NRA members are not behind every blade of grass

[Tejas]

There are an estimated 80 million gun owners in the United States?
The NRA has what, 4 million members?

80m vs 4m

What is it that prompts antis to scream bloody murder every time the NRA is mentioned? Why do they like to vent/rant about it so much? Doesn't look like that big a deal to me.

[bossy22]

1. because

its easy to get angry at a faceless organization, then an actual human being just like you. Putting a face on something brings out its human aspects- illiciting less hateful responses

[Tejas]

10. good point

Not sure why it escaped me, but I hadn't thought of that angle.

[ac2007]

15. It's not a bad thing either

The more anti-gun groups blame the NRA for everything, the more extreme they begin to sound over time and the less attention is paid to where the real power of gun rights occurs: at the grassroots.

Contrary to popular belief, most gun legislation is killed by private citizens getting involved. The NRA helps to coordinate or get information out to its members but it isn't NRA lobbyists holding sway over representatives; it's the people that are their members and in many cases, those who are not.

In Maryland, I saw a single NRA rep at a proposed AWB hearing. And he didn't even testify. The 200+ private citizens next to him were more than sufficient.

The constant blame of the NRA for all the evil deeds of guns does tend to backfire in the end. And has. People are starting to see through the shrill cries of the anti-rights folks and are marginalizing them more and more. Come on, why is it that all the Presidential hopefuls have tried to reach out to the NRA in some way? Even those who are anti-gun? None have publicly reached out to the Brady Campaign or the VPC. Maybe they realize where real influence is with a significant voting block? It sure as hell isn't someone like the VPC who reports precisely $0 this last fiscal year for membership dues collected.

[SteveM]

33. The NRA was of no help in bringing Parker/Heller before the courts.

[L1A1Rocker]

34. No kidding, they tried every trick they could to derail it!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. Right

.........because the face of the NRA is not the face of America's gun owners. They obstruct any attempt at reasonable gun legislation which the VAST majority of gun owners support.

Personally, I think it those statistics that are a firm reminder that the NRA is not a representative of gun owners or non gun owners.

The vast majority of gun owners are not NRA owners thank God.

[L1A1Rocker]

38. Care to source that assertion there?

[beevul]

2. Simple math really...

The NRA while it represents only 4 million, is the largest SINGLE enemy of the gun banners/gun grabbers/gu haters.

It is therefore the simplest and most efficient target.

Much harder to go after the 80 million plus gun owners...and much more damaging in terms of votes.

Of course there ARE those that as so invested in the gun-ban lobby that they even believe thier own lies...but they fortunately are a shrinking minority in the Democratic Party.


If you think things get ugly here these days, I urge you to read back into the archives a few years.


Back in late 2002/2003 before I was a poster, the rhetoric, flames, and vitriol were legendary.

[SecularNATION]

3. Wish I had started posting on the subject sooner. n/t

[Wickerman]

4. Can't speak for the anti's, but from my perspective

the NRA is one of the largest and most active organizations that routinely go after Democratic candidates at the top of ticket. Have at it. I've discussed it here before. I am sure, no matter what the user name at the moment, everyone has already read it. I won't be back to argue it again.

[Turbo Teg]

6. I think it's because

Most of the time the Demorcrats running are anti gun.

[Wickerman]

8. I think you'd be advised to learn something at the feet of Jody

as posted down below.

[jody]

5. OK, about 80 million gun owners and about 81 million voters in 2006. It's obvious

that a candidate who voters perceive as a gun-grabber may have a difficult time winning a national election.

STATISTICS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 7, 2006 says 80,975,537 votes cast for United States Representatives.

ON EDIT ADD:
A group of Repugs gained control of the NRA in 1970s-1980s and have used it for partisan politics ever since.

The NRA claims we Dems are gun-grabbers ignoring our 2004 party platform.

IMO the NRA is aided by a few high-profile Democrat senators who tout gun bans in opposition to our Party platform and that gun-grabber image is what many voters have of the Democratic Party.

[sergeiAK]

7. No, it's because the platform is anti-gun

The "Assault Weapons Ban" (or for a more accurate name), "Ban on Making Scary Looking Guns", was a ridiculous piece of law, introduced by a Democrat, and now the Democrats support bringing it back. Supporting a ban != protecting my rights. That is Bush-caliber doublespeak.

If a "few high-profile" senators of a party keep introducing new and stronger bans, the party is unlikely to be considered a protector of the right to keep and bear arms. The party overall is anti-gun. Any amount of claiming otherwise will have no effect until they *prove* it, perhaps by standing up, speaking out, and fighting the laws that seek to destroy the 2nd Amendment. Until then, a Democrat must fight very very hard to be considered pro-gun, and in the case that they do, the NRA generally will support them. The NRA is a huge, single-issue, lobby. The reason they don't support many people with a "D" after their name is the same reason NARAL doesn't support many with the corresponding "R".

Just to clarify, the NRA does support Democrats. However, most Democrats don't fall under "pro-gun", so most Democrats won't get NRA backing. Why should they support Feinstein, for example? Is she for the protection of the 2nd Amendment?

[jody]

9. Do you have stats to support "most Democrats don't fall under 'pro-gun'"? n/t

[L1A1Rocker]

11. No stats but how about an excerpt from the Democrat platform

Credit to Jody on this one.





"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."


See http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf


The emphasis here is "reauthorizing the assault weapons ban".

We have GOT to get that kind of crap OUT of the platform or the anti-gun stigma will continue to follow the party.

[SecularNATION]

12. Not only the platform...

...but more importantly, we've got to get stupid Democrat Presidential candidates to stop saying it, or even thinking it. I specifically remember Hillary AND Edwards speaking about reinstating it in a debate, not too long ago.

[Boomer 50]

13. Agreed

Gun grabbing reputation that we have is killing us.

What really boggles my mind is this..... The Republicans have basically turned off the pro-gun crowd in general. Let's face facts, we took Congress ONLY after the 1994 ban sunsetted. Why? Because the gun owners came out in droves to make sure we couldn't do worse. Then, after the ban sunsetted, the pro-gun voters felt that the pressure was off and relaxed, allowing us to take Congress in 2006. If the leading Democrats were smart, they'd court those 80+ million gun owners.

Were it Democrats that eliminated the mistakes we made like most of the 1968 GCA, 1934 NFA, the Hughes Amendment, and other BS laws that passed under our watch, we'd own the White House, Congress, and most state level Governments for decades to come. Yet, the die hard idiots in our party flat out refuse to admit they are wrong and that they have cost us dearly over the decades.

[jody]

16. "die hard idiots in our party flat out refuse to admit they are wrong"! I see no reasonable way to

disagree with you insightful opinion. :thumbsup:

[Tejas]

21. Put that together with

those that scream in horror at the mere mention of guns and it really gets messy.

<insert OHTEHNOES!!1!!GUNS!1! .gif here>

This mindset that guns can crawl out of drawers and closets and kill on their own has got to stop.

:sarcasm:

[jody]

18. I agree re AWB and I hope the 2008 Dem platform will exclude that offensive phrase. n/t

[bossy22]

27. with howard dean

at the helm- i think that it may be on the platform this year :)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. HE................WRITES THE PLATFORM?

Who needs your Constitution?

Thank goodness it's all relevant to who is running the party.

It presumes the people can take back there country, their party and their guns from the criminals.

[L1A1Rocker]

160. Wow! All caps. Be careful, he means business!

[sergeiAK]

14. I might've worded that poorly, but I meant D politicians

And if you look at the voting record of the two parties, the Democrats are by and large the supporters of gun control. Look at HR-1022, the ammo serialization bill, the original AWB, the '86 ban, on and on and on, the Democrats support gun control.

As for stats, the NRA rates politicians. Look at their page. The Brady group does too. One thing is common, Democrats make up most of the NRA's Fs, and the Brady As.

[jody]

17. The NRA can kiss my derriere but I do know they have rated some Dem candidates higher than Repug.

Still, IMO the NRA is dominated by a Repug cabal.

[sergeiAK]

19. Prove it

If they've rated Dems higher then Reps, they're obviously not too biased. So, I say prove that the NRA counts party affiliation in their rankings. Find me a pro-gun Democrat with a low ranking and an anti-gun Republican with a good ranking.

Is NARAL biased for ranking 99% of Republicans low? No, 99% of Republicans are anti-choice. Same effect. Single issue groups tend towards the party that agrees with them on that issue. The NRA being a gun group, tends to avoid the party that sponsors 90% of the anti-gun legislation.

[jody]

20. Do you have stats to support "most Democrats don't fall under 'pro-gun'"? Please answer that

question and I'll consider other assertions you make.

[johnbraun]

22. I think he means elected Democrats, not the party rank and file.

And we know from polls at DU that a majority of Dems are pro-gun, and that the anti-gun Dems are part of a small and shrinking minority within the Democratic Party that will hopefully go away so we can win some more elections.

[bossy22]

23. i dont think

schumer is going anywhere

[johnbraun]

24. Right.

He lives in a tiny little anti-gun corner of the country. The rest of the country is doing this:

[bossy22]

26. happens to be my little corner of

town :(

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. Moral Relativism

Right to carry?

So the US Constitution is meaningless?

Thanks for pointing out what I thought you claimed was a 'right' is really nothing more than dependent on the authority of some individual state.

[L1A1Rocker]

161. ?????? English, do you speak it??????

[jody]

25. But is there a report showing how 49 Dem senators and 233 Dem congresspersons feel about RKBA? n/t

[sergeiAK]

28. Unless we recently won a whole bunch more seats . .

A majority would be 116 Reps, and 25 Senators. Now, for the statistics. Unfortunately, nobody publishes studies in this area, so we have to go by either NRA ratings, Brady Ratings, or votes on various bills. I chose votes, to avoid accusations of bias. So, that said, look at http://www.ontheissues.org/SenateVote/">this site and scroll down to the gun control section. Look at vote # 1999-111, where voting Yes gives a senator a point towards supporting the 2nd Amendment right as an individual right. Democrats: YES 2; NO 41 Looks like a majority to me. But one vote does not a policy make. So we examine vote 1999-134, the vote to bar private sales of firearms. A yes vote is anti-gun here. Democrats: YES 44; NO 1 Again, a majority. Looking at the other bills listed, they follow a similar pattern.

Now for the house. Only one bill listed, an amendment to drop the time period allowed for an "instant" check from 72 to 24 hours. Yes is pro-gun here. Democrats: YES 10; NO 196 Again, a majority are anti-gun.

I'm shocked, I tell you. Absolutely shocked. :sarcasm:

[DonP]

29. You could always go by the Amicus brief

on the side of Heller.

55 Senators and 250 Congress critters signed on to support the individual rights position.

I think there were only 17 or so that filed a biref in support of DC/Fenty. I may be off on the exact numbers but the difference was stunning.

Lot's of "D"s in that pro Heller brief, my guess is a lot of the signatories were the newer Blue Dogs that came in in 2006.

[jody]

30. Interesting data but it's 1999, before we Dems lost two presidential elections and gun-control

played a major role in those defeats according to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

My guess is Dem politicians have and are positioning themselves to be more supportive of RKBA.

[sergeiAK]

31. Most recent data I could find, unfortunately

But judging by Obama and Hillary, we haven't learned a damn thing other than to be quiet about it before sponsoring bills. 90% of gun control is still sponsored by Democrats. I do not recall the last time I saw a Democrat speak up in favor of the 2nd Amendment, by either sponsoring or introducing a pro-gun bill.

I'm still wary. Obama wanted a complete ban on semi-automatics, Hillary has spoken in favor of an AWB. I can't trust either of those positions, no matter how they say they've changed. Until one of them makes a clear, concise, pro-individual rights statement, I will be forced to consider them anti-gun.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. Good for You

You write: 'I'm still wary. Obama wanted a complete ban on semi-automatics, Hillary has spoken in favor of an AWB. I can't trust either of those positions, no matter how they say they've changed. Until one of them makes a clear, concise, pro-individual rights statement, I will be forced to consider them anti-gun.'

Pandering to the gun lobby doesn't do any good. They are seldom happy. Exhibit A (see above). Anyone who votes for anyone other than Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama at this point and claiming to be a Democrat is really not a Democrat but a one issue member of a political party who is less concerned with progressive politics and more concerned about their ........ freeking guns. Not my values. There is no doubt a party for you. Find it.

You write: '90% of gun control is still sponsored by Democrats'

.......and look at the elections we are winning.

[L1A1Rocker]

37. Took a long time to recover from that slip in 94 didn't it.

Why do you want a repeat sooooo bad?

[benEzra]

40. Pro-gun Dems turned the Senate blue in '06...

.......and look at the elections we are winning.

and Dems who tried to ban popular and rarely misused civilian guns helped turn it red in '94. The Brady Campaign and the VPC are no friends of the Democratic party.


----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

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

Thoughts on Gun Ownership

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. WHOOPS

There have been elections since 94 and gosh................... sorry you are disappointed to hear it ........ but PRO-GUN control candidates are winning.

[benEzra]

47. Gun owners picked up votes in EVERY congressional election

between 1994 and 2004, and broke even in 2006 (and it was pro-gun candidates who put the Senate into the (D) column).

Have some pro-new-bans candidates won here and there? Sure. But we gun owners are in a far better position today than we were in 1994 or even 2000.

Or, check out how gun owners have done at the state level:



I see a trend there, and it's not in the direction of taking away more rights from lawful and responsible gun owners.

As I've mentioned before, you look up the definition of "Pyrrhic victory", you might see a picture of the Brady Campaign celebrating passage of the 1994 Feinstein law and the introduction of S.1878/H.R.3932 (Brady II) that session. Banning some of the most popular and rarely misused guns in America was just dumb. What did they think the outcome of that would be?

You guys would be a lot better off, and get a lot more accomplished, if you would narrowly tailor your proposals to address CRIMINAL MISUSE, instead of using criminal misuse as an excuse to go after the lawful and responsible as you are now.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

48. Oh............ I'm ........... Soooooooooo Relieved for You

..........and to think all this time I thought it was a federal right defined in YOUR constitution rather than a state rights issue dependent on who you elected.

LOL.

[sabre73]

52. If you keep insisting that

it is MY government and MY constitution then you are pretty much declaring that it is not YOURS. Am I right?

Well in that case it does not matter what you think. You have not right to change something that is NOT YOURS so why don't you drop the hole "YOUR government" crap.

We get it. You live in DC. You don't have a say in anything..... We get it. It only confuses the issue when you constantly toss it around.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

63. NO - YOU AND YOUR GOVERNMENT

......... don't think it matters one iota what I and the half million other Americans in your nation's capital think regarding guns or anything else.

I get it indeed.

Thanks.

[L1A1Rocker]

162. Wow! All caps. Be careful, he means business!

[L1A1Rocker]

69. Not

when they go on the record or make it a campaign point.

[sergeiAK]

41. I'll vote for them, but I won't like it all that much.

They're making me choose between two bad choices. I'd much rather have a good choice. Let's face it, Bush has effectively handed us this election on a silver platter, because anyone we can find will be better. My choice would be Obama, though I'd accept Hillary. Being suspicious of a candidate does not always mean I won't vote for them (if it did, I'd have blessed few to vote for). I am not a one issue voter, but this issue does figure heavily in my vote.

Pandering? You mean like not actively attacking? Which is what both major Democratic candidates have done. Proposing a new AWB or a ban on semi-automatics is a direct violation of my rights under the Constitution. Asking that a politician respect the Bill of Rights is not asking to be pandered to, it's asking for basic decency. Saying that your values should dictate national party platforms is so arrogant and wrong I have not the words to describe it. You are not the final arbiter of "progressive" politics, get over it.

Look at what 1994 and 2000 did to us. Bill Clinton (oh, that blasted neo-con), said the AWB lost us the election in 94. I agree. It will lose 2012 for us if we let it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Arrogance

You write: 'Saying that your values should dictate national party platforms is so arrogant and wrong I have not the words to describe it. "

Huh? Your values should NOT dictate the selection of your political party? And that makes me arrogant? Oh, that's sooooooooooo rich, I'm laughing so hard it hurts.

Ok . You stick to your one issue gun advocacy and pound your chest about how 'progressive' it is while telling me I'm arrogant for thinking otherwise.

Arrogance indeed.

[L1A1Rocker]

54. Thank you

for giving us that wonderful example of your own unique arrogance.














































.

[sergeiAK]

67. I said . . .

That it was arrogant of you to assume the Democratic party should bend to your will and your will alone. Next time, read the post.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

79. Nah

Nah...........to suggest that I should support a party that does not share my values is stupid.

I'm glad the Democratic party has a long progressive record fighting for social justice, equality, economic prosperity, workers rights, environment protectionism and a host of other values I share. I'll leave you to think that makes me arrogant because you seem to think they have BENT to share my values. That's not arrogance. That's just ridiculous.

Perhaps it's time for you to bend your mind a little.

[sabre73]

53. I would gladly "suffer"

another 4 years of BUSH over the two prominent candidates for the Democratic party. Talk about the lesser of three evils.

And guns rule.

[L1A1Rocker]

60. What's Nader's' view on gun rights?

[sabre73]

62. well they might pass the mark when compared to some

He is pro Brady trigger lock, wants to ban "certain weapons" But what is important is he want to enforce existing laws for gun control not make new laws. Maybe he will run again and nail the casket shut on the Dem's chances (again)

Who knows?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Oh Good GRIEF

Let me get this right............... Nader wants to do EXACTLY the same thing as Gore and Kerry and the Democrats lost because Nader pulled away gun owners and voters? LOL.....that's rich.

Not following that at all.

You've offered nothing to distinguish Nader from either candidate both of whom got FAR more votes than Nader.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

126. YIKES...........

That about says it all.

You support Bush and his supporters more than the two leading Democratic candidates.

And who exactly is, according to you, ............ evil?

I'm not surprised you support Bush before Clinton or Obama. Perhaps you, Bush and Cheney should go hunting together. Even I would consider you the lesser of 'three evils'.

[L1A1Rocker]

163. Wow! All caps. Be careful, he means business!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

45. Al Gore LOST?

Really?

And tell me......... John Kerry lost ........... because of what exactly?

Oh nevermind................ I'm sure in your mind, both were reaching for your ............. gun.

No doubt the world revolves around your ....................................(choosing my words carefully) ............ gun.

[L1A1Rocker]

55. On every single recount. Maybe you missed the memo.

[L1A1Rocker]

70. Now you agree FTGF? Al Gore lost every recount.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Oh Good

Who has a gun is dependent on who gets elected.

Got it.

[L1A1Rocker]

56. Glad to see your coming around. How progressive of you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

46. Oh................Easy

Democrats are winning elections on anything other than the gun lobby's interpretation of the Constitution.

[L1A1Rocker]

57. Yeah,

the gun lobby, scholars, judges, yea


























































got it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

49. NRA is Interested in Guns

Not in Americans.

[sabre73]

58. True enough

That is why MOST GUN OWNERS in the United States are not apart of the NRA.

There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S.

There are only 4 million members of the NRA.

I believe you have been told this a few times but somehow you don't get it.

P.S. Is it true that you own a gun? That is what I read somewhere and I was just wondering if it was true or not.:shrug:

[L1A1Rocker]

61. Oh I can't

wait for this reply. . . . .

[fightthegoodfightnow]

64. I Said As Much in Another Post

Glad we agree.





No........ I do not own a gun. I've used a gun for sport a number of times.

[sabre73]

65. Thanks for the reply

I was wondering about it so I figured I would just ask you.


Who better to ask for this one right?

[L1A1Rocker]

59. Just missed it. Interested in Americans keeping their guns. There ya go.

[Major Hogwash]

32. Because the NRA raises money for Republicans.

And has for the last 28 years, in case you didn't know that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

39. A Very Good Point

The NRA no more represents all or even the majority of gun owners anymore than the Brady folks represent all or even most gun control advocates.

[benEzra]

66. Entirely true. But if the NRA vanished tomorrow,

outlawing the most popular civilian guns in America would be just as much political suicide as it is now.

The NRA likes to think of itself as the elephant in the room, but the real power on the gun issue is America's ~80 million gun owners, many of whom feel very strongly about the issue and who vote at far higher rates than the population at large.

Between four and five times as many Americans lawfully own so-called "assault weapons" as belong to the NRA (~16-20 million). Ten times as many Americans lawfully own handguns (~40 million) as belong to the NRA. THAT is the real root of your problem when you start attacking lawful and responsible ownership.

BTW, how many dues-paying members does the Brady Campaign have?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. NRA and Brady

You ask: 'BTW, how many dues-paying members does the Brady Campaign have?'

Wouldn't know. I'm not a member.

If the Brady Campaign vanished tomorrow, however, I'm certain even more lives would be lost to those who own and operate guns.

[ManiacJoe]

77. On what do you base that conclusion?

Another way to look at it (since you have not explained your reasoning), if the Brady Campaign stopped existing then the NRA could spend more of its time and resources on its original purpose of gun safety, gun education, and marksmanship.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. OK..................

If you say so. My guess is neither organization is going away anytime soon. I sure as heck know that the Brady Campaign didn't just start because the NRA was exclusively about gun safety, gun education and marksmanship.

[ManiacJoe]

84. The start of the Brady Campaign had nothing to do with the NRA.

It started because Jim Brady was shot during the assasination attempt on President Reagan. His wife then went on her crusade, her ignorance of firearms be damned.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

85. Obstructionism

WITH APPROPRIATE :sarcasm:

Yea......... Ain't it a BITCH when a gun in the hands of a psycho seriously maims your husband.

And while she is trying to insure it never happens to anyone again, you characterize her as ignorant.

But heh........ keep characterizing her as ignorant and on a crusade. It's not like folks are getting killed by psychos with guns anymore is it?

[ManiacJoe]

89. No sarcasm tags needed or wanted.

She may be an otherwise intellegent person, but firearms and their laws are certainly not one of her strengths. Or she is very good at publicly pretending to be stupid. I choose the former, but your choice is up to you.

She is on a crusade. Her goal is to disarm everyone of all guns starting with the law abiding. Why the law abiding first? Mostly because it is FAR easier to disarm us than to disarm the criminals and psychos, or at least, that appears to be what passes for logic on her side.

The anti-gun crowd often comes up with some good ideas. Unfortunately, their implementations are extremely bad 99% of the time and will cause damage where none currently exists.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. Give Me a Break

You write: 'She is on a crusade. Her goal is to disarm everyone of all guns starting with the law abiding.'

Unlike you, who is on a crusade to make sure no one is disarmed?

You ask: 'Why the law abiding first?"

Oh, come on. Is it really your position that the Brady Campaign wants to keep guns out of the law abiding before criminals?

[ManiacJoe]

96. It is not MY position.

See for yourself. Check out the laws that the Brady Campaign pushes. They all attempt to disarm the law abiding while doing nothing about the criminals. If you can honestly show a different conclusion based on their historical facts, I would love to see it.

My position is that after all the criminals have been disarmed, we can talk about placing more limits on the law-abiding; until then...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

97. Nonsense

You write: 'My position is that after all the criminals have been disarmed, we can talk about placing more limits on the law-abiding; until then...'

Is it really your position that law abiding citizens are not perhaps unknowingly contributing to gun violence when they sell a firearm to someone in a private intra-state sale who they have no knowledge of might be mentally ill even though they are mentally ill?

[ManiacJoe]

105. I make no such implecation.

Selling to unqualified buyers is illegal since 1968 and needs to be prosecuted. Willful ignorance of any disqualifications is no excuse. Common citizens should have access to the NICS or similar systems. Until that happens, there are other methods available.

I cannot explain why the government often chooses not to prosecute these sellers.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

108. So Let Me Get This Right

How exactly is a law abiding gun seller suppose to know who is mentally competent?

You write: 'Common citizens should have access to the NICS or similar systems. Until that happens, there are other methods available.'

Oh...... I can't wait to hear this one.

Tell me, how do you feel about the Brady Campaign supporting common citizens 'having access to the NICS or similar systems"

I'm glad you support the Brady Campaign on that issue.

[ManiacJoe]

112. Assuming it was not a rhetorical question...

You can personally know your buyer.
You can require them to show a CCW permit (state already did the criminal and psych checks).
You can do the transfer through a dealer and pay the fee for him to use the NICS system.

If they have actually taken that position, I think it is great that the Brady Campaign finally joined the NRA and gun owners on getting non-dealers access to the NICS database.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. Reality

You write: "You can personally know your buyer."

Really, you have to know who buys your gun EACH AND EVERY TIME? And does that happen?

You write: 'You can require them to show a CCW permit (state already did the criminal and psych checks).'

And EVERY state requires one? NOT.

You write: 'You can do the transfer through a dealer and pay the fee for him to use the NICS system."

Making it no longer a PRIVATE sale.........right?

[ManiacJoe]

119. How you chose to comply with the law

is up to you.

Yes, I either personally know my buyers or I require a CCW. If your state/district is not so enlightened, you are free to move to a better place, free country and all. :)

A private sale is one that happens without government paperwork. Whether or not the private seller chooses to use and create any of his own paperwork, the sale is still private. The NICS check makes no reference to any gun, just the buyer.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

120. Aiding and Abetting

Got it.

I'm sure EVERYONE who sells a gun in a private sale always:
A. Knows the person.
B. Lives in a state where a CCW is required or asked about prior to the sale.
C. Passes their 'private' transaction onto a 'dealer' where 'no paperwork' is required.
D. None of the above

I'm going to go with ............... D.

[ManiacJoe]

123. You would be correct.

(D) is also a valid way of complying with the law when the seller is qualified. Dumb luck works when it works.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

124. QUALIFIED?

By being a psycho?

Tell me again, how a legitimate law abiding citizen is suppose to know who is 'qualified'?

Are you really arguing EVERY law abiding gun sale seller must know
-who they sell their gun to, even if no one ever really 'knows' everything about someone? Are they responsible for the consequences of the sale if they don't 'know' them?
-what their mental history is, even if denied the tools to know it?

Dumb luck indeed. Given your lack of appreciation for being SMART, I suspect there are a lot of folks who agree with you.

[ManiacJoe]

128. Qualified = not disqualified.

See the previous posts for how a seller can verify the buyer.

I am not arguing anything, I am merely stating the law. The law is quite clear on who is a disqualified buyer. The law defines "must know" as making a good faith attempt to verify. Without the attempt to verify, the seller hopes for a good roll of the dice on (1) if the buyer is qualified, (2) if he will get caught with the gun, (3) if he points back to you, and (4) if the DA chooses to prosecute you for the law violation. Granted the odds may be slim, but why play them unnecessarily?

There are lots of folks who agree with me, mostly because they are smart. I appreciate smart. I can even distinguish it from luck. I even choose to invest minor amounts of effort to use smarts instead of luck when the consequences carry large fines and prison time.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

130. Point Is

..... the law needs to be changed to HELP LAW ABIDING citizens keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and felons.

[ManiacJoe]

133. Very much so.

Please join us in that attempt.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

144. Glad We Agree

......along with many others on both sides of the debate.

You want to take credit for ........ no problem.

I could care less about who gets the credit.

It's childish.

[benEzra]

137. I'd be OK with that (for starters, open up NICS to private sales).

You could also put an endorsement on your driver's license if you have a clean record, but that may not be the best choice as it could open up privacy issues.

Problem is, your friends in the gun-ban lobby are FAR more concerned about banning the law-abiding from owning target rifles with handgrips that stick out, outlawing the lawful and responsible ownership of guns with post-1861 magazine capacities, and hassling squeaky clean CHL holders, than they are about giving the law-abiding a way to discreetly run background checks on potential buyers and whatnot. Passing new restrictions on lawful ownership is Priority One, and everything else is a distant second.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

143. It Would Have Been Nice

........... if you simply left it at we should ' open up NICS to private sales'

I agree. Problem is you just rather take an adversarial relationship with your opponents without regard to the merits of the ideas being considered.

[benEzra]

150. OK, tell me what the Brady Campaign's higher priority is...

banning AR-15's and other rifles with handgrips that stick out, or opening NICS to non-FFL's? They could have found common ground on NICS and private sales years ago, if they were interested. They weren't; they were too busy demonizing rifle owners like my wife and I.

Which have they directed more rhetoric and PR against, the illegal .38 in your local criminal's waistband, or the non-automatic "AK-47" in my gun safe?

And who do they excoriate the most in their media releases, CHL holders or armed robbers?

You tell me. (If you're not sure, go browse Helmke's blog...)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

151. Please Do Not Equate

........ me with the Brady Organization.

What we were discussing was what YOU think and what I think. I have repeatedly stated I am not a member of the Brady organization.

I have no idea what their priorities are.

I was just happy at the prospect that you and I might actually agree on something.

[benEzra]

154. OK, no problem. We agree on allowing private sellers to use NICS, then.

And yes, I do distinguish between you and the Brady camp.

FWIW, the only guns I've ever sold, I sold to gun dealers or via a consignment shop (both of which would involve NICS), and I would also sell a gun to someone with a current CHL (meaning they are certifiably so clean that they squeak when they walk) or to someone I know personally. I imagine you would agree with that.

I thought from previous posts you did support a Federal ban on "assault weapons", though?

[benEzra]

136. If the Brady Campaign and VPC vanished tomorrow...

then maybe those who think like you might focus more on criminal gun misuse, instead of being steered in the direction of irrelevant bans attacking lawful and responsible ownership, and might actually be able to find common ground with gun owners like me.

Case in point, the NIU shooting, which involved a hunting-style shotgun and a few ordinary-capacity handguns--no "assault weapons," no high-capacity magazines. There were mental-health-records issues there (the shooter was approved for a job in law enforcement, for pete's sake), access-to-care issues, and so on. The response by the Illinois power structure? "Hey, let's ban the most popular RIFLES in the state." Even though all rifles combined accounted for only 4 murders out of 487 in the latest year for which we have full data, and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the NIU shooting or criminal violence in Illinois.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Murder, By State and Type of Weapon (Illinois)

Total murders...............................487
Handguns....................................380
Edged weapons................................46
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).......35
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................13
Shotguns......................................6
Rifles........................................4
Firearms (type unknown).......................2

The Brady Campaign exists to perpetuate itself, raise lots of money, and be seen in the media as "doing something" about criminal violence. Bans on popular rifles serve those ends well--those not well versed about firearms and Federal firearms law are easily manipulated into fearing the lawful ownership of AR-15's, thereby opening up pocketbooks, access to (gullible) media, and circles of power. Never mind that rifles aren't a crime problem in Illinois (or nationwide) and never have been; that's not what the Brady Campaign is about.

[L1A1Rocker]

71. That's why my donations go the GOA and JPFO

[sepulveda]

68. they use it to belittle and ,...

anti-rights people, those who want to limit the civil rights of gun owners use the NRA as their scapegoat.

they can;t accept that millions of americans support the civil right to carry. so, they attribute our respect for the constitution and personal responsibility into THE EVIL NRA IS INFLUENCING THEM.

nope. people can't think for themselves.

so, i guess everybody that is pro-choice is infleunced by the EVIL NARAL PLOT TO KILL BABIES!!!

same specious logic

[fightthegoodfightnow]

73. Scape Goat?

Paleeze.

Political advocacy for a political agenda does not cause gun violence. Guns do.

[sergeiAK]

75. Guns cause violence? Mine don't seem to. . .

Are mine defective? I think they must be, because they just sit there. Did I get sold lazy guns? Damnit, I'm gonna have to call that dealer. That bastard, selling me a lazy gun! There oughta be a law against that!

:P

[fightthegoodfightnow]

76. Good For You

I do know there is no gun violence when there are no guns.

Perhaps you just can't shoot straight. NRA can help you with that if you so choose.

[sergeiAK]

80. Sheesh, some people and humor just don't get along

There may not be gun violence, without guns, but there will be violence. As I recall, we both have personal experience that suggests such. And in that society, the weak truly are at the mercy of the strong (which I've found often doesn't exist).

Also, I can shoot straight. The NRA did help. Oddly enough, they also taught me gun safety. And somehow, I've avoided going on a shooting spree.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. Some People?

You write: 'And in that society, the weak truly are at the mercy of the strong (which I've found often doesn't exist). '

Depends on who and what you think makes someone strong. I think a gun is probably the last thing that comes to mind. Quite frankly, the notion that a gun makes someone 'strong' is really silly. There are far greater thinks in life that make people strong, including overcoming adversity, ignorance, poverty, abuse and a host of other things that contribute to violence.

I'm also certain and glad the NRA taught you about gun safety. I would be very surprised if they advocated anything other than that. I applaud those efforts.

[sergeiAK]

87. I spoke of a society without weaponry.

I speak much more plainly than you. Strong, in this context, means capable of exerting large amounts of force. Such a capability makes one able to bully the weaker members of society. Without a "force multiplier", the weak cannot do anything about it. That multiplier can be any number of things, superior numbers, training, weapons, the element of surprise, and so on. Weapons are the easiest of those to employ, but they are not without risks. They take no sides, they have no allegiances, and Murphy can still win.

If someone means to take what's yours (property or life), all the things that you mention are moot. If they can beat you to death, you're still dead, despite "overcoming adversity", while the thug didn't. The strength I refer to is not "inner strength", it's pure, unreasoning force. It's what the thugs of society use to force their will upon others. It's also our method of dealing with their attempts at such.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

90. I Think a Gun Gives Some People a Very False Sense of Security

....... about being 'strong'.

'Exerting large amounts of force' is not necessary for survival. I've done quite well without it and so have many others. The notion that life is dependent on violence may be the world you want to defend and carry on, but it's not for me.

You write: 'If someone means to take what's yours (property or life), all the things that you mention are moot.'

Nonsense. Ever heard of the expression smart as a fox? More importantly, I don't define my life by property or even my physical life. You mock that all you want. You wouldn't be the first.

[sergeiAK]

92. I define my life as my physical life

As the song says, "there's no good living when your body dies".

And, as I've witnessed, "exerting large amounts of force" can indeed be necessary for survival. Had the police officer I witnessed shooting a knife-wielding man not exerted force, he'd be dead right now. The notion that life is not worth violence may be the one you want to live in, but it's not for me.

As for "smart as a fox", I'd like to see you outsmart a knife wound. How does one outsmart, oh say, the VT killer? Sometimes, shit just happens. No matter what we do, it will happen. Sometimes force must be met with force.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

94. OK..................

.....that's you. Not me.

You write: 'As the song says, "there's no good living when your body dies".

Not familiar with that song and I certainly don't sing it.

You write: 'As for "smart as a fox", I'd like to see you outsmart a knife wound.'

Huh?

You write: 'How does one outsmart, oh say, the VT killer?'

And you think a gun is 'outsmarting' him? Why..... because it puts you on his 'smart' level? You think there is no intelligence is necessary if you have a gun?

[sergeiAK]

100. I'm saying intelligence is another tool in the box, not the end-all

I said I'd like to see a person outsmart someone who has just stabbed them.

Lots of smart people have died at the hands of fools. Refusal to use force to deter force is a common cause of this.

I don't think a gun is outsmarting a killer, it's stopping him. Ask the police, they don't rely on "outsmarting" the thugs they encounter. If you are faced with such a situation, you have two options: stop the thug, or submit. The first has huge risks. The second carries an almost certain death.

I ask you, what of the cop that I saw employing his shotgun? How could he have "outsmarted" the man running after him with a knife? Force was met with force.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

101. Well

Perhaps you missed the post about my experience with an assailant with a meat cleaver in a fag bashing. I spent five or six days in a hospital. He spent a lot more in jail. I'd characterize that as 'stopping him' from doing it at least for a while.

Of course, I'm MUCH 'smarter' now about walking in lighted streets, being aware of who walks behind me and always knowing my space and surroundings. Having a gun would not have saved me in that situation by the way.

[sergeiAK]

106. Gah.

I saw (and referred to) that post earlier. You spent some hospital time. You didn't outsmart him. You got attacked, you lost. He was stopped from attacking another by the justice system, but what stopped him from killing you? Nothing at all, from what you posted.

"Of course, I'm MUCH 'smarter' now about walking in lighted streets, being aware of who walks behind me and always knowing my space and surroundings. Having a gun would not have saved me in that situation by the way."

First thing taught in any CCW class. Situational awareness saves more people than anything else. Couple that with being armed, and you're much more likely to survive an attack. Being armed without training doesn't help. If you knew what you now know, it might have helped.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

109. Huh?

You write: "You got attacked, you lost."

Really? I'm alive and he's in jail and who exactly "LOST"? Oh, nevermind.

You write: 'Situational awareness saves more people than anything else."

Outsmarting them and being educated saves more lives than a gun. Thank God we agree.

[sergeiAK]

111. You were injured. You could easily have been killed.

I count that as a loss. Nobody wins a knife fight, except he who doesn't get cut. Looks like you weren't that lucky guy.

"Outsmarting them and being educated saves more lives than a gun. Thank God we agree."

On that point yes. But being smart and armed saves people that just being smart can't save.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

116. LOL

Sorry you count me surviving an assault as a 'loss.' I have no doubt you think it was.

[sergeiAK]

135. It was, whether you care to admit it or not

I count the time I got the shit kicked out of me a loss. Amazing, if you get seriously hurt, you lost the fight. Pray tell, what prevented him from taking a few more swings and actually killing you? His own conscience? A cop? You? Nothing?

Your attacker may be in jail. All that means is that you both lost.

How did you win?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

142. Nah....

I'll just leave you to call me or characterize me as a 'loser'.

Whatever. It's childish and immature.

I know I won by not only putting him behind bars (something that no doubt to you makes me a 'loser'), but by surviving a terrible assault.

I have no doubt you think society 'loses' when we put people behind bars.

[ManiacJoe]

102. For some people, you are correct.

Some gun owners do misunderstand the capabilities of the gun. Others clearly understand and incorporate the gun into their self defense plan at the correct place.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Absolutely. Avoidance and quick thinking are musts. However, when the "prevention" fails you (your fault or not), you are back to needing the "cure". Having artificial limits placed on your tools of self defense serves no purpose but to further limit your already-unguaranteed chances of survival.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

103. Example Please

You write: 'Having artificial limits placed on your tools of self defense serves no purpose but to further limit your already-unguaranteed chances of survival.'

Artificial limits?

Example please.

[ManiacJoe]

107. Two examples:

Disallowing the law-abiding to have handguns.
Placing artificial limits on magazine capacity.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

110. Got It

You write: 'Disallowing the law-abiding to have handguns.
Placing artificial limits on magazine capacity.'

Right.......... because having one good clear shot requires being ............ smart.

Got it.

[ManiacJoe]

113. OK, maybe it's late.

"Right.......... because having one good clear shot requires being ............ smart."

I don't follow your reasoning. Care to explain?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. Sharp Shooters Rely on Multiple Rounds?

More than their marksmanship?

Really?

[ManiacJoe]

121. Of course they do.

If you are using a handgun, you need to be prepared to use multiple rounds since handguns are notoriously poor at stopping humans. We carry handguns because they are more convenient to carry than rifles/shotguns, not because they are good at the job; they are just adequate at it.

If your shot does not instantly kill via the heart/spine/brain, then the attacker has plenty of time to continue the attack, should he choose to do so, until he bleeds out. The most common reason attackers stop after being shot is that they don't want to be shot again.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

122. So Much for Being ..............

SHARP.

[ManiacJoe]

125. Now your ignorance is showing.

Before you take offense, that is not bad and easily fixed. (Or your attempt at humor simply failed. You choose.)

Should you care to educate yourself on guns and their actual use as a self defense tool, there are lots of schools willing to teach it to you for a fee, and tons of their students (me included) who probably would be willing to impart that knowledge to you for free, should you desire it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

127. No Thanks

i respect those who teach me something, which I consider a prerequisite to learning.

That takes you out of the picture.

[ManiacJoe]

129. I am not surprised.

However, the offer remains open.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

131. No Thanks

i respect those who teach me something, which I consider a prerequisite to learning.

That takes you out of the picture.

[HiDemGunOwner]

158. A real life example for FTGF

Although I suspect that he'll just dismiss it with some clever.....punctuation.

Cop stops a driver and while waiting for the license to run, the driver gets out and starts walking in a menacing manner back toward the officer while making vague threats. Officer get out of the vehicle and draw his service weapon (.357 mag, if I recall correctly) and issues several commands for the guy to stop and return to his car. When the perp continues to advance the officer is forced to shoot, six times. All six rounds impacted center mass. Sensing a need for more firepower, the officer quickly retrieved the shotgun, trained it on the now advancing perp, issued more commands to stop, and forced to fire, unloaded the shotgun on the perp. The perp while momentarily slowed, resumed advancing, and as he was quite close, began fighting with the officer until he collapsed.

No, it's not like the movies...one shot does not usually stop someone, and if that someone is amped on PCP (as this guy was) or meth, it is very likely an extended cap magazine will be your very best friend.

[benEzra]

138. Not either/or; both. That's why police defensive sidearms generally hold 13-17 rounds,

Sharp Shooters Rely on Multiple Rounds?

More than their marksmanship?

Really?

Not either/or; both. That's why police defensive sidearms generally hold 14-18 rounds, and even non-automatic police patrol carbines generally hold 20 or 30 rounds. Most defensive rifles and handguns are relatively small caliber. Only high-powered sniper weapons and last-ditch backup handguns generally have magazine capacities of 10 rounds or less.

If you're ever in NC, you have a standing invitation to visit our local shooting range here and shoot some handguns and small-caliber rifles. I think you would understand a bit more.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

152. Thanks But

You write: 'If you're ever in NC, you have a standing invitation to visit our local shooting range here and shoot some handguns and small-caliber rifles. I think you would understand a bit more.'

Hummm....I already have, but thanks.

[benEzra]

155. Static or dynamic?

The reason I ask is that most people who have shot in non-square-range environments wouldn't take a "a real marksman only needs 1 shot" position.

FWIW, I shoot competitively a bit (IPSC/USPSA, pistol and carbine), and have also have the privilege of hitting the range with some pretty elite shooters on occasion. I don't think any of them would willingly depend on a low-capacity firearm for defensive purposes.

Anyway, I'm heading to bed. Have a good night, and best wishes to you and yours.

bE

[fightthegoodfightnow]

159. Both

Both.

(Looks like I beat you to bed!!!)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

104. And a Gun Guarantees What Exactly?

You write: 'Having artificial limits placed on your tools of self defense serves no purpose but to further limit your already-unguaranteed chances of survival.'

A gun is a guaranteed insurance you will survive?

[ManiacJoe]

115. Of course not.

Having a gun increases your chances (not a guarantee) of surviving in the circumstances where a gun would be the appropriate escape tool. In other circumstances, a different tool (knife, pepper spray, plain hands) might be the best tool. In some circumstances compliance is the best course of action. In some cases, fleeing is the best option.

The point is that you will not know which is best until you are there. At that point you have only what you came with. Why let someone else dictate your options when they offer no assistance otherwise?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

117. Options?

You write: 'Having a gun increases your chances (not a guarantee) of surviving in the circumstances where a gun would be the appropriate escape tool.'

How? Didn't increase the survival of my boss who pulled his gun on his assailant. He falsely thought his gun would convince his assailant of his 'power'. It did not. That's an option that didn't make him safer. It got him killed.

I, on the other hand, survived ...... without a gun.

[ManiacJoe]

132. You seem to misunderstand the circumstances.

Just because your odds increase does not mean that you will win.

According to your one line description, your boss attempted to bluff with the gun. That sometimes works in poker. Had he chosen to actually use the gun, he might have lived, might not have, but his odds would have been better.

You lived because the attacker did not kill you. Without seeing your full description of what happened, and based solely on the few small references you have made in recent posts, it appears that whatever caused your attacker to stop was not based on any of your actions; as in either his good graces to quit, or others' actions to distract him. (Happy to have you correct me.) Either way, that is wishing too much on luck. Regardless, congrats on surviving.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

145. Reality

You write: 'According to your one line description, your boss attempted to bluff with the gun. That sometimes works in poker. Had he chosen to actually use the gun, he might have lived, might not have, but his odds would have been better.'

No. That's not went down. He got off two shots. And you are right......... you were not there. As for my actions, you better believe they helped. I didn't pull out a gun.

But I appreciate the sentiment about surviving.

[ManiacJoe]

156. Thank you for the clarification.

[ManiacJoe]

83. You almost got it right.

You could also claim that there are no drunk drivers when there are no automobiles. The "argument" is nothing more than a play on words.

Guns do not cause "violence with guns", people do. By themselves, guns do nothing but rust and collect dust. People can use them responsibly or negligently or criminally. It all comes down to the user.

Removing guns (tool A) from the criminals does not stop the violence as they just swap to tool B (club, knife, etc). The problem is not the tool but the criminal. Disarming the criminals of all tools of violence is a worthy goal. If you choose to support that goal, you need to get in line behind all the gun owners. If you choose to support the disarming of the law-abiding citizens while leaving the criminals armed, you will have to fight against those of us who find that to be morally wrong.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

88. Right ......... who needs seat belts?

Not having them doesn't cause deaths....... accidents do............. whoops........ I mean people do.

Good grief..........but heh..... you keep thinking a discussion of gun violence should not include anything about guns.

What's morally wrong is the notion that disarming criminals is somehow wrong. But heh..... you keep thinking you are on the 'right' side of the debate.

[ManiacJoe]

93. I like seat belts.

But why change the subject? Oh, you missed the analogy. Sorry.

Yes, mechanical/physical accidents cause deaths. Yes, negligent drivers cause deaths. Seat belts help limit injuries during the "accident". (Most car "accidents" are not accidental but negligent.)

Back on topic:
You keep missing the point that gun violence is too narrow in thinking. The problem is violence, not the user's choice of tools. Violent criminals are more than happy to substitute another weapon if a gun is not available to them.

Disarming the criminals of all weapons is a great and worthy cause. Please join us gun owners in its support. The morally repugnant cause is to disarm the law abiding before disarming the criminals.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. Enough with the Car Comparisons

Gun advocates and gun control advocates make use of the analogy and then either or both change the subject when it's convenient (as you have). I just LOVE how you bring up a comparison to cars and then when I call you on it, you ask me to stay on topic. Good advice for yourself.

If violence is the problem, then the tools of violence contribute to the problem. Plain and simple.

[ManiacJoe]

98. Nice try.

You would have been on topic if you had stayed with the analogy. You strayed.

The possession of tools of violence by the wrong people contribute to the problem of illegal violence. The possession of tools of violence by the right people contribute to the solution by allowing the law abiding access to efficient means of self defense (legal violence), if the individual so chooses. Disarming the law abiding before disarming the criminals is not a morally acceptable solution.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

99. Whatever

How convenient.

Try changing the subject or the analogy, which YOU made.

You'd be hard press to equate responsible gun control and safety laws with 'disarming law abiding citizens' but alas, you keep thinking your car discussion is more appropriate.

[ManiacJoe]

134. If that were only the case.

Unfortunately, those who push the "disarming law abiding citizens" laws always try to paint them as "responsible gun control and safety laws". Some do it though personal ignorance, others do so hoping on the ignorance of the masses.

If you want to see real safety laws, state your goal and ask for the assistance of the gun owners to help you with the implementation. Not only do we have the technical knowledge needed, but we can see and avoid the "lip service" fluff politicians enjoy.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

141. Ignorance

You write: 'Unfortunately, those who push the "disarming law abiding citizens" laws always try to paint them as "responsible gun control and safety laws". Some do it though personal ignorance, others do so hoping on the ignorance of the masses.'

Well........ I suspect you are never going to get any where with calling folks ignorant merely because they disagree with you. I'm smart enough to know you cannot reduce gun violence without involving or discussing guns. I'm also smart enough to know you can have a reasonable debate without claiming to think that everyone who cares about ending gun violence on college campuses is .......... ignorant.

[ManiacJoe]

157. Well, the truth is not always pretty.

Folks are not ignorant just because they disagree with me. People are ignorant because they lack knowledge. This is very common with technical subjects like firearms, especially when they have no personal interest in the subject. Some people try to push laws about subjects they know little about thus leading to bad laws. Some people push for bad laws knowing full well what they are doing and hope to achieve their goals by exploiting the ignorance of the masses. The Brady Campaign et al are the latter.

It is good that you realize that discussions about gun violence involve discussions about guns. Caring about ending gun violence on college campuses is great. Having a debate about it is lots of fun as long as your opponent has the technical knowledge about guns and the laws governing them so that they can actually debate the issue using logic.

[virginia mountainman]

78. It's NOT the NRA that folks are afraid of...

It is the VOTERS that back the NRA up, in EVERY election that SHOULD scare the crap out of people that wish to abridge the US Bill of Rights...

4 Million + voters is not a group to be trifled with....

But yet....Some in our party love to play "train dodge" with that group, than cry when they get run over....

If the stakes was not so high, and every senate and congressional seat needed, it would be funny.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

86. AND ALL THEY THINK AND VOTE FOR AND ABOUT IS BASED ON GUNS?

Good grief.

Even I would never be so presumptuous to think the gun lobby is this singular monolithic voting block who care about nothing else. Talk about a stereotype.

Perhaps you have not heard, there are gun supporters in both parties.

[benEzra]

139. Yup. And the gun issue is important to many of us.

Half of U.S. gun owners registered to vote are Dems and indies, after all.

The thing is, the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was sold to the party by the DLC under the misconceptions that so-called "assault weapons" were (1) extremely uncommon, (2) of little appeal to gun owners at large (because "gun owner" was assumed to be mostly synonymous with "hunter", and hunters were assumed not to own any nonhunting guns), (3) more lethal than "conventional" guns, and (4) commonly used in violent crimes.

The truth is, of course, that "assault weapons" are (1) the most popular civilian centerfire rifles in America, (2) of great appeal to the majority of gun owners, including many hunters (but 4 out of 5 gun owners are nonhunters), (3) are functionally no different than conventional-looking guns, and (4) like all rifles they are very rarely misused.

If someone wishes to avoid alienating gun-owning Dems and indies, all they have to do is (1) NOT TRY TO BAN OUR FAVORITE GUNS and (2) STOP ATTACKING LAWFUL GUN OWNERS INSTEAD OF CRIMINAL MISUSE, and the issue goes away. Problem is, there is a small but very vocal minority in the party that views new bans on popular guns as de facto the most important issue on the whole damn agenda, and just will not leave it alone.

I want the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme to die a well-deserved death. Continuing ad hoc rationalization of nonsensical bans just won't do it, though.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

140. You Want to SAY You are a Stereotype - Fine by Me.

I wrote: 'Even I would never be so presumptuous to think the gun lobby is this singular monolithic voting block who care about nothing else. Talk about a stereotype. Perhaps you have not heard, there are gun supporters in both parties.'

You write: "Yup. And the gun issue is important to many of us.'

Important is one thing. Implying that ALL gun owners ONLY and ALWAYS vote for a candidate EXCLUSIVELY based on their view of guns WITHOUT regard to any other issues is an INSULT to the millions of law abiding gun owners who make their decisions based on a NUMBER of factors.

No one is "attacking lawful gun owners'. That's just a sound bite without the bite.

[EricTeri]

147. and yet...

lawful gun owners are the only ones affected by any gun control law.

So yes - you ARE attacking lawful gun owners my friend.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

148. NONSENSE

Evidently you have no clue as to the number of licenses denied and guns retained due to the very laws you say only impact 'lawful gun owners'.

Is it really your position that illegal guns and their owners are never prevented from owning such guns with gun control legislation?

Oh never mind. What a crock of sh*t.

[EricTeri]

164. I would submit you have no clue either

Especially since your post clearly indicates you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

To what are you referring with licenses denied and guns retained?

What do you mean by "illegal guns and their owners"? Especially since no guns are actually illegal when it comes right down to it. Certain ones are just illegal to own under certain circumstances.

[benEzra]

149. Did I say that? Nooo...

Important is one thing. Implying that ALL gun owners ONLY and ALWAYS vote for a candidate EXCLUSIVELY based on their view of guns WITHOUT regard to any other issues is an INSULT to the millions of law abiding gun owners who make their decisions based on a NUMBER of factors.

Did I say that? Noooo....

What I did say is, the issue is IMPORTANT to a lot of us. Not the ONLY issue, but an IMPORTANT issue. And someone attempting to ban our family's guns, or outlaw replacement parts for them, or price their ammunition out of reach of this working-class peon, is a very big deal to me.

No one is "attacking lawful gun owners'. That's just a sound bite without the bite.

Who else are rifle bans aimed at? Certainly not gun-using criminals....

Case in point, Illinois. Daley is trying to corral the legislature into outlawing AR-15's, and all other self-loading civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out (literally). A look at the FBI UCR, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, gives us the following for the state of Illinois in 2006, the latest year for which full data is available:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Total murders...............................487
Handguns....................................380
Edged weapons................................46
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).......35
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................13
Shotguns......................................6
Rifles........................................4
Firearms (type unknown).......................2

[fightthegoodfightnow]

153. What I Wrote

i wrote: 'Even I would never be so presumptuous to think the gun lobby is this singular monolithic voting block who care about nothing else. Talk about a stereotype.'

I'm delighted you know have re-read what I wrote.

I have no doubt that guns are an important issue to gun owners who are Democratic. Nothing new there, but you might want to look at the top of the thread where the person I was responding to thinks differently.

[jody]

146. "(1) NOT TRY TO BAN OUR FAVORITE GUNS and (2) STOP ATTACKING LAWFUL GUN OWNERS INSTEAD OF CRIMINAL

MISUSE and the issue goes away."

:thumbsup: :toast: