I have changed my mind on Gun Control

[The Lone Liberal]

I think every liberal--progressive should be armed, trained, organized and prepared. I now am for lifting any pretense on assault weapons, side arms and support the sale of full automatic weapons. If we don’t we shall be caught defenseless.

When the dust settles the ruling elite will come for the guns. They cannot afford to have the masses armed.

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. Ya want me to shoot meself in the foot?

Or someplace worse? LOL.

[The Traveler]

2. Nope! Heaven forfend

But gimme a few days and I'll have ya nailing the bullseye every time. It ain't rocket science.

[truhavoc]

3. I agree almost completely

Personally I find myself being a strong protector of ALL constitutional rights, due to the fact that if you diminish one it is along the same lines as diminishing them all. I feel the founding fathers were thinking along the lines of us when the instituted the 2nd Amendment. The biggest threat to democracy is dictatorship, and the easiest way to qwell a coup is for the public to not only be armed but to be well armed. For example if one was to turn the army on a section of the public, they could at least go down fighting.

[Gothic Sponge]

4. I disagree

I'd rather die by my beliefs than take up arms.

[truhavoc]

8. Basically what you are saying is...

I would rather die without action, and willingly allow my country to fall into the grasp of a dictatorship? There is time for principle, but when it comes to the fate of my country it is time to fight for what is right. Personally I feel that submitting to death is akin to being on of the sheep that would go along with the idea of a dictatorship.

[Gothic Sponge]

11. Sorry, but i'm a pacifist

If someone is attacking me, i'll defend myself the best i can. However, i'm not going to sell out and support the NRA.

[The Traveler]

14. I respect that

Disagree, but respect it too much to try to talk you out of it. Besides, the voice of pacifism must needs always present, and heard.

Now pardon me while I clean my rifle.

[The Lone Liberal]

15. I am not talking about supporting the NRA

Hell they are the elite

[Gothic Sponge]

19. Am i wrong?

You can't legally own a gun without being an NRA member.

[The Lone Liberal]

20. Yes, anyone can own a gun.

The scum sucking NRA is only a front for the money grubbing manufactures of guns.

[Union Thug]

23. YOU ARE SOOO WRONG

You don't have to be in the NRA to own a gun. What moron told you that?

[Union Thug]

22. You don't have to support the NRA

There are many of us that have been talking about a Leftist gun owners association. My friend at www.liberalswithguns.com is just now starting up. I've been trying to organize Portside Gun Owners Assn. here in Seattle. Pro gun doesn't mean pro NRA

[Gothic Sponge]

27. Okay, i'm wrong

However, i'm not going to own something that was created for the purpose of death. I understand your views and respect your opinion. I would rather take the road of Gandhi and MLK.

[DoNotRefill]

29. Ummm....

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi, from his autobiography.

[The Lone Liberal]

37. God love MLK

I wish I could have gotten to Earl before he pulled the trigger on the wonderful human. We would not have been deprived of his leadership all these years.

[MUAD_DIB]

60. I don't think that Gandhi would survive long in this age, but look what

happened to both he and MLK. I wish that we had one of their strenght and standing right now.

[bigbillhaywood]

101. Keep up the good work

[DoNotRefill]

24. Sheeeit.....

you don't HAVE to support the NRA. There are 80 to 100 million gun owners in the US. There are 4 million NRA members. You don't have to defend the Second Amendment by giving the NRA money, you can do it just as well by letting people within our own party to stop pushing gun control. And if you don't have influence with the Party itself or other Democrats, you can buy a gun and learn how to use it, so that if it's necessary, you have that skill in your inventory, and the tools to make use of it.

[Career Prole]

17. Sure..."you're either with us or against us"

Sorry...heard that line a few too friggin' many times lately.

[Guaranteed]

5. Me too...always been there.

I don't feel the same about it as some of these other folks do, though...I think they take it way too far with the CCW stuff.

[Vickers]

33. I just sent in for my CCW a couple of weeks ago

:)

[Guaranteed]

34. Mind if I ask why? nt

[Vickers]

35. Just to have it handy

Another tool in my quiver.

[NNN0LHI]

6. I can't use a knife and a fork without cutting myself

I better leave the artillery to you guys.

Don

[The Traveler]

12. S'allright. We got yer back. (n/t)

[DoNotRefill]

16. Training is vital.

Don't think you can just buy a gun and that will make you safe. Even having a gun and knowing how to use it well will not make you safe. However, it will assure that if and when they come for you, you will not die alone, and the bastard(s) you take with you will not be doing it to anybody else after you're dead and buried.

Remember the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising....They died, but they didn't die peacefully, and we're still talking about them.

[The Lone Liberal]

26. Good analogy

Like the Haganah and Irgun, like the EDA, the Provos, there must always be someone willing to respond with violence when violence is visited upon the people.

[NNN0LHI]

31. Oh, I know how to use a gun. Actually pretty well. I am just a bumblefuck

Some would say I am accident prone. I kind of agree with them.

Don

[movonne]

7. I am very much for gun control ... but also I sometimes think you are

right. We may need guns to protect ourselves. I feel that if bush gets selected again and more people turn against the government they will come after the guns.

[saigon68]

9. I will not live like a slave in my country.

n/t

[tom_paine]

87. Hear hear!

:toast:

[DoNotRefill]

10. Y'all must be a bunch of Freepers.

Imagine. Wanting to be able to defend yourself from the Government gone nuts. Welcome to the club. ;)

To paraphrase Cottrol, The Second Amendment is far too important to be left to the gun nuts.

And it's never, EVER been about duck hunting.

[The Lone Liberal]

13. I am not a "freeper"

I do remember reading about Ludlow. I also know that sometimes you need force to gain freedom.

[The Traveler]

25. Only if you believe the likes of Jefferson, Payne, Franklin, etc.

I am neither freeper not pacifist, and we are in agreement. That being said action is required only if the constitution is usurped and no legal process is available by which it may be restored. Even then ... never neglect the tactical power of non-violent protest. We have a long way to go before this gets to be a real issue, and hopefully it won't.

It is an old American tradition ... when government acquires unto itself new powers, a significant percentage of us will wonder if the line has been crossed and Jefferson's admonition about the tree of liberty and the blood of tyrants and patriots applies. I view it as a healthy discussion, but today the struggle remains in the political and legal realm.

Me ... I'm keeping my weapons well oiled and my trigger finger cool ... and I'm watching.

[tom_paine]

86. Well said, sir!

:toast:

You and me and MILLIONS of others.

Those Bushevik Fucks would do well to remember that before intiating their Ultimate Transformation and Final Solution (it will probably be "kinder and gentler" than Hitler's but a Tyrannical Thing nonetheless).

[movonne]

18. I am not a freeper and probably very far from that mind set...maybe

getting a little paranoid.

[DoNotRefill]

28. I'm sorry...I should have been more clear.

I'm probably one of the top 10 pro-gun people on DU. Because of that, I've been accused of all kinds of stuff, from being a racist to being a Freeper to not having a penis.

I thought I'd made it clear in my post that I was joshing, and letting you know what will undoubtedly be coming.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you.

[Union Thug]

21. I'm with ya...

I own a Romanian ak47 and a Yugoslavian SKS. My father, a proud worker's democrat raised us with guns. When push comes to shove, I don't want to be at the mercy of the well armed Right.

[sweetheart]

30. An admirable warrior thought

I think the gun is only useful in self defense from a gun-armed
criminal in your home... as without a firearm, you are pretty much
defenseless. Assault weapons can hardly stop a SWAT team or the
army from taking you like in falluja.

If you're intending on covert warfare, better to study how to make
petrol bombs and other devices that can take down military vehicles
in a long guerilla war... as a gun is too personal and you'll get
killed. Heck, i've seen some outstanding books on such things that
are available from the militia underground... the mercenary armies
of america have proliferated quite a bit of this material if you
need some.

The simplest solution, if you seriously believe you'll need a gun
to defend your civil rights, is to leave. The republicans are not
worth dying for, nor is the USA. Better to make a home in a peaceful
country and not need firearms. Like our forefathers, who left strife
for a new life in peace, we are a new generation who will not be
anybodys forefathers if we are wiped out in a nuclear war.

What good is a gun against fallout. The threats i see are far more
serious than bullets, but if it makes you feel better about your
security, i'm all for it... just its a waste of money, IMO.

[The Lone Liberal]

32. I have no intention of being a member of some diaspora

I have given to much of my hide for this country. If I am forced to leave, I will leave, but only after collecting interest on the hide invested.

[DaveSZ]

36. "A leftist gunowners association"

That sounds like a great idea.

I don't own any guns, but I'll send a check if it gets off the ground.

[DoNotRefill]

38. Ummm....

If just one person resists, it'll not do much good. You may kill one or five of the people kicking down your door, and they have hundreds of thousands to do the kicking. If five million people resist effectively (which means with guns), they'll run out of door-kickers pretty goddamned fast.

During the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the people involved were in a small enclosed ghetto, which was surrounded by a wall with German machineguns on top of it. They were cut off from normal supply channels, and were unable to get even food, much less weapons. Most of the weapons they got they took off of the bodies of Nazis they had killed. They started the uprising with fewer than TWENTY obsolete guns TOTAL, and less than three full magazines of ammunition for just one rifle. And even with all of these handicaps, they held the Nazis back for longer than it took the Nazis to conquer Poland in the first place. Of course, they had proper motivation.....because failure to resist meant a one-way trip to a crematorium.

If you are given a choice between being exterminated or fighting back and ending up dead, which would you choose?

[kalian]

40. No question....

I'd rather die fighting than standing still.

People just don't quite "get it"...

[DaveSZ]

42. We all know how close the Bush cabal is to Hitler

on the authoritarian scale.

Ashcroft is pretty much a fascist, and is easily the scariest figure in the cabinet.

If it comes to the worst (they steal our democracy and do away with term limits) and we must rise up like the Jews did in Warsaw, I want to be ready.


If that means learning how to use a weapon, then I'll do that.

[DoNotRefill]

43. Here's the thing....

The Second Amendment is the absolute last-ditch defense against tyranny. It's to be used only after all other forms of resistance have been used, to no avail.

I'm in no hurry to start a civil war, and I don't think the country is at that point. Yet. But if it gets to that point, it BEHOOVES us to have the equipment at hand necessary to provide effective resistance. That means assault rifles and machineguns. And yes, I own both legally.

[kalian]

39. Assault weapons can hardly stop a SWAT team or the....

or the army from taking you like in falluja....
:eyes:

Ask that to the Marines and soldiers that are dying on a daily basis.
SWAT teams are not invincible and neither are our Marines and
soldiers.

Leaving is NOT an option. I will not allow ANYBODY to take away my
country, my rights and my Constitution. Our forefathers would scoff
at people that are not willing to make a stand.

[sweetheart]

44. No weapons stop bombs

They'll drop an explosive on a rebellious neighborhood and wipe out
the whole place. The levels that the military minded folks will
use to repress civilians are quite extreme... and i means a swat
team armed to destroy like they did at Waco. No firearms protected
that cult from being incinerated by military explosives and flammable
gas.

I guess it matters what making a stand is. If dying in your living
room from a hand grenade is noble, then so be it, but it will never
come to that, rather consider the more realistic "stand."

They get you fired from your job and bankrupt you out of your house
and force you in to homelessness. That is the true war they wage
against civilians in the USA, and no firearms will protect you from
that.

Our forefathers are dead. The country is completely overrun by
nazi's and sympathizers, and no firearms gonna change that terrain.
Making a stand could also be living well somewhere else until you
have a chance to safely live in the USA. People put too much
credence on where they sleep. Its just a bloody building after all.

You are not your home town, or your state or "your" country, as
this identification is a binding illusion, that produces stand
and die thinking. In our new world, the survivor is flexible and
adapts quickly to new surroundings, even faking being a republican
to protect oneself like a chameleon.

It is admirable. Some germans stayed behind and fought the nazis
at home. Most of them were killed. Others left and lived long
lives in the US and elsewhere. Neither is better. One is deader.

[The Lone Liberal]

45. Unless they are stopped they will follow you wherevever you flee

They, the elite want it all.

[sweetheart]

47. That minor issue of national borders

Whilst i agree that they seek to corrupt and destroy all nations in
a style similar to their own, it won't happen in my lifetime.

Australia, new zealand, canada and most of europe will stay unaffected by whatever insanity the US does, even nuclear war.

Likely they will become bankrupt and collapse long before they've
gotten to war against "allies". I hear you, and it is why i write
on DU and others even myself already evacuated. We will, the world
over, be very happy when the republicans are deposed... and it is
indeed all of our lives.

That said, it is quite nice abroad, nicer than the propaganda might
impress.

[DoNotRefill]

48. Yuppers....National borders sure as hell made the Iraqis safe....

from the US government.....

[sweetheart]

51. I'm not in iraq

nor would i go there. National borders work in stable countries
where *YOU* would be likely to relocate. You know what i meant, but
i appreciate your comment.

[DoNotRefill]

54. After Czechoslavakia was partitioned...

The British thought they were safe, since they gave Hitler what he wanted.

They were wrong, and "Peace in our time" became WWII.

Appeasement is the idea of feeding the lion your family in the hope that he'll eat you last.

[sweetheart]

98. Survival is not appeasement

In case you did not notice, "sweetheart" is not a head of state,
nor a member of a government. Rather, a civilian, looking to make
a peaceful life of goodwill towards the people who touch ones life.

I take a lesson from the film, "doctor zhivago". Somebody has to
"live" life and write poetry, or all the warriors and fighers are
really fighting for nothing... and i notice that there are not
enough poets... not enough lovers..... and methinks that is a worthy
ambition.

Just because they have prisons and unjustly incarcerate millions of
people for nonviolent drugs crime, does not mean i wish to endure
prison to martyr myself for the drugs cause. I see the USA similarly.

It is a massive prison not worth fighting for. It is hardly
appeasement. The jews who escaped germany were not appeasing hitler.
I do not live to appease shrub... rather i value my liberty, and
move to where it will be respected.

[DoNotRefill]

99. I'd rather stay and fight for my freedom.

because if everybody keeps running, eventually there will be noplace left to run to.

"This, we'll defend."

[DoNotRefill]

46. A little math:

You mentioned Waco. At Waco, 100 people stood up the the Government. They killed 4 Federal agents in the initial raid. And they tied up the entire HRT for over a month and a half. There are 80-100 million gun owners in the US right now. If every 100 gun owners killed just 4 agents or soldiers like the Davidians did at Waco, that's 3-4 million dead soldiers or agents or whatever. That supposes that the gun owners just sit on their asses and wait to be picked off one by one.

On the other side of the "body count equation", you've got people like Timothy McVeigh. He killed, in exchange for his own life, what, 168 people? How many of them were Federal Agents?

Remember the bombing in Lebanon during Reagan? That killed 200+ soldiers, at the cost of a handful of insurgents and one truck.

There's NO WAY IN HELL that the US government would try to engage in a real civil war in the US, ESPECIALLY against 1/4 of the US population. Taking out 100 guys in a remote location is one thing. Taking out 1 out of every 4 people throughout the entire country is an entirely different matter.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[DoNotRefill]

52. Let's say that you're right and only 1 out of every 100 people acts.

there are 80-100 MILLION gun owners in the US. That means that 1 out of 100 equals 800,000 to 1 million insurgents doing something.

How many people are currently in the US Military TOTAL?

And I've repeatedly stated that armed insurection is the absolute LAST DITCH response, which means it would only happen if the situation degrades really massively.

It's a heck of a lot easier to get within 200 yards of your target with a rifle than it is to get a truckbomb close to them. That's where guns come into their own. Your average person should be able to hit a target at 200 yards with a rifle. Excellent markspeople can consistently hit a target a thousand yards away with the right equipment. And rifles aren't defeated by concrete barriers, unless the target spends all of their time in a shelter, in which case they're not doing much to supress the insurgents, are they...

[Vickers]

41. Hey, lookee here: "Fallujah Leaders Seek Insurgents' Weapons"

story here

Enough people have guns (and stuff :P), it is like getting attacked by a swarm of hornets. Sure, you can kill a whole bunch of 'em, but they keep on stinging.

[K8-EEE]

50. Guns = Faux Safety HELLOO!! They Have WMD!

The idea of these guys having guns and thinking that the government can't ever get them is just a joke....they are dropping 2000 lbs bombs in populated areas. If we lose our rights and they come after you, you're goin'....are you gonna get a tank and a fighter plane too?

[DoNotRefill]

53. I can't knock out a tank....

but I sure as shit can knock out a tank driver or a pilot when they're not in their vehicle, and tanks don't have urinals in them. And what is the government going to do, nuke the city because there are a few thousand insurgents in it? That'll kill an awful lot of innocent taxpayers....

We had Nukes in Viet Nam. They didn't get dropped, and the US Government is a lot more callous about foreign nationals than they are about US citizens.

[K8-EEE]

56. Guns Make You Feel Safe, Like Sucking Your Thumb

But they don't in fact make you safe....not from this scenario of you vs the US Military they don't, sorry. If it makes you feel safer to knock out a few on the way down, whatever. That kind of militaristic feelgood bullshit just doesn't do it for me. If it comes down to that I prefer not to live here, or in fact to die here like Rachel Corie did, standing up to the tanks unarmed.

[DoNotRefill]

61. That's your choice.

I really don't think Rachael Corrie thought she was going to be crushed to death, though. And I think that if she knew what was going to happen to her, she'd have shot the bastard before he killed her. And if you think you're going to stop the bulldozers and tanks by having them wear out their treads by crushing your lifeless body, you're wrong.

I've never said that guns are some magic panacea against government troops. In fact, I've said exactly the opposite.

If they're going to kill me, I'm going to take as many of them with me as I can. It's not revenge or vengeance or anything like that, it just guarantees that the people I take with me will never, EVER do it again.

It reminds me of the man who stood up to the chinese tanks on their way to Tiananmen Square. Yes, he stopped them. For a few minutes. And then it was over, and he went home, where the Chinese police met him, took him out, shot him, and then billed his widow for the bullet they used to kill him. The net result was that he died, and a bunch of other protesters died, and they LOST. They achieved NOTHING.

My life can be taken away from me. I choose not to let it be taken away from me cheaply. If they want it, they will have to pay the price, and I intend to make sure it's as high a price as I can manage.

[K8-EEE]

67. You're Like The Guys Who Lead The Cops On The Freeway Chases

...and ultimately DUH run out of gas. If it's seriously the government you think you are going to hold at bay with your guns I think you are delusional.

[DoNotRefill]

69. When you've logically lost the argument, resort to ad hominems.

eom

[Guaranteed]

55. Doesn't matter.

We have to be able to put up some kind of resistance, even if it's not enough.

[Juansmith]

57. I'm just wondering...

What is your position with regard to homeowners shooting and killing burglars who enter their homes?

Personally, I think that defending one's own property is a Constitutional guarantee as well, but should a person get in trouble if the burglar turns out to be unarmed?

I realize it's one of those "Don't break in and you won't get shot" kind of things, but I've seen quite a few homeowners get in trouble for this sort of thing.

[DoNotRefill]

62. From my perspective...

shooting burglars is only justified if a reasonable person would think that they or their family's life was in danger.

If somebody breaks into my house, I'll confront them with a gun. If they turn and run, even if they've got stuff of mine in their possession, then they can go. It''s not worth killing somebody over a DVD player. If they don't go, and come towards me or my family, or try to get to a weapon, they have a very limited life expectancy.

It's happened before to me. The person breaking in left. Nobody got hurt. But I was glad I had a gun...

[Juansmith]

63. Fair enough...

How do you draw the line though?

You say "only justified if a reasonable person would think they or their family's life was in danger".

The problem facing you to make such a judgement is the same as the one facing police officers on a daily basis: You only have a split second to make a decision whose result may be scrutinized for months.

So if you see a guy reaching behind his back when you tell him to freeze, and you shoot him because you think he's going for a gun, you're still the only witness to that fact (if he's dead).

I'd have to say, in situations where it's your word against that of someone who clearly broke into your home, I'd have to side with the homeowner unless there was specific evidence that the homeowner acted in an excessively brutal fashion.

[guitar man]

58. Right on

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

I have been a gun owner most all of my life and that is not subject to change. Among the first things Hitler did was to outlaw labor unions and personal arms. We can see what the nazicons have done to organized labor through their relentless attacks. They are bound to want us disarmed sooner or later. Oh sure,the party brownshirts will still be armed,but they will have to disarm us eventually to control us.

Well,it is a bit difficult to take a weapon away from someone when there is smoke,fire and lead coming out the barrel. It is far better to die on your feet than live on your knees. :headbang:

[MUAD_DIB]

59. I made that same descision two years ago. It's too bad that it has to

come to that, but it is better to be prepared. If anybody had told you that it would be this bad three years ago would you have believed them?

It's unfortunate, but I believe that it is an unnecessary evil.

[BradCKY]

64. Alright!

Pro Second Amendment here as well!

[CalebHayes]

65. Have you ever heard of Gandhi?

Let's learn how peace can conquer all violence.

Water still puts out fire.

[Elwood P Dowd]

66. Those that have the guns control the water.

(nm)

[DoNotRefill]

70. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India,

history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi

Ya know, I might just be a paranoid redneck shitkicker hillbilly with no penis that is the kind of person that leads the police on high-speed chases (at least according to some posters here), but judging from this quote, made by Ghandi in his autobiography, it doesn't sound to me like Ghandi was virulently anti-gun.

[mac1000a]

68. Please

You think you're going to stop an M1 tank with your AR-15? The government isn't interested in taking your fucking gun away. They're interested in turning you into a mindless consumer that doesn't think about anything critically so they can make lots of money. THEY"RE NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR DAMN SHOTGUN!

Look, I have no objection to owning firearms per se. I own a few myself, no assault rifles and nothing extreme. But I keep them more because I like target shooting and the extremely small chance that I may have to use it against some psycho some day. The government is not a factor.

For all the effort that you spend training with your boomstick, you would be far more effective in registering people to vote, circulating petitions, and being an activist rather than playing Rambo in the woods.

The type of totalitarianism that the Republicans preach is one that wants an armed citizenry. An armed citizenry is a fearful citizenry, and fear can be manipulated by politicians to get them to support them. You're playing right into their hands.

Have you noticed all of these AK-47's and RPG's that the Iraqis seem to have? They had all this stuff under Saddam's rule, and they still weren't able to overthrow him. Saddam liked having an armed population because it kept them in a state of fear, and he used this fear to dominate. Fear of each other, fear of the world, fear of him. Guns are an okay tool to have around if you feel you need one. Keep it locked up, safe, out of the reach of kids. They are not an effective tool for bringing about social change. Maybe they were in the days of the revolution, but times have changed.

[DoNotRefill]

72. Really? they aren't???

"They are not an effective tool for bringing about social change."

I bet I could find some people to disagree with you if they were still alive...like the Romanovs, and Nicolae Ceausescu...

[JHBowden]

97. You hit the nail on the head, mac1000a

Regardless of where one stands on gun control, the "ahm gonnah ovahthrah thuh govahmunt wit mah gun" argument is one of the weakest, idiotic defenses out there.

[Q]

71. The mindset...

...you're conveying is one of the times of the revolution or civil war...when small arms meant something against a government's aggression and tyranny.

- But a couple hundred years later there is no such thing against a government with unlimited taxpayer funds to invent and use 'weapons of mass destruction' against their own people.

- This is why the Bush* government is so arrogant. They can use law enforcement AND the military to put down any kind of dissent with no problem at all.

- What you seem to want is a 'left wing militia'. Given the ideology of the left...there could be no such thing.

[DoNotRefill]

73. I disagree.

"What you seem to want is a 'left wing militia'."

There's a difference between arming yourself and forming a militia. It's a difference between being reactive and proactive. I don't think he's talking about raising a People's Army, rather I think he's talking about not going along quietly when the neo-brownshirts kick in his door, and having effective means to resist.

[Bridget Burke]

74. Will all the Liberals who've "changed their mind on gun control"

Please supply us with a link to their previous statements that psychotic high-schoolers might oughta not be able to get their hands on automatic weapons. Or whatever commie-pinko belief it was that they've since abandoned.

Otherwise, I'll be reminded of those "lifelong Democrats" who phone in to praise Baby Bush.

[DoNotRefill]

75. That's not me...

I've always been a pro-gun Democrat. So is my Congressional Representative and my State Governor. They're Democrats too. Well, they have (D)s after their names on the ballots, so I'm satisfied that they're Democrats...YMMV (and NO, neither of them is Zell Miller)

[Vickers]

76. Yeah, that's not me either

I am ex-military, and a gun owner. I am a Democrat. I fail to see the conflict between those statements.

The Founding Fathers were pretty goddam smart. I think that the order of the Amendments is more than chance. The forethought they exercised when crafting our government is breathtaking, and I honestly feel that they looked far, far down the road when they were writing these things. Maybe they saw conflicts in the future that we fail to see even now.

Of course you can't take out a tank with a shotgun, but if you've ever spent any time in a tank, you already know you can't stay in there forever.

And as has already been mentioned, guns aren't the only weapons used to fight fascism.

[Redneck Socialist]

79. "high-schoolers" are not able to get their hands on...

...automatic weapons. Full automatic weapons have been heavily restricted and highly regulated since 1934.

[rman]

77. "control" is not "ban"

Why would you want to control ownership of cars (drivers licence), but not control ownership of guns?
Then again, i think you won't be able to stop ie a SWAT team, with or without your gun.
Hopefully, by the time the elite come for the guns, people already have 'fled to the hills'; by then it might make sense to own a gun (controlled or otherwise). Also hopefully, it will never come to that.

[DoNotRefill]

78. Which Amendment covers the right to keep and drive cars?

I've read the Constitution and Bill of Rights pretty closely, and don't remember that part. I'd like to see it, though.

How exactly does car ownership place a check on the balance of power between the People and the Government?

One of the main reasons for car registration and licensing is....survey says!!!... tax purposes.

[MadHound]

80. Tell you what, I'll make you a deal

We lift the restrictions that you request, and you will come on down to my old neighborhood and live there, while all those fine assault weapons and full autos are stolen from the 'burbs where they are gathering dust, and instead are put to violent and deadly use in neighborhoods just like mine, all across the country.

What's that you say? You don't think you can stand the daily sound of gunfire? Driveby shootings make you nervous? THEN WHY IN THE HELL DO YOU WANT TO INFLICT SUCH GD IDIOCY ON THOSE WHO ARE FORCED TO LIVE IN SUCH AREAS?! Sheesh, you people just don't get it. All of those fine guns folks buy because they are nervous about personal security are just open invites for having your home broken into. And then all of those fine guns wind up down in my neck of the woods, shooting up my neighborhood, destroying my property, killing and wounding my neighbors, lowering my property values, and in general throwing gas on a fire that we are trying to put out. And now you're all nervous nellie about some vague threat to liberals and progressives from some even vaguer VRW conspiracy that may or may not want to kill you, so now you are ready to release even bigger and badder guns into the public at large. NO FUCKING WAY!

Unless you are willing to move into an inner city/urban area where those precious penile compensatory machines of yours are put to daily, illegal, illicit use, then you can forget any support from me, or anybody else living in such areas. Sorry, but we've already been the ultimate losers in the gun debate, we can't afford to lose anymore just to ease your vague insecurities.

[DoNotRefill]

81. some quotes:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"Fear of weapons is a sign of sexual and emotional immaturity." Sigmund Freud

I lived for three years in the US murder capitol. Been there, done that, and I still disagree with you.

[MadHound]

82. That's nice, you know your quotes

And just where did you live in the Murder Capital? Downtown or out on the city limits? Could you hear gunfire every night? Were drivebys in front of your house a regular occurence?

But hey, I'm a sexually and emotionally immature man who deserves neither safety nor liberty. Instead, I should be all happy happy joy joy about the guns from the 'burbs making it down to my neck of the woods, shooting the hell outta the place.:eyes:

Tell you what, you want a full auto weapon, I'll be all for it if you pay for my insurance rate hike, and the damage to my car once those stolen full autos start coming into the 'hood. How about it?

Sheesh, so I deserve neither safety nor liberty because I would like some damn reasonable gun control. You 'burbites crack me up, you really do. Most of you would be screaming for an outright ban on all guns after one night in my old place, with or without the full autos. And here I am, just asking for the continuance of the current policies. Whatever. Oh, and by the by, I'm not the one who has to get my libido from the barrel of a gun, tell me how emotionally and sexually mature THAT is Freud?:eyes:

[FeebMaster]

83. With all of this gun fire you hear in your neighborhood

has it not occurred to you that some people might already have whatever guns they want?

[MadHound]

84. Oh, I know they do.

In fact I know where they got a lot of them. Straight out of the homes of scared shitless 'burbites. Gotta love that five finger discount. But hey, the inner city is already paying a price for the Second Amendment. Why force them to pay even more by legalizing full autos and assault weapons? That will just be more fuel for the fire that we are trying to put out, but hey, you don't live there, why should you care? It seems that what most of this country's population simply care about is having your precious guns, nevermind the blowback some of us get from that EVERY SINGLE DAY. You folks never see it, so it isn't an issue for you. Instead you get all fucking worked up about some vague unsubstantiated threat to liberals, and work yourself into such a frenzy that you are willing to throw away the restraints that we have on guns. Same kind of thinking that was applied to the terrorist threat after 911, and look at what that kind of mob mentality got us.

[FeebMaster]

85. And here I thought the inner city had more pressing

problems than the Second Amendment, but hey, I don't live there. What do I know? So what is your solution?

[MadHound]

88. Well, first off, don't loosen the restrictions on autos and semi-autos

The last thing we need is to flood the place with even higher powered firepower. Second, get rid of this damn war on drugs. We've lost, game over, and legalize everything. Make drugs legally and easily available, and you won't have the turf wars in the inner city that you see now. Thus, no more dueling crack houses up and down the block. Third, we need to get rid of our culture of fear. Needless, mindless fear is what leads a lot of people to purchase unneeded guns, which in turn get stolen. I'm not against guns per se(I was raised around them, and inherited a few when my father passed away). But like the majority of Americans I believe in reasonable gun controls, like registration, background checks, and the banning of military type weapons. I think if we followed these three steps then a lot of our problems in general would be solved.

But calling for lifting the ban on military style weapons is a foolish move, and a detrimental one. Myself, people in my old 'hood, and millions of others across this country would be paying the ultimate price for your freedom.

[FeebMaster]

89. Well,

at least you aren't a drug warrior.

What ban on military style weapons are you talking about though?

[MadHound]

91. The US government is already talking about not renewing the ban

On assault weapons, and the original poster was talking about removing the restrictions on owning full autos. Both foolish measures, we don't need to all live in a reincarnation of the Wild West.

[DoNotRefill]

94. And how, exactly, did banning bayonet lugs make the streets safer?

eom

[FeebMaster]

95. You do understand that

the Assault Weapons Ban didn't actually ban any weapons, right? All of the weapons manufactured before the ban are grandfathered. All of the weapons manufactured after the ban had enough of the offending features removed (bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, threaded barrels) so they wouldn't be effected by the ban.

[DoNotRefill]

93. heh...

"But like the majority of Americans I believe in reasonable gun controls, like registration, background checks, and the banning of military type weapons. I think if we followed these three steps then a lot of our problems in general would be solved."

Criminals are constitutionally exempt from registration schemes based upon the Fifth Amendment. We have background checks in place, and if as you say people steal guns, background checks don't help, unless you figure out a way to conduct background checks on the burglars. As for military weapons, they've been heavily regulated since 1934 (in the last surviving Jim Crow law), and crime hasn't dropped off, has it?

BTW, I agree with your assessment on the War on Drugs. Prohibition has never worked, regardless of if the item in question is drugs OR guns. So, you're against prohibition on drugs, but for prohibition on guns. Don't you see the hypocracy of that?

[DoNotRefill]

92. Downtown....

because that's where the rent was cheapest, and it's all I could afford. People there seemed to be able to get all the guns they wanted, regardless of the law.

As for full auto weapons, it's too late, I already own a bunch of them legally.

As for Freud, sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. Guns aren't generally penis substitutes, and, well, you read the quote.

[amandabeech]

103. Just out of curiosity, which U.S. city is the "murder capital?"

Off the top of my head I'd say Miami, Detroit or D.C. Did I hit on it?

From a former Michigander and D.C. suburbanite.

[DoNotRefill]

104. Yup....I've lived in 2 of the three you mentioned.

I almost went to Law School in Miami, but didn't because out of State tuition was too high and I barely scraped by on in-state tuition and student loans.

[Jeezwhiz]

90. Re: Gun Control

Well, I too changed my mind on guns. I had been saving up for a trip to Key West with my partner Damon, but we made the decision that it would be more important to buy a gun and protect ourselves from the sure-to-come Bush/Ashcroft storm troopers. We are so worried that because of our gay lifestyle that we will be the first to go when the purge comes. We went down to the Army/Navy store and talked to a really cute guy behind the gun counter (except for the NASCAR hat and Lynyrd Skynrd tee shirt) and he suggested we buy a pair of Smith and Wesson 38's. That was okay with me but Damon became enamored with a pair of vintage pearl handled Colts, so we went with them. The gun guy threw in two nice leather holsters and matching belts. Next stop, the Country and Western Shop. Damon looks like a really hot cowboy now and I'm the new sheriff in town, wow.

VOTE KERRY! PLEASE!

[gulfcoastliberal]

96. An ounce of Prevention...

You know the rest.

[bigbillhaywood]

100. Greatest forum ever on DU!

Liberals who see the necessity of an armed citizenry to defend against potential government/corporate tyranny! I'm in heaven. Liberals who don't fit the wussy stereotype. Outstanding!

[DoNotRefill]

105. There are lots of "non-wussie" Liberals...

who are on BOTH sides of the gun control issue. Just because a person's against guns doesn't make him or her a "wussie". Think about it. Some of us carry guns because we know there is danger out there, and we want to protect ourselves and our families with the best tool available for the job. That's not an act of bravery, it's an act of common sense. Some anti-gunners KNOW there's danger out there, and still refuse to have, much less carry, a gun. That's an act of pure idealism, and IMHO, is very brave. Irresponsible and not particularly smart in my book, but very, VERY brave.

"A Purple Heart just means that you were smart enough to come up with a plan, stupid enough to implement it, and lucky enough to survive."

[bigbillhaywood]

102. MLK and Gandhi aren't Gods, ya know

Non-violence were effective tactics for achieving their ends at the time. This doesn't mean we should abandon all other tactics. Do you want the government and/or the corporations to crush liberty because you have a moral problem with violence? Even MLK had armed bodyguards. And he wasn't the only player at the time (nor was Gandhi)-- there were many armed revolutionaries during both movements that presented clear choices to the governments at hand (voluntary reform or bloddy revolution).