Major problem with gun control?

I noticed there were a lot of anti-gun control DUers. Can I ask what your main disagreement with current gun control policy is? What Federal laws go to far? Why? etc.

type talking points that seek to make the case of gun control ipso being in violation of the second Amedment, or moronic fringe revolutionary arguments as if all these liberals with guns are gonna team up with the bubbas to take the place back when the goverment gets too uppitty.

You wouldn't have all these dumb attitudes in my opinion if it wasn't for Dean and the blind worship of him that he ended up recieving

.

that's why so many anti-gun Democratic congresspeople keep getting defeated...Why does Maryland have a Republican governor? One simple reason.....gun control. Why is Chuck Robb no longer the Democratic Senator from Virginia? Gun Control.

Not sure about Maryland.

when Robb got elected in the first place. And Virginia's current Governor is a Democrat. A pro-gun Democrat, but still a Democrat.

Erlich is the first Republican governor of Maryland in over 20 years, IIRC.

I guess it's just a reflex with people arguing on behalf of the NRA to be misleading. I didn't make up those polling numbers. Go to polling report

really LIKE guns???

gay marriage legalization advocates are pushing to incrementally push goat marriage legalization.

When they passed Brady I, how long did it take for them to introduce Brady II?

When was the last time a gun control group got a law passed and then said "We've done what we set out to do, so we're disbanding"? It's NEVER happened. Not ONE SINGLE TIME.

I think it was pre-Reagan but not too long before him, there was a big debate about whether guns should be banned and one side held that the 2nd amendment meant that only the militia should be armed and it didn't apply to regular citizens. The debate was mostly dropped and nothing much came of it until idiots with assault rifles started shooting at random targets in drug wars, etc. Then it became apparent that Uzis, AK-47s and other assault rifles should be banned and guns should have some controls like registration and background check when purchased..which really is not a bad idea. Background checks anyway. To me background checks are good because it's not good to have people with a history of violent crime or mental instability owning guns. As for registration, my feeling is that if the government knows who owns the guns it's easy to confiscate them...and no one should trust the government.

Because criminals just wont follow the laws anyways.

I think if someone really wants to kill someone then there isnt much you can do to stop them.

The best thing is to allow people to be armed so that they can provide for thier own defense if it becomes necessary. If that fails though then the next best thing is to capture the criminal and execute them.

What does that have to do with safety or defense?

Guns are here and they'll continue to be in America. We've got over 200 million guns in about 80 million hands. That makes us better armed than any of the insurgents in Iraq. Now, if we can't confiscate their guns and effectively achieve military control, what makes those in favor of confiscation think it'll go any easier here?

And the argument that it does is just as unfounded as gay marriage being a slippery slope to goat marriage

then please explain what happened in California with the AW registration scheme, and the confiscation of the SKS rifles.

Gun control (specifically, registration) is a necessary precursor for gun confiscation. Without registration, the government doesn't know who has what, and can't get them effectively.

Do they argue that this is a good way to take all guns away or something else? How valid is that argument?

but at least some claim it will "dry up" the black market supply.

Well, they "dried up" the domestic supply of cocaine to the black market when they banned it in the US, but the black market cocaine supply still seems to be quite adequate to date. Since the 1970's, cocaine (and heroin) has consistently become cheaper and of a higher quality. Where there's a demand, somebody will find a supply.

My basic philosophy is...

1) Gun confiscation will NOT happen, so it's a non0issue.

2) With the exception of automatic weapons, all guns are guns. They all kill people. Handguns are even more dangerous than most weapons because they can be easily concealed yet people are more concerned with banning assault weapons than handguns.

3) The NRA really does piss me off. They make idiots paranoid that the government is out to get them and they ruin democratic politicians' careers every chance they get, to replace them with gun nut Repugs.

my opposition to gun-control as an extension of civil-libertarianism. mind you, not Libertarianism. for me personally, i see it as as extension of having a rather orthodox interpretation of the Constitution, which I believe should be left alone. Its logical, how can i claim to respect all the tenants of the First Amendment if I don't care what happens with the Second? How can I complain about John Asscrack's ravaging of the 4th amendment if I could give a shit about the Second? I am not a member of the NRA, nor will i ever be, as they are essentially a white-supremacy movement. I have no problem with background checks and reasonable waiting periods prior to purchasing weapons (what would it matter if it took a month?).
In some circles, that would make me Pro Gun COntrol, all things being a matter of degree and relativity.
Yet, I advocate the lifting of the "Assault Weapons" Ban. I believe in the inherent goodness of people. Im also bitterly against the Drug War, which, in my opinion - is the greatest causal factor of weapons related crime and disproportionately affects minorities and the working class.

"I have no problem with background checks and reasonable waiting periods prior to purchasing weapons (what would it matter if it took a month?)."

There have been DOCUMENTED cases where a person needed a gun for self protection, went to buy one, did the paperwork but couldn't get a gun because of a waiting period, and were murdered before the waiting period expired.

I think, to the dead people, it would matter a great deal.

as possible-

In a time of civil unrest,whether it be riot, looting or natural disaster. the 3 wisest things to have are a food supply, water purification, and arms/ammunition to protect your family & property.

If you plan on nanny state to come to the rescue , you may be waiting a while.

Of course the argument can be made that the infrastructure is modern enough that personal protection is unnecessary. You have to ask yourself ..are you willing to make that bet? and therein should lie your decision on the issue.

Crumbles like a cookie in a natural disaster or riot. After Hurricane Andrew, Miami residents used arms to prevent looters. In the 1992 LA riots, Koreans with small arms saved their homes and businesses while cops stood by and did nothing (or were at home protecting their own family). Simple logic to me.

I thought that is what insurance is for.

I remember all those Korean shop owners waving their insurance policies in the looters faces during the LA riots...

If it's just property, it's illegal to use lethal force to defend it. If, on the other hand, you are IN the property when somebody wants to throw a molotov cocktail through your window, lethal force IS justified, since hey, you're there, and likely to be burned to death.

A persons property should be worth more than the life of a person who would use force to steal it from you.

the ONLY State in the Union that allows lethal force in defense of property alone...

Seems to me this might lead to many more teenage vandals, mentally ill or non-english speakers being blown away.

Fellons, people who want to buy a gun from gun show under the table or in a very quick period of time are the only ones affected by it in most circumstances. Unless you want automatic weapons or rockets.

too many liberals say all guns need to be taken away., a gun free america. the right see it in england. and they dont trust the left when they say they just want to take the ak whatever, assualt weapons.

it has to be a clear message from democrat no desire to take your gun, just not assualt

also they say there are more than enough laws on guns, the laws just need to be enforced and they are probably right on that

talking point. But it's not that simple. I guess nuance is too much for simplistic people like NRA advocates.

i wasnt a dean fan, though i have gained a lot of respect for him, after the scream, lol and a wink. i am anti gun. dont like them. held one once and said eeeeewwww.

so..........

and yes i know in sept this law is coming up again and i hope bush will do the right thing, i doubt it though since he has yet to do the right thing. the difference between you and i (and again an assumption, oosh i dont generally do those) is i am willing to listen to all sides to see where the concern and fear is, and in knowing what is up maybe more of a chance to resolve

whenever talking to an nra'er and they yell kerry wants to take away my gun, (cause i am a liberal) i tell them i will be the first to stand for your right to own a gun

does that make me an nra'er

I tend to direct my argument broadly when I'm arguing with a bunch of people. Sorry about that. It's just that I believe you said the thing about laws just needing to be enforced and that's it. I think that's a misleading belief or rationalization of the issue.

And Dean and his campaign sort of did that to a large degree although there was a bit of hypocracy on there part mixed in because he refused to even specifically adress many gun control issues during the campaign while bashing his opponents in regards to it.

on this subject that is for sure. nite and fun chatting with you

you want to delve into the slippery slope portion of the argument.

anything that lets you make the choice WITHOUT restriction good
anything that turns a right into a privilege Bad

"anything that lets you make the choice WITHOUT restriction good"

Murder?

mala in se crime and malum prohibitorum crime.

That applies here.

Why not register something that is designed to be a weapon?

The problem, as I see it, is that there is no longer room on either side for intelligent compromise. It's guns vs. no guns--kind of like the abortion debate. No wiggle room, even when there should be.

This is the point that makes me think MOST (not all--as shown in this thread) gun advocates wacky.

What purpose does car registration even serve? It's a tax on driving, nothing more.

is not a specific RIGHT guaranteed by the constitution is it?
+ you and I both have the ability to own a car(collectible,offroad,sculpture,whatever) without registration now don't we?

but greater i am anti telling others what choices to make. be it seatbelts, guns, smoking, drugs, drinking driving, wearing helmets, not being fat.............

if you hurt someone or commit a crime then you get punished. if you hurt no one and no crime isnt being commited, back off

I'm a serious "gun nut". I own all of the guns I need already. If they passed a law banning the transfer of ALL firearms, I'm already set. So I'm not worried that they'll ban something and I will not be able to get it, because I already have it.

What irritates me the most is the attitude that we can pass laws which will make the law abiding folks lose their rights or undergo stupid hassles, while it doesn't affect criminals in the least. Take registration, for example. The Supreme Court ruled that criminals can't be punished for failing to register their guns, because being a criminal in possession of a firearm is a crime in and of itself, and punishing them for failing to admit to the government that they're committing a crime is a violation of the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

Or, take mandatory background checks. People who are prohibited from buying guns because of background checks simply buy them on the black market. Pot is illegal, but you can get it most anywhere. What makes people think guns would be any different?

Or take the ban on machineguns. Legal ownership of machineguns is bad, right? Why? The argument goes that they're bad because they are used to commit crimes, right? They started tracking criminal misuse of legal machineguns in 1934, the same time they started regulating them. There are currently around 250,000 legally owned machineguns in private hands, according to BEFAT. From 1934 to date, there have been TWO, yes, TWO cases where a legally owned machinegun was used to commit a crime, AND ONE OF THOSE WAS COMMITTED BY A POLICE OFFICER!!!! So why ban legal ownership of machineguns??? It ain't about preventing crime.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 is the absolutely LAST federal Jim Crow law on the books. Seriously. Can you think of ANY other law that requires a person to get PERMISSION from their local chief of police to exercise a constitutional right? I've looked long and hard, and the NFA '34 is the ONLY one I've found that's still in force. We've gotten past requiring the permission of the cops to be able to vote. Why should we have to get the permission of the cops to own a certain kind of gun?

I'd like to see the following:
Repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (part of it (§922(o))was recently struck down as being unconstitutional in the 9th Circuit on ICC grounds).

Repeal on all import bans (including the parts of the GCA '68 and Bush 1's EOs).

An end to the Form 6 travesty.

National shall-issue CCW with mandatory nation-wide reciprocity under the Full Faith and Credit clause.

An end to the stupid AW ban and magazine ban (which will happen at 11:59:59 PM on Sept 13, 2004).

An end to all registration schemes nation-wide.

Full Incorporation (by the Supreme Court) of the Second Amendment.

FULL criminal prosecution of ALL BEFAT personnel who have committed crimes and skated because "Hey, we're the government!"

Release of all prisoners currently being held on JUST malum prohibitorum gun charges.

That about does it. It'll never happen, but I can dream...

You major argument seems to be that the laws are not rationally based because they do not prevent crime. I agree that laws ought to be rationally based. What about the waiting period and background checks? Ever seen data that was contrary to the "it doesn't prevent crime" conclusion?

would be fine if they figured out a way to make the black market follow the law.

It's easier for underage people to buy pot than it is for them to buy booze. Why? because to buy booze, they have to find somebody over 21 to go into the store and buy it for them. Last time I checked, drug dealers didn't demand ID to buy pot, and didn't give a rat's ass if the buyer was underage.

Waiting periods have caused people to die. Here's a hypothetical for you. If you were a battered woman who finally decided to flee your redneck, gun-owning, shit-kicking hillbilly spouse (who has told you that if you leave, he'll track you down and kill you) and need a gun so you can protect yourself from him, what does a waiting period do? It makes it so that you're unarmed. Now let's say you're the shit-kicking hillbilly who wants to kill your spouse that has fled, but can't get a gun because of the waiting period. What are you going to do? Call your buddy, or your drug dealer, and buy a gun from them, no questions, and no waiting period, involved. After all, since you're going to kill her, there ain't a whole lotta worry involved with breaking the law about a waiting period, is there?

Having pot illegal and alcohol illegal for kiddos certainly doesn't prevent them from getting there hands on it but does it make it less likely?

hm you thinkin..........

Where there's a demand, there will always be a supply. Have you ever been to Europe? In Germany, they sell beer in vending machines. It was cheaper than soda. I didn't see a single drunk kid the entire time I was there. I DID see boatloads of well and truly screwed up kids on drugs, which were illegal.

One interesting point that I haven't brought up in this thread: Remember alcohol prohibition? What happened after it was passed? the rates of alcohol consumption WENT UP. Huge fortunes were made by criminals, who quickly diversified. We're still paying for it, since that's where the Mafia got it's "big break". Violence SKYROCKETED, since there was so much illicit profit involved. Now imagine if they banned guns. Do you think there would be more inherent violence in a black market for guns than there was with a black market for booze? It's really hard to shoot somebody with a fifth of whiskey...

did i say i dont like guns. and go figure, even with that i can hear reason

Does having a waiting period make it less likely that a violent criminal will obtain a gun?

I can't see that it would affect a criminal's getting a gun in any way, unless they were locked in a gun store.

in the case of drugs and other contra band it obviously cannot because the market price is well above that if said goods were available legally.

Do federal gun laws effect the volume of guns present in the country? If tobacco was outlawed tommorrow there would a strong black market demand but would the illegal industry have the same economies of scale that regulated and big corporate producers do? Did illegal booze runners enjoy the same economies that the large breweries did?

An illegal item of contraband will invariabily be sold in fewer numbers and at higher prices.

but you're wrong. There's currently a black market in illegal machineguns in the US. There's also an aboveboard market for legal machineguns in the US. The last legal Thompson submachinegun I saw for sale sold (quickly) for just under $12,000. It had all the required paperwork, but there was nothing special about the gun itself. A few months ago, I heard about an illegal Thompson submachinegun for sale on the black market. It had no paperwork (which is why it was illegal). Asking price? $500.

The legal market for machineguns is so distorted that it's not funny. For example, there's a piece of the H&K submachinegun family that is sometimes classified as a machinegun in and of itself. It's called a "sear". If you buy a sear from H&K without the paperwork as a "replacement part", the cost is $20. Within the past two days, there was a bankruptcy auction of 40 sears that had paperwork on them. They went for just under $9,000 EACH. They're virtually identical physically, the ONLY difference was the paperwork.

there was a thing not too long ago about the Italians seizing a shipment of 6,500 machinguns in Italy that were destined for the US.

It turned out that the guns were being imported into the US legally. Want to know why? The importing company was importing machineguns to tear them apart for their parts, which they were then going to make into legal semi-automatic rifles. How's THAT for screwy?

The world is awash with guns, to the tune of more than one gun for every man, woman, and child on the planet. Somehow, I don't think the supply is going to go away.

As another BTW: the government of Viet Nam was selling off used surplus AK-47s a few years ago. Asking price? $25 each. You can't buy an AK-47 BOLT in the US for $25. During the same time frame, India was buying new production AK-47s for their military. Contract price? $65 each.

I also have a criminal record. I go to a gun "show," buy a weapon, and blow you away (you don't get lucky with your gun first).

That makes you feel BETTER?

This is the logical flaw that the pro-gun people don't seem to get.

Please explain.

Let's say they close the private sale "loophole." Is that going to prevent anyone who wants to get a gun so they can murder someone from getting a gun?

what does it matter to me if you got the gun at a gun show, from your drug dealer, by breaking into somebody's house, at a gun store, or if you made the damned thing in your garage out of spare parts, a muffler pipe, a dremel tool, and a tig welder??? And before you say people can't make guns in their garages, they can and do, regularly. See U.S. v. Stewart.

Does the source of the gun suddenly make it more or less lethal? As long as guns are widely available on the black market, laws restricting where and how guns are sold will be completely ineffective as a crime control measure. All such laws will do is inconvenience the law-abiding.

is that people have the right to defend their lives and a gun is the best way to do it so by restricting what kind of guns people can own, you restrict their ability to defend themselves. I just don't think that's right.

Not to mention, every gun control law on the books is a joke. This shotgun is perfectly OK to buy like most any other gun at a gun store since it is over 26" long and has an 18" barrel. But this one with a 17.5" barrel requires you to submit fingerprints and photos and undergo a background check and approval process that could take months. Also you'll have to pay that $200 tax on that shotgun that's probably not worth much more than $200 (which is better now than in 1934 when the law was passed and that same shotgun probably cost $10, the $200 tax was the same though). Meanwhile, some guy got a cheap old 12 gauge on the street for $50 and took a hacksaw to the barrels so he can hold up a liquor store tonight.

And background checks, don't even let me get started on them. Does anyone honestly believe that making people get background checks before buying a gun stops anyone from getting a gun if they want one? Please, someone tell me, with a straight face, that if you required a background check on every firearms purchase in the country, whether though a licensed dealer or a private sale, that it would prevent people with criminal records from getting guns.

They just got out of prison for shooting an old lady, you would sell that person a gun?

Is performing a background check on all gun purchasers going to stop that person from getting a gun?

on if you were selling them on the legitimate or black market.

On the black market, I think the only difference would be a matter of price.

the NRA gets their sleazy hands into it and ruins the intelligent laws.

There ARE reasonable pro-gun people, several in this thread, but most just parrot the NRA (which didn't used to be a political organization till it was hijacked byt the extremo wing-nuts).

Why don't you give us an example of what an intelligent law would be? What kind of gun control would you like to see passed?

and I'll gladly point out why it's not reasonable or intellegent.

If we banned all handguns, it might take 20-30 years to get them out of the socieyt, but the end result would be a much safer society where even most cops would carry a club and wouldn't need a sidearm.

Also, I've heard all the "homogeneous society" crap about Japan & Europe, and I think it's largely overblown. Their culture of respect for others has a lot more to do with it than their ethnic makeup. It would not be impossible to bring about such a culture here, but it would require a big shift in values & priorities on a PERSONAL level.

Look how long ago Marijuana was "banned." Yet its still around?

What makes you think it would take 20-30 years for guns to be removed from our society? The only way that would be possible would be if there were gun confiscation.

Do you remember how much bloodshed there was over the prohibition of alcohol?

How much more bloodshed do you think there would be if the government tried to take guns away from its citizens?

Read up on Paul Revere's ride, and the aftermath. The British troops (which were the duly constituted government's troops at the time) were marching on Lexington and Concorde to seize civilian guns and ammunition. They were met with force, in the so-called "shot heard 'round the world", and the American revolution was ON.

Gun control works great in a lot of countries. Sorry, but it's a statistically proven fact. Our irrational clinging to guns is purely a result of fear and arrogance.

Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and a bunch of other places where there were Genocides during the 20th Century...

Would you care to list the countries that had Genocides take place in them that did NOT have gun control?

As for people not wanting guns the way they want guns, you're right. Most Americans feel that gun ownership is part of their birthright, guaranteed by the Constitution. I know very few people who feel the same about drugs.

I can PROVE that in many places (take Europe or Japan, for example) with gun control, their low crime rate is NOT because of gun control, it's probably a cultural thing. Want to know how? Do everything per capita. Look at their homicide rates, both for crimes committed with guns and without guns. Add them up, and get their total homicide rate. Then compare it to the US's homicide rate that involve NO gun. Just forget that gun homicides in the US exist for a minute. You'll find that the US NON-gun homicide rate is far higher than their TOTAL homicide rate. If guns are the cause, and gun control prevents crime, how can that be? After all, we're NOT looking at firearms related homicides in the US, so guns can't be the reason for our higher homicide rate in cases where guns aren't used, can they? Unless, of course, you subscribe to the notion that guns exert some kind of evil mind control on people who don't HAVE guns... If their lack of crime is due to gun control, their non-gun homicide rate would HAVE to be similar to the US's non-gun homicide rate, right? (remember, compare apples to apples) It's demonstrably NOT anywhere NEAR the same.

Something on the order of 300~500 murders per year in a population of 100 million.

The US, with a population of almost 300 million, has upwards of 30,000 murders per year, and 19,000 of them are committed with handguns. Whether viewed on a percapita basis, or on overall numbers, the US has one of the highest murder rates in the world.

We can feel some comfort in the fact that a large percentage of those murders are committed by family members. You seem to be assuming that if guns were gone, people would still commit the same number of murders - but that is of course an obvious lie. It's a lot easier for a little snotnosed punk coward gang member to do a drive-by than to look his rival in the face and stab him.

Your citing of Nazi Germany & Communist Russia (favorite rightwing talking points BTW) is also pretty disengenuous, since both countries are no longer under those oppressive regimes, both still have stringent gun control, and both have murder rates much lower than ours (though Moscow is still pretty bad)

I look at it this way. Handguns may on occasion do some good, or protect a life, but on balance there are far more people killed by them by accident or in a flash of anger. They are on balance a social ill. The constitution does NOT enshrine your right to have and carry ANY weapon you like. It gives the state tthe right to organize militias and those militia members the right to keep arms. It doesn't guarantee your right to a concealable deadly weapon than it does your right to have a hydrogen bomb.

The left has pretty much lost all will to really do anything about firearm proliferation, so you can rest assured that ther will be decades more pointless blodshed.

Last time I checked out the DoJ's statistics, it was more like 7,000 murders involving guns TOTAL, including rifles, handguns, and shotguns. the ONLY way you could get to the kind of figures you're spouting is if you count suicides. Suicide isn't murder, is it? Do you oppose people having the right to commit suicide?

You talk about Japan's crime rate. Now, if you're saying that Japan has far fewer homicides overall and per capita, that's correct. If you're saying it's because of Japan's gun control laws, you're wrong. Look at the US homicide rate that does NOT involve guns. Gee, it's still many times Japan's total homicide rate, isn't it? If Japan's low homicide rate is because of gun control, then why isn't Japan's non-gun homicide rate similar to America's non-gun homicide rate?

The two largest mass murders in the history of the US did not involve a single gun being fired. That kind of shoots your "guns are so lethal" argument right in the ass, doesn't it?

As for the US having one of the highest murder rates in the world, you REALLY need to qualify that statement in some way, since the way you put it simply isn't true. If you said "the US has one of the highest murder rates of the US, Canada, England, Germany, France, Scandinavia, and Japan", you'd be right. But the whole world? Not even close.

As for the preposterous "States Rights" argument, do you REALLY want to go there? I thought that "States Rights" was the Freeper's rallying cry.

isnt due to the guns or the laws. it is we the people. what we lack inside of us, for whatever cultural reason we resolve with violence

hence, war

the many many bullies on the playground

our obsession with violent sports and movies and video games

the rapes in our oh so civilized communities

the abusing of our children

they hatred that is premeating throughout our society

we have to blame. Dozens of suicides and accidental homicides alone would be prevented with better gun regulation and safety. It is a hell of alot easier to kill anyone with something designed for killing and people would not kill no matter what if it wasn't that easy to do so with a gun many many times.

Why?

Out of almost 300,000,000 people in the US, there were fewer than 800 accidental gun deaths TOTAL in the US for the last year that government figures are available. What's that work out to per capita?

BTW, you DID know that literally more children under 5 die each year by drowning in 5 gallon buckets in the US than are accidentally killed by guns, didn't you? I'm not joking.

And as a nitpick, there's a difference between "homicide" and an "accident".

bicycles, kids walking across the street, driving in cars, all harmfull chemicals out of the house,

shit happens. we are living in a world of bushites that plant fear in us to keep us safe taking away our rights, we have the left restricting our choices to keep us safe. accidents happen, the best we can hope is people will make good choices and be responsible. but to protect a very very small number by taking away the rights of the whole is simply wrong. and not how this country was created, and not what i want to live in. if you are fearful of your little one getting hold of a gun, or your teenager getting your gun and committing suicide then dont have a gun in your house. millions of people have guns and they dont have these experience. you, nor bush, nor anyone else can keep the whole world safe. not gonna happen

Guns are tools designed to kill+maim or threaten to kill or mame.

is designed for killing? That's odd. If that were true, I'da thunk they'da made it in a caliber bigger than .22LR....I'd also think they'd have put a magazine in it.

Saying "all guns are designed to kill" is the equivalent of saying "all cars are designed for drunk drivers."

or threaten to do so. And the guns gun-control advocates care about are not target rifles and you know that. NRA talking point regurgitators deal in deflectionary paranoia and semantics. Gun control advocates deal more in specifics. Hence bans of certain models, mandatory trigger locks, bans on gunshow loopholes, mandatory waiting periods etc, etc. Unlike the other side with there dumb bumper sticker slogan rallying cries of gun-grabber, your gonna take my gun away, and "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Target rifle = accurate = sniper rifle. I think they should be banned.

if a gun shoots slowly and accurately, it's a sniper rifle.

If a gun shoots fast, it's an assault weapon.

If a handgun is inexpensive, it's a "junk gun", or a "saturday night special" (which, BTW, it the PC version of the original racist term, which was "saturday night N*****town special).

If a handgun is expensive, it's some kind of "high tech killing machine".

As for the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" bit, I've never, EVER heard of a gun killing somebody without it being touched by a person. It's an inanimate object. Of course, people without guns do regularly kill people, too. Compare the US homicide rate for crimes that don't involve guns of any kind with any European country's TOTAL homicide rate (involving guns or no guns) and you'll see what I mean. Arguably, it should be "guns don't kill people, Americans kill people."

People verbally sparring, expressing their views about gun control and in the end we all agree to disagree. With the exception that Reichsfuhrer Bush is the most contemptible asshole in recent memory.

issue. Thank you everyone for your thoughts.

"I noticed there were a lot of anti-gun control DUers."

Nice, very nice.

are in the hands of the police and military. People should have the ability to resist of the government sheds all pretense of democracy and becomes tyrannical. Some argue that the US military is too powerful to resist with small arms and improvised munitions, but the Iraqi insurgents are doing it. When the military and police are disarmed, I will then support disarming the citizenry. Until then, I'm against the assault weapons ban and any further gun control-- it's incrementally whittling away at gun ownership rights.

is the inherent racism and classism of gun control.

Do some reading on the racist roots of gun control. I suggest Halbrook's "Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876" or Cottrol and Diamond's "The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration" as a starting point.

As recently as the 1940's, a State Supreme Court ruled that gun control laws don't apply to whites, because the legislative intent was only to disarm minorities. I'm not kidding. Also, in Scott v. Sanford, SCOTUS said that blacks cannot be citizens, because if they were citizens, the Second Amendment's Right to Keep and Bear Arms would apply to them. No joke....read the decision, it explicitly says that.

the Black Panthers.

during the peak of social upheaval and labor strife during the Great Depression (but not when bootleggers were using Tommy Guns in the streets). Strangely enough, it didn't stop the employers from getting access to machineguns to shoot down strikers.

the first federal gun control law was passed almost simultaneously with the repeal of prohibition as a "make-work" program for all of the Treasury department people about to be put out of work by the repeal of prohibition.

it would take weeks to compile all of the gun control laws targeted at minorities....

Highly restrictive gun control restricts the rights of citizens to protect their person, and their property.

Criminals do not respect the law anyways, and will thus take advantage of the unarmed and vulnerable citizenry.


You can see all the good that banning handguns in DC has done to reduce crime there for example.

There is no question that Gore lost his home state in large part because of the fear of his wanting to "take everyone's guns."

I agree stongly however with background checks (even at gun shows).