NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I keep seeing a bunch of folks say the Democrats want to take away people's guns. I'm a Democrat, a very liberal one, and even I do not want to take away people's guns ... only certain people's.

From the DNC Platform:

We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

We're proposing the exact same thing Bush proposed, only we'd actually do it. Now ... why, oh why, do you people think we want to jackboot into your homes and take away your guns? Specific sources, please, and remember that people like Rosie O'Donnel will never have the power to take away any of your property, so don't quote her or others like her.

Or, maybe you think criminals and terrorists should have guns ... *shrug* ... can't help you there.

So, I keep seeing a bunch of folks say the Democrats want to take away people's guns. I'm a Democrat, a very liberal one, and even I do not want to take away people's guns ... only certain people's.

From the DNC Platform:
We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.


We're proposing the exact same thing Bush proposed, only we'd actually do it. Now ... why, oh why, do you people think we want to jackboot into your homes and take away your guns? Specific sources, please, and remember that people like Rosie O'Donnel will never have the power to take away any of your property, so don't quote her or others like her.

Or, maybe you think criminals and terrorists should have guns ... *shrug* ... can't help you there.

The problem is that the way the platform is stated, it makes the assumption that all guns that were outlawed by the assault ban or are bought through gun show loopholes are used to outfit criminals or terrorists. And that's not true.

I'm a Republican, a rather conservative one, and I think that the assault weapons ban was bad law. It focused more on cosmetics than real killing power. I do however agree with fighting gun crime (whatever that means - specifics, please?) and would not be opposed to closing the loopholes at gun shows.

Yes, once upon a time, in a far away congress, the dems were the gun control advocates, but that was some time ago. The "far too liberal" Howard Dean is a big 2nd amendment supporter. What gun control "nuts" that are still around are almost to-a-man democrats, but they're marginal on a good day.

It is possible to regulate something to non-existance.

It's gotten so costly and difficult for a 16 year old to get a drivers licence in Hawaii that many people just drive illegally until they're 18, rather than do the gauntlet of courses, classes, tests, registrations, forms, etc.

Democrats should be wary of the constant regulating of firearms...it gives them a bad image in red America.

I think banning so-called assault weapons is just plain stupid. They are hardly ever used in crime because they are too expensive and bulky. Although Dems have wised up to some extent on gun control you still have groups like Million (uninformed and emotional) Mom's March and HCI trying to influence the party.

and would not be opposed to closing the loopholes at gun shows.

Wow, some loophole. Private citizens selling guns to other citizens.

I think it has to do with the fact that even law abiding citizens have to register their handguns. It doesn't hurt to treat your government with some measure of suspicion. Be it run by republicans, democrats or other. I for one don't take any politician by their word.

I think it has to do with the fact that even law abiding citizens have to register their handguns.

That varies from state to state. Texas has no gun registration laws.

Wow, some loophole. Private citizens selling guns to other citizens.

Wonder which private citizen sold a rifle to the DC Sniper ...

I for one plan on getting a Class Three Dealers license and stockpiling up on exotic firearms... once I get the money, that is. Damn thing is expensive!

I'm very liberal as well. But, I noticed that young liberals tend to not give a rat's fat about gun control. I'm an avid hunter, and I enjoy toying around with my guns, cleaning them, shooting them off in the country, and of course showing them off to friends. I have the guns themselves locked in a safe, and the ammo is locked in a safe within the first safe. My parents, also liberal, were hunters as well... I wasn't allowed to gun hunt until the legal age of 16.

The only people gun fanatics need to worry about are the old men of the democratic party, in particular Joseph Lieberman.

Everyone else is starting to not care.

Wonder which private citizen sold a rifle to the DC Sniper ...

I seem to remember him being ex-military ( I might be mistaken in this ), shows that you can trust police officers and the military with weapons but not law abiding citizens.

The only people gun fanatics need to worry about are the old men of the democratic party, in particular Joseph Lieberman.


Yeah ... but he makes Dick Cheney look like Dennis Kucinich ... I figured we'd trade with the Republicans ... Leiberman for McCain.

I seem to remember him being ex-military ( I might be mistaken in this ), shows that you can trust police officers and the military with weapons but not law abiding citizens.

Yes, but you missed the point.

Okie ... let's try it this way ...

I recently sold a firearm, a Ruger P90 .45, as one private citizen to another private citizen at a yard sale. Under advisement from Texas DPS, I took a photocopy of his driver's license.

Not to protect the government from him, but to protect *ME* from him! If he went out and shot a bunch of people in a liquor store robbery with a gun that could be linked to me, my life could really be disrupted.

Now, if you have a booth at a gun show, why not do a quick check on someone who is buying a gun from you? In many states, a bartender is liable for serving you alcohol and letting you drive home if you cause an accident, so why shouldn't an arms dealer be held accountable for selling a firearm to, say, a known felon who goes and shoots up a school?

Why not? What's the big deal? A quick phone call, run the driver's license or ID number, if it comes back "Joe Gunbuyer is on probation for armed robbery" then you say, "Take your business elsewhere". If it comes back that Joe Gunbuyer is in the clear and you sell him the gun and he goes off and shoots up a school anyway, then you can say, "Hey, I did the check, here's the print-out."

You people are so big on self-protection, but won't protect yourselves in the ways that truly count.

With this:

1) Gun Control Act of 1968. Signed by President Johnson.

2) In 1978, President Carter had a study made to look into the effectiveness of the thousands of gun control laws on the books. The result? They made no appreciable difference in relation to crime. YET the Democratic party continues to talk about gun control.

3) Candidate Kerry's voting record:
2004 - Voted no on a law shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits
2000 - Voted yes on an amendment that would bar gun manufacturers from being released from their debts during bankruptcy due to lawsuits
1999 - Voted yes to require background checks at gun shows
1999 - Voted no for stricter penalties for drug and gun violations
1998 - Voted no to maintain a law that allowed guns to be sold without trigger locks
1996 - Voted no on a motion to table an amendment that would make it a crime to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school (in other words, he supported the amendment)
1993 - Voted yes on the Brady Bill
1993 - Voted no to kill an amendment that would ban the manufacture, importation, and sale of semiautomatic assault weapons (in other words, he supported the ban)
1991 - Voted yes on a five-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns

4) Armor piercing bullets have been referred to in the media as "cop killers."
In an October of 1996 campaign stop, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later at a political rally, Bill Clinton cited Officer Seaberry's death as a reason to outlaw armor piercing bullets.
However...
Officer Seaberry died in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved.
As of 2002, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest.

5) Clinton also signed the Assault Weapons ban (effective for 10 years as of September 13, 1994), which is the only piece of legistaltion in the United States that tells the public that they cannot own something. This is the first time it was done since Prohibition.

... now, I'm all for child safety locks. And the waiting period is no big deal. But most of the provisions of the 1994 law were just plain bad.

Like I said, there is a danger of over-regulating things, a danger of throwing too many laws on the books, a danger of the government micro-managing our lives.

This goes for both parties.

Backing off of guns would turn the rust belt back towards us. We need that region in 2008.

Yeah ... but he makes Dick Cheney look like Dennis Kucinich ... I figured we'd trade with the Republicans ... Leiberman for McCain.

I'd love to have McCain on the liberal side.

When he was running for primary in 2000, I said to myself, if he beats Baby Boy Bush he get's my vote.

I think we know how that turned out.

Yes, but you missed the point.

Okie ... let's try it this way ...

I recently sold a firearm, a Ruger P90 .45, as one private citizen to another private citizen at a yard sale. Under advisement from Texas DPS, I took a photocopy of his driver's license.

Not to protect the government from him, but to protect *ME* from him! If he went out and shot a bunch of people in a liquor store robbery with a gun that could be linked to me, my life could really be disrupted.

Now, if you have a booth at a gun show, why not do a quick check on someone who is buying a gun from you? In many states, a bartender is liable for serving you alcohol and letting you drive home if you cause an accident, so why shouldn't an arms dealer be held accountable for selling a firearm to, say, a known felon who goes and shoots up a school?

Why not? What's the big deal? A quick phone call, run the driver's license or ID number, if it comes back "Joe Gunbuyer is on probation for armed robbery" then you say, "Take your business elsewhere". If it comes back that Joe Gunbuyer is in the clear and you sell him the gun and he goes off and shoots up a school anyway, then you can say, "Hey, I did the check, here's the print-out."

You people are so big on self-protection, but won't protect yourselves in the ways that truly count.

Well personally I have never sold a firearm. But that does not mean that I think people should not be allowed to sell firearms. And I have no problem with background checks, obviously convicted felons should not be allowed to own firearms. What I do have a problem with is restrictions, licences, and government permission to exercise a right.

Wow, some loophole. Private citizens selling guns to other citizens.

The loophope is actually a loophole in the background check requirement. I'm not going to argue against background checks. It makes perfect sense that people with records should be restricted from buying guns.

Agreed, Federal Law says clinically insane and felons cannot own guns or ammo, and their mere presence in a shop or show is grounds for five-ten years in prison. Background checks are a realistic necessity, even from me, Mr. Praise-God-and-Pass-the-Ammo, himself.

With this:
1) Gun Control Act of 1968. Signed by President Johnson.

The provisions in the GCA are perfectly acceptable. If you're a convicted felons, fugitive from justice, illegal drug user or addict, a minor, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, an illegal alien, or anyone having renounced U.S. citizenship, then you don't get to own a gun.

What's the big deal with that?

Any of those groups you'd like to see with guns?

Oh ... might also want to check on the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. It's not only Democrats who have passed gun control legislation. After all, it was Nixon who created the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to enforce legislation.

2) In 1978, President Carter had a study made to look into the effectiveness of the thousands of gun control laws on the books. The result? They made no appreciable difference in relation to crime. YET the Democratic party continues to talk about gun control.

Yes, but imagine placing guns the hands of those included in the GCA as mentioned above. I'd be willing to bet that gun related crimes would go through the roof.

3) Candidate Kerry's voting record:
2004 - Voted no on a law shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits

Yet, it's ok to sue tobacco companies? Yes ... that makes sense ...

2000 - Voted yes on an amendment that would bar gun manufacturers from being released from their debts during bankruptcy due to lawsuits

Why is this a problem? Gun manufacturers make a product that is designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to damage.

1999 - Voted yes to require background checks at gun shows

You have a problem with background checks?

1999 - Voted no for stricter penalties for drug and gun violations

If he voted no for stricter penalties, that means he'd be on the side of the NRA and, thus, this is not a good example of gun control.

1998 - Voted no to maintain a law that allowed guns to be sold without trigger locks

Once again, many see trigger locks as a form of gun control. Kerry voted against it ... what's the big deal? Personally, I'm for trigger locks and feel they should be mandatory.

1996 - Voted no on a motion to table an amendment that would make it a crime to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school (in other words, he supported the amendment)

You want guns near our kids and schools?

1993 - Voted yes on the Brady Bill

Gotta wait a little to get your gun, eh? Hrmmm. Why is that a problem? Won't still be mad in a few days? Doesn't matter, the waiting period has been abolished. In July of 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to require states to perform Brady Bill background checks

1993 - Voted no to kill an amendment that would ban the manufacture, importation, and sale of semiautomatic assault weapons (in other words, he supported the ban)

Who the hell needs these weapons anyway? What are you afraid of ... ze germans?


1991 - Voted yes on a five-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns

Again ... what's the big deal?

4) Armor piercing bullets have been referred to in the media as "cop killers." In an October of 1996 campaign stop, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later at a political rally, Bill Clinton cited Officer Seaberry's death as a reason to outlaw armor piercing bullets. However... Officer Seaberry died in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved. As of 2002, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest.

I'm unaware of any of this, but I will go ahead and take your word for it with the proviso that I may come back to it if I research and find different information.

5) Clinton also signed the Assault Weapons ban (effective for 10 years as of September 13, 1994), which is the only piece of legistaltion in the United States that tells the public that they cannot own something. This is the first time it was done since Prohibition.

Not entirely true. Go ahead and try to buy a nuke or a Cuban cigar. There are plenty of things we can't own in the US.

The provisions in the GCA are perfectly acceptable. If you're a convicted felons, fugitive from justice, illegal drug user or addict, a minor, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, an illegal alien, or anyone having renounced U.S. citizenship, then you don't get to own a gun.

What's the big deal with that?

Any of those groups you'd like to see with guns?

Oh ... might also want to check on the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. It's not only Democrats who have passed gun control legislation. After all, it was Nixon who created the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to enforce legislation.



Yes, but imagine placing guns the hands of those included in the GCA as mentioned above. I'd be willing to bet that gun related crimes would go through the roof.



Yet, it's ok to sue tobacco companies? Yes ... that makes sense ...



Why is this a problem? Gun manufacturers make a product that is designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to damage.



You have a problem with background checks?



If he voted no for stricter penalties, that means he'd be on the side of the NRA and, thus, this is not a good example of gun control.



Once again, many see trigger locks as a form of gun control. Kerry voted against it ... what's the big deal? Personally, I'm for trigger locks and feel they should be mandatory.



You want guns near our kids and schools?



Gotta wait a little to get your gun, eh? Hrmmm. Why is that a problem? Won't still be mad in a few days? Doesn't matter, the waiting period has been abolished. In July of 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to require states to perform Brady Bill background checks



Who the hell needs these weapons anyway? What are you afraid of ... ze germans?




Again ... what's the big deal?



I'm unaware of any of this, but I will go ahead and take your word for it with the proviso that I may come back to it if I research and find different information.



Not entirely true. Go ahead and try to buy a nuke or a Cuban cigar. There are plenty of things we can't own in the US.


The 1968 law was so good they had to pass a law in 1984 to protect abuses of it by the BATF. Kerry was one of less than 2 doz to vote against it.

So you support litigation against companies for people misusing their product? You must be a trial lawyer. Quote where Markreich supported the tobacco lawsuits.

" who needs?", personally I feel? I love arguments from emotion. Do I need a reason to utilize my Constitutional rights? What if I feel you don't need the internet?

The "cooling off" periods are just another invented reason to make it difficult for purchasing.

So I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun if I happen to live near a school even though I've never committed a crime in my life?

Show me where the NRA has opposed increased penalties for gun violations?

So you support litigation against companies for people misusing their product?

Actually, yes I do. I, unlike some folks, realize two things:

1] People are weak and stupid.
2] Laws are made to protect the weak and stupid.

No, I am not a trial lawyer. I am a teacher.

So I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun if I happen to live near a school even though I've never committed a crime in my life?

Own, yes, but keep it in your house if you live within 1,000 feet of a school.

5) Clinton also signed the Assault Weapons ban (effective for 10 years as of September 13, 1994), which is the only piece of legistaltion in the United States that tells the public that they cannot own something. This is the first time it was done since Prohibition.

... now, I'm all for child safety locks. And the waiting period is no big deal. But most of the provisions of the 1994 law were just plain bad.

really? i could have sworn i couldn't own any marijuana, or crack, or drug paraphinilia. i couldnt own cigarettes till i was 18 and i still cant own alchohol. im pretty sure i cant own nuclear weapons or slaves. i cant own cuban cigars or roquefort cheese either. but jeez, taking away my oozies, now that gets me riled.

Own, yes, but keep it in your house if you live within 1,000 feet of a school.[/QUOTE]

what like you cant move the gun from the house or you just cant take it into the back yard. If you live near a school how is that more dangerous than if you live in suburbia lots of kids there too

Actually, yes I do. I, unlike some folks, realize two things:

1] People are weak and stupid.
2] Laws are made to protect the weak and stupid.

No, I am not a trial lawyer. I am a teacher.



Own, yes, but keep it in your house if you live within 1,000 feet of a school.

So Joe Moron goes and buys a Superman costume from Walmart. He puts it on and jumps off of a building. He should be able to sue Walmart?

The lawsuits that have been brought up against the industry are there for the express purpose of litigating it out of existance by constantly having to pay legal fees. The Commerce act failed because several "poison pill" amendments, including one to ban most ammunition, were added by primarily Democrats, most notably Kerry, Kennedy, and Fienstein. Kerry went off the campaign trail for the only time this year to vote to add these amendments and defeat the bill.

I think I'll go smack my hand w/ a hammer and sue Ace hardware.

The point the school law was you couldn't BRING it (including having it in your home) withing 1000' therefore you are not allowed to possess one.

The second ammendment in no way states that a citizen may stock a personal arsenal. The NRA arguement has really gone to church on this one. I'll never accept their interpretation of the second ammendment.
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It seems clear to me that this refers to a people's militia. This was a common thing in the early days of the Union. GAR halls and such. Or if you guys want to we can all strap on a six-shooter and bring back the good 'ole days of the old west. I'll be shooting you in the back tho, as most of the gunfighters actually did.

The second ammendment in no way states that a citizen may stock a personal arsenal. The NRA arguement has really gone to church on this one. I'll never accept their interpretation of the second ammendment.
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It seems clear to me that this refers to a people's militia. This was a common thing in the early days of the Union. GAR halls and such. Or if you guys want to we can all strap on a six-shooter and bring back the good 'ole days of the old west. I'll be shooting you in the back tho, as most of the gunfighters actually did.

a well regulated militia needs alot of guns. fact of the matter is that people dont need to explain why the have a certain amount of guns, even if some are excessive. they are simply excising their rights under the secound ammendment

really? i could have sworn i couldn't own any marijuana, or crack, or drug paraphinilia. i couldnt own cigarettes till i was 18 and i still cant own alchohol. im pretty sure i cant own nuclear weapons or slaves. i cant own cuban cigars or roquefort cheese either. but jeez, taking away my oozies, now that gets me riled.

The difference here is that (unlike with Prohibition or the guns in the act), these items *have not ever* been legal.

Your cigarette example is immaterial as it effects those not of majority age (18) at that time.
As for the alcohol, I totally agree -- it should be 18. However, this is technically not an ownership issue -- at 18 you can stand in front of a police station with a beer in your hand all day long. Just don't open and drink it. :)

Nuclear weapons? Hmm. Interesting concept. If you can show me the specific statue that prohibits you from owning one, you win!
Slavery is illegal because you're taking away another's rights. Above all in Constitutional law, you are allowed your liberties above all else, UNLESS THEY TAKE AWAY THE LIBERTIES OF OTHERS.

BTW, you *can* own Cuban Cigars. I have ten left right now. Just make sure:
a) they're pre-ban
b) you go to a nation where they are legal and bring back ONE BOX.

I don't know about the cheese.

The provisions in the GCA are perfectly acceptable. If you're a convicted felons, fugitive from justice, illegal drug user or addict, a minor, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, an illegal alien, or anyone having renounced U.S. citizenship, then you don't get to own a gun.

What's the big deal with that?

Any of those groups you'd like to see with guns?

We didn't need such laws for 200 years... and now they were suddenly necessary?
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm
The act had 3 major aims:
(1) Eliminating the interstate traffic in firearms and ammunition that had previously frustrated state and local efforts to license, register, or restrict ownership of guns.
(2) Denying access to firearms to certain congressionally defined groups, including minors, convicted felons, and persons who had been adjudicated as mental defectives or committed to mental institutions.
(3) Ending the importation of all surplus military firearms and all other guns unless certified by the Secretary of the Treasury as "particularly suitable for ... sporting purposes."[101]

So... 1 basically telling me that I can't have that Supersized BigMac. Not the American way, now is it?
Point 2? Sounds good on the surface, right? Consider this: who decides which group YOU belong to? All it takes is for you to be found with some dope in your car (and, it need not be yours!), *wham* instant removal of your 2nd Amendment rights.
And no one's ever been found mentally defective that wasn't, right?
Point 3? Are you KIDDING ME? Read that again, replacing "surplus military firearms and all other guns" with "book, magazines or webpages", and "sporting purposes" to "meeting our moral standards". It's a VERY short walk from this to censorship!



Oh ... might also want to check on the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. It's not only Democrats who have passed gun control legislation. After all, it was Nixon who created the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms to enforce legislation.

You are aware that FDR was a Democrat, right?
Yes!! Thank you!! ENFORCE LEGISLATION, not make more restrictive laws on law abiding citizens.



Yes, but imagine placing guns the hands of those included in the GCA as mentioned above. I'd be willing to bet that gun related crimes would go through the roof.
That's nice... but it doesn't change the fact that the Democratic Party is refuting evidence from a study commissioned by one of their greatest leaders in the post WW2 era. That's what the thread is about...



Yet, it's ok to sue tobacco companies? Yes ... that makes sense ...
I never said that. I have never said that. And I never will.
I'm totally against all sorts of these BS lawsuits.
(BW: Only 8% of my state's settlement from "Big Tobacco" went to smoking cessation programs. The rest went into the General Fund. This was another piece of bad legislation given to us by... a Democrat! Thanks, Mr. Clinton!)


Why is this a problem? Gun manufacturers make a product that is designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to damage.

Bullshite. CARS ARE DESIGNED TO RUN OVER PUPPIES!! :)
Rather subjective, no?


You have a problem with background checks?
Because it is a part of a pattern. I was posting to prove Candidate Kerry's voting record for gun control. While I'm not personally against background checks myself, many others are. I'd be remiss if I didn't include it.



If he voted no for stricter penalties, that means he'd be on the side of the NRA and, thus, this is not a good example of gun control.

Untrue. He's voting in FAVOR of criminals! He votes for all these "controls" on law abiding citizens, yet he votes against enforcement!



Once again, many see trigger locks as a form of gun control. Kerry voted against it ... what's the big deal? Personally, I'm for trigger locks and feel they should be mandatory.

Because it is a part of a pattern. I was posting to prove Candidate Kerry's voting record for gun control. While I'm not personally against trigger locks myself, many others are. I'd be remiss if I didn't include it.



You want guns near our kids and schools?

You are aware that 1000 feet is about a fifth of a mile? That would automatically ban guns in many cities!
Consider Boston, Washington DC, New Haven, NYC, Chicago, or Atlanta. Fire up MapPoint and add in all the schools. Now color out all the areas where schools are within 4 blocks of each other. Once you go from pre K though college, you now have to enforce "no gun" zones... over major parts of the city in question. Unacceptable!
Consider New Haven (where Yale) or DC (George Washington U) is spread out in buildings all over the city...

Right back at you: The statue that they guns cannot be ON school property is sufficient, isn't it?



Gotta wait a little to get your gun, eh? Hrmmm. Why is that a problem? Won't still be mad in a few days? Doesn't matter, the waiting period has been abolished. In July of 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to require states to perform Brady Bill background checks

Because it is a part of a pattern. I was posting to prove Candidate Kerry's voting record for gun control. While I'm not personally against the waiting period myself, many others are. I'd be remiss if I didn't include it.



Who the hell needs these weapons anyway? What are you afraid of ... ze germans?

Who needs a Hummer? Or a super-sized Big Mac? Or a 65" tv? Or a Great Dane, for that matter?
A good is a good. Remember the basic mantra in the US: too much is not enough! :D
No, I'm afraid of (perhaps well intentioned) people taking away civil liberties.



Again ... what's the big deal?

Because it is a part of a pattern. I was posting to prove Candidate Kerry's voting record for gun control. While I'm not personally against the waiting period myself, many others are. I'd be remiss if I didn't include it.



I'm unaware of any of this, but I will go ahead and take your word for it with the proviso that I may come back to it if I research and find different information.

Cool.


Not entirely true. Go ahead and try to buy a nuke or a Cuban cigar. There are plenty of things we can't own in the US.

I own a microwave oven, thanks.
And I regularly buy Cuban cigars. It *is* legal to bring in 1 box whenever you leave the country, you know.

Right back at you: The statue that they guns cannot be ON school property is sufficient, isn't it?
Someone can stand right outside the school gates with a gun in that case though.

How about outside of the line of sight from school property?

Texas has no gun registration laws.

And look at the fine shape there in. If there every was a reason for gun control, Texas just demonstraed it.

The difference here is that (unlike with Prohibition or the guns in the act), these items *have not ever* been legal.

Your cigarette example is immaterial as it effects those not of majority age (18) at that time.
As for the alcohol, I totally agree -- it should be 18. However, this is technically not an ownership issue -- at 18 you can stand in front of a police station with a beer in your hand all day long. Just don't open and drink it. :)
Um no, underage alcohol possession is illegal. Very much illegal.

And all drugs were legal at one point, until congressman were misled into banning them. You should hear the arguments they used against weed.

Nuclear weapons? Hmm. Interesting concept. If you can show me the specific statue that prohibits you from owning one, you win!
How about bazookas? Pretty sure those are illegal.

Can anyone name a design for guns other than to destroy? some people on this thread have mentioned that they are not designed for this. It puzzles me.

1) Hunting: destroying animals

2) Defense: destroying the attacker

3) Attacks: Please, someone just try to argue that putting a couple shells in a person to steal something isn't destroying.

And look at the fine shape there in. If there every was a reason for gun control, Texas just demonstraed it.

Do you have some sort of cite for this?

The second ammendment in no way states that a citizen may stock a personal arsenal. The NRA arguement has really gone to church on this one. I'll never accept their interpretation of the second ammendment.
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It seems clear to me that this refers to a people's militia. This was a common thing in the early days of the Union. GAR halls and such. Or if you guys want to we can all strap on a six-shooter and bring back the good 'ole days of the old west. I'll be shooting you in the back tho, as most of the gunfighters actually did.

"It seems clear to you"... That's nice. The Supreme Court seems to think differently. U.S. vs. Miller defines the Militia as any man (now women) between the ages of 17-45 that is capable of carrying and using arms.

GAR halls didn't start until well after the Civil War. You consider that the "early days"?

And every state that has instituted Carry/Concealed Carry laws in the last 10 years have had a massive increase in crime of -10% on average.

The difference here is that (unlike with Prohibition or the guns in the act), these items *have not ever* been legal.

Nuclear weapons? Hmm. Interesting concept. If you can show me the specific statue that prohibits you from owning one, you win!
Slavery is illegal because you're taking away another's rights. Above all in Constitutional law, you are allowed your liberties above all else, UNLESS THEY TAKE AWAY THE LIBERTIES OF OTHERS.

BTW, you *can* own Cuban Cigars. I have ten left right now. Just make sure:
a) they're pre-ban
b) you go to a nation where they are legal and bring back ONE BOX.

I don't know about the cheese.

MarkReich,

Have you noticed that the only thing the anti-gunners are attacking you on is the one mistake you made in your arguement?

Shows how weak their case is..

I feel...
You don't need....
Only for destroying/killing etc...

Can anyone name a design for guns other than to destroy? some people on this thread have mentioned that they are not designed for this. It puzzles me.

1) Hunting: destroying animals

2) Defense: destroying the attacker

3) Attacks: Please, someone just try to argue that putting a couple shells in a person to steal something isn't destroying.

Ahh.. arguements by semantics.. Let's change some of the wording around shall we?

Can anyone name a design for guns other than to dispatch things? some people on this thread have mentioned that they are not designed for this. It puzzles me.

1) Hunting: dispatching animals

2) Defense: dispatching the attacker

3) Attacks: Please, someone just try to argue that putting a couple shells in a person to steal something isn't dispatching.

This is a common tactic of the anti-gunner.. changing the definitions/biased wording.

Examples:

Sporting Arms became "assault weapons"
easily affordable firearms became "Saturday Night Specials"
Gun Control became "Gun Safety"
Armour piercing ammunition became "Cop Killers"
Militia became "National Guard"

Someone can stand right outside the school gates with a gun in that case though.

How about outside of the line of sight from school property?

That's fine. I have a 0% problem with that. We're talking about LICENSED firearms here! If someone is going to bring a gun to a school and do something with it... let's face it, they're not going to go and get a gun license first.

Line of sight? That's more than a fifth of a mile!

Um no, underage alcohol possession is illegal. Very much illegal.

And all drugs were legal at one point, until congressman were misled into banning them. You should hear the arguments they used against weed.


How about bazookas? Pretty sure those are illegal.

At least in Connecticut in the 80s, underaged possession of alcohol was not illegal, unless it was being consumed or purchased (odd, I think, but hey).
It is perfectly legal (under 21) to drink with your parents.

I'm not going to debate drugs (I don't really have an opinion as to if they should be legal or not). But if you can go back to when they were legal, I'd like you to find the year, please. I'm willing to bet it was *way* before 1968. I bet it was even before 1934.

How about them? They're a firearm. Hence, they are a victim of gun control. Thank you again, Democratic Party. :)

Can anyone name a design for guns other than to destroy? some people on this thread have mentioned that they are not designed for this. It puzzles me.

1) Hunting: destroying animals

2) Defense: destroying the attacker

3) Attacks: Please, someone just try to argue that putting a couple shells in a person to steal something isn't destroying.

Sure. And remember:
Cars are designed to run over and kill puppies!!
Airplane engines are designed to suck in and kill birds!!
Please.

Guns are a consumer good, just like any other. You get no traction with me by asking what a gun is good for. But I will enlighten you as to my outlook:

Hunting - Substinance, and reducing overpopulation. In my state (CT) there are OVER 40,000 too many deer for the state to support. What is more humane? Shooting a deer and ending it's life quickly, or having it starve to death in the winter due to lack of food or getting hit by a vehicle?

Defense - Yes, you're right. I want to destroy the attacker. Because any idiot who attacks me or mine deserves it. :mp5:

Attacks - Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun. Cliche, but true. The same can be said for abortion clinics, trains, etc.
In your utopia, once the guns are taken away, do you start going after the swords and knives too? Oh wait, they're trying to DO that in Australia! :p
I, (and I daresay just about every other legal gun owner) have not ever even considered shooting anybody.

Other gun uses:

Target shooting - Believe it or not, this is a popular sport. So is biathalon. As is skeet & trap shooting.

Charity hunts - Rising in popularity, sportsmen donate hunted animals to homeless shelters. A 150 pound deer makes a LOT of stew.

Deterance - Many times, the mere possible presence of firearms keeps away criminals.

MarkReich,

Have you noticed that the only thing the anti-gunners are attacking you on is the one mistake you made in your arguement?

Shows how weak their case is..

I feel...
You don't need....
Only for destroying/killing etc...

Yes, I'd noticed. But I don't consider it a mistake, it's my interpretation. :)
Thanks.

It is already illegal for felons and terrorists to own firearms legally here in the United States.

That being said, banning more firearms is not the solution because it is already illegal for such men to obtain them in the first place.

Gun control is a tight grouping at 100 yards, not a legal doctrine.