Kerry Faces Opposition From NRA Members

WASHINGTON -- John Kerry owns a shotgun and a rifle, has taken time from the campaign trail to go hunting and relied on firearms during the Vietnam War. But the Democratic presidential candidate's fondness for his guns will not save him from a political assault by the National Rifle Association.

The 4 million-strong NRA could be an obstacle in Kerry's bid for the presidency, not simply because of the size of its membership but because of the significance of the states where those people live. About one-fourth of NRA members live in West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Missouri and Pennsylvania -- all battleground states with 101 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

The NRA says it doesn't matter how many guns the Massachusetts senator owns or how often he hunts because he nearly always votes against gun rights in the Senate. Kerry supports extending the ban on assault-type weapons and requiring background checks at gun shows. He opposes granting gun makers immunity from civil lawsuits.

"His anti-firearms record is among the very worst in American politics," said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre. "It's not a stretch to say that the worst thing that could happen to the Second Amendment is for John Kerry to be elected president."

Kerry called that claim "the phoniest argument I've ever heard in my life." He said he has been hunting since he was 12 and invited LaPierre to come along and see for himself.

"If he wants to come hunting with me one day, as long as he agreed not to turn the gun on me, I'd be happy to," Kerry said in an interview this week with reporters and editors from The Associated Press.

more...........

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-kerry-guns,0,2570083.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

You mean the right wing evangelical gun nuts WON'T be voting for Kerry this time around?

In other news, most humans have two feet.

These nuts will run around telling everyone that Kerry has a hidden agenda to take away their guns and their freedom and so on and so on. It's so ironic these idiots fall for this line every election cycle. I work with some, they vote by the way the NRA tells them to vote, they will tell you they don't care if they lose their jobs they don't care about anything else in America, they only care about one issue. Some don't even own guns never go hunting but tend to hang in bar rooms where this issue apparantly is important.

Kerry's made it perfectly clear that he's no friend of gun rights. There's nothing "hidden" about it. The only way it could be more public is if he spray-painted it on the moon so it could be read from Earth.

You............ Oh why bother...

the last gun control measure Kerry voted AGAINST.

Thanks in advance

ridicule the person making it.

c'est la vie. c'est la guerre. c'est no more.

Interesting stats in the article, though, that roughly half of voters in 2000 were from households that own a gun.

Also, I find it interesting that they're corroborating the (oft denied by some of the anti-gunners here) fact that Gore's anti-firearms stance hurt him badly in 2000.

I told y'all on the day of the AW ban vote that Kerry screwed up being pictured like he did. Pissing off half of the voting electorate in one fell swoop wasn't an adroit politial move.

I do SO wish we had Dean as the nominee...then the NRA wouldn't be an issue.

Even though he earned high marks from the state chapter of the NRA, the national org still denounced him as a gun grabbing commie. The NRA is the National Republican Association, they can not be appeased, no matter what we do. They don't exist to save the 2nd amendment, they exist to get rethugs in power, period.

who is consistently endorsed by the NRA, isn't really a Democrat? Last cycle, my Democratic Congressman was SOLIDLY endorsed by the NRA, even though his opponent was a Republican with a NRA "A+" rating, while my Congressman had an NRA "A" rating. The ONLY reason my Democratic Congressman still has a seat is because of the NRA's endorsement, since folks around here are firmly pro-gun. I've checked previous election results on a county by county basis. Around here, if the Democratic candidate for State office is a Democrat and pro-gun, they'll vote Democratic. If the candidate is Democratic and anti-gun, they'll vote Republican.

In the last race for Governor in my State, both the Democratic AND the Republican candidates didn't have great records on the Second Amendment. The NRA didn't endorse either, and the Democrat won, in large part because the pro-gun people basically didn't care, it wasn't an issue.

You say that the National Organization of the NRA denounced Dean as a commie gun grabber, while the State chaper of the NRA gave him high marks. That's interesting, since State affiliates of the NRA don't rank candidates, ONLY the national organization ranks them. I assume you have evidence to back up the "commie gun grabber" claim. Please provide the links. I read a fair bit of stuff put out by the NRA, and I NEVER saw them denounce Dean as a "commie gun grabber". In fact, I saw just the opposite, they TRUMPETED Dean's NRA rating. Now the Brady organization DID come out against Dean.... Here's the link:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=491

http://www.nra.org/frame.cfm?title=NRA%20Institute%20for%20Legislative%20Action&url=http://www.nraila.org

"It has become fashionable in recent elections for politicians to camouflage their anti-gun views. In the 2002 elections, however, a record number of gun owners turned out to vote for candidates who truly believe in the Second Amendment, and don`t just pay it lip service during their campaigns. With the high stakes of the upcoming elections this November, gun owners will once again see through the political camouflage of anti-gun candidates at the ballot box."

Yeah, the NRA just loved Dean. They will support Democrats only out of political necessity, and they certainly can not be trusted to be fair in their endorsements. * also supported the assault weapons ban, and claimed to support all the current existing laws about gun control, which means the only difference between * and Dean on gun control was that Dean wanted to extend the registration of guns to gun shows. That makes Dean a crypto-anti gun zealot. This is hardly the only attack the NRA made on Dean, too. I'm too lazy to look it up, but Wayne La Pierre also went after Dean. And don't forget another "reasonable" leader of the NRA, Grover Norquist. He would be sure to make the NRA be fair to Dean in the 2004 election.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=127

Gee, when they list Dean's positions, you failed to mention that the ONLY place he disagreed with Bush on the Second Amendment was closing the gun show loophole. You also failed to mention that Dean had drastically changed his position at the point of the race that this was written from what it was in 2000, due to the fight he had trying to get nominated, in an effort to appease the anti-gunners.

Bush has been in office for more than 3 years. Brady is still in place. The gun industry immunity bill died in the Senate at the NRA's OWN HANDS. And Bush has stated that if the AW ban got to him, he'd sign it.

You also failed to mention that they have it arranged in a subtle hierarchical fashion...with Dean as the best, then Kerry, then Clark, then the rest except Sharpton, who they have last.

If Dean had carried the same general libertarian gun-control positions in 2004 that he had in 2000, what on earth makes you think the NRA wouldn't have liked him?

1. Wayne La Pierre
2. Grover Norquist - also founder of Americans for Tax Reform
3. Charlton Heston

These people all have great authority of the NRA, and they are all solidly right wing. I followed the Dean campaign closely, and though I can not find the article now, back during the primary La Pierre said that if he was going to rank Dean now he would get a D. There was a big uproar because he had been ranked A just 3 years ago, but now that he was going up against their golden child * they were dropping him 3 letter grades.

For more info on the new NRA
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,550831,00.html
For the record I liked the bits about standing up for the 1st and 4th amendments, but choice quotes like this expose the true face of the NRA.
From Chuck himself -
"Mainstream America is depending on you--counting on you--to draw your sword and fight for them. These people have precious little time or resources to battle misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, the feminists who preach that it's a divine duty for women to hate men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek preference with the other..."

Yeah, the NRA is only about protecting gun rights, there's no culture warriors over there.

I don't know how I screwed up the link, sorry about that. And actually, if you reread my post, I specifically bitched that the only difference between * and Dean on gun control was the extension of registration requirements to gun shows, but that the NRA was attacking Dean.

I try to generally avoid linking to blatantly partisan sites of either side.

I think the NRA's problem with Dean is that his position drastically changed from 2000 to the start of the 2004 season. IIRC, his position in 2000 was basically the Libertarian position on guns, that regulation wasn't needed. In the lead up to 2004, his position changed to being a virtual smorgasbord of supported regulations.

The Join Together article you linked to has this in it:

"The new NRA villain is largely a product of the War on Terrorism, but something much broader and much worse than just international terrorism itself. According to the NRA leaders who spoke in Reno, the new threat stems from how the organization's existing enemies--gun-control groups, liberals, the media, and much of the federal government--are supposedly taking advantage of the terrorist threat to attack not only gun owners' perceived rights, but all manner of personal freedoms.

NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told members that for the first time in NRA history, the report of his office would "extend beyond the traditional scope of gun rights" to encompass rights of privacy, free speech, free movement, and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. He said that a new and broader NRA agenda is necessary because the government has responded to the terrorist threat by seeking reductions in personal freedoms and because the "ailing gun-ban lobby" was trying to take advantage of the terrorist threat to create a "new reason to ban your guns."" {They're 100% right about the anti-gun lobby being sick....remember, at the last MMM, they had between a couple of hundred (at the low end, as reported by NPR) and three thousand people (high end, as reported by the MMM) TOTAL show up this time for their highly publicized national march. }

That sounds to me like the NRA is moving into the ACLU's domain of defending the entire Bill of Rights instead of just the Second Amendment. Given the recent litigation in which the NRA has been a co-plaintiff with the ACLU, and Bob Barr's being on both the NRA's BoD and the ACLU's staff, I have to ask if we threw away a chance to reach a temporary accommodation with them, which would have been to the benefit of the entire country.

There are a fair number of Republicans who are not big fans of the Second Amendment (Bush I and John McCain spring to mind), just as there are a fair number of Democrats who are not rabidly anti-Second Amendment. Ideally, what I'd have LOVED to have seen is an alliance between the parts of the far left and the parts of the far right based upon restoring ALL of the Bill of Rights that have been trampled upon. There is, after all, certain common ground between these two groups, and the so-called "moderates" who want to restrict civil liberties for whatever reason are the enemies of BOTH groups. Of course, that would have involved pissing off parts of the far left and the far right, namely the "pro-life" people on the right, and the anti-gunners on the left(but given the anti-gunner's bit about "rifles are WMDs" relating to the AW ban, I have to wonder when that tactic is going to come back and bite us in the ass...since we most certainly DID find rifles in Iraq), but since the Union and civil liberties are in the greatest danger they've been in since 1865, I think it would be justified.

Now before you say that such an alliance would be more beneficial to them than to us, I'd point out that they already HAVE tremendous power, while we keep getting our asses handed to us. Compare the political power of the NRA to the ACLU. Now imagine the result if the NRA started "pimping" (to coin a favorite anti-gun phrase from the Dungeon) for the ACLU. You want to talk about something that would absolutely ROCK Washington's world?

All of this is talking about lost possibilities. Dean could have very well have been the bridge we needed to form an alliance that would have shaken the very core of the "moderate" civil liberties-restricting crowd. Instead, he pandered to the anti-gunners, destroyed the bridge before it could be built, and didn't help himself at all for selling out to the anti-gun crowd.

For me, at least, it's a matter of political priorities. IMHO, we MUST MUST MUST roll back the sucessful assaults that have been made on the entire Bill of Rights before they become so entrenched that the rights are gone forever. That has ABSOLUTE FIRST PRIORITY. We can worry about all the other stuff later. Dean, if he had stayed true to his 2000 positions and enlisted the NRA on his side, could have done great things, WITHOUT betraying what most progressives hold dear in the process.

Well, I've ranted WAY too long here. Let me know what you think.

I just posted it because it contained a few convenient examples of why the leadership at the NRA will block anything more than a temporary alliance with the left for specific issues. Many of them have a strong interest with preserving civil liberties, which is good, but they combine that with with a strong mistrust of many of the groups the left is made of, like gays, feminists, and, surprisingly given Heston's background with Martin Luther King, blacks. I think we should work with them when they agree with us, of course, and am delighted that they are going to start defending the other parts of the Bill of Rights. Lord knows the ACLU can't be everywhere at once, and the NRA has the political connections to the Rethugs that the ACLU just doesn't, so maybe we'll see some bipartisan support for protecting civil liberties. I am generally pro-gun, and was a Dean supporter back in the primary days. I was really hoping that Dean would have appeal in the South because of his pro-gun stances, but most of the the people I thought he would win over seemed to care more about him allowing civil unions than him allowing concealed weapons permits. I fear the ideological divide between the left libertarians and the right libertarians is just too broad to be gapped.

On an aside, I think we need to have a constitutional convention concerning the 2nd amendment. It is an unimplementable amendment in it's current form. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed", implies the personal right for any citizen to own any kind of weapon, and almost no one supports that. Many on the pro-gun side interpret that as "The right to bear personal fire-arms may not be infringed", but that's not what the 2nd amendment says. It seems both sides want to restrict the 2nd amendment, they just disagree to what degree to do so. I think we should figure this out and make the adjustments necessary, that way we can have a defendable 2nd amendment.

All right, it's getting to late, and I'm just rambling by this point. Hopefully what I wrote makes sense.

to have a convention to figure out what kind of arms people can have.

Yes, I know that there are people who say "arms can mean anything, so why not let people have nukes?" That's farcical. After all, Saddam would have done ANYTHING to get his hands on a nuke, he had a billion dollars in cash lying around, and the assets of a nation-state at his disposal, and HE couldn't get a nuke. There's literally not a person on the planet who can afford to buy their own personal nuke, INCLUDING Bill Gates.

BTW, there's case law out there on what constitutes "arms". For example, there's a case out of Washington State that defines a billy club as a protected arm. What more do you need?

The 2nd amendment isn't the only right we've curtailed in this way, it's just the one we've curtailed the most, to the point where the amendment itself is all but meaningless. The governments position is once we decide a weapon is too dangerous to own, then we will prohibit the citizenry from owning it, which entirely defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment. Some people say that handguns are too dangerous for the average citizen to own, and really that stance is only slightly less constitutional than those who argue we have the right to bear a handgun, but not an rpg.

As for nuclear weapons, they probably wouldn't be so difficult to obtain if the worlds governments weren't conspiring to restrict their possession. A few years ago the US had to intervene because Russia was threatening to sell part of it's nuclear stockpile. Fairly cheap too, if I remember I believe the price they wanted was in the millions range per warhead. Many in the Libertarian Party and others on the fringe of the pro-gun movement advocate a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, their reasoning being that a state is no more capable of properly using that kind of power than a person is, so it's not just an academic arguement.

But even if you throw nuclear arms out, you're still left with thousands of exceptions to the 2nd amendment on the books. Citizens can't own exposive devices, machine guns, non-antique artillery, chemical weapons beyond pesticides, and a whole host of weaponry simply considered too dangerous for you or I to own. Back in the days of the Revolution, citizens could own the most powerful weapons they could get their hands on, but these days you can only select from a government approved list. This may be out of necessity but it is not constitutional, and I would rather we use the constitutionally approved method of altering the 2nd amendment rather than just ignoring it as we have.

For example, the Billy club law was struck down as unconstitutional, based upon the protections of the Second Amendment. In U.S. v. Miller back in '39, SCOTUS ruled that ONLY weapons that can be shown to have some military application enjoy protection under the Second Amendment. That doesn't mean that they have to be in military hands, just that there must be some showing that it has a military use. Under Miller, specialized duck hunting stuff (over/under shotguns, et cetera) are bannable, but M-16s are not.

As for the rest, the law is kind of screwy. From a Federal perspective, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is theoretically legal to own, if you jump through the appropriate hoops. For example, private ownership of a nuke is theoretically legal, IF you jump through all of the regulatory hoops. There are several private corporations which possess them, but they got through the regulatory hoops because they have them under contract with the Government. The more dangerous a weapon is, the more hoops there are. Things like machineguns, artillery, and explosive devices are indeed legal to own. I own several machineguns and "silencers", in accordance with the National Firearms Act of 1934. I paid an excessive tax for each of them, and jumped through around 3 months of hoops per gun, but they're legal. I know people who own fully operational tanks, heavy artillery, and grenades, all of which are classified as destructive devices. It's legal. I even know one guy who owns a fully operational military bomber, complete with secondary armaments. He flies it around to air shows.

Of interesting note: The Federal law (Title 18, §922(o))which bans private possession of unregistered machineguns for people not authorized to have them by the federal government was recently struck down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as unconstitutional, based not upon the Second Amendment, but rather based upon the Interstate Commerce Clause. The case is U.S. v. Stewart. I'm not sure what will happen with this, but it's very possible that the appeal will reach SCOTUS. There are indicators that SCOTUS may be getting ready to hear a real Second Amendment case (Thomas basically said so in a footnote of another opinion a few years back), and the circuits are heinously split, so it's possible. Frankly, I can see them hearing a case, and issuing a decision which would literally strike down ALL state regulation of firearms via the Incorporation Doctrine, just as they struck down all State Jim Crow laws. The ONLY remaining Jim Crow law still on the books, BTW, is the afforementioned NFA '34, which is still being enforced.

Well, enough rambling. Your turn! ;)

I always thought that the ordinance I saw at the air shows was fake. I knew they would let you rebuild tanks and planes, I just thought they wouldn't let you arm them. I guess what we have is a fair compromise, the government allows you to own damn near anything but the more destructive it is the more they regulate and tax you, although some might argue that excessive regulations and taxation is an infringement of the right to bear arms. I'm not entirely sure that state and local gun banning laws are constitutional either, as the 2nd amemdment is so strongly worded it seems like it should apply to them as well.

On the whole I'm usually pro sensible gun control. I never saw anything terribly wrong with background checks* or gun registration, as long as that registration doesn't lead to confiscation later on, or the requirement of fire arms training. In light of this I never saw anything wrong with concealed fire arms, as only a fool would use his registered concealed fire arm to commit a crime. I'm kind of pulled in two ways on the issue, on one hand I recognise the legitimate need to regulate weaponry, but on the other I hate seeing freedoms we used to have lost.

*I'm not entirely sure that background checks are constitutional, as the mentally ill and ex-felons retain most of their other rights, so why should they lose the right to bear arms?

is that it's necessary for there to be confiscation. The people proposing registration ALWAYS say it's not going to lead to confiscation, but it demonstrably has, even in the US (look at California's SKS confiscation thing for an example). Of course, felons are exempt from registration schemes, according to SCOTUS, since making them register their illegally owned guns would violate their 5th amendment rights. No joke, SCOTUS actually said that. Registration only applies to people without criminal records.

As for the mentally ill and ex-felons retaining their rights, they do retain their basic human rights, but lose a great many others. They can be restored by petitioning the courts. I don't have a problem with them losing hteir rights to own guns, just as I don't have a problem with them losing their right to vote. I DO wish that they'd reform the criminal justice system, so that stuff that shouldn't be a felony but is gets reclassified as misdemeanors.

As for State and local laws, if this ever got to SCOTUS, I think they'd all be thrown out as unconstitutional under the Incorporation doctrine, just as other parts of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states.

It is the first step toward confiscation, but it doesn't necessarily have to lead to confiscation. That's why I really only support it in theory. It would separate the law abiding responsible gun owners from the criminals, but I know that if we get registration some joker would try to confiscate the guns one day. I just hope that we're ready to stop them in the courts and at the voting booth. Confiscation is a clear cut violation of our rights as Americans, hopefully the courts won't go so far as to sanction it and the American people won't allow it.

Will YOU be voting to extend the NeoCons occupation of the centers of U. S. power?

Are YOU really going to be that idiotic? Do YOU have any close friends that will also be that idiotic?

I'll tell you something else as a gun owner myself...MORE than half of the electorate will be thinking about major issues in November that are FAR more important than those championed by the rightwing NRA.

There are a shitload of single issue gun voters out there. I've never been one of them, but they do exist in large numbers, and Kerry managed to alienate them all in 30 seconds worth of photo ops.

I don't know what the outcome of the election will be, but if Kerry loses, he himself will have to shoulder 100% of the blame, and that goddamned photo op will most likely have been his downfall...

Sometimes, there comes a time, when you just have to admit you are wrong...and that time has come relative to our support for gun control...or we will continue to lose elections.

What gun supporters fear, is that if an AWB and gunshow background check are passed, then the NEXT set of restrictions will come to the forefront of the anti-gun agenda...probably a legal requirement to register ALL guns. They fear there will be no end to it...and do you know what? I think they are right.

Besides, the AWB is such a red herring. Those AK's have all been modified before entering this country to be only semi-automatic. Anyone can buy a domestically made, semi-auto, high-powered rifle, unregistered, from an individual, and have a whole lot more lethal weapon than an imported, modified military rifle.

But that's really it, is'nt it? The legislation will cover semi-auto as well as fully-auto rifles and pistols...which ARE NOT assault weapons. Sneak, sneak, laugh laugh.

Gun control advocates routinely assume people are stupid because they don't agree with gun control. This is not true...people are smart...smart enough to know a hidden agenda for what it is.

In these troubled times of Bushco, John Ashcroft, Patriot, American tyranny and torture in Iraq, BBV, and on and on...is it any wonder that people are grasping the 2nd Amendment even closer than ever before?

The 2nd Amendment is'nt about hunting, and it is'nt about crime. It is about Tyranny and Freedom. The Founders had just had a big bellyfull of the former, and wanted to guarantee the latter.

Did you ever wonder why the Right to Bear Arms is the 2nd Amendment? Because it is THAT important in ensuring against Tyrants! With an armed populace, there are lines the State cannot cross. When only Police are allowed weapons, you are living in a Police-State.

A guncontrol plank in our platform, now more than ever, will be suicide for the Democratic Party. Radical prescriptions like guncontrol are exactly what turns the electorate off.

n/t

There is nothing Kerry could ever have done to win over the national NRA. They are a part of the Republican party. Maybe someday that will change, but not in 2004.

...what was going on. They are nothing but a single-issue special interest group that has become part of the NeoCons' political core.

Cut from the same cloth as the KKK.

...ground with a group that delivers a lot of voters to the polls. He chose to align himself with the Brady Bunch and I guess he has to live with that now.

He could have taken lessons from Rep. Dingell who, together with the NRA, came up with a great bill to take care of the so-called gun show loophole. The bill got torpedoed though...by guess who.

Kerry ain't gonna hunt with some Wacko with a fully-automatic weapon with Kevlar-penetrating Ammo no matter what He's seen Heston or Regan do "as seen on TV."

Kerry served in the Military, Regan served in Hollywood and Dimbo sucks a "sour" hind-teat.

it's illegal in all 50 states to hunt with a MG. Bullets penetrate kevlar based upon velocity, not anything else. Take a lead .22lr, make it go fast enough, and it will penetrate body armor.

A friend of mine wondered how the aluminum aircraft could slice into the STEEL frames of the WTC towers. My response was: "velocity wins over mass". He thought the planes were the equivalent of "tin foil" in comparison but I pointed out that tornado winds are known to drive hay stack needles into wood etc....
Thanks for the physics note.

disgruntled members in the ranks - something to do with Republican stance on environmental rollbacks affecting REAL hunters, not redneck urban cowboys. The NRA stance on guns mostly benefits whoever peddles and makes money from guns and chaos. And they've convinced america that the gun is their sacred cow right - and you know what happens when you tell a 2 year old he can't have something.

However it seems the NRA is little more than a tool of the GOP at this time.

I bought a gun three years ago. I am not anti-gun, but I am not a gun-nut either. I am for sensible gun control and think there are far too many handguns being sold in the US, period. But I digress.

After I registered, I got an introductory package from the NRA. I had neither filled out application, nor paid a penny of dues. I have received all the documentation and receive the American Hunter Magazine still to this day. Now how did I get signed up for the NRA? Makes you wonder about that 4 million figure doesn't it?

On another note, a buddy of mine's company was stopped from marketing a certain "firewall" program because it was so secure that the government couldn't hack it and demanded a back door.

What do these two stories have in common? You figure it out.

Some states sell their registration data to willing buyers; the NRA is just one such willing buyer.

Junk mail...one more reason for not supporting gun registration. :)

do anything else but toe the extreme right line.

The NRA and other pro-gun groups gave $2.7 million in contributions during the 2002 Election Cycle. Of that amount 93% went to Republican candidates and 7% went to Democrats.

So let's not act surprised that despite being a gun owner and hunter, Kerry is going to be targeted by the NRA. The overwhelming majority of these guys were going to vote for Bush already. This is a non-issue.

...think of the massive efforts by Homeland Security and the DOJ to database as much information on each and every American as possible, to include how many weapons they own. I would follow up by asking them how they feel about the government knowing everything about them.

I'm definitely not a member of the NRA, but I personally have a real problem with the NeoCons knowing anything about me or my family.

There's a surprising number of prison inmates, for example, and a large number of people so far to the right that they wouldn't even vote for Bush. Subtract the number of sane and sensible gunowners and you've got a voting bloc that isn't nearly what it seems. I would point out that they hated Clinton, too, and that hardly made a difference.

because they think all the NRA cares about are shotgunners, but still vote based on the gun issue.

"There's a surprising number of prison inmates,"

"I would point out that they hated Clinton, too, and that hardly made a difference."

Sure it did. While they hated Clinton, they hated Bush I more, since he was supposed to be on their side, but he backstabbed them with his '89 EOs. An enemy is bad, but a traitor is fucking loathesome, and Bush undoubtedly betrayed them in an "in your face" manner. They didn't vote for Clinton, but they DID vote en masse for Perot in '92, which cost Bush I the election. And they were a driving force behind the '94 Democratic election massacre due to the AW ban.

They have strength in some areas that are already solidly Republican, but I can gaurantee you that the quarter of a million laid-off factory workers in Ohio aren't going to be fooled into voting for Bush a second time.

but I don't.

We'll have to see what happens.

...but they are active in influencing those around them and with the ability to reach a large geographical area with modern technology they need to be listened to.

...surprise that they are not a member of his fan club.

But then, I don't have a problem with background checks at gun shows, I don't like to see any industry given special immunity from lawsuits, and while I don't much like the "assault weapons" ban I, unlike the NRA membership, am aware that Bush supports it too.

...Kerry more than he seems to know.

The NRA is a GOP front organization.

We are supposed to believe that it is new; it's not.

and reproductive freedoms, are those blacklists too?

The cover photo shows Kerry giving a thumbs-up, standing with fellow Senate Democrats Charles Schumer of New York, Dianne Feinstein of California and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts after they passed a 10-year ban on assault weapons. The cover reads, "John Kerry to Gun Owners: STICK IT!" and notes that Kerry's vote on the gun bill was one of only a few he's cast during the campaign this year.

(similar picture below)



No one has done more to damage the reputation of the US Democratic Pary in the eyes of firearms owners than the people with Kerry in that picture.

Anyone - any person - who votes for Bush* in this upcoming election based on the one issue of gun control is being just plain stupid.

...gun control is not one issue. A candidate's particular "brand" of gun control will tell volumes not only about his/her stance on Second Amendment rights but also on which approaches to crime control the candidate will take and how effective he/she will be. It shows a lot about the particular philosophy of the candidate.

It has become an arm of the RepubliKKKan Party. The country would be much better without it.

After all, any organization that has Ted Nugent as one of its leaders is suspect.

Also, I would never vote for Feinstein. She's a complete dolt, and anti-freedom.

Of course, a while back, you were pushing for literacy tests for all voters, true?

As far as I can remember. Unless you can produce a link that says otherwise, I'd appreciate a retraction.

I seem to recall you posting that you'd support literacy tests for voters in a thread in the gun dungeon a long time ago. IIRC, the thread was about mandatory written tests for gun ownership, and the literacy aspect came up. It stuck in my mind because I thought it was a completely outrageous statement to make, even in the Dungeon, and even for you.

...down in the Gun Dungeon, you were comparing Democratic Presidential Nominee Wesley Clark to a leading WWII Nazi figure, because of his supposed stance on guns. You don't have clean hands in this argument (as my third-year, honor-laden, law student daughter might say).....

I was comparing a statement made by Clark to a statement made by Himmler. One appears to be a paraphrase of the other.

Don't get me wrong, gun rights are important to me, but are sort of meaningless compared to the damage Bush is doing to this country.

at W for destroying woods for one - most of them are hunters.
Also, for those deluding themselves that dean would have scored better - LaPierre had declared his allegiance to W way since last year.

The NRA is led by a bunch of criminals. Don't think you are registered with the law? Think the NRA doesn't share its membership list??

The NRA and their endorsements matter and anyone who believes otherwise have their heads in the sand. We may not like it, we may think the people who vote based on the second amendment are knuckle draggers, etc. But, this issue is important to a large group of people, just as choice is a big issue for others. Gore would be prez if he had not lost W. Virgina and guns were definitely an issue in that state. The congressional losses in 94 were a byproduct of the AWB. As a party, we need to develop a more reasonable position on guns that does not alienate the people who car about this issue.

Kerry and Gore and their gun stance and I think its clear to voters. Also the NRA has moved far right in the last few years. The hunters who voted against Gore will vote for Kerry for 2 reasons: he is a hunter who isn't going to take their guns away and most of them are for conservation as a way of continuing to have hunting(Rocky Mt Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited) and they will vote against bush because he is against anything and everything conservation.

...has a lot of work to do. He will do well only with people that know little to nothing about firearms and Second Amendment issues with what he has now.

Kerry's pushing much more.

Who here would vote for Bush if Kerry came out and said that he is not for any further gun legislation (including the AWB, gun-show "loop-hole", registration, etc.)?

There are very few gun control advocates who are single issue voters so the chances are that Kerry becoming a gun rights supporter would not lose any significant amount of votes from taking this stance if the alternative is a Republican.

However, there are many single issue gun rights supporters who would vote for Kerry instead of Bush in this scenario.

Remember, there are 80 million gun-owners and when the race is this close, it just doesn't make sense to alienate them.

Bottom line, Kerry has more to gain than to lose if he really supported gun rights. He would win the race hands down.

Unfortunately though, he is not and it will be another close race. And with the Nader factor again and a probable "October surprise," Kerry's choice to piss off gun-owners may ultimately prove to be his downfall.

Everyone seems to make is seem like a one-or-the-other situation: vote for Bush or vote for Kerry. You forget the third option: say fuck it and don't vote at all. There are a lot of people out there who support most of what Kerry stands for, EXCEPT for his stance on gun control, myself included. And by alienating us with a gun-control stance, you can expect many people to be so conflicted by their conciences that they just refuse to vote whatsoever. I know that when I realized Dean was not going to make it past the primaries, I came very, very close to throwing up my hands in disgust and dropping out of the voting population entirely. It took a long time, but I've been able to convince myself that it is better in the long run to vote for Kerry than to not vote at all. I rationalized this by considering that, in all of Clinton's 8 years, the only significant piece of gun control legislation to pass was the 1994 AWB, due to stiff resistance by the NRA and other pro-gun groups, and even this was only a temporary ban. With the complete failure to obtain enough support to renew the AWB, that implies to me that gun control has become an issue the American people have tired of, and a new push by Kerry for more gun control laws will fail. However, I personally know of several people who have not been able to rationalize away their concerns, and have decided not to vote at all. This could very well end up costing Kerry precious votes.

For all the “gun grabbing” Al Gore did MORE PEOPLE still voted for him than George Bush…this all the while Gore ran a completely inept campaign.

Believe it or not there isn’t just two factions of “gun control people”. We don’t just have pro-gun and the “I don’t care” crowd. There are plenty of people out there who believe the proliferation of weapons in our society is not only dangerous, but stupid.

I don’t pretend to think we can solve the worlds problems with restrictions on the 2nd amendment, but the strict interpretation of this amendment is more folly that reality. To take the NRA’s position to a logical extreme we could brandish uzis, tanks, RPGs in our front yard. We could buy 20, 30, 50, or 1000 guns at a time if that is how we “chose to exercise our rights.”

The NRA is a right-wing organization. They champion “guns guns gun” because there are a group of people who have been so desensitized to the paranoidal drivel of this organization they believe they need to consume more and more guns so they can “go overthrow the government by force” just as Jefferson said if it “got out of hand.”

Gun “rights” as the right interpret them are a protection against left-wing government. If the government gets too wasteful, too obtuse then Joe Gunner can cruise on up I-95 gun in hand and “take back our government.”

While some people see guns as an “example of our freedoms” others see guns as instruments of death. Maybe they are both which takes away these silly arguments that Democrats are losing because Joe BillyBob in the rural areas loves his guns.

Al Gore and the Green Party in 2000 easily defeated Bush…easily had more votes. The rising minority populations in this nation (Latino and Black) are hardly in love with guns. The main group who scream the loudest and have the financial resources to amplify those screams are white males (with obvious exceptions). We (I am white male) are slowly going to be the minority one day.

Latinos, who are rising in population by leaps and bounds in this nation, don’t bring a culture with them that deifies guns and treats “sports” like hunting and revolution as a pseudo-religion. To that end, the Democratic Party should continue to ask for sane regulations on guns and the curbing of their proliferation all the while allowing citizens freedom to posses them.

To completely ignore this issue by placating white men in the stix while turning our backs on the minorities, religious groups (save the furthest right), and highly educated women is foolish and will continue to make our party the hapless “Republican Pretenders.”

I am one myself.

And believe me, many of them will not be voting for Kerry because of his gun control stance.

There are exceptions. Polling clearly indicates that Latinos and African-Americans in great numbers support gun control of some sort.

The fact you are a minority with a gun who knows other minorities who won't vote for Kerry because of this issue means nothing. You, my friend, are the outlier. An exception, an anomaly.

Black men (and especially black women) are in favor of gun control and it's not even close. I haven't seen recent numbers for the Latino population, but this is another culture who won't support a far-right wing interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

As for the "wonderful argument" about "I can buy RPGs right now"...Please spare me the straw men arguments. If I bought an operational RPG or Surface to Air Missle I am quite sure the authorities would have something to say about--as they should.

The obsession many have for guns...sadly for you folks...is not shared by every goddamn person in this country. At best, this is a divided issue...just like abortion.

Alienating this proportion of the voting public is certainly not a good idea in a close election. As I mentioned before, Kerry has more to lose than to gain with his active gun control stance. Answer me this, would you vote for Bush instead of Kerry if he supported more gun rights?

Columbia.

If what you say is true then how come Al Gore got MORE votes than Bush? The PRO GUN candidate got FEWER votes.

Yea sure it was close and you say that Gore lost W.Va because of this, but I could then ask you to consider that maybe Gore doesn't win Oregon if he took a more "pro gun" stand as Oregon is far more progressive.

See? You can't please all sides of every coin. Had Gore sold out and went pro-gun and locked up the 23 gun owners who are Liberal maybe he wins W.Va, but then Bush wins Oregon.

The lock-stock-n-barrell "gun nuts" are mostly Conservative. Yes, there are plenty of Liberals and Democrats (such as myself) who own guns and take a narrow perspective of the 2nd amendment. There are likely plenty of Liberal gun owners like myself who don't have any problem with gun control at all and certainly don't want to take it out of the platform.

My view is if we are even on guns we still lose the South, because the Democrats aren't jingoistic enough, don't thump enough bibles, are tolerant.

Hell...maybe after the Dems shitcan the gun control angle we can dump the pro choice position. Hell, think of all the religious people in the South we lose because of this issue. In truth, Christians probably would be more supportive of Liberal economic policies, but because we are pro-choice they won't even look at us.

See where we could go with this?

You know Florida is a HUGE gun-rights state right? I can absolutely guarantee you that if Gore was not as obsessive about gun control in 2000, he would have easily taken Florida and we would not be having the problems we have today.

Is gun-control really *that* important to you that you are willing to sacrifice losing many, many elections for it?

As for changing on abortion, many Dem voters would vote 3rd party if the Democratic Party became pro-life, however how many would if we became pro-gun rights? Practically none. It is a win-win situation for the Dems to adopt this stance, yet we stubbornly hang on to it and it has cost us elections nationwide.

As far as I can tell this is pretty objective, but your delusions that the American people hate gun control and vote Repuke because of it may not be anything other than hopes and dreams.

Observe this a list of polls from Gallup poll to ABC to whatever else is out there. It is quite educational. Actually its funny as shit.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

It bears out a lot of what I was saying. Women and minorities are pro-gun control and its mostly males (white?) who cause the pro-gun rucus.

It shows (as nearly every poll I have seen prior) that the American people are IN FAVOR of gun controls. The gun control crowd simply doesn't have the resources to make us think this...unlike the NRA which continues to promote the fantasy that Americans abhor gun controls which is a laughable and absurd dictate.

Democrats should be in favor of strong gun controls. Gun Control should remain in the platform.

You said yourself you don't really care that much about gun control. The fact is, although there may be many people who support gun-control, are they going to *change* their vote on this one issue? By and large, they are not. However, there are many pro-gun voters who strictly vote along this line and they do not care if it is a Democrat or a Republican as long as they respect their rights.

But by all means, if you like losing so much, stick with as much gun-control as you want.

Now you are arguing in supposition.

I showed a poll that unequivocally suggests that in the least Americans diverge from the NRA opinion by a mile. A strong argument suggests the people want instruments of death regulated.

It’s really that simple. Why in the hell would the Democrats take an issue where they have at least 60% of the American people in favor and dump the issue? Just to become a “shadow Republican” party.

Your comment that we lose elections “because of guns” is mere speculation and isn’t grounded in anything factual. It’s just what the pro-gun Democrats conjure up in their fantastical world to try to convince fellow Democrats to nominate a pro-gun candidate.

I don’t agree with every single “pet issue” of the Democratic Party, but I agree with enough of them that suggests I am a Democrat.

You say they are losing elections because of it to which I don’t agree. You state you have personal experience with people who would not vote for Kerry because of this one issue. Well, I will tell you right now that if the Democratic Party took a position on guns akin to the NRA then I would never vote for them.

So the Dems may lose a few people like you, but they keep (or gain) a few people like me. What will win it for the party is a clear, concise, confident agenda that takes bold chances to make our world a better place. Bill Clinton was elected and then over-whelming re-elected despite being a President who valued reasonable gun controls.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/27/clinton.crime/

"But it's a tough hurdle, as gun control is a risky political issue. Clinton said that a lot of Democrats lost their congressional seats in 1994 because they voted for the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban. Those losses resulted in the Republicans gaining control of Congress.

And political contributions to federal candidates from gun control opponents during the last congressional session approached $2 million. More than 80 percent went to those Republicans who do currently control Congress."

Gun control costs Democrats elections. Period. You do know that without getting elected you get to enact NONE of the other agendas while the GOP gets ALL of theirs right?

...of the candidate's stance on gun control and not exactly concerned about guns. The candidate's position on the issue reveal much about what the candidate will be like on many other issues once in office. For example, when I hear a candidate say they will address the issue of gun violence in gangs by doing something like registering guns, I know that I need not bother voting for this person as the are obviously pretty detached from reality.

Gun control is used as a huge litmus test.

n/t

"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' In your opinion does this guarantee only the right of the states to maintain militias, or also the right of individuals to own guns?"
%
States to maintain militias 20
Individuals to own guns 73
No opinion 8



"And which of the two main candidates for the presidency -- Governor George W. Bush or Vice President Al Gore -- do you think would do a better job on the gun control issue?"
%
Bush 42
Gore 38
No difference/Neither (vol.) 6
Don't know 14




"Which of these do you think is more likely to decrease gun violence: better enforcement or tougher gun laws?"
Better enforcement 42
Tougher laws 33
Neither (vol.)/Don't know 25




"How important will handling the issue of gun control be to you in deciding how to vote in the 2000 presidential election in November: very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not important at all?"
4/00 10/99 9/99
% % %
Very important 62 61 56
Somewhat important 21 24 25
Not too important 8 8 9
Not important at all 9 6 9
No opinion - 1 1




"What do you think is the best way to reduce gun violence in this country: by passing stricter gun control laws, or by stricter enforcement of existing laws?"
%
Passing stricter laws 33
Stricter enforcement of laws 53
Both (vol.) 7
Neither (vol.) 5
No opinion 2



"Do you or does anyone in your house own a gun, or not?"
4/00 9/99
% %
Yes 43 44
No 56 56


"Do you think President Clinton is serious about imposing stronger gun control laws, or is he more interested in having a political issue to use against Republicans in the upcoming election?"
Serious about laws 40 35
Wants political issue 45 50
Not sure 15 15


"Do you think the amount of gun-related violence in America could be significantly reduced by stricter enforcement of the current gun laws, or is it also necessary to pass new gun laws?"
%
Stricter enforcement 41
New gun laws 47
Other (vol.) 2
Neither (vol.) 7
No opinion 3



"To what extent do you blame gun manufacturers in the United States for crimes committed with guns in this country? Do you blame them completely, a lot, a little, or not at all?"
%
Completely 4
A lot 20
A little 24
Not at all 51
No opinion 1



"As you may know, the U.S. Justice Department is considering filing a lawsuit against the gun manufacture industry seeking to recover the costs associated with gun-related crimes. The companies that manufacture guns in the U.S. have stated the charges have no merit. Which side do you agree with more in this dispute: the Justice Department or the gun manufacturers?"
%
The gun manufacturers 67
The Justice Department 28
Both equally (vol.) 1
Neither (vol.) 1
No opinion 3



"Do you think the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to own guns, or does it not necessarily guarantee that?"
Does guarantee 48 59 41 46
Not necessarily 38 30 44 39
Don't know/No answer 14 11 15 15



"As you may know, some cities have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers to recover money spent by hospitals and police dealing with gun violence. Do you think gun manufacturers should be held responsible for these costs, or not?"
%
Should be 26
Should not be 66
Don't know 8


Which party do you think can do a better job of reflecting your views about gun control: the Republican party or the Democratic Party?"
6/99 5/99
% %
Democratic Party 44 42
Republican Party 41 39
Neither (vol.) 6 8
No opinion 9 11


Favor Oppose Mixed
(vol.) No
Opinion
% % % %
"Impose a mandatory prison sentence for felons who commit crimes with guns"
89 9 1 1

after all, they have to approve the transaction before you take possession, on BATF Form 5320.4. Somewhere around here, I've got a 2 inch thick stack of 5320.4s that they've approved for me over the years. They also have to have your tax money before they issue you your tax stamp.

I've got real machineguns. I had a real military rocket propelled grenade launcher a while back. The Government didn't give me any trouble about it at all, and I found that the local cops were a hell of a lot more polite to me after they found out what was hiding in my gun safes than they were beforehand.

but you can buy uzis, tanks, and RPGs right now. There's nothing stopping anyone from buying 50 or 100 guns in a day if they can afford it, not at the federal level at least.

An "uzi" as definition is a fully automatic weapon...therefore, sir...I CANT buy this gun-at least not legally.

This is probably the "laws won't stop people from buying guns argument", which I simply respond by saying we should just legalize murder-since people will do that anyway.

Nothing wrong at all with sane gun controls. We aren't living in 1787 here. We have different variables at play that the founders could not see, which they also understood by their admission that the nation would have to be periodically reworked to meet the dynamics of the times.

Hell, if the best gun you could get was a single shot mini ball musket...I'd be in favor of stripping every single gun law in existence off the books. T.Jeff and the boys didn't know that humankind's biggest sport one day would be KILLING-and boy we would one day devise much better, more effecient ways to do that killing.

Last time I checked, a legal, full auto Uzi was going for around $5K

Want to buy one?

Check out the market board at http://www.subguns.com . It's a pretty RW site, but one of the best for hard to find full auto weaponry.

Here's one for sale for $4750, on BATF Form 5320.1:

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=4115&query=retrieval

Fully automatic weapons have been restricted in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934, available only to police, military personnel, and private individuals who manage to obtain permission from the US Treasury Dept, pass an extensive background check, fully register the firearm and continually update the owner's address and location of the firearm and pay a $200 transfer tax. Some states require state permission as well. The US Treasury Dept. lists only a few hundred thousand lawfully owned fully automatic weaponss. The bulk of these are owned and used in the motion picture industry.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/gu/gun_control.html


So machine guns are legal?

Two months before the election, lawmakers will have to decide whether to pass a new ban on assault weapons. Now get this right, these are not machine guns. They are outlawed now and still will be

The federal assault rifle ban specifically outlaws 19 named firearms, including the Russian AK-47 assault rifle and Israeli Uzi

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=63845

Most of what you Google on guns is all right-wing lunatics flying off about the end of civilization, because they may have to wait 3 days to buy their bazooka.

The uzi banned by name is a semi-automatic clone of the real deal. All of the weapons affected by the AWB are semi-automatic.

Both versions of the Uzi are illegal. If the AWB is allowed to pass then (if I am not mistaken) the semi automatic Uzi can come back into circulation.

Hell, we need more guns. Shit...road rage? Won't last long with an Uzi on my side. Have a problem with the neighbors dog pooping on my lawn? Issue resolved.

You may lionize "the gun" as an expression of freedom, but I and many others have different perspectives on the almight "GUN".

The assault weapons ban only bans the manufacture of new weapons. All of the weapons that were in circulation before the ban are still in circulation now. There are plenty of them. I'm not sure if any companies build post-ban uzis, but there are certainly plenty of post-ban AKs and AR-15s and more are being manufactured every day. The AWB didn't really accomplish much, at least not as far as banning guns is concerned.

Hell, we need more guns. Shit...road rage? Won't last long with an Uzi on my side. Have a problem with the neighbors dog pooping on my lawn? Issue resolved.

So you're saying you can't control yourself and you think no one should be allowed to own certain weapons because if you had one you would misuse it?

"You may lionize "the gun" as an expression of freedom, but I and many others have different perspectives on the almight "GUN". "

I just like freedom. Part of freedom just happens to be being able to own guns if you want them. "The gun" isn't an expression of anything. It's just a gun.

for US import.

Other post ban semi Uzis have been made, largely on Group Industries semi auto receivers.

Anybody could start manufacturing semi-auto Uzis in this country today, with a fixed stock and a 16 inch barrel. There's not that much of a demand for them.

"If the AWB is allowed to pass then (if I am not mistaken) the semi automatic Uzi can come back into circulation."

The AW ban banned certain guns by name, and banned certain configurations of guns. Take, for example, the semi-auto AK-47. It wasn't a machinegun, because it was semi-auto only. It did have a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, and a flash supressor, all forbidden features under the AW ban. Consequently, importers of the semi-auto AK-47s put "thumbhole stocks" on instead of a pistol grip, cut the bayonet lug off, and replaced the flash supressor with a "muzzle break". The result was a "post-ban" semi auto rifle which didn't meet the definition of an AW, but which was still legal to import. The action, capacity, barrel length, muzzle velocity, et cetera, all remained identical to the semi auto AK that was banned.

When the AW ban expires on September 13, 2004, the ONLY thing that will change is that those features forbidden by the AW ban will be able to be put back on semi-auto guns.

There will be no change in the amount of firepower available, it will remain exactly the same, but there WILL be more bayonet lugs out there. Of course, does a bayonet lug make a gun more dangerous?

and the bulk of them are NOT owned by the motion picture industry, they are owned by private individuals. In the late 1990's, Stembridge Gun Rentals, the premiere motion picture gun house, sold off the vast majority of their transferrable guns, and started providing the movie industry with "post sample" guns. Their inventory consisted of several thousand transferrable guns, which isn't that many, and Stembridge was by far the largest "hollywood holder". There are three legal classifications of machineguns. There are "transferrable" guns, which can be owned by private individuals. There are "pre-samples", machineguns imported into the US between 1968 and May 19, 1986 for use as sales samples. These may be owned by Class 3 dealers, and retained by the dealer when they give up their license. The third category is the "post-sample", guns manufactured or imported into the US after May 19, 1986. These may only be possessed by government entities, active class 3 dealers who have a demo letter from a government entity, and 07/02 manufacturers. There are approximately 250,000 transferrable guns out there.

Machineguns are regulated Federally by the NFA '34. It's not that hard to get them, it just involves a lot of paperwork and hoop-jumping. They are, however, very, very expensive.

The 1994 AW ban didn't outlaw a SINGLE machinegun. It banned the manufacture of certain semi-automatic "clones" of machineguns. In other words, guns that look like machineguns, but that are really semi-automatic.

Fully automatic weapons are perfectly legal to own.

"This is probably the "laws won't stop people from buying guns argument", which I simply respond by saying we should just legalize murder-since people will do that anyway. "

Not really. I was just pointing out that all of the things you mentioned are legal to own. Although now that you mention it there is a big difference between gun laws and laws against murder. Murder has a victim, gun ownership doesn't.

"Nothing wrong at all with sane gun controls. We aren't living in 1787 here. We have different variables at play that the founders could not see, which they also understood by their admission that the nation would have to be periodically reworked to meet the dynamics of the times."

Then amend the constitution if you don't like it.

"Hell, if the best gun you could get was a single shot mini ball musket...I'd be in favor of stripping every single gun law in existence off the books. T.Jeff and the boys didn't know that humankind's biggest sport one day would be KILLING-and boy we would one day devise much better, more effecient ways to do that killing."

Are you sure you want to let people own muskets that fire mini-balls? I don't think they were invented until around the civil war. Talk about hyperbole, though, you make it sound like millions are dying in the US every year from gunshot wounds.

You should better educate yourself about the gun laws in this nation. You CAN *legally* own automatic weapons and destructive devices in this country.

You also need to educate yourself about the Founding Fathers. You do remember that they had just finished a long, bloody, close-quarters war with thousands of casualties? In fact, gunshot wounds back then were a literal death sentence. These days modern medicine has an excellent track record of ensuring GSW victims surviving and living a normal life. No sir, the founding fathers knew the power of the gun much better than anyone now and they still knew how important it was to protect our right to keep and bear them.

Fully automatic weapons have been restricted in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934, available only to police, military personnel, and private individuals who manage to obtain permission from the US Treasury Dept, pass an extensive background check, fully register the firearm and continually update the owner's address and location of the firearm and pay a $200 transfer tax. Some states require state permission as well. The US Treasury Dept. lists only a few hundred thousand lawfully owned fully automatic weaponss. The bulk of these are owned and used in the motion picture industry.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/gu/gun_control.html


While yes it is "legal" don't infer that buying a fully automatic gun is akin to slipping down to Taco Bell and getting a Buritto.

By the way, I am glad to know you people know exactly what the founding fathers would think of todays situation.

Keep in mind, the founding fathers version of "freedom" wasn't to include anyone but white men so pardon me if I take everything they did or said with anything other than reasoned objectivity.

Yeah, there are hoops to jump through, but they are still legal. There is no "not really" about it.

If you don't like their version of freedom, I guess you'd be ok with eliminating the freedom of speech, religion, and assembly too right?

The problems 200 years ago were of not enough freedom and many of the founding fathers knew they could only do so much with the prevailing attitudes of the day. However, their error back then is not something to be used to justify further incursions on liberty and freedom today. That would only be repeating the mistakes they made instead of learning from them.

Freedom of speech, religion...

last I checked we had restrictions against certain types of speech. I can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and there are probably some sex acts that one could do in public that would land him in jail, which kinda blows that entire "freedom of expression" thing.

Hell, I don't know. Maybe after you arm the world you can go make it legal to have sodomy on the sidewalk in front of Wal-Mart.

--LOL--

Long week. I am off.

I usually lurk, but I felt like this thread had turned into a pro-gun thread and I wanted to at least bring another point of view.

OUT!

Yes, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theater. Actually, you'd better frickin' do it if there is indeed a fire.

What you are punished for if you do yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire and people get hurt is the act of causing people to become hurt.

Gun control is a prior restraint law predicated on the belief that some hypothetical, future crime is prevented from these regulations (which has never been proven). If you really wanted to compare gun control to your fire analogy, then you would be gagged each time you enter a theater *just in case* you *might* yell fire when there isn't one. Would this save lives or cost lives? It might prevent someone from yelling fire when there isn't one, but it would also prevent the same when there is one.

you can't falsly yell fire in a crowded theater and have it protected by the First Amendment.

You can't shoot somebody illegally and then have it protected by the Second Amendment.

The reasoning in both of these cases is that it actually causes harm to others.

Regular speech alone doesn't cause harm to others, just as gun ownership alone doesnt cause harm.

Thanks for making it more clear. :)

n/t

support the assault weapons ban?

WTF?? S-T-U-P-I-D.

and I have enjoyed it. I am, generally speaking, an extreme liberal on most issues.

I consider DU to be a pretty liberal forum...but it is interesting just how many progun, or middle of the road attitudes are on display here...and how easily THESE posters refute the guncontrol posters...how informed and educated on the issue the former often are, and how nearly hysterical sound the latter.

I only hope our Democrat Party leadership is paying attention to the growing lack of support for control within the party rank and file!

I hope they were watching when only a few hundred showed up at the 'million mom march'!

This issue should be treated by our Party at the State and Local level...not as a national issue. In the cities, there may well BE support for a lot more Control than rural states, such as WV, are willing to tolerate.

On guncontrol, one size does not fit all...and it has cost us way too much as a national Party.

Deemphasize Control at a National level, and we will be the majority party in Congress again, for decades to come.