Dem platform keeps Assault Weapons Ban, adopted Aug. 25, 2008

[jody]

RENEWING AMERICA’S PROMISE

Firearms

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

IMO the phrase "the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition" shows the abysmal ignorance of the authors because the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms is NOT A TRADITION, it is a basic individual right that government is obligated to protect against the majority.

The platform also does not explain why a citizen in Chicago doesn't need a handgun for self-defense but a citizen in Cheyenne does.

[tburnsten]

1. Sad we can't even save our own party

from leaping headlong into this breathless rush of almost intentional failure. They really don't want a spectacular landslide on November 4th do they? Party leadership is starting to look more and more like a big fat pile of turds. Time for some new blood, we've got it on our ticket, now we need it in our national party leadership as well.

[jody]

Obama needs to preach Change to the choir because they're out of touch with reality. n/t

[SteveM]

239. The Democratic Party is deeply entrenched with failure and dysfunction...

it will cling to gun-control until the "leadership" at the national level is uprooted and the base is expanded to life and politics beyond D.C., Chicago, N.Y. and S.F. Until then, it will remain cross-eyed with both hysteria over and hatred toward gun-owners.

This is a hateful culture war and it will not be remedied soon. The present Democratic leadership will not change.

[Blaubart]

2. Yes!

Or that (some people believe) our RKBA only applies to hunting purposes and since there isn't much game hunting in an urban environment, then people in large cities don't need guns.

My post was in response to the original post. I do not believe that our RKBA only applies for hunting purposes or that people in large cities don't need guns. That might not be apparent if you believe my post was in response to anything other than the original post. Thank you and carry on...

[jody]

4. RKBA is first about defense of self and second about defense of state. Hunting is a red herring. n/t

[Truth4Justice]

62. The 2nd amendment is a right only if you use a gun to defend your state. nothing in there about self

defence whatsoever. That's why all gun control laws are legal.

[jody]

67. You should read SCOTUS re D.C. v. Heller so you don't make statements that are contrary to US law.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Blaubart]

70. On the contrary...

There were things that were illegal before Heller vs. DC that are now legal. DC is still trying to skirt the interpretation, but those days are numbered.

Again with the name calling. Why do RKBA advocates have to be "creeps"?

[bossy22]

74. hmmm

Really? Heller has done nothing to protect your "gun rights" at all. I dare you creeps to pack a gun
Posted by Truth4Justice
without a permit. I hear that jailhouse food is really awful stuff, but you go ahead and find out first hand after the cops lock you up.


you have some anger issues....

[jody]

78. "you creeps", what a childish taunt. In most states it's perfectly legal to "pack a gun" without a

permit.

If you understood the issue instead of replying upon ignorance, you might have recognized that permits are required by some states for some classes of firearms.

Most important, the SCOTUS decision did require D.C. to issue a permit to Dick Heller.

You really do need to read more about the D.C. v. Heller decision.

[DrCory]

82. Am I the only one...

Who finds this phrasing rather familier?

"I hear that jailhouse food is really awful stuff, but you go ahead and find out first hand after the cops lock you up."

Are we being haunted perhaps?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. That would all depend where you live.

How about you keep your ignorant ass in NY?

David

[bossy22]

95. can you explain to us how

you came to this conclusion

or are you just going to threaten to send me to the gulag for questioning the rationale behind gun control

[bossy22]

75. you need to get out of the cave

and come see the light of day...

so what is your interpretation of the ruling in D.C. V Heller which stated that the second amendment was an "individual right"

are you going to claim that it is invalid because "neocon justices decided it" cause if we are going to play that game then i guess the gitmo trials dont have to go on because it was a bunch of "hippie liberal justices who decided it"

we can play this game all day

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. You really must do a lot of drugs.

Based on the fiction you write they must be good drugs.

David

[sknoles38]

243. Not reality

As a gun owner who enjoys it as a hobby I strongly disagree. I love to collect and shoot as a pastime just as our forefathers did in the past. Who are the people who would want to take this away from me and many, many other US citizens. I am a law abiding person with no tendency to shoot people. Unlike the criminal, who can always acquire a firearm, I use mine for sport and a sense of American culture. I can carry a concealed weapon if I choose to. I am also proud of this an an American citizen. In my part of this country a firearm is a right of passage, something we do not even think about. We learn at an early age how to shoot, hunt and learn to respect a firearm. For those who would like to take these rights away I say:"You are cowards and are ignorant of some of our American culture and just want to dictate with more laws, as a way to control, the American population to conform to your way of thinking."
I disagree with this type of thinking in our government and I do hope the majority of the Democratic party disagrees also. This thinking has killed off more Democratic politicians because of this stand. The Supreme Court of the United States has backed the 2nd amendment as NOT just for local militia. As there has not been a militia as our forefathers new it for a very long time. I see this as a non issue now. We have enough laws and I agree with these. We do NOT need anymore laws on this issues and it should be a state and not a federal issue.

[bossy22]

3. well you know who wrote it dont you

about every anti-gun organization that you can think of

[Truth4Justice]

8. So what? Getting guns off the streets has always been a Dem Priority.

[bossy22]

11. and i support that goal

as long as it does not run amock to the constitution

i support homeland securities efforts to keep us safe from terrorism- as long as it doesnt violate our rights

if the dems are willing to rip apart the 2nd amendment to get "guns off the streets" they have no right to cry when the republicans use warrantless wiretaps to spy on "potential terrorists"

the constitution is the constitution- if you start picking and choosing which parts to enforce that invites someone to do the same

[Blaubart]

16. Very good point

Thank you.

[spin]

21. self delete

[TPaine7]

36. What does "getting guns off the streets" really mean?

If it means that guns should not be left lying on streets where children, criminals and the insane can pick them up and misuse them, I heartily agree.

If it means that guns should not be carried by law abiding citizens, I must strongly disagree, and inquire as to why a certain subset of Democrats insist on infringing on civil rights. As the Supreme court said the first time it addressed the issue of guns, there are certain “privileges and immunities of citizens.” The Court explicitly said this included the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

To bear arms is to carry them; just because the Supreme Court has not (recently) addressed the right to carry arms does not mean it does not exist. If "getting guns off the streets" is, as I believe it to be, a vacuous slogan to sway the minds of the uninformed or of anti-Constitutional people who believe in getting what they want at any cost, I disagree in the strongest terms.

So tell me, what does "getting guns off the streets" really mean?

[HALO141]

37. If you can't win the argument

on the merits of your position then you:
1) Disparage the arguments of the other side
2) Change the language of the debate so that you CAN win.

You can bet your bottom dollar that, for those that use it, the term "getting guns off the streets" means removing them from all quarters of society.

[Truth4Justice]

46. Nonsense. Its geting the guns out of criminals and others who shouldnt have guns.

[Tejas]

49. nonsense? your feel-good rhetoric is nonsense

What's the plan? Biden's AWB?

That's the epitome of nonsense so would you care to give some idea of the "magic bullet" that could be used instead? What wand can you wave to seperate guns from criminals in Detroit while not trampling the rights of Americans across the country?

Let me guess, more laws?


criminal: "oh gosh, they passed the AWB, time to go straight!"

[Truth4Justice]

60. Its real simple. Do the crime, do the time. If you break the new assualt weapons ban you lose out.

no more criminal codelling. No more plea bargains on gun charges. You get cuaght with an illegal weapon you get to spend time in prison. Period.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. How about if you are a criminal caught with a weapon its 10 yrs consecutive no time off?

We don't need more guns to be illegal just more criminals in prison.

David

[Truth4Justice]

96. What part about "criminal" don't you get? You have a banned assualt rifle YOU are a criminal !

[bossy22]

97. there is no such thing as a banned assault rifle

only an unregistered one pursuant to NFA of 1934 and the Mcclure-Volkmer act of 1986

why are you so eager for government to confiscate personal property?

[Truth4Justice]

104. How ignorant. Take your assualt rifle to any police station in CA or NY and you will be handcuffed.

I can't believe how stupid so many of you ghouls are. The law is the law. Obey it or go to prison where you belong.

[bossy22]

108. how am i ignorant

what proof do you have- i gave you two sets of legislation as proof, and you give me....name calling?

again- an outrageous comment backed up by an empty box...you really need to learn how to debate

"I can't believe how stupid so many of you ghouls are. The law is the law. Obey it or go to prison where you belong."

i cant believe how stupid you are- you are making yourself look like a fool- like a kid playing in a grown-ups game...i'd be more than happy to debate firearms policy with you if you would just stop with these stupid, unsupported comments of yours.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

113. Ignorant, pot meet kettle.

You realize we aren't talking about state laws right.

David

[Name removed]

248. Deleted message

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

[rl6214]

250. What makes an assault weapon

Those so-called assault weapons are legal in Texas. I would not move to Ca. or any other state with those types of laws unless I really had to and even then, I would keep my "assault weapons" to myself.

[Truth4Justice]

144. Bring your AW into a CA or NY police station and tell them that while you are pushed into the cell.

hope you enjoy the food they serve in the graybar hotel.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

175. Who was talking about CA or NY?

The wonderful law abiding gun owners here at DU always follow applicable state laws when traveling with firearms.

David

[Truth4Justice]

199. Yes, I am sure they do....................

:puke:

[tburnsten]

201. Because to you, we are all criminals anyway

[logjon]

249. NYPD?

That would be State law, having not anything to do with the AWB

[sknoles38]

245. I agree

Ignorance seems to be the order of the day on assault rifles.
I would be more afraid of a semi automatic hunting rifle that
fires a MUCH bigger round than a semi auto AK-47 or AR-15.
I own both. I have never had a speeding ticket. Do I deserve
to go to prison or have my property taken? Seems a little
extreme to me and ignorant on your part. Go out to a shooting
range sometime. You might loose your stupidity.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. I own an assault rifle it's not illegal.

[Truth4Justice]

109. It will be soon. I only wish I was living in your city so I could have the cops arrest you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. It wasn't illegal last time the AWB was in place.

That must be some good pot you are smoking.

David

[bossy22]

114. has to be something stronger

pot wouldnt cause this much of a delusion

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. Here you go.

From wikipedia: The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic "assault weapons" manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.
During the period in which the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's definition of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity ammunition feeding device", except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. Possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms was outlawed as well, but the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing "assault weapons" or previously factory standard magazines which had been legally redefined as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices".



You'll notice it says the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing "assault weapons" or previously factory standard magazines. You can see about 50 "assault weapons" owned by civilians and about 20 cops with the same weapons a the local 3 gun IPSC matches every other week at the local gun range. I'm guessing those cops know the law a little better than you do.


David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. You are too scared to live where I do.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. Do you still beat your dog?

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

155. I'll take that as a yes.

[iverglas]

194. Dave, Dave, Dave

I appreciate the imitative flattery, but you gotta do it right.

"Do you still beat your dog?" is a loaded question. It is a good response to a loaded question, by way of demonstrating that the question was loaded and not worthy of response, let alone capable of answer.

It's the long way of saying "Mu".

Q. Why do you hate America?
A. Do you still beat your dog?

Q. When did you steal your first car?
A. Do you still beat your dog?

Q. How big is the wart on your nose?
A. Do you still beat your dog?

There was no loaded question in the post you replied to.

So your "Do you still beat your dog?" was just, well, dumb.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

212. Equally effective based on the response it evoked.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

242. Thanks for the lesson in tactics.

Unfortunately, truth went a little over the top and went bye-bye forever.

David

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

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

[bossy22]

125. so can a car

kill many people- its what i choose to do with it which is the key...

people are already allowed to own "assault rifles" under the 1934 NFA and pursuant to the regulations of the 1986 Mcclare-Volkmer act

if you are referring to "assault weapons" then i will say i dont see the difference in lethality to so called assault weapons compared to "convential weapons"- THERE IS NONE

what are you a spokesman for the VPC?- its the only conclusion that i could come up with since you post outrageous statements and dont back them up

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[krispos42]

137. Exactly

And some 4,000 times a day the reason guns are built is justifiably and appropriately used to deter criminals.

Just so I'm clear, some 4,000 times a day somebody uses a gun to threaten to justifiably kill an attacker in order to stop the attack.

Killing or threatening ot kill someone is not always bad.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[krispos42]

145. "You rejects", huh?

Gee, you put me in my place, didn't you?


Now let me put you in yours.


I was not talking about the crime of "brandishing". I was talking about legitimate, approprate, and legal uses of firearms for self-defense, in public or in private, regardless of whether they were discharged or not.



What I find disturbing about you and "your ilk" is that you know nothing about firearms, their operating principles, or the underlying realities of self-defense; you proudly and vehemently refuse to either educate yourselves on the matter or ask intelligent questions; and yet you think you know what needs to be done to regulate guns and how society should treat them and their owners.

It's the same sort of ignorant-and-proud attitude that ID people spout: "I don't know nuttin' about no evil-lution but I know it's wrong and it's only fair that we teach ID in school too!"

[AtheistCrusader]

152. It's not a crime

in this State if you are provoked or in danger. Even shooting someone is legal in the following criteria:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

240. Oooo, you're hate-on is showing. You're "wishing."

[bossy22]

94. what if it is unconstitutional

what if its punishment is cruel and unsusual compared to the crime

do you support the constitution in its entirety or just bits and peices.

[Truth4Justice]

99. Since the 2nd amendment was clearly tied into the general safety of the citizens you have no RKBA.

Once you understand that the police and the national guard now protect the public, not a criminal "militia" band, its obvious that the days of gun ownership are long gone.

[bossy22]

102. please tell me where it says that

last time i checked that the standing precedent was D.C. V Heller stated it was an individual right

and i dont see how it is clearly tied- i can see how it can possibly go both ways but i dont see how it is clearly tied to general safety or a militia

please enlighten me

last time i checked the amendment didnt say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms only pertains to militia members"

"Once you understand that the police and the national guard now protect the public, not a criminal "militia" band, its obvious that the days of gun ownership are long gone."

wow are you sure you arent Joseph Stalin?...keep telling me that you are going to re-educate me, that i should be in jail for my beliefs, that you are the sole determiner of what what the constitution means



In reality all you do is make outragous statements and dont back them up- once you are "called out on that" you either never respond or move to another post in which you can make another "statement"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. 8 of the 9 Supreme Court justices disagree with you.

[one-eyed fat man]

133. Someone else who .............

agrees with you WHOLEHEARTEDLY!

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having
guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler 1935

[krispos42]

140. Thank god it's an unenumerated right in the 9th Amendment n/t

[Truth4Justice]

150. Tell that to the cops when they bust you. They could use a good luagh.

the ninth amendment has been used by drivers who didn't want licenses and registration. Needless to say its never ever passed muster.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. Driving on public property

is not a civil right. (you can drive on your own property with no license)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

157. Notice the lack of substantive response to the above posts.

Why did you avoid those?

David

[krispos42]

161. Tell that to Roe vs. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut

Both thanks to the 9th Amendment.


And driving is a priviledge, not a right.

[slackmaster]

166. Illogical, and does not square with definitions of militia in US Code and state laws

Hang it up, T4J. You are clearly in over your head.

[rl6214]

251. Your interpretaition

But not that of the Supreme Court.

[krispos42]

136. And since "assault weapon" is an arbitrary and perjorative term...

...and an "assault weapon ban" is a PR tactic used by politicians to pontificate about and provide them cover for not addressing the real causes of most violent crime (poverty and shitty local economies), the question is "why should a new AWB be put in place?"

Government hurts itself when it enacts stupid and useless laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

154. last one didn't make

existing, owned weapons illegal. It banned the manufacture and sale of new ones. I own a pre-ban weapon, that was proscribed by the original ban, by name. Perfectly legal for me to own. Also legal for me to transfer.

Guess I have a couple more to collect before any new ban takes effect. Buy a couple dissassembled kits too, so I can build some later, since those would be legal as well.

[bossy22]

98. who shouldnt have them?

besides criminals?

[sknoles38]

244. Yes indeed

I highly agree. What does "getting guns off the street" really mean.
Remember, the criminal can always get a gun. If I am stripped of my right to have or to carry one could end with dire results for me.....

[Truth4Justice]

5. Thankfully a new assualt weapons ban by listed firearm is part of Bidens adgenda.

we need to get these weapons out of the hands of the NRA imbiciles and thus out of the streets as well. Backed up with a long prison sentence we can remove these weapons from the nuts that own them.

[bossy22]

6. luckily

it wont pass a 2nd amendment muster test

btw you would be surprised how many non-NRA members own "assault weapons"

from the SCOTUS decision

"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54."

please tell me how "assault weapons" are not used commonly for lawful purposes?

[jody]

7. Do you have a link to "is part of Bidens adgenda"? Thanks n/t

[Blaubart]

9. Um...

Banning guns to prevent homicide is going to be every bit as effective as banning drugs, except that when you ban guns, there are other tools that one can still use to achieve the same result. Also, when you ban guns, the advantage shifts to the young and strong and the old and frail become targets. Is this really what we want?

Until the police can protect me and my family from harm instead of responding once the harm has been done, then I will keep my guns, legally or otherwise.

[Truth4Justice]

71. Fine. Just remember that when you do the crime you do the time.

When you get cuaght with your illegal firearm don't cry about it YOU made thw choice to be a criminal. Period!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. So you don't have an answer?

[Blaubart]

151. No problemo...

Well, first, you need to change that "When" to an "If".

But yes, that's what people with moral character do. They accept the consequences of their actions. But I'd say that whatever worthless politician(s) violated my right to defend my family made me a criminal in the legal sense, but not the moral sense.

That's like me saying what if I make a law that says eating food is illegal. Well, if you plan to continue eating, just be prepared to go to jail you damn criminal! Who cares?

[Dimensio0]

12. Please explain the justification of your position.

Please define "assault weapon". What specific problem is an "assault weapons ban" intended to solve? How can you demonstrate that such a ban will actually result in a positive result, and how long would be an acceptable time to wait before repealing the ban, should the result fail to manifest? Also, explain how such a ban would not violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Additionally, to whom do you refer when you say "NRA imbiciles", and why do you believe that "assault weapons" are currently on "the streets"?

[virginia mountainman]

17. Yea? How do you plan to get them from DU Members??

I have several....I have absolutely NO intention of "handing them in"

[Truth4Justice]

47. You have neighbors that know you have a banned gun, yes? Then its as easy as calling the cops.

When I still lived in CA, where they still have their own AW ban on weapons and ammo magazines over ten bullets, if you have someone snitch on you, you are looking at a felony charge and up to five years in state prison, which I am sure could be reduced to two years with good behavior.

I know, as I turned in a gun-owner to the police, who had such a weapon which he bragged about keeping it after the amnesty period ended and he spent 2 years 3 months for his crime after he was convicted. Now he is a felon for life. Think before you act. You could ruin a good job if you go to jail; your wife and kids might leave, and your earning potential is destroyed, along with your credit rating.

Besides, once the weapon is banned you don't dare take in out in public, say to a shooting range where many cops go shooting and will see you banned gun. After that, its a trip to the PD lockup and to a court trial.

It just not worth it, as the gun is useless unless you are a criminal who needs one to commit crimes.

[virginia mountainman]

48. LOL , Think again...

The neighbors have their own...To do that to someone would invite the same...Fireworks are banned in Virgina, yet every July 4th, every 5th house around here, is shooting off skyrockets, and firework shells for half the night... We don't call the cops, EVEN IN TOWN, we pull up a chair and enjoy the show!

And besides that, if someone was to call the cops over mear possession of a semi-automatic firearm, their would be retribution. And it takes 911 an hour to send the cops to our neck of the woods...THEN WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO???

In most of America, "He had it coming" is a valid defense.

And people are still making moonshine all over these hills, and that has been illegal, since before the civil war, and you don't snitch out folks you agree with.

See, out in the rest of America, we don't turn each other in over bullshit, like some of you.

[Truth4Justice]

54. I dont live in CA anymore but sniching on people is normal out there....

I also snichted out a neighbor who was running his car without legal smog and out of date plates. Besides, whren yoo snich someone out and you get harmed or killed who do you think the cops are going to target?

[tburnsten]

56. So you invite retribution

to further your war against gun owners? You really are a deviant.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[tburnsten]

127. What "solution"?

You are sounding more and more creepy by the way, with all this talk about "problems" (I am the definition of an upstanding young man, starting a family, buying a house, National Guard member, holding down a steady government job) and "solutions", I'm getting curious about what your so-called "solution" entails?

[Truth4Justice]

128. The problem of too many AW's on the streets in untrained hands..

you being National Guard would be excempt if I was proposing the law however as you would be using your weapon in the manner the fouders intended when they enacted the 2nd amendment.

[tburnsten]

132. My duty weapon is in an armory

my personal weapon is in my house. That is how it should be.


What AWs are in untrained hands? They do not go off on killing rampages by themselves, and are neither useful nor used by criminals. I don't see what impact on violent crime an assault weapons ban would have.

[Truth4Justice]

183. Assualt weapons are not used by criminals? Tell that to all the cops families who have had thier

breadwinner shot to death by a person with an AW.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

191. Wow you are incredibly ignorant of the facts.

[Truth4Justice]

198. Tell that to the judge when you get busted with an assault weapon after HR 1022 passes.

[tburnsten]

203. Oh my

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


HR 1022 is dead. No one valuing their political career in the slightest (except the really dumb ones like Carolyn Mccarthy and diane fienstein) would be dumb enough to try to push that bill any further than it has already gone.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

211. Then you demonstrate your ignorance for us, thanks.

[tburnsten]

202. What cops? How many cops have been shot

to death with your unicorn anyway?

[one-eyed fat man]

134. This will help you

This program will help you establish a gun free zone where you live or work.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA

[one-eyed fat man]

57. no wonder

there are lots of folks in the middle of the country think that California is the "Granola State", full of fruits, nuts and flakes.

[Truth4Justice]

59. Its real simple. Obey the laws or go to prison. If you dont like it, then move away...

we also have a ban on assault weapons in NYS and I will rat out anyone who keeps one in New York second just like I would anyone who breaks the laws. FYI many law abiding citizens help the cops by informing on law breakers all the time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. Please stay in NY.

[one-eyed fat man]

149. witless protection program

Your proclivity to gleefully rat out your neighbors and acquaintances explains your move from California to New York.

[Name removed]

253. Deleted message

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

[HALO141]

63. "Snitching on people" is just normal for, well, snitches.

So "the law" is always right?

If slavery were still legal in some states would you "snitch" on your neighbors who were helping slaves escape?

[tburnsten]

65. According to him he absolutely would

Because there is no room for right and wrong, just legal right and wrong.

[Truth4Justice]

77. The law IS the law. You break it you pay the price.

Hell if it wasn't for informants the cops would be S-O-L. Lots of crimes are solved and prosecuted only because of snitches like myself. Don't want to get busted? Don't do the crime.

[bossy22]

105. for such a law an order type of person

you are pretty anti-police....i remember in another post you claimed that you were against a police state and want less law enforcement officers

ahh here it is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3423641&mesg_id=3425537

wait wait wait...you also mentioned snitches too....wow....so i guess you regard yourself as a cause of your own percieved problem?

You dont want a police state but you advocate door to door searches and confiscation of firearms....how?

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[bossy22]

116. second that

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

156. Do you still beat your dog?

[milou]

162. That's gotta hurt

Nothing like a little hypocrisy.

[tburnsten]

164. Par for the course

Welcome to the forum

[Callisto32]

50. From the mouths of babes.

"It just not worth it, as the gun is useless unless you are a criminal who needs one to commit crimes."

So, the point (or at least effect) is NOT to stop criminals, but rather all those who are NOT intent on committing crimes.....fascinating.

[tburnsten]

51. And I'm sure you are very proud of yourself

for helping California fight back against the scourge of AR-15s plaguing the countryside and alleyways.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. What's scary is that you are actually proud of that.

You really are a facist. I guess you and that guy that snitched on the anti-war protesters at the RNC should get a medal.

David

[Truth4Justice]

79. Dont need a medal. Just upholding our LAWS is just fine by me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. Just amazed the you wanted to hurt his children like that.

[Truth4Justice]

106. Its amasing that HE chose to disobey the law and hurt his children.

he could have loved his kids by surrendering his Assault rifle to the cops but he CHOSE not to. Bad father who got what was coming to him.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. Kids left without a dad thanks to your irrational fear.

[bossy22]

100. ummm

the constitution is a set of laws also?

and last time i checked that included the second amendment and the 4th amendment

those are two laws that you have no problem skirting or interpreting to mean something they arent

[BurningDog]

55. This post sounds like it should end with "Just say NO to Assault Weapons"

You're bragging about destroying a man's life, ruining his job, possibly causing his wife and kids to leave him, and destroying his earning potential, turning him from a contributing member of society and into a burden on all of us, probably for the rest of his life, since he has 'destroyed earning potential and credit'.

Which brings me back to my original point. The same tactics have been tried on drugs for decades and have done nothing but waste our collective resources and give the government a good excuse to violate people's civil liberties.

What happened to the good old days when progressives and liberals had a healthy fear of an oppressive government? At least having an assault rifle gives you a fighting chance... its hard to fight off jackbooted thugs with a bong and rolling papers.

[milou]

135. Wouldn't matter if you snitched on me

I live in Cali and recently built myself an AR-15 using a legal loophole in the law. Using an add-on called a bullet button, an off list lower, and a 10 round magazine I was able to thumb my nose at the state and idiots like you. I could have bought a different rifle that looks like what you consider a "safe rifle" instead, I built this one because the state doesn't want me to, but can't legally stop me from making it.

If I was so unfortunate as to have a neighbor like you it wouldn't matter if you snitched as I built myself an "assault weapon" that is legal in the eyes of the law.

Suck it.

[milou]

147. Bet the doctor living next to you in the 1950s..

Giving abortions would have loved having you as a neighbor. You would have fit in nicely in 1940s Germany, you could rat out all the Juden in your apartment block, they broke the law by not registering. Or 1850s USA, you could rat out all houses helping those uppity Negros going up to Canada. You, as a snitch for stupid laws have a long and proud heritage.

[Truth4Justice]

159. Wow you sure pile it on thick. To bad the police depend on informents to catch criminals like you.

My, my. Abortions, Nazi germany and slavery. Got anything else you want to smear me with, pal? No matter to me: once the assault weapons ban begins lots of people will be sending the AW nutballs to prison no matter what you call me.

[milou]

171. You're of the same ilk

And after your statements I hold just about the same respect for you as I do for them.

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

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

[milou]

219. I've never hurt anyone with my rifle

You on the other hand have ruined a life because of your irrational fear. Who's the zero again?

I like testing stupid laws, that's why I have my windows tinted in California and that's why I built my AR15. I kinda hope someone like you snitches on my, I have no fear because my rifle is in compliance with the letter of the law. Besides, then I get to see who the douchebags around me are.

[Truth4Justice]

73. You will either hand them in or you will be incarcerated until you do. Got it ?

[bossy22]

76. you will either let the government

violate your rights or go to jail, got it?


wow what a "free society" we live in eh?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. That wasn't the case with the last AWB.

They were still legal to possess.

David

[slackmaster]

148. With fewer police in your version of Utopia, that's going to be rather difficult

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3423641&mesg_id=3425537

[krispos42]

30. Yeah thank god

After all, we didn't want to keep the House of Representatives in 2010 anyway.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[benEzra]

35. You realize more Americans own them than hunt, yes?

And that they are among the LEAST misused of firearms?

Even the 1994 Feinstein law, which didn't ban ANYTHING, cost the House and Senate in '94. Care to speculate on what the political cost of your little confiscation jihad would be? And logistically, how are you going to forcibly confiscate the guns of 16 to 30 million people?

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[rl6214]

252. Most of my assault weapons

I built myself. Therefore they cannot be banned by name.

[bossy22]

10. the platform is a joke

it shows they dont understand the issue

i bet they would go ape shit someone said the same thing about abortion- "what workds in cheyenne may not work in chicago"

once the second amendment gets incorperated- which it will- this silliness will stop for good

[slackmaster]

13. We tried, Jody and my other friends here

You and I know this is a huge mistake for our party, whatever anybody else says.

The most lasting results of the 1994 AWB were a massive proliferation of makes, models, and configurations of firearms that complied with the ban by skirting its limits; and thanks to the coincidental birth and rapid rise of the World Wide Web, a political awakening and galvenizing of people who understand firearms and value the right to keep and bear arms. Today's gun owners are much more tuned in and politically savvy than they were 14 years ago. They pay attention to what is going on, and they vote their interests. A new ban, especially something more dire like HR 1022, would affect several times more people than the old one did, and they are not going just roll over and take it.

If, heaven forbid, we end up losing the election by a razor-thin margin in multiple swing states, I will not hold back from saying "I told you so!" on these forums. We know that the issue does matter enough to some people to tip their vote one way or the other.

:grouphug:

[jody]

14. At least we tried but damn, I hate the thought of losing another presidential election when RKBA was

a contributing factor.

We Dems have programs for the future but we must occupy the Oval Office to implement our programs.

[bossy22]

15. i knew it would do no good

i still gave them my two cents- its just sad that this lie is getting pushed again

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Turn out the lights the party's over.

Idiots.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. I think most firearms experts would say a handgun is better suited for Chicago.

If your neighbor lives 5 miles away I doubt you have to worry as much about over-penetration.

David

[TPaine7]

20. An abomination

This sophistry disgusts me. I don't even have the heart to fully dissect this reeking corpse.

Just a high low point:

It's not the "right to own and use firearms" it's the right to "keep and bear arms." I saw something like this coming and predicted similar BS here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=172660&mesg_id=172660.

It's not fully developed yet, but here is my prediction for the way the anti-gun lie will look in full bloom:

Here's my guess:

"Keep" = store as a possession (with no implication that it allows storage on your personal property). This will allow the sophistry to be gradually developed that guns must be stored at official armories and that this requirement doesn't violate the Second Amendment. This will, of course, be only a "reasonable" "sensible" and "common sense" solution to rampant crime.

"Bear" = transport. This will mean that a person who has a new job in another area will (eventually with a written police permit from both cities and/or states, a pre-approved itinerary, and a heavy fee) have the right to transport his gun from one approved central storage cite to another.

(I heard a politician say something about the right to "transport" arms. The "keep" part is my guess.)

You can "own" (have legal title to) a gun that is stored at the official government armory. You can "use" that weapon at a government approved firing range under the strict supervision and watchful eye of the authorities. So this plank, by admitting a right to "own and use firearms" admits very little--less, in fact, than the Supreme Court ruled.


Minimize, evade, bullshit, and if necessary, tell baldfaced lies. The gun control playbook hasn't changed since Dred Scott.

[one-eyed fat man]

25. It happened before............

You can "own" (have legal title to) a gun that is stored at the official government armory. You can "use" that weapon at ... strict supervision and watchful eye of the authorities."

The governor of Massachusetts ordered all privately owned firearms in Boston into government storage. If someone wanted to go hunting etc, he was required to sign out his gun upon approval of the authorities. Some folks chafed at that notion and moved their guns out of town.

The governor dispatched ten companies of light infantry to seize those guns.

Major John Pitcairn, "Disperse, you rebels; damn you, throw down your arms and disperse!"

The response to that demand made on April 19th, 1775 is engraved in stone at that spot: "Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

A group of hunters on the frontier, when they heard the news, named their campsite after the battle. That spot eventually became the city of Lexington, Kentucky.

[spin]

22. The Assault Weapons Ban has to rank as one of the most stupid

pieces of legislation in the last 50 years.

We need to get guns out of the hands of criminals...Honest people are not the problem.

So far, gun control has concentrated on taking guns away from honest people. Some legislation that has passed has been downright idiotic, the Assault Weapons Ban for example. In the first place the weapons banned were not truly assault weapons, merely evil looking semi-auto weapons. The manufacturers of these weapons merely made cosmetic changes to their appearance and continued selling them.

In fact, the Assault Weapons Ban increased the sale of these weapons. Suddenly gun owners waned to own one because of all the publicity. Gun manufacturers made more money selling more weapons. Any attempt to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban will do the same thing again. Everybody who doesn't already own one will want one before the ban takes effect. (This time I'll buy one as an investment.)

And the AWB prohibited the sale of magazines holding more than 10 rounds after a certain date. So the companies that manufactured high capacity magazines went to three shift operation and produced a ton of high cap magazines before the ban took effect. These magazines were always available and sold for a premium. All the shooters I knew just had to have them.

It was almost like the gun control lobby was working with or for the gun manufacturers. To top it all off, gun owners developed a hatred for the Democratic Party and marched in mass to the polls to elect Republicans. The Republican party and the big corporations benefited and we ended up in the mess we are in today.

If you are anti-gun and disagree with me do some honest research. The information is out there for you to discover if you have an open mind. You can find plenty of links here in the Gungeon.

So lets use the existing laws to prosecute criminals and take them and the guns they misuse off the street for a long time. "Crime doesn't pay" should be a true statement. As for drug gangs, let's treat them as the terrorist organizations they truly are and hunt them down as if they were al-Qaeda.

We can also work on solving the problems with education, equal opportunity, good jobs and racism that lead to criminal activity. Legalizing some drugs like marijuana might also be a good idea.

[russ1943]

23. Another, mainstream view.

Most Americans, and especially the Democrats completely agree with the three issue/positions in the 2008 platform.

Some articles generated regarding Repubs VP candidate.

The media's initial description of Palin as pro-gun stemmed primarily from comments she posted on her website when she ran for governor, including the following: "I am a lifetime member of the NRA, I support our Constitutional right to bear arms and am a proponent of gun safety programs for Alaska's youth." Indeed, the National Rifle Association granted Palin its "highest possible rating" during her gubernatorial campaign and recently stated that she "would be one of the most pro-gun vice-presidents in American history."

For starters, receiving the "highest possible rating" from the NRA is not an indicator of mainstream thinking. The NRA has consistently opposed the renewal of the federal Assault Weapons Ban. When the ban expired in September 2004, a national Harris poll revealed that 71% of Americans were in favor of renewing it. The NRA has also consistently opposed closing the gun show loophole (which allows individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without undergoing a background check). A recent(April 2008) poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and The Tarrance Group indicated that 87% of Americans favor closing the loophole, including 85% of McCain supporters and 83% of gun owners. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/is-sarah-palin-mainstream_b_124098.html

Most Americans believe in the individual right to own guns, but they don’t see that in conflict with the need to crack down on illegal guns, keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, and give police the tools they need to solve crimes. In fact, among people who say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who wants to protect Second Amendment rights, 80 percent also support prohibiting suspected terrorists from purchasing guns and 77 percent want to require all people who sell guns at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks. http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/polling_memo.pdf

[bossy22]

24. a couple of issues

just because the majority of people think something doing "X" is right does not change the fact that doing "X" may be wrong- look at iraq- at one point the majority of americans supported its invasion

the only reason the majority of people believe in an AWB is that they have been brainwashed into believing these guns are automatic machine guns- which they are not.

when it comes to banning gun sales to suspected terrorists- i agree- but how do we determine one to be a suspected terrorist- the current legislation being proposed states anyone to be on the terror watch list to be a "suspected terrorist"- so how do you get on the list- well very simple, the government can put your name on it for no specific reason at all- and there is not way of getting your name off of it until the government removes your name- you cant clear your name in court

so essentially you are saying that the government should have the power to deny people their second amendment rights arbitrarily

The gun show loophole does not exist- federal law requires background checks on all gun sales done by dealers- it does not require a background check in the case of private sales- ANYWHERE- and any attempt to regulate private sales would be futile without a national registration scheme which would be illegal- violated the FOPA of 1986

AND WHAT THE HELL IS AN ILLEGAL GUN- ive heard of illegally possessed guns but never an illegal gun

so in conclusion- just because the majority of americans want to do something- doesnt mean its the right thing to do- the AWB fails the second amendment muster- it bans commonly used firearms on the misconception that they are automatic machine guns "weapons of war" when they are neither- neither automatic nor "weapons of war"

also the AWB says that the basis the legality of a gun on if it has a sporting purpose- but as the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to protect guns for all lawful purposes included self-defense- a guns legality cannot only be based on its sporting purpose then- since there are plenty of guns out there that serve a defensive purpose (small snub nose revolvers) but not really a sporting purpose

here is an excerpt from the new AWB
"A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'."

[iverglas]

41. yup, just what I was expecting

just because the majority of people think something doing "X" is right does not change the fact that doing "X" may be wrong

Nobody said it did.

You need to keep your own issues straight.

The issue under discussion here is whether supporting the measures in question will lose the Democratic Party votes.

Simple, clear, nothing to do with what's right or wrong.


AND WHAT THE HELL IS AN ILLEGAL GUN- ive heard of illegally possessed guns but never an illegal gun

C'mon now. I think you need to be crediting me for that one.

[bossy22]

42. if my memory serves me right

"AND WHAT THE HELL IS AN ILLEGAL GUN- ive heard of illegally possessed guns but never an illegal gun"
we both came up with that in a little debate :) so i give you 50% of the credit- deal?

the topic is about winning elections but that specific post made mention of the fact that the majority of americans support an assault weapons ban- using that statement as a reason to support its re-authorization

[Redneck Socialist]

26. And 70% of people thought Saddam was behind 911...

...look how well that worked out.  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

I'll bet you a donut that of the 71% who were in favor of renewing the AWB the 85% who favor closing the non-existant "gun show loophole" don't have the foggiest idea what those actually mean.

[slackmaster]

27. 100% of those who support prohibiting "suspected terrorists" from owning guns would be outraged

If the same secret suspect list was used to keep them from boarding an airplane, or registering to vote, or getting the right of habeas corpus, or a jury trial.

I'll give you a Scientific Wild-Assed Guess that 90% of the 71% of people who support renewing the AWB don't really understand what it really did, and what it did not do. We see it here in the Gungeon almost daily.

The old AWB affected quite a few people. What's being proposed now, like HR 1022, would affect millions more.

My mission here and in the real world of gun law issues is and has always been to educate. I intend to keep doing that. The decision to put an AW ban plank in the Democratic Party's platform WILL NOT GAIN A SINGLE VOTE in the November election, and it WILL lose votes.

I will not allow this to be forgotten.

[Truth4Justice]

80. Gun control always has been a major plank of our party. I suggest that you get use to it.

[bossy22]

81. not it hasnt

i think its benezra or slackmaster that has the history of gun control and democratic party

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. Woefully misinformed.

[slackmaster]

138. That's simply not true, T4J - See krispos42's Journal entry on the subject

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/krispos42/13

[HALO141]

31. And?

So what? Be it by ignorance or simple stupidity, MOST people (about 70% by my unscientific assessment) are just logically challenged. Unfortunately, they are allowed to vote and affect public policy.

I used to try to give people the benefit of the doubt. No longer. I am unwilling to accept restrictions placed on my by stupid people and I really don't care anymore about their feelings on gun issues in general or so-called "assault weapons" in particular.

[krispos42]

32. The mainstream of america doesn't have the knowledge to have informed opinons on the matter

That is the first problem. Probably 40% or so of the country lacks basic facts and knowledge of the issue. They don't know how guns work, they've never shot one, don't know anything about ammunition, and know nothing about federal and state firearms laws. Their knowledge comes from popular culture (movies, TV, books) and the MSM. And of course we Demcrats know just how unbiased and informative the MSM is, right???

There is no such thing as the "gun show loophole". It does not exist. It's a framing term used to prejudice the listener to an anti-gun point of view. It is comparable to "death tax", "partial-birth abortion", and "war in Iraq".

"Assault weapon" is an arbitrary term. It can mean virtually anything a person wants it to be. It is used because it is arbitrary and perjorative.

Most Americans believe in the individual right to own guns, but they don’t see that in conflict with the need to crack down on illegal guns, keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, and give police the tools they need to solve crimes.

And when Bush illegally wiretaps, it's still illegal even after their media machine convinces people that "hey, it's only for finding terrorists". You can make the same arguments for denial of habeas corpus, speedy trials, right to face your accuser, right to remain silent, etc. "Oh, well, Americans think it's a good idea because it's giving the police the tools to fight crime".

No.

When the majority view of Americans comes in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail.

[Truth4Justice]

83. What a load of crap.We KNOW what assualt weapons are defined as and when Obama is Pres. you will too

[bossy22]

93. so what are they?

you havent been able to define assault weapons in this entire post- or in any other post

you know what assault weapons are huh?- then explain this one- why in NJ is the M1 Carbine considered an assault weapon, but in California it is not? Why is an AR-15 legal in NJ but considered an assault weapon in CA. Why in wisconsin is an M1A considered an assault weapon but in New York nor the Federal bans it is not?

you claim it is a load of crap- so prove it, just cause you say it is doesnt make it a load of crap. You never mention what they specifically are and you think you have any credibility in saying whats crap or not without having any evidence.

Look at my above typing- i give evidence to support my claims- you have not- all you do is preach this idea that obama is going to throw all of us in concentration camps and "re-educate us" like some soviet-esque political prisoners.

What you preach is neither liberal, nor is it supported by the mainstream of democrats and the national party

You can disagree with an idea, but you have no right to quash it. If you believe the opposite to be true than you cannot believe in any rights whatsoever, only privaleges that the ruling party can grant or take away. Double standards dont work, they always come and bite you in the ass.

[slackmaster]

139. If "WE" all know, then surely YOU can articulate it

Can't you?

[old mark]

28. You are right - not a "tradition", it is #2 in the bill of rights

because it is an important right. It is not an oversight, an archaic remainder,or a "tradition". Is there someone at the big Democratic Committee who can be reached to send some input on this stuipdity?


Fireworks on July 4th is a Tradition - the 2nd ammendmend to the US Constitution is a bit more.

mark

[HALO141]

29. Surprised? So much for "change." n/t

[benEzra]

34. DAMMIT. Here we go again. (n/t)

[davepc]

38. Keep doing the same thing and expect different results....

[one-eyed fat man]

39. Never mind Cheyenne.......

You have better odds in Baqubah! A high casualty rate and a corrupt political regime, maybe we should pull out of Chicago............

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.summer.shootings.2.810166.html


".......More than 90 percent of the offenders have criminal histories and up to 80 percent of the victims have criminal histories."

[Herman74]

43. The Right to Own a Material Object is SO IMPORTANT to the Gun Nuts...

"...because the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms is NOT A TRADITION, it is a basic individual right..." -- Jody

Well, maybe Jody might be willing (although I doubt it) to shed some light on just how the people say in the UK are able to get by without such an "inalienable right." How is it that most of the British (or the Japanese, Italians, etc.) can manage to survive without guns, Jody, but you can't? Jody, just why is this right to own assault weapons oh-so important to you, McCain, Cheney,and Bush??? Do you all truly believe that the U.S. will fall apart if assault weapons are banned?

[TPaine7]

44. Jody can, of course speak for himself,

but statistically speaking, at least, people can "survive" or "get by" without most rights.

Prisoners live for decades without liberty. Humans have gotten by without religious or political freedom for centuries. Rape victims, female and male, usually survive physically. Ditto for torture victims.

No one, at least no one sane, thinks that being without a gun usually leads to instant death, any more than being without most other rights does.

It's not the material object, either. If a alien weapon was available that had no mass and occupied no space and yet was vastly superior in every way to guns, I think most "gun nuts" would eagerly trade in their "material objects" for a better way to defend themselves and other innocents. Material objects are mere tools, means to an end; we have the right to possess credible means to achieve this worthy end--material means or immaterial means.

[bossy22]

45. way off target.....way off targer

"Well, maybe Jody might be willing (although I doubt it) to shed some light on just how the people say in the UK are able to get by without such an "inalienable right." How is it that most of the British (or the Japanese, Italians, etc.) can manage to survive without guns, Jody, but you can't? Jody, just why is this right to own assault weapons oh-so important to you, McCain, Cheney,and Bush??? Do you all truly believe that the U.S. will fall apart if assault weapons are banned?"

whether we can get along just fine without the second amendment is irrelevent because it is there and will continue to stay there.

The chinese people get along fine without constitutional rights and under an oppressive government.

we would get along fine without abortion, with warrantless wiretaps, with gitmo, with no national health care system

just cause you can get along fine without a certain right does not mean that right is now free to be ripped to shreads

The second amendment is an inaliable right which is part of the bill of rights- its just as much a part as the 1st and 4th amendment. If you argue that it is not, you open up the door to allow somebody to do the same with rights you may cherish

once the dam breaks you cannot control the flood water

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. I'm guessing you won't see a response to either one of your posts.

That guy just got his ass handed to him by both of you.

David

[slackmaster]

58. Herman74, if you had some actual justification for the AWB this could have been a good post

:hi:

[Truth4Justice]

85. I cant understand how the USA is chock full of guns but we have no national healthcare plan at all.

[TxRider]

118. I think you miss the point

It's not that anyone can't get by without it.

We can "get by" without any of our constitutional rights... People all over the world do it.

But allowing the infringement by government on any single one of our protected rights, no matter how well intentioned, opens the door and sets precedent to trample all of them.

It's very dangerous territory to place less importance on the infringement of any of our individual rights...

Just think of every gun as a book, and how we would all react to millions of books being banned, and you'll understand the gun owners reaction a little more possibly.

[krispos42]

146. Billions of people survive without rights

Just ask the Chinese or North Koreas or gays or Jews or Roma (Gypsies) or women.


If your goal is just to survive, then you don't need rights.

If your goal is to have a free and just society, then you do need rights.

[Truth4Justice]

61. The founders never envisioned a time when assualt weapons would be owned by the NRA style goons

and yes, once Obama is President you can count on a new PERMENANT ban on these kind of firearms. Turn them over or go to Prison. Your choice.

[HALO141]

64. Yes they did.

The proof is easily seen in the reasoning behind the inclusion of the 2nd in the Bill of Rights.

[tburnsten]

66. Private citizens owned cannon in their day

And it was not only accepted, it was a requirement! Why on earth would they have thought that a small caliber, low-powered rifle like the AR-15 would cause any stir whatsoever? It is certainly less deadly than heavy ordnance like the privateers were required to have on board.

[one-eyed fat man]

68. Now ya done it!

Had to go and mention that civilians owned battleships and used them in government service. Next they will find out that Louis Tiffany and his well-heeled friends bought machineguns and cannon for the 7th Regiment Armory in New York. Imagine, right on Park Avenue and full of silver trophies and treasures from the days when New Yorkers could shoot.

Back before the service in the volunteer Army was sneered at by those who view themselves as above such menial and plebian activities.

[bossy22]

72. caues ya know

its not like the second amendment exists or something....or maybe if we close are eyes and wish very hard it will go away

you and your pipedream

[Name removed]

92. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

141. Five days and not ONE person has offered a rational reason in support of renewing the AWB

I wonder why.

[iverglas]

142. Oh hell -- is THAT what jody wanted?

Why in blazes didn't he say so???

I thought he was just posting another of his interminable whinges about how the Democratic Party won't do anything right / right-wing enough for him ...

[Boomer 50]

158. We just handed the election to the repugs.

We've obviously forgotten as a party the ass kicking we received in 1994 after the original AW ban passed. Congratulations DNC, you just gave the White House to McCain. Thanks.

[apocalypsehow]

160. I can't believe no one came up with the answer to my riddle. It was straightforward.

No Gold Star in March for you!

[athiest4ev]

163. I'm glad that a ban on Assault Weapons is in our party statement

There is absolutely no need for a high-capacity clip gun in our modern society. Hell, there's no need for any gun at all.

To keep fostering America's culture of guns is a huge step back, IMO. We need more gun buyback programs to get people off this "I need guns" thing. If you're so concerned about defending yourself, GET SOME GODDAMN PEPPER SPRAY!

[slackmaster]

168. Feel free to buy all the pepper spray you want

I'll keep my firearms.

[apocalypsehow]

173. You don't read so good. Give it another go. n/t.

[Truth4Justice]

169. Good point. We need to stop the gun culture. When I was young It was six-shooters. Now they

have to have assualt weapons .It just gets worse and worse each year and people are getting sluagtered to death.

[tburnsten]

170. Ironic that you "sluagtered" "slaughtered"

Ordinarily I don't get on peoples' cases about spelling, because it is petty and a sign that you lack any substance, but that is hilarious.

No one is getting "sluagtered" by "assault weapons" anyway, I am not sure where you got that information from but if you could post it here I'm sure we would all be able to make good use of it.

[bossy22]

178. WTF is an assault weapon

you still havent defined it yet- under some bans six-shooters are considered assault weapons

and yet back when the six-shooter was the "thing" the murder rate was higher than it was now?- how do you explain that one?

[apocalypsehow]

172. Not interested in any of that. Did you get a crack at my riddle? n/t.

[Truth4Justice]

165. Utter nonsense. Obama wins and the new assualt weapons ban becomes law for good.

we have a responsibility to the public welfare. No where else are people allowed to own these weapons of mass murder.

[slackmaster]

167. Writers who abuse hyperbole

Deserve to be taken out and shot.

[ManiacJoe]

174. You seem confused.

Which are you talking about, "assault weapons" or "weapons of mass murder"?

[Truth4Justice]

182. "Weapons of mass murder" is my own term for firearms in general.

Capice?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

190. It's a good thing our "weapons of mass murder" are protected by the constitution.

[ManiacJoe]

193. Thank you for the explanation.

Even if I don't accept your defintion.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

177. You are so pathetically uninformed it's almost sad.

[Truth4Justice]

180. How am I uninformed? You seem to think I dont know much about guns and you are wrong, like usual.

[bossy22]

185. if you know so much

than what is an assault weapon?

is it the california, new york, NJ, WI, Ex-federal definition?- which one- they are all different


you refuse to answer this simple question- why?- maybe its because you dont know yourself- i dont see any other reason why

[Truth4Justice]

186. Everytime I have explained what most states consider an assault weapon, you gun nuts claim its

a machine gun capable of fully automatic fire, not a semi-automatic version of a battlefield rifle.

I don't care what the hell the military calls them, they are _ALL_ based on military designs, even if they are semi-automatic, for the most part.

They all hold large magazines of 30 rounds or more; they all shoot bullets designed to kill humans and they often have pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and some are capable of mounting a grenade launcher as well as a bayonet and other additions.

You people seem to thing we know nothing about these weapons? You are dead wrong about that, as you have just seen. Cripes sakes its been a long time since 1994. We know exactly how to word the law so that ALL these weapons are banned this time around.

Just bring one into NYS and we can have some coffee while waiting for the police to come and arrest you and you can explain to them what an assault weapon is as they put the handcuffs on you, and put you in back of the patrol car for a trip to the jail-house.

Then you can tell it to the judge too.

Good luck to you. You will need it.}(

[slackmaster]

187. Most states don't have a definition of "assault weapon" at all

You are misinformed.

...They all hold large magazines of 30 rounds or more; they all shoot bullets designed to kill humans and they often have pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and some are capable of mounting a grenade launcher...

HR 1022 would define some firearms that have NONE of those features as "assault weapons".

[Truth4Justice]

197. Which guns would those be and are they former military issued rifles?

[tburnsten]

204. What does former military matter?

A rifle like the M1 Garand, our service rifle for World War II and the Korean war, is a .30-06 (one of the absolute all time favorites for deer and black bear sized animals) and is technically incompatible with any magazine other than the fixed eight round magazine feeding from stripper clips that it has, would be banned by HR 1022.

[bossy22]

205. hate to be specific

it does not feed from a stripper clip- but an enbloc clip
:)

[tburnsten]

206. That's the name!

Thank you, should probably know that but oh well.


On a more personal note, I have just been asked to video a class going on in less than fifteen minutes. I love officers.

[slackmaster]

207. Remington 1100 shotgun has none of those features

Among rifles, the M1 Garand does have a bayonet lug but NONE of the other features you mentioned. Millions of collectors own at least one M1 Garand. The idea of declaring it an AW has no rational justification.

[Truth4Justice]

213. I am aware of the Garand. It doesnt have a 30 rd magazine. Its not on a banned list.

[tburnsten]

220. On the contrary, it is featured in your precious

HR 1022. I believe it is both mentioned specifically by name AND falls under the "ever intended or designed or used by the military" clause.


Your precious isn't that familiar to you now?

[bossy22]

221. dont forget

it also bans the M1 Carbine by name

[tburnsten]

223. I know

But the M1 Carbine is "capable of accepting 'high capacity' fifteen and twenty and forty round magazines"!!!! Oh NO!!!!!





So I didn't mention it. M1 is a neat little long gun though, I would really love one of the Israeli SBRs based on a special softpoint .30 Carbine they developed, was it the Masada? Great looking gun, a cool alternative to a pistol caliber carbine, but has a little more diameter than the 5.56mm SBRs to offset the lower than designed for velocities from that short barrel.

[Truth4Justice]

226. Good!

[bossy22]

222. by that rediculous definition

a remington 870 could be banned, as well as a remington 700

[Truth4Justice]

225. You expect me to care if one more military gun gets put on the banned list?

[bossy22]

229. what is a miliitary gun?

many guns that were designed for the civilian market have been adapted to be used in the military- the Military's M24 sniper rifle is actually a remington 700 hunting rifle



and it doesnt matter much in reality what that bill bans- 99.9% chance is it is going nowhere and you know it. the country has much more important things to deal with

[tburnsten]

235. Good thing your goose is cooked isn't it?

Your little daydreams of being a good little german and helping send as many "assault weapon" owners to prison and rehabilitation camps are just that, daydreams.


HR 1022 is dead, but feel free to fondle yourself thinking about what could have been for a little longer.

[jody]

237. Reading only the pro-gun posts in this thread is like watching TV with the sound off. ROFLMAO at

what the opposing post must have said and some must have been really terminal. :rofl:

[slackmaster]

246. You no longer have a voice here, so your opinion doesn't matter

:rofl:

[bossy22]

188. jesus

"They all shoot bullets designed to kill humans"

what does that have to do with anything- hunting rifles designed to kill such animals as moose fire a cartridge that would blow a human body into peices with one shot

so if the bullet is designed to kill humans its not okay- but if it is designed to kill an animal twice as large and twice as strong as a human its a-ok?

And why wouldnt i want a weapon that is good at "killing" if i am interested in it for self defense- i dont want a gun that is so underpowered that it can't even penetrate human flesh?- what would be the purpose of such a self defense gun, to piss the attacker off?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

189. Why should those scary looking guns be banned?

I don't need luck I have the law on my side.

David

[Truth4Justice]

196. In YOUR state perhaps. Like I said, bring it to CA or NY and you are going to prison.

How dense can you folks get? The law is the law.

[bossy22]

200. depends

an AR-15 or AK-47 variant is not legal in CA but perfectly legal in most of New York State- trust me i sell guns (graduated cum laude with a degree in biology from binghamton university and i wound up working at a gun shop- you can see how much the job market sucks)

it all depends- there are things that are legal in NYC that would make your head spin- like do you know NYC penal code allows you to own 17 round mags for handguns- but there is a state ban on all mags over 10 rounds)

not to mention that it is easy to get a 30 rd AR-15 mag in NYS. In fact 2 days ago we recieved a shipment of about 500 mags (30 rd) from overseas- perfectly legal- and perfectly legal to sell to civilians

[slackmaster]

208. There are both AK and AR-15 variants that are still legal to sell or manufacture in California

The key modification is to make them not accept a detachable magazine without use of some kind of tool. Use a fixed 10-round magazine in such a rifle, and it's legal in CA even with a host of other stigmatizing features.

[Truth4Justice]

215. Read it and weep. I wont call you a liar but C-H-D WONT sell large magazines to these...

locations:

Cheaper Then Dirt:

High-capacity 30 round magazine for the AR-15 rifle or M16 rifles, used in good condition, this magazine will fit Bushmaster rifles.

Specific state laws prohibit the sale and shipment of this magazine; we CANNOT sell or ship to Aurora, IL, Chicago, IL, California, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey, or South Bend, IN.

So its "OK" for you to sell the same or similar large capacity magazines in NYS, but these folks wont?

Please explain this.

[bossy22]

216. id be glad too T4J

for many reasons Cheaper than dirt does not sell mags to new york

New York bans the possession of high capacity magazines made after 1994- anything made before is free to buy, sell, possess

Cheaper than Dirt sells new make magazines- that have been made prior to the 1994 AWB

The New York AWB is murky- like all AWB's- cheaper than dirt sells new and pre ban mags- pre-bans are legal to sell to new york but the law is still murky. Cheaper than dirt believes that there is more risk than gain when it comes to selling hi-cap mags in this state- so as a company policy they just ban all hi-cap mag sales


Since the federal law has expired it is almost impossible to tell the difference between a new make mag and a pre-ban mag....this coupled with the fact that there are 100's of millions of hi cap mags in circulation before the ban in 1994 that there is no way for any law enforcement agency to really PROVE that the mag is infact a new make- so basically any mag out there is good to sell

there is one thing- it is illegal for us to KNOWINGLY sell a new make mag- but as i mentioned- its almost impossible for us to know/find out if the mags are legal or not

we get shipments in constantly- never a low supply of 30 rd AR-15 mags (i think we have too many- upwards of 5,000 in storage facilities)- if i would venture a guess to whether i am selling preban or new makes id say that 90% or preban and 10% are new mags.....again i have no way of telling and neither do any of the authorities so the mags are well and good

for your information the state police approves mags before they get imported- many times new make mags are approved because the NYSP have no way of PROVING that the mags are new and not pre ban

so take your "read it and weep" and shove it where the sun don't shine

[Truth4Justice]

227. The solution is very simple: we ban all large magazines, no matter when they were made.

Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it!

[bossy22]

230. not going to happen

first off the solution isnt that simple- you can't go door to door searching for magazines- its a grave violation of the constitution. Second off, if you had a "mag turn in" probably very little would be turned in- mags unlike guns are almost impossible to track- they have no serial numbers, no model numbers, and they are small enough that they will get stashed away.

let me repeat this because you dont seem to get it THE ENDS DONT ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS, you are so sick in your "war on gun owners" that you would see fit to throw away the entire constitution to get your "agenda" passed. in fact, you sound like someone that works for the bush admin, with that attitude.


"Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it!"
i dont have a crack pipe- can i borrow yours?

[bossy22]

231. also

the legality of that "solution" coupled with a confiscation is in question

[ManiacJoe]

232. Why would you want to do that?

What problem do you think this is a solution for?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

210. You are the only person speaking about CA and NY.

The conversation has been about the Federal Assault Weapons ban. Which did not ban private ownership of these weapons? As long as they had been purchased before the ban. It's clear you are very dense. I don't know how much more dense you can get.

David

[Truth4Justice]

214. You are so dense your head is made of concrete, Dave. The federal ban is coming so get used to it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

217. Again it won't affect me.

I already own an assault rifle and have a bunch of 30 rounds magazines. Even if a new assault weapon ban comes it won't affect ownership just new sales and production. So I'll be fine, thanks for your concern though.

David

[bossy22]

218. what about congress?

guess you don't know your civics- you need the legislature to pass the law before it becomes law

and lets see

the house is pro-gun, pelosi doesnt want to touch the issue

the senate majority leader harry reid voted against the 1994 AWB and its renewal, there are atleast 54 pro-gun votes in the senate




this is what you don't understand- the democratic leadership in congress don't want to touch this issue....it will take a lot for them to start moving on an "assault weapons ban"




but im sure you are going to have some answer for that- probably another unsubstantiated claim- just like 99% of your posts

[jody]

224. 99% of posts! Is it that low? n/t

[ManiacJoe]

192. You have lots of misunderstandings there.

Every time I have explained what most states consider an assault weapon, you gun nuts claim its a machine gun capable of fully automatic fire, not a semi-automatic version of a battlefield rifle.
If the rifle is capable of automatic fire, it is currently excluded from all common definitions of "assault weapon". Machine guns have been heavily regulated at the federal level since 1934. The first assault rifle (not assault weapon) was not invented/adopted until 1947 (AK-47).

They all hold large magazines of 30 rounds or more
So what? If you go hunting with an "assault weapon", you are required to use a 5-round magazine, just like every other rifle type.

they all shoot bullets designed to kill humans
All bullet types kill humans. Nothing special there. If it can cause a hole in a human, it can/will kill a human.

they often have pistol grips,
Great for ergonomics when firing from the shoulder.

bayonet lugs,
So what? Nothing special here about a small block of steel. Even if the bayonet is attached, so what?

folding stocks,
Great for storage and transport, useless for shooting. If the stock is adjustable, it is great for folks with shorter arms or wearing body armor.

some are capable of mounting a grenade launcher
So what? Grenade launchers are heavily regulated at the federal level. Separately, each grenade is also heavily regulated and individually taxed.

There is nothing special about a so called "assault weapon". Some just happen to look like the assault rifles that the military uses. What is the point of banning a gun based on cosmetic features? Remove the ugly black plastic and replace it with pretty wood; the gun will still work exactly the same, fire the same ammo and at the same rate (once per trigger pull), but no longer meet the "assault weapon" definition; yet it is the exact same gun.

[Boomer 50]

195. I don't think you don't know... I know you don't.

You are spouting hyperbole.

The term assault rifle is a translation from German. The term was used to impress Hitler on a particular firearm called the MP-43 which was renamed the STG-44. It had several particular characteristics that made it stand out from other firearms at the time. 1. The STG-44 fired a moderately powered cartridge that was designed to be effective only out to about 400 meters. 2. It utilized a detachable magazine. 3. It was capable of controlled full automatic fire. 4. The receiver was stamped instead of milled reducing weight.

The original series did not have a bayonet lug. There never was a collapsable or folding stock.

The term "assault weapon" is a vaguely defined crack pipe term created to create a sense of fear and an attempt to associate any semi-automatic firearm with the evil personage of Hitler. Basically, it's a bullshit term with no validity. It's like calling any car that has fiberglass a "race car".

What amuses me most is that all of the anti-gunners out there freak out over semi-automatic firearms. If you were smart, you'd get educated on firearms and re-evaluate what guns really are the ones that are most "dangerous".

Guys with AR15's don't bother me. If I were to worry about a guy with a gun, it'd be the guy with the .308 or other long range gun who could hit a target from a long distance away... you know, the "sniper rifle". Guys with AK-47's, AR15's, UZI's, etc. have one thing in common. If they are shooting at me, they are in range for me to shoot back and score hits.

Your fear of "assault weapons" is baseless and senseless. But, if you want them all banned, I'll go along with it....... As long as there are absolutely NO exceptions. No government exemptions, no military exemptions. No grandfathering for the Government.

While we're at it, let's ban ALL guns. Again, no exceptions..... then see exactly what you will bring forth to this country.

[bossy22]

179. except for that pesky

congress, and the 2nd amendment

last time i checked the president needs congress to vote on a law before he signs it- my guess is it never leaves committee

hate to smack you with reality but here goes http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gun-control-backers-not-bold-on-2009-2008-05-20.html

...and you call us delusional

[Truth4Justice]

181. What part about "Gun rights lobbyists dont buy the claim that Democrats will not seek new gun laws "

did you not understand in your article.?

[bossy22]

184. some will seek

most will fail

its interesting that you skipped 95% of the article and got only that out of it


if i seek buried treasure- does that automatically mean i will find/get it?

[CaliboyinAF]

233. Dude?

Sorry, I had to register to just to comment to you. Are you stoned or just so naive, you have no clue about the world around you? You keep preaching about gun control and how "you break the law, you go to jail." Ok, I respect that statement, you break the law, you should get touted off. Now, that was the agreement part, here is the disagreement part. You state that getting the firearms off the streets will lower crime rates because the street gangs won't be able to get a hold of them.

One thing you never considered and one thing never mentioned is that these gangs are already breaking the law, some of them are wanted for murder, robbery, rape extortion, etc etc etc. Do you REALLY think that they are going to care about a gun law? I mean think of it this way, in California, you can't own an Uzi....but many L.A. gangs like to use them for drive by tactics.

I'm sorry, lets say this law some how passes; which I doubt it really will. I seriously doubt that they are going to lock you up ten years automatically. It is going to be like speeding, just depends on number of fire arms etc etc, probably will involve confiscation and fines.

Second to last point, I am shocked you say that anyone who posses a fire arm should go to jail IF this law passes, you would quadruple our prison populations that are already bursting at the seems.

Last and final note: Guns really don't kill people, people kill people. No forces a firearm in anyones hand. Cars, cigarettes, drugs and alcohol have killed more people than fire arms. At least firearms have a safety switch.

[jody]

228. Posters in this thread and elsewhere on DU espouse gun-control myths that have been debunked ad

nauseam.

If they are Democrats and support Obama/Biden, how can they respond to questions from independent voters thinking about voting for our candidates if asked about their positions on gun-control and the assault weapon ban?

For example, across DU I’ve noted an abysmal ignorance of the nonsensical phrase “assault weapons” and the blatant bait and switch scheme to ban all semiautomatic firearms called the “assault weapons ban”.

It’s crystal clear that over the last few days, Obama and Biden have been trying to sell the idea that they support the Second Amendment to win votes from the 54 to 80 million gun owners.

The electorate is over 200 million and about 122 million voted in 2004.

That means Obama/Biden need perhaps 62 million to win the White House for our party.

Unless Obama/Biden can convince gun owners they will support the Second Amendment and oppose reinstating the assault weapons ban, they could lose key states like PA, MI, OH, FL and the election.

If Obama/Biden do lose the gun-grabber community can take bows for losing three straight presidential elections for our Democratic Party.

[Truth4Justice]

234. Thats it. Its all the gun-grabbers fualt. I could make a case for people not voting for Obama/Biden

because they support "socialised medicine" as well. When and where do we as Dems stand for anything? I know what: we can support reversal of Roe vs. Wade to get more votes. Gun control isn't going away and we need to support the facts that gun violence is not to be tolerated in our society.

[SteveM]

238. Considering the Brady's are GOP, you bet "gun control isn't going away"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

241. He can't answer he suffered an untimely demise.

RIP

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

236. Kicked

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

247. Recommend