With all due respect to General Wesley Clark, let me reiterate...

[derby378]

Gen. Clark once said, "You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"

Fine. Here's my answer to Gen. Clark:

If you expect me to join the military and subject myself to the whims of the madman who currently styles himself as Commander-in-Chief, opening myself to the possibility that I'll be shipped off to fight and die in the pointless occupation of Iraq, just so that I can exercise my Constitutional right to own a firearm that has been legally owned by American civilians for a hundred years, HELL, NO.

George W. Bush has taught us all a valuable lesson - maintain a healthy distrust of our elected officials. Especially the ones we didn't elect in the first place.

Discuss!

[elcondor]

1. I've always read that quote as

he's not talking about these:



He's talking about these:

[Greyhound]

3. Clark wants to ban toys?

BTW, picture A is much more lethal in the hands of an novice than the real version of picture B.

[elcondor]

15. I've never even touched a gun, LOL

I just googled "m-16" for picture B. And I guess it would depend how good this novice's aim is! ;-)

[derby378]

17. S'okay...

But with a full-auto M16, do you really need to aim? :hi:

[elcondor]

19. Haha very true

:toast:

[derby378]

8. If Clark is referring to automatic weapons, then he needs to clarify that

I'm not talking about repealing the 1934 National Firearms Act, here...

[elcondor]

18. I'm just saying what I've always

interpreted Clark to mean. To me, the latter (in it's non-toy incarnation of course) is an "assault" type weapon, versus something like a rifle, which, though I would never own one myself, I could see a person having in the name of hunting and/or family protection. It was just my personal opinion; sorry I should have been clearer! :-)

[benEzra]

26. An "assault weapon"

I'm just saying what I've always interpreted Clark to mean. To me, the latter (in it's non-toy incarnation of course) is an "assault" type weapon, versus something like a rifle, which, though I would never own one myself, I could see a person having in the name of hunting and/or family protection. It was just my personal opinion; sorry I should have been clearer!

An "assault weapon" is a civilian rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out, a civilian pistol or rifle holding more than 6 or 10 rounds, or a civilian shotgun holding more than 3 or 5 shells.

"Assault weapons," so defined, are some of the most popular civilian guns in the United States, and as such should NOT be banned. The term could be used to describe half the guns my wife and I own, and we'd certainly like to keep them.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Clark doesn't "expect" you to join the army.....

Clark owns 24 guns.....and supports the 2nd amemdment.

---------------

His comment you quoted was made back in 2003, and was not a detailed policy, but a "campaign quip" said when he first started running.

---------------

Are assault weapons legal?


If I recall, this has always been your beef with Clark. The fact that he used a certain term such as Assault weapons and you felt that the term wasn't appropriate.

---------------

You can email him here http://securingamerica.com/feedback
and ask him your question on his position on the 2nd amendment and his position on assault weapons.

[jarab]

9. You are correct, of course ...

"...When asked about gun control, for instance, Clark said, 'I have got 20-some-odd guns in the house. I like to hunt. I have grown up with guns all my life. But people who like assault weapons, they should join the United States Army--we have them....'"

...O...

[benEzra]

27. Thanks for the link...I'm going to send an email. (n/t)

[Clark2008]

30. I always thought it was also a slam at those chickenhawks

who would rather play pretend Army with the guns rather than join the real Army and fight in the wars they support.

[Greyhound]

4. Consider that General Clark knows the difference between an assault

weapon and a civilian semi-auto with a pistol grip.

[hayu_lol]

6. Derby, you got the quote right...

your response shows clearly that you didn't understand it. Clark was responding to a question from the audience. It answered the question and got considerable laughter.

The meaning of it all had to do with assualt weapons on the street. None of us want them there.

[derby378]

11. "assault weapons on the street" = "semi-autos owned by law-abiding citizens"

If Clark becomes our 2008 nominee, I want him to win. Seriously. But he won't if too many voters think he's just another gun-grabber.

[derby378]

10. An "assault weapon" IS a civilian semi-auto with a pistol grip

Since nobody ever bothered to come up with a technical definition of the term assault weapon, that's the closest I could possibly get.

[Toots]

48. In military terms an assault rifle is one capable of being fired in full automatic

The M-2 Carbine is an assault rifle and it has no pistol grip but it does have a selector switch. I believe it should be classified by the firepower it can exert. For instance a Remington 42 is a semi automatic rifle but can only hold four rounds of ammo. That is plenty. If you can't hit your deer with that then you are a piss poor hunter. You do not need a weapon that can put out fifteen to thirty rounds in a minute to hunt with whether it has a pistol grip or not. I believe that is what Clark was referring to and not just having a pistol grip. Why would you think you need such a weapon in a civilian capacity?

[derby378]

50. First of all, "assault rifle" does not equal "assault weapon"

"Assault rifle," as you pointed out, refers to full-auto military rifles. "Assault weapon," however, refers only to semi-automatic rifles that have cosmetic or safety features that gun-control advocates believe the American people cannot be trusted with. There is a difference.

You have to break out of the mold that Americans need guns only for hunting. Remember that the Second Amendment makes reference to "a well-regulated militia," and said militia needs something a little more substantial than some old-fashioned hunting rifles.

[Toots]

51. and what about "well regulated" don't you get?

It is the only ammendment to the Constitution that has that specific expression "Well Regulated" Why is it when regulations get placed so many people freak out about losing their Constitutional rights? I would suggest that people can use Law enforcement for their protection instead of heavy fire power... The people in Dodge City seemed to find it more suitable during the 1800s...I wonder if Iraqis believe they are so much safer because they all have assault weapons?

[derby378]

52. This isn't about REGULATING guns, it's about BANNING them

Don't you understand? Regulating guns means registering them so that there's a list of who owns which guns, just like the Army does. Regulating guns means you fill out a Federal form every time you purchase a gun and submit to a background check to make sure you're not a felon, wanted for arrest, etc. Banning guns, however, is totally different.

[Toots]

53. I have not heard anyone suggest guns should be banned only assault weapons.

Just as machine guns have been banned since the 30's. Hand grenades are also banned as are nuclear bombs. That is a way of regulation. My suggestion would be to limit (regulate) the amount of ammo a weapon can carry at any given time. They have had this ban on shotguns for a long time. Also the length of the barrel on a shotgun. For many years any shotgun with a barrel length of under eighteen inches was illegal. IMO that is what is being attempted with the assault weapons ban. As we have all found out it is quite easy to get around the law as it is currently written. Why does the NRA and the Republicans want (cop killer) armored piercing rounds on the streets? Should bullets also be regulated? Should red tipped or black tipped or yellow tipped bullets be in public use. How about a tank? Should anyone be allowed to own and operate a tank and it's armament in public? This is one area in the Constitution that really demonstrates the wisdom of it's authors IMO. Arms or militia should be "well regulated" Especially as they get deadlier and deadlier..

[benEzra]

63. Popular civilian guns ARE "assault weapons"...

I have not heard anyone suggest guns should be banned only assault weapons.

Some of the most popular civilian guns in America ARE dubbed "assault weapons" by those who want to ban them. The AR-15 platform, the SKS, Ruger mini-14, M1 carbine, and pretty much any other small-caliber self-loading rifle are considered "assault weapons" by the Bradyites. Even the mini-14 in its 5-round, straight-stocked configuration:



Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, banned by name as an "assault weapon" by S.1431, 2003-2004 legislative session. Thankfully, the ban didn't pass.

IMHO, the "OMG the sky is falling" rhetoric about rifle stocks with handgrips that stick out (protruding handgrip = "assault weapon") is silly. Particularly since rifles are almost never used in crimes, per the FBI; despite their popularity, all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides.

My suggestion would be to limit (regulate) the amount of ammo a weapon can carry at any given time.

Problem is, the prohibitionists want to roll us back to pre-Civil-War magazine capacities. Most proposed AWB's limit civilian guns to only TEN ROUNDS. Guns with higher capacity than that have been on the civilian market since the early 1860's.

Most homicides are committed with firearms holding six rounds or less, FWIW.

For many years any shotgun with a barrel length of under eighteen inches was illegal.

Still are.

IMO that is what is being attempted with the assault weapons ban.

No, the "assault weapon" ban is an attempt to harass gun enthusiasts by banning guns with modern aesthetics (popular with Gen-X and Gen-Y shooters like me) and mandating 19th-century-fogey stock styling--with no rational basis.

As we have all found out it is quite easy to get around the law as it is currently written.

What law? Rifles with handgrips that stick out are NOT illegal in this country. As it should be.

Why does the NRA and the Republicans want (cop killer) armored piercing rounds on the streets? Should bullets also be regulated?

AP ammo for handguns and small-to-intermediate caliber rifles (up through .308 Winchester/7.62x51mm) is already banned, and has been since 1986. Nobody is trying to change that.

How about a tank? Should anyone be allowed to own and operate a tank and it's armament in public?

Anyone can own and operate a tank on private property, as long as the tank's armament is not operational. The armament, however, is restricted by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, and would require Federal permission (BATFE Form 4) to be left intact.

This is one area in the Constitution that really demonstrates the wisdom of it's authors IMO. Arms or militia should be "well regulated" Especially as they get deadlier and deadlier..

The trend in civilian guns is toward lower-powered, LESS deadly calibers that are gentler to shoot; if you don't hunt (and today most gun owners don't), you don't need something as powerful as a .30-06 or a 12-guage. The two most popular centerfire rifle rounds in the U.S. today are 7.62x39mm (SKS, civilian AK lookalikes), which is even less powerful than .30-30 Winchester, and .223 (the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle cartridges). And a .729 caliber shotgun is a lot deadlier than a 9mm carbine...

Functionally, gun functionality was frozen in the 1930's by the NFA; any civilian rifle you can buy today can't fire any faster than a 1930's M1 carbine, and any civilian pistol can't fire any faster than a 1896 Mauser or a 1930's Browning Hi-Power.


You are right, in today's world there is a line of demarcation drawn between military/law-enforcement-only weapons and civilian guns. That line was drawn 72 years ago, by the compromises embodied in the National Firearms Act. Automatic weapons, firearms over .50 caliber (except shotguns), sound suppressed firearms, disguised firearms, etc. were placed under heavy restrictions. NON-automatic firearms under .51 caliber meeting the other requirements of the NFA were deemed perfectly suitable for widespread civilian ownership.

That has not changed. The line was drawn correctly; it should stay there.

There is a major functional difference between a machinegun or a sound-suppressed firearm and a non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed firearm. There is NOT a major functional difference between a civilian carbine with a handgrip that sticks out, and a civilian carbine with a straight stock.

[Irreverend IX]

55. In the parlance of the 18th century...

Well-regulated means competent, organized, well-trained. That aside, the militia clause constitutes a rationale for the non-infringement of the RKBA. It's saying "the people will need to know how to use guns in order to function well as a militia, so their right to own guns should not be infringed." Such a statement of rationale holds no legal weight, and for this reason the inclusion of such statements in laws fell out of fashion during the 1800s. The US had basically no restrictions on civilian gun ownership through the beginning of the 20th century, so it seems no lawmakers felt the Second Amendment mandated "regulation" until the Prohibition-era gang wars spurred the National Firearms Act of 1934.

[AtomicKitten]

5. I believe he was talking about gun control

and the NRA's belief that is should be no holds barred in America.

[saltpoint]

7. I know in my heart that Wes Clark expects me to buy blueberry

Poptarts.

He likes 'em. I like 'em. Why not go buy some? -- is my thinking on that.

Take Bill Richardson for instance. He expects me to avoid the temptation to scrawl obscenities on gravestones. It's a particularly keen issue with him, and in my heart, I know he's right. So out went the magic markers into the alleyway. I haven't desecrated a tombstone in ages.

Now Sam Brownback -- that's another story. Sam prefers that I put the toilet paper on with the paper hanging OVER the front rather than BEHIND the roller gizmo. You might say to yourself, "But, no one really cares about things like that, Old Crusoe."

WRONG! Sam Brownback cares. That's why he wants me to do it his way. And I obey, because I know Sam has my best interests at heart.

Other candidates express their intents and wishes to me also. But I'm not going to talk about them now.

Angela Merkel is outside, wailing about needing a neck massage.

[dae]

33. I like Wes, and I like blueberries; but,

I don't like blueberry Poptarts.

[saltpoint]

34. I understand your misgivings.

(I was posting as I did to suggest that context is everything, and that I thought General Clark was being abused out of context.)

[xkenx]

12. Clark was speaking as a gun-owner who nevertheless

did/does not approve of the use of uncrontrolled weaponry, the ONLY use for which was to kill or maim many prople at once. Hence the comment that, if you really want to blow people away, join the Army, where they will train you. But you know that, derby378; you just decided to throw out a Clark bashing. I guess, with free speech and all, you can do that. But we see through it.

[benEzra]

25. Weapons like the Army uses are tightly controlled in the U.S.

Clark was speaking as a gun-owner who nevertheless did/does not approve of the use of uncrontrolled weaponry, the ONLY use for which was to kill or maim many prople at once. Hence the comment that, if you really want to blow people away, join the Army, where they will train you. But you know that, derby378; you just decided to throw out a Clark bashing. I guess, with free speech and all, you can do that. But we see through it.

Weapons like the Army uses are tightly controlled in the U.S., and possession of one without Federal permission (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony. Since no one is trying to repeal the National Firearms Act (which even the NRA supports), then either General Clark thinks that military automatic weapons are unrestricted, or he thinks that more civilian non-automatic rifles need to be banned. Most gun owners took him to mean the latter, which makes this something he needs to address; the talk-up-hunting-while-promising-to-ban-nonhunting-guns approach bombed disastrously (but predictably) in '00 and '04.



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

[Jai4WKC08]

32. It's neither of the two

"...either General Clark thinks that military automatic weapons are unrestricted, or he thinks that more civilian non-automatic rifles need to be banned."

Nonsense.

What Clark knows is that the GOP uses the NRA to label any kind of reasonable gun regulation as "libr'ul gun-grabbing" by the nanny state. Not because they really care about guns as much as because it's an easy way of scaring moderates from voting for Democrats, especially in red states and rural areas where everyone owns some kind of weapon, some handed down over generations. As a life-long gun owner and hunter who is obviously not afraid of weapons (as many right-wingers assume anti-gun people are), Clark will not allow guns to be turned into a wedge issue to be used against himself or any other Democrats.

It sort of amazes me that any pro-gun Democrat could have a problem with Clark. He's like a dream come true in his ability to breach the gap between the left and libertarian gun attitudes within our party without alienating those on the outside. And he doesn't need a photo-op with a dead goose and a designer hunting jacket to do it.

[derby378]

37. As long as he comes out and says the Second Amendment doesn't apply just to hunters and sportsmen...

...then he could be in much better shape.

Once again, if Wesley Clark receives the nomination at the 2008 convention in Denver, he gets my vote. But I want our nominee to be a slam-dunk this time around.

[benEzra]

38. Does Clark support any sort of "assault weapon" ban?

Because THAT is the wedge on guns, not the ownership of traditional-looking hunting guns (most gun owners don't hunt). It was the Feinstein ban and sequelae that hurt Gore so badly among gun owners in '00, and Kerry in '04, which is why that particular albatross needs to be dropped.

The problem here is that an "assault weapon" is a civilian rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out, a civilian shotgun holding more than 3 or 5 shells, or a civilian rifle or pistol holding more than 6 or 10 rounds. I and many others took Gen. Clark's "assault weapon" statement as expressing support for bans on such firearms, a la S.1431/H.R.2038 that the DLC pushed so hard in 2004. I would be very glad to find that Mr. Clark does not agree with that, as I otherwise like Clark, but he scared the crap out of me with that statement. The term could be used to describe half the guns my wife and I own, and we'd certainly like to keep them.

I think Jim Webb's victory in Virginia over an NRA-endorsed pro-gun repub (and an incumbent at that) shows that a truly pro-gun-owner Dem CAN win among gun-owning Dems and indies. But Webb opposed the AWB, and IMHO would not have won otherwise.


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

[Jai4WKC08]

54. I think you're wrong

I think the average voter doesn't have a clue as to what any given candidate thinks about gun control. I think they just assume Democrats want to take away guns and Republicans don't. I think no matter what Gore had said in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, anyone who cares enough about the issue that it would determine their vote would have voted against either one of them. I also think Clark will not suffer from the same apprehensions and assumptions, no matter what position he takes. Not that many voters pay close enough attention to know one way or the other, no matter what the NRA says. The vast majority do not care.

You realize that most voters think Hillary Clinton voted against the IWR, don't you? They sure as hell don't know what she thinks about guns. Most will assume that as a "New York liberal" she is against them, whether she is or not, and nothing she can say will change that.

As for what Clark said, it was a joke. If he had any serious meaning at all, it was that he generally supports gun regulation, but also wants people to know he is a gun owner and has always been. You can try to squeeze more out of it if you want, but I think you're pissing up a rope.

And please spare us the "concern troll" routine about how you're doing Clarkies a favor because this is an issue he must address. There's no doubt in my mind Clark is stronger on 2nd amendment rights than any of the 08 candidates (with the possible exception of Richardson) and I think you know damn well that's true too.

Oh, btw, I'm a gun owner too, but I do not hunt.

On edit: I'm not sure I posted this in the right place, BenEzra. I'm sorry I don't have more time to go back thru the thread, but please know this is as much of a general response to the tone of the thread and the OP's follow-up comments as to anything you said.

[xkenx]

13. deleted

[derby378]

14. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect...

...because the OP didn't just deal with legal ownership of firearms - it also dealt with the idea that you would have to trust George W. Bush, of all people, with your life and your well-being just to possess a civilian firearm that Dianne Feinstein takes objection to.

[xkenx]

16. No, you know EXACTLY what Clark meant. And if Clark were President,

American service people would never be sent in harm's way without a very good reason and as a last resort only. Please read this comment from a DU mother.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------From a poster on Democratic Underground

Everything you've posted so eloquently could have come from my heart. AND I have another, completely selfish, personal reason.

My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do.

[derby378]

21. I would trust Clark with our troops infinitely more than I will ever trust Bush

On this point, I think we are of one accord.

At least Clark wouldn't send our troops off to die in the Middle East because of some lie about stockpiles of chemical weapons...

[BOSSHOG]

23. Just a nudge off topic here

I never chat about the second amendment. Obviously everyone in inner city neighborhoods like those in New Orleans should have the right to arm themselves to the hilt with semi or automatic guns and slaughter anyone who disses them. By gawd it says so in the constitution. Its obviously exactly what James Madison intended.

However, your post and the mother's statement that General Clark values her son as much as she does is right on the money. Isn't it so overwhelming that those who have never served (limbaugh, cheney, hannity etc, etc) and those who served dishonorably (bush) have no problems whatsoever with getting 3,000+ american kids killed for their own political reasons. Hell, more die in car wrecks or because of bad doctor handwritten prescriptions. The conservative mind never ceases to amaze.

Until someone else comes along proving to me that they care more about our kids then General Clark does, then the General will continue to get this military retirees support.

[derby378]

24. Y'know, I wholeheartedly agree with that

Not to mention the fact that Bush's "stop-loss" policy, which is in essence a draft for those already in the military, is turning Iraq into Hotel California: "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave!"

[Adelante]

20. You think Clark expects you to join the military?

You really think he expects you, derby378, to join the military.

[derby378]

22. If he's our 2008 nominee, I want him to wipe the floor with McCain or Giuliani or whomever...

This isn't just derby-the-gun-nut talking, this is derby-the-Dem-grassroots-activist-who-is-aching-for-a-Dem-in-the-Oval-Office talking, too.

[Auntie Bush]

28. That was meant to to add a touch of humor...not taken so literally.

Where's your sense of humor?

[Eurobabe]

29. Oh jeez Louise...

[derby378]

31. OMG

:rofl:

[snowbear]

36. What a piece of shit cartoon!! And by the URL, it came from a "Clark HATE site"

That is just ====SICK==== 48 percenter.

I would expect something like that from one person who I don't think is with us any longer ... but not from you.

Wow.

[Eurobabe]

46. I hope you know that was a JOKE.

Read my subject line.

I never said I wasn't with Clark, in fact, if you read another thread in the Clark group, I said I was GOING to support him. I've bled Clark since the Draft movement, before he announced.

Wjy did I post the "cartoon" --I get so sick of the morons on DU who bring up 1)that Clark was a Republican (for the record so was I until 1992) 2)that his military background automatically makes him part of the military industrial complex.

I suggest Larissa, that you work on developing a bit of a sense of humor. Taking everything so seriously, is not healthy. I am not sure from your message whether you are seriously chastizing me or what?

[LittleClarkie]

35. With all due respect to the general let me pull out an ancient quote

with which to flog him.

[derby378]

39. Doesn't matter how old the quote is...

...if it accurately reflects Clark's views on the Second Amendment, then it's valid to bring it up.

[Clarkie1]

41. This entire thread is an excercise in stupidity...exactly what are you talking about? nt

[Clarkie1]

40. The opening post's premise is inane.

Obviously, Clark was not asking you to join the U.S. army. He was saying that assault weapons belong in the Army, not on the streets of America.

Surely you are not so stupid as to think Clark is asking you to join the army and go to Iraq? Are you?

[ShortnFiery]

42. My rifles are for hunting - assault weapons are for KILLING other humans

There is no need to hunt with an assault weapon. That would truly make hunting game and wildlife "The Sport of Cowards."

As it stands, we should only be allowed to shoot and kill the game that we and our immediate family member's can eat.

Assault weapons do NOT belong in the home.

You want home protection?
Keep a double-barrel shotgun handy.
Which ever way you point it, at close range, you can't miss. ;)

[Clarkie1]

43. Agreed! nt

[derby378]

44. And what exactly IS an "assault weapon?"

Honestly, this is the crux of my argument right here. I have been searching high and low for an actual definition of the term, and I've never seen one. Not even from Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, the guy who apparently invented the term to begin with.

So let me take a stab at it. An "assault weapon" is any semi-automatic rifle, carbine, or shotgun that doesn't look like a hunting weapon. It's still a semi-automatic firearm. It fires one shot and only one shot every time you squeeze the trigger. And guess what? These firearms have legally been in the hands of law-abiding American citizens for about a hundred years, so telling me that semi-automatic firearms do NOT belong in American homes strikes me as being, well, odd.

The Second Amendment does not cover only hunting or sporting weapons. I should not have to make do with an old shotgun when those who are in a position to abuse the public trust are running around with the modern stuff. And the sooner Wes Clark realizes this, the stronger his campaign for President will be. We've lost too much ground since 1994. Now that we're making our presence felt again, we can't throw it all away by taking aim at guns owned by law-abiding citizens. Even if they are semi-automatic (perish the thought).

[Greyhound]

58. "a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an...

...intermediate-power cartridge." :kick:

ETA: if you want the reasons for the development of this type of weapon, let me know.:hi:

[derby378]

59. That describes an "assault rifle," not an "assault weapon"

As for its development, are you referring to the Sturmgewehr 44 in Germany and the AK-47 in the Soviet Union? I've actually been reading up on the history of both.

[Greyhound]

62. I was referring to the perceived need for the assault rifle, and I think you're

splitting the hair mighty fine by discounting rifle, as opposed to weapon. Any weapon has the single purpose of assaulting, so by that definition a sling is an assault weapon.

[Irreverend IX]

45. Most "assault weapons" are less powerful than your hunting rifles.

Hopefully, you know that. AR-15s and the like are unsuitable for hunting large game not because they'll "blow a deer apart," but because they're not powerful enough and they kill animals slowly and painfully. They're fine for shooting prairie dogs or squirrels, though, and many farmers and ranchers use them for that purpose. When the M-16 was first adopted soldiers asked why they were using a varmint round in combat.

And why are "assault weapon" bans so important when those weapons are hardly ever used by criminals? Most are only used to shoot paper targets, cans and bottles. Rifles of all kinds, including the demonized semi-automatics, are involved in less than 3% of gun deaths nationwide, and that includes lots of hunting accidents and other non-criminal mishaps. AR-15s and AK clones are simply too big and expensive for criminal purposes. 60% of crime guns are cheap .38 special revolvers, and the rest are mostly Saturday night special-type pistols and the occasional shotgun.

[benEzra]

64. My rifles are for target shooting...

and the most popular civilian target rifles in America are "assault weapons" (AR-15, SKS, Ruger mini-14 and 10/22, etc.).

My rifles are for hunting - assault weapons are for KILLING other humans

Says who? According to the FBI, rifles of any type are almost never used in homicides (all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides nationally).

There is no need to hunt with an assault weapon. That would truly make hunting game and wildlife "The Sport of Cowards."

Hunting a bear with a 9mm or a .22 centerfire "assault weapon" would be a good way to get yourself eaten...

9mm and .223 "assault weapons" aren't even powerful enough to hunt with. 7.62x39mm is almost as powerful as .30-30, though, so my SAR-1 and 5-round magazine would be an OK deer rifle inside 125 yards or so. But I'm not a hunter, so that's moot.

If I ever DO take up hunting, the rifle I use will probably have a handgrip that sticks out. That doesn't make it nonsporting or cowardly.

Assault weapons do NOT belong in the home.

My guns are less lethal than yours.

If you don't like small-caliber carbines with modern styling, then don't own one. But my wife and I will keep ours, thanks.

[Trajan]

47. It is obvious that there are limits to second amendment rights ....

Whether you wish to admit them or not ....

Isnt this Gungeon material ? .... shouldnt this thread be relegated to it's proper place ?

Maybe even thehighroad.org, for instance ?

[derby378]

49. Aw, geez, not this non-starter again...

It's a semi-automatic rifle. It's been in our hands for one hundred years. Legally.

If Clark still wants to take these guns out of American's hands, he doesn't support the Second Amendment. And if he doesn't support the Second Amendment, he will not win the 2008 election. Which would be catastrophically bad for the American people if he turns out to be the Democratic Party's nominee.

I want our party's 2008 nominee to win the White House. Clark supporters, regardless of what you think of me or my view on guns, I'm actually trying to help you out here. If we don't discuss this issue now, then when?

[sandnsea]

56. I agree with General Clark

All of you NRA gun nuts who want to live in shoot 'em up free for alls where your guns have more authority than the law - go to Iraq and get your belly full. And I don't mean join the Army, I mean - just go, experience the love. THAT is what you're asking for, violence over the rule of law. I am sick of your idiocy.

[derby378]

57. You know not whereof you speak

"Violence over the rule of law?" You're actually going to try that line on me?

I've had the privilege of meeting many DUers face-to-face. Some of them are among my best friends. We don't talk about about guns amongst each other, and as far as I know, they may all hate guns with a passion. That's okay. But the absolute last thing that any of these people would ever say about me is that I, a Quaker and an anti-war activist, would ever be so stupid as to advocate "violence over the rule of law."

So please, do yourself a favor. Take a step back. The reasons for my position have more to do with human freedom and dignity than anything else. And owning a gun, even one that's semi-automatic, does not equal embracing violence, no matter what some would have you believe.

[sandnsea]

60. If you aren't an NRA gun nut, good for you

But advocating this free-for-all gun mentality is not beneficial. Look at these incidents where citizens are chasing down petty criminals over gasoline and childish pranks. The only thing that this gun mentality can cause is an insanely violent society. We already have it in the inner cities, where the traditional justice system failed years ago. Guns and violence are going to rule and nobody is going to be safe on the streets anywhere. It's been proven historically, and it's proven in our inner cities. They ended the wild west with gun confiscation. I cannot understand why anybody would support policies that would take us back in that direction. No matter what some would have YOU believe, that is what your gun advocacy embraces.

[derby378]

61. Thank you...

As far as the NRA goes, I've never been a member, and I probably never will be. I am constantly amazed that Michael Moore has kept his membership in the NRA as long as he has, especially after Bowling for Columbine. Personally, I have way too many complaints with the NRA and how they conduct themselves, not to mention their latest propaganda paper on Democrats, immigrant gangs, etc.