The gun debate is growing

Second Amendment or gun rights activists brought their handguns and unloaded rifles on Monday to a gun rights rally in northern Virginia, while hundreds of unarmed gun rights activists gathered in Washington D.C. for a day of protest. Those who gathered in Virginia pledged to keep their weapons unloaded as state law requires so, however the District of Columbia has strict gun laws. The ironly of this is that people are permitted to carry guns in Virginia due to an Obama administration decision that permitted protesters to bring guns into parks operated by the National Park Service.

Protesters who converged at the Washington Monument carried signs which read "Which part of 'shall not be infringed' confuses you?" and wore bright orange stickers that read "Guns save lives". In Alexandria, Virginia, former Alabama Minutemen leader Mike Vanderboegh addressed the crowd of protesters and said armed confrontation should only occur when the government is threatening people's lives. But he also said it might be justified if people might be arrested for refusing to purchase health insurance required under the recently passed health reform insurance legislation.

If I know I'm not going to get a fair trial in federal court...I at least have the right to an unfair gunfight.

So essentially, this was another day for insecure, ignorant and angry white people to assert their ignorance and discontent that a black man is in the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, proponents of gun-control, including relatives of those killed in the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado eleven years ago, are pressuring legislators to restrict selling guns to criminals and the mentally ill. With many high-profile newspaper advertisements, they're also attempting to counter protests by gun rights activists in Virginia and Washington D.C.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence placed ads in the Denver Post and Boulder Daily Camera today in which Tom Mauser, whose son was murdered in the Columbine massacre, petitioned Colorado State Democratic Senator Mark Udall to assist in closing the gun show loophole.

http://progressiverambler.blogspot.com/2010/04/gun-debate-is-growing.html

:hi:

I would have control over these gun-toting racists....and there would be no protection under 2nd amendment.

Because like it or not, some of us are just as ready to throw law and personal liberty under the bus as Bush was when it's OUR issues.

certain constitutional rights you've determined they aren't entitled to?

the AWB was your Waterloo.

In Post #1 we have someone telling us that no one is trying to "take their guns" so "FUGGEM"

The very next post is an assumedly "progressive" guy that can't wait to take all the guns.

You pro gun control guys just crack me up! Get your damn story straight before you start ranting. Either no one wants to take all the guns or you do. Pick one and at least be consistently ignorant on the issue.

I'm beginning to think that everyone that wants to post about how "No one wants to take your guns" should be required to read a full weeks postings in the Gungeon.

After which they can post freely and tell us again how no Democrat wants to take your guns, except a lot of the self defined progressives here and a bunch of high ranking people in Congress and the Administration. But other than that no one.

Did they not think anyone would notice that the factions are contradicting each other?

Geez, no wonder they're losing...

is an example of "tyranny by majority" and it's a damn good thing we live in a REPUBLIC with a constitution of unalienable rights.

Bunk Hill?

they probably will say RKBA is incorporated under the 14th in McDonald v. Chicago.

IMO the gun debate is not growing but the msm is beating the drums for the losers in the debate, the anti-RKBA minority.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but, it tells me enough about the post that it's worthless to click through. :smoke:

And it would seem that paranoid folks with guns are dangerous folks....

I'm not very fond of this handful of demonstrators, nor am I afraid of their guns. But they know how to pull MSM's strings.

And to think, a lot of controller/prohibitionists think pro-2A folks are "living in fear!"

when the government is threatening people's lives. So, we are waiting for Glenn Beck to tell them when that occurs?

Or Federal Flight Deck Officers?

If only air marshals have guns, if only flight deck officers have guns, we are defenseless! We are at the mercy of criminals and terrorists.

Today Starbucks, tomorrow Southwest!

Who's with me?

You're being a jackass.

Well, except for the "all" part. It's supposed to be about freedom of choice.

Or did I miss something? :sarcasm: :evilgrin:

Starbucks is not responsible for my life in their store. You understand that right?

Sounded good coming out, but fall flat in the face of reality.

Ever had an actual thought?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you lost go home. Gun control stopped being a useful platform when Newt walked into office on the failed AWB.

I mean, violent confrontation should only occur when the government is threatening people's lives, I can't say it makes any sense to disagree with that. If the government is actively taking people's lives, it is absolutely our duty as citizens to knuckle our government back into the realm of righteousness if they are doing that sort of thing. Hopefully we won't all be "good Germans", to use the old term, if that ever were to be the case. I can't see that happening though, we are overall supremely decent, people who live in this country have a strong tendency to be good to each other, or stand-offish at worst.

I'm not sure about the health care bit, I can't picture that as being something people will be arrested for. I wouldn't support violence over that anyway, that's the picture of an ideal civil disobedience situation.

Who wouldn't be supportive of a person arrested and jailed for not being able to buy health insurance? I don't know of anyone who can afford it who doesn't have it. I would have it, but a nasty divorce is diverting all my money, so I just hope I don't come down with anything major, and hope to not get hit with big penalties for not having any.

Cause I can't pay fines right now either.

and as a gun owning Democrat with a concealed weapons permit, I can assure you that racism has nothing to do with my support of RKBA.

Racism has far more to do with the gun control side of the argument as gun control has deep roots in racism.

The object of gun control has always been to keep "those people" from owning firearms.

The following info comes from a brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case. It's well worth reading the entire document.

Directly targeted at poor city blacks ostensibly to protect them from gun violence.

There is little doubt that the earliest gun controls in the United States were blatantly racist and elitist in their intent. San Francisco civil-liberties attorney Don B. Kates, Jr., an opponent of gun prohibitions with impeccable liberal credentials (he has been a clerk for radical lawyer William Kunstler, a civil rights activist in the South, and an Office of Economic Opportunity lawyer), describes early gun control efforts in his book Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptic Speak Out. As Kates documents, prohibitions against the sale of cheap handguns originated in the post-Civil War South. Small pistols selling for as little as 50 or 60 cents became available in the 1870s and '80s, and since they could be afforded by recently emancipated blacks and poor whites (whom agrarian agitators of the time were encouraging to ally for economic and political purposes), these guns constituted a significant threat to a southern establishment interested in maintaining the traditional structure.

***snip***

Those who argue that the concern about cheap handguns is justified because these guns are used in most crimes should take note of Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America, by sociologists James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi, and Kathleen Daly. The authors, who undertook an exhaustive, federally funded, critical review of gun issue research, found no conclusive proof that cheap handguns are used in crime more often than expensive handguns. (Interestingly, the makers of quality arms, trying to stifle competition, have sometimes supported bans on cheap handguns and on the importation of of cheap military surplus weapons. Kates observes that the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned mail-order gun sales and the importation of military surplus firearms, "was something domestic manufacturers had been impotently urging for decades.") But the evidence leads one to the conclusion that cheap handguns are considered threatening primarily because minorities and poor whites can afford them.

***snip***

Attempts to regulate the possession of firearms began in the northern states during the early part of the 20th century, and although these regulations had a different focus from those that had been concocted in the South, they were no less racist and elitist in effect or intent. Rather than trying to keep handguns out of the price range that blacks and the poor could afford, New York's trend-setting Sullivan Law, enacted in 1911, required a police permit for legal possession of a handgun. This law made it possible for the police to screen applicants for permits to posses handguns, and while such a requirement may seem reasonable, it can and has been abused.

Members of groups not in favor with the political establishment or the police are automatically suspect and can easily be denied permits. For instance, when the Sullivan Law was enacted, southern and eastern European immigrants were considered racially inferior and religiously and ideologically suspect. (Many were Catholics or Jews, and a disproportionate number were anarchists or socialists.) Professor L. Kennett, coauthor of the authoritative history The Gun in America, has noted that the measure was designed to "strike hardest at the foreign-born element," particularly Italians. Southern and eastern European immigrants found it almost impossible to obtain gun permits.

Over the years, application of the Sullivan Law has become increasingly elitist as the police seldom grant handgun permits to any but the wealthy or the politically influential. A beautiful example of this hypocritical elitism is the fact that while the New York Times often editorializes against the private possession of handguns, the publisher of that newspaper, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, has a hard-to-get permit to own and carry a handgun. Another such permit is held by the husband of Dr. Joyce Brothers, the pop psychologist who has claimed that firearms ownership is indicative of male sexual inadequacy.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_wtr8512.html

Now, their are very few "cheap" revolvers, unless they are older Smith and Wesson....

Now, crooks have nice QUALITY FIREARMS.... Instead of "Owl's Head" and other cheap "might fire, might NOT" weapons, in very weak calibers,(for weak guns) like 32, .25 or .22...They are all armed with high end Colts, S&W's and Rugers...

These guns WORK as advertised...And are in much more effective calibers, than the weak ones, for weak guns.

Thus, the cheap gun bans, have in effect, dried up the poorly made guns, so now the felons are arming themselves with fine and well made firearms, in much more effective calibers, like .45, .357, and .38 Spl

Thank you gun control advocates! Just your special way of helping to kill more innocent people, though your lack of knowledge, and forsight.

have an intellectually incurious/lockstep constituency and media sympathizers which suppress their failures. Which is why pro-reg supporters aren't aware of how the California "assault weapons" ban ended up INCREASING the stock of these rifles nearly 400%.

I grew up understanding the people are basically honest and trustworthy. For the most part they'll obey the law and not cause anyone harm. That's why I'm a Democrat. It escapes me how some people seek to control each and every aspect of our daily lives out of fear that someone, somewhere, may be doing something they don't like.

Own and shoot any gun you please, just don't shoot anyone with it or you'll have some serious explaining to do.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. I want everyone to experience it.

So essentially, this was another day for insecure, ignorant and angry white people to assert their ignorance and discontent that a

While I am sure there are many racist, pro-firearm people in America, I am not one of them. I refuse to allow the debate on firearms to be couched in terms of racism.

I voted for President Obama. My support of the second amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOR.

The entire "gun control" history is based on the purest form of racism. Yet we have some folks, laboring under a severe animus for white people (usually men), who think that gun-supported suppression of blacks, women and minorities just sorta popped up since The Grateful Dead's first album. No, the history started before the Civil War, and continues in "boutique" form -- in northern cities and in California. No one gets a free pass on using "politically-correct" appeals to race because the objects of hatred are "white."

The "rambler" ought to get out to the range. Lots of women and minorities, there.

BTW, tens of millions of "white" gun-owners have never been to a teabagger event.

crew.

The more people know about gun control, the less likely they are to support it. This was demonstrated in the lead up to San Francisco's election to outlaw personal possession of firearms. (to cite one example.) The author of GunFacts began serious pushback against prohibition early in the debate -- both on the streets and through approaches to media outlets -- and by the time the election was actually held the poll numbers had swung radically away from the prohibition position. The measure to outlaw firearms eventually won a narrow victory only to be overturned.

Of the criminologists who change their position on gun control, the vast majority change in the direction of *disfavoring* restricting the gun supply as a method to curb violence. But let's not consider what the real experts on the issue think, eh?