NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democrats are coming for your guns. Again.

That will be the smear today, mark my words. It's already started online (http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=mccarthy+gun+ban&btnG=Search). There's even a diary at the top of the recommended list at Daily Kos right now on the subject, largely buying into the right wing attack frame.

Democrats want your guns.

Of course, here's a more accurate statement. One Congresswoman, a Democrat named Caroline McCarthy, has introduced a sweeping gun ban. The bill is HR 1022, which would not only reauthorize the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, but extend it.

Sounds pretty extreme, doesn't it? Perfect for all those people who believe that liberals want to get rid of guns.

Here's what the attacks won't tell you:

McCarthy has a personal agenda. Her husband was murdered by a mentally ill person who was able to buy a gun.

She doesn't have a single co-sponsor on her House Bill at this time.

There is no corresponding legislation in the Senate.

No, it will be "see, you can't trust the Democrats when it comes to guns," even though this bill has less chance of getting out of committee than the Child Pornography Is Protected Speech Act of 2007, a bil that doesn't actually exist.

And when the inevitable attack thread is posted, just remember, I told you it was coming, and that it would be a bullshit attack.

You've saved the day,Nazz.

Thank you.

You've saved the day,Nazz.

Thank you.

I'm sure I haven't. There will no doubt be a half dozen threads on this before the day is out. I could even predict the people most likely to start them, but that would just be showing off. ;)

Haven't got my marching orders from the GOA on that one. The redefinitions of what firearms are by the BATFE has been getting most of my attention.

Haven't got my marching orders from the GOA on that one. The redefinitions of what firearms are by the BATFE has been getting most of my attention.

Now, now, I wasn't suggesting that you folks would be getting marching orders from anywhere--just that, as is usually the case on stories like this one, it would be extremely blown out of proportion. Hell, over at Daily Kos, it's a bitchfest between Democratic gun advocates who are pissed over the legislation, never stopping to think that it's never going to go anywhere.

I'm sure I haven't. There will no doubt be a half dozen threads on this before the day is out. I could even predict the people most likely to start them, but that would just be showing off. ;)

keep in mind-those folks you may be able to predict may start them?

They could just be responding to the news they hear,which will undoubtably make it like only like it is a leftist-democrat attack on our right to bear arms.

Unless this is a full time job,you cannot possibly accurately glean actual truth from the various news agencies biased reports.

But-you can always get what you want to believe from it.

keep in mind-those folks you may be able to predict may start them?

They could just be responding to the news they hear,which will undoubtably make it like only like it is a leftist-democrat attack on our right to bear arms.

Unless this is a full time job,you cannot possibly accurately glean actual truth from the various news agencies biased reports.

But-you can always get what you want to believe from it.

Oh, absolutely. That's why I linked the google news search in the OP, because I know it's coming. If it's happening on a left-leaning site like Daily Kos, there's no doubt it will happen here, and with a deal more vitriol involved.

Actually, we do. The Gun Owner's of America does send out notices when some egregious law is introduced. I don't worry too much about what happens in the House, since my Congressman has a pretty solid record against restrictive gun laws. When it passes the House and gets to our no-good Senators, then I'll have to go to work.

This is old news, anyway, isn't it? This was introduced in late January, if I recall...

Was it? The NRA is slow on the uptake then. The diaries at Kos hit last night and this morning and both referenced an NRA email alert.

Now, now, I wasn't suggesting that you folks would be getting marching orders from anywhere--just that, as is usually the case on stories like this one, it would be extremely blown out of proportion. Hell, over at Daily Kos, it's a bitchfest between Democratic gun advocates who are pissed over the legislation, never stopping to think that it's never going to go anywhere.
Actually, we do. The Gun Owner's of America does send out notices when some egregious law is introduced. I don't worry too much about what happens in the House, since my Congressman has a pretty solid record against restrictive gun laws. When it passes the House and gets to our no-good Senators, then I'll have to go to work.

This is old news, anyway, isn't it? This was introduced in late January, if I recall...

Oh, absolutely. That's why I linked the google news search in the OP, because I know it's coming. If it's happening on a left-leaning site like Daily Kos, there's no doubt it will happen here, and with a deal more vitriol involved.

Nazz-your pre-emptive dealing with things like this has me concerned.

Surprising that she does not have any cosponsers at the moment. Seems to me that there would be some. *shrugs*

Goes to show that even I can be surprised by something. :D

I find it surprising that a proposal like that wo uld have no support whatsoever. While the source may be an emotionally overcharged reaction, if all it's doing is reviving a ban that was already in place for awhile then surely there must be some who support it?

I find it surprising that a proposal like that wo uld have no support whatsoever. While the source may be an emotionally overcharged reaction, if all it's doing is reviving a ban that was already in place for awhile then surely there must be some who support it?

Problem is that that's not all it's doing. It extends the ban to cover a number of weapons that weren't covered in the original assault weapons ban. Plus, the Democratic leadership has now taken the position that gun control should be a local and state issue--a federal one-size-fits-all policy is guaranteed to be a disaster, both politically and in practice.

I guess now is a good time to make it seem like its an issue again.

when that dies down,they'll whip banning abortions into a crescendo.

I find it surprising that a proposal like that wo uld have no support whatsoever. While the source may be an emotionally overcharged reaction, if all it's doing is reviving a ban that was already in place for awhile then surely there must be some who support it?


Maybe they are trying to be invisible when it comes to divisive issues that will distract from the ones they want the responsibility for passing. They've got some decent ones through now: Minimum wage hike, Ethics, etc and they are probably just trying to tread lightly until the election?

You have to admit, there would be a huge and long-winded battle over this and the Democrats don't want that right now.

Problem is that that's not all it's doing. It extends the ban to cover a number of weapons that weren't covered in the original assault weapons ban. Plus, the Democratic leadership has now taken the position that gun control should be a local and state issue--a federal one-size-fits-all policy is guaranteed to be a disaster, both politically and in practice.

Glad to see that they are recognizing that fact.

No, it will be "see, you can't trust the Democrats when it comes to guns," even though this bill has less chance of getting out of committee than the Child Pornography Is Protected Speech Act of 2007, a bil that doesn't actually exist.

And when the inevitable attack thread is posted, just remember, I told you it was coming, and that it would be a bullshit attack.

Are you implying the Democrats are the bastion of gun freedom?

You have to admit, there would be a huge and long-winded battle over this and the Democrats don't want that right now.

No they don't want a fight on this issue.

Glad to see that they are recognizing that fact.

It's been a slow process, but it's getting there. Problem is that groups like the NRA take a no tolerance stance on gun control, whether local or federal, and that's where there's disagreement, but they never make the distinction--for the NRA it's always "Democrats want to take your guns" which is inherently dishonest.

That said, I'd rather this just disappeared as an issue completely. I'm a local control person myself--cities and urban areas ought to have different gun laws than rural areas--but the urban areas also need to recognize that gun laws only have a minor effect on the violence in cities. Poverty and poor educational systems are much larger factors.

Are you implying the Democrats are the bastion of gun freedom?
Not at all, though a lot of what that means is locked up in the phrase "bastion of gun freedom." There's some disagreement among individuals in the party as to what the gun control stance should be, but the recent move over the last ten years or so has been that gun control should be a state and local issue.

Of course, if by "bastion of gun freedom" you mean no restrictions on gun ownership and no safeguards on who can legally purchase firearms, then the Democratic party is probably not for you.

Of course, if by "bastion of gun freedom" you mean no restrictions on gun ownership and no safeguards on who can legally purchase firearms, then the Democratic party is probably not for you.


I have always known that (or at least since about 2000), regardless of their gun control stance.

I find it odd that I used to be a member of the NRA. Then they went totally out of control and exceeded common sense about the right to keep and bear arms.

Whatever happened to demanding responsibility for the rights we have?

In their perfect world there would be no gun control laws. It used to not be that way. The NRA used to think that reasonable gun control was in the best interest of not only the government, but responsible gun owners.

The Brady Law was a good start with some definition problems, but instead of wanting to amend the law to include better and corrected definitions, we have to go BACK to square 1 without any federal laws and an agglomeration of states whose rules and definitions widely vary.

Odd indeed. GOA and the NRA can kiss my butt. Once they get the extremists out of their ranks I will consider rejoining.

I have always known that (or at least since about 2000), regardless of their gun control stance.

Well, that's an extreme stance, and if it's a deal breaker for you, then that's important to know. We all have our non-compromise stands.

It's been a slow process, but it's getting there. Problem is that groups like the NRA take a no tolerance stance on gun control, whether local or federal, and that's where there's disagreement, but they never make the distinction--for the NRA it's always "Democrats want to take your guns" which is inherently dishonest.

That said, I'd rather this just disappeared as an issue completely. I'm a local control person myself--cities and urban areas ought to have different gun laws than rural areas--but the urban areas also need to recognize that gun laws only have a minor effect on the violence in cities. Poverty and poor educational systems are much larger factors.

I agree with you 100%

I have to ask why the pre-emptive attack? Did you even consider the possibility of diplomacy?

For those that don't know, an assault weapon is generally defined as a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name, appearance, or design to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition.

The second amendment is there to provide the citizens of this nation a means to protect themselves from foreign and domestic powers. What if the government banned weapons, not just guns but swords and axes too (not that they'd be of much use), then started churning out a bunch of unjust legislation? That's why the right is there, to allow you to defend yourself from overwhelmingly unjust policy as well as any muggers in your neighbor hood.

By the way, I had already read about this and I was not planning any attack.

I have to ask why the pre-emptive attack? Did you even consider the possibility of diplomacy?

On this subject? I've seen the endless threads on anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. Decided to head this one off if I could, and so far, it seems to have worked. This has been the most civil gun control thread I've ever seen.

On this subject? I've seen the endless threads on anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. Decided to head this one off if I could, and so far, it seems to have worked. This has been the most civil gun control thread I've ever seen.

That's because everyone is controling their tongues at the moment. Give it time.

Well we'll have to do something about that won't we? I think I'll get the ball rolling with a smear of Sarah Brady.
http://www.scottbieser.com/images/according_to_sarah_700.jpg

And how about one for the federal police?
http://www.scottbieser.com/images/fearless_FBI_700.jpg

As you may have guessed I am a fan of Mr. Bieser's work.

snip.
Won't get a rise out of me--more like a meh.

The Democrats are coming for your guns. Again.

That will be the smear today, mark my words. It's already started online (http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=mccarthy+gun+ban&btnG=Search). There's even a diary at the top of the recommended list at Daily Kos right now on the subject, largely buying into the right wing attack frame.

Democrats want your guns.

Of course, here's a more accurate statement. One Congresswoman, a Democrat named Caroline McCarthy, has introduced a sweeping gun ban. The bill is HR 1022, which would not only reauthorize the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, but extend it.

Sounds pretty extreme, doesn't it? Perfect for all those people who believe that liberals want to get rid of guns.

Here's what the attacks won't tell you:

McCarthy has a personal agenda. Her husband was murdered by a mentally ill person who was able to buy a gun.

She doesn't have a single co-sponsor on her House Bill at this time.

There is no corresponding legislation in the Senate.

No, it will be "see, you can't trust the Democrats when it comes to guns," even though this bill has less chance of getting out of committee than the Child Pornography Is Protected Speech Act of 2007, a bil that doesn't actually exist.

And when the inevitable attack thread is posted, just remember, I told you it was coming, and that it would be a bullshit attack.

In Britain you'd win a landslide election if you said you'd get rid of all guns :confused: ......I don't understand why people would want them, unless they were in the police or army where guns are needed.

In Britain you'd win a landslide election if you said you'd get rid of all guns :confused: ......I don't understand why people would want them, unless they were in the police or army where guns are needed.

Different culture here, different circumstances.

In Britain you'd win a landslide election if you said you'd get rid of all guns :confused: ......I don't understand why people would want them, unless they were in the police or army where guns are needed.

Because, as I've learned in my two decades of living in America, people here are Crazy

Because, as I've learned in my two decades of living in America, people here are Crazy

That sounds a reasonable explanation :p

In Britain you'd win a landslide election if you said you'd get rid of all guns :confused: ......I don't understand why people would want them, unless they were in the police or army where guns are needed.
http://www.scottbieser.com/images/Lord_Brit-itch_600.jpg
Gotta love those Brits. They ban guns and their violent crime rate skyrockets. You can't beat these guys as a bad example.

You don't need a gun to kill someone, clubs and knives do just as well of, if not a more painful job. But for old people who might not be able to fight off a home invader they might need a gun. In fact, I seem to remember a brit who did just that to a couple of theives who'd been going around his neighborhood beating up the elderly and stealing any valuables they could find. Was arrested and tossed in prison for self-defense. That's something I'll neer understand about the UK, see here in the states self-defense is considered an excuse not a crime.

Dosuun--are you deliberately trying to stir up shit that's off topic in this thread? You certainly hinted that you were in an earlier post, and I just want to make sure before I traipse over to another section of NS and ask someone to rule on it as baiting or trolling.

The thread topic is that the inevitable accusations of Democrats wanting to take away guns is a crap accusation, not the efficacy of gun control legislation. If you want to talk about the latter, the polite thing to do is to start a new thread.

http://www.scottbieser.com/images/Lord_Brit-itch_600.jpg
Gotta love those Brits. They ban guns and their violent crime rate skyrockets. You can't beat these guys as a bad example.

You don't need a gun to kill someone, clubs and knives do just as well of, if not a more painful job. But for old people who might not be able to fight off a home invader they might need a gun. In fact, I seem to remember a brit who did just that to a couple of theives who'd been going around his neighborhood beating up the elderly and stealing any valuables they could find. Was arrested and tossed in prison for self-defense. That's something I'll neer understand about the UK, see here in the states self-defense is considered an excuse not a crime.

I'd like to see your figures. We banned guns 10 to 15 years ago and as far as I can see gun crime has gone down overall since that date. Also, self defence is a defence in British law, just that it cannot be excessive. If somebody with a gun kills someone who has broken into their home, they will get a murder charge unless the tresspasser had a dangerous weapon.

I'd like to see your figures. We banned guns 10 to 15 years ago and as far as I can see gun crime has gone down overall since that date. Also, self defence is a defence in British law, just that it cannot be excessive. If somebody with a gun kills someone who has broken into their home, they will get a murder charge unless the tresspasser had a dangerous weapon.
Did I say gun crime or violent crime? Violent crime includes but is not limited to shootings, beatings, and stabbings. Get rid of one and the others will rise to fill the void and then some. And I used to have statistics from a debate on gun control in HS. I'll look for it but it may be on a backup.

In Britain you'd win a landslide election if you said you'd get rid of all guns :confused: ......I don't understand why people would want them, unless they were in the police or army where guns are needed.

I thought you had politicians who'd been promising to get rid of them for a long time? Saying and doing are very different things, the British ban never got all the guns (or even that great an amount) off the streets, why should a measure to take them all be trusted?

The Democrats are coming for your guns. Again.

That will be the smear today, mark my words. It's already started online (http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&q=mccarthy+gun+ban&btnG=Search). There's even a diary at the top of the recommended list at Daily Kos right now on the subject, largely buying into the right wing attack frame.

Democrats want your guns.

Of course, here's a more accurate statement. One Congresswoman, a Democrat named Caroline McCarthy, has introduced a sweeping gun ban. The bill is HR 1022, which would not only reauthorize the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, but extend it.

Sounds pretty extreme, doesn't it? Perfect for all those people who believe that liberals want to get rid of guns.

Here's what the attacks won't tell you:

McCarthy has a personal agenda. Her husband was murdered by a mentally ill person who was able to buy a gun.

She doesn't have a single co-sponsor on her House Bill at this time.

There is no corresponding legislation in the Senate.

No, it will be "see, you can't trust the Democrats when it comes to guns," even though this bill has less chance of getting out of committee than the Child Pornography Is Protected Speech Act of 2007, a bil that doesn't actually exist.

And when the inevitable attack thread is posted, just remember, I told you it was coming, and that it would be a bullshit attack.

A lot of our colleagues on the gun forums are indeed up in arms, so to speak, about hr1022.

The prediction neednt be so dire though, it is being viewed by many as a test both of the republicans and democrats. If this bill doesn't make it into law, in a democratic congress, the image of the democrats on gun rights will profit.

I've been trying to make people understand, for some time, that it appears the new democratic strategy on guns is to leave it a local matter.

Let the big-city anti-gun people ban guns in their cities, and don't antagonize the whole country with another national abortion like hthe AWB.

I hope, both for the sake of my gun rights and for the future of the democratic party, that this is true.

The prediction neednt be so dire though, it is being viewed by many as a test both of the republicans and democrats. If this bill doesn't make it into law, in a democratic congress, the image of the democrats on gun rights will profit.


I don't think so. As you pointed out, most democrats already know that their party stands at a state and local level, so theres no bonus there. The republicans will celebrate the Republicans for stopping it even if the republicans have nothing to do with its demise.

I would guess the Democratic party leadership is already pissed at this woman, they might be able to come out of this with no negative effects on popularity, but I hardly see where they can come out with more.

Then again, I've always found independents(A rocketing number over the last few years) hard to read on gun control, so you may be right.

Jaw Bush is on record pledging to sign a new AWB in to law if it is passed, so we all already know where he, and by extension the republicans, stand.

Yeah...But somehow I don't think that quote made the rounds on the conservative networks.

Jaw Bush is on record pledging to sign a new AWB in to law if it is passed, so we all already know where he, and by extension the republicans, stand.

Or a neat political ploy on his part :D

I don't think so. As you pointed out, most democrats already know that their party stands at a state and local level, so theres no bonus there. The republicans will celebrate the Republicans for stopping it even if the republicans have nothing to do with its demise.

I would guess the Democratic party leadership is already pissed at this woman, they might be able to come out of this with no negative effects on popularity, but I hardly see where they can come out with more.

Then again, I've always found independents(A rocketing number over the last few years) hard to read on gun control, so you may be right.

A demonstration that the democrats, as Clinton wrote in his book, realize the AWB was a mistake and do not intend to push another one would do well for their image.

There are a lot of people for whom an AWB is a deal-breaker, and with those people, the deal won't be broken.

Jaw Bush is on record pledging to sign a new AWB in to law if it is passed, so we all already know where he, and by extension the republicans, stand.

I don't think so. As you pointed out, most democrats already know that their party stands at a state and local level, so theres no bonus there. The republicans will celebrate the Republicans for stopping it even if the republicans have nothing to do with its demise.

I would guess the Democratic party leadership is already pissed at this woman, they might be able to come out of this with no negative effects on popularity, but I hardly see where they can come out with more.

Then again, I've always found independents(A rocketing number over the last few years) hard to read on gun control, so you may be right.

If the bill never makes it out of committee, then the Republicans can hardly claim victory (legitimately) because the Democrats will have killed it alongside them, as they control the committees in the House. It will moderate their reputation among independents for whom gun control is an issue, but isn't a deal breaker.

If the bill never makes it out of committee, then the Republicans can hardly claim victory (legitimately) because the Democrats will have killed it alongside them, as they control the committees in the House. It will moderate their reputation among independents for whom gun control is an issue, but isn't a deal breaker.

Or a dem decided to side with the republicans in the committee. One never knows though so I won't bicker that much over it.

Or a dem decided to side with the republicans in the committee. One never knows though so I won't bicker that much over it.
Well, committee votes are part of the public record, so it's possible to find out who voted which way in committee. It's also possible--and I could see this as a political strategy--that Republicans would vote for it in committee to get it to the floor to be argued. However, were that to happen, the Speaker could always delay hearing the bill, schedule it for a time near the end of the term and then suddenly run out of time without ever letting it get a hearing. There are all sorts of ways to kill a bill you don't like, if you're in the majority.

Or a neat political ploy on his part :D

So now you think he's a casual liar too?

If the bill never makes it out of committee, then the Republicans can hardly claim victory (legitimately) because the Democrats will have killed it alongside them, as they control the committees in the House. It will moderate their reputation among independents for whom gun control is an issue, but isn't a deal breaker.

The republicans can't "claim victory" with anything less tha a fillibuster.

If it doesnt come to that, then the democrats will have canned it of their own accord, in the face of a promised presidential signature.

So now you think he's a casual liar too?

All politicians are liars.

I've never understood gun nuts.

We should have a screened check for anyone that wants to own a gun - no previous felonies within the last (for the sake of argument) 10 years, and the only gun available for use is a .22 pistol.

Why would you need more than a .22? Why have a rifle, or a shotgun? A .22's more than enough to deter/defeat a burglar, a mugger, a rapist, anyone.


As far as that one guy's comic about the FBI being able to kill anyone etc because nobody has guns anymore: You're not allowed to fire at a government official REGARDLESS of your right to arm yourself. You can HAVE all the guns in the world, but you can't USE any of them against a government official unless it's in self-defense, but even then I doubt you would win the trial, so it's pointless to say "If we don't have guns we can't defend ourselves from the government" because you can't really do it anyway.

Also, background checks and tracking devices on all .22 pistols, in case it ends up in the hands of anyone other than the buyer - as well as a rationed-off amount of ammunition per buyer and a ban on gun shows.

All politicians are liars.

I get the impression he's telling the truth on this one.

Yeah...But somehow I don't think that quote made the rounds on the conservative networks.

You are mistaking GWB for a conservative. That's a mistake many other conservatives made. He has nearly never behaved in a conservative manner, so I'm not quite sure why the confusion arises.

I've never understood gun nuts.Me either, but that doesn't mean I understand you.

Why would you want to interfere with the gun nuts? To the very best of my knowledge, there's no negative societal or environmental reasons for doing it, and short of pissing them off for the sake of it, I can't think of any other reasons. So would you mind elaborating?

If the bill never makes it out of committee, then the Republicans can hardly claim victory (legitimately) because the Democrats will have killed it alongside them, as they control the committees in the House. It will moderate their reputation among independents for whom gun control is an issue, but isn't a deal breaker.
I don't think that the failure to pass gun control legislation will moderate anyone's opinion of the anti-gun Democratic party. I'm sure they are waiting until they have the numbers to enact much more powerful legislation.

*snip for longevity*

Because shooting rifles and shotguns are fun. You should try it. A great way of working off stress, especially with a rifle that kicks like a mule.

Plus, it's really hard to hunt with a .22 pistol.

-snip-

Wow, a regular crusader aren't we? This thread has done very well at keeping the focus off the right to own guns (or otherwise) and instead the political ramifications of this specific bill and the people pushing it, and the parties involved. For the sake of continued civility, lets keep it that way.

edit: Oh, its bloody too late now, isn't it?

Wow, a regular crusader aren't we? This thread has done very well at keeping the focus off the right to own guns (or otherwise) and instead the political ramifications of this specific bill and the people pushing it, and the parties involved. For the sake of continued civility, lets keep it that way.

edit: Oh, its bloody too late now, isn't it?

It was too late the day NS started, we've done naught but postpone the inevitable.

I don't think that the failure to pass gun control legislation will moderate anyone's opinion of the anti-gun Democratic party. I'm sure they are waiting until they have the numbers to enact much more powerful legislation.

Paranoid, are we?

AS soon as we're finished erecting the great Proletarian empire, we'll be coming for your guns.

Paranoid, are we?

AS soon as we're finished erecting the great Proletarian empire, we'll be coming for your guns.

Isn't Proletarian Empire somewhat of an oxymoron?

*invisible sarcasm smilie*

I've never understood gun nuts.

We should have a screened check for anyone that wants to own a gun - no previous felonies within the last (for the sake of argument) 10 years, and the only gun available for use is a .22 pistol.

Why would you need more than a .22? Why have a rifle, or a shotgun? A .22's more than enough to deter/defeat a burglar, a mugger, a rapist, anyone.


As far as that one guy's comic about the FBI being able to kill anyone etc because nobody has guns anymore: You're not allowed to fire at a government official REGARDLESS of your right to arm yourself. You can HAVE all the guns in the world, but you can't USE any of them against a government official unless it's in self-defense, but even then I doubt you would win the trial, so it's pointless to say "If we don't have guns we can't defend ourselves from the government" because you can't really do it anyway.

Also, background checks and tracking devices on all .22 pistols, in case it ends up in the hands of anyone other than the buyer - as well as a rationed-off amount of ammunition per buyer and a ban on gun shows.

A .22 is hardly enough to stop a determined attacker, unless you propose that these .22s be fully automatic.

The constitution is pretty clear about the right to bear arms. I don't think you'd be so enthusiastic about letting the country publish one newspaper, but only if the government gets to track and approve what gets written in it.

Keep your hoplophobia off my guns :)

I don't think that the failure to pass gun control legislation will moderate anyone's opinion of the anti-gun Democratic party. I'm sure they are waiting until they have the numbers to enact much more powerful legislation.

Myrmy crapping in a so-far perfectly reasonable thread yet again.

What would be the gain to democrats by doing that? It is impossible for them to pass any kind of permanent ban - the republicans would simply run on a "repeal the crazy ban" ticket.

Clinton made clear in his book that the AWB was a big mistake, in political terms. Facts have since proven it to be a mistake in crime-prevention as well.

--

Thankfully, the democrats seem to have learned that the best way to placate their hoplophobe element is to pass local gun bans in places where they are popular. Here I thought you conservatives were all for 'states' rights.'

I'd like to add also, in response to the head-in-the-clouds "ban everything but 22s" post:


No country where the majority of people have rifles can be ruled by tyranny. No two ways around it. It gets harder and harder to find people to make a knock-in-the-night when a bullet or ten will come through the door.

A .22 is hardly enough to stop a determined attacker, unless you propose that these .22s be fully automatic.

The constitution is pretty clear about the right to bear arms. I don't think you'd be so enthusiastic about letting the country publish one newspaper, but only if the government gets to track and approve what gets written in it.

Keep your hoplophobia off my guns :)

Yes the Second Amendment is very clear. It states:

"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 does not give you the implicit right to collect or use military grade firearms such as AK-47's and 74's, FNFAL's, Ruger mini 14's, Uzi's or the like.

If you believe otherwise you are being disingenuous and lying to yourself.

It is in the inherent interests of the state (read here: State or Federal governments) to restrict classes of firearms legal for a citizen to own.

As a gun owner I have three weapons. A Walther PPK, SiG Sauer P230, and a Remington 30.06 hunting rifle. I have the appropriate permits, I have taken the appropriate weapon safety courses in addition to having military experience with both pistols and rifles. I am content.

If it means I am hoplophobic if I don't think you should be allowed to own an Uzi, then I am hoplophobic. You have no business with a weapon manufactured solely for military purposes, especially one that may be illegally altered to fire fully automatic. There is no legitimate sporting or hunting reason to own such a weapon.

Yes the Second Amendment is very clear. It states:

"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 does not give you the implicit right to collect or use military grade firearms such as AK-47's and 74's, FNFAL's, Ruger mini 14's, Uzi's or the like.

If you believe otherwise you are being disingenuous and lying to yourself.

It is in the inherent interests of the state (read here: State or Federal governments) to restrict classes of firearms legal for a citizen to own.

As a gun owner I have three weapons. A Walther PPK, SiG Sauer P230, and a Remington 30.06 hunting rifle. I have the appropriate permits, I have taken the appropriate weapon safety courses in addition to having military experience with both pistols and rifles. I am content.

If it means I am hoplophobic if I don't think you should be allowed to own an Uzi, then I am hoplophobic. You have no business with a weapon manufactured solely for military purposes, especially one that may be illegally altered to fire fully automatic. There is no legitimate sporting or hunting reason to own such a weapon.

You take what I said to mean more than it did.

Just as the right to free speech has to be weighed against the public good, so does the right to bear arms.

I have no real problem with the current NFA regime, keeps the most dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands pretty effectively.

You dont sound like you want to craft laws due to no reason but extreme fear of weapons, as does the .22-only advocate.

I do disagree though about the suitability of semiautomatic rifles for hunting and sporting, especially the latter. Marksmanship is in my mind a legitimate sport.

On aside, you have a fine taste in pistols, the ppk and the p230 being two of the nicest looked ever produced. I have a p228 myself, which suffice it to say lacks the elegant lines of the p230, but have been pining for some time for a ppk.

*snip British stereotype*


Okay, as much of a skewed interpretation as that was--and full of British stereotypes--that was funny. The comic, I mean.

I don't think that the failure to pass gun control legislation will moderate anyone's opinion of the anti-gun Democratic party. I'm sure they are waiting until they have the numbers to enact much more powerful legislation.

Based on what? Outdated perceptions of the Democrats? That's what it looks like.

Of course, here's a more accurate statement. One Congresswoman, a Democrat named Caroline McCarthy, has introduced a sweeping gun ban. The bill is HR 1022, which would not only reauthorize the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, but extend it.

I think it's pretty sad that you want to disavow this woman, as if she were doing something wrong... but I guess even you have issues that you've ceded completely to the GOP and are all too happy to discuss on their terms.

My opinion: She wants to ban guns? Good.

Based on what? Outdated perceptions of the Democrats? That's what it looks like.

No, just realistic perceptions of the DNC leadership/old guard.

No, just realistic perceptions of the DNC leadership/old guard.

Odd considering that the current chairman of the DNC was Governor of the most gun friendly state in the union.

Ironic, even.

I think it's pretty sad that you want to disavow this woman, as if she were doing something wrong... but I guess even you have issues that you've ceded completely to the GOP and are all too happy to discuss on their terms.

My opinion: She wants to ban guns? Good.
In your opinion. You don't live here, you don't know the culture. What's right for Sweden isn't necessarily right for the US.

Odd considering that the current chairman of the DNC was Governor of the most gun friendly state in the union.

Ironic, even.

Deans' good. I like him. Not only his stance on firearm policies but his economic/social, etc. I wish he would have gotten the DNC nomination in '04.

I'm talking more along the lines of Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstien, Kerry, etc.

No, just realistic perceptions of the DNC leadership/old guard.

The key word there is "old." Even ten years ago you might have had a case that the party was anti-gun, though it would have been a stretch. Not any more. I've said it before--conservatives won this battle. Large scale gun control is off the table on the federal level.

The key word there is "old." Even ten years ago you might have had a case that the party was anti-gun, though it would have been a stretch. Not any more. I've said it before--conservatives won this battle. Large scale gun control is off the table on the federal level.

I agree. However, I also agree w/ M that it still has the potential to be revived by certain influential individuals if they think they can work it or slip it under the table.

Now it's more of a state level thing. In areas like IL, CA, NJ, &MD, it's for the most part D v R on firearm legislation.

In your opinion. You don't live here, you don't know the culture.

I see the culture very well, and I see an issue completely dominated by the GOP and I see Dems like you scurry to kowtow to it - this being a boat you are so scared of rocking.

What's right for Sweden isn't necessarily right for the US.

And what's right according to the GOP and gun lobby is practically never right.

No, just realistic perceptions of the DNC leadership/old guard.

Funny, because this reads like it's just desperate groping in the dark for any reason on earth to cling to a hatred of democrats.

I'm talking more along the lines of Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstien, Kerry, etc.

You can't exactly say that they are fans of the 2nd amendment. While these people surely do not make up the majority of the Democratic Party, they are the most visible.

The key word there is "old." Even ten years ago you might have had a case that the party was anti-gun, though it would have been a stretch. Not any more. I've said it before--conservatives won this battle. Large scale gun control is off the table on the federal level.

As well it should be. Trying to force an entire nation made up of various urban and rural areas conform to the exact same gun control standards--especially when they're so restrictive and thus harm law-abiding citizens--is ludicrous. It should be up to the local area, and local area alone, not even state.

Funny, because this reads like it's just desperate groping in the dark for any reason on earth to cling to a hatred of democrats.
Funny, because if you'ld read what I wrote in another post, I said I would have voted for Dean. I'm also supporting Bill Richardson for President.

Try again.

I see the culture very well, and I see an issue completely dominated by the GOP and I see Dems like you scurry to kowtow to it - this being a boat you are so scared of rocking.



And what's right according to the GOP and gun lobby is practically never right.

According to Fass.

Funny, because if you'ld read what I wrote in another post, I said I would have voted for Dean. I'm also supporting Bill Richardson for President.

Try again.

So, why the talking out of both side of your mouth? We've both been around here a while now, don't deny what you've said, I've seen it. You've taken more cheap shots at the democrats than I have at the republicans. Get real.

According to Fass.

And here I was, thinking it was according to the Koosalagoopagoop...

Thank you so much for pointing out the obvious - now, you care to tell me something else? Like the sky being blue? Or water being wet?

So, why the talking out of both side of your mouth? We've both been around here a while now, don't deny what you've said, I've seen it. You've taken more cheap shots at the democrats than I have at the republicans. Get real.

Whatever. You make up whatever keeps you happy.

And here I was, thinking it was according to the Koosalagoopagoop...

Thank you so much for pointing out the obvious - now, you care to tell me something else? Like the sky being blue? Or water being wet?

Or Fass being biased?

I see the culture very well, and I see an issue completely dominated by the GOP and I see Dems like you scurry to kowtow to it - this being a boat you are so scared of rocking.You're very smart, but you don't know everything. I wouldn't presume to challenge you on Swedish society--you should defer to those of us who live here.



And what's right according to the GOP and gun lobby is practically never right.

Here's an example of how you don't understand the subtleties. I don't agree with the GOP and the gun lobby, and neither do most Democrats. The GOP and gun lobby in the US want to get rid of all regulation, all control on not only the federal, but also the state and local levels. They're absolutists. Democrats have simply come to the conclusion that this is too varied a society to think that federal laws on across-the-board gun control make sense, and that regulation--and regulation there should be, no question--is best designed and implemented by those who know their communities best, those at the local level.

Or Fass being biased?

Of course I'm biased in my opinion - it's my opinion, that's what opinions are. Again, thank you very much for pointing out the obvious; do you have something else completely inane to add?

Here's an example of how you don't understand the subtleties. I don't agree with the GOP and the gun lobby, and neither do most Democrats. The GOP and gun lobby in the US want to get rid of all regulation, all control on not only the federal, but also the state and local levels. They're absolutists. Democrats have simply come to the conclusion that this is too varied a society to think that federal laws on across-the-board gun control make sense, and that regulation--and regulation there should be, no question--is best designed and implemented by those who know their communities best, those at the local level.

Now here's where I'm going to disagree w/ you. The "gun lobby" endorses no such thing. There's also the full spectrum in the GOP as well as the DNC w/ a few DNC members calling for confiscations and full bans up to VT and AK style regulations.

How silly. That's not how one argues with Fass.

Of course I'm biased in my opinion - it's my opinion, that's what opinions are. Again, thank you very much for pointing out the obvious; do you have something else completely inane to add?

That's nice Fass. Have any other pointless posts to make or are you done slavering on your keyboard for the time being?

Here's an example of how you don't understand the subtleties. I don't agree with the GOP and the gun lobby, and neither do most Democrats. The GOP and gun lobby in the US want to get rid of all regulation, all control on not only the federal, but also the state and local levels. They're absolutists. Democrats have simply come to the conclusion that this is too varied a society to think that federal laws on across-the-board gun control make sense, and that regulation--and regulation there should be, no question--is best designed and implemented by those who know their communities best, those at the local level.

Well put. harsh controls on rifles make no sense at all out in the deeper country where hunting is a way of life, and an "all the guns you can carry" policy in LA would be societal suicide on the lawmakers part. It's best to leave gun control to the state and local levels.

See, Kecibukia, this is why Fass is better than you, because he has a sense of humour, and is respectable. Sure, I might disagree with him on gun control, but I respect him, unlike you. You've proven your partisan hackery more times than I can count.

Uh huh. Sure. That would be, what, twice?

Of course I'm biased in my opinion - it's my opinion, that's what opinions are. Again, thank you very much for pointing out the obvious; do you have something else completely inane to add?

See, Kecibukia, this is why Fass is better than you, because he has a sense of humour, and is respectable. Sure, I might disagree with him on gun control, but I respect him, unlike you. You've proven your partisan hackery more times than I can count.

See, Kecibukia, this is why Fass is better than you, because he has a sense of humour, and is respectable. Sure, I might disagree with him on gun control, but I respect him, unlike you. You've proven your partisan hackery more times than I can count.

It's not entirely his fault. He just doesn't understand that Fass's debate style is not to be countered or reflected, that will never work. Fass flourishes in his own light.

Now here's where I'm going to disagree w/ you. The "gun lobby" endorses no such thing. There's also the full spectrum in the GOP as well as the DNC w/ a few DNC members calling for confiscations and full bans up to VT and AK style regulations.

Fair enough--there is a spectrum--but the NRA is very much of the mind that any gun regulation is bad, and they automatically oppose any regulation, no matter how slight. And the NRA is the biggest, baddest anti-gun control group in the US. It's got a lot more pull on the right than the gun control people have on the left. Go take a look at the anti-gun control people over at Daily Kos--the diary is still on the recommended list and was at nearly 1200 comments last I checked.

Deans' good. I like him. Not only his stance on firearm policies but his economic/social, etc. I wish he would have gotten the DNC nomination in '04.

I'm talking more along the lines of Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstien, Kerry, etc.

Dean is far and away my favorite politician.

On another note:

The US 'gun lobby,' which I assume you take to mean the NRA and gun manufacturers, is far from 'absolutist' on gun rights. Much to the chagrin of the absolutists in the RKBA camp, the NRA is always willing to compromise and seldom if ever willing to fight for things like machine gun ownership.

Here's an example of how you don't understand the subtleties. I don't agree with the GOP and the gun lobby, and neither do most Democrats. The GOP and gun lobby in the US want to get rid of all regulation, all control on not only the federal, but also the state and local levels. They're absolutists. Democrats have simply come to the conclusion that this is too varied a society to think that federal laws on across-the-board gun control make sense, and that regulation--and regulation there should be, no question--is best designed and implemented by those who know their communities best, those at the local level.

Now who's mischaracterizing? The GOP are not absolutists. Some are but not all. That's as accurate as saying that the democrats want to ban all guns. Many certainly do, but not all.

And democrats have come to no such conclusion. Democrats have come to the conclusion that it loses elections for them and that's all. Most of the urban democrats still - last time I checked - support stricter gun controls.

Stop making it sound like it is some type of principled reasoned position. It's just cynicism on the democrats part is all. They are rapidly dumping their strict pro-choice platform too.

You're very smart, but you don't know everything. I wouldn't presume to challenge you on Swedish society--you should defer to those of us who live here.

And you shouldn't hide behind such obsequious wordings. It's quite apparent that the Dems are afraid of being further labelled anti-gun because they've ceded to the GOP that being anti-gun is somehow bad and that it's a liability.

Here's an example of how you don't understand the subtleties. I don't agree with the GOP and the gun lobby, and neither do most Democrats. The GOP and gun lobby in the US want to get rid of all regulation, all control on not only the federal, but also the state and local levels. They're absolutists. Democrats have simply come to the conclusion that this is too varied a society to think that federal laws on across-the-board gun control make sense, and that regulation--and regulation there should be, no question--is best designed and implemented by those who know their communities best, those at the local level.

Democrats and state rights? Hah! Here's an example of how you don't understand the subtleties: the Dems have "decided" to suddenly claim to give a shit about state rights in this issue because it's the most convenient way of going "we don't want to deal with it and take a proper stand because it might make us unpopular to have an opinion that goes against what the GOP has dictated, so we'll just say something nebulous like 'state rights' and leave it at that".

Paranoid, are we?

AS soon as we're finished erecting the great Proletarian empire, we'll be coming for your guns.

Nope, not paranoid. Just respectful of what the Democrats have said and done in the past.

This is the one that I think of first, when I think of the Democratic position on gun control...

Senator Diane Feinstein, ... said, "if I thought I could get the votes, I'd have taken them all."

I don't think my distrust is irrational.

Fair enough--there is a spectrum--but the NRA is very much of the mind that any gun regulation is bad, and they automatically oppose any regulation, no matter how slight. And the NRA is the biggest, baddest anti-gun control group in the US. It's got a lot more pull on the right than the gun control people have on the left. Go take a look at the anti-gun control people over at Daily Kos--the diary is still on the recommended list and was at nearly 1200 comments last I checked.

They oppose a lot of new regulations because of the history of the anti-gun groups that have openly admitted they're going to nickel and dime firearms away. The NRA supported the NICS check, stricter sentancing and regulations on crimes used w/ firearms and possesion by criminals as well as support and train thousands of instructors, police officers, and military every year.

It does have more pull on the right, I don't deny that. You could also put that down to the anti-firearm stance that the DNC and/or it's prominent members touted for so long and that some still do.

12 years ago, there was a federal bill passed by a DNC run legistlature and president named for an anti-gun group. The times have changed. What will it be 10 years from now? See my point?

That's nice Fass. Have any other pointless posts to make or are you done slavering on your keyboard for the time being?

What, you're upset now that your pointing out the obvious is somehow also pointing out your complete lack of point in it? That's hilarious and I laugh at you for it, Kecibukia.

And you shouldn't hide behind such obsequious wordings. It's quite apparent that the Dems are afraid of being further labelled anti-gun because they've ceded to the GOP that being anti-gun is somehow bad and that it's a liability.


In the United States, widespread national Gun Control is quickly becoming another 3rd rail of federal politics. Being labeled "anti-gun" can be a huge liability in some districts. The Democrats in congress have realized that being nationally anti-gun (or being perceived as such) is a losing battle in the present cultural atmosphere. They'd rather pick their battles with the Republicans rather than actively oppose them at every turn.

And you shouldn't hide behind such obsequious wordings. It's quite apparent that the Dems are afraid of being further labelled anti-gun because they've ceded to the GOP that being anti-gun is somehow bad and that it's a liability.It's not fear--it's a realization that the public is not where the Democrats were. It's part of being a democracy.


Democrats and state rights? Hah! Here's an example of how you don't understand the subtleties: the Dems have "decided" to suddenly claim to give a shit about state rights in this issue because it's the most convenient way of going "we don't want to deal with it and take a proper stand because it might make us unpopular to have an opinion that goes against what the GOP has dictated, so we'll just say something nebulous like 'state rights' and leave it at that".

Like I said, you don't know everything. You're smart, but not that smart.

What, you're upset now that your pointing out the obvious is somehow also pointing out your complete lack of point in it? That's hilarious and I laugh at you for it, Kecibukia.

Now I'm hurt. Fass is laughing at me. :rolleyes:

Am I the only one feeling a perverse sense of amusement at seeing Nazz and Fass of all people arguing over something?

And you shouldn't hide behind such obsequious wordings. It's quite apparent that the Dems are afraid of being further labelled anti-gun because they've ceded to the GOP that being anti-gun is somehow bad and that it's a liability.

The Democratic party were never across the board anti-gun in their history. The closest they came to that was in the nineties when there was such demand for some kind of progressive action that some were afraid not to do it. Look at the seventies, eighties and recent history, where the ban drifted away without any real conflict from Dems'. Like Nazz said: Subtleties



Democrats and state rights? Hah! Here's an example of how you don't understand the subtleties: the Dems have "decided" to suddenly claim to give a shit about state rights in this issue because it's the most convenient way of going "we don't want to deal with it and take a proper stand because it might make us unpopular to have an opinion that goes against what the GOP has dictated, so we'll just say something nebulous like 'state rights' and leave it at that".

It has very little to do with the GOP right now. The GOP is in shambles. What the democrats want to do is draw the GOP's former base, which is what they hope to do by reassuring the public that they respect the 2nd Amendment.

Am I the only one feeling a perverse sense of amusement at seeing Nazz and Fass of all people arguing over something?

Nah, it's always fun to watch.

And you shouldn't hide behind such obsequious wordings. It's quite apparent that the Dems are afraid of being further labelled anti-gun because they've ceded to the GOP that being anti-gun is somehow bad and that it's a liability.


That's exactly what happened.

It is true though. They were never going to get elected by banging the anti-gun thing, mostly because being anti gun is an inherently silly position.

It's not fear--it's a realization that the public is not where the Democrats were. It's part of being a democracy.

It's also succumbing to populism and abandoning the idea that a political party is supposed to have an ideology and principles they fight for instead of only committing to whatever wins (or doesn't lose you) elections.

Like I said, you don't know everything. You're smart, but not that smart.

And you're often right, but you're sometimes wrong as well.

It is true though. They were never going to get elected by banging the anti-gun thing, mostly because being anti gun is an inherently silly position.

I would argue instead, that the Democrat base is far more concerned about other things to care whether this is dealt with, but people who are just barely hanging republican or independent aren't.

It's also succumbing to populism and abandoning the idea that a political party is supposed to have an ideology and principles they fight for instead of only committing to whatever wins (or doesn't lose you) elections.


That is what defines American politics. Ideology is secondary to getting votes.

That's why, IMHO, the 2 big parties have managed to stay in power for so long. They have been able to change their party ideology (and image) depending on the winds of popular opinion.

It's also succumbing to populism and abandoning the idea that a political party is supposed to have an ideology and principles they fight for instead of only committing to whatever wins (or doesn't lose you) elections.


When you have only two major parties, they survive by adapting. And more-so by the timing they use when dealing with issues. Even if the Democrats wanted an across the board ban, this is a horribly inopportune time to do it.

Here's the thing--just because having a no or few gun society is right for you doesn't mean that it's right for us. Americans like their guns--deal with it.

Guns arn't just for southern rednecks anymore.

I would argue instead, that the Democrat base is far more concerned about other things to care whether this is dealt with, but people who are just barely hanging republican or independent aren't.

The democrat base, much like it's republican counter part, does not know what fucking day it is, let alone have time for ethical balancing acts.

It has very little to do with the GOP right now. The GOP is in shambles. What the democrats want to do is draw the GOP's former base, which is what they hope to do by reassuring the public that they respect the 2nd Amendment.


No, didn't you read, the omniscient foreigner "knows" that it is just the democrats kowtowing to the republican party. :rolleyes:

It's also succumbing to populism and abandoning the idea that a political party is supposed to have an ideology and principles they fight for instead of only committing to whatever wins (or doesn't lose you) elections.
Here's the thing--just because having a no or few gun society is right for you doesn't mean that it's right for us. Americans like their guns--deal with it.

That's exactly what happened.

It is true though. They were never going to get elected by banging the anti-gun thing, mostly because being anti gun is an inherently silly position.

They didnt cede to the republican party, the ceded to the will of the people after their electoral failure following the AWB.

The democrat base, much like it's republican counter part, does not know what fucking day it is, let alone have time for ethical balancing acts.

By base, I do not mean their foaming at the mouth hardliners, I'm referring to the broadest amount of people they can include in their scope at one time: Including the politically active and intellectual element. This is plain and simple a horrible time to start a gun debate. The American people are hoping for a change from the democrats and the democrats need to focus on fixing what broken and getting through the elections so they can move their larger goals- like Universal Health-care.

Here's the thing--just because having a no or few gun society is right for you doesn't mean that it's right for us. Americans like their guns--deal with it.

So you're just going to ignore his point? Alright, how about some agreement with him from someone who's pro-gun, eh? It IS populism. Political parties are supposed to stand for ideals and positions and not budge from them: that's why they are what they are.

So you're just going to ignore his point? Alright, how about some agreement with him from someone who's pro-gun, eh? It IS populism. Political parties are supposed to stand for ideals and positions and not budge from them: that's why they are what they are.

Not in the United States.

Here's the thing--just because having a no or few gun society is right for you doesn't mean that it's right for us. Americans like their guns--deal with it.

And people in the US liked their segregation, and tonnes of other things that just because they were popular didn't make them right or something one should have folded to. If the Dems held a pro-gun stance, fine, whatever. But that's not what the Dems hold - they in this instance hold whatever it is that doesn't harm at the polls, and that's what so silly about this kowtowing to the other side. It's the same thing with the nonsense of "We don't support gay marriage, but we don't support a constitutional ban. We don't want gay marriage, but they can have unions that are marriages but they shouldn't be called marriages because it might upset some loonies, and we're too worried about losing a couple of their votes to actually take a stand, so we'll be here pretending that not taking a stand in an issue where someone needs to grow a fucking pair already is taking a stand and is too so having a full scrotum".

So you're just going to ignore his point? Alright, how about some agreement with him from someone who's pro-gun, eh? It IS populism. Political parties are supposed to stand for ideals and positions and not budge from them: that's why they are what they are.

As I said earlier, how is that possible when there are only two major parties? Secondly, when was it announced that the official stance of the democrat party was to ban all guns? It never was. The AWB didn't even ban that many things.

So you're just going to ignore his point? Alright, how about some agreement with him from someone who's pro-gun, eh? It IS populism. Political parties are supposed to stand for ideals and positions and not budge from them: that's why they are what they are.

What point? In the US, it's rare that one of the major political parties has an ideology that they refuse to reconsider in the face of overwhelming opposition.

They didnt cede to the republican party, the ceded to the will of the people after their electoral failure following the AWB.

Just be big, and admit the republicans were right about this issue, and the beloved democrats were wrong.

And Americans liked their segregation, and tonnes of other things that just because they were popular didn't make them right or something one should have folded to. If the Dems held a pro-gun stance, fine, whatever. But that's not what the Dems hold - they in this instance hold whatever it is that doesn't harm at the polls, and that's what so silly about this kowtowing to the other side. It's the same thing with the nonsense of "We don't support gay marriage, but we don't support a constitutional ban. We don't want gay marriage, but they can have unions that are marriages but they shouldn't be called marriages because it might upset some loonies, and we're too worried about losing a couple of their votes to actually take a stand, so we'll be here pretending that not taking a stand in an issue where someone needs to grow a fucking pair already is taking a stand is too so having a full scrotum".

Comparing a disagreement over gun ownership to segregation is beneath you.

Just be big, and admit the republicans were right about this issue, and the beloved democrats were wrong.

I won't go so far as that, because I think the Republican stance against very nearly all regulation is too extreme, but I will say that the extreme control stance the Democrats had was too extreme as well.

Comparing a disagreement over gun ownership to segregation is beneath you.

And avoiding the point and getting hooked up on a formulation that was just to serve as an example (and not a comparison) of "popular things" not being "right things" is beneath you.

I won't go so far as that, because I think the Republican stance against very nearly all regulation is too extreme, but I will say that the extreme control stance the Democrats had was too extreme as well.

As I recall the republican national platform simply opposed federal regulation. (Now if only they could get the same idea about drugs). It left it up to localities to decide their own gun control regimes. They've never proposed lifting the ban on automatic weapons though (as a party).

Isn't that essentially what the democrats are implicitly saying now?

Also, there have been prominent pro gun control republicans, for the past two decades. You can't say the democrats have had the same hetrodoxy in recent years.

Shit, I'll admit that the democrats are right about abortion and the republicans are wrong.

As I said earlier, how is that possible when there are only two major parties? Secondly, when was it announced that the official stance of the democrat party was to ban all guns? It never was. The AWB didn't even ban that many things.
I never said it was. Hell, my point didn't even have to do with the guns, it merely had to do with the simple fact that a party altering its positions on issues in order to be more electable is populism, pure and simple.

And just because you don't see or hear them very often doesn't mean there aren't that many parties in the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Political_Parties

A political party stands for specific ideals and positions on issues. Whether the current parties in the United States are super-parties encompassing a broad spectrum of issues and positions or not is beside the point: they are still supposed to represent specific ideals and positions, and changing them to be more electable is populism, pure and simple.

I never said it was. Hell, my point didn't even have to do with the guns, it merely had to do with the simple fact that a party altering its positions on issues in order to be more electable is populism, pure and simple.

But the position that Republicans often apply to the democrats on guns is not one they actually hold. I repeat: It has never been the official stance of the democrats to ban all guns. Also, the democratic states that want gun control have already applied it at the state and local level. So how is that out of touch with their views?

And just because you don't see or hear them very often doesn't mean there aren't that many parties in the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Political_Parties

I said "Major".

A political party stands for specific ideals and positions on issues. Whether the current parties in the United States are super-parties encompassing a broad spectrum of issues and positions or not is beside the point: they are still supposed to represent specific ideals and positions, and changing them to be more electable is populism, pure and simple.

As I covered earlier, when did "ban all guns" represent an official party line? It seems that application at the state level has been their choice all along.

And I reiterate: Parties the size of the US parties must be flexible, and every constituent short of the frothing radicals expects it to be. The parties in the US are exactly what they're supposed to be (although typically several years behind public consent).

Here's what the 2004 Democratic Party platform (http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf) said about gun control. And tell me that this sounds like a soft stand. The fact that they want to continue what was bad policy on the AWB, coupled with the ban on private arms sales, tells me that they're the same old asses that they've always been.


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.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18

Here's what the 2004 Democratic Party platform (http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf) said about gun control. And tell me that this sounds like a soft stand. The fact that they want to continue what was bad policy on the AWB, coupled with the ban on private arms sales, tells me that they're the same old asses that they've always been.

Closing the gun show loophole is hardly a ban on private arms sales. Get a grip.

Closing the gun show loophole is hardly a ban on private arms sales. Get a grip.

What he said. Closing a loophole doesn't even mean banning gun shows. Though I do find the particulars of the AWB somewhat silly, you should observe what happened when it was put up for renewal in 2004 (as a rider to an otherwise popular bill).

8 people voted for it. If I remember correctly, there were between 44-48 Democrats at that time.

I find it surprising that a proposal like that wo uld have no support whatsoever. While the source may be an emotionally overcharged reaction, if all it's doing is reviving a ban that was already in place for awhile then surely there must be some who support it?

HR 1022 is a revived and expanded AWB.

I've never understood gun nuts.

We should have a screened check for anyone that wants to own a gun - no previous felonies within the last (for the sake of argument) 10 years, and the only gun available for use is a .22 pistol.

Why would you need more than a .22? Why have a rifle, or a shotgun? A .22's more than enough to deter/defeat a burglar, a mugger, a rapist, anyone.


As far as that one guy's comic about the FBI being able to kill anyone etc because nobody has guns anymore: You're not allowed to fire at a government official REGARDLESS of your right to arm yourself. You can HAVE all the guns in the world, but you can't USE any of them against a government official unless it's in self-defense, but even then I doubt you would win the trial, so it's pointless to say "If we don't have guns we can't defend ourselves from the government" because you can't really do it anyway.

Also, background checks and tracking devices on all .22 pistols, in case it ends up in the hands of anyone other than the buyer - as well as a rationed-off amount of ammunition per buyer and a ban on gun shows.


Why would I need more than a .22? Well, in CT, it is illegal to hunt deer with a .22 (the minimum caliber for deer hunting in CT is .243). Also in CT, you can only use a rifle to hunt deer if you're on private land. If you hunt on state land, you can only use a bow, blackpowder rifle, or shotgun (none of which are .22 caliber).

And why do I have to justify my possesions with need? I don't NEED most of the things I own, but I have them none-the-less. They bring me entertainment, knowledge, and a better quality of life.

Dean is far and away my favorite politician.

On another note:

The US 'gun lobby,' which I assume you take to mean the NRA and gun manufacturers, is far from 'absolutist' on gun rights. Much to the chagrin of the absolutists in the RKBA camp, the NRA is always willing to compromise and seldom if ever willing to fight for things like machine gun ownership.


Yes, I do agree that there have to be SOME limits. I agree with background checks, and waiting periods for people that don't have CCW licenses (I currently don't have my CCW, so I had to wait 15 days to pick up my AR-15 lower reciever).

Guns arn't just for southern rednecks anymore.

I'm neither a southerner (I've unfortunately lived in CT all my life), or a redneck (except in the summertime, if I'm not careful). :cool:

Personally, I find guns to be a coward's/"weakling's" type of weapon, made for people who are either too feeble, or too lazy to actually learn how to really fight. (I do give a pass for those who are otherwise less than capable of proper pugilation) ;)

Personally, I find guns to be a coward's/"weakling's" type of weapon, made for people who are either too feeble, or too lazy to actually learn how to really fight. (I do give a pass for those who are otherwise less than capable of proper pugilation) ;)


Soooo, you want to know how to fight deer, bear, elk, etc? :confused:

Soooo, you want to know how to fight deer, bear, elk, etc? :confused:

Actually I haven't got a problem with any deer, bear, elk, etc. that's big enough to want one of them dead. And, if I want venison, or just about any exotic meat for that matter, I'll just call my purveyor (I'm a chef) and order it.

Actually I haven't got a problem with any deer, bear, elk, etc. that's big enough to want one of them dead. And, if I want venison, or just about any exotic meat for that matter, I'll just call my purveyor (I'm a chef) and order it.

Deer cause more deaths in the US every year than bears.

Actually I haven't got a problem with any deer, bear, elk, etc. that's big enough to want one of them dead. And, if I want venison, or just about any exotic meat for that matter, I'll just call my purveyor (I'm a chef) and order it.


You don't need to have a problem with an animal to want to kill it for food. My brother in law has great respect for deer, even though he's gotten a couple during his lifetime of hunting.

And not all of us are lucky enough to have a source for exotic meat like you.


On a different note, how would you (as a chef) recommend venison to be prepared and served? :)

You take what I said to mean more than it did.

Just as the right to free speech has to be weighed against the public good, so does the right to bear arms.

Agreed.


I have no real problem with the current NFA regime, keeps the most dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands pretty effectively.

Do you mean NRA? I will reserve my answer until I understand what NFA stands for, sorry if I brain cramped.


You dont sound like you want to craft laws due to no reason but extreme fear of weapons, as does the .22-only advocate.

You are correct. Owning firearms in the United States is part of the culture, but with that right comes inherent and specific responsibilities borne by gun owners, manufacturers in addition to the state and federal governments.

1. Owners owe it to themselves and their fellow citizens to learn gun safety and take reasonable measures to be competent and responsible when using the weapon for sport, hunting or self-defense. They further owe it to themselves and their fellow citizens to know the laws regarding gun ownership and the penalties for illegal alteration, improper use, and other restrictions conditional to gun ownership.

2. Manufacturers owe it to the gun buying public, federal state and local governments to manufacture weapons appropriate for the markets in which they enter. They also are responsible for producing a product that is not faulty or shoddily manufactured. They at a minimum should sponsor weapon safety courses and strive to sell their weapons to legitimate dealers and collectors.


I do disagree though about the suitability of semiautomatic rifles for hunting and sporting, especially the latter. Marksmanship is in my mind a legitimate sport.

Unless you hunt unusual or out of the ordinary creatures (like elephants, rhinos and other "big game") there is no need to use a weapon more powerful than a 30-30, 30.06 or equivalent hunting rifle, nor shotguns more powerful than the odd 8 gauge. Properly sighted scopes and properly aligned sights along with a proper stance or firing position are quite adequate in 95% of most instances. Semi-automatic weaponry whose primary intent is to hunt humans and have the built in ability to be made fully automatic are not appropriate for hunting and sporting purposes in my opinion.


On aside, you have a fine taste in pistols, the ppk and the p230 being two of the nicest looked ever produced. I have a p228 myself, which suffice it to say lacks the elegant lines of the p230, but have been pining for some time for a ppk.

I am extremely pleased with both of my pistols. If I had been allowed when I was in the US Air Force, I would have asked to carry my SiG instead of the Browning High Power 9mm that was standard issue for military officers when I was active duty. I have found them to be easy to care for and incredibly reliable as well. The P228 is a fine pistol, but I do prefer my P230. The PPK is a dream to own and fire, a clean and crisp delivery and most importantly is a comfortable fit in my small hands for maximum control and accuracy. I could not own a pistol with a large grip, which leaves most of the Beretta and Glock lines out.

Do not settle for the PPK/S. It is in inferior in every regard to the PPK.

Thanks for the kind words and well reasoned argument.

On a different note, how would you (as a chef) recommend venison to be prepared and served? :)

Depends on what part... But I like to take the rack and rub it with S&P, chopped garlic, rosemary, and thyme. Then pan sear it, and finish it in the oven until about rare to med rare. Set it aside to rest for a few minutes (to reabsorb the lovely juices), and make a pan sauce by adding red wine (I prefer Syrah) to the pan, to pick up all the stuff that stuck to it, and whisking in enough butter to bring the texture together. ;)

Depends on what part... But I like to take the rack and rub it with S&P, chopped garlic, rosemary, and thyme. Then pan sear it, and finish it in the oven until about rare to med rare. Set it aside to rest for a few minutes (to reabsorb the lovely juices), and make a pan sauce by adding red wine (I prefer Syrah) to the pan, to pick up all the stuff that stuck to it, and whisking in enough butter to bring the texture together. ;)

Sound's delicious.

I like to make thin slices of meat, sear them, then stir-fry with garlic, mushroom and butter, served with roast potato and vegetables.

And, if I want venison, or just about any exotic meat for that matter, I'll just call my purveyor (I'm a chef) and order it.
That meats got to come from somewhere and since humans aren't scavengers (at least not like vultures), that meat will more than likely come from an animal that was either shot or fed into a machine.

The reason that people have shotguns is so that they can shoot geese and other flying targets, it's a hell of a lot easier than with a rifle. The reason for the rifle is increased accuracy so that you can actually kill a deer without getting within a stones throw from it. Handguns are actually the least useful type of gun, only being accurate at short ranges.

As for guns being for weaklings, go ahead and try to take me down from 20 feet away with your bare hands before I can squeaze a trigger. There is difference between strong and smart. The guy who brings a knife to a gun fight is probably stronger than the guy who brings a gun to a knife fight but the guy with the gun will usually win because he was smart enough to compensate for physical shortcomings with a tool.

Agreed.



Do you mean NRA? I will reserve my answer until I understand what NFA stands for, sorry if I brain cramped.



You are correct. Owning firearms in the United States is part of the culture, but with that right comes inherent and specific responsibilities borne by gun owners, manufacturers in addition to the state and federal governments.

1. Owners owe it to themselves and their fellow citizens to learn gun safety and take reasonable measures to be competent and responsible when using the weapon for sport, hunting or self-defense. They further owe it to themselves and their fellow citizens to know the laws regarding gun ownership and the penalties for illegal alteration, improper use, and other restrictions conditional to gun ownership.

2. Manufacturers owe it to the gun buying public, federal state and local governments to manufacture weapons appropriate for the markets in which they enter. They also are responsible for producing a product that is not faulty or shoddily manufactured. They at a minimum should sponsor weapon safety courses and strive to sell their weapons to legitimate dealers and collectors.



Unless you hunt unusual or out of the ordinary creatures (like elephants, rhinos and other "big game") there is no need to use a weapon more powerful than a 30-30, 30.06 or equivalent hunting rifle, nor shotguns more powerful than the odd 8 gauge. Properly sighted scopes and properly aligned sights along with a proper stance or firing position are quite adequate in 95% of most instances. Semi-automatic weaponry whose primary intent is to hunt humans and have the built in ability to be made fully automatic are not appropriate for hunting and sporting purposes in my opinion.



I am extremely pleased with both of my pistols. If I had been allowed when I was in the US Air Force, I would have asked to carry my SiG instead of the Browning High Power 9mm that was standard issue for military officers when I was active duty. I have found them to be easy to care for and incredibly reliable as well. The P228 is a fine pistol, but I do prefer my P230. The PPK is a dream to own and fire, a clean and crisp delivery and most importantly is a comfortable fit in my small hands for maximum control and accuracy. I could not own a pistol with a large grip, which leaves most of the Beretta and Glock lines out.

Do not settle for the PPK/S. It is in inferior in every regard to the PPK.

Thanks for the kind words and well reasoned argument.

NFA is National Firearms Act, the law which regulates buying machine guns and supressors. Requires a federal background check, approval of local law enforcement and a 200 tax stamp.

More recently, the law was amended (1986, i believe) to prevent new machine guns from being added to the 'register,' effectively fixing the number of machine guns which are liable to be owned by civilians, and driving the prices sky-high (most over $10,000).

This, in my opinon, is a sensible way of keeping machine guns out of the hands of criminals, yet still within reach of a truly dedicated collector willing to make a large financial investment and with an immaculate criminal record.

On top of this, individual states are still free to ban machine gun ownership entirely.

--

The p228 grip isnt as wide as a beretta, and light years more ergonomic than the glock. I think it is a staggered rather than true double-stack magazine.

In my opinion (and others') the best production compact 9mm handgun ever made.

Personally, I find guns to be a coward's/"weakling's" type of weapon, made for people who are either too feeble, or too lazy to actually learn how to really fight. (I do give a pass for those who are otherwise less than capable of proper pugilation) ;)

Also, those vile cowards using knives and sticks to fight and hunt, and spears, and bows and arrows.

Such cowards!

And those legions of cowards who died in ww1 with their cowardly rifles, and those even more despicable cowards who stormed normandy and liberated europe, such cowards!

Even now we have an army of cowards in Iraq, probably 10x as cowardly in your opinion because they all have full-auto rifles.

The nerve of these cowards, if only they were brave like you!

Um... I don't think the Dems are really foolish enough to go for the Gun Control idea again? I mean they pretty much lost loads of support over the stance they took way back when and no-doughtedly helped them lose many many elections.....

Personally, I find guns to be a coward's/"weakling's" type of weapon, made for people who are either too feeble, or too lazy to actually learn how to really fight. (I do give a pass for those who are otherwise less than capable of proper pugilation) ;)

Ok fine- You take a sword into a machine gun fight with all your *balls*... I'll bring another machine gun, You can call me a coward and I'll simply call you an idiot- and when you get mowed down i'll laugh. The Japanese thought much the same thing in ww2 when they issued samuri swords to their officers- sure if you get in real close you can kill- but its much much more likley that the soldier on the other side will laugh and squeeze the trigger and you'll be history.

Personally, I find guns to be a coward's/"weakling's" type of weapon, made for people who are either too feeble, or too lazy to actually learn how to really fight. (I do give a pass for those who are otherwise less than capable of proper pugilation) ;)

But cowards like me prefer the safety of taking out enemies or wild animals from distance, and then we run like hell if it doesn't work.

I can't believe how many of you actually bought the BS "cowardly" thing I posted. You guys are just dying to be offended by something in order to spew venom at people aren't you? ROFL

Actually I don't really have a problem with guns, I just like to screw with people who get six foot erections over them. ;)

And avoiding the point and getting hooked up on a formulation that was just to serve as an example (and not a comparison) of "popular things" not being "right things" is beneath you.

The Democrats won a big victory in November. However, they still only have a limited amount of political capital. Trying to ban guns will result in a long and ugly battle that will probably end in failure and Republicans being swept back into power in '08, thus preventing them from doing a lot of other things they'd like to. Their political capital should not be spent on a prolonged gun control struggle but on more important things.

NFA is National Firearms Act, the law which regulates buying machine guns and supressors. Requires a federal background check, approval of local law enforcement and a 200 tax stamp.

More recently, the law was amended (1986, i believe) to prevent new machine guns from being added to the 'register,' effectively fixing the number of machine guns which are liable to be owned by civilians, and driving the prices sky-high (most over $10,000).

This, in my opinon, is a sensible way of keeping machine guns out of the hands of criminals, yet still within reach of a truly dedicated collector willing to make a large financial investment and with an immaculate criminal record.

On top of this, individual states are still free to ban machine gun ownership entirely.

Oh, duh! That's what I get for not thinking. Thanks for the clarification. I think the NFA is an effective tool as well, especially as it applies to machine guns and suppressors. I still remain concerned about civilian conversions of military assault weapons (they are semi-automatic and skirt the NFA) and I am not certain that selling such hardware is appropriate in a civilian venue.

But good people of good conscience may disagree civilly on this point. I am certain there are folks out there who don't think civilians should own a Holland and Holland Royal Double or Weatherby .467 big game rifle either.

I'm just spiky about military grade assault rifles.

--

The p228 grip isnt as wide as a beretta, and light years more ergonomic than the glock. I think it is a staggered rather than true double-stack magazine.

In my opinion (and others') the best production compact 9mm handgun ever made.

I would agree, despite my partiality to my P230. SiG Sauer makes fine handguns and their only competition in my mind has always been Walther.

Cheers!

The Democrats won a big victory in November. However, they still only have a limited amount of political capital. Trying to ban guns will result in a long and ugly battle that will probably end in failure and Republicans being swept back into power in '08, thus preventing them from doing a lot of other things they'd like to. Their political capital should not be spent on a prolonged gun control struggle but on more important things.

I agree. The Dems have a short time to accomplish things. Now is not the time to bring gun control into the rather volatile mix.

Now, now, I wasn't suggesting that you folks would be getting marching orders from anywhere--just that, as is usually the case on stories like this one, it would be extremely blown out of proportion. Hell, over at Daily Kos, it's a bitchfest between Democratic gun advocates who are pissed over the legislation, never stopping to think that it's never going to go anywhere.

Oh, like your idea that people get their ideas from the NRA, and are too dull-witted to think of things on their own...

Depends on what part... But I like to take the rack and rub it with S&P, chopped garlic, rosemary, and thyme. Then pan sear it, and finish it in the oven until about rare to med rare. Set it aside to rest for a few minutes (to reabsorb the lovely juices), and make a pan sauce by adding red wine (I prefer Syrah) to the pan, to pick up all the stuff that stuck to it, and whisking in enough butter to bring the texture together. ;)


In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have asked, since that sounds really good, and I currently don't have any venison in my freezer.

Oh, like your idea that people get their ideas from the NRA, and are too dull-witted to think of things on their own...

Why are you such a liar? Is there some benefit you get from it?

Why are you such a liar? Is there some benefit you get from it?

You're the one who said repeatedly in a thread that the only way people get ideas about these bills, or about the Second Amendment, is from the NRA - otherwise, everyone would be perfectly in line with your way of thinking.

I still remain concerned about civilian conversions of military assault weapons (they are semi-automatic and skirt the NFA) and I am not certain that selling such hardware is appropriate in a civilian venue.

I just want to point out the BATF's opinion of, "Once a machinegun, always a machinegun".

Civilian semi-automatic "assault weapons" (like my AR-15) come from the factory as semi-only. My AR lower reciever has a high shelf, which means the M-16's select-fire parts won't fit into it (there's also another hole in the side of M-16 recievers that my AR-15 doesn't have). I'd need a mill to convert my AR-15 (which I don't own or have access to) to accept those parts, and I don't currently have the skill with a mill to do the modifications.

You're the one who said repeatedly in a thread that the only way people get ideas about these bills, or about the Second Amendment, is from the NRA - otherwise, everyone would be perfectly in line with your way of thinking.

Not what I said at all, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. And no goalpost moving either--either I said that "the only way people get ideas about these bills...is from the NRA" or I didn't. Now bring it, or be exposed as a liar once again.

Not what I said at all, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. And no goalpost moving either--either I said that "the only way people get ideas about these bills...is from the NRA" or I didn't. Now bring it, or be exposed as a liar once again.

We had a whole conversation about it. Just because you want to deny it by claiming that you never said it isn't a defense.

Most of the people on here that I see are on here a lot. And they read the posts.

We had a whole conversation about it. Just because you want to deny it by claiming that you never said it isn't a defense.

Most of the people on here that I see are on here a lot. And they read the posts.
If we had this conversation, you should be able to find it using the search tools. Go ahead. Bring it.

Look at it this way--here's your chance to utterly destroy my credibility. You'll never have another shot like this one. But I'm holding you to that claim you made above. No goalpost moving.

If we had this conversation, you should be able to find it using the search tools. Go ahead. Bring it.

Look at it this way--here's your chance to utterly destroy my credibility. You'll never have another shot like this one. But I'm holding you to that claim you made above. No goalpost moving.

It wouldn't matter what I quoted. You would just say "I didn't mean that" or you would tighten down "exactly and specifically" what you meant, just so you could wiggle out of it.

We even discussed the New York Times, and you said that people get their walking orders from the NRA, but that would be impossible with the New York Times.

Really? No one gets any ideas from mass media, do they?

We had a whole conversation about it. Just because you want to deny it by claiming that you never said it isn't a defense.

Most of the people on here that I see are on here a lot. And they read the posts.

What in god's name is wrong with you? It certainly is a defense.

You are claiming he said something, nothing indicates that he actually said it.

You have two choices:

1) Find a citation of him saying it

2) Concede the point

There isnt one iota of a reason to believe you over him, and even if there were, heresay is not an acceptable basis for an argument.