Who here supports gun control?

I feel a little out of place. I think the NRA is a truly evil, rotten organization that has been taken over by the GOP. But so many DUers seem fairly or even stridently pro-gun and even sympathetic to the NRA.

We were making some progress legislatively under Clinton is stemming the flood of handguns in America. We have tens of thousands of needless murders because of the stupid profusion of weapons in this nation.

Why are Democrats suddenly making overtures to the gun nuts? It's like staring through the looking-glass.

Does anyone else think that stemming the tide of murder and domestic bloodshed is more important than making sure that crazy people have the right to have weapons?

Am I the only one looking at this in astonishment? Am I the only one who thinks that making this lurch for the sake of "electability" misreads political reality altogether?

(edit: minor correction)

I dont think most are, it does feel to me and Ive been here a while that being more pro gun has been acceptable with people like Dean in the race. I hate the NRA too,

I'm watching on the CSPAN for the first time outside of a debate. I really understand the appeal: ideas like his--which I don't always agree with, to be honest--frankly need a louder hearing in this country.

I don't think he should be the nominee, but people like him need a far larger role in our politics.

btw we may share candiates but that man in your avatar well hes a big hero.

I support the banning of assault weapons and I would like certain styles of handguns to be banned or harder to get

I do believe that the 2nd amendement DOES guarantee the right for citizens to bear arms, but that right can be restricted without being removed.

guns arent my thing, I dont like the NRA one bit.

I've had two family members who were victims of gun violence. I hate guns. Vietnam cured me of guns, too. Fuck a bunch of guns.

I agree it is so strange to see Dems like Dean in favor with the NRA, an organization that has typically been associated with the GOP.

We already have a president the NRA loves in office, time for a change.

On the details, I would not be for a total ban, but much, much, stricter controls on firearms. And absolutely no assault weapons allowed in non-military hands.

Not a total ban, but far stricter control. You know Grover Norquest--of taxes==Holocaust fame--is on the board of the NRA. . .

yeah...I guess Gore was a Repuke tool

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q13

Let's see, pro-gun contributions split up 93% to the GOP and 7% to Democrats in 2000. 2002 was almost identical.

But those are pesky facts. I apologize for bringing them up.

among his inbred knot of followers in 2000....

Ad Hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

"one of Bush's closest pals, Charlton Heston, said virtually the exact same language about then Vice-President Al Gore during the 2000 election campaign. Speaking to an NRA "Get Out the Vote for Bush Rally" in Grand Rapids Michigan, Heston, in October of 2000, said something that should have resulted in a visit from the Secret Service: "Now, saying 'I'm with you guys on guns.' In any other time or place you'd be looking for a lynching mob." The crowd responded with "let's do it" and "I've got a rope," according to a Grand Rapids newspaper."

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/04/11.html


"Mr. President, on October 16, 2000, Mr. Charlton Heston, President of the National Rifle Association (NRA), gave a speech at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan. On the campaign trial in Michigan, Mr. Heston asserted that Vice-President Al Gore's position on guns had changed and suggested that "in any other time or place, you'd be looking for a lynching mob."

Mr. President, such inflammatory and extremist remarks are an outrage. The NRA itself should condemn them. The fact that an average of ten children suffer gun-related deaths each day demands that we work together to end gun violence, yet Mr. Heston's comments serve only to further polarize the debate over guns and gun safety.

Although some in the crowd at the NRA rally in October may have been in support of Mr. Heston's rhetoric, the majority of people in Michigan reject the hate that was exuded by NRA's leader that October day in Michigan. In November, voters in Michigan also demonstrated that they oppose the tactics of the gun lobby and voters around the country voiced their support for gun safety measures, such as closing the gun show loophole that gives youth and criminals illegitimate access to firearms. "

http://levin.senate.gov/releases/012501pr1.htm

personal attack/ad hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html
try attacking his position on gun control

Guess he knew the sort of inbred specimens he was addressing....

Ad Hominem again
"The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)." http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

however desperately you want to spin it away...

argument to refute the POSITION of the NRA I will continue this discussion. I agree that it was a poor choice of words, but that does not mean his position on gun control issues is wrong. It is an ad hominem fallacy to dismiss their position by not addressing the position itself, but something they said/did. This back and forth is going nowhere.
:boring:

and all your spin and pouting wonn't channge it.

"that does not mean his position on gun control issues is wrong"
Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre....

You obviously don't understand that saying "Hitler practised genocide" is an ad personam argument.

You just have to stop looking at facts and seeing facts.

.

this all grew out of the absurd claim that the NRA SUPPORTED Al Gore...

ad hominem by Bench. Please stop doing that, I would much prefer rational arguement.

not call for lynching the Vice President of the United States.

I find it hilarious that "Democrats" are not disturbed by Heston's ignorant comment...but bent out of shape by someone pointing the comment out in public.

when he called for Henry Hyde and his family to be stoned to death?

what is the name of this place?

Are you going to pimp for Republicans again?

But since you brought it up...Charlton Heston called for his lynch mob in the middle of an NRA Klavern...

Where did Alec Baldwin make his remark? Here's a hint...it was a COMEDY program on television.

....which was clearly a joke, made in a non-serious setting, you might as well turn in your Democratic Party credentials. That's strictly FreiRepublik-level stuff, and if you are half as intelligent as you continue to represent yourself to be, you ought to realize that......

that Heston was actually trying to round up a lynching party?

All I ask for is a little consistency...if you're going to condemn one, condemn the other too.

Bad enough you want to pimp for Henry Hyde. But don't pretend there's no difference between a political speech by the head of a extremist special interest group to his constituency and an appearance on a comedy show by a performer in show business,

I think that if you look really, really hard at my previous comment, you might find that I didn't say anything at all about Heston, in any way, shape or form.

And I repeat: your dredging up the Baldwin thing puts you right down in the right-wing agitprop sewer----where the vast portion of RKBA propagandists feel right at home......

where we've got actual NRA propaganda being passed off as "news"

And remember, this all began with the absurd claim that the NRA had backed Al Gore and the Democrats...

He's the one with the consistency problem...

I'm not the one who is unable to tell the difference between comedy and political extremism.......

that doesn't contain an ugly little childish insult? As an NRA member, I guess I must be inbred, huh? You do so much, by your lonesome, to lower the tone of the debate in this forum. I think you're finally going on ignore, just because of your sheer nastiness. I hope when you grow up you learn to conduct yourself in a more civil fashion.

I won't be hearing from....and the downside is?

"You do so much, by your lonesome, to lower the tone of the debate in this forum."
Gee, and yet I'm not the one posting right wing horsecrap.

...if so who did they give money too? And a link if you can.

I like to shoot things, I don't shoot anything living.

I don't need assault weapons, though a high-cap magazine would save the blisters on my thumb from reloading.

self defense?

Or do you just punch tin cans and cardboard?


That's the problem with the Democrats. They come out as anti- self defnese and pro-plinker.

:hi:
too many think it means "take away all your guns"; instead of caving to that, we should educate 'em

and often do, that electability is the ONLY thing that matters- hell, you've participated in enough candidate threads to have seen that. Others say that a principled position on <name your issue> must be the litmus test... and they're usually flamed to a crisp.

IMO, anybody who doesn't support some degree of gun control is farkin' nuts- of course others may argue that a right, once limited, is no longer a right. If Candidate X truly believes that there should be no control, whatsoever, of firearms, or abortion, or lifestyle issues, etc., then more power to him/her. If it's a craven attempt by the Party to "move to the center" then they'll certainly make some folks here happy... and lose another chunk of their historic base.

As opposed to blue-collar union types who tend to be pro-gun, and have abandoned our party in droves because of gun control...

Hmmm...50,000 serious gun control nuts in this country...compared to 80 million gun owners...Which group do we want to piss off? Do the fucking math.

but it should be completely and utterly illegal to manufacture any kind of firearm for purposes other than arming the military.

but I guess I'm "stridently pro-gun".

I have always been a Democratic voter.

I have always supported gun ownership.

This would describe almost everyone in my family.

Perhaps you have generalised what other believe
based you friends and family.

I think this is mostly an urban vs rural split.

and don't like gun control. Hate it when the only ones that have guns are the criminals.
Gun control - both hands on the gun.

For the simple fact that it does seem right when criminals still have guns and guns are being taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. I rather that a criminal assume that I'm packing than assume that I'm not. It prevents me from bring robbed.

As the saying goes, " An Armed Society is a Polite Society"...simply because Joe Blow is going to think twice about being an asshole since anybody could be packing.

and it's manipulated by those who are afraid. Why are you so afraid of your brothers and sisters?

because some of them are assholes? ;-)

My brothers and sisters don't pimp for the racists at the NRA...or pretend they have to carry hidden guns every minute...or fight to put assault weapons on the street....

Everybody I've ever known who just "had to" have a gun was either a raving nutcase or a lowlife.

Because human nature has fundamentally remained the same throughout our evolution. The human predators that exist are infinitely worse than any animal because of their malice. For this reason, I choose to keep tools to effectively prevent them from harming me or my family and vehemently support the right of others to do likewise.

I'm not for a handgun ban but I'm for most forms of gun control.

I really didn't know there were so many pro-gun lefties out there until I got on the Internet. Guns as defense against a tyranical government (that owns tanks and missiles!) seems to be the meeting point for the extreme left and extreme right. It's particularly irksome when people act like the Democrats' pro-gun control stance is something that came out of the Clinton/Gore/DLC/Yuppification of the party in the Nineties, when the national party's been anti-gun since at least LBJ, if not earlier. Or when people who say the party shouldn't abandon its' liberal principles in the face of popular opposition or organized interest groups say we should dump gun control because the NRA is too strong...

Both anti and progun having a nice sane conversation. Just to bad after our NJ friend wakes up in the morning he will turn it to shit. Maybe all gun threads should be held in the evening.

"only respond here if you agree with me."

The meaning of "gun control" varies greatly from person to person.
None of our rights are absolute. The First Ammendment in not absolute. In most places yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater will get you in trouble. All our rights are subject to "reasonable" restrictions. What controls on firearms are reasonable? What is reasonable to some may not be reasonable to others. I think that most here would agree that criminals, children and mentally unstable people should not have access to firearms. How do we effectively prevent these people from getting guns.
The closure of the "gunshow loophole" is promoted by some here as having the ability to greatly reduce criminal access to firearms. There is a study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics that shows that less then 1% of armed criminals obtained their firearms from a gunshow(1). The truth of the matter is that the Federal requirements to purchase a firearm are the same at a Gunshow as at any other place. Unless prohibited by local laws the transfer of firearms between individuals residing in the same state does not require a background check. Closing the "gunshow" loophole will not prohibit private sales except at gunshows. Since less the 1% of armed criminals get thier guns from gunshows, closing the "gunshow loophole" will have little if any effect on reducing gun violence. However if we focus on requiring a backgound check on all firearms sales I think we can have a greater effect on reducing gun crime.
Much has also been said about renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. The CDC recently reported that thier many studies on the effects of gun control are inconclusive. The National Institue of Justice has reported that the AWB temporarily reduced gun crime, but that the reduction was not permanant.(2) The primary weapon of choice for criminals is the handgun. The reason for this is that a handgun can be easily concealed. The attributes the would make a hand gun into an "assault pistol" make it larger and harder to conceal. Criminals rarely use assault weapons to commit crime. Again if the goal is to reduce crime banning assault weapons will have a minimal effect.
One final note on the matter is that in 1996 "operation ceasefire" in Boston was able to significantly reduce gun crime using the enforcement of existing laws combined with efforts to reduce the underlying causes of violence through community outreach and other programs. This was accomplished without significantly reducing criminal access to firearms(3).
Any proposed legislation should be considered by how it will affect crime.

(1)page 1 of the following PDF file
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
(2)page 9 of the following PDF file
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
(3)page 61 of the following PDF file
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/188741.pdf

You have to consider the source of some of this hooey...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33227&highlight=%2ADemocratic+Underground%2A

"We have tens of thousands of needless murders because of the stupid profusion of weapons in this nation."
And an active shrill fringe group that considers those weapons some sort of sacred fetish.

"Am I the only one who thinks that making this lurch for the sake of "electability" misreads political reality altogether?"
Not at all...the vast majority of ordinary Americans WANTS gun control...and only a vocal fringe that would never vote Democratic under ANY circumstances is opposed.

"Why are Democrats suddenly making overtures to the gun nuts? It's like staring through the looking-glass."

because there are 80 MILLION of them, all of whom are eligible to vote?

because they've been kicking our collective asses on this issue for the past 10 years?

because it's hard to push for other progressive programs when you're stuck out on the sidelines because you didn't get elected due to an anti-gun stance?

Ask yourself this...was it worth Bush getting elected for Gore to push for nationwide FOIDs? because that's EXACTLY what happened...

Every time you guys push this "guns are why Gore lost" you never have the slightest shred of evidence, beyond a bunch of asswipes from the NRA claiming this.

ask posters from West Virginia and Tenn. about it....Why does West Virginia love Byrd, re-electing him by HUGE margins, but not go to Gore?

I get news articles quoting some dishonest asswipe from the NRA....

Measures that keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn'y have them, while allowing law-abiding people who chose to own guns access with minimal delay.

'Machine guns and Uzis'?

Do you support allowing law-abiding people who would choose to own them access with a minimal delay?

this statement is not correct; "Measures that keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn'y have them, while allowing law-abiding people who chose to own guns access with minimal delay."?

If you support 'law-abiding people access to guns with minimal delay' then you would not make an exception for 'machineguns and uzis', because after all 'machineguns and uzis' are are guns.

I'm not saying to ban all guns - just some.

So your 'reasonable' isnt really reasonable to me. I get it.

Right?

and sooner or later you'll find some kind of "ban it" mentality....and you wonder why we don't trust you....

You mean YOU think public safety ought to be tossed aside so some nutcase can have an assault weapon?

Of course, if the claims by AshKKKroft, the NRA, the GOA, the KKK, etc., about the Second Amendment were true, somebody could go to court to have the assault weapons ban overturned. Wonder why they haven't?

Oh that's right...those claims are horseshit.

Which is what some pro-gunners seem to be in favor of.

I don't support felons being able to buy guns. That doesn't mean I'd agree to set up some kind of database to track all guns, or banning all guns to keep felons from getting them.

I DO support law abiding people being able to buy whatever kinds of guns they want as long as they have a clean criminal history and are not insane. ANYTHING that restricts that is unacceptable.

I don't want some yahoo with a mullet going out and buying a howitzer.

I don't want some yahoo with a mullet going out and buying a howitzer.

The paperwork and background check that would be involved with the purchase of a howitzer do not involve declaring your preferred hairstyle.

You do however have to send two passport photos in with your application packet, so they might notice the mullet!

How exactly is that different from denying somebody their civil rights because of their skin color or party affiliation?

...and what do you hope to accomplish?

I'm of the opinion that the constitution provides that every man and woman be able to bear arms.

What arms? Any conventional, man-portable arms. Not nuclear, not bio, not towed artillery, not self propelled artillery.

Keep pushing the gun issue. Guarentee we'll lose the next election so we'll have another glorious four years under *.

"Keep pushing the gun issue. Guarentee we'll lose the next election so we'll have another glorious four years under *. "

Are you saying that the American people are stupid enough to decide who their elected leader is based on a single issue?

You think that Americans will ignore the deaths of thousands of civilians, and hundreds of US and allied troops during an illegal war and vote to keep Bush in the Whitehouse just because his opponent said he may make it more difficult for you to own your precious guns?

You don't seem to hold Americans in a very high regard.

Should the Democrats change their policy on abortion to attract the anti-choice vote?

but according to the RKBA crowd we have to fall in line with the Republicans shriillest and most extreme special interest group...all so we can appeal to the sort of trash who hate civil rights, reproductive choice, labor unions, tolerance, diversity, sanity in foreign affairs and any sort of social safety net.

to support gun ownership any more than you have to be racist to own a gun.

Go on preaching about gun owners that hate TOLERANCE. You seem to be most intolerant of other people's right to keep and bear arms.

"You seem to be most intolerant of other people's right to keep and bear arms."

Out of interest, do you support the Iraqi people's right to keep and bear arms in defense of their homeland?

Isn't that what the "right" to keep and bear arms is all about, defence from tyranny and foreign invasion?

is trying to pretend that the Second Amendment confers some right toindividuals...which is a deliberate lie spread by right wing lunatics like John AshKKKroft, Wayne LaPierre and Grover Norquist.

I noticed that the 2nd reads this way:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Rather than,

"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

or

"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the standing army to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

John AshKKKroft is trying to sell...but it's a lie.

Have the same rights all of us have, including the right to bear arms. Just because a right is infringed upon, that does not mean it ceases to exist.

in bed with the NRA and more than eager to pimp for them on this board.

"Go on preaching about gun owners that hate TOLERANCE."
Happy to....more Democrats should be aware of the sort of scum who clog the aisles of gun shows and make up the LEADERSHIP of the gun nut groups.

That was pro-gun and pro-choice (giving the people the right to decide what is best for them) I would vote for them in a heartbeat. Pro choice will never be a Repug party line, so I am waiting on ANY other candidate to press these views.

Should Democrats go anti-choice to please a few? I don't think so, but I'm not the kind of guy to comprimise. My touchy issue is RKBA, yours might be abortion. What I would like to see is a candidate we can both agree on.

If you had a choice between a candidate that was pro-choice/anti-gun and Bush, who would you vote for?

or somebody similar, or else stay home.

I'm sick of giving my support to fuckwads (regardless of party affiliation) who think they can trash things I hold dear because I couldn't stomach voting for their opposition. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Neither was his pappy. I would probably vote independant in that case.

pResident Turd not pro-gun? Hell, the NRA boasted they'd be worrking out of the White House under this unelected drunk!

The one that stated he would sign an AWB renewal if it crossed his desk?

Or are you talking about his father? The one that used an Executive Order to stifle the flow of surplus weapons into to the US. Some of which were WWII era M1 Garands and 1903 Springfield bolt actions that were loaned to Britain under lend-lease?

with the help of the gun lobby?

"The one that stated he would sign an AWB renewal if it crossed his desk?"
See those WMDs he claimed Iraq had, do you? How do you like the CO2 reduction he claimed he supported?

There's never been a White House occupant more committed to the corrupt gun rights movement.

"Or are you talking about his father? The one that used an Executive Order to stifle the flow of surplus weapons into to the US. "
<sarcasm>Jesus fucking Christ...what a horror! It's a wonder you enthusiasts have the courage to go on when you suffer atrocities like that.</sarcasm>

You're right, a bunch of militarily obsolete rifles made more 60-70 years ago would be atrocious in the hands of collectors. Let us not discuss how 1903 Springfields and M1 Garands wouldn't even be covered by the AWB, but let's not let facts get in the way of an emotional argument, shall we?

Go peddle it to someone who cares. :)

And I don't have to depend on right wing horseshit to do...or blatant lies, like somebody pretending Chimpy McDipstick is in favor of gun control.

Exactly who or what part of the NRA do you feel is evil? The members that are Police officers, the members that happen to be in the military or have served our country in the past or freedom loving Americans who still feel the Bill of Rights means something.

We live in a very violent world and in order to stem that violence we need to arm ourselves, turn that domestic bloodshed into criminal bloodshed, turn the murders into self-defense. This crazy person served in the military to uphold our (yours and mine) constitutional rights. This crazy person stood in a doorway at the age of ten with a 12 gauge shotgun and stopped a criminal from coming through his family’s bathroom window and because of that shotgun the intruder decided to back out of that window very slowly while begging me not to shoot, because of that shotgun everyone in my family and even the burglar lived another day and I’m sure he thought twice before going through another bathroom window.

You can’t expect the police to protect every living soul in the world. Nor do I care to give that much power to them or the government, not only are they not able, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Friends, this world is not a safe place and I think 9-11 has driven that fact home to many Americans. I have never seen the inside of a jail, have lived a civilized life, but the moment our government comes to my door to remove my ability to protect myself and my family is the moment I become a criminal.

Rick

"Exactly who or what part of the NRA do you feel is evil?"
Let's start with the staff and the board members....

“So why not let the corrupt gun industry cash in, eh?”
Hummm… I’m thinking MrBenchley is Canadian… eh?

“Let's start with the staff and the board members.…”
Not even worthy of an answer.

Let's start with the staff and the board members.…

...most of whom are racist right wing scum.

Good lord man, what do you do all day, sit on the computer and respond to message board post with one-liners?

but then I don't HAVE TO have a gun either....

And most of the RKBA crowd's posts don't need much more thann one line of dismissal...

I don't think GC is the answer either. Since the only people who obey GC laws, are law bidding people in the first place. How is that going to curb crime? The answer is not as simple as writing a few laws to prevent few guns from hitting the streets. That is like saying newspapers can only print size 6 font and somehow expect that the news is not going to get out to the people. I believe that every American is smarter then that. Granted the NRA has some serious issues, but who doesn't.

If we want a society that is peaceful, we need to take the time to make it that way in our homes, communities, and cities. Giving people the power and authority to make change is what works. That's what will curb crime. Relying on big brother is no more useful then writing to santa for a new toy. It seems like everyone believes that if they send a dollar to the feds, that somehow everything will be taken care of for them, and all they have to do is sit back watch TV and drink some beer.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that as long as we the people are not willing to put aside trival issue such as race, demographics, age, sex, or class issues, we will continue to be at odds with each other. However, if we only put aside these issues out of fear, well then we will end up with more partiot acts, Assalt Weapon Bans, and other ammendments that remove our freedom and power as a nation. Okay I have said my peace.

John

P.S. I used to be a Rep. but began to have issues with the party about 3 years ago. I am not a Dem. because I think they and the Rep. are in on it together to remove the people's rights and freedoms so that they can have power, wealth, and basically just play god with our lives. I truely believe that if we put aside our differences and concentrate on freedom we can acheive it.

The people who believe in the Republicansi phony "gun rights" issue want ONLY those who agree with them to post in THEIR thread.

And the people who think reasonable gun control is worth pursuing ask "who else believes in gun control," and get flooded with RKBA types angrily shouting that they DON'T.