I Watched Bowling For Columbine Last Night And Kept Thinking of Dean

I tried to just enjoy the movie. I really did. But every time I'd see those gun-nuts prancing around with their kids in toe...or with Charleton Heston gushing about the virtues of owning a gun and blaming minorities on the extreme amount of gun violence in the country I kept thinking of Howard Dean.

Why?

Because of the theme I kept hearing from his supporters. You know the one, it goes like this:

Dean will get the Southern red-neck vote because he got an A-rating from the NRA. His stance on guns will take away an opportunity to use that against the Democrats in 2004.

And as I watching BFC last night, I continued to wonder if this is what we really want as a progressive party?

The Democratic Party is for gun control. The same way the party is for a right to choose.

Those are standard issues. There should not be any wavoring on them.

Do we really want to nominate someone with an A-rating from the NRA. Do we want someone who made a two-faced, inconsiderate maniac like Charleton Heston proud?

People get on Democrats all the time for looking and sounding too much like Republicans. But now the so-called anti-DLC candidate, Howard Dean, has a position on a major issue that's perfectly in lockstep with the GOP.

Dean says gun control should be a states rights issue. Maybe a lot of DUers agree with that.

I don't.

New York has problems with guns, even though it has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Why?

Becuase the South doesn't have strict gun control laws and they just shuttle them up to NY so they can be used in murders, rapes and assaults.

Effective gun control means a uniform standard across the country. Which, last time I checked, was the opposite of states' rights.

We can't control the problems of guns in the cities if we can't control the guns in the rural areas.

By the end of Bowling for Columbine I came away thinking that I'm definately not supporting Howard Dean in the primary.

I will vote for him in the general election, though, should he get the nomination.

But for any DUers who shout from the rooftops about how the Democratic Party has become the GOP-lite, then look to your buddy, Howard Dean, who has taken a position on a very important issue and basically said "me too."

I, for one, am not going to give up my support for gun control because I want some redneck to vote the same way I do.

Fuck the NRA. Fuck Charleton Heston and fuck the gun-running ring from Virginia to New York.

And those who would brush it aside to get those people to vote with us.

We didn't need them in the 2000 election and won by 100,000 votes. We don't need them this time.

... Fuck the NRA. But also Fuck Gun Control. You might as well pass a law against cockroaches. Or pot.

Having useless laws to try to take the moral high ground is worse than pointless, it is counterproductive. You accomplish nothing with the law except to alienate those who disagree with it.

Just because something is hard to enforce doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law against it.

Gun control isn't working now because there is no uniform standard from state-to-state.

Try out a uniform standard and you might see progress.

And legalize pot too. I'd much rather have someone high on pot than high on their own inflated ego trip thanks to their new .357

... the illegalization of pot has failed utterly because people want it. Same with guns.

Pot was criminalized because of the tobacco lobby and the Dupont company and there are financial interests at stake there.

Guns are wanted, and if that's the case, the govt. should issue a standard revolver to everyone who wants one and can pass a background check.

And then we should track the bullets and charge $50 per bullet, which would make people think twice before going out and shooting indescriminently.

... see - you think you have the right to decide what law-abiding people do for fun. I don't. I'm a total liberal when it comes to economic justice, but color me something else when it comes to thinking you can change society by trying to confiscate, restrict or otherwise regulate something that

1) people want
2) any idiot can make

No amount of legislation will solve the violence problem in this country. Laws against guns would be just like laws against pot. They would be abused, they would change no-one's behavior and they are not just.

And really, do you think that anyone intent on committing murder is going to care about a $50 bullet. Puhleease.

Count me out.

Pot is illegal. But have you ever been to a Phish concert? A very slim minority of people smoking actually get caught.

"Try out a uniform standard and you might see progress."

Drugs are uniformly illegal. That sure as shit helped us win the "War on Drugs", didn't it...

Stricter gun control laws are not going to work in this country. Americans feel entitled to have their guns. We need more education on guns and drugs, not more laws that people have no intention of obeying.

I felt sad for America after watching 'Bowling for Columbine'. Canadians seem to be a lot more content and less fearful of their lives than we Americans, and even though they have almost as many guns in their country, the gun deaths are less than 1% of what we have. This film showed me that we need something more than strict gun laws to stop the epidemic of gun murders/suicides in this country.

we just want less guns on the street and to make it harder for kids and nuts to get them. Are you saying this is impossible? It seems like other countries are able to control this problem.

Look at how China deals with it. Pretty effective, isn't it? I wouldn't want to try that here, would you?

The widespread ownership of all varieties of firearms is not found in many countries, and never has been. The problem with the US is that the country is already awash in cheap and readily available firearms. You don't have to buy them from a gun shop, even in states where it's easy to do so. Getting a small, cheap handgun is easy for anyone to do anywhere in this country, there are untold numbers of these things in circulation. By the time we as a nation recognized that maybe there was a problem, it was too late to do much about it.

We can do all of the background checks we want at gun shops, and close the gun show loophole, but the criminals will still be able to get inexpensive foreign-made Saturday night specials from guys who have a gross of them in boxes in their garages. The only way to effectively control the proliferation of these weapons in the US is to allow the government to conduct a nation-wide sweep and confiscate them; once that was accomplished, strict gun control measures would start to make a modicum of sense. But just try sending the cops or army door-ro-door in this country asking for folks to surrender their guns. At that point, you would have a civil uprising on your hands the likes of which the world has rarely seen, and not just from the "gun nuts" either.

This has to be handled through education. And frankly, I think the institution best positioned to do the educating is the NRA. Most NRA people are fairly sane. I don't share their enthusiasm or appreciation for firearms, but I don't begrudge them their hobby. Most of them are gun safety fanatics, because they're aware of what damage is done to the pro-gun community every time something stupidly newsworthy happens with guns, especially when young people are involved.

The odd thing about the NRA over the last 25 years or so has been their leadership, which seems to be comprised almost exclusively of fucking nut cases.

If people have legitimate needs for guns and ammunition, let them have 'em. Hunters should be allowed hunting rifles and hunting ammunition. Home security? Short-barrelled, small gauge shotgun with a pistol grip (easy to hit the bad guy in the dark and drop him, probably won't kill him or accidentally kill your spouse, rounds do not pierce your wall and kill your neighbor in his bed). When the NRA gets all in a lather about outlawing automatic weapons, or armor-piercing rounds that only work in hand guns, or in fact hand guns in general, then they make everyone hate them. They need to get more realistic about what they want the future of gun ownership to look like in this country, because the tide of public sentiment is turning, albeit at a glacial pace.

For '04 though, Dean's position seems unassailable. It will certainly keep him from being the victim of lock-step gun control ideology in states where such positions actually motivate voters to the polls to vote against Dems.

The next president is not going to have the ability to impose national gun control legislation. I can understand your problem but the difference between Dean, Kerry, and all of the others, are mostly symbolic. If this is an important issue to you in the real world you're better backing whichever Democrat you like (because if there's any movement on this issue over the next few years it will come after Democrats control the White House and Congress, that's the prerequisite).

I saw "Bowling for Columbine" the other day for the first time. It was much better than I expected. And my read of Moore's thesis was that America's gun problem is rooted more in cultural paranoia and its indifference to those facing hard times. He makes a powerful case. Which candidate would be better at addressing these sorts of problems? (not suggesting an answer but it's a great question).

I agree that there is a lot of hypocricy amongst some Dean supporters on this issue. As if all of a sudden because they decided that gun control is a losing issue that we as democrats and liberals shouldn't cling to it. But just try telling them that the Iraq war is a losing issue or any other issue that he has built his "liberal" reputation on is a losing issue and watch the flames fly. I'm a Dean supporter at this point but not because of his gun stance.

What I disagree on and what I took from the movie is something completely different. I'm not a gun person at all. But the movie proved that it's not guns that are the issue and not gun control that is the issue. As he showed, up in Canada it was just as easy for him to get ammunition as it was down here. If not a little easier. I don't like the NRA or their overall message and mentality. But I also don't necessarily think gun control is the answer.

I'm one of the few liberals who does not believe in strict gun control laws. I don't believe in banning them, like a Republican co-worker of mine does, either. I don't like guns, and am disgusted with a lot of the gun culture in this country, but can see this isn't going to change until Americans either grow up or start to evolve. As long as Americans believe they are in danger at any given time, many will want to own a weapon for protection. I've even considered, and disgarded the idea of gun ownership after seeing the shift towards extremism in this country.

My point is that Dean supporters who called every other candidate Bushlite because their positions on certain issues were in line with more conservative groups and thusly considered to be a betrayal of traditionally Democratic stances/positions, but then pointed to Dean's gun stance as being so great and a winning issue.

If you break with the liberal line on gun control then that's fine. But to claim that it's not a traditional Democratic position is disingenuous. And to dismiss that traditional Democratic issue while demanding adherence to others is less than honest as well.

the democratic party is not for strict gun control....just common sense control. We can't wait to evolve before we make these kinds of changes. If we had to wait to evolve we would still be buying Africans off of slave ships.

as long as some states have strict laws and some lax laws.

Every state should be held to the same standard. Guns themselves, are weapons of mass destruction.

"Guns themselves, are weapons of mass destruction."

In that case, so are cars, which kill more people than guns every year, and aren't SPECIFICALLY protected in the Bill of Rights.

And TOTALLY uniform drug laws have done NOTHING to make it harder for people to get drugs.

culture than it was of the prevalance of guns. As Moore points out, Canadians also have lots guns but don't have near the violence that Americans do. Guns are used as much in Canada for hunting as in Moore's native Michigan and in Dean's adopted Vermont. So what is behind the violence in this country? I think Moore touches on this question, but exploring the deep fear Americans have would take another entire movie.

So even in Moore's movie gun control is treated as an ambievelant and probably not complete solution to the violent tendencies of Americans.

All the arguments given by the NRA and other pro-gun groups, about how the 2nd Amendment was written to allow folks to protect themselves, etc. is all a bunch of crap. As is the myth of the Minuteman winning the Revolutionary War because he was able to grab his gun and run to defend the country in a minute's notice.

Hardly anyone owned guns in the late 18th century, and the ones who did kept them mainly for show. The guns that weren't for show were mostly cheap knock-offs (guns were expensive), rusty, and would probably explode if fired.

During the RW, the governors of several states (as well as G. Washington) pleaded with Congress to purchase guns, because the state militias were severely lacking in weaponry. A great book touching on this, and other American myths is A Necessary Evil by Garry Wills. Here's an exerpt:

"Guns were not, as people think, generally owned. They were expensive. They were hard to maintain. They were hard to repair. There were few people to repair them. There were few people who manufactured them in America. They were not even efficient. So, the idea that everyone had a gun? Most of the militias never drilled together. Even a large body of the males, not to say the whole body, because there weren't enough guns to go around. In the Revolutionary War itself there was a chronic lack of guns. They weren't supplied by the militias or by people taking them off the mantle, where they didn't exist. They were supplied by shipping them in from France when France became our ally. So, the whole cult of the gun really drew up in the 19th century when Colt and Remington and the industrial revolution made it possible to have big efforts and the Civil War led to a tremendous assembly line way of making a mass amount of guns."

No one is claiming that banning guns will get rid of the problem (well, some might be). But just as someone else in this thread pointed out, banning marijuana hasn't gotten rid of it. But, I think, gun control does work, as long as it is enforced. Crime had gone down every year since Clinton was elected, and has only started going up again since Bush was "elected". Some of this I'm sure is due to the terrific economy under Clinton, and the horrendous one under Bush. But Bush also repealed many of the gun control laws that had been on the books since 1993-94. Crime is down, yet people still live in fear. Why? I think that's the point Michael Moore was trying to make in Bowling for Columbine, that the media in the US constantly barrages us with daily reports of murders, rapes, anything so long as it follows the adage, "if it bleeds, it leads".

Although the gun nut crowd likes to invoke the image of enraged patriots taking down their trusty squirrel guns from over the mantle and heading off on their own to fight Hitler, it’s not even close to being true and never has been.

The first shots of the Revolutionary war were fired at Concord, where the patriots had gathered to defend their collective armory. Throughout that war patriots like Morris risked their fortunes to buy quantities of muskets and powder from the French, Spanish and Dutch. One of the turning points of the war was the purchase of 80,000 Charleville muskets from the French by the Continental Congress. In 1794, Congress authorized the opening of a federal armory in Springfield to turn out 4,200 muskets annually, while in 1798 the fledgling government contracted with 26 private individuals to produce even more guns…and those publicly owned guns were the ones with which the War of 1812 was fought. Subsequent wars were ALL fought with our collective armaments.

One noted battle in which gun owners DID fight against a common foe was Little Big Horn, where the individual native Americans used their individually owned guns against Custer’s forces. Sad to say, the long term result of that battle has been that native Americans have been treated as second class citizens, usually by the very conservatives promoting the "gun owners saved America" lie.

There's no reason on earth not to have gun owners licensed, guns registered and background checks conducted before ALL gun sales (other than that it would cut into the money the gun industry makes selling guns to criminals).

"But Bush also repealed many of the gun control laws that had been on the books since 1993-94"

NAME ONE.

Blame him for things he did, don't make shit up.

Gun control can work just fine if it's enforced, just like we'll win the war on drugs if we enforce the laws and put 250,000 people in jail for drug offenses. Sure enough, we beat the shit out of that drug problem.... :eyes:

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/08/02/text/p2s1.html

While no one thought President Bush would be racing to add new restrictions on guns, the speed with which his administration has moved to roll back existing measures has alarmed some gun control advocates. They warn that other federal laws and programs could be repealed in coming months, leading to a dramatic overall shift in US gun policy.

But more importantly:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51740-2003May13¬Found=true

GOP Will Let Gun Ban Expire
House Won't Act on Assault Weapons

The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said yesterday, dealing a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales nationwide.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, he told reporters.

...

Because the 1994 assault weapons ban expires next year, the House and Senate must pass legislation to renew it by Sept. 13, 2004. If Congress does not act, the AK-47 and 18 other types of semiautomatic weapons that were outlawed a decade ago by President Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress would be legal again, handing a major victory to the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.

Yeah, I know that Bush personally did not sign legislation repealing the Brady Bill, or anything like that, but his stance on the gun issue speaks for itself. If this bill did get brought up, it'd be interesting to see if Bush would sign it or veto it.

Name ONE law that he's repealed. ONE. JUST ONE. Federal gun control laws are IDENTICAL today to what they were when Bush took office.

To date, he's repealed NONE. One may sunset in Sept, 2004. If you want to blame somebody, blame the people who put the sunset provision in the original law. You'll recall that Bush did not hold a federal office when that happened. Bush has said that if a renewal for the AW ban got to his desk, he'd sign it. He CERTAINLY hasn't repealed ANYTHING. Not one goddamned line of Code.

If he's SO pro-gun, then why has NOTHING changed regarding federal gun laws?

I said I know he didn't repeal any laws, I was wrong in my above statement.

You are one angry person.

Bush has said that if a renewal for the AW ban got to his desk, he'd sign it.

And you believe him after all the lies he's told since he's been in office? And don't ask me to NAME ONE LIE, I'll refer you to Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Bush lies. We all know Bush lies. That doesn't mean we can start lying too.

We need to tell the TRUTH. ALL THE TIME. Otherwise, we're just as contemptable as they are.

while capitalism and racism rule

create more gun violence? Last i saw, klan raids were pretty rare these days.

Look at who the drug war targets. Then look at who gun control targets. See any similarities?

One side of the argument says "We want to keep guns out of the wrong hands." Would you care to wager what color those wrong hands are? Moore touched on it in BFC.

white men create the society where poor and disenfranchised turn to gun use, then they say "oh those terrible people who would use guns incorrectly"

I think that was the point of Bowling for Columbine, not that there's a lack of gun control laws. Moore himself belongs to the NRA, as he made clear to Charlton Heston.

As I understand it, Moore was blaming the media for providing the U.S. with a steady dose of "fear of crime", making people blame "criminals" for whatever their anxieties are...as contrasted to Canada, which allows gun ownership, but has a much less violent media.

And we could get into labor and class issues which erupt into violence. Canada also has much more tolerant labor relations than the U.S.

It seems to me that by being adamantly for more gun control laws, Democrats alienate themselves from a lot of working-class voters who might otherwise vote for them.

Canada? Gun ownership is widespread, gun crime is not.
BTW, what would you like to see in the way of gun laws? Personally, I'm fine with closing the extant loopholes, extending the ban on assault weapons, and checks at gun shows.

Here's a few:

1. No automatic weapons sold in the U.S.
2. No guns that take bullets larger than a .22
3. One handgun per household.
4. One hunting rifle per sportsman.
5. Bullets will cost $50 each.
6. Ban gun shows.
7. Ban gun stores.
8. Make the fed govt issue people their guns.
9. Make the transport of guns across state lines a federal offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
10. Track every bullet made with special codes and numbers.

Have you considered getting the Democratic party to use your list?
I'm sure it will really help get out the vote.

Why just write off America as a failed experiment and give control back to England?

Personally, I'd like to think that America is more than baseball, apple pie and a semi automatic rifle.

4. One hunting rifle per sportsman.

My dad has 1 hunting rifle and a shotgun, my uncle has 7 hunting rifles, my other uncle(I Have 6 of them) has about 3 hunting rifles, my dad's roomate has 2 hunting rifles, and I am not sure about the gun ownership of my other family members but I am sure they have them and they have yet to murder someone. The family on my dad's side likes to hunt and they do it often, they also wouldn't be able to hunt as much if bullets costed $50 each.

I agree with
1. No automatic weapons sold in the U.S.
2. No guns that take bullets larger than a .22
6. Ban gun shows.
9. Make the transport of guns across state lines a federal offence punishable by up to 5 years in prison. (Rapists get up to 5 in most states)
10. Track every bullet made with special codes and numbers.

I disagree with
3. One handgun per household.
4. One hunting rifle per sportsman.
5. Bullets will cost $50 each.
7. Ban gun stores.

I am not sure about
8. Make the fed govt issue people their guns.

I think the point MM was making that the American people are fearful and they have a mentality that no one is going to protect them except themselves. He used Canada for example, many people own half a dozen guns but the murder by handgun rate is much lower. MM pointed out it was relatively easy for him to get a gun in Canada as a foreigner so strict gun control with your list will not do the trick. We must educate people about the dangers of guns, but the AMerican people(many of them) have this obsession with guns like you say get an "ego high" once they get a powerfull gun.

That and all the other foolish notions listed.

Try selling that nonsense in Vermont. Vermonters may be liberal but they are not stupid. The first wind of this nonsensical set of laws would completly destroy any political party that was foolish enough to try and sell it.

I agree with
1. No automatic weapons sold in the U.S.
2. No guns that take bullets larger than a .22
6. Ban gun shows.
9. Make the transport of guns across state lines a federal offence punishable by up to 5 years in prison. (Rapists get up to 5 in most states)
10. Track every bullet made with special codes and numbers.

1. Are you talking "automatic" or "Semi-automatic"? If it's "automatic", like machine guns, I ask what's wrong with the law we have now? Legally owned machineguns are almost never used in crime. They've been tracking that since 1934, and have had TWO legally possessed MGs used.

2. Well, if you can't have anything bigger than a .22, that pretty much puts an end to ALL hunting except for things like squirrels. And, BTW, care to guess which caliber results in the MOST fatalities in the US? It's .22LR.

6. Who needs freedom of association or the right to assemble? Hell, why not ban car shows while you're at it?

9. Why? If a person takes a gun with them on vacation, what's the problem? If they're illegally trafficing in fireams, the penalty is MUCH harsher.

10. They tried something similar to that from 1968 to 1986. It didn't help solve a SINGLE crime ANYWHERE in the country, regardless of what Law and Order says. And how would you get around people making their own ammo? There are MILLIONS, if not 10s of millions of reloading presses and bullet molds in this country.

1.I mean both Semi-automatic and automatic are guns that are not meant for hunting, I know machineguns are almost never used in crime but they are not type of guns to be used for hunting or they shouldn't be used for hunting.

2.I agree with you, remove that off my "I agree with" list.

6.I don't like the fact of people paroding their guns and stuff like that.

9.I didn't think of it that way when MagicRat said that, I agree with you based on the example you give. But people shouldn't get a gun where it is sold cheaper and it is harder to get, then they go to a state where guns are harder to get and sell it to people illegally. I think there should be a harsh penalty for people who do that, not go on vacation to another state.

10. What you said maybe true but I don't see the problem with marking a bullet with some type of code. :shrug:

"1.I mean both Semi-automatic and automatic are guns that are not meant for hunting, I know machineguns are almost never used in crime but they are not type of guns to be used for hunting or they shouldn't be used for hunting."

Who said anything about hunting? There are MANY more reasons to own a gun than just to hunt with, and of those many reasons, all except one is legal.

"6.I don't like the fact of people paroding their guns and stuff like that."

I don't like people having kinky sex (without me). That doesn't mean it should be illegal.

"9.I didn't think of it that way when MagicRat said that, I agree with you based on the example you give. But people shouldn't get a gun where it is sold cheaper and it is harder to get, then they go to a state where guns are harder to get and sell it to people illegally. I think there should be a harsh penalty for people who do that, not go on vacation to another state."

It's illegal to buy a handgun if you reside in a different state. It's illegal to have somebody else buy a gun for you if you can't. It's illegal to transport guns in interstate commerce unless you're licensed (which involves a whole bunch of stuff, including background checks, et al) It's illegal to sell guns illegally (I know that's a strecth, but trust me on that one, it's a definitional thing.)

The penalties for violating ANY of these things is FAR more severe than 5 years. And these are already law in ALL 50 STATES.

give us your exhaustive list of things to do with a gun other than shoot things.

It's the things that get shot that concern me; and BTW, more than one is illegal (endangered species, for example). Also, some forms of hunting itself are illegal (spotlighting deer, for example).

or even make lamps out of them, as one 1960's importer used to do. Shooting things itself is not necessarily illegal or immoral. What sin is it to shoot at a tin can or piece of paper?

And what makes spotlighting a deer illegal? Is it the gun, or is it the spotlight?

This isn't about morality.

Look, I'm not really against you on any of this. I am not a gun-control fanatic. As I explained earlier, I grew up around guns and even hunted for about 10 years. My original post was meant to be an indictment of the culture of fear that we live in today that compels people to buy guns (unless you are a collector ;-) ) to feel safe.

You took one line out of my post and proceeded to run with it as if that was the only thing I said. So now I have a question for you: If Federal laws are exactly the same as thay were 5, 6, 7 years ago, why is the crime rate higher now? What is your opinion?

P.S. It's kind of hard to kill a deer with a spotlight.

simply because the economy is in the shitter. People without viable legal prospects turn to the illegal. Escapism becomes the order of the day, encouraging further criminal acts, so people can afford things like drugs.

When people are doing well, there's no need for them to commit crimes to obtain what they want.

No one who hunts will vote for anyone who advocates that. You can't drop game with a .22.

But you can easily kill a human if you shoot them in the head with a .22. Most of the handguns involved in gun crimes in this country are small caliber.

So that legislation would solve absolutely nothing.

> 1. No automatic weapons sold in the U.S.

Considering the price, limited number of dealers allowed to sell them, and rarity of automatic weapons, we almost already have that. That was one of the few good things Ray-gun did.

> 2. No guns that take bullets larger than a .22

Agreed, but also put a limit on bullet speed. The army now uses a 22 caliber weapon that is too powerful for civilians. A 22 caliber at 400 fps would be more than powerful enough to punch through paper at long distances.

> 3. One handgun per household.

I'm beginning to think you're an NRA wolf in sheep's clothing. Why in the hell would you allow handguns?

> 4. One hunting rifle per sportsman.

Why do hunters need rifles? Again, you sound like a pro-gun person. Why can't they just rent them from the government? Then, you only have drunk rednecks with guns during hunting season.

> 5. Bullets will cost $50 each.

Why only $50? A man's life is worth much more than that.

> 6. Ban gun shows.
> 7. Ban gun stores.

A good start.

> 8. Make the fed govt issue people their guns.

Allowing only the federal government to sell guns then not providing any budget for it to be done would really cut down on crime.

> 9. Make the transport of guns across state lines a federal offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Agreed.

> 10. Track every bullet made with special codes and numbers.

Every bullet and the brass. Often the bullets are too mangled to use, but the ejected brass isn't. Revolvers should be outlawed, because they don't eject the brass (and this is why they're popular with the mob).

Also, outlawing guns that make it impossible to identify which gun it came from would be a good thing. I still can't believe Glocks with their terrorist barrels are legal. Also, guns that are made to not show fingerprints should be illegal. Again, Glock and other plastic pistols are guilty of this.

I know nothing about guns because I've never picked up one and don't plan on doing it.

And unlike the same argument one could make with drugs, there is a pretty descent chance that someone could attack me with a gun one day. Unlike someone who would attack me with a dime bag.

But I'm just venting because I know 'Murikans are scared little frady cats who want their big boom boom toys.

:evilgrin:

"Unlike someone who would attack me with a dime bag."

Give somebody some PCP, and they don't NEED a gun to kill you. How would you stop them? Harsh language? :eyes:

But then again, I'm not a big guy, so someone of relatively large size, whether on PCP or not, could probably kick my ass.

and even cops will have trouble subdueing them. It's not a size thing, it's a drug thing.

The barrel and slide of a Glock are machined from ordinance-grade billeted STEEL. And Glocks can and do retain fingerprints.

Why not just admit what you want? A TOTAL ban on ALL fireams.

>The barrel and slide of a Glock are machined from ordinance-grade billeted STEEL.

I never said they weren't. Do a little more careful reading next time before posting one of your rants.

> WTF is a "terrorist barrel"?

Do a little research, and you'll find many complaints about how the rifling in the barrels in Glocks are better suited to terrorists than cops. With the rifling Glock uses, it is nearly impossible to determine which gun a fired bullet came from. Glock uses that type on purpose even though it causes problems for the owners who use bullets that aren't jacketed.

> And Glocks can and do retain fingerprints.

Not very well at all. The plastic grips have a surface that is specifically made to not retain fingerprints. Glock used to advertise that as a feature.

It was Intratec, maker of the Tec-DC 9, NOT Glock, that advertized that their guns were "fingerprint resistant".

Glock uses the type of rifling that they do because it's inherently more accurate and much easier to clean. Given that Glock doesn't make revolvers, and Glock's firing pins ARE susceptible to tool-mark analysis, it's quite simple to ID the gun to the shell casing, unless of course the perp takes the shell casing. That's a pretty rare event, and is right up there in frequency with perps recovering their slugs.

BTW, you haven't explained why that's a feature important to terrorists. Considering that most terrorism today is the result of "suicide" types of attacks, what exactly is the need for ballistic interpretation of slugs? Is it really necessary to identify which particular weapon was used when it's done by suicide bombers or people crashing planes into buildings?

Have you ever heard of "fire-lapping"? Doesn't that have the same exact affect on ballistic comparison in non-glock type weapons?

I sometimes shoot lead bullets through my glock. I do this because reloading lead bullets is much easier and cheaper than using jacketed slugs. It's NEVER caused me ANY problem. In fact, it's easier to clean and remove lead fouling than a "standard" barrel, as there are less pores and tool marks for the lead to get into.

There are some problems with Glocks. Their 40 caliber pistol is prone to catastrophic failure under certain circumstances. The terrorist bit is absolute garbage. Please cite a SINGLE documented case where a terrorist has used a Glock.

And cops seem to like their Glocks just fine...BTW, have you ever even handled, much less fired, a glock?

would you happen to know the single most popular gun issued by law enforcement? It's the Glock. If it's good enough for them...

This is what the movie is really trying to get at:

http://www.buzzflash.com/premiums/fear.html

"Glassner's book was the source for the theme of 'Bowling for Columbine' -- that we are a nation manipulated into a state of anxiety and panic over unidentified threats and stereotypes."

They should write their own gun laws. Vermont does not have the same problem.

But I guess when a trip to Vermont is all it takes...
I didn't see Moore's movie, and if he's in NRA, F* him too (brilliant speech at the Oscars notwithstanding).
This is the only country in the world where owning a gun is elevated to the rank of a constitutional right.
I think Magic Rat's whish list is pretty good, I'd go further myself (make NY law the federal one - unlawful possession sends you to jail)

Moore is a former marksman, an NRA member, and at the beginning of the movie he acquires a new gun...now you are thinking everything terrible you can about him, but what he does with this material is just out of this world. This film is incredible. It draws no easy conclusions, and Moore himself can be very hard to like, but...wow! It should have received the best Oscar for best film period. But bring plenty of handkerchiefs because it is truly an emotional experience. You will rarely see a film this intense.

but the people?

<snip> "Becuase the South doesn't have strict gun control laws and they just shuttle them up to NY so they can be used in murders, rapes and assaults." </snip>

Let's face it, if someone wants to commit a crime they will. Having a gun doesn't manifest violent intent, that intent already exists.

But don't get me wrong, i think ending gun-related violence will definitely be resolved by getting rid of guns altogether (duh), but violent criminals will just move onto knifes, pipes, bats etc..

Not a criminologist but I would add that a subtle part of the problem may be that the right tends to see things in black and white and misses the grays in between. A recent academic study indicated as much. So there are non-criminals and there are criminals. And everybody needs guns to protect everything from the criminals who may also have guns. They don't seem to recognize that all criminals start out in life as non-criminals and at some point hit the gray area where an opportunity presents itself to commit a crime. I think there may be some hope in exploring that gray area where merely the availability of a gun may be enough to embolden a non-criminal to commit that first crime, too often a violent crime.

and I am a life long democrat and have watched us lose election after election because of our partys position on guns. Good democrats vote lock step against us over the gun issue. It is only just lately that we have started to wake up and start to back off on this somewhat. We now have a great new Governer in Michigan that we would not have if she had not changed her position on the concealed carry issue and guns in general. Our Lt. Governer is a life long hunter and gun owner and it was a big help in selling fellow union members on voting for us. Howard Dean has it exactly right in his position on gun control. I my self would never belong to the NRA but I know many good democrats who do. You know how the abortion issue is a big divider, gun control is the same. If you want four more years of Bush in the whitehouse then keep flogging this dead hourse, and you will get it. I wish some of you could understand guns and their use as I do, you would not fear them so much. Bowling for columbine was about lots more then guns. No flame intended, just another openion.

We have won election after election because of gun control. I live in PA, one of the most conservative states on this issue and guess who was elected, the pro gun-control democratic candidate for governor.

to Mark Warner. He wouldn't be in office if he was anti gun.

Gun control plays well in parts of the Northeast and California. It's a 6 week old, dead, rotting, maggot-infested, pus-laden albatross around the necks of Democrats everywhere else. Frankly, we don't need it.

That's the beauty of Dean's position. If you're a Dem where gun control plays well, fine, have more gun control. If you're a Dem where gun control is the kiss of death, fine, don't push it.

Guns are not something that I grew up around. The people in our family's network of friends that did have guns had a family tragedy, when their son used a readily available gun to kill himself. I've never blamed the gun, I've always blamed the parents for having a gun in the house when they knew their son was suicidal (he had previously attempted with a car crash, and was being treated for that attempt when he got hold of the gun). I would respect the NRA a lot more if they focused on gun owners' responsibilities to the same degree they focus on their rights.
I'm a Michiganian, too, and understand that gun control issues don't sell well outside of metro-Detroit. You can't win a statewide election carrying just Detroit anymore, yet you can win without Detroit. Engler never received more than a handful of votes from Detroit, but won 3 elections. For the more rural and northern parts of the state, hunting is an important part of the economy every fall, and deer hunting keeps their population from exploding.

But as you say:

and I am a life long democrat and have watched us lose election after election because of our partys position on guns.

The same could be said of abortion and gay rights.

But we shouldn't stop supporting those causes. The NRA only has one million members, or thereabouts.

And for every gun-nut whose brought into the fold over Dean's stance on guns is a soccer mom whose lost who supports gun control.

And I think there are a lot more moms who are for gun control than there are militants who are for gun rights.

"The NRA only has one million members, or thereabouts."

More like 3.5 million. And that's DUES-PAYING members. How many gun owners out there are too cheap to pony up $35 a year? Want to bet how they vote?

"And I think there are a lot more moms who are for gun control than there are militants who are for gun rights."

Then why haven't HCI and the MMM released their membership figures?

If they have more members than the NRA, they'd wield a LOT more power.

I am a democrat with left wing views on virtually all economic issues from free trade to taxation but I tend to have conservative views about many social issues, one of them being gun control. I own guns and I am going to keep them. I have no problem with background checks, assault weapon bans, closing loopholes etc. but am dead set against harsh gun control.

"Those are standard issues. There should not be any wavoring on them."

Okay, and then you've locked up the core democrats, all 37% of registered voters.

An alternate strategy is to take a stand on issues that preserves most of the democratic base but appeals to independents and moderate republicans as well for a shot at 51% of the vote.

We can go for 60% of the vote and become pro-life too.

For the record (once again), Dean is FOR the Brady Bill, for the Assault Weapons Ban, for closing the gun-show loop hole.

That he's not all "clamp down on guns" and "restrict purchase" is a FINE position, one that I agree with. It plays well in the South and midwest because he is not advocating for taking guns away, etc. (which is the position most liberals automatically get labeled with, true or not).

Besides, in this day and age, you're damn right I want my gun.

Besides, in this day and age, you're damn right I want my gun.

If you didn't feel threatened, would you even want a gun? My father has been a member of the NRA for as long as I can remember, in addition to being a Federally Licensed Firearm Dealer. He doesn't own a gun shop, but he can get someone a gun (as long as they pass the background check--he lives in VA). As I was growing up, he took me hunting, but after I moved out, I never felt the need to own a gun of any kind. BUT, if I were to believe the news, I'd better go buy a gun to keep in my car, 2 or 3 to keep at various places in my house, and get a concealed weapons permit to carry one on my person. Ridiculous!

No one hunts with a .38 caliber pistol or an Uzi. Uzi's have no other purpose other than to kill (so they should be banned a la the Brady Bill), while pistols should be regulated and controlled.

What exactly do you want a gun for, just curious?

Do you feel threatened?

Infringe on anyone's ability to provide for and protect their family and they won't vote for you. People who live in urban areas are under the false impression that gun violence occurs because guns are available. Not true at all. Urban areas would still have a high rate of violent crime whether guns existed or not. That's what happens when you pack so many people into such a small area. Rural areas don't have a lot of violent crime because there aren't too many people trying to live in one place. If you want to all but eliminate violent crime you're going to have to get rid of cities, not guns.

And I'm sure that brief period in history known as the Wild West shows what happens when rural areas with sparce populations + guns meet.

Which is why there was never any instances of violence in the old west. That stuff just happened in movies, right?

There are something like 80 million gun owners in the US. All of them are of voting age and can vote. Many of them do vote, some with guns as their single issue litmus test.

You are feeding their paranoia. "The Democratic Party is for gun control. The same way the party is for a right to choose. Those are standard issues. There should not be any wavoring on them." (sic) That statement, if given wide press and if seen as a part of the party platform, would GUARANTEE our party ZERO chance in National elections, and greatly reduced chances in many states.


"New York has problems with guns, even though it has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Why?
Becuase the South doesn't have strict gun control laws and they just shuttle them up to NY so they can be used in murders, rapes and assaults." (sic)

Yup. Just like New York has problems with illegal drugs, also grown in the South, right? Only a complete and total idiot would think, given our experience with alcohol and drug prohibition, that making guns illegal in the South would make the North's problems disappear. Drugs are illegal all over the country, and yet you can find them practically everywhere, even in schools, and EVEN in New York. If it doesn't work for drugs, what makes you think it would work for guns? And don't you think it's time that you took responsibility for YOUR OWN FUCKING ACTIONS AND PROBLEMS, instead of blaming them on the South? Kee-rist!!! You sound like those slack-jawed Confederate-wannabes, that say "We'd have a nice place to live with no problems, if it weren't for those Damn Yankees!!!"

"fuck the gun-running ring from Virginia to New York."

Do you have a recent case of this in mind? Or are you just engaging in more "South bashing" based upon something over a decade old?

"And those who would brush it aside to get those people to vote with us."

There are a LOT of pro-gun Dems. EVEN on this board. I guess we don't need them?

"We didn't need them in the 2000 election and won by 100,000 votes. We don't need them this time."

Are you a Green by any chance? I'm just asking this because you really seem to loathe the idea of Democrats having any say in Government. We need more electoral "Victories" like 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002 like we need a fucking bullet in the brain...NOT AT ALL.

...or at least begin considering it. I can't find anything i dont like about him.

www.KUCINICH.us

And as a fellow Kucitizen I'm glad to see you used your first post to promote Kucinich!

:toast:

I own a gun. I enjoy target shooting with my rifle but I keep a 9mm in my apartment because I live in an unsafe area. There are break ins, attacks, carjackings and even murders in my area.
If I give up my pistol, then the hooligans will be armed and i will be defenseless.

You keep a handgun in your apartment because you're unsafe.

The big question Michael Moore is asking in Bowling For Columbine is, "Why are you unsafe?"

A lot of people seem to have missed out on this, to such an extent that I wonder if they've bothered to watch the movie.

The big question Michael Moore is asking in Bowling For Columbine is, "Why are you unsafe?"

A lot of people seem to have missed out on this, to such an extent that I wonder if they've bothered to watch the movie.

Thank you for bringing some sense to this thread. I get fed up when people mischaracterize things to push their own agendas. I really get upset when their doing so stifles a MORE IMPORTANT point than their Quixotic (sp) quests..

This film seems to attract a lot of 2nd-ammendment and gun control fanatics who naturally want to impose their own agenda and what they know of Moore's background on the content before they even set foot in the theatre.

I don't know how else to describe it. It's like a religious thing, but on a more immediate physical level.

And this is complicated by the fact that Bowling For Columbine isn't exactly crystal clear in giving a message. People go to the movie expecting a story told with an easy moral, but they end up getting a series of interviews framing the big question.

In one of the richest countries on earth, which spends more on "defense" than all others combined, the people are unsafe. WHY IS THAT?

Moore does a better job asking the question than answering it, IMHO.

Nice try though. Try actually looking at Dean's stance on guns.

See the problem isn't the guns. Do you remember where they talked about the guns in Canada? Lots and lots of 'em.

Where did disparity come into play?

Fear. Did you miss that part? What it boils down to (and BTW I thought it was eloquently illustrated--literally--in that little cartoon) is the fear mongering that has been going on in this country for the longest time has resulted in a bunch of scared and trigger-happy people.

Take out the hate/fear and Voila! What gun violence problem?

Granted that would take a much bigger effort and make for less exciting news etc. but it would be the most effective.

Julie

I mean, the reaction against this film has been downright visceral. The last time I remember a film getting slammed around like this was Last Temptation of Christ.

I thought Moore did an excellent job at the time, but now I have to wonder if his message wasn't too vague and his subject too ambiguous. So many people, left and right, seem to misconstrue the film entirely. Does the failure belong to Moore or his audience, or both?

is why the misinformation is being spread.

We don't really know the answer. We can throw out silly answers -- it's Marilyn Manson's fault -- or we can throw out answers that actually seem as if they might be getting us somewhere -- the whole culture of fear thing -- but a fully involving film cannot be a pure work of propaganda with a single easy answer because life doesn't have any single easy answers. I don't call this failure. I call this beautiful film-making. Moore definitely played with people's heads, for instance, putting in the South Parkish cartoon to give the wingnuts something to get hysterical about. Many people need some cheap easy answer to latch onto and, for those folks, he throws in plenty of stuff to bait them. I now believe I have seriously underestimated Moore in the past; I certainly don't agree with him on every point, but there is some serious brainpower and creative spirit under that baseball cap.

You imply that I am just too simple to have gottne the point and then fail to provide the point you imply I missed.

I think the point was the damage that long-term fear-mongering has caused.

If you disagree than be brave enough to be specific.

Julie

Yes, I do see how you could have inferred some disagreement with your post, when in fact I was disagreeing with the slant of the original thread post and remarking on how both gun-control and gun-freedom fans have turned the movie into something other than what (I think) it was.

Which is very close to what you think it was, by the way.

In summary: I wasn't disagreeing with you, but I was insufficiently precise in my use of language and context.

Didn't Moore make a point in the cartoon part about the original gun control laws being based upon fear of minorities?

The problem isn't the guns.

Moore himself is a lifetime NRA member.

The poit of the movie was that other nations that have guns, like canada, do not have the same problems we have. THe problem is not the guns.


The problem is the FEAR! Our nation is fed fear 24/7.

THat's the problem.


And gun control is not a liberal issue... gun control is a "I want to look like I'm tough on crime without actually dealing with crime" issue. As long as dems hang our hats on gun control, we will continue to lose.

It's true that the film deliberately presents a fairly complex view of the gun control debate. From an artistic standpoint, I admire that, and it's partly why it's so effective. But it's also pretty clear from the Heston interview and nearly everything else in the movie that Moore is hardly sympathetic to the modern-day NRA. He may have, like a lot of people, grown up around guns and joined the NRA way back, and saying "I'm a NRA member" is useful for him as a documentarian when trying to interview freaks like Heston but that doesn't mean he supports the political agenda of the NRA.

Look, agree with gun control, disagree with gun control, it's just a fact that liberals have pursued gun control by various measures since at least the 1960s - when, not coincidentally, three of our greatest leaders were taken out by assassination. The link between Democrats and gun control wasn't invented by Rosie O'Donnell, Sarah Brady and devious soccer moms in some Rovian plot to undermine us. The people who are our most supportive constituency live in cities where a lot of folks get fucked up by gun violence. I understand that a guy whose political career has mostly consisted of governing a Pepperidge Farm commercial (and to be fair, doing a good job of it!) doesn't get this but it's a fact.

Now, I'm a political pragmatist; I'm all in favor of selling out on a few issues if it means gaining something for the larger good. But Dean is so out of whack culturally and politically with the South and the other states that the Democrats could pick up from letting go on gun control that he could go down to Alabama and support Judge Moore in the Ten Commandments case and he would still lose the South 60/40 to Bush. It's not like Clinton being pro-death penalty or pro-welfare reform. There has to be some baseline of acceptability for a candidate before he can gain from eskewing a few traditional issues, and Dean doesn't reach that in the South or border states.

than sit down and share a meal with you but this was VERY well stated. I wish more people on your side of the asile were as thoughtful! Thank you.

But thanks ;)

1. NRA memberships cost money, they are not free.
2. Lifetime memberships cost like $750.00 and I doubt Michael paid that way back.
3. Moore did renew his membership after the shootings at Columbine.
4. Since Michael is a member then he has given money which has been used to support the political agenda of the NRA.

As I understand it, he was involved in city politics (as a council member?) in Flint as a high school student. Maybe his association with the NRA goes back to that. I interpret his renewal of his membership after Columbine as wanting to have some tie to the organization as he worked on his film. The film wasn't meant to be a one-sided screed against gun fanatics; it was really a dialogue. Having said that, I don't see how you can read the film as being pro-NRA. I mean, how much criticism has he gotten for supposedly ambushing Heston?

And Ronald Reagan used to carry around his union card from the Screen Actors Guild, that didn't make him pro-labor.

He was the best shot with a rifle and won the membership as a prize... I think he was like 13 or 14 at the time.


I think that while moore supports the right to have guns, and shows in the movie that the guns are not the problem... what he does take the NRA to task for is their constant hyping of the fear that IS the problem.

The NRA are big fear pimps, and Moore calls Heston on that and points out in the moive that the NRA was the bastard child of the KKK.

But the real problems in the US with gun violence isn;t the guns, but the guns mixed with a cocktail of racism, poverty, and fear.

That's the beauty of Dean's position: Vermont has different gun control objectives than NYC or Washington DC.

He is an advocate of a state's right to regulate (or refrain from regulating)guns within their bordors, while cleaning up the "gunshow loophole." To the extent there are "single issue" Dem/liberal voters who vote on gun control issues alone-- an unlikely proposition in this post 9/11 election-- they will still vote for Dean as opposed to Bush*.

You're right to suggest that it may not play in Alabama...(apologies to Alabama DUers, but your Sweet Home seems to be a boneyard for progressive ideas). But it just might play in states like Tennessee, Kansas, Ohio and Arkansas, which gave Bush a slim lead in 2000, but have historically been swing states.

however he is not anti-guns and the movie is not anti-gun. THe movie, if anything, is anti-fear and anti-raicm and anti-bad welfare reform.

Moore won that membership in a SHOOTING contest when he was a kid.

"The people who are our most supportive constituency live in cities where a lot of folks get fucked up by gun violence. I understand that a guy whose political career has mostly consisted of governing a Pepperidge Farm commercial (and to be fair, doing a good job of it!) doesn't get this but it's a fact."

Your cheap shots aside, Dean does understand that different communities have different needs when it comes to gun control. Nowhere has Dean said he is against cities and states passing stricter gun control laws. He is simply against the federal government trying to lay one standard over the whole country so that kansas has the same restrictions as the bronx when they do not have the same problems.

"I'm all in favor of selling out on a few issues if it means gaining something for the larger good. But Dean is so out of whack culturally and politically with the South and the other states that the Democrats could pick up from letting go on gun control that he could go down to Alabama and support Judge Moore in the Ten Commandments case and he would still lose the South 60/40 to Bush. "

It is not just the south we're talking about... states like CO, MO, NV, and AZ are all in play over the gun issue. He may not win the deep south, but he could pull several states gore lost.

And again, Dean supports the assault weapon ban, the brady bill, and closing the gun show loophole. But beyond that he thinks it should be a state issue... and that is a great position. THat position is real sensable gun control that rural moderates can deal with and still vote dem.

New York will always have more gun restrictions than Kansas, but you need some basic national standards because what happens in one state isn't totally unconnected from another.

Frankly, for reasons that have nothing to do with this issue, I don't really think Dean is capable of winning any non-Gore state but New Hampshire and even many Gore states would be a struggle.

laws that don't solve the problems they claims to. All of the gun laws have not stopped gun crimes, and they never will. Because laws that target the guns, do nothing to actually address the problems that cause crime. They are simpyl a way to let politicians be tough on crime, without actualy doing anything about it.


"New York will always have more gun restrictions than Kansas,"

Not if those restrictions are from FEDERAL laws that are applied to all states.


"but you need some basic national standards"

We already have those... we don't need any more. We already have countless laws on the books regarding commiting crimes with guns... we do not need to punish the law abiding gun owners and responsable gun users with more restrictions.



"Frankly, for reasons that have nothing to do with this issue, I don't really think Dean is capable of winning any non-Gore state but New Hampshire and even many Gore states would be a struggle. "

And what reasons are those? The gun issue is the main tool used to hurt dems in states like MO, CO, and TN... without it, those states would go blue very easily. It is only a matter of about %5 to %8 percent of voters.

Dean will easily win every state that Gore won, and several rural swing states that Gore lost.

The point of the film, for me, was its mystery. Any cheap, easy answer to the problem of why Americans are shooting each other so often is quickly shot down. While many possible factors in gun violence were explored, in the end, the central mystery of why this is happening is left unexplained. While I personally support gun control efforts, and I can tell Moore does also, we are not given any reason to believe that gun control is an easy answer. The extended trip to Canada shows that the nation is awash in easy-to-get guns and yet somehow the Canadians manage to live in fear without shooting each other in any great numbers.

As far as your federal approach to gun control, I'm not sure I see it. People crowded together in Manhattan, yes, they need strict gun control. A young woman alone in a cabin high in a Montana mountainside might well need a powerful weapon since it might be unreasonable for her to fend off a feral bear in hand-to-hand combat. So yes I tend to see gun control as a states rights issue.

I must say...As a work of art, David Lynch would himself would have been proud of this film. It was so far beyond what I expected that I'm still knocked back on my a$$.

If the democratic party is really "for Gun control" as you assert, then we can expect to see even more losses.

what makes for "gun control zealotry"? Want to give guns at least as much restriction as, oh, I don't know, a water heater?

Do guns have as much restrictions on them as water heaters? Let's see.

Guns: Can't have a bore diameter of over .50 unless it's NFA. No full auto unless it's NFA and made prior to 1986. All manufacturers must be licensed and are subject to inspection by the government, not just for OSHA stuff, but by ATF. Handguns can't be over a certain weight if it takes detachable mags that aren't in the pistol grip. You can't make high capacity mags. If a gun malfunctions, you can sue the manufacturer. If the gun doesn't malfunction, and you are hurt by a third party, you can sue the manufacturer (this is what they're trying to change). Bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks are illegal now (from all those drive-by bayonetings and "butt-strokings", I assume) There are a whole shitload more out there. I'm VERY curious as to what regs there are for water heaters. Could you list them for me?

To list every single gun regulation would produce a posting 10,000 pages long.

And that is NO exagerration!

The Democratic Party is for gun control.

The Democratic Party is not for any and all conceivable forms of gun control. Neither is Howard Dean.

The Republican Party is not against any and all conceivable forms of gun control. Neither is Howard Dean.

It's not a black or white, all or nothing issue. Let's take a moment to review the last official Democratic Party Platform in regards to gun control:

"Strong and Sensible Gun Laws.

A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners. The Columbine tragedy struck America's heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.

Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts - with stronger laws and stronger enforcement. That's why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.

Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children. We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America. We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime."

(Boldface added by slackmaster for emphasis)

Source: http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html

Dean hasn't said anything inconsistent with the DNC's most recent official platform statement (from 2000). Saying he's against gun control is nonsense. He's basically in favor of maintaining the status quo at the federal level and allowing states to decide what additional laws are appropriate for them. I don't see a problem with that.

I absolutely LOVED Bowling for Columbine. I GOT what the point of the movie was.

Guns, by themselves, are not the problem. The problem is the culture of fear in this country as compared to other nations such as Canada.

MM made this point very clear on a number of fronts.

1. His point with the short video showing how when the KKK was labeled a terrorist organization the NRA showed up to take it's place.

2. When he went to the Lockheed Martin plant and the PR guy said these weapons were used for defense of the nation and that the U.S. doesn't start wars.

3. When he showed all the clips of the media and all the stories they do about scaring the hell out of people.

4. When he connected those stories with all the money that was to be made by corporations cashing in on the fears of people.

I got it.

The point of this thread, though, was that Bowling for Columbine showed me that the Democratic Party can't abandon it's stance on gun control.

Howard Dean, regardless of what he says now that he's running for president, received an "A" rating from the NRA while governor of Vermont. Obviously, that means he's if not in total lockstep with them, he's pretty damn close to being a-okay in their eyes.

And that's wrong. It's wrong because gun control should not be a states-rights issue.

And since it's a known fact that black-market guns are run from the south to the northeast, something should be done to address this problem.

That means harsh federal laws that apply to all states equally.

And while I can see the argument that a sweeping federal gun control statute would be similar to the war on drugs, many of you are missing the point.

I'm not talking about making all guns illegal, as we've done with pot, herion, cocain, ecstacy and other recreational drugs. I'm talking about getting uniform standards in place and closing off access points to easily available guns.

From every state, even Virginia, Michigan and other places where it's a hell of a lot easier to get a gun than in New York.

Hunting is one thing. I understand that poor rural people might have to go out and forrage for food occasionally, that's not the issue I'm talking about.

Nobody wants to take hunting rifles away from hunters. But you don't need semi-automatic rifles and uzi's and other huge guns to hunt with.

But Dean, being from a ultra-tiny, rural state with a population smaller than my congressional district, thinks you can have one set of gun laws for state A and another for state B.

That's not going to work. Becuase it isn't working. 11,000+ people a year are killed by guns and hundreds of thousands more are injured.

And if this so-called "harsh" stance on guns costs us voters, so be it. If they'd rather have their guns than a functioning economy. If they'd rather have their guns than a job. If they'd rather have their guns than a good education for their children, then they deserve the country they're gonna get.

Because, as ironically, most Dean supporters say, I want someone who will stand up to the Republicans and their right-wing special interest groups. And the NRA is one of those groups.

"Nobody wants to take hunting rifles away from hunters. But you don't need semi-automatic rifles and uzi's and other huge guns to hunt with."

Semi automatic rifles are the weapon of choice for hunters, because it allows for a quick second shot to "finish the animal off" so that it doesn't suffer or run away. Uzis shoot a 9mm pistol round. That's hardly "huge". And hunting is almost exclusively a white pastime. Sounds like you want to keep guns "out of the wrong hands"...unfortunately, "the wrong hands" seems to be blacks in urban environments. You don't seem to have a problem with white redneck hunters having guns...so WHY ON EARTH would you want to disarm people who don't fall into that category? Reminds me of a RATM lyric..."Some of those who join forces....are the same that burn crosses." "Let's leave the white rednecks with guns....but disarm minorities!" NOT!!!!!

"I'm not talking about making all guns illegal, as we've done with pot, herion, cocain, ecstacy and other recreational drugs. I'm talking about getting uniform standards in place and closing off access points to easily available guns.
From every state, even Virginia, Michigan and other places where it's a hell of a lot easier to get a gun than in New York."

What on earth makes you think it would be ANY different from the drug wars? Sure, some pot is grown domestically. Coke and Heroin are NOT. It ALL comes in from overseas. If they can bring in cocaine and heroin, what would make you think they wouldn't bring in guns from overseas, too? All you'd be doing is moving the supply around. Many years ago, gun-runners got most of their guns from Virginia. They changed the law in Virginia. Do you think the supply decreased? OF COURSE NOT. The illegal suppliers simply found a different supply, and it didn't effect SQUAT, except for people in Virginia who were inconvenienced.

"And if this so-called "harsh" stance on guns costs us voters, so be it."

So, you're willing to go through another 4 years of Bush because you pissed off a huge segment of the voting population? Thanks, but I'll pass.

"Because, as ironically, most Dean supporters say, I want someone who will stand up to the Republicans and their right-wing special interest groups. And the NRA is one of those groups."

Hmmmm. Dean has an "A" rating from the NRA from when he was the Governor of Vermont. That sounds like the NRA is NOT an exclusively Republican organization, unless you're saying that Dean is a Republican. Where I am, many elected Democrats are pro-gun (otherwise they wouldn't be in office). The NRA regularly endorses and supports them.


Maybe, JUST maybe, you should talk to Maine Mary about this.

Semi automatic rifles are the weapon of choice for hunters, because it allows for a quick second shot to "finish the animal off" so that it doesn't suffer or run away.

Awww, those poor compassionate hunters.

Uzis shoot a 9mm pistol round. That's hardly "huge".

It's kinda huge when a few dozen of them are hitting the same spot.

And hunting is almost exclusively a white pastime. Sounds like you want to keep guns "out of the wrong hands"...unfortunately, "the wrong hands" seems to be blacks in urban environments. You don't seem to have a problem with white redneck hunters having guns...so WHY ON EARTH would you want to disarm people who don't fall into that category? Reminds me of a RATM lyric..."Some of those who join forces....are the same that burn crosses." "Let's leave the white rednecks with guns....but disarm minorities!" NOT!!!!!

I want to keep guns out of cities, period. And last time I checked, nobody is getting carjacked with deer rifles.

What on earth makes you think it would be ANY different from the drug wars? Sure, some pot is grown domestically. Coke and Heroin are NOT. It ALL comes in from overseas. If they can bring in cocaine and heroin, what would make you think they wouldn't bring in guns from overseas, too? All you'd be doing is moving the supply around. Many years ago, gun-runners got most of their guns from Virginia. They changed the law in Virginia. Do you think the supply decreased? OF COURSE NOT. The illegal suppliers simply found a different supply, and it didn't effect SQUAT, except for people in Virginia who were inconvenienced.

But then again. Drugs are victimless crimes. Guns have a sole purpose of killing OTHER people. That's why it's different.

So, you're willing to go through another 4 years of Bush because you pissed off a huge segment of the voting population? Thanks, but I'll pass.

Oh yeah, and that whole civil unions thing is gonna fly really far in the South, huh?

Hmmmm. Dean has an "A" rating from the NRA from when he was the Governor of Vermont. That sounds like the NRA is NOT an exclusively Republican organization, unless you're saying that Dean is a Republican. Where I am, many elected Democrats are pro-gun (otherwise they wouldn't be in office). The NRA regularly endorses and supports them.

And it gives money hand over fist to predomanently GOP members.

Lets look at some figures shall we?

Gun rights groups gave:

$198,250 to Democrats in 2002
$2,758,797 to Republicans in 2002

And 85% of the money the gun lobby has spent in the past 10 years has gone to the GOP. So yes, while not EXCLUSIVELY a Republican organization, it's as close at it gets.

And, BTW, out of the NRA totals, 92% went to Republicans.

"Awww, those poor compassionate hunters. "

Nope...they just want to be able to eat the meat. A deer that runs away and dies 2 miles later is probably going to be left to rot. A quick second shot means the animal dies quicker, and the hunter has a better chance to actually eat the meat.

"It's kinda huge when a few dozen of them are hitting the same spot."

Would you care to cite a SINGLE case where a legally owned full-auto uzi was used in a crime EVER? Just one will do. You can't, because it's never happened.

"I want to keep guns out of cities, period. And last time I checked, nobody is getting carjacked with deer rifles."

Uh-huh. And what demographic section of the population lives predominantly in cities, and in fact constitutes a MAJORITY of city dwellers in the US??? Care to wager?

"But then again. Drugs are victimless crimes. Guns have a sole purpose of killing OTHER people. That's why it's different."

Horseshit. Tell that to somebody robbed (with or without a gun) by some drug addict. Tell that to somebody whose house is burglarized to get money for drugs. Tell that to the owner of a store that has stuff shoplifted to buy drugs. Tell that to the families of people killed as part of the drug trade. Tell that to a woman that's been sexually assaulted by some guy on drugs. "Victimless crimes", MY ASS.

"Oh yeah, and that whole civil unions thing is gonna fly really far in the South, huh?"

So, you're real problem is with Dean, NOT guns? That seems to be what you're saying. Not surprising considering your Kerry avatar...And some parts of the South are VERY gay-friendly, like N.O, Atlanta, Key West, et cetera.

"And it gives money hand over fist to predomanently GOP members."

BIG surprise there. I can't, for the life of me, understand why they didn't send big fat checks to Schumer and Feinstien. Could you explain why they didn't? Could it be because some Dems are ANTI-GUN? The support Democrats that support their position on that ONE issue.

Let me ask you this. Do you think the AARP would donate money to a party that espoused mandatory euthanasia for everybody over 40? Doubtful...

I hate guns, and I hate people who are willing to subjegate their fear OF guns so others can give themselves a false sense of security.

Guns aren't my No. 1 issue, but I would at least like someone who'd be willing to take on the NRA, not march in lockstep with them.

Yes, we have to change America's culture of fear first. But a close second is making sure that all the illegal guns are run out of this country and those who do own guns use them responsibly.

And the reason a lot of drug-related crime happens is because drugs are illegal.

And like I said, I don't want to ban all guns. Just get some uniform standards in place to prevent rural states from contributing to the deaths of urban states.

That does NOT mean I'm willing for either of them to be made or remain illegal.

Abortion is a terrible thing. I don't know when life really begins, and I don't care to debate it, because it's immaterial to my position on it. Leaving that aspect (is it a baby or just tissue?) completely out of it, abortion does tremendous psychological damage to the women who have them, and sometimes physical damage as well. I know several women who became sterile because of complications from legal abortions. Yet the alternative, NOT allowing women to have abortions, is worse than the problems legalized abortion breeds. If it were illegal, people would still have them. Where there's a demand, somebody will provide a supply. I'd rather the supply be legal.

Drugs are illegal. What's so sad is that MOST of the problems associated with drugs are caused not by the drugs themselves, but rather by the fact that they're illegal, with a blackmarket price structure. When was the last time you heard of a pothead going on a killing spree? You haven't, because they're too busy looking for more Cheetos. Tobacco is addictive and bad for you, but when was the last time you heard of somebody being killed at a 7-11 over a tobacco sale gone bad? Where there's a demand, somebody will provide a supply. I'd rather the supply be legal.

Guns aren't necessarily bad. Illegally killing people and accidents involving guns are bad. Guns can be used for GOOD things, too. I'm not just talking hunting, collecting, and target shooting, I'm talking about the very real aspects of self-defense. The Federal Government did a study as part of the National Crime Victimization Survey in 1994 about the results of being attacked (remember, this is 2 years after Clinton took office, so at least from my perspective it has a fair bit of non-partisan credibility). That found that your odds of being injured if you defend yourself with a gun against an attack are considerably less than if you resist the attack without a gun, and even if you do not resist in any way, and just comply with whatever your attacker demands. If you use a gun, statistically you'll be injured one out of five times. If you comply, you'll be injured one out of three times. If you resist with anything other than a gun, you'll be injured one out of two times. This doesn't mean that you have to kill your attacker, either, since cases of justifiable homicide are relatively rare. Criminals will always be able to get guns. If they can't get them in the state that they live in, they'll go to another state. If they can't get them from another state, they'll import them illegally from overseas (as is happening in England right now, with lots of guns being illegally imported from Eastern Europe, and the gun crime rate going through the roof despite practically a total ban on legal gun ownership), or steal them from people who CAN get them legally, like cops. In other words, where there's a demand, somebody will provide a supply. I'd rather the supply be legal.

"But a close second is making sure that all the illegal guns are run out of this country"

How exactly can you do that? More people own guns than do drugs, right? Something like 1/4 of the total population legally owns guns right now. The vast majority of gun owners not only don't think it's wrong to own guns, but that it's a constitutionally protected individual right. If guns became illegal, what do you think the result would be? Would people turn in or register their guns, or would they basically say "fuck them", and not comply? We don't know for certain, but do have some indicators. In California, they passed an AW ban requiring people to register their "assault weapons". The California Dept. of Justice estimates that 5% of the affected population complied. The rest basically said "fuck you" to the government. How many of those 80 million gun owners are you willing to put in jail? On the positive side, it WOULD solve the unemployment problem and stimulate the economy, because you'd have to exponentially expand the prison system, and we'd need millions of new prison guards.

Prohibition has been tried. We've tried it in the War on Drugs. The effects we've achieved in the War on Drugs is stunning. While drugs used to be relatively rare before the War on Drugs started, they're everywhere now. When cost used to be high and both supply and quality used to be low, cost has gone down dramatically, and both the supply and the quality of the drugs have gone up drastically. We've had our great sucesses in prohibiting drugs at the cost of untold lives (the crime wave of the 1980s was in large part driven by drugs), a trampling of civil rights (especially the 4th Amendment), HUGE quantities of scarce government money that was needed to combat fightable problems like poverty and illiteracy being pissed away on a forlorn hope, and currently over 250,000 people incarcerated with sentences of longer than a year RIGHT NOW.

We've gotten our national ass kicked in the "war on drugs", regardless of which side of the issue you're looking at it from. That would look GOOD compared to a "war on guns". It's a complete and total goatfuck waiting to happen.

It is a states rights issue. People in Montana are in a completely different environment than people in Manhattan. Non gun-related rules that make sense in Manhattan would be ludicrous in Montana.
Gun rules should also be different.

Also, Just because people die, doesn't mean we should ban something.

Would you advocate the banning of Cars because of the 40,000 annual deaths? or would the 110,000 annual alcohol related deaths lead you to revive prohibition?

Maybe saturated fats should be banned and refined sugar as well since Obesity kills 300,000 a year.

Or Maybe we should accept the fact that there is responsibility and risk, and that the vast majority should not be penalized for those who would use anything irresponsibly.

It is a states rights issue. People in Montana are in a completely different environment than people in Manhattan. Non gun-related rules that make sense in Manhattan would be ludicrous in Montana.

True.

Gun rules should also be different.

No. Becuase people can take advantage of the lax laws in Montana and ship the guns to a state with harsh gun laws. That's what happens all the time in states like Virginia, South Carolina, Texas, ect.

Also, Just because people die, doesn't mean we should ban something. Would you advocate the banning of Cars because of the 40,000 annual deaths? or would the 110,000 annual alcohol related deaths lead you to revive prohibition?

We have laws to prevent that. We have speed limits to prevent reckless driving at excessive speeds. We have drunk driving laws and blood alcohol limits. And if the U.S. wanted to ban alcohol and go back to prohibition I'd have no problem with that. As long as they legalized pot though. :smoke:

Maybe saturated fats should be banned and refined sugar as well since Obesity kills 300,000 a year.

Yeah, but that is a self-inflicted death. Guns kill innocent people, especially kids. They're designed to kill. Sugar is designed to add taste to food.

Or Maybe we should accept the fact that there is responsibility and risk, and that the vast majority should not be penalized for those who would use anything irresponsibly.

When the victims hurt themselves, I agree. That's why I'm against the war on drugs. But guns are desgined to kill and injure others. That's the difference.

I know we're not going to settle this issue, ever. But as someone who doesn't like violence in any form, I have my opinion and stance on this issue and you have yours.

Fine. I hope if you own a firearm you handle it safely and never injure yourself or others.

I just believe that gun control is as futile as drug prohibition.
Gun control laws only control legally owned guns. It would take totalitarian control to truly eliminate guns in our society.

I believe in holding people responsible for their wrong actions.
But Gun control legislation alienates a large, yet responsible portion of our society.

I believe that pursuing a futile policy that alienates a large segment of the society that could be on our side is madness.

I also hate violence.... but my belief is that only by eliminating violence and abuse aimed at children can we eliminate violence, and as long as we have this enormous gap between rich and poor abuse will never be eliminated.

I understand your guns and sugar comparison, but I believe that they are all a tradeoff between freedom and safety. And a death is a death....you won't grieve any less if someone dies of complications from diabetes.

"It would take totalitarian control to truly eliminate guns in our society."


The Soviet Union (while it was the Soviet Union, and I'm putting this prior to Gorby) had one of the most totalitarian governments that this planet has ever experienced. Yet they still had murders (I'm talking criminal murder, not state-approved murder) committed with guns. The guns came from many sources, including theft from government arsenals.

I honestly do not have a strong view on gun control - I see both sides of the argument. And right now, with everything going on in our country, whether or not Charlton Heston can own a gun is not at the top of my list. And I think Dean's argument makes sense - if a state like his has virtually no gun control and the lowest homicide rate in the country, why should they be bound by the same laws as a state like mine (NJ) where gun violence is a big problem?

And FYI, Michael Moore has spoken favorably about Dean, from what I understand. Someone told me that he said he liked Dean because a few years ago he traveled around the country trying to get a hug from every governor and Dean is the only one who gave him one. Does anyone know if this is true?

----------------------------------
Buy my Dean merchandise:

ANd gun control isn't my biggest issue either, I just wanted to make a larger point.

And I woudn't use Vermont as an arbitor of anything. It's such a small state that it and Wyoming combined wouldn't have the population of three congressional districts that make up Nassau County, Long Island.

It's easy to say you have the lowest crime rate when you also have the lowest population.

I had deduced from watching that the problem was not so much guns as a culture of fear and the greed that causes people to profit from it. There were moments when MM was pretty hard on the NRA, but keep in mind he is also a member, and also brought forth the information on the fact that a greater percentage of Canadians own guns, but Canada is without the fear and violence level blanketing America.

To be honest, I wasn't quite sure what to make of his confrontations of K Mart and Hesston. I quite enjoyed the rest of the movie, but I wasn't sure what he was trying to accomplish there. It seemed to detract from the theme of fear/violence/greed to wander into gun hatred that seemed to have been disregarded before......

I think he was trying to make...

on K-Mart, is that it promotes itself as a family friendly place where the videos are screened for parents and magazines are covered, but guns and bullets are sold regularly.

And with Heston, I think the point was to just expose and humiliate him. Which I have no problem with because he deserves to be humiliated and shown to be the fool that he is.

I just wish that segment would have lasted longer so I could watch him squirm.

Leaving that picture of the dead 6-year-old girl was brilliant. I hope Heston himself had to pick it up and look at it.

He's scum. That's all I have to say about him.

Regarding Heston being scum.....I wonder. Is everything Heston participated in "scummy" in your eyes? Be careful with your answer.

was it scummy for him to hold a rally at Columbine two weeks after the shooting?

Or was it scummy for him to hold a rally in the town where a first grader shot and killed another first grader?

Yeah, that was scummy.

read about it. It's quite interesting how Moore distorts the truth...

Care to elaborate on that sparky?

I was thinking of other issues he offered his prestige and support to, in the 1960's.

BTW, you DO know that he and the NRA didn't hear about the shootings and then plan rallies, right? You knew that the rallies were planned in advance of the shootings, right?

he should have cancelled them out of respect. He didn't then at the rally, shoved it in the families faces that they didn't want them there.

The man has NO HEART and deserves to die a slow, miserable death from Alzheimers.

"The man has NO HEART and deserves to die a slow, miserable death from Alzheimers."

from a "compassionate conservative", rather than a "compassionate liberal."

How is what you said different than Jerry Falwell saying that all homosexuals should die a slow, miserable death from HIV?

SHAME ON YOU!!!

becuase Fallwell said it out of bigoted hate for an entire group of suffering people.

I said in regards to one man who has shown his true colors and shown that he is cold, heartless and just flat-out mean and is disrespectful to victims of gun violence.

If you can't see the difference....Jeez.

not just Heston. As a part of that gun culture, I have a problem with people directing animosity towards a prominent member of that culture, just because the person is a member of that culture. It bleeds over onto me.

If Falwell said he hoped Nathan Lane or Melissa Etheridge or Ellen Degeneres got HIV and died a slow, painful death, wouldn't you be pissed? I would be, and I'm hetero.

Wishing bad things on people twists your soul. It's hateful. You have a right to do it, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

The problem is they would sell 500 fucking rounds at a time to a kid. That was the issue they were confronted on.

No real hunter would go in and buy 500 rounds. Hell most hunters I know don't go out with more than a single box of shells. Because responsable hunters don't shoot that much.

Ever heard of practice?

Ever heard of buying in bulk to save money?

I buy about once a year. I've got about 30,000 rounds of various calibers in my basement right now.

Besides, this is a disengenious argument. You know as well as I that Moore would have pulled his Kmart stunt even if the killers had only bought 1 box.

"Ever heard of practice?"

Yeah, and did I say that practice shooters in a shooting range would only take out one box with them?

Don't get your panties in a wad, I'm on your side of this issue.

"Ever heard of buying in bulk to save money?"

Yep, and that's ususaly done from a wholeseller, not a retail store like K-mart.

"I buy about once a year. I've got about 30,000 rounds of various calibers in my basement right now."

When you buy do you do so over the counter at a K-mart? Do you buy 30,000 rounds at a time from the sporting goods department at K-mart? And are you 16 years old when you do it?


"Besides, this is a disengenious argument. You know as well as I that Moore would have pulled his Kmart stunt even if the killers had only bought 1 box."

I doubt it, because any sporting goods store will sell that amount. What was rediculous was the ease with which an under aged individual could buy a large amount of ammunition, with no checks, nothing.

in amounts of less than a thousand rounds at a time. In fact, I normally buy ammo in lots of 5,000 rounds or more at a pop. I don't hunt, and am a VERY responsible (and largely recreational) shooter. It's a lot cheaper to buy in bulk, and bullets don't come with an "expiration date".

"in amounts of less than a thousand rounds at a time. In fact, I normally buy ammo in lots of 5,000 rounds or more at a pop. I don't hunt, and am a VERY responsible (and largely recreational) shooter. It's a lot cheaper to buy in bulk, and bullets don't come with an "expiration date"."


Do you buy bulk ammo over the counter from K-mart or from a wholeseller?

Are you under age when you do so?

First, Dean is NOT going to change any of the gun laws on the book.

Second, Dean wants to make sure that the loopholes like gunshows and pawnshops are cleared up.

Third, he wants to ensure that law abiding citizens LIKE MY OWN FAMILY, have the right to own guns if they choose. I can assure you that not once in my childhood was I ever drug to one of those crazy hoedowns shown on Bowling for Columbine.

HOWEVER, because of Dean's message not only with Guns, but with Free Trade and Unions he's getting people like my family to listen to his message. They're republican and not convinced yet to switch parties, but they like what Dean has to offer.

Gore lost states like West Virginia and Tennessee thanks to the NRA. WOuldn't it be nice to neutralize the NRA for one election. Imagine what our country was like if we won a stinking 5 electorial vote state like West Virginia that loves their guns, loves the Union and voted 65% for Democrat Robert Byrd????!!!!!!

There are a hell of a lot of people who strongly favor gun control in this country.

I hope Dean doesn't undo any gun control laws, I don't think he will, but I don't like the idea of making the issue a states rights one.

For the life of me, I can't understand why people will bash other candidates as Bush-lite, or "me too"ers when it comes to other issues. But guns is something we can just flip flop on.

If you really think that the gun issue is the only one keeping a lot of rural states from voting for us, then fine. I'd love to be proven wrong.

But I think it's bigger than that. I think if we want to win a lot of rural states we're going to have to change our position on, not only guns, but abortion, gay rights and affirmative action.

It's a slippery slope when we start saying that we can change our position here to win this state and that state.

That's basically what spawned the DLC, and we all know how popular that crowd is here.

Since this is unsatisfactory for you, can you tell me what other federal gun laws we need?

I'm not an expert in gun control legislation. All I know is that having individual states make their own gun control laws is useless.

Or requiring child locks, or gun safes... Or whether or not you can fire a rifle out of a moving car while hunting... Etc...

I don't see how laws like that would effect other states negatively if they were different from state to state.

Heston.

is seperate laws for separate communities. Mikes message in BFC wasn't anti-gun so much as anti-fear culture. That won't be solved by banning guns, and that won't be solved by the government.

I pose this question as a specific one directed at my guns and those owned by my friends.

First off, I live in Las Vegas, Nevada. The metro area has over 1 million people + so we are a large urban city by any definition. I personally own many guns including several "Assault Weapons". I also have several handguns and I am licensed by the State to carry a concealed weapon. I underwent all the required training and had to wait almost 3 months for all the background checks and finger printing etc. I am almost always armed. I am not a hunter but I do shoot in various competitions as well as open "Fun Shoots" at least 2-3 times a month. My weapons (which I have a substantial financial investment in) are ALWAYS locked up securely in safes (even my hand guns). I guard my freedoms very carefully in my actions as ANY felony conviction will permanently take away my right to own firearms. This could include the passing of a large bad check! In short, I am a VERY law abiding person who likes to have fun with some major big boy toys!
Additionally, I hang out with a lot of people with even bigger boy toys as the bigger the wallet, the bigger the toys. Many of us own fully automatic weapons (machine guns). The registration process for these is very long and detailed and can take from 4 months to a year. The financial investment is huge as some of these can cost over $25,000. From a security standpoint, these weapons cannot be loaned to anyone or left unsecure for any amount of time. If you are a owner of a machine gun and it gets stolen, the OWNER is in a world of trouble. To punctuate this question I have a link to a short video taken during our last 2 open shoots just a few weeks ago. This video will probably horrify some of you but that is ok. Just keep this in mind if you watch it....... EVERY weapon in this video is owned legally buy a private person or a dealer licensed by the federal government. You will see everyone from a doctor, a nurse, an attorney, cops, cell phone salesman to mothers and kids and everything in between. Why do we own guns? Well for one thing, they are FUN! Secondly, but most importantly because we can and through ownership, we can protect OURSELVES and not have to rely on anyone else! Yes, gun ownership is an important right for us but even a more important responsibility.
So with all that said...........please tell me why you want to take MY guns away???

Video: windows media player file about 9.5MB

Shoot in Vegas video

Apologies to any Fienstien supporters but many of us are transplanted Californians and dont really care for the old girl

I pose this question as a specific one directed at my guns and those owned by my friends.

First off, I live in Las Vegas, Nevada. The metro area has over 1 million people + so we are a large urban city by any definition. I personally own many guns including several "Assault Weapons". I also have several handguns and I am licensed by the State to carry a concealed weapon.

Why do you need assault weapons in the first place? They're certainly not for defense, unless you plan on having Mongolia invade Las Vegas. And last time I checked you never stated you were forming a well-regulated militia (as defined under the second ammendment).

I underwent all the required training and had to wait almost 3 months for all the background checks and finger printing etc.

Although, you could wake up tomorrow and decide to walk into a school and shoot kids. Of course, you can't stop people from wanting to walk into a school and kill kids, but you can limit their access to the weapons they would have to do such a horrid act.

I am almost always armed.

Remind me not to play poker with you then. :)

I am not a hunter but I do shoot in various competitions as well as open "Fun Shoots" at least 2-3 times a month.

With automatic rifles?

My weapons (which I have a substantial financial investment in) are ALWAYS locked up securely in safes (even my hand guns). I guard my freedoms very carefully in my actions as ANY felony conviction will permanently take away my right to own firearms. This could include the passing of a large bad check! In short, I am a VERY law abiding person who likes to have fun with some major big boy toys!

Sigh. Why people think guns are toys is beyond me...but yeah, you like guns, I understand.

Additionally, I hang out with a lot of people with even bigger boy toys as the bigger the wallet, the bigger the toys. Many of us own fully automatic weapons (machine guns).

WHY????

Why do you need to own a machine gun?

If you didn't own oen tomorrow would your life be over?

The registration process for these is very long and detailed and can take from 4 months to a year. The financial investment is huge as some of these can cost over $25,000. From a security standpoint, these weapons cannot be loaned to anyone or left unsecure for any amount of time. If you are a owner of a machine gun and it gets stolen, the OWNER is in a world of trouble.

As should be the case.

To punctuate this question I have a link to a short video taken during our last 2 open shoots just a few weeks ago. This video will probably horrify some of you but that is ok. Just keep this in mind if you watch it....... EVERY weapon in this video is owned legally buy a private person or a dealer licensed by the federal government. You will see everyone from a doctor, a nurse, an attorney, cops, cell phone salesman to mothers and kids and everything in between. Why do we own guns? Well for one thing, they are FUN! Secondly, but most importantly because we can and through ownership, we can protect OURSELVES and not have to rely on anyone else! Yes, gun ownership is an important right for us but even a more important responsibility.
So with all that said...........please tell me why you want to take MY guns away???

Well, I don't want to take all your guns away. Just the really big ones. I'd leave you with a hunting rifle and a revolver for your own personal protection.

I'd just ask you to look around at the people who support you.

You're lined up alongside the likes of John Aschroft, who won't crack down on terrorists owning guns out of respect to that feared gun-lobby.

You line up alongside militia people who HATE America and the federal government (in any form it may take).

You line up alongside people who are very, very paranoid about the world around them and think that there's a mugger behind every corner and the next person they see is probably going to kill them.

You line up alongside an organization, the NRA, who (as BFC pointed out) basically became the uncloaked version of the KKK.

Now, I'm not saying ALL people who own guns are like this. Obviously there are too many gun owners to make such a sweeping generalization. But when the Republican right is my staunchist supporter on an issue, that might want to give me pause for a moment.

Because they are wrong on EVERYTHING.

"Well, I don't want to take all your guns away. Just the really big ones. I'd leave you with a hunting rifle and a revolver for your own personal protection.

If legally owned machineguns are not a criminal problem (and they are not) why take them away? You are advocating punishment of one group (legal machinegun owners) for the sins of another group (criminals with illegal guns). So much for personal freedom, provided you don't abuse it.... :eyes:

"Why do you need assault weapons in the first place? "

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have to NEED it, he has a right to own and use it. Why do you need your car, or your computer... would you be ok with someone saying that because some jerk can make a computer virus that can disrupt 500,000 systems, that you shouldn’t be allowed to have a computer without the government having full access to it and you net connection being monitored?

I mean hey if you didn’t own a computer tomorrow would you life be over?



”I'd just ask you to look around at the people who support you. “


Ahh so when you have no argument, simply go for guilt by association. Rather like saying those who were against the war in Iraq are all communists because ANSWER organized a few of the marches?

................I think

First off, thank you Magic Rat for your thoughtful, albeit intellectually indefensible, response. I too was going to use the car analogy (until I realized that the left is trying to take away my Dodge Durango too) and explore the guilt by association hole in rat's argument but what the hell. As a "right wing fascist" with an advanced degree, I choose not to engage in such discourse with people at such a disadvantage.

What it boils down to is that "we" have the guns now (and we know how to use them as the video shows) and YOU don't! So all I can say is.........COME AND GIT 'EM!

P.S. You had better hurry as my 10 year old son is getting rather skilled at placing 3 shot aimed bursts on target with an M-16. Is this a great country or what?!?

"Why do you need assault weapons in the first place? "

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have to NEED it, he has a right to own and use it. Why do you need your car, or your computer... would you be ok with someone saying that because some jerk can make a computer virus that can disrupt 500,000 systems, that you shouldn’t be allowed to have a computer without the government having full access to it and you net connection being monitored?

I mean hey if you didn’t own a computer tomorrow would you life be over?



”I'd just ask you to look around at the people who support you. “


Ahh so when you have no argument, simply go for guilt by association. Rather like saying those who were against the war in Iraq are all communists because ANSWER organized a few of the marches?

And we look at the list of folks who wanted to take guns away from the people… like Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc… so can we then deduce that you’re position, being backed by these folks, is similarly flawed by association?

How can you not want an armed public with a facist like Bush in power?

"Why do you need assault weapons in the first place? "

Doesn't matter. He doesn't have to NEED it, he has a right to own and use it. Why do you need your car, or your computer... would you be ok with someone saying that because some jerk can make a computer virus that can disrupt 500,000 systems, that you shouldn’t be allowed to have a computer without the government having full access to it and you net connection being monitored?

I mean hey if you didn’t own a computer tomorrow would you life be over?



”I'd just ask you to look around at the people who support you. “


Ahh so when you have no argument, simply go for guilt by association. Rather like saying those who were against the war in Iraq are all communists because ANSWER organized a few of the marches?

And we look at the list of folks who wanted to take guns away from the people… like Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc… so can we then deduce that you’re position, being backed by these folks, is similarly flawed by association?

How can you not want an armed public with a facist like Bush in power?

The next president is not going to have the ability to impose national gun control legislation. I can understand your problem but the difference between Dean, Kerry, and all of the others, are mostly symbolic. If this is an important issue to you in the real world you're better backing whichever Democrat you like (because if there's any movement on this issue over the next few years it will come after Democrats control the White House and Congress, that's the prerequisite).

I saw "Bowling for Columbine" the other day for the first time. It was much better than I expected. And my read of Moore's thesis was that America's gun problem is rooted more in cultural paranoia and its indifference to those facing hard times. He makes a powerful case. Which candidate would be better at addressing these sorts of problems? (not suggesting an answer but it's a great question).

The next president is not going to have the ability to impose national gun control legislation. I can understand your problem but the difference between Dean, Kerry, and all of the others, are mostly symbolic. If this is an important issue to you in the real world you're better backing whichever Democrat you like (because if there's any movement on this issue over the next few years it will come after Democrats control the White House and Congress, that's the prerequisite).

I saw "Bowling for Columbine" the other day for the first time. It was much better than I expected. And my read of Moore's thesis was that America's gun problem is rooted more in cultural paranoia and its indifference to those facing hard times. He makes a powerful case. Which candidate would be better at addressing these sorts of problems? (not suggesting an answer but it's a great question).

The KKK – NRA linkage.
American mindset of fear from slavery to 9-11.
Minorities stereotyped as suspect-perpatrators.
The analogy between bombing Kosovo and bowling in Littleton.

No wonder the Dean meet-ups are predominantly euro.
And "He's gonna git my country back" may be true.
But the ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker never has said he's turning it over to anybody.
Least of all, to Liberal Democrats, let alone the Greens and the Socialists.

Thats one of the biggest pieces of bunk in the movie (and there is alot of bunk)

I had never heard such an allegation until I watched the movie. I found that idea pretty shocking so I looked into it. Its complete bunk and a Moore fantasy.

In fact Ulysses S Grant was the president who criminalized the KKK, directed Federal troops to suspend habeas corpus against the clan, and all but killed the KKK.

Frederick Douglas praised Grant for this action.

After Grant left office, he was later elected to as the NRA president.