On guns and the Liberals... city vs country

[nadinbrzezinski]

Ok folks, I have been doing a lot of readying into the culture... and there are several things that began to strike me, as a pattern.

Gun control has been hijacked... no, not by the liberals, the NRA... wait for it... 99% of gun owners will agree to the kind of controls most people who are reasonable about this want. Things like ... if you served time in jail, aka a felon, or you have mental issues, you don't get to own a gun.

That said the NRA has run a very successful campaign to scare gun owners that them liberals are coming to take their guns away.

And partly the fears may not be unfounded... since gun control has also been hijacked by some politicos who use fear as well.

Here is the truth... many gun laws are about the other and keeping them from those we fear. For some city dwellers, who have never used a gun in their lives... well the other are them country hicks... or for the most part blacks and other minorities. Yes, you read right, the current spate goes back to the riots. Never mind there were mostly no guns used at the time, and the high profile murders of the 1960s... which led to gun laws, not rifles laws... funny thing.

There is more, the reality is that you cannot ban guns in a country where we have over 260 million guns, last time anybody tried to run a check. That is more than two guns per person in the country.

Now some folks have bought this idea that they are coming to take their guns away since this is is an idea also rooted in the other...

SO if we are going to have a conversation about this... forget the second amendment... and let's get back to basics, and see what we can all agree with. (And I expect plenty of second amendment, and rights and all that... which was NOT part of the conversation at one time, it was more like... ok we can all agree that felons should not have them, that's a bad idea, or the mentally insane)

And the truth is some people should not be able to LEGALLY obtain a gun... we, at least the reasonable ones, will realize yes it is the same folks... felons, mentally sick... I also realize that those well motivated to get a gun will get a Saturday Night Special... not delusional about this.

Now I would like to see certain guns not in the hands of civilians, realize those would be long arms designed to kill people, but that ain't gonna happen...

It is also a reality that a small group of gun owners are concerned quite a bit with the mechanics of ballistics and all of that. For the record, my interest in ballistics came from seeing what the rounds from certain weapons can do to the human body, for real... and of course for silly shit like what is good cover when those bullets are traveling out of the muzzle... yes they have right of way.

Now there is more... one of the great misunderstandings is as to who has guns in this country. Yep, some are country hicks, with few formal education... but that is SOME... most folks who own guns are well educated... and even have college degrees, and are responsible owners. Oh and them country hicks have the best gun safety training ever, and their guns in some cases go back to the Civil War and they still use them for hunting... ah to use a Martini Henry ... now that would be fun.

So lets get down to basics... ok...

Oh and gun control has been part of US history... it is not new, but the term has been hijacked. It truly is about certain groups being able to buy a gun or not, and certain places we all agree you should not be able to carry a gun... like the court house. or the US House.

Oh and those thinking we will get rid of guns in our culture... no way in hell. What I'd like to get rid off is the violent culture where guns are but one of many symptoms... now that is a project I can get behind.

Oh and for you hunters, good luck, make sure you eat what you kill.

Oh and stay safe, you know the drill.

[thunder rising]

1. Wyatt Earp was all for gun control .. I guess he hated America too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. It was limited indeed

you could not have a gun in a town he was the sheriff off... kind of like you cannot take your gun to the Court House... or congress critters cannot take theirs to work.

And he was not against people not having guns... just not having them in a bar with alcohol.

Oh and I forgot, guns were far more expensive back then and far less common.

[Kaleva]

3. As long as gun control didn't apply to himself

[cabluedem]

7. The UK, OZ and lots of other countries have banned guns. So can we. You jail anyone with a gun. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Good luck doing that in the US

Seriously. We have the largest amount of guns OUTSIDE OF CANADA in the modern world

Guns are a symptom... riddle me this. Canada has more guns per person than the US... yet they were shocked and frightened when they got a few murders in Toronto a few years back.

[Kaleva]

12. Local law enforcement where I live wouldn't enforce such a law

For one thing, they'd be seriously outgunned and the second reason is that the county sheriffs who attempted to enforce that law would be quickly voted out of office.

[cabluedem]

25. Under a nationwide law, gun bans are quite enforceable. Will you go to jail and leave your family ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. As I said, good luck enforcing that

When you have two guns + per person, good luck removing them.

This is the reality on the ground, and it has little to do with the Second amendment by the way. Just as a practical thing... that will be unenforceable.

So instead of blaming guns, why not ask the other question... the more complex question... why is Canada far less violent than the US? They have more guns per person than we do.

[cabluedem]

31. Only 40 percent of Americans own firearms. Once guns are banned its only a matter of time . nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Good luck...

and I notice that you avoid the more complex question... WHY are we having these issues with violence.

Look in my ideal world nobody except cops and the military would have access to assault rifles or semi auto assault rifles... that ain't gonna happen

In my ideal world you would have no guns in civilian hands... but that ain't gonna happen...

So why are you avoiding the other issue... CANADA HAS MORE GUNS PER PERSON THAN THE US YET THEY HAVE A VERY LOW MURDER RATE. What the hell is going on that Canada is doing that while we are a very violent culture, guns or no guns.

[TheWraith]

83. Poverty and the drug war.

Canada has a much more aggressive anti-poverty policy than the US has ever dreamed of. People who have hope for the future don't feel the need to risk their lives by joining gangs and working the drug trade. And the areas of Canada that DO have problems with violent crime are, unsurprisingly, the most impoverished ones.

[michreject]

50. You're right

Only a matter of time before the 40% enslave the other 60%.

[Merchant Marine]

39. Will you go door to door?

"I'm sorry, Officer. I lost all my guns a week ago in a tragic boating accident."

[proteus_lives]

45. Wow. Democrat/liberal my ass.

You're an authoritarian. Railing against and wanting to ban/remove other people's rights.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Ain't gonna happen. N/T

[Kaleva]

110. Who would arrest me and how would they know I had guns?

[TheWraith]

14. Not unless you want to burn the constitution, no.

And the UK and Australia's strict gun laws have not resulted in a decrease in violent crime.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. There is a reason why I want to stay away from the Second Ammendment

Partly it has been misused as a fear element by the NRA. And it is a nice distraction from what we should be discussing.

But reality is... we need to deal with the underlying culture which is quite violent, guns or no guns... guns are a damn symptom of the problems...

And to be honest, guns are spectacular, but knives are just as effective. Ok, they have less range.

:-)

[TheWraith]

22. They banned guns in the UK, now they're trying to ban knives.

Even kitchen knives. And glass mugs for beer. Because apparently the British, given ANY opportunity, will start attempting to murder each other.

Seriously, it's not like the equation is that hard to figure out. Violence comes from poverty. Poverty feeds violence. That's why there isn't gang warfare in Burlington, Vermont the way there is in Los Angeles.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. There are elements in the culture that lead to it

From my readying it has something to do with the Borderer culture of the Scott Irish and it goes back to oh at least the 14rth century. The UK shares this with us. So yes, that underlying culture is part of the problem and how do you correct it? Or redirect it to be specific.

Poverty is part of it, but not the only answer, just as guns are not the only answer. It is multicausal and if we are to change the culture, we need to actually be willing to ask the question... What is going on, it goes well beyond guns... or poverty, or knives.

Now one of the essays I was readying today makes it even harder to do. An answer to globalization is not the rise of nationalism, but tribalism.

[paulsby]

40. violence does not come from poverty

there is a hell of a lot more to it than that.

that's actually a view that is very patronizing towards the poor, also.

[TheWraith]

71. People with comfort and hope for the future don't generally join gangs.

They don't have to choose between dealing drugs and being homeless.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

44. Don't be silly

they haven't banned knives here. They've restricted the purchase of knives though. You cannot sell them to under-18s.

We have less murders than the US though, why is that?

We also have guns but it comes with a very stringent background check and someone from the government actually comes to interview you and check the environment out. Handguns and semiautomatics have been banned for over 10 years (see Hungerford and Dunblane). Shotguns are allowed for hunting purposes (we have duck and pheasant season here).

[Euromutt]

46. The UK has long had a lower homicide rate than the US

That's even prior to the restrictions on private firearms ownership following Hungerford and Dunblane. In fact, the homicide rate in Great Britain is lower than the US non-firearm homicide rate. On the other hand, non-fatal violent crime is lower in the US than it is in the UK. I broad terms, Americans are violent less often than the British, but when they get violent, they play for keeps.

And again, you can't reasonably attribute that to firearms alone, given that the American non-gun homicide rate is higher than the UK's overall rate. And if the discrepancy can't be explained entirely by the prevalence of firearms in American society, maybe it isn't caused by that all, and the use of firearms in crime--especially homicide--is a symptom, not a cause. This becomes more plausible when you consider that there is strong historical evidence that the homicide rate in the Home Counties in the 14th century was much higher than the US homicide rate today, despite the complete absence of firearms.

When we (American proponents of private firearms ownership) mention how the UK does have guns, we are generally referring to the illegally possessed ones. I refer you to this Guardian article from last year concerning their availability: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
The point being that the availability of firearms doesn't drive crime, but rather, the criminal demand for guns drives the supply. If criminals feel they need guns, someone will come along who is willing to sell them guns, no matter how illegal it is.

And I believe that with regard to knives, TheWraith was referring to an editorial that appeared in the BMJ four years ago (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7502/1221) advocating that long, pointed kitchen knives be outlawed for the purpose of reducing violent crime, or at least its nastier effects. It is curious that one would have to explain to a group of MDs that prohibitions on certain types of weapons that are currently most popularly used for criminal purposes is treating the symptom while ignoring the cause.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. Violent crime comes from neglected, abused children who become...

violent criminals when they grow up. Almost every single violent felon in jail was badly abused as a kid. Often, their father was a violent criminal and the mother was doing drugs.

To cut down on the violence, we need to save those kids, starting from birth.

It isn't the poverty, it is the child abuse that is the underlying cause.

[spin]

93. Living in a fastasy world must be nice.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. Where did the OP accuse anyone of hating America?

[winyanstaz]

4. I know a lot of liberals that have guns...

so I have never understood why liberals are always the one blamed for wanting gun control.
Wasn't it the wife of that senator that got shot ...the one that pushed for the gun laws...a republican? (I think their name was Brady but I am not sure about that.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. The brady laws are the somewhat most recent

and your memory is correct.

Why they get blamed? The other.

That is why?

It is part of the mythology.

[X_Digger]

58. In the 19th & early 20th century, it was Jim Crow & anti-immigrant / anti-labor..

It covered both political stripes, as long as the bigotry was there. See the Sullivan Act in NY, 'Black Codes' in the south, 'anti-communism' laws in CA.

In the latter half of the 20th, it was 75% Democrats pushing new gun control (see the 1968 GCA list of sponsors) and 25% urban republicans (see Reagan's support of new restrictions targeted against the Black Panthers.)

[Euromutt]

103. Not a senator, press secretary to Reagan

But yeah, the Bradies were staunch Republicans until James was shot by someone who was in illegal possession of a firearm. Ditto for Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4) until her husband got shot on the Long Island Railroad, again by someone who was in illegal possession of a firearm. In both cases, they decided to do something about the problem of people illegally possessing firearms and using them in homicide attempts, by trying to clamp down on people who own their firearms legally and haven't tried to kill anyone.

To quote the sig line of a guy on CalGuns, "the problem with being a gun rights proponent is that the Left hates guns, and the Right hates rights." East Coast Republicans hate both.

[baldguy]

8. The problem is that most gun owners are NOT responsible.

If they were, they wouldn't have any problem with taking steps to ensure criminals did not have access to firearms. They would advocate laws for universal licensing & registration - at the very minimum.

As it is, gun owners value their unnecessary privileges over the lives of their fellow citizens. That's unacceptable in a civilized country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. And there my friend you just stepped into the cartoon stereotype

most gun owners ARE responsible.

But they will not agree to any of those laws because they fear that is the first step to taking their guns away. You can thank the NRA on the way out for that one...

By the way... some of those gun owners own things going back 170 years, handed down from father to mostly sons... most gun owners are highly responsible, don't buy the bullshit.

And as I said, guns are a symptom, our culture is very violent... guns (now) and no guns ( the old west)

[baldguy]

55. Reasonable decisions aren't made in a cloud of fear.

Especially when that fear has been created for purely political objectives and has no basis in reality.

Guns are really the only consumer product created for the sole purpose of making killing things easier. Because of this, and our violent culture, there's a high probability for guns to be used improperly, either by criminals or those who are immature & inconsiderate of others. Truly RESPONSIBLE gun owners would advocate policies to prevent this. Instead, most gun owners are opposed to them - with the backing of the GOP, the NRA & corporate arms manufacturers.

[X_Digger]

60. "only consumer product ...making killing things easier"..Bows? Swords? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. And you are blaming the gun owners for it

instead of looking at the underlying reasons.

By the way most gun owners I know have safes, gun locks, and other silly shit.

As to the NRA... why have they been able to do that? Ask yourself why? Then come back to me.

Oh and by the way in my ideal world guns would be gone from the culture but that ain't gonna happen ok... so instead of blaming all these things and giving more ammo why not ask this simple question.

Canada has more guns per person than the US, yet a lower murder rate, as in MUCH LOWER? WHY? Once you answer that question and you start working on those underlying causes, then you can start dealing with the problem at a level that makes a difference. Taking guns away will not do it, gun registration laws are a nice fantasy from those who live in cities and fear them gun owners... ok.

Oh and no politico who has a sense of survival will run on it either.

[Euromutt]

101. And you've never wondered why that is?

Why gun owners--including the nominally responsible ones--oppose every gun control measure, including ones that seem perfectly reasonable to you?

Look, I'm a gun owner, and one who likes to think of himself as responsible. And there are quite a few gun control measures I support in principle that I oppose in practice because such measures have been abused in the past, in attempts to in effect prohibit firearms ownership without having to overcome the legal and political challenges that an explicit (read: honest) attempt to do so would face.

For example, I actually support the idea of a licensing requirement for prospective firearm owners, but the way it's been done in the past has all too frequently left it the granting of such licenses to the discretion of the local chief law enforcement officer, who used--or more precisely, abused--it in furtherance of a personal agenda, from southern sheriffs denying licenses to blacks, through north-eastern police chiefs denying licenses to recent immigrants. Or by imposing de facto gun bans by not holding the classes you have to attend to get a license, or deliberately holding them at inopportune times and locations without adequate prior notice.

The reason firearms are exempt from safety standards that apply to other consumer products is because there have been various people over the years who have suggested that, if firearms could be brought under the same standards, the Consumer Product Safety Commission could ban guns without the hassle of having to get votes in Congress.

The list a very long one indeed, and it's hard not to conclude that the worst enemies of "reasonable, common sense" gun control measures are not the NRA, but the prohibitionists who have so consistently tried to pervert such measures to their own agenda that no gun owner--responsible ones included--is prepared to give them an inch, let they try to take a mile as they have done so often before.

[Kaleva]

11. Same can be said for voters

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Especially the ones that never vote

:-)

[cabluedem]

27. Exactly. We are well on our way to a gun free state here in CA. We already banned assualt guns. nt

[Merchant Marine]

38. You are sadly misinformed

Californians can easily own AR-15, AK derivatives and all those other scary assault rifles. We can even get pistol grips if we lock the magazines in!

Do you know anything about the laws you're talking about?

[benEzra]

47. (Inigo Montoya voice) "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

Exactly. We are well on our way to a gun free state here in CA. We already banned assualt guns. nt

(Inigo Montoya voice) "I don't think that word means what you think it means." (/Inigo Montoya voice)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_gun

An assault gun is a gun or howitzer mounted on a motor vehicle or armored chassis, designed for use in the direct fire role in support of infantry when attacking other infantry or fortified positions.

Historically the custom-built fully armored assault guns usually mounted the gun or howitzer in a fully enclosed casemate on a tank chassis. The use of a casemate instead of a gun turret limited these weapons' field of fire, but provided a simpler construction that was cheaper to build and less prone to mechanical breakdowns. The increased space and reduced weight of the turretless design also allowed for the mounting of a larger weapon and heavier frontal armour on any given chassis. In most cases, these turretless vehicles also presented a lower profile as a target for the enemy.

Yeah, they ARE tightly controlled, almost as tightly controlled as actual AK-47's or M16's. But that's Federal law, not state law.

You're thinking of your state's silly Roberti-Roos ban on "assault weapons," defined as any civilian self-loading rifle with a detachable magazine and a handgrip that sticks out.

[frog92969]

48. Now that's a weapon that has NO business on the streets

The pot holes alone...

[one-eyed fat man]

51. gun free California??????

Why not try the Wilshire area in LA late some night and see how long you can walk around without seeing one? By the way, don't wear your good watch and have only expired credit cards in your wallet. Try to have enough cash so the thug doesn't shoot you for wasting his time.

[armueller2001]

66. Can you tell me

what makes an "assault gun" (I think you mean "assault weapon") different from any other weapon?

[rd_kent]

88. Maybe in your fantasyland. CA is NOT on its way to being a "gun free" state.

You could not be MORE wrong.

[beevul]

91. My my my...the ignorance is staggering.

I assume you meant so called "assault weapons"...


Well, I suggest you examine this google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=guns+OLL&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=


http://someoneelseok.doesntexist.org:10081/someoneelse/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/mmg_diagram_01.jpg


"We are well on our way to a gun free state here in CA. We already banned assualt guns."


LOL. If you say so...

[TheWraith]

28. Your problem is you define "responsible gun owners" as "people who agree with you that guns are bad"

Legal gun owners are never going to support en masse laws that would have the sole effect of inconveniencing and harassing themselves. Which is what licensing and registration is. Licensing and registration have been proven to do nothing to reduce gun violence. Why? Because the guns being used by gangs aren't legally owned. They're stolen, smuggled, or otherwise acquired outside legal means.

You want to define "responsible gun owners" to mean a contradiction in terms: people who own guns, and believe that owning guns is a bad or evil thing, and that thus legal gun owners need to be punished for owning them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. The only way gun owners would accep this

let's leave NRA talking points behind, if that registration allowed them to ... inform the cops if their gun was taken... oh wait that already happens, never mind.

Now in my ideal world I would not mind that, but this ain't gonna happen either...

[baldguy]

56. Responsible gun owners recognize that guns can kill.

And they can create a whole multitude of problems when used recklessly or improperly. Responsible gun owners would support public policies to minimize those problems. Reasonable, mature adults realize that wouldn't be a "punishment". That's the definition of "responsibility".

But instead of mostly responsible gun owners, we have gun owners who don't see their responsibility go any farther than their property line, and see their only obligation to their unarmed neighbors is to ensure that guns are easy to come by - for those who have no interest or desire to be armed, and for the criminals & morons around them.

Licensing and registration on the state & local level have been proven to do nothing to reduce gun violence. Why? Because all a criminal needs to do is cross an imaginary line to purchase a gun from a "private seller" and its all nice & legal. And the RW, the NRA & their GOP masters spend millions of dollars to keep it that way. Therefor innocent people die.

Our increasingly hypothetical "responsible gun owner" would be opposed to this situation, and want to take steps to change it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

59. I'm hearing "I can't get the gun laws *I* want, so I want *you* to work for them"

As a practical matter, why should we?

The murder rate in the US is down. The gun crime rate is down, even with millions more
guns in circulation, and most states now allowing open or concealed carry

Why are law abiding gun owners responsible for the bad and not the good?

[spin]

69. I guess you would consider me a responsible gun owner...

I only sell firearms to people that I personally know who have current concealed weapons permits.

I would like to se a system set up that would allow me to verify that a buyer could pass the NICS background check before I sold him a firearm. I would be willing to go to a dealer and let him run the check for a reasonable fee.

This could help to reduce the sale of firearms to criminals.

[baldguy]

89. Thank you from proving my point.

Why are you so conscientious about vetting the people you might sell a gun too? Who the hell are you to deny a person the right to own a gun? Could it be that you don't think criminals, people with mental problems & immature morons aren't good candidates for gun ownership? And that you especially don't want them living next door to you with a gun?

How do I know that your judgment of your buyer is accurate? I don't want my troglodyte neighbor be diddling himself & shooting my dog for fun either. Don't you think I might have the same right to make a determination as to his fitness as a gun owner? If the transaction is kept secret, as you wish, I'll never have the information needed to do so.

You might argue that I don't have the knowledge or inclination to make such a determination. But I can tell you who does: the Sheriff's department.

[spin]

96. If you noticed...

I said that I have to personally know the person I sell the firearm to and he has to have a current concealed carry permit.

The last person I sold firearms to was a co-worker and a personal friend. We spent hours shooting together at the range. I was able to form a solid opinion of his personality.

You realize that I am under no obligation to sell my firearms to anyone who wants to buy one. I choose to be very careful so that neither you or me has to live next door to some dangerous person armed with a firearm purchased from me.

Where do you live that can you find out if your neighbor has a firearm? If so, criminals must love living there. Such information should never be available to just anyone.

While I have no requirement to register my firearms with the police, the local city police department and the sheriffs department know I have firearms. Often late at night we'll have several police cars parked in our yard. The officers enjoy sitting on my porch and we bullshit about life, politics and firearms. By the way, none of the local police would have any interest in taking firearms from honest local citizens if the Federal government passed a law banning firearm ownership. Several of these officers have more extensive firearms collections than I have.

[TheWraith]

72. And if there were national licensing, you'd move the goalposts again.

Every time a state or municipality enacts ridiculously stringent gun laws, then the explanation for why they haven't worked is because somebody somewhere else doesn't have the same laws. Gun crime in New York was once blamed on laws in New Jersey, and now that NJ has stringent laws it's blamed on Virginia. So if we enacted national registration, then the blame would be shifted onto Mexico for allowing smuggled guns into the US, or Brazil, or somewhere else. The fact of the matter is that playing whack-a-mole with gun laws has proven a completely ineffective strategy in dealing with violent crime in the US, but some people are unwilling to accept that fact.

[baldguy]

86. Playing "whack-a-mole" with gun laws as you put it *IS* ineffective.

They're DESIGNED TO BE THAT WAY thanks to RW lobbyists specifically to allow criminals to circumvent licensing & registration laws. A genuine responsible gun enthusiast would respect ALL THE LAWS & should find the current situation intolerable.

[beevul]

94. Lets do some math together baldguy...

300 millionish guns in America. Thats 300,000,000

30 thousand-ish gun deaths, half of which are suicides. thats 30,000


What say YOU do the math, baldguy.


That mathematical answer as expressed in the english language is this:


The majority of gun owners ARE being responsible with the guns they own, as evidenced by the FACT that the clear majority of firearms, 9,999 out of every 10,000 firearms aren't being used recklessly or improperly. Unless you think maybe a significant (that would be say double digit percentages, in case you need clarification) significant portion of that 300,000,000 firearms are being used some nefarious purpose but its being ignored, or nobody is noticing...


Do you?


"But instead of mostly responsible gun owners, we have gun owners who don't see their responsibility go any farther than their property line, and see their only obligation to their unarmed neighbors is to ensure that guns are easy to come by - for those who have no interest or desire to be armed, and for the criminals & morons around them."


Well, since were on that topic, what "obligation" do these unarmed neighbors have to responsible gun owners?

That answer to that question...err...rather YOUR answer to that question, should prove to be interesting, to say the least.


"Licensing and registration on the state & local level have been proven to do nothing to reduce gun violence. Why? Because all a criminal needs to do is cross an imaginary line to purchase a gun from a "private seller" and its all nice & legal."

Its just always someone elses fault, isn't it?

Did it ever occur to you, that if your state wishes to be THAT different than ITS neighbors, where firearms are concerned, the ONUS is on YOUR state to make it happen, and not your neighbors?

In other words, if you can't make it succeed without dragging your neighbors into your misguided unworkable ridiculous plan, then its just not a good plan to begin with.

See the war on drugs for an example if your still scratching that bald head.

[spin]

68. On the surface your ideas have some merit...

Licensing has some advantages. I am licensed to carry concealed. The Florida concealed carry program has been very successful and has been the model for many states that now allow concealed carry. Florida also has a licensing program for hunters that has reduced hunting accidents considerably. Many gun owners are opposed to licensing as the government would have a data base of gun owners in case it ever decides to confiscate firearms. Total banning of firearms in this country with our current form of government would be impossible.

Therefore, I am not opposed to a training class for any shooter who wishes to purchase a firearm with emphasis on safety and the legal use of firearms. This course could be computer based.

Registration is often criticized by gun owners as a precursor to confiscation. Indeed this happened in California and New York state. None of my firearms are registered with the state and I would oppose this idea, even though none of my firearms would currently be considered "assault weapons". The great majority are revolvers with a couple of 1911 style .45 automatics. I own a bolt action Mauser rifle and a double barreled 12 gauge shotgun. Still, I might decide in the future to buy a semi-auto rifle that's black and evil looking. That should be my right and I should be able to pass this firearm along to my children and my grandchildren without fear that my state or the federal government would ban it. Registration facilitates confiscation.

I have no intention of ever threatening the lives of my fellow citizens unless they are in the process of attacking me or my family with the intent of inflicting serious injury or death.

You statement "most gun owners are NOT responsible" is insulting and untruthful. I suggest you examine your preconceptions and stop using such a broad brush to stereotype a large segment of our population. My opinion is that most gun owners ARE very responsible. I could point out that I know a lot of gun owners, in fact in the small Florida town where I now reside, it's rare to find someone who doesn't own several firearms.

[rd_kent]

87. Can you back that claim up with facts?

Most of the crime committed with guns is done by illegal guns and illegal gun users.

[frog92969]

16. I have a problem with the felon part

no, I'm not a felon

We have a suck legal system and felony is a broad brush that I believe is misused.
Violent criminals should not be allowed guns, and I don't think fully-auto guns
have any place on any street for anyone.

I thought it was the DLC that convinced us that liberals hate guns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Well tehre you go, adding the ever so popular compexity

and indeed, we need to define what felons... and what is a felon...

We also need to deal with a justice system that has the largest number of people behind bars... a whole different discussion and part of the underlying symptoms that people like to blame guns for.

As to fully automatic weapons, they are not there. At least legally and for good reasons.

Now semi auto... well while in my ideal America certain guns that spit certain ammo should not be there, in reality that will not happen. So at this point we need to discuss the underlying factors that lead to a very violent culture.

Oh and it wasn't just the DLC... this started before the DLC was formed. The Liberals are anti gun meme started, as far as I can tell, in the 1960s.

[frog92969]

23. Maybe it was linked to the anti-war movement in the 60's

But you don't have to be a pacifist to hate war.
I'm somewhat militant by nature, but oppose aggression in any form.
Because peace is the rational course for humanity.

We glorify violence and are kept in a state of jealousy and conflict by our great propaganda machine. Haves and have nots, the neighbor's ass, the high $ gadget we can't do without...
Probably consumerism more than anything else.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. That but particularly the riots of the 1960s

that led to fear, and fear does strange things...

[TheWraith]

32. Fully automatic weapons are tightly regulated in the US.

Contrary to popular misconception, "assault weapons" are NOT fully automatic and never will be. They're regular semi-automatic rifles that look like military designs.

Fully automatic weapons are governed under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which has a very high bar for owning them.

[frog92969]

36. I don't want cops to have them either

I own an "assault weapon", Norinco SKS w/30rds, so maybe you misunderstood me.
I think it's a joke that they call it that since the military calls it a "support weapon".
What they've done is purposely confused the issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Well to me it is very easy

cops need them... see Hollywood robbery for a good example of WHY... and why they now carry AR-15 and SWAT teams use full auto... MP-5 is a favorite of them.

Oh and sorry, my views on these things are colored by taking care of folks who were shot by plenty of guns... and certain rounds do far worst damage.

Admittedly, you can get killed with mere fists, or I have a funny .25 story... but my views are colored by that.

Will semi auto... insert flavor of choice in here, ever be banned in the States... good luck... or rather, if the war on drugs requires the use of national guard... then you have entered the same kind of scenario as the 1930s.

Is that possible? Anecdotal heard some cops I know talk of the early stages.

Oh and by the way, the Browning 50 cal is considered a support weapon too

[frog92969]

41. Nobody needs them here, not unless we've been invaded

Fully autos are good for 3 things:
hitting targets you can't see,
hitting multiple targets,
or slaughtering your target.

None of those things are appropriate here.

I know small guns can kill, both of my brother in laws died from a .32 auto pistol.
And my semi-auto 7.62x39 is much weaker than a bolt action 30.06, but I'm not sure why that's relavent.

btw: I don't understand the hostility in your post.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Look at the hollywood robbery footage

and then come back to me.

[DonP]

70. FWIW ... The Cops in the Hollywood robbery had semi-auto AR-15s

Interesting thread with some better than average points being discussed and the usual squawking of the "ban all guns now" types showing up.

The cops "borrowed" the ARs from a local gun store, now closed.

The bad guys had illegal, unregistered full auto weapons, AKs, IIRC.

The cops were using Bushmaster semi-auto ARs to give them enough firepower to get through the vests and body armor the robbers had on. They chose them because they offered quick follow up shots, pretty much the same reason many hunter opt for a semi auto.

The AR-15 is now pretty much the standard target rifle for sanctioned shooting matches. They replaced the much more powerful M-1 Garand and M1A (M-14 semi-auto clone) that used a 30.06 and NATO 7.62 round respectively. Semi autos have been around for a long time and are pretty much the standard these days, with the exception of the long distance shooters. They prefer the bolt action.

Heck, the Civilian Marksmanship Program, a Federal Government founded program, sells them to gun clubs around the country for their marksmanship and gun safety training programs. They also sell semi-auto M-1 Garands and M-1 Carbines direct to qualifying individual citizens. They'll ship a semi-auto rifle and crate of ammo directly to your home or office via FedEx.

And ... for the record ... full auto or select auto fire, per infantry doctrine, is generally used as suppressive fire to force your enemy to keep his head down so they aren't shooting at you while you maneuver to flank them. It's just way too inaccurate for most aimed fire. That's why they changed the M-16 to 3 round burst fire from full auto, to stop the new troops from emptying all 30 rounds at once in a fire fight.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. They borrowed the AR late in the fire fight

and after the fire fight that is why all Sergeants carry them in the trunk.

I know some, now retired, LAPD officers... and the reason for their push to up arm was exactly that... they had TO BORROW weapons from a now closed gun store.

[beevul]

95. You forgot "supression fire" as a use. N/T

[frog92969]

99. You are correct

but a semi can be pretty effective there too.

[gorfle]

106. This is an incorrect assessment.

Fully autos are good for 3 things:
hitting targets you can't see,
hitting multiple targets,
or slaughtering your target.

Used offensively, fully automatic small arms are suppression weapons. They are not designed to hit "targets you can't see". They are designed to suppress infantry so that they are unable to shoot back (out of fear of breaking cover and getting shot) while support personnel move into position to make the kill.

Used defensively, they are designed to deter large infantry formations from taking a position. Again, they are a suppression weapon.

[dashrif]

49. Sks

was a basic infantry rifle and very accurate more so than the rifle that replaced it the ak-47, it's what every one was issued now a close infantry support weapon would be a med to med-heavy machine gun or mortars. For an infantry battalion, support weapons are typically man portable and crew serve.

Whoo and I thought my infantry training was for nothing in the civilian world but look at me I can describe basic infantry fighting tactics with it on forums on the internet I am a website ranger whooooo whooooo website ranger website ranger where have you gone I hit the back button and Im back again

[proteus_lives]

18. Great post.

I think it is what I call the "Gun Mystique" Many anti-gun rights people rarely have had guns in their lives. It's also about media portrayal. Shootings/accidents make the news but the fact that millions of Americans use/are around guns every day safely. They see movies/TV and think that's how gun-owners act. I'm the first to admit that there are irresponsible gun owners. Just like there are irresponsible drivers and etc. In another thread one of DUers most rabid antis sneered that he would bet most "gunnies" don't have a college education. Sometimes it's just bigotry and stereotyping.

And most gun owners/users favor basic and sane gun control. I do, felons and mental cases shouldn't have firearms. Some forms of weapons shouldn't be accessible by civilians. But in my opinion that's were it should end. I am legal gun owner/CCW holder and I don't think I'm acting foolishly by wanting to defend those rights. I don't want to be on anymore lists and I don't think I need another license.

Frankly I'm amazed about how DUers will defend any choice/right other then gun-ownership. I've never IDed gun rights as a conservative ideal. Works into your NRA propaganda thought. It goes both ways.

I'd like to make our culture less violent too. But I would never support getting rid of guns. I will never blame tools for the actions of their users. I don't want to punished for the crimes of others. And I believe getting rid of one right will make it easier to get rid of others.

It's also a cop-out. Rather then addressing the problems with our culture, they assign blame to a tool and say if we get rid of something, it will be all better. It's not the simple and it never will be.

It's about having a choice. Want to own a gun? Cool. Don't ever want to? Then don't! I'm a liberal and a RKBA Democrat. I don't want to take any rights away from one. I just want the same respect.


Great post, sorry if I jumped around a bit. It inspired a lot of thoughts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Well to me some weapons should not be in the streets

fully auto... (They are not there) and semi auto assault. I admit my views on that are slightly colored by transporting more than one idiot to the Trauma bay with an AK round inside... plenty of 9mm too, but the damage the AK did was usually worst... and went further...

So did the 9mm by the way.

And I am all for reasonable GUN CONTROL, and we need to take the words away from the radicals... and GUN CONTROL has been part of the culture form the beginning.

But we also need to deal with the culture we live in.

And some in the gungeon do consider me an anti since I am all for gun control... oh well.

[cabluedem]

30. You and me both. There are millions and millions of us and we vote! nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. No, you want to do what is not practical

I chose to live in the reality we live... which means

Automatic rifles don't belong in the streets, oh wait, they're not there, have not since the 1930s and the few in civilian hands are HIGHLY regulated.

Semi Auto... good luck

Pistols, more good luck...

Let's deal with the culture ok... and that is not trying to do what is not practical.

[proteus_lives]

43. Yeah, he's an orthodox banner who doesn't live in reality.

Millions more support gun rights.

You're right, legal autos aren't on the streets. I know a few owners with some and they are accounted for, stamped and listed.

Semi-auto and pistols? Never and I'm glad for that.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. And more millions and millions of voters who are pro-gun.

Your side loses elections. Notice that in the past approximately 20 years the number of states that have adoped shall-issue concealed carry laws is 39. That is over 3/4 of the states.

[proteus_lives]

42. I agree but to a point.

One of the main problems is the vague language. "Auto, semi, assault" I won't support any bill unless it's very, very specific and doesn't leave any wriggle room for fucking people over.

[armueller2001]

76. So would you suggest

banning all firearms that fire the 7.62x39 round? What is special about the AK47 versus, say a .308 hunting rifle?

[virginia mountainman]

19. Great Thread....

And speaking of Family Heirloms... I have a rifle, AND a Revolver, that belonged to my for-bearers, One rifle is 130 years old, and one of the revolvers is almost 100 years old.

I have my grandfather's .45 Pistol, that he carried into combat during WWII.

All fully functional. These are family treasures to be passed down to my grandchildren.

Any attempt to "regulate" or "control" these weapons by any political entity will end in total abstract failure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. As I said, we need to recapture the meaning of language

Gun Control is about keeping guns from very particular classes of people.

Not about taking your 1911 away...

[baldguy]

90. Even though regulation is required under the Constitution?

[beevul]

97. Where, exactly, is regulation "required" under the Constitution?

Cite please.

[frog92969]

98. Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


I believe that's the reference, but I refuse to interpret it.

[beevul]

100. I'll interpret it, as the bill of rights itself actually instructs it be interpreted, no less.

First let me say I am not saying you are engaging in that reasoning, and I understand that you are attempting to describe the reasoning used by that other poster.

That being said, on to the meat of it:

That poster claims that regulation is "required".


First, on its face, theres no indication in that text that any regulation is required, except that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. "Well regulated", meant at the time of its writing, "well regulated" like a clock is. Not loaded to the gills with rules.

Second, though the above is true, it hardly matters, since its the militia being referred to as "well regulated" not "the people", or the arms.

And third and most importantly, all of the above is well and truly irrelevant. And heres why. That entire line of argument, on both sides, completely ignores what the bill of rights itself is. And how it functions. And its purpose. Allow me to explain.


Heres the preamble to the bill of rights: (read carefully the underlined)

The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added : And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org /


Lets look at that again:


THE Conventions of a number of the States (the entire collective of states involved in adopting the constitution) having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers (they are referring to the new federal government here), that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added : And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

The framers themselves make crystal clear here, that the bill of rights, as adopted, is a laundry list of declaratory and restrictive clauses aimed squarely at making sure that the new federal government does not misconstrue or abuse the powers it has been granted, and does not stray from path that leads to beneficent ends of its institution.

Right there in the preamble we have been instructed by the framers themselves, the intent, and function... the lens through which to view the amendments that make up the bill of rights. The declaratory and restrictive clauses are aimed at the government, not the people.

Now that we have the correct as-intended framing, lets view the second amendment- as ratified - through it:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."




Heres the declaratory clause:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

And heres the restrictive clause:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


That pretty well demolished that posters claim that "regulation" of firearms (which IS the context of that posters post) is required under the Constitution.

Again, not to mention that at best, it is the militia which is "well regulated", not "the people" or firearms.



I don't know what side of the issue you fall on, and really it doesn't much matter to me. My intent is not to start a fight with you either way.


I will say this though.


I have never - and I do mean never as in not one single time ever - seen what I just explained refuted in any way shape size or form.


Kind of hard to refute the preamble to the bill of rights itself. Its completely unambiguous.

[frog92969]

102. I agree completely

I wanted to avoid getting drawn into a bloody "gun battle"
that happens here all too often.

But after your excellent post I'll risk it and say that the
only reference to regulation seems to be for our protection
from the military if anything.

[benEzra]

52. Good post. I agree with most of it, I think.

I've mentioned before that I think there is a great deal of common ground to be found on the WHO part of who shouldn't have guns, at least insofar as criminals and the mentally incompetent go.

As far as what various calibers can do---rifles and shotguns aren't handguns, and the rifle effects you've seen (are you an EMT?) come from the extreme low end of the rifle power spectrum, as you probably know.

Offsetting the higher per-shot kinetic energy, though, is the fact that that energy comes at the expense of weight, bulk, and barrel length, and there is no way around that (chop a .223 or a 7.62x39mm to a pistol-length barrel and you get worse-than-pistol energies). That makes rifles, and to a lesser extent shotguns, very difficult to keep on or about one's person, which is why so few people are murdered with them.

I do think a lot of the gun-control side of things vastly underestimates the prevalence of gun ownership in general (as evidenced by some posts by others upthread), and the ownership and importance of nontraditional looking long guns in particular. AWB's are often sold as bans on fringe guns owned by a tiny minority, rather than as bans on the most popular civilian centerfire rifles on the market.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. I was a Medic in Mexico

during the early stages of the war on drugs... lets just say the Barret 50 is not exactly a low velocity round.

That one went with the coroner in the meat wagon though.

So I have seen all ranging from Mil Grade toys... not just long rifles by the way, I mean the few mortars and a few other toys were a little larger... the 20 mm cannon comes to mind... all the way to a pithy 25. Now that one is a lesson of... kiddies this is why you do not play with a loaded weapon idiot and you always assume it is. Yep, that person managed to blow off his pinky... Wyatt Erp games are not exactly fun with loaded guns. The best part, like the cop teaching gun safety who shot his foot... this was a cop too.

Now I have to say it... that gun was cute though... itty little cute gun. Carried a five round magazine, and he claimed until the cows came home that he cleared it before playing.

:-)

[PavePusher]

64. The Barrett .50 cal was developed as a long-range CIVILIAN target shooting rifle.

Just so we are talking about the facts here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. And your point is? THe round is the same that goes into a 50 cal

MACHINE GUN...

The velocity, penetration and RANGE are the same.

Jeesus age that is what we are talking about.

Now THANKFULLY you cannot have those cannons in civi hands...

[TheWraith]

80. Actually, you can have a .50 cal machine gun in civilian hands.

Assuming it was registered pre-1986.

In any event, what's wrong with the .50s? Fact is that nobody has ever committed a crime with a .50 BMG rifle, not least because they're five feet long and weigh a ton.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. I am talkng of the 20 mm cannons

Oh and my view a 50 call Machine gun does not belong in civi hands, not that this is going to change... any time soon.

If and when it does, it will when the country splits. At that point, mark my words, some of the successor states will have very liberal gun laws... see culture, while others will not.

[TheWraith]

82. Uh, where did anyone mention 20mm cannons?

We were talking about the Barrett .50s.

In any event, I fail to see the difference between banning guns "for the common good" and banning drugs for the same reason. Or porn, or homosexuality, or any of the other things that people consider to be harming their neighbors, whether their neighbors agree or not. Particularly when a hundred years of drug prohibition, and 40 years of gun control, haven't had any noticible effect on the rise and fall of violent crime in America.

I'm willing to bet you that when we do finally give up on the "drug war" and the black market that it's created, we're going to see a drop in street violence the likes of which the "law and order" set could only fantasize about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. I did... when I said the toys I have seen

ranging from the lowly semi autos all the way to the 20 mm cannons.

As to the war on drugs... it is like many other fear things... you need to preserve the caste system one way or the other. And yes, the US HAS a caste system.

[PavePusher]

107. You said...

"I was a Medic in Mexico during the early stages of the war on drugs... lets just say the Barret 50 is not exactly a low velocity round."

You seemed to be implying that Barrett's are primarily military weapons, and via a very poor argument. There are plenty of hunting, utility and self defense rounds just as high-velocity, or higher, as the .50 BMG round, albeit smaller calibre. Velocity is only one aspect of firearm power, and has almost no real-world correlation to military commonality. It may correlate to certain military and civilian applications, which would be an entirely different topic.

[PavePusher]

109. And outside of the gun-banner-distortion zone...

.50 cal machine guns fit the definition of a weapon protected for civilian ownership.

If the 2nd applies only to militarily useful weapons for militia forces, well, the Ma Duece fits that rule quite well, thank you.

And if the it applies to "weapons in common use", ditto. (Lots of .50's in common military use...)

And if it is an individual Civil Right, than "shall not be infringed", we have the hat trick.

Personly, I think you could have all three apply at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive.

I want my support weapon(s), thank you very much.

[benEzra]

65. Yup...I'd say 90% or more of gun accidents involve those "unloaded" guns...

that people think it's OK to handle carelessly because, hey, it's unloaded! I removed the magazine and it was empty! (Or, my friend who handed it to me said it was empty, anyway...)

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. It is empty

yeap

So why are you checking the breach?

TO MAKE SURE IT IS EMPTY.

[aikoaiko]

67. I am open to discussions of regulation as long as there are no gun bans.

Since 1968 (until very recently) there have been increasing numbers of gun bans by the Federal, State, and City governments. To me these laws are the height of unreasonable gun laws. I'm fine with different levels of regulations for certain weapons and some people being prohibited, but as long as bans are in place, then we are starting at an unreasonable place.

Bravo on one of the best OPs that attempt to have a decent conversation about gun control.

[rrneck]

77. 21 Feet.

A gun, and we are talking almost exclusively about handguns here, is designed to provide personal defense within about a seven yard radius. That means that the person holding the gun can use it as a last ditch line of defense when all other barriers have failed. Other barriers include locked doors, alarm systems, security lights, police presence, affordable health care, a functioning social safety net, equitable labor laws, effective public education, and a reasonable minimum living wage. And there are other barriers that stand between us and the rif-raff that are invisible but very effective like property values that make it impossible for poor desperate people to live nearby because of national income disparity.

Of course, actually knowing who "the other" is gets a little complicated. They cannot be described within the simple dichotomies of city and country or even rich and poor. Race plays a role, as does religion, occupation, education and politics. And of course the overlap between categories is tremendous. Most of the time "the other" can be best defined is anyone we don't know personally. That's because if we don't know them we have to make assessments about them based on outward appearances. The less well we know people, the more we have to pigeon hole them.

The problem is that we frequently define "the other" based on a caricature of a group of people that doesn't even exist. We have names for them; gun nut/grabber, redneck, metrosexual, latte sipping urbanite, bleeding heart liberal, moran... The shopping list goes on forever. And that's what it is - a shopping list.

We buy into these ideas about others from organizations that profit tremendously from their production. The alphabet soup of acronyms goes on forever; VPC, NRA, DNC, RNC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX and who knows how many more. They all have spokespersons whose job it is to confirm our suspicions about people we don't know. And both sides have them; Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olberman, and Bill O'rielly to name just a few. Anywhere there is a nickel to be made telling people what they want to hear some asshole will be there with a load of bullshit.

This free market driven supply side tribalism is killing us. The solution is to understand people as individuals, not as members of some other tribe. Pay attention to them. Learn from them. Help them when you can. Dehumanize them at your peril because sooner or later someone you view as some store bought caricature rather than an individual will get inside that 21 foot radius and then you may have to shoot them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Mind you I don't own it

but my weapon of choice for that radius is a shotgun...

Mind you, the only reason why we own guns is the time hubby spent as a cop...

And my preference would be NOT to have them at home... many solid valid reasons why I prefer not to... but that is well beyond the ... I want all guns banned. As I wrote in the OP... doing quite a bit of research and you know what? It is not the guns... and if we removed them magically... pixie dust and all... then it would be knives, or fists, or what have you.

It is time we deal with the underlying reasons for the violence we have in this country.

As to the alphabet soup... they all benefit from creating the caricatures.

And it is time to regain control of the discussion from THEM.

[rrneck]

79. Absolutely

You started a good thread here.

Yeah, I had to throw the "almost" codocil in there since I'm partial to a scattergun m'self. :)

[spin]

92. If you shoot someone with a handgun..

there's a good chance they will survive. If you shoot someone at 21 feet with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot, chances are they will not survive.

Something to keep in mind.

[spin]

85. Damn good post. (n/t)

[gorfle]

105. Perhaps one of the best posts I have ever read on firearms.

Very, very well said.

[gorfle]

104. What is your point?

After reading your lengthy post I am having difficulty trying to determine what point you are trying to make or what question you are trying to ask. So I will just respond in pieces:

Gun control has been hijacked... no, not by the liberals, the NRA... wait for it... 99% of gun owners will agree to the kind of controls most people who are reasonable about this want. Things like ... if you served time in jail, aka a felon, or you have mental issues, you don't get to own a gun.

Ok, I "waited for it", and you never said who has hijacked gun control. Who has hijacked gun control?

That said the NRA has run a very successful campaign to scare gun owners that them liberals are coming to take their guns away.

I am sick of this meme. The NRA simply informs their membership and others of the actions of our politicians. They don't have to make shit up to scare gun owners, they simply point to the records and statements of certain elected officials.

When the President of the United States and senior members of his administration call for and have called for bans on firearms, you can't blame the NRA for scaring gun owners for informing them of these facts!

And I do not want to hear the other meme, that bans are not equivalent to confiscation. They are equivalent, they just take longer. I don't own an AR15. If you tell me today that I can never buy one, the effect on me is the same as if you confiscated one from me. I'll never get to own one, and neither will any other American today or ever in the future who doesn't currently own one.

And partly the fears may not be unfounded... since gun control has also been hijacked by some politicos who use fear as well.

Absolutely. The entire Assault Weapons Ban fiasco is about firearms that are hardly ever used in crime! But because they look scary it makes people who are afraid of guns feel like their politicians are doing something to make them feel safer.

Here is the truth... many gun laws are about the other and keeping them from those we fear. For some city dwellers, who have never used a gun in their lives... well the other are them country hicks... or for the most part blacks and other minorities. Yes, you read right, the current spate goes back to the riots. Never mind there were mostly no guns used at the time, and the high profile murders of the 1960s... which led to gun laws, not rifles laws... funny thing.

No, the "funny thing" here is that the real heart of gun crime in this country is gang crime, which is nearly synonymous with drug crime. Gangs are the real "other" in your argument, but politicians will never admit it, because one, it would highlight their failed policies concerning gangs and drugs and two, it would highlight the fact that more laws will have no effect on people who are already completely and violently lawless!

There is more, the reality is that you cannot ban guns in a country where we have over 260 million guns, last time anybody tried to run a check. That is more than two guns per person in the country.

Perhaps you missed 1994?

Now some folks have bought this idea that they are coming to take their guns away since this is is an idea also rooted in the other...

It isn't hard to "buy" this idea when it is still being sold on www.change.gov under Urban Policy, and has been sold and is being sold by countless politicians including Dianne Feinstein, saying things like "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

Do not sit there and insult gun owners like myself by telling me I have "bought into" the idea that people are trying to take my guns and/or eliminate my ability to buy them, which are effectively the same action, when we are simply taking our politicians at their own words!

Do not sit there and play word games with gun owners like myself saying, "No one wants to take your guns away. Yes, we all know that politicians are not brave enough (except in times of crisis, such as hurricane Katrina) to try overtly confiscate firearms, so instead they are going to simply ban as many as they can get away with, which achieves the same result.

SO if we are going to have a conversation about this... forget the second amendment... and let's get back to basics, and see what we can all agree with.

Absolutely not. The second amendment is "the basics". The intent behind the second amendment was to have a decentralized military system made up of the people that could not be used to oppress the people. ANY discussion of firearm policy must acknowledge this fact.

And the truth is some people should not be able to LEGALLY obtain a gun... we, at least the reasonable ones, will realize yes it is the same folks... felons, mentally sick... I also realize that those well motivated to get a gun will get a Saturday Night Special... not delusional about this.

You will find that most firearm owners, including the NRA espouse the view that some people should not be allowed to own firearms, such as people convicted of certain criminal offenses, or people with certain mental issues.

Now I would like to see certain guns not in the hands of civilians, realize those would be long arms designed to kill people, but that ain't gonna happen...

Since the second amendment is primarily about preserving the ability of the people to be able to kill other people who are trying to oppress or tyrannize them, you are correct. The most important arms to preserve in the hands of the people are long arms designed to kill people.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Stereotype much?

'Hicks'? 'Saturday Night Specials'?