Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Yes, there are vocal oponents, but Gun Control is not a killer issue for Dems...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
God23 Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 06:46 PM
Original message
Yes, there are vocal oponents, but Gun Control is not a killer issue for Dems...
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:02 PM by God23
Just like rights of choice for a woman's body,

The 2nd Amenders and the "middle" Dems would like you to believe otherwise but they do have many paid and unpaid representatives that frequent boards like DU to try and make their points to appear mainstream.

I will now don my asbestos and please watch as the "usual suspects" tear me a new one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Welcome to DU.
I'm pretty damned sure I like your OP. :toast:

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
God23 Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Thanks....
I hope it doesn't get me banned. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. What hurts the Dems is they won't stand up to the gun toting bullies
If Dems don't have the balls to stand up to the NRA, then who will they stand up to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xipe Totec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You, I suppose.
I don't take kindly to bullying, gun toting or otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. LOL, you read my mind! nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. It wasn't those for stronger gun laws that threatened opponents children
like they did Rosie O' Donnels. Threats are modus operandi by gunlobby cartel and it's pushers. In 2000, a crowd of gun lovers threatened to lynch Al Gore while be urged on from the stage by NRA fueher Charlton Heston and nowin 2007 NRA board member threatens Obama, Hillary, Boxer and others from stage with death by black rifle.

The there's this.

Research

Few study solutions for guns

Lack of money, political pressure and threats block hard look at violence with firearms
DETROIT

By Sarah A. Webster / The Detroit News

The 90,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians had emotional debates last year on what stance to take on firearms, largely because there is a dearth of fair research to provide guidance.
“The evidence has been pretty thin,” said Dr. Richard Roberts, the organization’s president-elect.

Similar debates erupted within the 62,000-member College of Surgeons. “The committee on trauma has been pointing (the lack of research) out for years and years,” said Dr. Gerald O. Strauch, director of that group’s trauma department.

Gun research focuses on a variety of points, such as what product modifications might reduce injuries. It also could provide a circumstantial breakdown of shootings, explaining how many were domestic in nature or gang-related, and what might be done to prevent these incidents.

But there has been little money for gun investigations since 1996, when the National Rifle Association convinced Congress to kill the $2.6 million firearm research budget of the Centers for Disease Control.

Scientists also report an environment stifled by fear of gun advocates.

“There are people who are nervous about their personal safety,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, which studies firearms. Though he has never been threatened, he said, gun advocates assault his research ability in the medical journals that publish his studies.

“They make it personal,” he said.
--------------snip----------------------
http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2000/violence/tuestudy/tuestudy.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
50. O'Donnel is a hypocrite
She didn't mind having ARMED bodyguards. Guns were ok to protect her and family, but no one else is worthy of same protection.:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
God23 Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. And all violent natured bullies.
I have had my cars keyed and home defaced for proclaiming Democratic values.

Yes, these people frighten me. And we are all looking for an equal law and order to protect us from this so we do not have to be armed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. You don 't have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
just the right to more guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
God23 Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Interesting that they haven't hijacked this thread yet... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. It's precisely because of people like you why I am a member of the NRA.
And will continue to be as long as organizations such as the Brady Campaign, The VPC, The Million Mom March, etc continue to fester.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Proud to support Dick Cheney, Ted Nugent, Grover Norquist, Zell Miller,etc?
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. What about them?
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 08:20 PM by D__S
:shrug:

There are roughly 4,000,000 NRA members.

Name the other 3,999,996 members that give gun owners a bad name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. So you stand with racists like Ted Nugent? Criminals like Duke Cunningham?
Traitors like Dick Cheney? NeoCON theorists like Grover Norquist? I'd rather be on the NRAenemies list like most of the good people in America.
<http://www.nrablacklist.com/>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. I'll have a long talk with them next time I see them.
And see if can't get them to mend their ways.

Will that make you happy?


"I'd rather be on the NRAenemies list like most of the good people in America"


“Well,isn't that special?



Look, if it makes you feel any better then by all means... sign every petition and join every piddling anti-gun group that's out there... no REALLY. I'm certain they can use your support and enthusiasm.

God knows they need all the help and money they can get.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
66. So you stand with hypocrite vigilante MURDERER Barbara Lipscomb?
"Still, the women from Million Moms are backing her at her trial. The group's president, Bernadette Trowell, has come to court to show her support, even though Trowell cannot sit in the courtroom because she may be called as a witness."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A37911-2001Jan23¬Found=true


I'm not surprised. Apparently so do the million moms...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
78. Same way that you stand with torture enablers like Dianne Feinstein
See, I can play that little word game, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. I guess it depends on where you live
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:46 PM by Mojorabbit
I know a lot of people who buy into the "Dems will take your guns line" and it is a bottom line on their vote. A whole lot of hunters down here. Most people I know are members of GOA not NRA. Your milage may vary.

edited because hunters has an r in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
God23 Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The GOA must be a small faction of pro gunners
as after googeling GOA, I didn't find anything to do with guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Here is their website
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
87. They have like 100,000 members out of 80 million, I think...
about 1/40th of the NRA's membership. More than the Brady Campaign and the VPC combined, though, I suspect...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. You would be suprised how many people here think the 2nd amendment means what it says
That the individual has the right to keep and bear arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
God23 Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. An on this day, what are "Arms?'
50 Cals? Thermonuclear devices? Is there a line to be drawn?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Thermonuclear devices!
Now we just need someone to make a "penis" reference and the circle of gun grabber logic will be complete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FyurFly Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
38. I hear rustling...
The strawmen are soon gonna be on the loose!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZ Criminal JD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. The Supreme Court drew a line in the Miller case in 1939
That was the last time they spoke on the subject. They said weapons that were not reasonably associated with a militia would not be allowed (in that case a sawed off shotgun). Weapons that are associated with a militia would probably include almost all handguns and shotguns, and rifles that are on the market. By the way the militia is not the national guard. The national guard did not exist when the 2nd amendment was ratified. In most states the state constitution says that all those 18 and older are members if they are state residents. So you are probably a member of your state's militia whether you like it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
84. What was ironic about that ruling was that short-barreled shotguns were widely used in WWI
Fighting trench warfare, a sawed-off shotgun worked wonders at close range. Yet, they were ruled illegal. Odd how their logic worked in that case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. It's a slippery slope soon the gun pushers will be selling cop killer DU bullets
It's whatever they can get away with for a buck or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. I guess you haven't been keeping up with ammo prices lately?
Trust me... "cop killer DU bullets" will cost more than a buck or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #32
46. If yer gonna keep playing this "gun-grabber" caricature, update your schtick once a DECADE, willya?
You're not just identical to a Republican-authored CARTOON
of an "arrogant & elitist, gun-grabbing liberal";

you're identical to a Republican-authored CARTOON
of an "arrogant & elitist, gun-grabbing liberal" left over from 1992!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #32
89. Funniest thing I've read all day...
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 10:02 PM by benEzra
It's a slippery slope soon the gun pushers will be selling cop killer DU bullets

Funniest thing I've read all day...as that would be banned by a law the NRA helped write, the armor-piercing bullet ban of 1986.



(Not that DU is necessary to allow a handgun to penetrate Kevlar, as ordinary bronze or steel will suffice, which is why the law is written to ban handgun bullets made of hard materials.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
55. Non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber
that meet the barrel length and overall length restrictions embodied in the compromise that is the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986.

.50 cal's have always been recognized as NFA Title 1 civilian firearms (the cutoff is drawn at .51, although some over-.51 hunting weapons are exempted, as are .729 caliber shotguns).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. In the end it costs us votes, seats in Congress, and can cost a few battleground states

Sure, most voters are not single issue voters so gun control is not "killer" as you say, but it can be the last straw. It is a loser issue.

Democratic candidates have been backing away from gun control or, in the case of Blue Dogs, embracing gun rights and its been helping us gain political power as the Republicans screw up the country. My Blue Dog Dem won his Representative seat by less than 900 votes. His pro-gun stance may have pushed him over.

I don't know if you were politically aware in the 1990s, especially in the south and west, but there was shear outrage over AWB and it cost us dearly. Democrats should never utter the words 'gun ban' again.

By the way, what is your usual DU username? Don't be shy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. The truth is that Gore won but the Supreme court stole it way
and gun pushers brag about putting fascists and criminals in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. We could have had more votes that would have made the recount a nonissue.

This thread is about voter's opinions of gun control -- not conspiracies. Stay focused Bill.

Besides, you'd be better served figuring out your water problem than pushing to take away gun rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. So you think the Supreme court decision about the 2000 election wasn't a "conspiracy"?
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 09:00 PM by billbuckhead
Reeks of astroturf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. :tinfoil: Stay focused Bill. Gun control.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. So you think the Supreme court didn't give the election to Bush?
Just for the record both for DUer's and the black rifle websites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #43
51. No answer. That speaks volumes of your astroturfness
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
68. Still yammering about Bush v Gore 2000 ; you're lost on gun control so this is what you do
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 01:37 PM by aikoaiko
I do not, as you implied in your earlier post think the NRA whispered in the ears of 5 SCOTUS judges and got them to find for Bush.

I do wish they could have found a way to constitutionally do the right thing, and let the hand recounts finish even if meant going beyond the deadline -- but they reasoned otherwise. The solved the dilemma in a way that allowed Florida officials give it to Bush. And it was a damn shame.

Now, back to the topic at hand, if Gore had been an outspoken critic of the AWB instead declaring he would renew it, then the recounts might not even had been necessary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #68
77. The NRA is certainly part of the NeoCON junta
To deny this is to deny reality. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #43
79. If Gore took his home state in 2000, Florida wouldn't be an issue
And Gore lost Tennessee because of his stand on gun control. 'Nuff said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
15. Think I'm one of the "usual suspects" in this regard?
Think I'm a paid shill?

I support the right of Self-Defense. Period. And I support the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Hey the gun freaks just want to protect their "babies"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. You again?
You don't comment on anything else...the world is coming down around our ears and your only concern is whether your law-abiding neighbor might be armed.

I don't own guns...but I'm always armed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Your constant stream of condescension and insults demonstrate the worth of your opinion. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Hey I showed a nationally vetted video of what a typical gun owner looked like.
The guy in the video doesn't sound any different than most gun pusher discourse on the internet. You just don't like the truth and can't hide the dead bodies and medical bills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #30
42. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. This gun advocate was on national cable TV and was vetted to be national TV
Sorry if you don't like the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #45
49. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #30
71. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
81. You can't hide the Second Amendment, Bill...
It's the law of the land, and this game of "let's pretend it doesn't exist" is going to come to an end. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next week, but soon. And you had best learn to adjust to the fact that the Bill of Rights actually safeguards rights that are inherently yours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. Gun Freaks??? Who is included in this category of yours?
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 09:04 PM by BleedingHeartPatriot
MKJ

on edit, will I regret pseudo endorsing your post, later? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. You don't think there is such a thing as gun freaks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #35
47. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #47
52. Do you think there is such a thing as a gun freak?
Simple question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #35
70. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hansberrym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
27. Gun control wouldn't be so much an issue if certain groups were not pushing
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 08:45 PM by hansberrym
for bans, and denying an individual right to bear arms through blatantly dishonest argument. It is that denial that causes so much of the trouble as it shows that the gun control side of the debate is not acting in good faith, and so is not to be trusted.

Take the DC situation as an example. What they have there is hardly gun control -it is an outright ban on keeping functional firearms. No wonder the shit sometimes hits the fan.

The vast majority of states have protection for the individual right to bear arms written into their constitutions and still manange to have lots of gun control laws (i.e. restrictions on how guns can be stored and carried, and lots of penalties for misuse of firearms).


Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule for an individual right while allowing for reasonable restrictions, and the issue will be removed from the Presidential race.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
33. Time to earn my keep...
Yes, it's true, the Gun Lobby pays me $100 for every pro-gun post I make. Slowly but surely, the opposition to gun control will be eroded and bullets will fly from sea to shining sea! Bwahaha!

...sometimes I wish these paranoid anti-gun fantasies were true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. You must have closer ties to Cheny, Norquist and Nugent than I do.
Bastards only pay me $50.00 per post and I have to post on weekends and holidays with no extra compensation.

:mad: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #33
54. Where do I sign up?
I could use some extra cash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
41. Gun control will be a very minor issue. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #41
82. Have you been paying attention to SCOTUS lately?
They're supposed to issue a ruling on the DC handgun ban that could have major implications for gun legislation across America. Turn on, tune in...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lil Missy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:36 AM
Response to Original message
48. Darn, I keep forgetting that I need a semi-automatic and a machine gun.
Thanks for reminding me, and for your concern.

And welcome to DU!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
53. Iraq, out-of-control spending, health care, environment, outsourcing
Why are people here buying into an issue that is (1) relatively unimportant in the grander scheme of things at the moment and (2) brings in huge $$$ and votes for the Republican party?

Another question: Why must all Democrats be anti-gun? Is it possible to be liberal in every respect and support reasonable gun ownership without being accused of being an agent for the NRA? Please let us know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
56. They like to engage in hyperbole... which candidates want to ban all guns?
I'm all for banning handguns and only allowing shotguns and rifles. It's a happy medium. They seem to do all right with that setup in Ireland.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #56
59. Ummm...since about three times as many Americans own handguns
as hunt, you are seriously out of touch with gun-ownership demographics in the U.S. if you seriously believe a handgun ban would fly among U.S. voters. That is hardly a "happy medium."

BTW, the U.S. gun-control lobby has made banning popular target rifles, small-caliber carbines, and defensive shotguns Priority One for the last decade (including the most popular civilian target rifles in America).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. You apparently think that gun owners who insist on owning handguns
make up a large share of the segment of the electorate which would even consider voting for a Dem.

I don't agree with that assessment, so I'm not getting all "sky is falling" over that one issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. They DO.
*I* own handguns, as do a heck of a lot of DU'ers.

Fully half of all gun owners in this country are Dems and indies. Fewer than 1 in 5 are hunters. Sarah Brady, on the other hand, is a repub, and the Brady Campaign is run by repubs...



Alienated Rural Democrat

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Err... I own guns, too.
That doesn't mean I'll reflexively vote against Kucinich cause he *might* decide one day that rifles and shotguns are as bad as handguns.

So...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. He's already said that the most popular centerfire rifles are...
as well as a good number of defensive-style shotguns. Which is why my primary vote will be for someone else (most likely Richardson, though I am not ruling out some of the others).

You are certainly welcome to your opinion of handgun ownership, but you are deeply mistaken if you believe that only repubs (or even primarily repubs) own handguns and other nonhunting-style firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. I never said only repubs have them.
*sigh*

I only said I doubt most of those likely to vote for a Dem would view the handgun ban as a reason to vote repub or not vote at all.

Hope that clears it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #65
73. Here's a case study for you...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Yuh huh... not even mild-mannered Kerry was good enough for that guy.
Good luck finding a candidate who kisses up to the NRA, cause that's all that will please that set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Ted Strickland, Bob Casey...all of whom WON in 2006.
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 04:11 PM by benEzra
In fact, it was the wins of Tester, Webb, and Casey that turned the Senate blue that year. Our own Dem governor here in NC is pro-gun-owner and NRA-endorsed, as is most of our (blue) state government.

Regarding the Kerry/Edwards campaign, Senator Kerry promised to outlaw the most popular civilian rifles in America, a position which (contrary to the OP's hypothesis) hurt him badly in swing states. I was a longtime member of the John Kerry forum at that time, saw it coming (as did others), and personally corresponded with Senator Edwards on the issue (he was my senator at the time). Gore ran on the same ban-popular-guns message in '00, and lost his own home state AND heavily union, bright-blue West Virginia on the gun issue, again contrary to the OP's assertion. Which would have been no surprise to anyone who had paid attention to the gun issue since 1994, when the same DLC, ban-popular-guns message cost at least 19 House seats (including the Speaker's, first time since the Civil War) and contributed heavily to the loss of the Senate.

If you honestly think Kerry/Edwards ran on anything even remotely resembling a pro-gun-ownership message, you badly misunderstand the demographics of gun ownership in the United States. Fewer than 1 in 5 American gun owners is a hunter, and of those who do hunt, many/most also own nonhunting guns that would be subject to proposed bans. A message of talking up hunting while promising to ban the most popular nonhunting guns in America is guaranteed to alienate gun-owning voters of all political stripes.

The OP is merely echoing the same DLC talking points that the Third Way'ers trotted out in every election between 1994 and 2004, and the result in ALL of those elections was the same--negative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. What about Ed Rendell who beat the biggest state NRA in America in a landslide?
Gov.Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania Puts Gun Divide to the Test: Will Force a Public Reckoning.

"Because of the perceived clout of the mythical gun lobby – and we emphasize the word “perceived,” not actual – gun control legislation in most state houses is shot down faster than a pheasant at a “canned” hunt.

What it takes to advance public safety is leadership and an engaged citizenry. Both those forces are coming together in Pennsylvania, even though the state, until recently, had the highest number of National Rifle Association members.

So our hat goes off to Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell this week for getting mad as all heck about the bloodshed in his state, particularly in Philadelphia, caused by guns.

As quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Rendell pleaded: "How much will it take? What does the toll have to be before we do anything?" Rendell said during a news conference. He noted that two more Philadelphia police officers had been wounded by gunmen since Nov. 9, the date he proposed a mandatory 20-year sentence for shooting at a police officer. "We have a problem," Rendell said, pausing. "Houston, we have a problem.""
------------snip-----------------------------
<http://www.gunguys.com/>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #76
86. Hmmm, a press release from the gun-control lobby...how thought-provoking...
...not sure what you're trying to say here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. And what industry contributes to the gun control lobby?
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 09:51 PM by billbuckhead
No answer to Rendell routing the nation's largest NRA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. Authoritarian corporatists, mostly...
unlike the gun rights movement, which is funded mostly by individual contributions and lots of unpaid volunteer activism...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billbuckhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Authoritarian corporatists? Like Dick Cheney
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spirit of 34 Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #76
94. Funny, I notice Rendell is good at condemning those shooting at Philly cops
But not so good at condemning those cops when they shoot unarmed civilians (which happens quite frquently in Philly). I also find it interesting that he wants to create another tier of citizenship by imposing stiffer penalties if shoot at a cop than if you shoot at Joe Blow.

And last, but not least, Rendell has failed to explain how reforming PA's gun laws to allow an exemption for Philly would make Philadelphia's residents any safer. Such laws have done little good in Baltimore or D.C. who have crime rates comparable to Philly. The only thing such a reform would result in is making law-abiding citizens choose between being defenseless against the thugs plaguing Philly's streets or criminalized for arming themselves in self-defense. Out of all the murders in Philly over the years, I'd be curious to know how many were committed by those carrying legally.

Oh, one more thing...Rendell's on his last term...so I don't know how "brave" this statement is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #76
99. Rendell is full of fail.
Rendell recently got his ass handed to him over three gun control bills.

Adding insult to injury, in a highly unusual move, he personally appeared before the Judiciary Commitee to plead his case and still lost...


HARRISBURG -- Even though he went 0 for 3 on major gun-control bills yesterday, Gov. Ed Rendell refused to concede defeat and insisted the fight has just begun to limit handgun purchases and require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns.

He said that rising gun violence in towns across Pennsylvania "has got to stop." He talked to reporters several hours after the House Judiciary Committee rejected two gun-control bills and tabled a third indefinitely.

"How many police officers have to become target practice before it stops?" he asked in an emotional voice. "I have sympathy for legislators. I know they're under a lot of pressure. The National Rifle Association is a machine, but it's time to say 'no' to the gun lobbyists."

The Judiciary Committee did give overwhelming approval to a fourth bill, but it wasn't controversial. It calls for a mandatory 20-year jail sentence for anyone convicted of intentionally shooting at a police officer -- even if the officer wasn't hit.

Mr. Rendell, a former mayor of Philadelphia, where six police officers have been shot recently, one fatally, insisted that he and other gun-control advocates "are not going away. It's the will of the people to get these bills out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. I would love to have success on this as governor in the next three years, but if it doesn't happen until I am Citizen Rendell, that's fine. We are going to win."

As a step in waging the battle, he said a major gun-control rally is planned for the Capitol Dec. 10. "Mayors and people from all over the state will be here, to demand that the House and Senate have the gumption to vote on these bills."

One bill would limit gun buyers to purchasing just one handgun a month. The bill was defeated 17 to 12.

Another bill would have allowed towns and cities to enact their own guns laws, tougher than state law. That bill was defeated by 19 to 10.

The committee then tabled the measure that would have required gun owners to report to police within 24 hours any gun that was lost or stolen.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07325/835608-85.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
57. wanna bet?
people who are passionate about their "2nd amendment rights" will turn out in HUGH numbers at the polls when they feel that those rights are being threatened. count on it.

for instance- Dennis the K will NEVER be the democratic party nominee, in a big part because of his stance on the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wcross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
58. The term "Gun Control" is fairly broad.
Are we talking about enforcing the over 20,000 laws already on the books or adding new laws. What new laws are needed to eliminate gun violence in your opinion?

The term "Gun control" could mean anything from registration to an outright ban. To just say "gun control" is not a killer issue? Depends on the details of your gun control plan. I own a couple of firearms including a handgun. I would support gun laws that make sense. I am not going to support nonsense that does nothing other than take firearms out of law abiding citizens hands.

There are some who equate new gun control laws as a way to fight the NRA. There are only a couple million NRA members but there are also over 80 million other people who own guns but have no NRA card. Some of those people vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
61. Welcome to DU, please be more specific
Your post really doesn't say much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
67. It's not the killer issue but it's a straw that this camel don't need
the party has to try to stop doing things to alienate its traditional blue collar support base, those people who fled to the republicans because of issues such as gun control and "the family" and religion and so on.

Obama is being pretty smart playing the religion card. His church is just watery and vague enough to escape serious notice, and it isn't tainted with a mass of scandal or the presumption of it being the chosen church of the ruling class (eg the episcopalians--of which I count myself as a cultural adherent).

I doubt that he can pull off going on a turkey shoot or a deer hunt, but if he spent some time at the range, and was photographed squeezing off a few rounds from something classy--I'd suggest a nice plain 1911--then he'd get tons of mileage.

right now, a person working the line or working on the farm has to ask themselves... what do I have in common with any of these candidates...

so really, we shouldn't see this as an issue that's a dealbreaker for voters, but just another hurdle to clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. I agree, however...
I do disagree with this though:

"I doubt that he can pull off going on a turkey shoot or a deer hunt, but if he spent some time at the range, and was photographed squeezing off a few rounds from something classy--I'd suggest a nice plain 1911--then he'd get tons of mileage."


I am under the impression that Obama wants to ban semi-automatic firearms.

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm


That IS going to be a dealbreaker for one heck of a large group of people. If he were photographed shooting a 1911 at a range, the hypocrite card would get played, and rightly so.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
69. You say "Gun Control" it isn't a killer issue.
Can you explain what happened to Tom Foley in 1994 and why? He was first sitting Speaker since 1860 not to win re-election to Congress.


Also this from then President Bill Clintons 1995 state of the union address:

"I don't want to destroy the good atmosphere in the room or in the country tonight, but I have to mention one issue that divided this body greatly last year. The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/bc42/speeches/sud95wjc.htm

"The fights I fought... cost a lot --the fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress"

Bill Clinton.


If you are going to assert that "Gun Control is not a killer issue for Dems", you need to back that statement up with some proof. As of right now, its just an assertion.

One thats been refuted at that.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
80. An unpaid representative of "2nd Amenders" and "middle" Dems-- I guess that's me.
Kinda like you're an unpaid representaive of authoritarians and Repubs who would love to see the Democratic party split on the issue of 2nd Amendment rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spirit of 34 Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
83. It's a killer for me
I got a few "litmus tests" for when I do occassionally give critical support to a capitalist politician--

1. They must support civil liberties (including the right of armed self-defense)

2. They must support organized labor

3. They must support a more or less anti-imperialist foreign policy, at least on a practical level

These tests exclude the vast majority of major party candidates, and I haven't been so fortunate to live in a state where the Dems fielded a candidate that met these conditions (like, say, Feingold), and there are very, very few such people in Washington.

But, then again, I've never tried to "appear mainstream" about gun rights or anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. I'd dare to say not one of our serious candidates would bring up Gun control.
you want to push all the "new" democrats back to the gop? Make gun control a main issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
92. Worthless flame bait.
And as a matter of fact, states with concealed carry permits have statistically fewer gun deaths than those without.

Probably because they require ID, a criminal background check, a letter of good character from your local police station, several references, and sometimes a psychological examination.

The gun-grabbers strike again.

And I hate the NRA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spirit of 34 Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-26-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. Like you I am a strong supporter of gun rights and hate the NRA, however
Edited on Mon Nov-26-07 10:51 PM by Spirit of 34
You're painting in some pretty broad strokes here that are not necessarily accurate...

And as a matter of fact, states with concealed carry permits have statistically fewer gun deaths than those without.

I find this claim dubious. I'm guessing if you compared, say, Florida to Massachusetts that statement wouldn't hold up. Most of the "shall issue" states are in the South, which have higher violent crime rates (though there is no evidence this is related to gun carry laws). If we're talking about states where there is NO right to concealed carry AT ALL for private citizens, Illinois is the only one I'm aware of in that category (along with D.C.)-- but several of the "may issue" states, like Mass., have very, very restrictive (and often discriminatory, in practice at least) laws for concealed carry.

Probably because they require ID, a criminal background check, a letter of good character from your local police station, several references, and sometimes a psychological examination.

That varies widely from state-to-state. "May issue" states require approval from local police authorities, most "shall issue" states do not. Full info can be found here: packing.org

For the record, I support "shall issue" or Vermont-style carry laws (VT does not require any special permit for CC)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. Actually, most shall-issue states are outside the South...
Most of the "shall issue" states are in the South, which have higher violent crime rates (though there is no evidence this is related to gun carry laws). If we're talking about states where there is NO right to concealed carry AT ALL for private citizens, Illinois is the only one I'm aware of in that category (along with D.C.)-- but several of the "may issue" states, like Mass., have very, very restrictive (and often discriminatory, in practice at least) laws for concealed carry.

Actually, most shall-issue states are outside the South.



There are only 9 may-issue states and 2 no-CCW states in the entire country, at this point.

FWIW, my state of NC is shall-issue, and to obtain my CHL, I had to satisfy the following requirements:

Pass a Federal and state background check.
Pass a mental health records check.
Get fingerprinted and have my prints run by the FBI (clean).
Take a training class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum.
Pass a written test on self-defense law administered by the sheriff's department.
Demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range (live fire).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spirit of 34 Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. So corrected, however
I still find Alexander's claim dubious and overly broad. I'd have to see some stats (and sources w/ methodology) to back up that claim. Also, since WI, IL, and DC are the only non-issue states left (can't believe WI is still in that category), I think shall-issue stats vs. may issue stats would be more telling than concealed carry vs. no concealed carry.

A couple of other points--

1. That map is not entirely accurate. For example, CT is listed as "shall issue", which technically it is, but the statute allows for a pretty big loophole to judge applicants by entirely subjective criteria, so, in practice CT is "may issue". Also, it does not account for municipal laws-- although NY and MD are "may issue" states, in practice NYC and Baltimore are "no issue" cities, and in CA, Frisco has a sweeping handgun ban.

2. The point I particularly took issue with in Alexander's description of CC licence requirements was the "letter of good reference" from your local police department. Although a few supposedly "shall issue" states include this requirement, I can think of no better dividing line between a truly "shall issue" CCW law and a "may issue" one than requiring the subjective opinion of police as to someone's "character" or "fitness" to carry concealed-- such a requirement is open to abuse, discrimination and prejudice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. True. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #93
103. packing.org has been dead for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spirit of 34 Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #103
106. Yeah, haven't gone there in a while, so here's another link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 12:25 AM
Response to Original message
95. Maybe if Sean Taylor had had a 12 gauge instead of a machete he wouldn't be...
...in the hospital fighting for his life now.

Evil exists whether we acknowledge it or not.

I want to be at least as well armed as someone breaking into my home.

You can call it paranoia, I call it prudence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
God23 Donating Member (200 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #95
100. Or maybe if Sean Taylor's killer had a machete instead of a handgun...
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. Then the machete grabbers would be howling to ban them.
Edited on Tue Nov-27-07 04:02 PM by D__S
Think I exaggerate? Think again...

(Fortunately, this piece of legislative nonsense never passed)

Oh... and FWIW, when the sponsor and cosponsors of this rubbish aren't looking to regulate harvesting tools, they spend a good portion of their time salivating over gun control laws.




By Mr. Shannon, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1384) of Charles E. Shannon, Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., David P. Linsky and Paul J. Donato for legislation relative to the possession of a machete. Public Safety and Homeland Security


The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
In the Year Two Thousand and Five.
AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE POSSESSION OF A MACHETE

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1.

Subsection (b) of section 10 of chapter 269 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition is hereby amended by inserting after the word “inches”, in line 67, the following word:- , machete.

SECTION 2. Said subsection (b) of said section 10 of said chapter 269, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by adding the following paragraph:-

For purposes of this section, “machete” means “a heavy knife at least 18 inches in length and having a blade at least 1.5 inches wide at its broadest measurement. This subsection shall not apply to carrying a machete on one’s person or in a vehicle if the machete is carried for the purpose of cutting vegetation or if the machete is being transported for the purpose of cutting vegetation. In a prosecution of a violation of this subsection, there shall be a permissible inference that such carrying of a machete is not for the purposes of cutting vegetation. Such presumption may be rebutted.

Any individual who requires a machete for the purposes of cutting vegetation shall register the machete with the local police department on an annual basis and, upon payment of an appropriate annual registration fee as determined by the local granting authority, shall be issued a permit authorizing him to possess the machete solely for the purposes of cutting vegetation.


http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01384.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
102. Gun Control: It'll put food on your family and a POTATOE in every POTT
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
104. You assume much

Particularly that the support of the right to own firearms is the province of "2nd Amenders and the "middle" Dems". I would note that union activists, socialists of various stripe, the true left, the revolutionary left, by and large insist upon the right to defend one's self against all who would do harm, including the government. They would insist upon the right to put food on the table. They would insist upon the right to be left the fuck alone.

The pretend left of the Democratic Party with it's gaggle of boutique issues is hardly left at all. The economic issue is paramount, it's what being "left" is all about. Yet it gets lip service at best from the Democratic Party, when the party is not stabbing the working class in the back, that is. And then we get a bunch of peripheral issues thrown up as world shaking, do or die! Small wonder half of the electorate has thrown up it's hands in disgust.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-27-07 07:38 PM
Response to Original message
105. Can you cite facts for your opinion? Otherwise what are you trying to accomplish? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC