Deleted message

[Name removed]

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

[molly]

1. Dean is ignorant - Kerry is right

Dean is naive - he feels it should be a state's issue - people drive cars -dah

[KaraokeKarlton]

3. Hardly

Dean has the best position on guns. Neutralize the damn argument and win elections. Make it an issue and LOSE. It's as simple as that. What is more important to you...pushing more ineffective gun control or getting rid of Bush?

[JI7]

6. gun control winning issue nationally

bill clinton was very pro gun control and he won both times. al gore won also which is why bush had to steal the election.

[KaraokeKarlton]

16. 2000 never would have went to the Supreme Court

if Gore had of shared Dean's views on gun control. And after 9/11...there is NO WAY more gun control is going to be embraced. Pilots having guns on flights is extemely dangerous...but people support it to prevent terrorism. Kerry is way too liberal to beat Bush, anyhow.

[stickdog]

41. Al Gore LOST his home state on gun control.

Nice spin, though.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Dean has his head up his butt on this issue

He thinks you can change the Constitution locally. It's a dangerous and wrong-headed attitude.

[newsguyatl]

5. god you're a whiz

you never cease to amaze me with your incessant thoughtful one-line posts...

[userdave2061]

30. Irony

A one-line snide reply to a one-line post. Cute.

[searchingforlight]

7. Dean is ignorant?

(I hope this isn't flame baiting)

I believe he is aware of the fact that life is different in rural areas than it is in the cities.

We live in a rural area and during hunting season many people carry their rifles in racks in their trucks and hunt on their way to and from school, work, etc. Crime is low and guns are part of everyday life. I would not think that would work in a city area but it works here.

I think there is a problem in this country/world when we try to cookiecutter everything to fit one scenario.

[Jacobin]

11. Just curious

How do you propose to round up or control the 230 million guns already in people's possession......keeping in mind who is currently in control of this country?

[sandnsea]

45. It should be a state's issue

It seems most candidates support a ban on assault weapons, close the gun show loophole, children's safety locks. That's about as far as Kerry goes with national law, as far as I know.

I think he probably does support a certain level of states regulating their own gun sales, but he is also willing to fight the NRA and their money and campaigns that often steamroll any debate in states that are trying to get any sort of regulation.

Kerry is not anti-gun. He hunts and stuff. He is for sensible gun regulations that protect children and citizens.

I would suspicion he and Dean aren't quite that far apart on the practicality of this issue. It's just Kerry takes the city view and Dean takes the country view. In the end, they both end up at the same place and hopefully by the time this campaign season is over, the country will too.

[Spider Jerusalem]

61. You know what's ignorant?

Thinking that getting rid of guns without addressing the underlying social causes of violence (poverty, failed educational system, racial inequality, and a host of others) is going to mean an end to violence.

Advocation of that sort of top-down, quick-fix band-aid solution is DEEPLY ignorant, because it totally ignores CAUSES in favour of eliminating EFFECTS. Which is why that approach is NEVER going to work.

[DrGonzoLives]

62. Do you have any other thoughts to back this up?

Or are you just doing your usual Anyone-But-Dean-Including-Bush spiel?

[rwheeler31]

2. gun issue

not interesting

[Cha]

8. It's interesting to me ...in fact it's kind of exciting to think the

repukes can't try and make the case that the Dems want to take their "guns" away from them!

[Walt Starr]

4. I really like Dean's position

The gun issue has always been a big disappointment for me where the Democratic Party is concerned.

[Eloriel]

35. I used to be very anti-gun

Then I moved out into the country and "got it."

I don't LOVE guns now, but I do understand a little bit about why people own them. And I own one and so does my husband. ANd we have a rifle and a shotgun too. And a BB gun as well.

As soon as I heard Dean's gun position, I knew it was a winner. "How utterly PRAGMATIC," I thought to myself. As someone else said, it also neutralizes the issue. Hooray! And that alone, IMO, is simply brilliant.

Yeah, there's the issue about people driving guns across state lines and all that. But IMO that's not enough of an issue to be a deal-breaker.

Eloriel

[w4rma]

9. Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) on gun regulation (states' rights, pro-gun)

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35583

[molly]

10. Gun's KILL - why would anyone want one?

[Northwind]

12. Because they want to kill something?

Keeping in mind that it is only illegal to kill humans and animals protected by endangered species legislation.

Are you so arrogant as to think that because you do not want something, no one else can either?

Kerry's stance open him up to attacks based on the "gonna get your guns" stereotype perpetuated by the gun lobby.

Dean's position is constitutionally unassailable and removes the issue as a focus against his candidacy. Smart move all around.

[clar]

13. Molly,

I understand how you feel, but living in a rural area, I understand how important hunting is to the rural culture. I know many people who hunt in a respectful way and it's an integral part of their lives. You may disagree with it, but it's not up to you or anyone else to tell these folks that they cannot pursue their way of life. (yes, it is a way of life)

[molly]

18. The "rural" culture is dead. These people can go to a grocery

store for crissakes. The gun lobby is THE most powerful lobby in Washington for crissakes. This is the 21st century. There is no need to "go hunting" - it is cruel and inhumane. Give the animals guns to fight back. BTW - certain religious laws dictate the HUMANE slaughter of animals for food - no painful suffering.

[Jacobin]

21. Good luck getting your guy elected.

BTW why is it more cruel to shoot an animal in the wild to eat than to have someone you pay zap it or shoot it in a slaughter house?

[mitchum]

22. Molly, I am also a Kerry supporter (and not a gunowner), but...

I think Dean is right about this issue. I agree with you about the gun lobby as being the most powerful lobby in Washington, but if the Dems neutralise this issue there will be a dramatic lessening in the power of the gun lobby (and we know where their money and support goes) I long for the glorious day when Wayne LaPierre has to get a real job.

[clar]

23. Where on earth do you live?

How dare you tell me the rural culture is dead. Let me tell you about a friend of mine who's lived for over 30 years in the cabin he built.
He's well read and more than a little odd. He takes no money from the state, keeps a garden and yes hunts. Is he the only person I know who lives off the land? No, and some of them are younger folks. They're dedicated to keeping rural arts alive. No, Molly, the rural culture is not dead. It may be imperiled, but it's not yet dead. Get a clue.

[KaraokeKarlton]

24. Oh Jesus Christ

A gun is a hell of a lot more humane way to kill an animal than any other way. It's quick and the animal doesn't suffer. Would you rather have someone beat a deer over the head with a rock for a half hour or repeatedly stab it?

[clar]

27. Oh, and one more thing Miss Molly,

If you think slaughter houses are more humane than hunting, you really don't have a clue. I don't know if you eat meat or not, but if you're concerned about animal cruelty, work for the reform of the meat industry. The way animals raised for meat are treated on factory farms is disgusting.

[maxanne]

32. oh please

read "Fast Food Nation" and see how humane animals are treated in giant feedlots and slaughterhouses. Shooting a deer in the woods is far more humane. Do you eat meat? Where do you think it comes from, in those little styrofoam packages in the supermarket? It comes from cows who die crowded in a tiny space with too many others, covered in shit and full of fear. Hunters are far more concerned with the ethics and the humane treatment of their prey.

I live in a rural area, with plenty of poor people. Killing a deer during hunting season makes the difference between eating or not during the winter.

How dare you try to impose your urban attitudes on those who have a different life? Would you march into a barrio and suggest you were qualified to tell people there what to do?

[userdave2061]

33. It's called freedom of choice

Try dictating choice against an amendment in the constitution and watch the lose column increment.

[Eloriel]

37. Nooooo, the rural culture is NOT dead

Not by a long shot.

In my area, rural Georgia, many, many people hunt routinely for their food. Yes, it's sport to them also, but they EAT that venison.

And that has not all that much to do with the powerful gun lobby, frankly. We're talking generations and generations of people for whom owning a gun for many practical reasons is a way of life.

I actually used to feel exactly as you did. I had no interest in hunting, not much sympathy for those who did (tho my dad used to hunt each winter for rabbits which we would also eat). It's no more cruel and inhumane as a rule than any other meat-eating. You think factory farmed chicken and beef is HUMANE?? Besides, I'm not a vegetarian -- are you? I'd love to be, but it doesn't work for me (yes, I've tried).

Open your mind a little. You can still keep YOUR high standards without judging others quite so harshly. There's another world out there you're not comprehending. And it's not a bad or evil world, either.

Eloriel

[JNelson6563]

55. here comes the clue bus

Hop aboard!!

Here in the great north I can't tell you how many kitchens are turned into meat processing plants once a year.

Read Fast Food Nation (Eric Schlosser) for starters. Hey if you want to eat that sort of meat you are welcome to it. Some prefer not to but cannot afford the premium kind of meat.

There is no way that nature can support the deer herds here. Many would die a painful death from starvation. Instead we have so many folks in my state who get a deer once a year, stock their freezer and feed their family. It's healthier to eat, it deprives the wretched meat industry a few $$$ and it is no less inhumane than starvation for the deer.

Julie

[buddhamama]

57. hunting is not cruel and inhumane

what's cruel and inhumane is that you put your butt in the car drive to the grocery store buy your meat and haven't a clue where your meat came from and how the animal was treated before it got to the all too convenient grocery store. not too mention the amount of food it takes to raise those animals for your consumption-enough to the feed the starving of the world- and the enviromental damage that is caused by the farming of animals and the food to feed them.

what is cruel is the detachment from the food we eat;packaged chicken quarters slabs of beef...if you had to kill the animla you'd think about things differently.

you are clueless.

[billbuckhead]

15. I won't vote for Dean over the gun issue

The whole rest of the civilized world has gun regulation and much less murder. America has lost more innocent people to the NRA-GOA style gunterror than to Al Queda. It's interesting that real soldiers like Kerry and Clark have taken on the unlimited gun rights crowd over assault weapons issue and.........

[userdave2061]

39. I'm sorry to hear that

America is several generations away from draconian gun paranoia like some other countries. There is a good reason gun ownership was written into the constitution.

[Capn Sunshine]

64. OTOH, Rove LIKES your idealist style

four more years!

[KaraokeKarlton]

20. No, PEOPLE kill

And people have guns to feed their families by hunting. Anyone who hates guns wants to starve poor kids, because that's exactly what they'd be doing by banning them.

[Monte Carlo]

25. I think you answered your own question.

Guns kill - that's precisely why people want them. Protection from what is out there is a legitimate use for guns out there, as is hunting.

If you'd ask me, I'd say that guns are the symptom of a deeper problem. We need to attack that, not commom material things.

[incontrovertible]

26. uh

because the person who just cut your phone line, and is breaking into your home to rape you, sodomize you, slit your throat and leave you to bleed to death in your own bed, could possibly be stopped by your having a shotgun?

Here, I'll post my own response:

<cricketchirp>

<cricketchirp>

<cricketchirp>

<cricketchirp>

<cricketchirp>

<cricketchirp>

<cricketchirp>

<cricketchirp>

[laconicsax]

49. Not everyone thinks in those kinds of terms

I know exactly why I want a gun. I got involved with target shooting while I was in JROTC in high school. I only did it for a year, and now, 6 years later, I want to get back into it.

Target shooting (and archery for that matter) is a (usually) satisfying feeling.

I'm waiting until I'm done with college and then I'll buy a bolt action rifle and look into finding a range to use regularly.

I don't feel that I need one for 'home protection' or hunting. I found that I enjoy target shooting and would like to do so.

[buddhamama]

59. "Gun's KILL - why would anyone want one?" wrong.

people kill.

you can kill someone with knives, a baseball bat, a rock, a car,with you bare hands,etc,etc.

let's outlaw people.

[clar]

14. It struck me just now

that I don't know what, for example, the Brady Campaign people want in the way of increased gun control.
I know Dean believes in extending the Assault weapons ban, checks at gun shows, and well, I forget what else. This seems like a reasonable stance to me.

[billbuckhead]

17. Guns law and enforcements will work better when they are national

Dean is for states rights when it pleases him, sort of like.........

[clar]

28. You didn't answer my question

Nor did anyone else. Do you know what the Brady Campaign advocates, or Senator Kerry?

[Fla_Democrat]

29. Can a licensed dealer

someone with a FFL sell a firearm at a gun show, with out doing a background check?

Can a licensed dealer, someone with a FFL sell a firearm at a gun show with out filing the paperwork, and abiding by any waiting period?

[uptohere]

34. no

.

[Fla_Democrat]

40. Ya know, I didn't think so, either

so I can't understand the bit about gun show loop-holes. The way I understood it, licensed dealers had to abide by the same rules they operated under at their shop.

The term; "unliscensed dealers", which every one else in the world calls; private citizens has been thrown around by the loop hole crowd. Though, the way I understood it, they are abiding by the same rules they follow when they sell their firearms in the classifieds, or at the range on a Saturday afternoon.

Go figure. :shrug:

[dsc]

44. I have seen these unlicenced dealers

and they are not private citizens who sell an occasional gun. They sell hundreds of guns a year. In Ohio, to cite one example, a person who sells 4, count them 4, cars in a year must get a licence. For guns, there appears to be no limit. Also if a check doesn't come back quick enough any dealer is permitted to sell the gun. That is nothing short of assine.

[Fla_Democrat]

52. So, how is that related to a gun show loop-hole?

If the question is how many firearms can be legally bought and sold by a single individual, in the course of a year, what difference does it make where the items are sold? It would be the same be it a gun show, a classified ad, or someone hawking them on a street corner, no?

As for the check not coming back quick enough, the sale goes through, well, I'll have to look/hear more about that. I can see why it would be placed in the law. After all, it would only take one anti-gun person in the right place to put their bias above their duty, and drag the checks out. A delay, a little misplacing of paperwork, a 'my dog ate my password', and a de facto ban could, conceivably be implemented.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. Hopefully the gun issue won't be on the table; we need to win

As for Dean's position, it's absolute proof that he's a "politician" too. For all of his followers who're convinced he's above reproach and dealing with the devil to preserve political viability, his gun stance should be addressed. But let's not.

Are we to cave in to the Deanies' extreme zeal in what is becoming a veritable demand for the nomination? No.

[uptohere]

36. heck no, its on the table always and with Dean's view it works for us

its the smartest position the guy has if he has national aspirations.

[Shanty Oilish]

31. Brady campaign on Vermont laxity

"33 states have very lax controls on the carrying of concealed handguns...In 2 of the 33 lax states, no permit is even needed to carry a concealed handgun in public. Anyone who can legally possess a gun can carry it concealed.
These states are: Alaska and Vermont."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunlaws/ccw.asp

[userdave2061]

38. Is that a problem in Vermont or Alaska?

I'm guessing it's not.

[Shanty Oilish]

46. Just being an almanac...

I hope someone answers that question, but I can't. :shrug:

[stickdog]

42. And why is that a problem in Vermont?

Please remind me.

[Shanty Oilish]

47. Hope you get some replies

I'd like to hear them. :)

[clar]

53. It's not a problem

Vermont has one of the lowest murder rates in the country.

[stickdog]

43. Dems have NO CHANCE in the South if they campaign on gun control.

Ask any of the front line Dem troops in the South and you'll get the same answer.

It's guns for the men and "elective abortions" for the women -- although Dems do much better with the women in the South than the men.

[dean4america]

48. side with dean . eom

[HazMat]

51. Strongly disagree with the NRA

This is not a state's rights' issue. Guns move freely between states. Most of the guns in the innercities and suburbs come from states with lax gun laws. Your rights end where someone elses begins. A black kid in Brooklyn shouldn't have to die because of a Vermonter's "rights".

I view the absolute right to gun ownership crowd much the same way I do Big Tobacco and corporate polluters: blissfully ignorant, selfish and all too happy to contribute to the destruction of the cities, minorities and others.

The solution to this problem is:

1) A central, federal system for regulating firearms and their owners. Make it easy and routine to register.
2) Tougher regulation on the gun corporations.
3) Tougher laws on non-registered (illegal) gun possession. There has to be strong incentive to register.

Right now we have a hodgepodge of complicated laws that don't work. The objective should not be to outlaw guns, but to have every gun and gun owner licensed -- responsible gun ownership. It should not be easier to legally own and use a gun than it is to legally own and operate a car.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Some agreement

I would be harder on people who use guns in the commission of a crime. Why go after people who are keeping their guns legally? Why create a whole new criminal class? Hasn't the war on drugs taught us THAT is a mistake?

[HazMat]

56. No reason to go after them if they're legal.

Guns and the drug war are entirely different. People always make that analogy but it's flawed. (Most) guns aren't illegal and I don't advocate criminalizing gun ownership. There would be no "war on guns". I'm more concerned with getting the guns and owners registered in a central system so I know who has what. In this way, if guns from Georgia wind up on NY streets we can trace it back to the source. The right to bear arms also means being responsible if your guns wind up in the wrong hands. The NRA folks love to go on about their 2nd amendment rights but have nothing to say about the countless illegal weapons (which originate from their pro-gun states) that wind up in the cities and suburbs.. weapons that are involved in countless crimes. Rights come with responsibilites. One must bear the full burden of any particular right. The gun corporations, sellers and owners must be held accountable like anybody else. Others should not have to pay the price for their "rights".

At the heart of this argument is "the federal government vs the state". This is a federal issue, and once the NRA and their apologists face the facts and stop it with their ridiculous "state's rights" argument, we can proceed towards a system that works better for everyone.

[sangh0]

58. Dean's position is Repuke-lite

complete with the odious "state's rights" rhetoric.

[HazMat]

60. Dean's position is fundamentally flawed

Guns move between states; therefore it is a federal problem.

Anyone who can't see this, is quite frankly, ignorant or just plain stupid.

Regardless of Dean's attempts to soften his hardline NRA stance, it remains fundamentally and morally flawed.

[Capn Sunshine]

63. None of this parsing will matter

If we don't get a DEMOCRAT in the White House in 04
will it