NationStates Jolt Archive


Legitimate concern about guns, or "backdoor gun banning?"

Eutrusca
14-02-2005, 07:22
NOTE: Many posters on NS General have discussed guns, gun control, and gun banning. I think this article provides some insight into the positions of both sides on this issue. Please feel free to comment.


"Back Door Gun Ban?"

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy implied Tuesday that congressional colleagues who do not share his support for a failed gun ban being reintroduced in the House are mentally ill. The Rhode Island Democrat
also accused lawmakers who oppose the anti-gun legislation of not caring about police safety.

Kennedy is the son of U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and the nephew of the late President John F. Kennedy and U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy, both of whom were shot to death.

The younger Kennedy made the comments at a Capitol Hill press conference to promote the reintroduction of the "50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction Act." The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), would ban the manufacture of such rifles and severely limit the sale or transfer of existing .50 BMG rifles except for those owned by the military or civilian law
enforcement agencies.

"Any policy maker who, on the one hand, says that they are for combating terrorism but, on the other hand, will not back this legislation, backed by
Representative Moran, to me has a lot of explaining to do," Kennedy said "In fact, I think it would be the definition of insanity to say that."

In addition to challenging his opponents' mental stability, Kennedy also questioned whether his fellow lawmakers could claim to support police while opposing the gun ban.

"If we don't pass this legislation, this Congress, implicitly, is saying that they do not care about the welfare of our law enforcement community," Kennedy
said.

John Burtt -- chairman of the Fifty Caliber Institute, the education and advocacy arm of the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association -- told the Cybercast News Service that Moran, Kennedy and their colleagues are trying to create "backdoor legislation to ban all firearms in this country.

"What they're doing is using hyperbole to create anxiety on the part of the uninformed public that these guns are dangerous, that they are a threat to
national security," Burtt said, "but they are not."

Burtt said there has not been a single instance of terrorists using the .50 BMG in an attack on U.S. soil. A handout provided to the media at Moran's press conference listed 12 instances in which a .50 caliber rifle was used, threatened or intended for use in a criminal act. But Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, reviewed the list and questioned
the nature of the examples.

"It's usually people who were prohibited from owning any kind of firearm to begin with and, as a result, should have been prohibited from owning a .50 caliber already," Gottlieb said. "There's no need to have a new law. They ought to just enforce the existing laws."

Moran believes, however, that there is no legitimate reason for civilians to own the rifles.

"It serves no purpose for hunting, whatsoever," Moran claimed. "If you went hunting with this, you would not have any trophy. All you'd have left would be some pieces of fur and hoof."

Burtt refuted Moran's assertion.

"I know a lot of people who hunt with the .50 BMG," Burtt said, noting that many people pursue elk, bear and other large game animals with the rifles. "When a .50 caliber round hits a large animal like that, it has tremendous knock-down power. But, it does nothing more than put a half-inch hole into the animal and knock it down.

"This is just somebody who, obviously, has no knowledge, whatsoever, about the hunting capabilities of these firearms making statements that are
completely inaccurate," Burtt added.

U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), whose husband was murdered and son wounded by a gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, contributed to Moran's "no legitimate use" argument.

"This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. This has nothing to do with taking away the right of someone to have a gun to protect themselves [sic]," McCarthy said.

Gottlieb disagreed.

"As far as Carolyn McCarthy is concerned, the Second Amendment doesn't protect any firearm," Gottlieb said. "If she had her wishes, she'd classify every firearm under a foot long as a 'Saturday Night Special,' and ban it, and characterize every gun over a foot long as an 'assault weapon,' and ban it also."

McCarthy and her anti-gun colleagues are using a "divide and conquer" strategy, according to Gottlieb, to disarm law-abiding Americans.

"If you pick on one type of gun at a time and say, 'the Second Amendment doesn't protect it,' most gun owners who don't own that kind of gun won't get upset and she might get her legislation passed," Gottlieb explained. "Then, lo and behold, she'll come back for another gun the next time and another gun the next time until there are no guns left."

McCarthy's comments seemed to support Gottlieb's assessment as she attempted to further demonize the .50 caliber.

"Look at this thing," McCarthy urged. "Do you want this in your home? Do you want your children to play with this?"

Burtt said McCarthy's comment betrays her ignorance of firearms and their safe handling.

"I don't want any children 'playing' with firearms, and they shouldn't even be touching them without the supervision of an adult," Burtt said. "I can't believe
a representative of our Congress would make a statement like that."

Gottlieb, however, said he was not surprised by McCarthy's comments.

"Nobody said that the opponents of gun ownership are intellectually honest," Gottlieb said. "As far as these members of Congress are concerned, there's no
such thing as a good gun."
Evil Arch Conservative
14-02-2005, 07:32
"If you pick on one type of gun at a time and say, 'the Second Amendment doesn't protect it,' most gun owners who don't own that kind of gun won't get upset and she might get her legislation passed," Gottlieb explained. "Then, lo and behold, she'll come back for another gun the next time and another gun the next time until there are no guns left."

I couldn't say it any better. Leave guns alone you damn new england liberal hippie creatures.
Robbopolis
14-02-2005, 07:38
I could go for an .50 cal rifle. If we ever needed to start another revolution, it might come in handy.
Stormforge
14-02-2005, 07:40
I couldn't say it any better. Leave guns alone you damn new england liberal hippie creatures.You should read that link in your sig. One of the first fallacies given is the "Slippery Slope".
MissDefied
14-02-2005, 07:46
Yawn. This argument bores me to tears. NOBODY is going to take your guns away. Nobody. Ever! I promise.
Especially in these times. A Republican is in the White House. Conservatives rule the Supreme court. Republicans control both The House and The Senate. Plus Bush will, in his present administration, nominate one or two more Supreme Court Justices, which the afore-metioned Congress will shoo into office, with nothing more that a faint Barbara Boxer/John Kerry protest.
The Democrats don't have their wits about them to even introduce a piece of legislation, let alone sneak in a "backdoor" gun ban.
Honestly, are you really worried someone will take your guns away, or are you just trying to incite a riot?
Evil Arch Conservative
14-02-2005, 07:47
You should read that link in your sig. One of the first fallacies given is the "Slippery Slope".

You're right. I had thought of that when I posted. I still decided to post it figuring that this joker probably would like to ban all guns from civilian hands, even if I'm not allowed to put words in his mouth. The post was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, but only a bit.

The rifle IS used for hunting. "You could use an M249 to hunt deer too!". That's different. There are, admittedly almost arbitrary, lines that I draw when it comes to which guns deserve to be banned from public use and which ones don't. I don't think that this one does.

I stand by my plea to new england liberals. Keep your hands off of guns that I don't think need to be banned.
Sdaeriji
14-02-2005, 07:49
You're right. I had thought of that when I posted. I still decided to post it, figuring that this joker probably would like to ban all guns from civilian hands, even if I'm not allowed to put words in his mouth. The post was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, but only a bit.

The rifle IS used for hunting. "You could use an M249 to hunt deer too!". That's different. There are, admittedly almost arbitrary, lines that I draw when it comes to which guns deserve to be banned from public use and which ones don't. I don't think that this one does.

I stand by my plea to new england liberals. Keep your hands off of guns that I don't think need to be banned.

Stop telling us who can and can't get married.
Eutrusca
14-02-2005, 07:50
Yawn. This argument bores me to tears. NOBODY is going to take your guns away. Nobody. Ever! I promise.
Especially in these times. A Republican is in the White House. Conservatives rule the Supreme court. Republicans control both The House and The Senate. Plus Bush will, in his present administration, nominate one or two more Supreme Court Justices, which the afore-metioned Congress will shoo into office, with nothing more that a faint Barbara Boxer/John Kerry protest.
Honestly, are you really worried someone will take your guns away, or are you just tring to incite a riot?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
MissDefied
14-02-2005, 07:51
I stand by my plea to new england liberals. Keep your hands off of guns that I don't think need to be banned.
Here, here. I believe there are guns that are appropriate for self/home defense and hunting and some that are most ridiculously not. Any rational person, when confronted with facts, knows the difference.
Evil Arch Conservative
14-02-2005, 07:52
Stop telling us who can and can't get married.

For the record, I don't care whether gays get married or not. If a gay couple gets married it does not threaten my marriage in any way. People that believe that it does are irrational and need to be ignored.

Does this mean you won't touch gun owners' rights?
Sdaeriji
14-02-2005, 07:52
For the record, I don't care whether gays get married or not. If a gay couple gets married it does not threaten my marriage in any way. People that believe that it does are irrational and need to be ignored.

And I don't think that guns should be banned. Amazing things, generalizations.
Evil Arch Conservative
14-02-2005, 07:53
And I don't think that guns should be banned. Amazing things, generalizations.

You're not such a new england liberal then, are you?
Willamena
14-02-2005, 07:54
If you don't have anything to shoot with, you cannot shoot anybody.
Sdaeriji
14-02-2005, 07:57
You're not such a new england liberal then, are you?

Not in so much as that's a stupid generalization. I'm from New England, and I'm a liberal. Doesn't mean I have to fit whatever image you have of liberal minded people from New England.
Evil Arch Conservative
14-02-2005, 07:58
If you don't have anything to shoot with, you cannot shoot anybody.

Do you suggest that if the government bans all weapons then no criminals will ever be able to aquire them and use them in this country? That's wishful thinking. The government tried doing that with drugs. It didn't work out too well. This isn't to say that I think drugs should be legalized, just that they're still around. They're around because they're smuggled into the country.

Not in so much as that's a stupid generalization. I'm from New England, and I'm a liberal. Doesn't mean I have to fit whatever image you have of liberal minded people from New England.

I think you know what connotation I was going for. But you're probably right, it's a blanket statement and shouldn't be used.

Logic is no fun.
Stormforge
14-02-2005, 08:00
You're right. I had thought of that when I posted. I still decided to post it figuring that this joker probably would like to ban all guns from civilian hands, even if I'm not allowed to put words in his mouth. The post was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, but only a bit.

The rifle IS used for hunting. "You could use an M249 to hunt deer too!". That's different. There are, admittedly almost arbitrary, lines that I draw when it comes to which guns deserve to be banned from public use and which ones don't. I don't think that this one does.I think I agree with you. There's really no point in banning all the guns, but there are some firearms that no one needs to own just because they are too powerful. Unfortunately I don't know enough about guns to be able to argue such a point, so I'll leave this thread to those who know more about the issue than I.
Sdaeriji
14-02-2005, 08:02
I think you know what connotation I was going for. But you're probably right, it's a blanket statement and shouldn't be used.

Logic is no fun.

Yeah, I know exactly what connotation you were going for. Ted Kennedy.
Evil Arch Conservative
14-02-2005, 08:05
Yeah, I know exactly what connotation you were going for. Ted Kennedy.

A small child was reading that post. :mad:
Sdaeriji
14-02-2005, 08:06
A small child was reading that post. :mad:

Well, where are you from? I'm sure I could make some unfair comparisons about you based on your political leanings and your location.
Eutrusca
14-02-2005, 08:06
A small child was reading that post. :mad:

ROFLMAO!!! :D
Evil Arch Conservative
14-02-2005, 08:09
Well, where are you from? I'm sure I could make some unfair comparisons about you based on your political leanings and your location.

Michigan. Specifically, the area where the Michigan Militia patrolled the streets for about 5 years in pickup trucks with .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the backs. Although similar in habits and equipment used, this is not to be confused with the gangs in Detroit. Compare away.
Sdaeriji
14-02-2005, 08:11
Michigan. Specifically, the area where the Michigan Militia patrolled the streets
for about 5 years in pickup trucks with .50 caliber machine guns mounted in the backs. Although similar in habits and equipment used, this is not to be confused with the gangs in Detroit. Compare away.

Hmm...I don't know of any conservative Michigan politicans with Ted Kennedy's brand of insanity. Perhaps you could help me out?
Robbopolis
14-02-2005, 08:15
If you don't have anything to shoot with, you cannot shoot anybody.

And if we ban knives, then people won't get knifed to death either. Where do we draw the line? I would much rather emphasize personal responsibility rather than the weapon involved.
Sdaeriji
14-02-2005, 08:16
And if we ban knives, then people won't get knifed to death either. Where do we draw the line? I would much rather emphasize personal responsibility rather than the weapon involved.

We also won't be able to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and that will make me sad. :(
Evil Arch Conservative
14-02-2005, 08:16
Hmm...I don't know of any conservative Michigan politicans with Ted Kennedy's brand of insanity. Perhaps you could help me out?

We don't have (many) republican politicans in Michigan. Democrats get elected by a margin of about 10 votes. We do have a Canadian governor, so you can make fun of us for being even more liberal then your area. If I were you I'd stick with calling everyone outside the city walls of any city that shows up on a weather report's map a redneck.
Verracosa
14-02-2005, 08:16
I wish I had a .50 cal rifle, as I just own guns for the pure joy of peacefully obliterating inanimate objects. And the .50 cal BMG rifle is the Mona Lisa of obliterating inanimate objects.

Also, if the government came to take it away from me they'd have to bring a tank, and surrendering to a tank at least has some dignity to it.
Evil Arch Conservative
14-02-2005, 08:20
I wish I had a .50 cal rifle, as I just own guns for the pure joy of peacefully obliterating inanimate objects. And the .50 cal BMG rifle is the Mona Lisa of obliterating inanimate objects.

Also, if the government came to take it away from me they'd have to bring a tank, and surrendering to a tank at least has some dignity to it.

No big deal. The national guard here could be seen moonlighting in the pickups every now and then. Far be it from any of our congressmen to actually visit Michigan and double check the reports stating that the rebellion had been crushed.