Kerry receives 'F' from NRA Dean gets 'A'

Gun Policy:
He received "F" from the NRA, and 100% from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Also a %100 rating from Planned Parenthood and 0 from National Right to Life

Source: On the issues http://election2004.4t.com/custom2.html

n/t.

plus, I happen to agree with Howard Dean's stance on guns, which is that different states need to set their own standards for gun laws. It's a loser issue for us Dems, we lose a lot of swing voters becuase of this issue.

I don't believe anyone on here would be proud that there candidate gets support form the NRA. Mr. Charlton Heston, "from my cold dead hands". How many times do Dems have to get slaughtered by better funded opponents before they realize that the NRA is a part of the problem.
Also, the NRA has made it impossible to pass even sensible gun control laws in this country. Why should Americans be free to by assault weapons whenever they want? It has nothing to do with hunting. It's the fact that an American can by an oozy and ak whatever, whenevr, The NRA even fought California for passing a limit to one assault weapon per month. Oh wow...how horrible, you mean I can only by one gun to murder people with a month.
These are real issues (i.e. Columbine) that aren't addressed today in our nation and it's time that we voted for a candidate with teh strength and courage to stand up for whats right.

Since the homicide rate in VT is so low.

If he was a national candidate he would get marked down because he supports the current gun laws + instacheck at gun shows.

it's that many of us here don't see gun control as much a Political issue as a Social issue.

Unfortunately, it will be very, very difficult to get any candidate elected who is pro gun control. Many will see this as an attack on their constitutional rights and it is a difficult position to defend when dealing with a not too bright crowd.

That's what makes it a Social issue instead of a Political issue. We need to spend more time with constructive education to bring the general masses up to the point where they can understand that guns aren't bad, but guns for everyone is just plain stupid. We need to bring them up to the level where they are capable of understanding what is meant when you say that a family member is 80% more likely to be killed by the gun that you brought into the house "to protect" the family.

Gun control is an educational issue, unfortunately the NRA is not. Having the NRA not against you is just one less thing that a candidate will have to deal with.

I personally think they're a right wing think tank masquerading as a gun owners advocacy group. I still believe that guns aren't a political problem, but a social one and that Howard Dean is correct - you may need strict gun laws in a high crime rate state like New York, but not a low crime rate state like Vermont.

This will kill him in the South and West.

We can carry concealed with no permit here in Vermont and we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. You live in LA and want gun control, all the more power to you, but don't try forcing your desires down my throat. Gun control laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. They never have and they never will. If someone wants a banned gun they can still obtain one illegally. It's a waste of time, money, resources and energy. If half the energy put into arguing over gun control was invested into going after criminals it would do a heck of a lot more to stop gun violence.

that can be controlled is children finding them and doing damage.

Criminals will still kill without guns
Spousal abuse will still happen without guns

However, I like the idea of gun locks to keep kids from harming themselves or others with guns. Do I support mandatory gunlocks? No - but I do like the idea of requiring a 20 min presentation on how they work with every gun sold, and a FREE gun lock provided with every gun sale.

That's gun safety and you won't find many complaints from any gun enthusiasts by offering things like that. You can't force it because people aren't receptive to that. But if you mandate that such features are to be provided for free, people are going to opt for them. A lot of accidents could be prevented with gun safety classes, too. If the government offered them for free, people would take them. It's all in how you present these things. Liberals make the mistake of pursuing things in an aggressive and disrespectful way on this issue (as well as some others). If you try to force something, people will naturally be against it. If you offer something and talk about how good it is people will be more receptive. All it takes is one radical calling for the banning of all guns and you can forget being trusted by gun owners if you mention gun control. That's the reality.

maybe the NRA should do it and talk about pursuing things in a aggressive , disrespectful way, how about the NRA's convention in Colorado 2 weeks after Columbine.

Notice how gun control didn't prevent that?

Now, your reaction to my post makes it quite clear to me that you care more about making useless, ineffective laws than you do about educating and protecting kids from gun accidents. That should be an issue that both sides can actually agree on. I'm not sure if you just hate guns or hate the NRA. It astounds me that anyone would rather waste money on laws that don't do anything when they could use the money to do something that might actually save lives.

What gun control laws, if any, were in effect in Colorado? I'm pretty sure all those guns were owned legally. If the Columbine shooters' parents had been unable to purchase and own guns and ammunition, don't you think the Columbine incident would have turned out differently?

The minors bought the guns illegally, over the internet. So, unless I'm mistaken about this, it's a perfect example of one of the many ways criminals can dodge gun control laws. In fact, in some cases gun control laws hinder the ability to catch people who have used guns in crime. No criminal is going to go into a store and purchase a gun they intend to use in a crime. They don't want the gun tracked back to them. If they didn't have the background checks they would be more likely to buy them from a retailer who would probably have a video tape of the sale or might recall what the person who bought it looked like. There are downsides to every gun control measure. On paper and in theory, balistic fingerprinting sound like a great idea. However, all a criminal has to do is take a file and alter the barrell and it renders that system useless.

If someone wants to commit a crime, they're going to do it. Whether it's a gun, knife, chain, rock or a golf club...they're going to do whatever they do. No amount of gun laws are going to prevent crimes. What can be prevented are accidental shootings that are the by product of uneducated and irresponsible gun owners. Stop worrying about laws that do nothing and start approaching the issue differently...through education and prevention.

and we're both wrong. I had heard that Klebold and Harris got the guns from older relatives, and you thought they'd bought them over the internet. Both wrong. They bought three of the four guns at a perfectly legal Colorado gun show. They bought the fourth from a guy named Mark Manes, who owned it legally. Source: IRE Journal, July/August 2000.

The point, of course, is that they obtained the guns in non-criminal outlets that are protected by law. If the sale of firearms to civilians were illegal, there would be no gun shows, and Mark Manes couldn't legally have owned a Tec-9.

I'd be interested in reading it. I have always heard that they obtained the guns through someone they met on the internet. I suppose it's possible that the person met them at a gun show as well. If you provide a link I'll do some research on it.

It's a published journal, not an internet site. Try your local university library - that's where I found it.

I quess you hunt with a concealed weapon.

You implied that I hunt with assault rifles. And now with a concealed weapon?

If you automatically assume that hunters are gun criminals you might want to consider getting some counselling for that problem. On top of that, anyone who pushes for gun control is going to get slaughtered in 2004. I take it you'd rather see the country run by the radical right than let poor rural folks who lost their jobs hunt to feed their families.

But that's what the NRA said when they wanted assault rifles and concealed guns to be legal.

And we don't have a problem with gun violence. Again, gun control doesn't prevent gun crime. It never has and it never will. Criminals don't obtain guns legally, they steal them and get them from other criminals. It's a complete and total waste of time, money and resources. That effort should be spent on tracking down the criminals, not placing more restrictions on law abiding gun owners.

I don't recall the NRA ever making such a statement.

it. I'll look some more if this isn't good enough. This fight was so long ago I can't remember where I actually saw or read the quote, but here's a link anyway.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/25/153335.shtml

I used to carry a concealed weapon and it didn't take me long to realize I wouldn't be stopping and crimes or atttackes. I came to the logical conclusion that more people were in danger with more fire arms availible. I keep mine hidden away ready for use when the Radical right come out to my rural poor folk house

state and local ones don't work. That's because there are no border checks and customs inspections between states or municipalities. For example, Washington DC has very strict gun control laws, but Virginia has very loose ones. So you can load the trunk of your car with guns in Alexandria and drive practically across the street into DC and there's nobody with the authority to search your car unless you do something overtly illegal. It's like having state and local air pollution laws. Guns, like air, move around.

No one who uses a gun in a crime is going to buy guns legally, whether in their own state, or the one next door. Anytime a new law is added it does essentially one thing...makes things harder for law abiding gun owners. New laws don't stop criminals from obtaining guns. They just find a way around the laws, and it's really, really easy to do. The only way to put a dent in gun crime is to catch the ones committing the crimes and put them in jail. You don't catch them by making new laws.

Because on the face of it, it's nonsense. You're assuming that "criminals" and people are two entirely different species. It's well-documented that most killings are performed by people who knew the victims well - family, lovers, friends. This obviously implies that most murders are not committed by career criminals but by persons who weren't criminals at all until they killed somebody.

Also, most career criminals who do get guns get them from "law abiding gun owners" or from the same places they do (since they probably don't have "CRIMINAL" conveniently stamped on their foreheads). How else are they going to get them? Smuggle them in from China? Make them out of old curtain rods in the basement?

The reason it's easy to get around gun laws is that gun laws are ridiculously lax and vary from state to state and municipality to municipality. If it were in violation of federal law for private citizens to buy or sell firearms and ammunition, we could start getting guns and ammo out of the criminals' hands.

In the meantime, the best we can do is to stop "law abiding gun owners" from shooting themselves or friends or loved ones by accident or in a moment of passion. At least that's something.

Someone I was very close to was killed with a gun that can't be bought legally using ammo that can't be bought legally. The gun was bought through the black market as was the ammo, through gun runners and drug dealers.

But in a nation of 250 million people, everything that theoretically can happen is going to happen at least once. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. Do you have any statistics about the numbers of guns that are smuggled into the country illegally per year vs. the number manufactured and sold legally?

and on Sunday someone was shooting off a gun right behind our barn. Directly on the other side of our trees, they were target shooting with a high-powered rifle. But since they were on their property, there was nothing anybody could do about it. My kids and I were going to go trail riding, but we just went on back home. I figured that maybe bullets that can travel miles before they are spent might not understand property lines. Mostly I think that because several years ago, a child was killed here in a waterpark by someone messing around with a high powered rifle over a mile away. What in god's name does ANYBODY need with a gun that can fire like that? You are not going to hunt with it, unless you are hunting elephants and it isn't for the defense of your home. The only thing I can think that somebody needs something like that for is to shore up their pathetic ego. I would vote for a candidate strong on gun control. I completely support your right to kill animals for fun, but do you need a semi-automatic weapon to do it? Should the sale of cheap kits to turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons be legal? Should somebody be able to walk into a gunshow and walk out with a gun? Is a week REALLY too long to wait?
I am not nearly as worried about keeping guns out of the hands of career criminals. I figure you can't. I want to keep guns out of the hands of the woman who shot her son's best friend to death here about six weeks ago because he was trying to get her son's attention by tapping on his window in the middle of the night. I want to keep guns out of the hands of the 12 year old boy here that killed his 8 year old cousin last year. I want to keep the kind of rifles that would stop a charging elephant dead in his tracks out of my backyard. I don't have any hope of being able to do it, but don't try to tell me that it is reasonable for people to carry a 9 mm in their glove compartment. Do you REALLY think that an armed citizenry deters crime? Even when there are statistics that have said that more people are shot with their own guns than with guns brought into their homes?

The focus is in the wrong places in this battle. Look at it like the battle to get AIDS under control. What good does it do to preach abstinence? Not a damn bit. But education and providing condoms made a difference.

Do drug laws stop anyone from using drugs?
Do drunk driving laws stop anyone from driving drunk?
Were women and girls still getting abortions before they were legal?
Did prohibition stop anyone from drinking?

The ONLY way to prevent gun violence is to get the people pulling the trigger off the street.
The ONLY way to prevent accidental shootings is to provide gun safety education and offer additional safety features on firearms as a free option. The second you try to force anyone into anything they stop listening to anything you say. Make them think they're getting something for nothing that's a good deal and they will lap it up. It's all in the presentation. If the focus were put in the right places a lot could be done to stop the bad things while still protecting the rights of gun owners.

As for the person who was target practicing...that's where gun safety would make a difference. This country has moved away from teaching people the proper way to handle guns. That's part of the problem. We need to move back in the right direction. I can't imagine anyone intentionally doing something that could endanger others. If the person knew what they could inadvertently do by discharging a high powered rifle in an area not designed for that kind of target practice, I highly doubt they would have been doing it. If you know where this person lives, get in touch with them and tell them that your kids are in their line of fire. Hell, print out some information about safe use of high powered rifles and how far a shot can travel. If you do this politely the person should be receptive. If they aren't, they have some serious problems. And there are a few people out there like that. Fortunately, they're in the minority.

was that my business partner DID call the County Sherriff. We run a boarding and training barn south of Charlotte, NC, and along with the concerns for our own safety, we have to consider how this makes our customers feel. A sherriff came out and was very polite and offered to go talk to the people, but essentially, out in the county, you can fire weapons on your property as much as you would like. Even if it is a high powered rifle. It seems to me that weapons like that should be reserved for a properly set up shooting range. My BIL has a gun like that and set up dirt bank to fire into and the first time around, the bullet went THROUGH the bank and pretty far on the other side. He had to reinforce his bank. He thought it was 'cool'. *gag*

I am not talking about outlawing guns. I am talking about making them 'harder' to acquire through intense background checks and waiting periods. I am also talking about enforcing some kind of recreational shooting law. I know that the Billy Bob's around here have been headin' off to them woods to fire their guns for years. But in our area growth has been so incredible that those woods normally back right up to a subdivision these days. And that is just not safe. There needs to be a law that takes into consideration developement and kids and requires guns not to be fired within a reasonable distance of a residential area or other dwelling.

Did the Sherriff end up talking to the guy? If the guy doing this is a normal hunter type of guy, I'm guessing approaching him and explaining the dilemma might do some good. At the very least, you could ask him if he could refrain from shooting during certain hours or ask that he contact you when he's going to shoot so you can both make sure no one is in his line of fire. The only kind of person you couldn't work something like this out with would be one of the militia type people. Luckily they are pretty rare. There's got to be a solution there...and it's entirely possible that the guy has no idea his shooting is endangering anyone else or infringing on their ability to do things. Someone should let him know.

Makes you wonder. I'll never vote for Dean over this issue.

no message

by telling him that the NRA loved him.

I agree with Dean's position.

...if we let it. Gore's stance cost him Tennesse and the election in 2000. Which democrats non-liberal stance on guns will send 'W' back to the Whitehouse in 2004? If we nominate Dean it probably won't happen. Dean takes the gun issue away from the Repubes and makes the redneck voters stay home on election night.

On edit: now send this thread to the gun dungeon where it belongs.

They were once the Democratic core constituancy and I think we can eventually get them back. I also think that it's pretty dumb to insult these folks. They are Dems, but many of them don't know it yet, IMHO.

I also prefer Dean's moderate stance on guns as it dampens the GOP's ability to use this issue as a wedge issue for us non-upper 1%ers.

That would remove it as an issue too.

I though you all were so strong in your beliefs. clearly. if it serves a political end Dean supporters will leave their liberalism behind.

Man I dont know how to say this but your candiate Mr. Kerry is more liberal than Dean by a longshot. I am of course netural on this and an idealist so heh :)

I'm not. I'm middle of the road.

And Dean's position on guns could be called liberal...

liberal on rural people's right to not have gun control and liberal on urban areas to have gun control if they want it.

I see no problem with that at all.

as opposed to "special interest?" Surely that's not liberal if it is a preferred position. Actually, it is extremely liberal in principle. I heard from a very liberal state rep who voted against any gun control. Her reason was a majority of her district voted in favor of a conceal\carry ballot initiative. She felt obligated to represent the interests of the people on guns as much as on education and health care. As opposed to listening to a large outside group that pretends to define what is and isn't "liberal."
That is what Dean's position on guns advocates, and I think it is not only pragmatic politically, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Particularly after the above conversation. This regional variation is something to be considered, and it's about time Democrats stop losing elections over this issue.

That's exactly the case with Dean. Vermonters DON'T want gun control. It's a governor's job to respect the wishes of those they represent, and that's what Dean did. Living in the state most likely gave Dean a clear understanding of what the 2nd Amendment means to rural people. It's a HUGE issue. If Democrats had any idea how many people in rural areas would support them if they laid off gun control they would never mention it again. I'd estimate that darn near half of the people who vote Republican do so at least in part because of this one issue. If it's not that many, it's darn close. Dean got the support of a lot of Vermont's registered Republicans in the various elections here. Most of them voted for Dean because of his fiscal responsibility and stand on guns. Dean will really hurt Bush with these kinds of voters, especially since a lot of them also rely on overtime and can't afford health care. Give them their issue and steal their vote from Bush.

another elected official told me that she thought guns were more important than abortion. That could be huge with rural voters.
I was told that the gun issue is huge in New Hampshire. After Ashcroft, these libertarian leaning states are going to be prime territory for Dems. We could probably easily count on NH with the gun issue neutralized. Of course, there's the much discussed south and mountain states, as well.
This is a huge contributor to Dean's electability! A candidate with this position presents trmendous opportunity to finally overcome what has been an obstacle for far too long. Where is the pragmatism?

They are more important than abortion there easily. If rural voters could vote for a Democrat that was for both abortion and gun rights there is no way they'd vote republican. NH is mighty angry with Bush as it is. Their state property taxes have gone up over $100 million because of the income tax cuts. NH doesn't have state income tax or sales tax, and they already had high property taxes. Now, thanks to Bush, not only are their property taxes skyrocketing, but they don't have any money to meet the new federal education mandates, which means they are going to lose federal funding. That's going to lead to BIG problems there. There is NO WAY Bush can win NH in 2004...none. And overtime, NH people work A LOT of overtime...this is a huge sore spot, too. NH likes Dean a lot, too.

It all works well together. Dean's strategy is perfect for what has been going on in nearly every state. The unfunded mandate has created a huge education mess in nearly all of them. He has basically been saying from day one that this admin has been mistreating the individual states all along.

There are limits to pragmatism. The invasion of Iraq was bigger with rural voters, but that doesn't make it right. I find it more than a little disturbing that the two of you are so casually excited by an issue you disagree with (I hope).

It is clear to me from watching him on TV, that Dean doesn't really believe in the NRA's agenda. However, the straight talker is doing his best to appease them without overly offending the Left. Don't you find that even the least bit disheartening?

Pardon my French, but the "states' rights" issue is a crock of shit. Gun control is a Federal problem, with Americans dying all over this country to support the "rights" of a select few that choose to profit from weapons manufacturing and distribution.

No one is taking away their hunting rifles. No one is taking away their right to become a wingnut militia out in the woods. But you don't need to hunt with a concealable handgun. You don't hunt with a semi-automatic weapon. Those weapons are for one purpose only - killing people.

To me, the right to bear arms is higher on my list of issues than abortion is. It's not that I think abortion shouldn't be legal, because I believe it has it's place. However, I admittedly don't like it. In fact, I really dislike abortion...a lot. It really, really saddens me that so many people don't think about birth control BEFORE they have sex. It really upsets me how frequently it's used as after the fact birth control. Especially with how readily available birth control is. But then I've always been a bit disgusted with irresponsibility. As for guns...if I lose my job and can't feed my kids, a gun will enable me to put food on the table. If someone breaks into my home looking to harm my family, a gun will help me protect them. That gun provides me with the means to provide for and protect my family. That's a pretty damn big deal to me. A lot of people feel the same way. That's why the 2nd Amendment is THE single biggest "single issue" voting faction in politics. You might not like it or understand it, but those are the facts. You'd be hard pressed to find a rural voter who lives in a hunting state who puts abortion above gun rights. This is why democrats don't fare as well as they could in the south and west. It's much more huge than most gun control proponents want to admit.

You must be kidding. I have said that Dean's position makes sense to me as does that of the woman who decided that even though she didn't like it, she should probably vote the way 77% of her district wanted her to. Why do you object to me being pleased in discovering a candidate with a position and an argument that makes sense to me that also very conveniently neutralizes what has been a losing issue for Democrats for a very long time?
"Pardon my French, but the "states' rights" issue is a crock of shit." Not true. It is very relevant to the position many states are finding themselves in today. Democrats have a great opportunity to co-opt that issue based on the unfunded education mandate as well as Dean's position here. Unfortunately, Dean or Clark (if he gets in it) are the only serious candidates who have much credibility using it, since they haven't been a part of handing anything down to the states.
I bet could see tremendous benefit in state politics if Dean runs. Every dem candidate here is going to run on the way pukes have trashed education. The pukes here followed the Bush education model, and tried to defund public education. Republicans voted to starve their own school districts of funding. In my county, we lost two Democrats and lost $9.2 million in education funding. The house majority leader's district lost $1000. That in itself is a winning platform for Democrats. Tie it to the national campaign and the fact that this was handed to us by the federal government, and those rural voters who voted in the pukes are ready to go back to Dems locally and nationally.

First of all, Kerry's website says "unless schools receive the resources they were promised and respect they deserve, the new law will fail and inequality will persist. Where the Bush Administration sought to cut funding for school reform and issued restrictive guidelines, John Kerry will fund the new effort and ensure states have the flexibility to meet the goals of the law."

I'm not sure why you think Dean (or Clark!?!) have more "credibility" in education reform, simply because they have no experience. Dean has no idea how a metropolitan school system is run. There are more people in Brooklyn than in Vermont.

Secondly, I have no idea where the education talk came from, considering that you were responding to the fact that urban centers bear the cost of rural "freedom" in lives lost. That is a documented fact.

The gun issue may "conveniently nuetralize" an issue with rural voters, but that doesn't make it right. Nor does it mean that the NRA will endorse anyone but George W. Bush. Nor does it mean that Dean could possibly win any of the South. One or two Southern states may go to a NE liberal war hero over an AWOL incompetent, but they'll never vote for an anti-war NE liberal no matter how poorly the war goes.

I'm sorry, but that's the biggest crock of shit I've ever seen. Urban centers have crime not because guns exist but because that's what happens when you cram so many people so close to each other. I once lived in a very small town in a large apartment building similar to what you would find in a city. There was so much negative energy, fighting, and problems in that complex. I moved into a 2 apartment home right across the street and it was like being in a whole different world. You CANNOT blame inner city crime on rural people hunting. That's just ridiculous! If cities want gun control, let them have all they want. They can probably pass it too since if you make it a local issue then it's local votes that decide. Vote for what your community wants and have it, but don't sit in some highrise 1000 miles from my house and tell me what's best for me and mine. You worry about where you live and let me worry about where I live.

Why don't comparable cities in other countries have the same violent crime rates?

Also, I don't live in a high rise. Plus, why don't you support state rights on other issues like, say, lynching?

All of the legislators who are running have had a hand in handingh states the mess that they are in. The theme of states rights that Dean has picked up refers not only to giving the people credit in their ability to evaluate the situation in their own region about gun issues, but to sending every state money to match federal mandates.
No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate, and congressional Democrats are going to share the blame because they were part of a Democratic led Senate when it was handed down.

"The gun issue may "conveniently nuetralize" an issue with rural voters, but that doesn't make it right."
I really happen to believe that Dean's position makes sense. I think different regions should make up their own minds on this. A number of liberal legislators agree.
"Nor does it mean that the NRA will endorse anyone but George W. Bush."
So what. I don't think Dean is bucking for the NRA endorsement. Southern voters and voters in swing states that have populations that consider this issue look beyond the NRA to the record. People are smarter than you seem to believe.

Nor does it mean that Dean could possibly win any of the South."
It definitely puts Missouri in play. That is based on historical fact. The legislator I know who voted according to her population's preference on this won two elections despite being pro-choice in a rural area. Missouri is the northern most southern state. You can get a feel for what the south might do by what happens here.

The mythological NE anti-war liberal label is being dispelled very quickly. You should probably give up on that one. It just looks silly when people repeat it.

What's next? Well, it's only a woman's issue, so to hell with pro-choice!? Just think of all the extra votes we can get then!!!!

if you feel the need to play with assault weapons join the Army.

Leave it up to the state, basically.

And Dean supports current gun laws.

The NRA gave him the rating he has because of Dean's record on guns. Dean didn't ask for the rating. Vermont hunts. Gun control won't fly here just like it won't in most rural areas and the south. Dean doesn't forget about poor hunters who use their guns to feed their families. Apparently some candidates are only concerned about urban people.

Than any more gun control laws you could think up.

And do you even know why Dean has an A from the NRA, and that he supports the current gun laws plus closing the gunshow loophole which will immidiatly turn the NRA against him?

Did you know that the NRA in Vermont helped with Dean's efforts for land conservation?

Stop with the guilt by association crap.

if that will get us more votes .. it won't, anyway.. the wingers will never vote for an NRA-lite party, or never feel comfortable taking a neutral position. Think of it this way: if the GOP nominated a "pro-choice lite" candidate for president, would we feel comfortable in NOT opposing that candidate in favor of our real pro-choice party ?

against its own government.

No matter the technological gap, an armed population can still inflcit damage on the most powerful of oppressors.

Owning Guns is sending a direct message to the facists currently in the US government:

Don't tread on me.

I support Dean's support of the Right to Bear Arms. I also support his support of background checks and current federal laws. Dean address the rural/urban issue in gun control and recognizes that states can more effectly deal with the issue of gun control.

Media and elections. However we could go the other way and kill the people trying to help us overthrow the tyrant.

Its ironic that the U.S. military is trying to take away the weapon used for protection from the Iraqi's

The government controls the military, all branches. The planes, the tanks, the missiles, the bombs, the artillery, the satellites, all of it. Special forces, Navy Seals, etc. And you're going to fight them all off with - what - your AK? Your Desert Eagle? Gee, let me know how this works out for you.

Understand - the south is in play in the presidential election, but only so long as the Democratic nominee doesn't even hint that he might try to regulate people's hunting and sports rifles. People there simply do not understand why people who don't even think about breaking the law are being punished because of people who do. Normally liberals jump to the defense of someone being punished for the crimes of another, but not when the issue is guns.

The "F" from the NRA is worse for Kerry's electibility than Civil Unions are for Dean.

- C.D.

regarding the politics of this issue. But how can you defend the argument that gun controls have the effect of "punishing" people for the crimes of others?

The point is to get guns, particularly automatic and high-powered guns, out of the hands of everyone except military and law-enforcement (and if anyone cares to bring up the resist-government argument, refer to post #39). NRA types talk about criminals having guns. Where do they get them? Do they just appear out of the air? Does being a "criminal" mean you can just snap your fingers and make a gun appear?

No. "Criminals" get guns where private citizens get them, or they get them from private citizens (buy, steal, or "borrow" a la Columbine). Cut off the source of guns and ammo for private citizens and you've cut off the source for criminals.

"People get drugs even though they're illegal." You can fit a million dollars worth of cocaine into a small briefcase. When you can fit a million dollars worth of guns and ammo into a small briefcase, I'll be ready to call the gun problem solved in this country.

Again, the political situation is a separate argument. The nominee, whoever it turns out to be, may need to soft-pedal the gun issue (although NO Democrat is going to get NRA support in the actual election!). But that doesn't change the rights and wrongs of it.

Just like prohibition didn't prevent the use of alcohol and having drugs illegal doesn't stop drug use, even it you outlawed guns people would still get them. Then you turn a shitload of people into criminals and toss them in jail just like what happens with drug users. Take a look at this from that perspective.

As long as guns are made in the world, people will obtain them. As long as there are machine shops in America, there will be guns to buy. As long as there are boats to smuggle guns with, people will get them.

Guns aren't the problem, criminals are the problem. Take the criminals off the street and leave the guns alone. No gun every killed anyone by itself. Don't blame the tool, blame the one using it improperly. Don't violate my constitutional rights because someone else did something wrong.

You can make booze in a bathtub. People did. You can make drugs in a garbage can. People do. If people can really make guns from scratch in a machine shop (not counting kits, which should also be illegal), they'll be cheap, crummy guns, not one-eighth as dangerous as the high-powered and automatic weapons you can get today (or easily convert). Bathtub gin was more dangerous than commercial gin. Machine shop guns would be less dangerous than manufactured guns. Do the math.

As far as the black market and smuggling is concerned, the reason those operations defy law enforcement is because they are so immensely profitable. There is a huge and constant demand for drugs and alcohol, because people are addicted to them. You can smuggle a million dollars worth of cocaine in a small briefcase. When you can smuggle a million dollars worth of guns and ammo in a small briefcase, the gun problem in this country will be pretty much solved.

The MOST dangerous kind of gun is one that doesn't fire properly.

And it doesn't matter what gun laws there are, it's NOT going to prevent anyone from getting a gun if they want to get one. Kits or no kits, banning or no banning. I don't think you realize how important gun rights are to people. There's no way the government would even be able to take people's guns away. It would cause widespread riots and a revolution. It would make for a million Wacos. Besides, it's a constitutional right to own guns. That Amendment was put in for a reason...to protect us from not only invasion by an unfriendly force but also to protect us from our own government should it go awry...kinda like where it's heading now. Gun control loses elections which gives the right support it wouldn't otherwise have. Gun control doesn't stop gun crime. If a criminal doesn't kill with a gun they will kill with something else if killing is what they want to do.

1) A gun that doesn't fire properly is more dangerous to THE SHOOTER, but infinitely less dangerous to society at large. A gun that rapidly fires high-powered ammo is the most dangerous to society at large.

2) Governments of other countries successfully control guns. Not 100% perhaps, but a big improvement on the situation in the U.S.

3) The Consitutional right refers to state and local militias. We don't have those any more - we have a professional military. And in the 1780s, they were talking about muzzle-loading muskets, not the modern death-machines.

4) Think about the military resources available to the government and what your entire collection of personal firearms would do pitted against them. Then remember Jim Crow, McCarthyism, the Great Depression, slavery, the Mexican War, the holocaust against Native Americans, and other horrors from American history, and ask yourself if we are REALLY getting close to the point when an uprising of armed citizens is called for. Also remember that the most effective protests have always been peaceful ones, e.g. King's march on Washington.

5) Whole classes of killings depend on guns and would not be possible otherwise. For three obvious ones, consider drive-by shootings, long-distance sniping, and shooting up a Luby's or a post office. And knives, unlike guns, have other important uses (shooting paper targets is NOT an important use).

6) You're probably right about the politics of it, but that doesn't make the NRA right or gun control wrong.

"The point is to get guns, particularly automatic and high-powered guns, out of the hands of everyone except military and law-enforcement (and if anyone cares to bring up the resist-government argument, refer to post #39)."

Why do you feel that you have the right to tell me what I can or can not POSSESS? I'm not talking about criminal laws which regulate the USE of a weapon (be it a gun, knife, slingshot or baseball bat). But what you are arguing for gives you and/or the government the authority to control what object I can possess.

Do you really trust a government enough to allow them that type of control? If so, why not allow them control over who may pray, where they may pray and to which God they may pray? Why not allow the government to control who may or may not have children and who may be forced into having an abortion? Do you realy trust any political entity that much?

I am a liberal, by golly, and I believe that the individual should have more rights than the government. Why y'all seem to turn into conservatives when guns are mentioned is beyond me. Please remember that conservative political theory is based on a distrust of the individual and a belief in government control for the "good" of the individual. As such, your belief in favor of gun control actually makes you a conservative on that issue.

Please don't act like you have the right to tell me what I can possess. And no, I don't own any guns.

The government has all kinds of laws about what you can and can't possess, buy or sell. Drugs are only the most obvious example. You can't own, buy or sell plutonium, anthrax, nerve gas, or dioxin either. You can't own a tank or an operational rocket launcher. The right of other people to be safe supersedes your "right" to possess these things.

I'm pretty sure you are confusing liberalism with libertarianism. Liberals believe in active government which works to solve societal problems.

If you think you're the last liberal in Texas, I should tell you that I live in Laredo. Also, you might swing by Austin sometime - there's a whole swarm of us there.

surely you are not saying that guns should be treated in the same manner as plutonium.

And I am not arguing for libertarian style non-enforcement of regulations. Reasonable restrictions and regulations are of course legitimate. But an outright ban (that wouldn't work anyway)? That is what I disagree with.

I simply do not believe that an unarmed populace is the answer. So I may sound paranoid, but I do not want to live in a country where only government officials have access to weapons. That just sounds a little too much like Party control of the former Soviet Union. And living in Laredo, you can figuratively look past your backyard and see an example of a country where the government decides what is best for its citizens.

Personally, I actually feel that the failed war on drugs is almost perfectly analogous to the gun control debate. Why do we think prohibition will work with guns when it didn't with alcohol and hasn't with other drugs? And for that reason, I don't belive that gun control works to actually make any of us safer. I still see education and jobs as the best proven crime fighting tools we have.

It isn't the gun that's the problem. It's the person's desire to do something bad with the gun that is the problem. And the old adage is true- if they don't have a gun, they'll use a knife. Or a baseball bat. Or a tire iron. Or an icepick. Or a steak knife. The list of potential weapons is endless. So do we try to ban those too? Almost everyone would say that is ridiculous, so why do we try with guns?

Personally, I don't see what the fascination is with guns- on either side of this debate. I have shot several, especially at water mocassins invading our property (proof that guns aren't used only for killing people). But I have actually never owned one, and probably never will. But I still believe that as a rational adult with no criminal record, that choice should be up to me.


:hi: I'm in the Beaumont area btw, so I border another country too. (that is just a joke to any of our LA Duers!)

Regarding plutonium, why not? It's only a question of degree, not a question of principle.

The problem with reasonable restrictions and regulations is that they don't work. They are riddled with loopholes. Someone without a criminal record buys a gun legally and then sells it for a profit under the table - that's what happened at Columbine. Nothing short of a nationwide ban is going to work.

Again, you can make booze in a bathtub, you can make PCP in a garbage can. You can't make an effective firearm without at least a kit. And you can smuggle a million bucks worth of cocaine in a briefcase. And people don't get addicted to guns. The war on drugs and prohibition are a lousy analogy for gun control.

You can't do a drive-by with a knife. You can't snipe with a baseball bat. You can't stab up a Luby's with an ice pick. Many kinds of violent crimes carried out in public would be stopped by bystanders if there was no gun. Also, wounds from hand weapons are more surviveable, especially since there would probably be fewer of them (you hardly ever hear about single gunshots, except in the case of accidents and snipers). And a tire-iron isn't likely to go off by accident, or be used by kids in a game of cops and robbers. And you can't change a tire or cut a steak or hit a baseball or chop up ice with a gun. They're only good for shooting at people or animals.

"We cannot but pity the boy who has never fired a gun; he is no more humane, while his education has been sadly neglected. This was my answer wih respect to those youths who were bent on this pursuit, trusting they would soon outgrow it. No humane being, past the thoughtless age of boyhood, will wantonly murder any creature which holds its life by the same tenure that he does. . . . Such is oftenest the young man's introduction to the forest, and the most original part of himself. He goes thither at first as a hunter and fisher, until at last, if he has the seeds of a better life in him, he distinguishes his proper objects, as a poet or naturalist it may be, and leaves the gun and fish-ple behind. the mass of men are still and always young in this respect."

To remove the ability to choose between acting humanely and not acting humanely, does not mean one become humane by default.

Thoreau is basically saying that though he disapproves of the act of hunting, it is not his place or the place of society to remove this rite of maturation from those who choose to go through it. Guns are a part of our society. We can either choose to create a society that accepts that, educates people regarding guns, the proper use and handling to develop the respect such a tool deserves or we can create a society that tries to criminalize something many people see as a necessary part of their life. You can argue until you are blue in the face on why someone doesn't need a certain gun. All the owner of that gun sees is someone trying to deprive him of property.

Laws can be passed against 'military weaponry' with general ease, especially in this climate. Is there really any reason why the average citizen needs a rocket propelled grenade, and how many actually own such an item?

Beyond that, the laws need to be made on a community by community basis. A gun in Montana or Tennessee is an entirely different concept than a gun in L.A. or Chicago.

>>All the owner of that gun sees is someone trying to deprive him of property.<<

You realize this is the same reaction you get from a toddler when you try to take that candy away from them right before supper.

Thoreau died in the mid-1800's. I could be wrong, but I believe the gun's role in society has changed somewhat since then. I doubt that there are few people now who need a gun to acquire dinner or they will go hungry or to defend themselves from wild animals. I didn't say that there weren't ANY people who needed a gun for this, just that there must be relatively fewer of them now than in 1850.

> You realize this is the same reaction you get from a toddler when you try to take that candy away from them right before supper.

Except in this case, the gun owner can vote. Your appeal towards some concept of a higher good falls flat when the person owning the gun can easily vote for someone who isn't threatening to take it away. If we take your analogy a step further, the child has a choice between the parent who is going to take the candy away and the parent who isn't.

Eventually, given enough information, the child will eventually choose to put the candy away (but not give it up) and eat dinner.

Thoreau hunted and fished but became a vegetarian after his time at Walden (probably not an ovo-lacto vegetarian). He had a great amount of respect for the cultures of the East and had a burgeoning respect for animals.

> I doubt that there are few people now who need a gun to acquire dinner or they will go hungry or to defend themselves from wild animals.

When was the last time you visited Montana? This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. In some locations, people still hunt for food out of necessity. Why should they be subject to the gun laws of New York? This is why Dean's stance is the most rational one being put forward in the whole gun debate.

I have a friend who lives in Montana and my sister lives in Wyoming. My niece goes to school in Idaho. None of the them have to hunt for their dinner. I would assume that hunting for your dinner in this day and age is a personal choice.

But I get the argument. People should have the right to hunt if that is what floats their boat.

can be a gun in L.A. or Chicago tomorrow. What is there to stop it? Do we have border checks or customs searches at state or municipal borders? That's why community-basis laws don't work.

They do. They have.

Which remains unchanged...

Vermont has the lowest homicide rate in the United States. During my eleven years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm.

If you say “gun control” in Vermont, Tennessee, or Colorado, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.

I believe the federal gun laws we have—like the Brady Bill—are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

DJCairo, still think Dean supports people procuring AK47s?

Gun Policy: Dean received an "A" grade from the NRA. However, N.R.A.. executive director Wayne LaPierre says Dean today is "totally trying to have it both ways." Yes, Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation. But Dean opposes a federal bill that would grant gunmakers immunity from lawsuits and supports background checks for buyers at gun shows—two positions that put him at odds with the N.R.A.. He agrees with most positions of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

http://selectsmart.com/president/Dean.html

How about now?

Gun Legislation: The "A" rating that Dean has received from the NRA is chilling, but it has to be taken in context. As Lance Bukoff points out, "the NRA rating system is actually rather 'passive' in its assessment of politicians. Put simply but accurately, an 'A' rating is 'earned' by not voting for or promoting any laws which would restrict gun ownership. Dean observes that Vermont is not NYC or LA or Philadelphia. Vermont is a state where gun violence does not occur in any way significant enough to warrant restrictive gun control laws, unless you take the deer's point of view, of course. So he says Vermont does not need them, and he did not sign any, and he did not promote any as a governor, and as a consequence he gets an 'A' rating from the NRA, but not because he shares a duck blind with NRA members. He goes further. He says he supports the Brady bill, he supports the assault gun ban, and he supports closing the gun show sale loopholes. And he also tells voters in states like New York, 'We don't need gun control laws in Vermont, but you probably do, and if that's the case you should make them.'"

"The Progressive Case For Dean": http://deandefense.org/archives/000596.html

Still think he'll be going to the NRA Ball at his innauguration, DJcairo?

:eyes:

I'm proud of him.

I make a nice profit, too. What's the harm in that? If people in Brooklyn want to go quail hunting with a semi-automatic, that's their Constitutional right.

sounds fun :evilgrin:

Seems some of the best come from Vermont, and you can defininatly bring them to NY and make a profit. But aren't they illegal under the same Federal Law in every state? How well is that working?

I can't see forcing alot of BS rules from a bunch of city boys on the good people of Vermont. If they want to manufacture and sell weapons, that's their business. What are you, some sort of commie pinko? Don't you know the 2nd amendment guarantees a well regulated militia?

Otherwise, we should probably be talking about Connecticut - right?

Or, do you have an issue at all? Just spinning wheels at the (other) Doctor's expense? :-)

My main concern is that the weapons will be transported from the forests to the urban jungles. But there are definitely weapons that do not need to be manufactured at all for civilians consumption. You're right that Connecticut would be the most immediate problem, but it also comes from Southern states along the coastline as well.

<>

It was the first question I was asked at our first Meetup, in fact. When I explained Dean's position to the group (and they were mostly Democrats, a couple Greens, a few anti-war activists, and at least two independents) they shook their heads in agreement.

I picked up the phone last week to hear a southern voice stating he was so and so from the NRA. I laughed and asked why in the world he would be calling me I'm the LAST person he should be spending time on. This is funny - he then asked to speak to Mr. blanketyblank (my husband and I have different last names). I told him there was no Mr. blanketyblank and hung up.

In retrospect, I should have asked why he was calling. Was he calling asking for support for w or Dean?

"National Recluse Association"

Do you get out much?

And, like the National Rifle Association, I guarantee you they won't be garnering support for Dean anytime soon.

by much of the Democratic Party if he gets the nomination.

I'm pretty sure that Clinton would come out swinging against Dean.

If Dean somehow gets the nomination and doesn't get behind federal gun control, he'll lose many votes, including mine.

Dean and his supporters must be more delusional than I thought if they think we're going to lay down over this issue. The gun happy NRA sympathizing Democrats will be opposed forcefully and vocally. If you guys think that we're going to stand by and let our party be hijacked by the NRA, you've got another thing coming.

Let's see how many votes you lose from the swing areas (which are mostly suburban) for every vote you gain in the rural areas (they'll pick the real NRA party over NRA-lite any day).

He is behind the Federal Gun Laws:

"I believe the federal gun laws we have—like the Brady Bill—are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed. Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong.

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric."

is pure garbage. Most of the guns used in crimes in metropolitan areas are trafficked from the south/rural states. Therefore it's not a state's rights issue, it's a federal one, requiring strong federal laws regulating and tracking owernship of guns -- ALL guns.

I want to hear him denounce the NRA as an extremist organization. He must support the Democratic Party's stance on gun control as advocated by Clinton/Gore. That is the only way he will get my vote if he is nominated. If he thinks he is going to get the libertarian/right wing/conservative/redneck vote AND mine, he is sorely mistaken. Hear this: this will divide the Democratic Party in the general election if he somehow manages to squeak out the nomination. It would be worse than McGovern because the Democratic Party machinery would be in revolt. Clinton (who holds the biggest influence over the party) will not support any NRA-lite stance.

I agree with Dean and the views of the progressive Sam Smith:

Why progressives should stop pushing for more gun control laws

-- There are already thousands of them, too many of which don't work. Every ineffective law brings government into disrepute.

-- Prohibition of something that large numbers of citizens want always fail, witness the war on the drugs. It merely increases the value of the prohibited item and changes the distributors from honest people to crooks.

-- Gun control laws are highly divisive to no good end. Since they don't work well, why get everyone so mad about them? Progressives should instead start finding issues that make people happy.

-- Treating gun laws as a national issue exacerbates cultural conflict, such as those between rural and urban, east and west, wealthy and not so well off. Telling rural Westerners to get rid of their guns is like telling an urban blacks to stop reading African-American books.

-- There is no evidence that members of the NRA murder people at a higher rate than non-members. It is insulting to gun owners to speak as though they did.

-- The push for gun restrictions and prohibition is interwoven with the drive to restrict other citizen liberties and erode democracy. Progressives once opposed such moves, but in recent have been no-shows. Progressives need to became civil libertarians again.

-- America no longer has a strong, reliable democracy. It has been deeply corrupted and is being brutally manipulated. We are also losing our major defense against tyranny: the spirit and will of the people. An armed citizenry is a reasonable back-up plan.

-- People who drive around cities in four-wheel drive SUVs shouldn't lecture others on what safety precautions are permissible.

-- The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. I didn't say that. Thomas Jefferson did.

-- Progressives should stop treating average Americans as though they were alien creatures. Progressives haven't just lost elections because of their issues but because of their attitudes as well.

Do you have a link for that? I'd like to send it to a few friends.

It's in the middle of the 'Real facts about guns and violence' from the Progressive Review.

http://prorev.com/guns.htm

Let's see. The quotes from 1789 are irrelevant. Back then there was no standing army and a gun was a muzzle-loading musket that took about thirty seconds to load - useless for street crime. All the DC stuff proves is that guns laws need to be federal to be effective - there's no point in DC prohibiting what Virginia allows because you can WALK from Virginia to DC. Brit Hume seems to have overlooked the fact that the crime rate in the WHOLE COUNTRY has dropped in the last 19 years, not just the crime rate in Kennesaw Georgia - but of course the Kennesaw mandatory firearm ownership law is responsible for that too, right? H.L. Mencken was a crank who also supported the presidency of Warren G. Harding.

The statistic that guns have been used successfully to deter crime "around two million times per year" is a great zonking lie, and every permutation based on it (like "Less than one out of every thousand times people use guns defensively is the attacker killed") is likewise a lie. Where does the two million figure come from? It is simply made up. Nobody records instances of crimes that DID NOT OCCUR. So we simply assume that every time a gun is present and a bank isn't robbed or a person doesn't get mugged, that gun prevented a crime.

All the nonsense about children who get guns from their parents being less prone to crime would evaporate if the figures were adjusted for socioeconomic class. And is anyone surprised that people who get guns illegally are more likely to commit crimes? It doesn't follow that guns should be legal, but that they should be harder to get.

The "middle section" is fact free, and the ideas in it have already been roundly refuted.

The "knife control" stuff is just silly. When we have drive-by knifings or you can point a knife out a window to snipe at someone 100 yards away, talk to me about knife control. All the stuff about Nazi Germany is a cheap smear. It would be just as reasonable to compare "law abiding gun owners" to the Manson Family or the mafia.

John R. Lott's garbage-in-garbage-out "research" has been thoroughly refuted in other fora. All the stuff about Australia fails to take into account that Australia began as a prison colony, which might explain the crime problem there.

So what does that leave? Anything?

You do realize that we are the only modern country to allow the purchase of hand guns and assault weapons. On this issue, just like abortion there are many Americans, including yourself who simply are out of step and stubbornly resistant to what most of the rest of the civilized world has already realized. YOU MAKE ASSAULT WEAPONS AVAILABLE TO JUST ANYONE.

Dean is for the Assault weapon ban. He's always been for it. He supports it's renewal. Any questions?

I'll vote for Kerry in the Primary if you can find a quote where Dean advocates making assault weapons available to anyone in any state.

But, then you'd have to ignore these quotes:

"My attitude toward guns is this: We don’t want guns in the hands of criminals, I agree; We don’t want assault weapons, that’s fine. I don’t know any hunters who want an AK-47 to kill a deer."

"I believe we should keep and enforce the federal gun laws we have - including the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill - and close the gun show loophole using Insta-check and then let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun control laws they want."

http://www.csulb4dean.org/guns.htm

or this...

Justice for Gun Victims Praises Howard Dean for Opposing Legal Immunity for Gun Industry; Calls on Other Candidates to Do Same

WASHINGTON - April 10 - Justice for Gun Victims today praised former Vermont Governor Howard Dean for opposing attempts to immunize the gun industry from legal action. Dean's announcement came during a Children's Defense Fund forum featuring all nine Democratic presidential candidates, and just hours after the full U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1036, a bill that shields gun makers and dealers from legal action even if they act irresponsibly.

In response to a question by journalist Mark Shields, Dean said, as president, he would veto H.R. 1036 and any legislation that singles out the gun industry for special protection. Dean also voiced support for renewing the federal assault weapons ban, which expires in 2004, and for closing the gun show loophole.

Justice for Gun Victims urged the other eight presidential candidates to strongly oppose H.R. 1036 and S. 659, its Senate companion.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0410-04.htm

Good luck!

I believe the federal gun laws we have—like the Brady Bill—are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed.

As for me being out of step because more common sense should be exercised on both sides of the gun control issue, I'll walk to the beat of that drum always. One shoe doesn't fit all environments. For example, if a rabid skunk wanders onto your property and is a threat to children/livestock then a rural person would find it preferable to shoot the rabid critter as opposed to clubbing it to death with a baseball bat. Urban people encounter different circumstances which might require checking one's firearms at the city limits. Some of the gun control extremists do remind me of pro-lifers.

First of all, the NRA would have a fit over this. Secondly, no one is worried about the people who would bother to check their firearms in.

Some of the anti-gun control people remind me of lawyers.

You do realize that we are the only modern country to allow the purchase of hand guns and assault weapons.

That's true only if you define "modern country" as a country where purchases of handguns and assault weapons are banned.

-- There are already thousands of them, too many of which don't work. Every ineffective law brings government into disrepute.

Then simplify and intensify the laws. This is a ridiculous argument.

-- Prohibition of something that large numbers of citizens want always fail, witness the war on the drugs. It merely increases the value of the prohibited item and changes the distributors from honest people to crooks.

No one is worried about the honest people. Secondly, no one is calling for the prohibition of all firearms. But there are reasonable restrictions.

-- Gun control laws are highly divisive to no good end. Since they don't work well, why get everyone so mad about them? Progressives should instead start finding issues that make people happy.

Uh....

-- Treating gun laws as a national issue exacerbates cultural conflict, such as those between rural and urban, east and west, wealthy and not so well off. Telling rural Westerners to get rid of their guns is like telling an urban blacks to stop reading African-American books.

Again, no one is telling people they can't keep their rifle collections. Stockpiles are another story, though. Do you really want me to point out the difference between books and weapons?

-- There is no evidence that members of the NRA murder people at a higher rate than non-members. It is insulting to gun owners to speak as though they did.

Who said they did? Its their agenda that creates the conditions for higher murder rates. Secondly, I absolutely support weapon education for children. My uncle brought me down to the range when I was a kid and taught me to respect firearms. I am still uncomfortable calling them "guns."

-- The push for gun restrictions and prohibition is interwoven with the drive to restrict other citizen liberties and erode democracy. Progressives once opposed such moves, but in recent have been no-shows. Progressives need to became civil libertarians again.

The right to privacy and the right to possess unreasonable firearms are NOT "interwoven." I am a civil libertarian, but I also plan to raise my children in an urban environment.

-- America no longer has a strong, reliable democracy. It has been deeply corrupted and is being brutally manipulated. We are also losing our major defense against tyranny: the spirit and will of the people. An armed citizenry is a reasonable back-up plan.

Um...holy sh*t? Did you really just say that?

-- People who drive around cities in four-wheel drive SUVs shouldn't lecture others on what safety precautions are permissible.

How many people at this forum do you think really drive SUVs? In fact, you bring up a good point about reasonable safety. People buy SUVs for safety just like people buy firearms for safety. But do they really make America safe?

-- The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. I didn't say that. Thomas Jefferson did.

So did John Wilkes Booth.

-- Progressives should stop treating average Americans as though they were alien creatures. Progressives haven't just lost elections because of their issues but because of their attitudes as well.

Progressives ARE average Americans.

Gun control is NOT just a deep south issue. The gun control issue could lose Kerry both the south and a LOT of the rural northeast, and forget about the midwest and the southwest.

Dean's position on this is sensible. It is also the only one that will win.

People are really going to vote based on gun control? It is like the environment. People believe very strongly in it, but ultimately the economy and national security trump all.

the ownership/government intervention policies concerning firearms.

He never makes everyone 'happy' and embodies 'new' democratic thinking. He'll be elected without every voter's support. I'm predicting that 33% of the voters will not support him in Nov. '04 for whatever reasons.

Dean '04...