the GCA of 68

ban on handguns can be seen as sensible to some because they are used in most gun crimes

ban on all guns can be sensible to some because right to life trumps right to gun in their mind

see my question? where do we draw the line- some people believe the UK system in sensible

I draw the line at background checks, where do you draw it?

sensible got us the AWB and almost Brady II- both which can also be seen as hardly sensible- banning a class of guns based on cosmetic features and creating a licensing system that would bankrupt most small counties

so where is the line drawn? who gets to determine whats sensible?

the american public?- the american public at one point beleive it was sensible to toss away the 4th amendment in the forms of the patriot act? Does tyranny of the majority get to decide?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[bossy22]

34. i just want a straight answer

on what is sensible and who determines what is sensible

to me sensible is in the eye of the beholder...sensible can be a needs based licensing system for some people

People who use the phrase sensible in regards to gun control they want should put a disclaimer in front that says "i believe" so it says i believe handguns bans are sensible gun regulation

i never get a straight answer cause sensible is different to many people

i believe in sensible controls myself- background checks for gun purchers, stricter licensing of automatic weapons

so zanne, what is sensible to you?

[derby378]

94. "Stricter" licensing?

You do realize how difficult it is to purchase an automatic weapon in America, correct? Not to mention that it's a felony for any civilian to own any automatic weapon manufactured after May 19, 1986.

We need less regulation of automatic weapons, not more. Keep the NFA, but get rid of this arbitrary ban sales. It's only in the law books because Charlie Rangel apparently lied in Congress, anyway.

[bossy22]

35. Disclaimer

when i mention sensible up in my previous post- its what i believe in sensible or not sensible...i do not try to put my beliefs on sensibility on other people in this case

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[zanne]

80. You'd better have proof of that, my friend...

Watch who you call a liar. Provide proof of the "lies", or you're just spreading malicious rumors about another DU'er. Not cool, and definitely against DU Rules.

[aikoaiko]

81. If you are now saying you've never supported a gun ban of any type?

I'll apologize if you say you are against any gun bans.


BTw: the post is not against DU rules because you referred to me as friend, which you are not.

[zanne]

86. "Friend" is not an insult or accusation. "Liar" is.

And it's definitely against the DUs Rules. By the way, I support bans on gun in national parks, and schools. I NEVER said I want to ban guns altogether. I never said I want to take away people's guns, though many in the gun forum have jumped to that conclusion for no reason. I believe in strict gun control and regulation.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[zanne]

85. I clicked on the link...

And I got "You are ignoring the author of this thread". How could I have written the post you claim I wrote something in if I'm ignoring the author?

I think you have the wrong DU'er. The username is "zanne".

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[aikoaiko]

88. I have the correct Zanne

I don't know why you can't see it, perhaps you put the OP on ignore that affects how one sees archived posts.

Here's a screen cap of your post. Does this job your pitiful memory or did you remember this all the time but "pretended" to not recall so as to appear, falsely, as "sensible"? So which is it Zanne?

[zanne]

89. That was my reply to someone who wanted to ban handguns!

Do I have to include one of these in every post? :sarcasm:

[aikoaiko]

91. No you weren't. Did you un-ignore the thead and read the OP to which you responded?

The post you responded to (see below) was saying that escalating gun control is not helping because it doesn't keep guns out of criminals' hands.

You made the case (without a bit of sarcasm) that because illicit drug are illegal there are fewer of them, and that making handguns illegal would make for fewer of them.

You cannot revise this history. Just admit you either lied or failed to remember what you wrote.

Nabeshin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-08-08 11:27 AM
Original message
You can take guns away from law-abiding citizens, but not from these guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HrucqUaaZE

Take a good look at who's responsible for the thousands of yearly gun murders in the US. Mass shootings like Columbine and Virginia Tech can grab headlines, but those events are little more than statistical noise. The lion's share of firearm killings are committed by people like the guys in this video, usually because someone was muscling in on their drug turf, disrespecting them, or for some other reason incomprehensible to anyone with more emotional maturity than a 5-year-old.

And you can bet that no one in this video purchased their firearms legally. Virtually all of them probably have felony records that would stop any legal purchase attempt cold. As long as you can get rich slinging dope, dealers will find a way to get the tools of the trade.

The only way to shut these guys down for good is to legalize drugs, eliminating the source of the cash you see them waving around. But no one in Washington has the courage to come out and say that, so we're stuck with our high murder rate and escalating gun control laws that do nothing to change it.

edited the header to clean it up

[maxidivine]

156. crickets

are all you're going to get in response.

They hate being confronted with their own bullshit.

[zanne]

90. Banning handguns would be impossible.

Everybody knows that getting rid of all handguns is a pipe dream. Sensible, strict regulation is what I advocate for.

[aikoaiko]

92. So, let's hear it from you Zanne, Are you against all gun bans?

Saying a handgun ban would be impossible is not the same as saying you are against it or don't want to ban any guns.

[zanne]

108. I don't want guns in National Parks and schools.

That's only common sense. No, I don't think guns should be permitted everywhere. That would make me as fanatical as some people on the gun forum. I can distinguish between black and white. Again, I want stricter regulations on guns and enforcement. But I don't want to ban guns altogether. That's just a stupid idea.

[zanne]

109. No, I'm not against ALLgun bans.

That would make me just like you. I don't approve of guns in National Parks or schools. Common sense has to tell you, too, that guns shouldn't be allowed aboard planes or in churches.

Apart from those places, I know that guns can't be banned. Whether or not I'd like to see them banned is beside the point and absolutely none of your business.

Try as you might, akoako or whatever your name is, you can't intimidate me into saying things you want me to say.

I have very intelligent, sensible opinions on guns. I know that and many other people know that. If you can't handle it, you might want to take a look in the mirror.

[aikoaiko]

115. All I want is for you to tell the truth about your agenda so that we can have an honest discussion.

I've learned a lot from the anti-gun side (not you per se, but others) when honest discussion is conducted.

When you claim, in capitalized letters, that "sensible gun control" has nothing to do with taking guns away or gun bans, that claim is untrue. You wish to ban some guns, and others who propose "sensible gun control" have also proposed banning some guns. The record is clear.

Google HR 1022 and read the co-sponsor list. Too many Democrats have already shown their inclination to ban the very guns many Americans want to have access to.

When you and others of your ilk stop talking about banning guns, then we can talk about "sensible gun control". Take gun bans off the table as an agenda and then you'll get reasonable discussion. If Democratic politicians fall because of their gun banning stances, they only have themselves to blame because they didn't listen to their constituents (or, by my way of thinking, read the Constitution).

As far as this statement goes...
"I have very intelligent, sensible opinions on guns. I know that and many other people know that. If you can't handle it, you might want to take a look in the mirror."
...that's the best Stuart Smalley I've heard in a long time.

[zanne]

120. Now you can read my mind.

You asked for my stance on guns. I gave it to you. Not satisfied with my answer, you start making shit up. Did you go to the Karl Rove School of Politics?

If you can read my mind, tell me what I'm thinking about you right now...

[aikoaiko]

125. I read your posts, not your mind.

I produced a post of your arguing the benefits of banning guns and up thread you claim you are not against all gun bans. There is nothing Rovian about calling you on your bullshit.

[aikoaiko]

128. It looks like you were right --calling someone who tells an untruth a liar is against the rules.

I'm surprised, but not completely.

But let the record show that when you said that those (like yourself) who want "sensible gun control" do not want to ban guns, I provided a link and screen cap to a post where you advocated for banning handguns.

Here it is again (and please don't pawn this off as sarcasm to a post that doesn't exist)


I know, you know, we all know what that makes you.

I recognize that you don't want to ban all guns (especially not the gun in your own home), but you have expressed interest in banning other guns.

[zanne]

130. I've explained that post, sweetie...

Get over it.

[zanne]

144. Of course some guns should be banned from civilian use.

Such as 50 caliber weapons that can bring down a helicopter, and machine guns. A majority of people in this country agree with me.

[ManiacJoe]

147. Just because they can....

You have probably been reading too much anti-50 propaganda. Yes, .50 cal guns can bring down aircraft. However, they are 99.9% of the time .50 cal machinegun pairs/quads mounted on special platforms or in fighter plane wings, etc. Standard .50 cal rifles weight 30 pounds and cannot be fired by humans in any manor that would qualify as an antiaircraft role from the ground.

However, as any special forces team will tell you, .50 cal rifles are great at putting 1/2 inch holes in a stationary aircraft's engine or landing gear to prevent it from taking off.

If you are looking to do some long-range shooting competitions, .50 cal is the way to go. However, at $8000 for the rifle and $4 per round, it is not a cheap sport to engage in.

Besides not being able to afford the ammo quantities, what is wrong with owning a machinegun? (Assuming you want to do through the legal hassles and fees and the $20000 prices for the gun.)

[zanne]

148. Maniac; If you don't agree with it, it's always "propaganda". nt

[ManiacJoe]

149. I suppose I could get you a dictionary for your birthday.

It is propaganda because it is falsehoods purposely passed off as facts to mislead the masses. Whether it fits into my beliefs or not is irrelevant.

[zanne]

151. I have a shelf full of dictionaries, but thank you.

Would you like the definition of propaganda in French, English and Spanish? It wouldn't make any difference to you. It's called cognitive dissonance.

[ManiacJoe]

153. I probably cannot help you with that. (n/t)

[zanne]

154. I taught Remedial Reading for six years...

I can give you online lessons. (For a fee, of course).

[beevul]

150. Please adress the points of his post.

"Standard .50 cal rifles weight 30 pounds and cannot be fired by humans in any manor that would qualify as an antiaircraft role from the ground."



"However, as any special forces team will tell you, .50 cal rifles are great at putting 1/2 inch holes in a stationary aircraft's engine or landing gear to prevent it from taking off."

"If you are looking to do some long-range shooting competitions, .50 cal is the way to go. However, at $8000 for the rifle and $4 per round, it is not a cheap sport to engage in."

"Besides not being able to afford the ammo quantities, what is wrong with owning a machinegun? (Assuming you want to do through the legal hassles and fees and the $20000 prices for the gun.)"


Those above, to be specific.


"Such as 50 caliber weapons that can bring down a helicopter"

And what of other rifles with similar balistics to the 50?

[maxidivine]

155. Good luck

Bringing down a helicopter with a .50 cal rifle. even the quad mounted M2HB machine guns on older warships were very tough to successfully use against low-altitude slow-flying planes, what makes you think single shots out of a rifle of the same exact caliber (means it shoots the same bullets dear) could possibly be useful for swatting helicopters out of the sky? And if it WAS a possibility, then howcome no gangs have shot down any police helicopters yet? You know how much they hate those pesky porkers always buzzing around their blocks don't you?

You are right that one of the .50 BMG and similiar, but larger and higher-powered, rifles main use is to shoot planes. but you are wrong about when and how they were supposed to be used to shoot planes.



They were made in part to shoot planes on the ground. Expensive fighter planes, sensitive command and control equipment at airfields, that sort of thing. they are known as anti-materiel rifles, and the primary purpose they were developed for was to be packed into hostile territory by a small group of special forces soldiers, used to wreak specific, focused havoc on the tiny, fragile systems that multi-million dollar fighter jets need to function and possibly wreck up the control equipment at the airfield while they are at it, and then make their escape, generally leaving the rifle behind or ditching it somewhere it couldn't be recovered easily. The trade was a $5,000 (at the time) rifle for millions of dollars in highly valuable enemy equipment.

They were never intended for or capable of shooting down aircraft in flight. try out some long-distance shooting sometime and tell me you could hit a small target moving hundreds of miles an hour at a distance of 500-2000 yards.

[bossy22]

39. because gun control is usually gun bans

just because you ban one type of weapon and say i can own others doesnt make it much better.

I support gun controls which i find sensible, the problem is that i don't see many controls as sensible

assault weapons bans (especially the new ones) would ban an entire set of guns that i enjoy and that millions of americans own and use for lawful purposes- they are used in a miniscule amount of armed crime and get their noterioty from a few big shootings and the entertainment industry.

Zanne you and i want the same thing- a reduction in gun violence and a reduction in violence overall

if you want to get deeper into the topic you should start another post like your trigger lock post- it happened to turn into a very good discussion

[gorfle]

72. So what is it about, Zanne?

If it's not about taking our guns away, then what is it about?

[beevul]

95. Denounce ALL gun banning then.

If what you say is true, you should have no qualms about denouncing ALL gun banning.

[radioburning]

101. Again; IT IS! HERE'S PROOF!

"ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry... The assault weapon ban is a purely symbolic move real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, "Disarm the Citizenry," Washington Post, 4-5-96


"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Janet Reno


It's called incremental-ism...

[zanne]

114. Again! You're projecting because of two (that's 2) people.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[beevul]

117. Denounce ALL gun banning then.

If what you say is true, you should have no qualms about denouncing ALL gun banning.

If you are honest in your statement that its not about banning guns, then put it to rest - Denounce all gun bans.

[radioburning]

134. How many examples do I have to give, exactly? Besides...

Quoting Janet Reno on this issue is not exactly like I'm quoting my next door neighbor. It's emblematic of the underlying motives of the people in politics who are arguing loudly for gun control. So far I don't feel you've disproved my post yet, just dismissed me with a wave of the hand and a "you're just another crazy gun nut". I win again!

[radioburning]

136. BTW, here's more than two. Now what do you have to say zanne?

"We must get rid of all the guns."
--Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of Handgun Control Inc Phil Donahue Show, September 1994 --- with Sheriff Jay Printz & others

"No, we are not looking at how to control criminals, we are talking about banning the AK47 and semi-automatic guns!"
-- Senator Metzenbaum (D-OH), during the Constitution Subcommittee of 2/10/89

"Sir, we're not hiding behind anything. We ... we endorse a handgun ban. I will tell you that right now. We absolutely endorse that ban..."
--Susan Glick, of the Violence Policy Center in Washington D.C.; in response to a caller's comments during the radio talk show "Front Page", hosted by Sue Wiley, on WVLK Radio 590 am, in Lexington, Kentucky on December 3, 1997
Caller Mark: "Now you're saying that's what your ultimate goal is..."
Glick: "That's right, and we are absolutely vocal about it...,,

" ...should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
-- Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969).

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an_out_right_ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
-- Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995

I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."
-- Nelson T. "Pete" Shields; Chairman, HCI "A Reporter At Large: Handguns", _The New Yorker_, July 26, 1976, 57-58

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
-- Michael K. Beard, President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

"...I don't believe gun owners have rights."
(Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Incorporated, from the Hearst Newspapers Special Report, "Handguns in America" October 1997)

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
-Michael Dukakis, 1986

"There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun....And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution."
-Michael Gartner, 1992 in USA Today

"The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed."
H. J. Res. 438 Introduced by Rep. Major Owens, 1992

"To Hell with the Constitution..."
California Assemblyman Mike Roos, 1989 On the constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban.

"We believe that if any gun dealer, manufacturer, or gun owners wants to test the law in court, they should be given every opportunity. Arrest them. Put the burden on them to prove the law is too vague."
-Louis Tolley, 1991 On HCI's position concerning the Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban.

"Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago.... deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrassing Amendment."
-George Will, 1991

"There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the constitution."
-NBC News president, Michael Gartner, USA Today, 1/16/1992

"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." -- "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation" Josh Sugarmann, March 1989

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." -- U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, quoted by AP, 11/18/93

"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." -- U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..." -- U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" -- U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 12/8/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns." -- U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"With a 10,000% tax we could tax them out of existence." -- U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Washington Post, 11/4/93

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all" -- U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds on CNN's Crossfire, 12/9/93

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. ...If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." - -Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson (uhhh, no)

Ann Richards, Governor of Texas, who admits carrying concealed pistol, but recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed other women (and men) in Texas to have the same means of self protection.

Anti-gun U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein -- who, while Mayor of San Francisco during a "handgun ban" PR stunt, ostentatiously turned in one handgun. And quietly kept her other one.

Anti-gun U.S. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, a lawyer, who "doesn't know" whether her .22 caliber pistol is registered in Chicago, as required.

Anti-gun columnist Carl Rowan, used an illegal handgun to shoot a skinny- dipping teenager. He obtained the illegal pistol from his son, an FBI agent. (How come these anti-gunners all own guns. They should turn theirs in first, and put a big sign on their front door that says "This is a gun free home.")

[maxidivine]

157. Josh Sugarmann

Is one of the only resident of D.C. to hold a Federal Firearms License! The man is worse than hypocritical, and he is typical of the elitists who only want their police, military, and their bodyguards (and themselves) to have guns.

Kinda worried about people "voting from the rooftops" as someone else put it. I wonder why?

[iverglas]

131. I remain curious

The closest thing to an attribution for that Reno "quotation" that I can find is:

Attorney General Janet Reno, Associated Press on 12/10/93

I find nothing on the net that either provides a source -- where these words were actually published -- or includes any information about the nature of the discussion in which the words were spoken or anything else said at the time, to provide context that might help discern meaning.

Mind you, I haven't been through the 550 right-wing / fundamentalist / gunhead sites where the passage is found by google.

Since you're the one offering the alleged quotation as proof of something, I do believe that the onus of at least proving that the words were spoken by the person to whom they're attributed rests on you. The name and date of the publication would be the very least one might expect.

A reference to where they were published would at least give me the opportunity to find the publication and see the words in context, even if you were unable to produce a copy directly.

Thank you in advance.

[radioburning]

135. I'm not right-wing. I'm not a fundamentalist. And my head is NOT shaped like a gun!

I guess she never said it then. She probably didn't say this either...

"Gun registration is not enough."

Janet Reno

"Good morning America"

1993-12-10

All of these are probably fabrications, mis-quotes, or taken out of context...

"We must get rid of all the guns."
--Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of Handgun Control Inc Phil Donahue Show, September 1994 --- with Sheriff Jay Printz & others

"No, we are not looking at how to control criminals, we are talking about banning the AK47 and semi-automatic guns!"
-- Senator Metzenbaum (D-OH), during the Constitution Subcommittee of 2/10/89

"Sir, we're not hiding behind anything. We ... we endorse a handgun ban. I will tell you that right now. We absolutely endorse that ban..."
--Susan Glick, of the Violence Policy Center in Washington D.C.; in response to a caller's comments during the radio talk show "Front Page", hosted by Sue Wiley, on WVLK Radio 590 am, in Lexington, Kentucky on December 3, 1997
Caller Mark: "Now you're saying that's what your ultimate goal is..."
Glick: "That's right, and we are absolutely vocal about it...,,

" ...should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."
-- Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969).

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an_out_right_ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it."
-- Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995

I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal."
-- Nelson T. "Pete" Shields; Chairman, HCI "A Reporter At Large: Handguns", _The New Yorker_, July 26, 1976, 57-58

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."
-- Michael K. Beard, President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

"...I don't believe gun owners have rights."
(Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Incorporated, from the Hearst Newspapers Special Report, "Handguns in America" October 1997)

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."
-Michael Dukakis, 1986

"There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun....And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution."
-Michael Gartner, 1992 in USA Today

"The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed."
H. J. Res. 438 Introduced by Rep. Major Owens, 1992

"To Hell with the Constitution..."
California Assemblyman Mike Roos, 1989 On the constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban.

"We believe that if any gun dealer, manufacturer, or gun owners wants to test the law in court, they should be given every opportunity. Arrest them. Put the burden on them to prove the law is too vague."
-Louis Tolley, 1991 On HCI's position concerning the Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban.

"Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago.... deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrassing Amendment."
-George Will, 1991

"There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the constitution."
-NBC News president, Michael Gartner, USA Today, 1/16/1992


"Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." -- "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation" Josh Sugarmann, March 1989

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." -- U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, quoted by AP, 11/18/93

"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." -- U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..." -- U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" -- U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 12/8/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns." -- U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"With a 10,000% tax we could tax them out of existence." -- U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Washington Post, 11/4/93

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all" -- U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds on CNN's Crossfire, 12/9/93

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. ...If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." - -Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson (uhhh, no)

Ann Richards, Governor of Texas, who admits carrying concealed pistol, but recently vetoed a bill that would have allowed other women (and men) in Texas to have the same means of self protection.

Anti-gun U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein -- who, while Mayor of San Francisco during a "handgun ban" PR stunt, ostentatiously turned in one handgun. And quietly kept her other one.

Anti-gun U.S. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, a lawyer, who "doesn't know" whether her .22 caliber pistol is registered in Chicago, as required.

Anti-gun columnist Carl Rowan, used an illegal handgun to shoot a skinny- dipping teenager. He obtained the illegal pistol from his son, an FBI agent. (How come these anti-gunners all own guns. They should turn theirs in first, and put a big sign on their front door that says "This is a gun free home.")

[iverglas]

140. well you do a fine imitation

Which one of these fine outfits did you lift that from?


AMPP: The Citizen Disarmament Agenda - Part 4
"If it were up to me we'd ban them all" -- U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds on CNN's Crossfire, 12/9/93. "We must be able to arrest people before they ...
www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/disarm4.html - 208k

Bruce Tiemann: Deceit is central to the "gun control" movement"
... "If it were up to me we'd ban them all" -- U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds on CNN's Crossfire, 12/9/93; "No, we're not looking at how to control ...
www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/tiemann/ - 467k

"'The people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select ...
... November 4, 1993 "If it were up to me we'd ban them all" -- U.S. Representative Mel Reynolds on CNN's Crossfire, 12/9/93 "If raised, whether they could ...
freepatriot.com/quotes.txt -




When you run across a source for the Reno quote, you feel free to let me know.

[radioburning]

142. Those are quotes from hand-written letters sent specifically to me...

So, there's nobody with any kind of political or social power in this country who is actively trying to ban all guns in America?

[iverglas]

143. woo

If I believe that, I am just left with more questions.

Who the hell has your address?? And why don't you move???

[iverglas]

141. hey, ya just gotta laugh

Some right-wing moron reproduced essentially the same laundry list here:

http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1976214

and included in it:

The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'" -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

I believe no comment will be needed.



Meanwhile, back in the 21st century ...

[jmg257]

133. Sure it is. That is why you don't mind it - & as much as you can get. We do.

Because we KNOW better. We learn from the past. We KNOW what "gun control" means in the long run, and what it will cost us along the way.

No thank you.

When anti-gun nuts stop talking about gun control & gun bans, when they all stop trying to enact more gun control & gun ban measures, then we pro-gunners will be able to stop too. ONLY THEN will the NRA drift away as an un-needed lobbying entity - though the org will continue as the magazines are usually a good read, the insurance and other services are nice, the classes and such are beneficial, etc.

[beevul]

152. Aparently it is...

For those that own 50 caliber rifles, at the very least.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170523#171299

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Please post examples of the false info.

We are waiting.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Is that the sound of crickets?

Hmm, curious.


David

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[bossy22]

18. i love it

sporting uses okay but a gun for self-defense is unacceptable

cause dont worry- society will protect you

[iverglas]

27. you're getting there ;)

http://truthversusevil.livejournal.com/

a fan club of your own -- international even!

[zanne]

29. Don't you just love reading comments from angry people with guns?

They're their own advertisement for gun control.

[bossy22]

32. i love angry

people driving cars

[Tejas]

36. I hate angry

people driving cars. Angry people in cars kill innocent people, guess gun-grabbers find it easier (lazy) to sit behind a keyboard and rant about inanimate objects.

[bossy22]

40. ROAD RAGE!!!!!!

i remember when i first got my license i cut off this guy who was determined to "teach me a lesson" he followed me home and then came onto my property to yell at me- he left after i threatened to call the cops

[zanne]

47. No, I don't rant against inananimate objects.

It's the people who use them. By your logic, we should just accept the fact that angry people in cars cause alot of accidents, so why not just add angry people with guns adding murders to that? The car-gun analogy is false. It doesn't change the fact that guns cause many injuries and deaths every day, cars notwithstanding. Understand?

[Tejas]

70. since you want to play, you're incorrect again

"It doesn't change the fact that guns cause many injuries and deaths every day, cars notwithstanding. Understand?"


Guns don't think about robbing anyone, they just sit there. Understand?
Guns do not cause injuries and deaths unless they are defective when used. Understand?

Angry people with guns, well that's a whole different thing.
They can cause all kinds of problems including injury and death. Understand?

As far as cars go, they are involved in more deaths than firarms yearly, care to explain why gun-haters shy away from lifting a finger about that?

[Tejas]

33. No, we feel sorry for you

Sad that you drink that guys webpage like you haven't had a drop of water for weeks. Just because you don't like guns, just because you don't like the people that own them doesn't mean you have to swallow everything anti-gun that's put in front of your face.

Use some common sense and keep an open mind, you might learn something from the people you despise. Close your mind as you have, you'll wind up getting blind-sided and then wonder why nobody warned you.

[iverglas]

38. at least she seems to have read it

If you'd tried doing that, you might have avoided making such a complete dunderhead of yourself in public:

Sad that you drink that guys webpage like you haven't had a drop of water for weeks. Just because you don't like guns, just because you don't like the people that own them doesn't mean you have to swallow everything anti-gun that's put in front of your face.

??

Here's what the webpage actually says:

If you're reading this, you'll note that it's a couple of weeks after the shooting. Unlike Helmke, I have the decency to wait until the families of those wounded and killed have had time to mourn. The Bradys, however, had their lies out whithin a few hours.

Not to mention the shite on the forums I read.

... I was reading DU that day, and guess who used the tragic shooting as an excuse to attack innocent gun owners? billbuckhead, lynrd_skynrd, zanne, Paladin, people who, if you know the forums, would be called "the usual suspects".

You actually appear to be including this in the class of "everything anti-gun that's put in front of your face".

Either that or you just weren't even attempting to be coherent ...

[Tejas]

71. lame spin on the context (congrats, you again)

from the article (and there's much more than just this snippet)

"I also find the decline in American gun ownership encouraging because it signals a potential diminishment of the noise and power of the gun lobby."


Despite the cheerful crap about how he holds nothing against hunters, my cat can see the article has an anti-gun slant to it.


So, either you didn't read the article or........you just didn't read the article. Now, go eat your dunderheaded words.

[iverglas]

103. alrighty then, "incoherent" it was

The link actually under discussion here is:

http://truthversusevil.livejournal.com/

You might want to pay more attention when you're choosing where to plonk your pointless posts.

[zanne]

127. Say what you want, but I don't respond to threats...

I'd say that a girl has to be pretty tough to go up against hundreds of gun fanatics, wouldn't you? And I manage to do it all without a gun. Imagine that.

[zanne]

44. Ouch! Stop! You're killing me!

:cry:

[Tejas]

30. "decline in ownership" = Zanne promotes yet another fantasy

Zanne; where are all of the guns that ATF says have been manufactured yearly in this country going? Are they disappearing into thin air?


Once again, your math looks Canadian to me.

[spin]

41. Actually Zanne might be right...

Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report, January-June 2007

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 1.8 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in the first half of 2007 when compared with figures reported for the first six months of 2006. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2007 decreased 2.6 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2006. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2007 indicate that arson decreased 9.7 percent in the first half of the year when compared to 2006 figures for the same time period.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelim2007/index.html

As the crime rate deceases, fewer people will feel guns are necessary. With the economy going into the tank because of outrageous gasoline prices they might make the decision to sell their weapons or at least not buy more.

The used weapons will make nice additions to the collections of many shooters who participate in the sport as a hobby.

Good. I'd like to pick up a few interesting older weapons in good condition at a extremely reasonable price. Most of these weapons may be unfired or only have a box of ammo run through them. (With reasonable care a firearm can be passed along to your great grand children.)

[iverglas]

43. bizarre spin

I would think it fairly obvious that the main factor in the decline in household firearms ownership is the abandonment of hunting as a recreational or subsistence pursuit.

[bossy22]

45. i think you are probably

right on that

[spin]

51. Wrong, Iverglas...

With the cost of everything going up many people I know are considering hunting to supplement their food. They wouldn't give up their hunting rifles.

In fact, I'm one!

[zanne]

62. Of course you're right, since you've given us the statistics to back it up. nt

[spin]

68. When I checked the statistics, I found you were right...

My bad.

The number of deer hunters in Florida increased steadily from the 1930s through the 1970s and stabilized during 1980s. Beginning in the latter half of the 80s deer hunter numbers began to decline. In 2001 Florida had 188,000 deer hunters compared to 191,000 hunters in 1991 (U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. 2001). This decline in hunter participation has been a trend across the entire U.S. for more than a decade (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007)
http://myfwc.com/hunting/docs/DeerManagementPlan2008-2018.pdf

The NSSF estimates that there are 20.6 million active hunters in the United States. Active hunters are defined as having hunted more than once in the past year. These hunters are the economic strong-arm of the industry. (National Sporting Goods Association, 2004 - a nationwide survey of persons 7 years old and older who had participated more than once in the past year.)
The number of people who have hunted in prior years is far greater. Latent or inactive hunters are people who consider themselves as hunters but have not hunted in the past several years for different reasons. Approximately 23 million people have hunted within the last five years. (Southwick Associates, 2003).
http://www.nssf.org/IndustryResearch/FAQ-ans.cfm?Qno=02&AoI=generic

My misconception was probably caused by the fact that I'm surrounded by hunters in this little town in northern Florida. College Football (Gators and Seminoles) and hunting are the two most popular sports here. Everyone here seems to hunt. When I first moved here, I remember meeting an elderly lady at the hardware store who bragged about getting her first deer of the season with her black powder rifle.

I even decided to shave what remained of my hair off because I was tired of going to the barber shop and listening to all the hunters and their stories.

But with the price of food and gasoline increasing, I would expect the number of hunters to increase. Deer are very plentiful in this area. I have to remind myself constantly when driving to be careful of deer crossing the road. A neighbor had a deer encounter with her car earlier this year. Fortunately she wasn't hurt and her car suffered only minor damage.

[iverglas]

63. oh, yes, well, then

An anecdote. That proves it.



I don't believe anyone said that anyone was giving up their hunting rifles.

The point is that the hunting population is aging and is not being replaced. This has been discussed in this forum in the past. Use your star and you will undoubtedly find the references.

[iverglas]

42. interesting claim

Zanne promotes yet another fantasy

And yet, no evidence for it ...

where are all of the guns that ATF says have been manufactured yearly in this country going?

http://apha.confex.com/apha/133am/techprogram/paper_109135.htm

Distribution of firearm ownership in the United States: Findings from the 2004 National Firearms Survey

... Results: Thirty-nine percent of households and 28% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm. The majority of firearm owners own more than one firearm, with 60% owning three or more. Over 50% of firearm owners own both a handgun and long gun, but long guns represent 62% of the privately held gun stock. Men more frequently reported firearm ownership, with 45% stating they personally owned at least one firearm, compared to 11% for women. ... Among firearm owners, however, ownership appears to be concentrated with 20% of firearm owners owning more than 60% of the firearms.

That could help to answer your question.

And yes indeed, a similar phenomenon is observed in Canada.

Back to the fantasy. We'll remember the General Social Survey; this is from the March 2007 edition.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070410.guns.norc.pdf

Some have speculated that the 9/11 terrorist attacks undermined support for the regulation of firearms, arguing that fear of terrorism increased the public desire for firearms for self-defense. However, this was not the case. First, except for a small bulge in handgun applications in September-October, 2001 which had already started to subside by November, there was no increase in firearm purchases in response to the 9/11 attacks (Smith, 2002; NICS, 2005; NICS, 2006). As Figure 2 shows gun ownership has been declining over the last 35 years and the 9/11 terrorist attacks did not reverse that trend.

The Figure 2 referred to shows, roughly,

- household firearms ownership, from 1972 to 2006, declining from 50% to 35%
- personal firearms ownership, from 1980 to 2006, declining from 30% to 20%

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15

The US gun stock: results from the 2004 national firearms surveyWe conducted a nationally representative household telephone survey in 2004 to explore the characteristics of privately owned firearms in the US. The last study to examine detailed questions like these, such as the types and numbers of working firearms in private homes, was conducted in 1994 by Cook and Ludwig. In their comprehensive report, they found that 35% of households and 25% of individuals owned firearms, and estimated that there were 192 million working firearms in the US in private hands. In addition to describing demographic characteristics of firearm owners, they were able to determine that the ownership of private firearms was highly concentrated among a small percentage of owners. They also clearly identified a difference in the number of household firearms reported by married men and women, who, in theory, should report similar rates of household firearm ownership. Their findings, however, that married men reported a rate of 49% household firearm ownership compared with 36% reported by married women suggested that women were either unaware of their spouse’s firearm ownership or were reluctant to report it. These results led the authors to believe that more complete survey responses would come from individuals who personally owned a firearm rather than the household responses.

All of these findings helped identify patterns of private firearm ownership in the US and provided health professionals, researchers and policy makers with information about the private gun stock that was previously unknown. Through our survey, we wished to investigate possible changes in the privately owned gun stock between 1994 and 2004 and provide additional information about firearm ownership patterns in the US.

... Cook and Ludwig reported an estimate of 192 million working firearms in circulation in 1994. Although the population increased 11% between 1994 and 2004, population growth alone does not explain the differences in the number of guns reported. A recent report by the National Research Council, using national data on firearms manufactured, imported and exported, estimated that 258 million firearms were available in the US as of 1999.12 This estimate does not account for firearm loss, breakage or those destroyed. When we calculated the number of guns in the same manner as in the National Research Council report, adding all available years, we calculated that about 275 million guns were manufactured or imported for private sale in the US by the end of 2003. As the US does not require firearms to be registered (although some individual states do), it is impossible to determine the exact number of privately owned firearms in this country.

The General Social Survey indicates that household gun ownership has been declining over time, from about 50% in the early 1970s to current estimates of 34%. Although the exact number of firearms in the US may be debatable as a result of inclusion or exclusion of outliers, or whether individual or household responses are used, it seems that although the proportion of households with firearms is declining, the number of working firearms in the US is increasing, not decreasing, and increasing most among those who already own firearms.

There. That should help you.

[zanne]

50. They won't read it before they reply, Iverglas.

They're not used to reading for that long.

[spin]

58. Iverlas posted something that actually ...

contributed to the discussion. I found the information interesting and enlightening. I bookmarked it for further reference.

If more anti-gun people focussed more on this approach, rather than using emotional arguments and name calling, we might find the time we waste on this forum more rewarding.

Many shooters are well educated and very literate. Obliviously you don't know many shooters or for that manner many gun owners.

As for your post:

They won't read it before they reply, Iverglas.
They're not used to reading for that long.

Makes you look a little elitist, don't you think.

****************

"Show me an elitist, and I'll show you a loser."
Tom Clancy

"I don't believe in elitism. I don't think the audience is this dumb person lower than me. I am the audience."
Quentin Tarantino

“Elitism - It's lonely at the top. But it's comforting to look down upon everyone at the bottom.”
Larry Kersten

[zanne]

121. You're quoting Tom Clancy...

On DU? You really don't have a clue, do you? It does tell me ALOT about you, though. The charge of Democratic "elitism" has been made by right-wing Republicans for decades. They started saying it in the 60's.

[spin]

123. My quotes come from many sources...

I don't censor them. Many people whose views I disagree with say things that are intelligent. As it is, I enjoyed many of Clancy's novels although it's been years since I read one. Many of his works focus on war and conflict. Any study of history will show you that this is unfortunately the normal condition of our species. His novels gave me insight into the military mindset and have been considered by many to be realistic. I should check out some his recent works.

Yes, if you read my comments and the quotes I post you can learn a lot about me.

I support the right of honest citizens to own firearms for hunting, target shooting, collecting and self defense. My only child, my daughter, is quite possibly alive today because she used one of my firearms to deter an intruder breaking into our home. I now have two wonderful grandchildren who are 13 and 12 years old to enjoy. It would be nearly impossible to convince that extreme or draconian gun laws are a great idea.

Many other Democrats also believe as I do. You see evidence of this on this forum.

But if you read my posts, you'll find that, as you do, I oppose the ownership of firearms by irresponsible people. I believe we can come up with laws that will make it difficult for those people to legally acquire weapons. This alone will not solve the violence problem but it would reduce accidents by people unfamiliar with handling weapons and possibly some mass murders.

I also would like to see a requirement for firearms training before purchase is allowed. Some of your posts focus on tragic accidents. I am as disgusted by this as you.

Yes, the Republicans have accused Democrats as being "elitist" for years. Perhaps there is some truth in this. DU represents for the most part the liberal faction of the Democratic Party. In the gun forum, I've often found the anti-gunners resort to calling the pro-gunners names such as "knuckle dragging assholes" and criticizing their ability to read. They often represent themselves as obviously better educated, far more intelligent and literate than those who hold opposing views. While it helps make this place an interesting place to visit it does little to promote the Democratic Party to those who seek reassurance that the Democratic Party is a "big tent" open to many differing ideas.

Your posts are polite, respectful and informative. We may disagree on the right to carry a firearm in a national park, churches, or for trained licensed individuals to have access to firearms in school. We seem to agree on many other issues involving firearms.

You can criticize my sources of information or quotes and I will not take offense. You choose to use Gunguys.com as one of your sources. I'll be civil and not express my opinion on that site.

If we ever hope to resolve the problems our country faces, we all need to work together. We can make this country a safer and better place to live. We can return this nation to what it once was, an example to the world.

All we have to do is elect the right politicians from both parties who will work together to solve the problems we face. Constant bickering in Washington resolves nothing.

That's why I support Obama for President. True, he's anti-gun and has been accused of being "elitist". But I feel he presents the best hope for this country.

“To be President of the United States, sir, is to act as advocate for a blind, venomous, and ungrateful client; still, one must make the best of the case, for the purposes of Providence.”
John Updike

" From the beginning we in this nation have had the good fortune to find the right leader, often from an unexpected quarter, whose character, ability, and experience fit the tide of history."
James Cannon

[Tejas]

73. sure, whatever you say, the DOJ & FBI & ATF all lied n/t

[iverglas]

104. you shouldn't say such nasty things

I have no clue whether they lied.

Largely because you offer nothing to show what they said in the first place, let alone how anything they said supports anything you've said.

[zanne]

48. Have you ever done something other than preach to the choir?

It must give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside to know that you don't have to go out on a limb or make yourself (gasp) unpopular by posting things that would make most people in a forum mad at you. This place is just made for people like you. You can get all outraged and join in to ridicule one poster who has the guts to stand up for herself in a forum full of sheep.

[bossy22]

49. Bahhhhhh

i have to give you credit for persistence and making this place interesting- hey without contrasting views this place would be boring

[Tejas]

75. This forum is "full of sheep"?

Really?

If you're referring to antis that hang out here as "sheep", maybe they're starting to catch on to the novel idea of that thing.....oh what was it......oh yeah, the 2nd Amendment.

Then again, maybe they're not but at least they have no problem speaking for themselves as an individual when they get good and ready.

[zanne]

78. When they get good and ready to stand up for themselves?

Is that why they have to carry guns? Because they're cowards who can't defend themselves without one?

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[zanne]

111. I want you to apologize for the TWO ethnic slurs...

The one about "Canadian math" and the one about "Canuck anklebiters". I will not tolerate anyone insulting my ethnic background. Do it now.

[Tejas]

124. Typical non-responsive dodge n/t

[zanne]

126. You think you can abuse someone's nationality on DU?

I assure you I was being serious. Bigotry is not allowed on DU and it's not allowed with me.

[zanne]

76. My math looks Canadian?

What is that supposed to mean?

[iverglas]

105. What's that supposed to mean?

It's supposed to be an insult!

Sorta like "your mother wears army boots".

Isn't it cute?

[spin]

37. Both sides of the gun debate fuel contributions with

false and misleading information.

If all you do is listen to the rhetoric from one side, you will form a distorted viewpoint. The challenge is to sort through as much of the available information as you can, carefully consider both sides of an issue and then form your own informed opinion. This takes both effort and time and can prove frustrating.

If you find reliable data or convincing arguments that conflict with your cherished beliefs, you have to have the internal honestly to change sides or figure out a compromise to your position.

Of course, you can choose to ignore the valid points on the other side and merely go on trying to convince yourself or others of your wisdom. In your heart you will know you're wrong. That's entirely your choice. Somehow I feel that if you follow this course you're selling out your soul.

One of these approaches will lead to growth, the other to stagnation.

*****

My background involves shooting as a hobby for forty years and carrying a weapon for self defense for at least ten years. Along the way I've met many other shooters, people who have deep knowledge and ability with firearms. They came from many backgrounds and professions. Some were extremely well educated and some were not. Some had a law enforcement background, some were doctors, preachers, lawyers or engineers, some worked as carpenters or factory workers. Some were poor, some were rich. Some owned their own businesses, some were wage slaves.

Most were Republican, but a few were Democrats. I never met any gun waving nuts or knuckle dragging assholes in this group. I found these people to be courteous,helpful, friendly and patriotic. Many were ex-military and had put their lives on the line serving our country in our numerous wars. Many did not support the Bush administration and quite a few felt our society was broken.

To be fair, when I say "shooters", I'm not talking about people who buy a weapon for self defense and bring it to the range once or twice to see if it works. The people I knew would be considered expert shooters by most standards. They knew their weapons and the great responsibility involved in owning and using one. None had misused a weapon to injure or kill in civilian life. Most had concealed carry permits.

******

So, of course, I support gun ownership by responsible, honest citizens. But I have challenged my beliefs by exposing myself to anti-gun viewpoints. That's one reason I post here on DU. What better place to come to in order to learn.

Anti-gunners make some valid points here. Guns in the hands of irresponsible people create problems. Most of the arguments the anti-gunners present seem to based mainly on emotion and therefore are unconvincing. The pro-gunner contingent can easily counter by their own emotional arguments and use incidents where guns were properly used to deter crime to support their case. One cancels the other out.

We need to focus on stopping those who have anger management problems, abuse alcohol or drugs, display severe mental problems or criminal intent from easily obtaining weapons.

We don't need to pick out a certain class of weapons and mislabel them as "assault weapons", "Saturday Night Specials" or "plastic pistols that can slip by x-ray detectors"---then attempt to ban them. We don't need to ban common ammunition used by hunters because it can penetrate a cop's vest. We don't need to micro stamp bullets. We don't need to incorporate unproven and possibly unreliable technology into firearms to assure that only the owners can fire them.

We need to pass laws that limit firearm ownership to honest trained citizens with a background check. We need to take those who criminally misuse firearms and remove them from society.

We need to find and address the root causes of violence in our society. Improving education, creating meaningful well paying jobs, giving all citizens a fair chance, and reducing the power of international corporations to control and influence our politicians would all be good ideas and a start.

Or we can continue our quest to pass draconian gun laws which accomplish little and merely make people feel good.

[Indy Lurker]

56. He was doing fine

Then he went off into "Fantasy Land"


"So, again, why do I care that the level of American gun ownership is declining? Two reasons...First, it's pretty clear to anyone with even the most meager open mind that the US suffers a uniquely and outrageously high rate of gun violence due to the prevalence of guns. Other industrialized countries have guns in relatively far fewer hands and have, accordingly, far lower rates of gun violence. Too many guns in the US has resulted in far too much gun violence."



Yes, "the prevalence of guns" is the in the US is the problem, not the criminals.

"Too many guns in the US has resulted in far too much gun violence."

I wonder if he believes "Too many matches in the US has resulted in far too much arson."

or

"Too many baseball bats (it is the national pastime) in the US has resulted in far too many beatings."

How can one statement be true but not the others?

[Tejas]

74. fine until the koolaid kicked in n/t

[zanne]

77. Nobody serves more Kool-Aid than the NRA...

And nobody drinks more of it than its clueless members. The NRA gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to right-wing, warlock, tax-cuts for the rich, spying on citizens right wing politicians.

Congratulations, guys. You're helping to finance the one of the biggest, most corrupt lobbies in Washington. Idiots.

[Tejas]

82. 80m gunowners but only 4m NRA members

The numbers just aren't there, shows a bit of discrepency on your idea that the NRA rules the roost don't you think?

[zanne]

116. Actually, the NRA is "missing" a million members...

When talking to the news media and policymakers, the National Rifle Association never misses a chance to boast of its membership of four million. From news releases to statements by its leadership, this number, virtually by its very utterance, is offered as validation of the organization's mission.

And it's so much larger than the 30,000 Americans who die from guns each year.

When asked for proof of these claims, the NRA cites the sanctity of its membership list and falls into its default mode of 'trust, but don't expect us to verify.'


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/nra-misplaces-a-million-m_b_98429.html

[bossy22]

84. but but but

the spying on citizens is for our own good....its for the children

:sarcasm:

reminds me of schumer gettin up in congress and yelling how we should not give up our rights just for security...but the AWB needs to be strengthened because terrorists might use them against us

[slackmaster]

96. What a steaming load of crap

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. I bet that what some of the German Jews thought when Hitler took the guns away.

Or at least some silly version there of.

David

[radioburning]

138. +1. I bet some German Jews eventually changed their views on gun bans...

Here's where you say "you gun gun guys and your fantasies, that would never happen here in a million years..." And then that's when I say "I bet that's what a lot of Jews thought before they got rounded up and taken away..."

[jmg257]

132. So then no worries...our decline will take care of things.

"...believe that, as the decline in gun ownership over the last three decades continues, and even accelerates, the gun lobby will find the size and political power of its 'army' declining as well. Then the views of the vast majority of Americans, as measured repeatedly in surveys like NORC's and others, will come to the fore and we can make this country safer from the gun violence that plagues us."


So then no worries...you can relax! You can now stop advocating for infringments on secured rights (very Bush-league, BTW). It is the apparent decreasing number of gun owners that will allow the natural process to take place; those preferring more restrictive gun laws can become a majority, do what it takes to amend the constitution, and enact more restrictive laws as they see fit.

Now, with "falso info' in mind, considering that according to this NORC organization, their were 65+Million gun owners in 2006, compared to the est. 57 Million gun owners in 2004, which is atleast 6 million MORE then they estimated (51 Million) owned them in 2000, compared to the est. 44 Million who owned them in 1997, it MAY take a while for this "decline in gun ownership" process to occur, but so be it. I am prepared for the roll-over - when-ever it occurs.

[derby378]

139. If what Miller said was in the least bit true...

...then how do you explain the formation of Gun Owners Caucuses in the Oregon and Texas Democratic state parties? :shrug: