“Biden says he would not restrict gun ownership” but then promises to restrict guns.

[jody]

Biden says he would not restrict gun ownership

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware said Friday that Nevadans shouldn’t listen to claims he and Barack Obama would take away the right to bear arms.

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

“Both of us believe strongly in the Second Amendment,” Biden said. “We do not believe in registration. We do believe in limits on some of the weapons. You can’t have your own flame-thrower or bazooka. And legislation in relation to assault weapons doesn’t affect hunters or sportsmen.

“We are two Democrats who voted against gun control,” he said.

But, Biden said, there is room for common-sense laws relating to such things as carrying concealed weapons.

Biden says they will not take away guns but then promises to ban “assault weapons” that is a bait and switch scheme to ban semiautomatic firerms.

That means Obama/Biden support the following two bills, H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 and Biden’s own bill S. 2237: Crime Control and Prevention Act of 2007 with its “Subtitle B--Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007”.

[thevoiceofreason]

1. From an avid hunter and sportsman

What in the hell are you talking about? Read the legislation, not the NRA Cliff's Notes. No hunter I know of needs plastic bullets or 50 round clips.

[jody]

2. I have read the two bills numerous times. Apparently you have not. n/t

[msongs]

3. you have no "right" to own a gun unless its for use in the militia nt

[jody]

4. Suggest you read D.C. v. Heller at the link below.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[Traveling_Home]

5. How dare you bring up OUR Constitutional Rights - what a lousy excuse for dissent ;-)

[Spider Jerusalem]

47. Titile 10, United States Code, defines the (unorganised) militia as all able-bodied men age 17-45.

I suppose you might not have been aware of that? Most people, it seems, aren't.

Then there's that whole pesky language issue in the amendment; 'the right of the People...shall not be infringed'. Where ELSE, in any amendment to the Constitution, where it says 'the right of the people', is said right understood as collective and not individual? Logical consistency is a good thing. As is, for that matter, an understanding of historical background and context; the framers of the Constitution were coming from a background of centuries of English common law. The Revolution was largely about securing 'the rights of Englishmen' for the American colonists, who felt that said rights had been unjustly infringed upon by King George's government. Guess what happens to have been among the 'rights of Englishmen'? From the English Bill of Rights of 1689: 'the subjects which are Protestants may have arms suitable for their defence subject to their conditions and as allowed by law'. Note 'suitable to their conditions'; this is a statement referencing social class. In the seventeenth century, the wearing of a sword was restricted to gentlemen. Yeomen and peasants were not legally permitted to wear swords; the language in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that the right to keep and bear arms 'shall not be infringed', with no qualifications, is thus, for the time, a very radical statement in that it does not recognise the class distinctions that were common in Britain and Europe.

[TexasObserver]

50. That is utter nonsense, with ZERO support in Supreme Court decisions.

YOU don't decide what the constitution means, any more than the wack jobs on the right do.

The Supreme Court does. So unless you can produce a Supreme Court decision which interprets the constitution in the manner you'd like to see it interpreted, you need to stop repeating that idiotic meme.


Don't bother looking. You can't find such an opinion. All you'll find is the opinion of other equally uninformed people like yourself, all wrong about the second amendment. There is simply ZERO precedent in history to support your personal opinion.

Cite the Supreme Court decision that is authority for your statement, or stop repeating it.
-------------------------------------

Don't read this as support for the OP, either. He's wrong, too.

[Occam Bandage]

74. Alas, the Supreme Court does not agree.

[rl6214]

163. And you have no "right"

to free speech.

[TexasObserver]

82. VOR, the second amendment is not about hunting, and never has been.

If you want to argue that as a societal matter we need laws banning 50 round magazines, or banning plastic bullets, that's a discussion about reasonable restrictions on the availability of such things to consumers.

I am not opposed to such discussions or laws. But framing any second amendment issue as whether hunters need something misses the mark. The second amendment is not about hunting, and never has been. It's about the ability of the population to be ARMED as a check on the growth and excess of government. That's why it follows the FIRST amendment.

[benEzra]

99. Only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts. The other 4 out of 5 would like to keep our guns too, thanks.

Considerably more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt, and they dominate competitive and recreational centerfire target shooting in the United States (which is far more popular than hunting).



And "plastic bullets" and "50 round clips" are a red herring. H.R.1022 didn't ban magazines over 49 rounds; it banned magazines over TEN rounds (five for shotguns).

A ban on hunting would affect far fewer "sportsmen" than a ban on "assault weapons."

[tburnsten]

124. I need plastic bullets

They allow me to practice my sighting and trigger squeeze in my own home whenever I have the time and without the expense of ammunition. Though I do prefer the metal A-Zoom snap caps to plastic versions.

[neverforget]

6. .

:popcorn:

[tburnsten]

125. Love that graphic!

The Abe Simpson/Maude Flanders ticket.

[elkston]

7. Ahhh. More gun hysteria from you.

Damn! I really wanted to carry my FN-FAL around while I shopped for groceries.

[Recursion]

8. A FAL is an automatic weapon, and so essentially impossible to own legally

Automatic weapons have been for all practical purposes banned since the 1930's, and are used in essentially no crimes.

Our party, for reasons that elude me, wants to ban rifles that look like the FAL or AK47 or M16 but function like your grandfather's hunting rifle.

[elkston]

15. But is there concern that these "cosmetic" Automatic Weapons can be ...

modified to function like real ones? Or is that not possible?

[Recursion]

22. It's as difficult as making a new machine gun

To do that you would have to make a new machine gun and put it inside the "automatic-looking" body of the rifle. But if you can make the new machine gun, the unavailability of tactical-looking accessories is not what would keep you from doing that. And it's just as easy to convert a more traditional-looking rifle to fire automatic as it is to convert a military-looking rifle.

(Note: in the 1980's there were a few models that could be converted more easily; these loopholes were addressed and those weapons are now covered by the same laws that govern out-of-the-box automatic weapons.)

Having a grip that protudes vertically from the body of the rifle, or being painted black, does not make a gun operate any differently. It just makes people's perception of the gun very different.

[demokatgurrl]

23. The concern may be that police officers

may not be able to tell the difference at a distance under certain situations.

[beevul]

39. If ...

If police are being fired on, they can tell the difference.

If the question becomes one of identification, and proper classificatioin of weapons, thats their job.


In any case, "at a distance under certain situations" doesn't amount to justification for a ban on the weapons in question.

[tburnsten]

127. There aren't any situations where that would be an issue

Since a person using a gun is using it either legally or illegally, i.e. safely firing at a range or robbing a bank/shooting at people, and every police officer is quite capable of determining whether the person is committing a crime, then why would it matter and why would they need to determine from a long ways away if a gun was capable of full auto fire? If they do need to check it out, it is quite easy to just ask the owner if it is NFA and if it is, have him show the tax stamp.

[benEzra]

100. Under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986,

any gun that is easily convertible to full auto IS a full auto for the purposes of the law, even if not actually converted. That's why there are no NFA Title 1 civilian firearms that fire from an open bolt, because they could be easily converted to full auto by filing the sear.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

[slackmaster]

105. Thanks for your concern

You are misinformed.

[tburnsten]

126. It is not possible, or they would be banned from import/sale

The ATF treats a weapon which could be easily modified to become a full auto as if it were already a full auto. New AR-15s, for instance, have different dimensions in the lower receiver so they cannot accept full auto trigger packs or sears from M-16s. The ATF has ruled that a shoestring is a machine gun before, so no, guns like semi-only FAL clones cannot be easily converted to full auto, although that question you asked is exactly the kind of question people trying to ban guns that look like them love to hear.

[old mark]

41. The FAL rifles imported and sold legally in the US over the past

20 years are all sime-automatic rifles. They fire one shot per trigger pull, and are used for hunting in many areas. Most FAL military rifles were not full auto weapons. Early versions were, but they proved very hard to control, and were made in semi-auto only. The rifles sold in the US are semi auto only modified surplus military rifles, made in the US from imported parts in combination with US made parts to make them legal to own under the old "Assault Weapons Ban".
Mine is made from a British Commonwealth L1A1 rifle. It has sufficient US made parts, no bayonet lug, and a redesigned muzzle brake to be compliant with US law.

The law you refer to banning full auto weapons actually is the Gun Control Act of 1936, which did not ban these weapons, but taxed them and placed them in a special class - you need a special license to own a full autpo capable weapon, and must pucrhase a tax stamp for each one you own. The tax used to be a few hundred dollars per weapon which, in 1936, put them out of the reach of the average person.
Now, as then, they are playthings for the rich - singlefull auto capable guns, such as old Thompson sub-machine guns (tommy guns) sell for tens of thousands of dollars. They are available only through Class III firearms dealers, and can be sold only through such dealers. They are very heavily regulated through the ATF. They are aalmost never used in crime.

mark

[AtheistCrusader]

132. They are also not legal in several states, even with the tax stamp and background check.

Washington State for example.

Also, 1934 National Firearms Act.

[jody]

16. See post #13. n/t

[michreject]

104. Mine's getting buried

Packing grease and a sealed PVC tube made for guns.

[one-eyed fat man]

160. wrong answer..........

when you feel the need to bury your guns is precisely the time to be digging them up!

[Shakespeare]

9. Well, that's it, then. The sky is falling. Put on your ashes and sackcloth.

So the fuck what? In the overall scheme of things as it concerns this election, this falls under "I don't fucking care."

[jody]

17. Obama disagrees with you and he's courting the vote of 80 million gun-owners. n/t

[Shakespeare]

36. You presume far too much about me.

I'm not anti-gun. I'm a gun owner, and so are most of the folks in my family. I just don't see this as a Major Election Issue right now, all things considered.

It won't lose my vote, and I seriously doubt it'll lose yours or any of the other gun owners already planning to vote for Obama.

[jody]

66. You said "I don't fucking care" and I pointed out that Obama does care about the votes of gun-owners

Do you now wish to revise your statement?

[Shakespeare]

67. You have reading comprehension problems.

What I don't fucking care about is your faux outrage. I will revise nothing

[jody]

69. So you do disagree with Obama re the importance of 80 million gun-owners. Have a nice day. n/t

[Shakespeare]

112. No, I don't. And that's a logical and factual leap you simply can't make...

...no matter how hard you try.

[jody]

115. Time ran out on rewriting your posts that prove you don't support the 2nd, Obama does! n/t

[Shakespeare]

117. Time ran out on what?

You don't even make any sense.

I support the second amendment. I am a gun OWNER. Why are you obsessed with trying to twist my words into something they aren't?

Are you just looking for someone to argue with? I'll keep at it, but it's rather pointless by now.

Going back to your OP--Biden's words don't strike fear into my gun-owning heart, and it's not going to lose any votes for Obama. If you can't get your head around the fact that I hold that opinion while also being a gun owner, then you're mentally deficient.

[SteveM]

135. Sound & Fury signifying nothing...

What's your beef? Most observers of this election seem to agree (along with Obama) that gun-control is an issue significant enough to discuss in the campaign; specifically, they are concerned that if the election were close, then gun-control could (as it has in the past) become important enough to decide an election. Bill Clinton noted this, re Gore in 2000.

You have the luxury to "not give a damn" and pick fights in empty bar rooms; Obama does not.

[yodoobo]

10. OH save it. Who cares about machine guns???

I think they -should- ban assault weapons and other wmds. With a ban, maybe next election those idiots who worship their weapons will be off the streets.

I'd much rather fill the prisons with gun criminals than pot smokers anyway.

Its a non-issue.

The Gun nutters won't vote for Obama anyway.

[jody]

14. See post #13. n/t

[Recursion]

56. Assault weapons are not machine guns

Assault weapons are not machine guns
Assault weapons are not machine guns

Until our party can accept this basic fact, we're going to keep losing to the GOP over this issue.

[Tejas]

155. uh, the ones that pay OVER $1,000,000 for one?

You sit there at your keyboard expecting the world to cater to your emotional whims concerning someone elses property?

Not that you care past who wins the next Idol episode...........

[yodoobo]

11. delete - dupe

[IsItJustMe]

12. You betcha!!!! I think everyone should have an automatic weapon for hunting!!!

Damn straight. Bambie's ass is dead when he gets 20 rounds from a Thompson sub-machine gun.

:sarcasm:

What a joke!!!

[jody]

13. Your post shows amazing ignorance of the AWB issue. It's about semiautomatic not automatic firearms.

[IsItJustMe]

18. All I can say is that I want to pop a cap in Bambie's ass and the more bullets and the faster the

gun can shoot them, the more likely I will be able to accomplish my goal. Now I ask you, does that make me a bad person?

[Lerrad]

81. So you like uneven odds when it comes to shooting Bambie's ass?

Where's your since of sportsmanship? Killing a deer with a machine gun does not sound very challenging to me, it sounds rather boring to me.

Hell why dont you try grenades instead.

[IsItJustMe]

110. LOL Maybe I should have included the sarcasm icon.

[slackmaster]

113. Does it make you a bad person? No, but...

...your posts expose you as deeply ignorant of the subject matter.

[SteveM]

136. No, not a BAD person. (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

133. It's been said before, but a Thompson Sub Machine Gun is not an 'assault weapon'.

It's a machine gun. Specifically, a sub-machine gun, as it fires PISTOL cartridges. (which may not kill a deer, depending on where you place those 20 rounds by the way)

Assault weapons, as defined by Congress, are not fully automatic weapons. Nor are they Assault Rifles, which ARE select fire or fully automatic weapons.


You have no idea what you are trying to regulate. Much like Congress.

[shireen]

19. i don't understand your point ...

There are all kinds of semi-autos. I don't think HR 1022 proposes to ban the semi-auto handguns that are commonly and legally on the market -- read the list of banned weapons, I don't recognize most of them. The bill is going after overkill weapons. Civilians have no need for a gun that will take out an entire herd of game or shred a deer, all using one round of ammo.

As Wes Clark likes to say, if you like playing with those kinds of firearms, "join the army."

NRA political leadership are alarmist whiners who are deliberately spreading misinformation to their membership. It's a shame because they have excellent gun safety and training education programs. If it wasn't for the crackpots running the organizations, I'd join them.

[beevul]

33. "take out an entire herd of game or shred a deer, all using one round of ammo"

"take out an entire herd of game or shred a deer, all using one round of ammo"

Whst gun would do such a thing?

Better question:

What gun that an assault weapon ban would effect , would do such a thing?

"As Wes Clark likes to say, if you like playing with those kinds of firearms, "join the army.""

Um...the army doesn't use so called "assault weapons", they use fully automatic/burst weapons.

[shireen]

44. my bad, used the wrong word in my post.

I meant to say magazine, not round. Sorry about that.

[slackmaster]

106. Most states have limits on the capacity of magazines used during hunting

Typically five rounds.

Your concern is based on misinformation, but thanks for sharing it.

[shireen]

64. so i looked up the meaning of "assault weapon"

Like many people, I have misunderstood the term 'assault weapon.' Thanks, beevul, for asking questions/making comments that caused me to look up more information.

From what i can gather, it's not a technical gun term. Instead, it was coined to describe any gun that can hold a large number of rounds, that produces rapid fire at close range. It does not, in that broad definition, distinguish between semi- and auto.

In the legislation (hr1022), the phrase "semi-automatic assault weapon" is defined by a whole list of firearms and some specs. Someone (who?) established guidelines of acceptable firepower for publicly-owned guns. Unless I missed it, I don't see those guidelines explicitly outlined in the bill.

Now, in defense of Wes .... one of the definitions in that bill refers to firearms originally developed for military and law enforcement use. So I assume that there are some so-called assault weapons that were used, or may still be in use for practical or training purposes.

It would be useful to have a more formal legal definition of 'assault weapon' in terms of firepower. Maybe there's one out there .... if anyone knows, please post a link.

[beevul]

71. Thank you.

Thank you for being willing to investigate the iussue and discuss it.


I highly reccomend watching this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

In it, Officer L. Pyle of the San Jose Police Department explains much about the whole issue.


"In the legislation (hr1022), the phrase "semi-automatic assault weapon" is defined by a whole list of firearms and some specs. Someone (who?) established guidelines of acceptable firepower for publicly-owned guns. Unless I missed it, I don't see those guidelines explicitly outlined in the bill."

As things stand now, legally, there are 2 general catagories of firearms. NFA weapons - that is weapons covered by the national firearms act which be automatic weapons, short barreled rifles and shotguns and destructive devices like hand grenades and rifles over 50 caliber, and non-nfa weapons - essentially those being lesser than the NFA threshold.

To my knowledge, there are no "established guidelines of acceptable firepower for publicly-owned guns", but rather an increasing level of scrutiny and background check etc, once you go beyond the NFA threshold.

[tburnsten]

128. How would "firepower" be described?

Muzzle energy would probably be the easiest and most objective, but then "assault weapons" would fall far short of the most popular medium-large game calibers. Hunting rifles are far more powerful than the AR-15, looks aside, and "rate of fire" is going to be pretty hard to define as well. Magazine capacities are really not that indicative of potential rate of fire, reloading speed is what really determines practical rates of fire.

[benEzra]

157. No, it's any civilian self-loading rifle with a HANDGRIP THAT STICKS OUT.

Or a civilian shotgun that holds more than 5 shells, or that takes a detachable magazine.

The most popular civilian target rifles and defensive carbines in U.S. homes are "assault weapons" according to H.R.1022. More Americans own them than hunt.

[SteveM]

137. Have you confused semi-auto rifles with full-auto rifles?...

I have a semi-auto rifle... a .22 "Ought-3" Winchester, made in 1905. No one was ever concerned about this little antique; nor were they concerned about Remington Model 742s; nor about various Browning semi-auto deer rifles. Until, that is, the "misinformation" of the gun-control movement which has confused "semi" auto with "full" auto, and sought to ban a whole list of the former for the first time, all within the last 25 years.

With all due respects to Wes Clark, the armed forces of the United States do not "play with" or otherwise use "those kinds of firearms." The military uses full-auto-capable, not semi-autos.

When native white tail deer "herd" (a rare occurrence except when yarding in deep snow-bound regions), I would be amazed if anyone could take out a deer herd, even with full-auto. Deer tend to run into the nearest brush.

[Iktomiwicasa]

165. "One round of ammo"?

I don't know any firearm that can shred a "whole herd" with one shot.

[PM7nj]

20. Do you ever think of anything besides guns!? I have never seen you post about anything else!

Give it a rest.

[SteveM]

138. Is this... Yes! It is! I see it: "Topic Forums: Guns"! Rest well. (nt)

[iiibbb]

21. If they go after guns, and the economy is still flat... Obama is looking at 1-term

Learn from 1994. Clinton went in... passed the AWB with a Dem congress... and by 1996 Dems lost tons of seats... Gore lost TN and WV to Bush... and here we are.

Stick to the real issues.

The Dem mandate is economy, health care, and the war.


I'm supporting Obama this time around... but if that's what Dem's decide to do with their mandate... then I will drop you like a ton of bricks.

[4themind]

42. Delete-nt

[Yavapai]

134. I fully agree with iiibbb in the post above.

I supported and voted for Clinton. By 1994, I had changed from Democrat to Independent and voted a 100% Republican ticket.

If Obama and the Wants to repeat the stupidity of Clinton, I will again leave the Democrat party and vote Republican in 2010!!!

Is the 2nd amendment important? Yes, it is just as important as any other of our rights and it stands behind and gives teeth to the rights of the American People!

[jillan]

24. What is the point you are trying to make here?

I totally agree with this.

You can protect the 2nd amendment while limiting the types of guns people can own.
It was successfully done in the 90's when the crime rate went way down....thanks in part to Biden's crime bill legislation.

[iiibbb]

26. The crime rate was dropping before the passage of the AWB

Remember 1996 too... when the Democrats lost control of congress.

Remember 2000 when Gore lost both TN and WV because he came out and said he wanted to ban semi-autos.

Dems are seriously jumping the shark on this. Do you really think that you're going to get these swing states again if you start banning guns?

[jillan]

29. They don't want to ban guns.

And don't even give me this shit about Al Gore losing a couple states over this.
That is NOT the reason why Al Gore is not in the WH at this moment and you know it.

[iiibbb]

46. If he won TN and WV he would have won in spite of FL. He had said wanted to ban semiautos...

[tburnsten]

129. Crime was already going down

And the guns banned or altered by the bill were for the most part not an issue, the only ones that did get traced fairly often, but still not nearly as much as more ordinary handguns, were the MAC-10/Tec-9 families of firearms, which were pretty popular with gangs.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Ooh....another Jody thread to hide! Kewl.

I'm leaving my mark as I go though.....

Missouri, the Show me state!

[vanderBeth]

31. I haven't heard of Jody before

but I'm thinking about hiding this thread too.

[greenbriar]

37. jody threads are always anti-DU

do not know why they are tolorated

[old mark]

49. Pro-gun does not mean anti DU. They are "tolerated" because they are bringing up valid

points of concern by Democrats who own guns.

I have been voting Democratic probably longer than you have been alive, and I am in favcor of free choice on this issue, and I am trying to change the short-sighted view of SOME Democrats who do not agree with me.

mark

[slackmaster]

107. Sounds like greenbriar has a distorted view of what is and is not proper on DU

greenbriar, you should read up on the subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/faq.html

If Jody's activity truly fell into the category of "anti-DU", he would have been banned a long time ago.

Jody is one of a handful of DUers I've met personally. He's the real deal, a stand-up guy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. I don't know why people who spell so badly are tolerated.

Would you care to point out the "anti-DU" comments specifically?

David

[SteveM]

139. "Anti-DU"? "Why are they tolerated"? Some folks have open minds. (nt)

[Paladin]

55. Head On Down To The Gun Dungeon, If You Have The Stomach For It

The quadrennial Anti-Democratic Trashing Fest is in full swing against Obama, just as it was previously against Kerry and Gore.

Bonus feature this time around: the Gungeon poll with 45% of the respondents indicating their willingness to cross over and vote Republican to save their precious guns. Talk about suspicions being confirmed....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

120. We can't help it if you have a weak stomach.

[SteveM]

140. Vee vill not have dissent HERE! [crop slapping]. Who did dat poll?

[CreekDog]

27. Biden is not running for president

also, whom are you voting for then?

[Tejas]

156. free clue

He'll be a heartbeat away from it, so he deserves to have his feet held to the fire when it concerns the BOR.

doh?

[anonymous171]

28. Are assault weapons always automatic?

[beevul]

34. Actually...

Actually, so called "assault weapons" are just semi-automatic.



There is a great deal of misunderstanding, and misinformation on the issue.


The "assault weapon" issue, is about semi-automatic weapons, that LOOK like automatic weapons, but function as a semi-automatic only.

[old mark]

48. There is a specific definition for "Assault Rifle" - it has a magazine

that is removable, has a capability to be fired in seni-antomatic or full automatic mode, uses a medium powered short length cartridge, has a pistol grip. The first such rifle was designed by the Germans in WWII, and was called a "SturmGewhere", literally attack or assault rifle.
(Sorry about my German spelling)
The misnomer "assault weapon" is made up to fit any rifle having characteristics the anti-gun folks don't like, such as a muzzle brake, flash hider, bayonet lug, ad infinitum. Must of these folks seem to think things are whatever they want them to be, and wish to "ban" anything they do not like the appearance of.
FWIW, the former "assault weapons ban" banned very little in fact, and was mostly a cheap political gimic that served to greatly inflate prices on large numbers of surplus military rifles. There are many millions of them now in the USA, and many people of both political parties are buying them by the truckload before the election and putting them away for what ever the future may bring.

I am a lifelong Democrat, and would never vote Republican - I despise them - but I have been doing all I can for the last few years to cause my party to abandon this idiotic position against guns.


mark

[TexasObserver]

58. Indeed. The main "problem" many have with the semi auto "assault rifle" is how it looks.

Rifles have had clips, or magazines, since at least WWI. A deer rifle with a scope and a clip is fundamentally the same as an AR-15 that LOOKS as if it could be used as an assault weapon.

It is the appearance of the AR-15 which makes the uneducated eye think it's an assault weapon.

[Paladin]

65. And It's The Appearance Of The AR-15 That Makes You Want One So Bad

Dirty Little Secret: If a firearm looks like something from a super-violent video game, if it looks like something right off the streets of Beirut, then the Gun Dungeon crowd is all over it. And if the manufacturer is savvy enough to slip the word "Tactical" into the gun's description a few times, you want two of them.

And as far as the definition of what an assault weapon is----I'll settle for whatever the New York "Times" describes an assault weapon to be on any given day, rather than allowing a bunch of gun nuts to control the vocabulary and thus the argument.....

[TexasObserver]

80. There are two kinds of gun nuts, and both are wrong.

You appear to be in the group that thinks "guns bad."

The other groups thinks they have an unfettered right to own guns.

Both groups are wrong, and both are ill informed.

The New York Times has no role in determining what is or is not an assault weapon. If it is not fully auto, it's NOT an assault weapon, any more than a Honda Civic is a race car, even if you paint it to look like one.

There are gun nuts on both sides of the gun argument, and they're both clueless.

[SteveM]

141. Do you "settle for whatever the New York 'Times' says" about Iraq? On a "given day"?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

162. You just hate them because they are black.

[Recursion]

54. "Assault weapons" are never fully automatic

They are all semi-automatic: 1 trigger pull = 1 round fired. Just like your grandfather's hunting rifle (though that traditionally might be bolt action, which is slightly slower to fire; still semi-automatic hunting rifles with traditional stocks and grips are very popular and there's little to no support for banning them, despite the fact that their old-style grips are documentably less safe than modern pistol-style grips that "look scary").

Automatic weapons like a real AK47 or M16 are governed by an act from the 1930's that has never been under any serious challenge. Getting them requires a thorough background check, permission of local law enforcement, and a $200 tax stamp, as well as being rich enough to buy them from a fixed supply since they can no longer be manufactured or imported (since I believe 1986) for civilian markets.

[slackmaster]

108. No, never automatic

According to the expired federal definition as well as the handful of various state ones.

[Endangered Specie]

114. watch this video: anyone who is confused about the AWB should watch it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

[tburnsten]

130. I don't think any of them are automatic

Or else there would be no need for legislation dealing with them, all the legislation regarding full autos and more was enacted in 1936, and then again to close the registry in 1986. Most are semiautomatic though, which sounds ominous if you are not familiar with them, but really only means that the gun extracts the fired casing and throws it clear and then loads the next round by itself, instead of manually. It's just a mode of operation for guns.

[CreekDog]

30. This is one of the 2 issues you ever care about

and it's annoying to hear you goad Obama and Democrats time and time again on it.

[SteveM]

142. We NEED goading, time and again. Otherwise, why are you voting Obama?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

161. If they would get on the right side of the issue it wouldn't be a problem.

[Doctor_J]

32. Maybe you should vote for McSame then

you might have to sell all your guns to buy food when your job is sent overseas or you get a medical problem, but at least you'll have guns to sell.

[greenbriar]

43. wish we could rec individual comments. This one is awesome

TOJ and well stated

[old mark]

51. Awsome in its stupidity. nt

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

109. Firearms actually do make sound investments if you choose them carefully and take care of them

I have a safe full of them.

A year ago, my gun collection accounted for about 15% of my retirement savings.

At present, they account for about 20% because they have not been affected by the credit crisis, sub-prime mortgage mess, stock market plunge, etc.

I haven't bought any firearms during that time. They've just held their value.

BTW there is legitimate reason to believe that some gun control legislation, proposed by members of the House of Representatives, could diminish the value of a gun collection like mine without any compensation.

I refer specifically to HR 1022, about which none of the Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates have said anything.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. You probably shouldn't encourage people to vote for McCain.

[beevul]

35. It is unfortunate...

It is unfortunate that biden just showed for all to see how little he cares to be informed on this issue.

He said:

"You can’t have your own flame-thrower or bazooka."

Actually, yes you can. A bazooka woiuld require nfa approval, and would cost a fortune, but people do own them. And a flame thrower? Classified by law as agricultural equipment - no background check necessary.


Statements like Bidens aren't going to help matters.

[SteveM]

143. The actor Dorn (Starwars, Next Generation) owns and operates a Sabre fighter (nt)

[kid a]

38. Please GOTV, CANVASS, VOTE, PHONEBANK, DONATE for Obama - a public service anouncement =)

[AlCzervik]

40. Is this a deal breaker for you or what because you still get to keep your guns

and keep on buying more, i have some things on my wish list that i won't get but i can live with it. No one is taking your guns away.

[4lbs]

45. Are there people so obtuse to make gun ownership the one issue that determines their vote?

Not health care?

Not education?

Not job creation?

Not alternative energies?

Not rebuilding the infrastructure (roads, bridges, power plants)?

Not tax cuts for those making less than six figures?


But gun ownership?


While your health care coverage is removed, while your job(s) are lost to other countries, while the nation's education system declines in quality, you can still "cling" to your guns. Good going.


Can anyone tell me how owning a gun will help you pay the bills or help your kids get into college?

[beevul]

52. Yes, there are.

Just as there are people so obtuse as to rile those people up, in spite of knowing that the issue is important to them.

You know...

Rile them up, and put at risk in doing so things like:

health care?

education?

job creation?

alternative energies?

rebuilding the infrastructure (roads, bridges, power plants)?

tax cuts for those making less than six figures?




I am not one of those people, however, I DO understand the mindset. And to disregard or ignore that voting bloc, is to invite folly.

[SteveM]

144. You miss the point entirely...

The "regulars" here all care about the issues you have listed, and are challenging the Party to re-focus away from gun-control and back to the needs of the country. That is what this forum is in large measure about.

It is not a cheering squad.

It is not without controversy.

It is not about repeated fallacies.

You seem to think that "we" only think about guns. This is not only disrespectful of fellow progressives/liberals/leftists, but is a gross miss-use of logic as well.

BTW, how do you feel about the proposed Assault Weapons Ban under discussion?

[TexasObserver]

53. As you should know, reasonable restrictions on gun ownership ARE constitutional.

Fully automatic weapons have LONG been subjected to significant restrictions, as you're no doubt aware.

As I told one of the people upthread, YOU don't get to decide what the second amendment means, the Supreme Court does. And they've decided. So either cite controlling Supreme Court cases that support your proposition or stop saying the second amendment authorizes us to own a particular type of weapon.

[beevul]

57. What do fully automatic weapons have to do with this discussion?

Even they are not "banned".


Also, just a nit, but the second amendment does not "authorize" anything.


It restricts the government from infringment on a right belonging to the people.


It is a restriction on the possession/and/or use of governmental power, just as most of the bill of rights is.

The bill of rights itself even says so in its very own preamble:


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire,in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

(Underlining mine)

http://billofrights.org/

[TexasObserver]

60. Supreme Court opinions, not YOUR opinion, matter.

You're another one who thinks he's a constitutional scholar, but aren't.

And I'm not going to spend the afternoon trying to educate you.

You need to stop getting your opinions from Ron Paul and the NRA.

[beevul]

70. Wait a minute...

I quote the bill of rights itself, and somehow I am getting them from ron paul or the nra?


First I said that even automatic weapons are not banned. That there is a fact. See the National Firearms ACT OF 1934.

I then said that the second amendment does not "authorize" anything. That there is tautological fact, not opinion. It does not "authorize" anything any more than the first amendment does. In fact, "congress shall make no law..." sounds like a restriction on the government to me, too. I am not opposed to hearing other takes on it, should you wish to provide one instead of accusing me of getting my facts from ron paul (laughable) or the nra (which I have always admitted that I was a member of for 1 year, because it came free with my enrollment in a gun safety course many many years ago).

As far as supreme court decisions mattering, of course your right. They're whats binding legally.

Additionally, I have read the 140 plus page decision of Heller vs DC.

In short, heres the decision from The Supreme Cort of The United States of America :

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


That supreme court opinion, meshes EXACTLY with the things I wrote.


Why you would attack me and say I get my "opinions" from ron paul or the nra, is a mystery to me. I did not attack you in such a mannor.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[beevul]

87. I think we may be misunderstanding each other here.

"1. The OP posted this topic, whining about something Joe Biden said."

"2. I advised the OP "Fully automatic weapons have LONG been subjected to significant restrictions," a correct statement, and applicable to this discussion, because it verifies that our Supreme Court recognizes that the second amendment does have limits."

"3. You said "what have fully automatic weapons got to do with this, they've legal," (or words to that effect)."

Ok, I'm with you to this point, and I see no problem.

"When a Poster exhibits an inability to understand plainly written language in my post, or does as you did, and essentially LIE about what I said, I blow them off. If you can't be honest in your replies, don't reply."

What did I "essentially lie" about that you said?

"That still doesn't explain why you'd misrepresent what I posted."

I'm not clear on what exactly it was that I misrepresented that you posted.


I must have said something that offended you though, or you wouldn't be saying the things your saying.

"As for the DC opinion, I agree with it. I am neither a gun nut, nor a nut who wants to eviscerate the second amendment and pretend it's only about hunting or militias."

That makes two of us.

[TexasObserver]

90. Cool. We agree on substance.

I still don't understand why you'd type "what has automatic weapons got to do with this?" after I posted what I did.

I am a second amendment supporter. I am not one of those who believes there can be no restrictions on gun ownership. The law is what the Supremes say it is, and that's how I view THE LAW. I don't have to like it, or even agree with it.

I do not share the opinion of those who think the second amendment is only about hunting, or only about militias. I also don't share the opinion of those who think they have a constitutional right to own a particular type of weapon.

Guns and cars both kill a lot of people, but prescription drugs kill more, as do medical errors and infections gotten while in a hospital. But no one is covering those deaths on mainstream media every day and every night.

[beevul]

96. Indeed we do.

"I still don't understand why you'd type "what has automatic weapons got to do with this?" after I posted what I did."


I admit, I may have typed that partially out of habit, as it is frequently seen in this debate (and even in this thread) that people think the assault weapon issue is about automatic weapons. It was more directed at pointing that out than it was "pointing that out to you", if you follow me.

No harm no foul.

"Guns and cars both kill a lot of people, but prescription drugs kill more, as do medical errors and infections gotten while in a hospital. But no one is covering those deaths on mainstream media every day and every night."

Yeah, thats true. And alcohol claims over 100k lives a year too.



As you say, we agree on substance, which applies every bit as well and as much to the post this one responds to as well.

Take care, TO.

[SteveM]

145. Umm, not good enough. Give us your arguments (nt)

[jody]

88. TexasObserver either you did not read the cited article or you didn't understand it. Biden said he

supports the AWB and his bill S.2237 would renew the AWB.

H.R 1022 renews the AWB and gives the attorney general authority to unilaterally ban semiautomatic firearms that would include such favorites as the Remington model 1100 with over 4 million produced.

When Biden says he will not ban guns and at the same time sponsors a bill that would ban guns one is entitled to believe Biden is grossly ignorant of the AWB issue.

Note Biden says he wrote the original AWB.

There are over 80 million gun-owners among the electorate of over 120 million.

About 64 million gun-owners do not hunt.

[TexasObserver]

91. I don't agree with Biden on this, and wish he'd stop talking about it.

I also don't agree with labeling them "assault weapons" when they are clearly NOT assault weapons.

Anyone who thinks a semi auto "assault weapon" has any utility as an assault weapon is someone who knows nothing about guns or combat.

[jody]

98. We agree. Still Biden sponsors S.2237 and 67 Democratic congresspersons sponsor H.R. 1022. It is

their ignorance that prevents gun-owners from accepting Obama/Biden as true supporters of RKBA.

[crankychatter]

59. ten minutes prior to general election and EVERY little interest group has a cow

it is ALWAYS with questionable motives

it's never NOT

[beevul]

61. Possibly, however...

Jody and quite a few others of us, have been around DU for quite some years now, as opposed to "ten minutes prior to general election".

Its not like his message is new. And its not like he wasn't saying it before "ten minutes prior to general election".

Perhaps you did not mean to convey that message, but if you did, it was both inaccurate, and unfair.

[bread_and_roses]

62. Who cares? People are living in "tent cities," jobs gone, savings

and retirement gone, our roads and bridges and water systems are crumbling, our inner cities have been rotting like third-world disaster areas and their residents systematically crushed by poverty and oppression - all because people voted on some warped notions about the importance of god and guns.

I imagine that even some fringe gun-nuts are spending more time worrying about gas and food these days than about their precious hardware.

[SteveM]

146. So, how do you feel about the proposed Assault Weapon Ban?

[gateley]

63. I think that most people who aren't gun aficionados view assault weapons as

mow 'em down machine gun types of things -- and I'm assuming that's what Joe means.

A gun owner explained to me that's not actually the case -- assault weapons apply to other types of guns, right? And, if I recall correctly, some of what are considered assault weapons are used legitimately by gun sportspeople and hunters.

Anyway, I'm thinking it's semantics -- and that maybe what needs to be done is a re-classification of what constitutes an assault weapon?

I think they are against making it easy/legal for anybody to walk into a store and buy an Uzi (or whatever is hip these days). I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think that Biden wants to take away peoples' guns. He even has a couple (but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near him when he was holding one -- I wouldn't consider him a marksman. :-) )

[beevul]

83. You are essentially correct.

"I think that most people who aren't gun aficionados view assault weapons as mow 'em down machine gun types of things -- and I'm assuming that's what Joe means."

"A gun owner explained to me that's not actually the case -- assault weapons apply to other types of guns, right? And, if I recall correctly, some of what are considered assault weapons are used legitimately by gun sportspeople and hunters."

Yep. those "mow 'em down machine gun types of things" are already covered by current federal law.

"Assault weapons" refers to semi-automatic non-nfa weapons.


And the fact that Biden and Obama support a ban on them worries many people who are "in the know" or "aficionados" as you say, because whether they view them as being uninformed or as dishonest with an agenda, either leaves a bad tase on their mouths in terms of considering whether those fellas might make good reasonable informed decisions on the issue, if elected.




I'll be voting for Obama, but I understand all too well the mindset. I see it daily.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. insane. you not biden. nt

[SteveM]

147. None of us are Biden. Nevertheless, on this issue Biden is wrong.(nt)

[Essene]

73. id be happy if biden stopped talking about guns, marriage and abortion.

[Jennicut]

77. i'd be happy is people cared little for dumb social issues and guns

and worried about the economy, health care and an overstreched military. Besides, Rethugs don't REALLY want you to have your guns. They want no restrictions for their crazy militias but if they ever had martial law (if they were in charge of the presidency) they would like very much to take those guns away from you.

[jody]

86. I agree. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

76. Criminy. Every time we get close to an election, the special-interest wankers start whining.

[Jennicut]

79. Yup. I decided my special interest is goats

Who will save the goats?

[4lbs]

84. Viva La Chevre!!!!

:D

[SteveM]

148. Yeah, I wish the gun-control goats would vacate, don't you? (nt)

[polichick]

78. imo giving up assault weapons (and SUVs) for the greater good is patriotic.

[bossy22]

95. You are entitled to your oppinion

and you may have a point- but imo i feel government shouldnt force you to do that- when they do we can no longer call ourselves a "free" society that values individual rights

the term "the greater good" has been used so many times to justify questionable actions by questionable regimes- it is the quintessential opposite to individual rights

but then again- that is just my oppinion- just like your post

[ArmedAmerican]

97. let me know how you feel about that when they drag you

or your neighbors out of bed for being anti-American.

[SteveM]

149. You have your "patriotism," I have my guns. Fair enough (nt)

[benEzra]

159. What greater good?

Rifles aren't a crime problem in the United States and never have been, regardless of what color the stock is or how the handgrip is shaped. Only 3% of U.S. homicides involve ANY type of rifle, "assault weapon" or not.

[Forkboy]

85. This always reminds me of the song Mark Of The Male by the Residents.

There's no better feeling than a hard on
I guess the closest thing is the feeling of holding a gun
But instead of being cold and rigid
It's a gun made out of hot meat
Your own flesh and blood

It's warm and it tingles
And somehow it's hard AND soft at the same time
And it's yours...it's your power
It's your gun

And what do you do with a gun?
You shoot it
You look for a nice target
You take aim and squeeze the trigger
And that fucking gun goes BLAM!

There's nothing like it

I guess the only thing that would make it better
Would be if you could put another bullet in it
And just shoot that fucker again
And again
Again

Oh well, nothing is perfect.

[SteveM]

150. Usually "penis-obsessed posters" start early. Where ya been?...

You realize, of course, that Freud et al held that liking ANY pointy object to the penis is not necessarily a pathology; but that those who constantly see the image as an explanation of things may have a problem with what we call today "sexual identity."

Put another way, he/she who first smelt it, dealt it.

[elkston]

89. So somebody just answer me straight. Are semi-automatic rifles *totally* banned or not?

And if they are not, what evidence is there that Obama/Biden plan to actively make it a priority to ban them? I mean, how have you been led to believe that this issue is going to be front-and-center in an Obama administration?

P.S. - I understand now that "assualt rifle" does not necessarily mean automatic weapon. Thanks to this thread, I have been educated. My meager gun knowledge comes from movies and computer games (like Jagged Alliance 2).

[beevul]

92. The answer is no.

"And if they are not, what evidence is there that Obama/Biden plan to actively make it a priority to ban them? I mean, how have you been led to believe that this issue is going to be front-and-center in an Obama administration?"


I would say that Bidens statement about writing the original AWB, combined with Obamas voting record is more than enough to put a large voting bloc on edge. I can not see how anyone could see that as unjustified concern.


"P.S. - I understand now that "assualt rifle" does not necessarily mean automatic weapon. Thanks to this thread, I have been educated. My meager gun knowledge comes from movies and computer games (like Jagged Alliance 2)."

As with any subject, a working knowledge of the technical language associated with it is always helpful. The term "assault rifle" actually does mean a fully automatic and/or burst mode firearm, though since the debate began over 20 years ag0, the term "assault weapon" and the term "assault rifle" have been substitued for each other both inadvertantly and deliberately, to a point of ridiculum.

In any case, the "assault weapon" issue is over semi-automatic in function weapons. Nothing more and nothing less.

[bossy22]

94. to answer your question straight

federally- semi-autos of almost all type are still legal and generally in every state there is some form of semi-auto weapons that are legal

the obama/biden ticket only says they "support such a ban" but never once said they would actively push one

I for one believe they wont- no administration gets their entire agenda passed- so they have to pick and choose- and i have a feeling that obama/biden administration has its hands full with iraq, healthcare, and the economy

Also significant evidence to the ban being a non-issue with them is....hell its not really even on their website- you have to go into the bowels of their issues page and there is 1 paragraph about the 2nd amendment- that is a sub section of a sub section of a sub section- if it was so important i would believe they would have put it front and center

secondly, if i may help you along in your quest for gun knowledge
assualt rifle does not equal assault weapon. An assault rifle is a military term for a selective fire (capable of automatic and semi-automatic fire) weapon that fires a medium powered cartridge. An assault weapon is a political term which has no true definition. In fact many legislation regarding assault weapons are not consistent with each other- some exempting guns as non-assault weapons while others including them as assault weapons (take a look at the bidens crime bill and H.R. 1022)

[tburnsten]

131. JA3 will be out in a few short months!

"assault rifle" does mean automatic, it is a technical term for a class of rifles that by definition are low-powered, magazine-fed, and capable of either burst or full auto modes of fire.

[Pavulon]

166. look good, feel good..

the awb was and would be like the firearms it banned cosmetic only. It did not address root cause of violence like poverty, drug law, and community issues.

This type of legislation is pointless and does NOTHING to prevent crime.

[Hangingon]

93. Biden is quite a talker.

I know he doesn't listen to himself but does he really believe no one else listens to him.

[aikoaiko]

101. We are two Democrats who voted against gun control,” -- Joe Biden

Does anyone know what gun control biden and obama voted against?


The AWB is an anti-second amendment abomination. It will cost votes this election, but hopefully not cost the election. Obama could probably win GA if he simply promised no new federal gun bans.

[jody]

102. OnTheIissues does not report Biden as voting against gun-control bills.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm#Gun_Control

• Keep assault weapons ban; close gun show loophole. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
• Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

[wartrace]

103. Sure, ban assault weapons.......

Lets forget that they are only used in less than 3% of gun homicides. They LOOK SCARY!

Lets not do anything about handguns, they are only used in 85% or more of the gun homicides, no sense in doing anything about that now, is there?

The assault weapon ban is an "easy" gun control victory. Next they will go after "sniper rifles" which I suspect will include most of the popular hunting rifles. Nobody needs a rifle, a shotgun is just as effective for hunting, isn't it?

Yep, "solve" a non problem. It will make you "feel" good.

To tell you the truth, how could you blame a gun owner if he/she decides to vote to protect their rights? We all know that the "gun control lobby" will never go away. They will not rest until all private gun ownership in the United States is banned. If gun bans are part of the agenda we will lose votes. Maybe people won't vote for the opposition but they very well could stay home or vote third party.

Gun control is the biggest loser issue that the Democrats ever embraced. It has cost dearly in the past, just ask Al Gore why he lost his home state in 2000. You do remember the "million Mom march" the mothers day before the election, don't you?

[JoeyMac]

111. How can he just lie like that?

I mean, it's almost minboggling.

[bossy22]

116. hes not necessarily lying

biden has been on the record voicing opposition to licensing and registration of guns...the only pet peeve of his when it comes to the subject are assault weapons

hes never going to change his mind- biden is stubborn.

Though i will admit he is stretching the truth

but whenever those 2 say they are pro-second amendment i laugh...it equal in hillarity to bush saying that he believes in freedom

[iverglas]

122. hey, he's a Democrat

What did you expect??

(For any non-regulars in the Gun Dungeon, this should have a sarcasm thingy attached to it, but on its own, it's the underlying theme hereabouts, I'm just saying the thing that dare not speak its name out loud.)



Eek, left out an apostrophe.

[iverglas]

121. where's that pooper scooper?

[SteveM]

151. Up there on No. 85. How are you and yours doing?

[iverglas]

152. hmm

Cancer-ridden and cranky, ta. ;) Mine, that is. Me, just cranky. Did I mention I've been banned from the genealogy board again? This one ain't gonna stick. Heh. Last time this happened, somebody here said: "Reach too far into the bag of Pollock jokes?" Interestingly, it was just such a "joke", and a few other "I'm not a racist but" comments (like they should all be sent back where they came from-- that one isn't a racist!) that I objected to that got *me* banned. The mother corp is hearing all about these ones and I expect to be back on boards not long after, so you won't be stuck with me full-time.

Mum still waiting for diagnosis after biopsy, sis getting chemo and radiation and forbidding anybody to talk about it, and still hasn't told bros. Me, stuck with a substitute doc who just doesn't think we need to be talking MRIs yet ... with all the colorectal cancer posters all over the office, and that and melanoma all over my "first degree" family members, and my genes ticking away. Shoulda waited a week for the long-time doc, the one with a proper grown-up name. I knew the day would come when I had a doctor named Chelsea (well, not exactly, but just as bad) and it finally did. Get to see Dr. Helen in a couple of weeks, will get my MRI or the clinic chairperson will explain why not!

If I need references for the futility of crossing me, I'll let you all know. ;)

[SteveM]

153. Yeah, political correctness ain't what it used to be...

My Dad, who died two years ago at 87, said the doctor confirmed that he had prostate cancer, but the good news was that wouldn't kill him. I don't know if that's Polish humor, but it does sound Jewish.

[iverglas]

154. actually

he had prostate cancer, but the good news was that wouldn't kill him

That's a very common saying. It's a cancer that progresses slowly, and it is often said that in very old men, it isn't the prostate cancer that will kill. That's why it often isn't treated, since the treatment would just be unpleasant for no real purpose.

The things I know, eh? ;)

Unlike my dad, whose melanoma would have killed him in a few short weeks ... but whose unknown quadruple coronary artery blockage got him first. Mercifully.

[tburnsten]

123. HAHA, flamethrowers are not guns at all, and neither are bazookas!

Bazookas are destructive devices, already heavily taxed, restricted, AND regulated, and "flamethrowers" are common land management and agriculutral tools. How else do you quickly start a controlled burn or create a barrier against a wildfire?

[derby378]

158. Is anyone really surprised that Biden would say this?

Biden's for the Second Amendment except for when he's against it. Big deal. It's the same old Third Way/AGS nonsense that helped defeat John Kerry in 2004. (That, and a bunch of faulty touchscreens and corrupt election officials in Ohio.) What is surprising, however, is the timing of Biden's statements - Obama is running around the country, promising that nobody's going to lose their guns under an Obama administration while quietly supporting a semi-auto ban, and here comes Biden with this little torpedo.

[raimius]

164. An unfortunate duo

...for gun-rights, at least.

We have the guy who is still bragging about a failed law that cost control of congress and thought "banning guns is an idea whose time has come," and the other who said he will continue to oppose CCW (an established good law), wants another AWB (a proven bad law), turned in a survey saying he supported banning handguns, supported banning all semi-autos, and a law that would have closed roughly 90% of gun stores, and supported DC's ban as constitutional until the SCOTUS ruled otherwise, then had to back-talk. They are lucky McCain is running a horrible campaign and gun-rights aren't a major issue in this election.

I really hope all those stances take a back seat to other issues. Gun-rights have made major advances in the past decade, I would hate to see it all undone. It still irks me that the DNC platform is holding on to the "reasonable restrictions" non-sense. There are good gun-laws, but the platform is not proposing them.