Reply #22: I agree with you

[benEzra]

but I guess we disagree that there are valid reasons for wanting to explore gun violence and discuss what, if any, are reasonable restrictions on ownership, on who should own, how laws should be enforced, etc. I cannot accept blanket "freedom" - with all rights come responsibilities and I don't see all gun owners accepting that responsibility - by that definition there then needs to be interference from the state.

I agree with you. Actually, I don't know any gun owners that don't agree with that.

Having said that, you appear to underestimate the vast amount of restrictions on gun ownership we already have at the Federal level, not to mention the state level. Restrictions that gun owners are mostly OK with.

What we have a problem with is the fixation with piling additional, pointless restrictions on the law-abiding, when gun violence is the purview of the NON-law-abiding who violate EXISTING law with impunity. Most of the perpetrators of gun violence are people who cannot legally so much as touch a single round of ammunition. Making it a felony for me to own a rifle with the stock shaped a certain way doesn't do anything about the 20-year-old who shoots the convenience-store clerk with a .38 revolver.

The politicians who are so fixated on the contents of our gun safes miss the bigger picture. Why is crime such an attractive "career" choice in the inner cities? Why is the gang social structure attractive to some kids, and what can we do about it? Why does the U.S. does not do as good a job of socializing kids into adult mindsets and responsible thinking as some other countries do? Instead of pondering these issues, the legislators are freaking out because I own a rifle with a plastic handgrip that sticks out.

They are part and parcel of the Rethuglican wing of our govt. The NRA wouldn't be as powerful if so many Dems didn't put guns ahead of all the other freedoms the Right is restricting - if they did, then from what I see elsewhere on this forum we could make a serious dent in their membership should all Dem gun owners walk away from them. I gather its different priorities. One freedom traded for many others.

The NRA endorses lots of Democrats at the state level; had Dean not jumped on the prohibitionist bandwagon, and had he won the nomination, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten the NRA endorsement instead of bush, and had bush lifted a finger to renew the ban on over-10-round guns, he would not have been endorsed.

As far as which freedoms to protect, I don't argue that we should save the second amendment and let the rest die. I'm saying that the Democratic party should uphold ALL of the bill of rights and stop making us choose between the second and the others. Unfortunately, while there are indeed encroachments going on regarding the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, the Second Amendment is currently in the worst danger of all. As I said, we are nowhere near having "subversive" books confiscated at gunpoint, but there are plenty of people arguing for the confiscation of nontraditional-looking guns at gunpoint...

FWIW, here's the list of NRA endorsements for state offices here in NC:

Governor--Mike Easley, Democrat (endorsed over "A" rated Repub)
Lt. Governor--Beverly Perdue, Democrat
Attorney General--Roy Cooper, Democrat (endorsed over a pro-gun repub)

State Senate
District 1--Marc Basnight, Democrat
District 2--Scott Thomas, Democrat(endorsed over "A" rated repub)
District 3--Clark Jenkins, Democrat
District 4--Robert Holloman, Democrat(unopposed)
District 5--no endorsement
District 6--Cecil Hargett, Jr., Democrat(over "A" rated repub)
District 7--no endorsement
District 8--R.C. Soles, Jr., Democrat
etc.

In fact, looking over the first page of the endorsements, it looks like wherever there was an A-rated Democrat, the Democrat was endorsed regardless of her/his opponent's rating. So they appear to be going out of their way to be friendly to Democrats, if the Dem isn't a diehard prohibitionist.