Democrats are STILL facing the fallout from the so-called Assault Weapons Ban.

[Hoopla Phil]

"A prominent gun-rights supporter who surprised many Republicans by endorsing Democrat Mike McWherter for governor said today he has switched his support to Republican Bill Haslam."

"Bob Pope, who formerly operated gun shows and now publishes the Tennessee Patriot, said in an interview that he changed his mind after the McWherter campaign decided to bring in former President Bill Clinton for a rally and fundraiser."

"'It is Clinton coming in and endorsing him,' said Pope, a longtime Clinton critic who still faults Clinton for pushing the so-called 'assault' weapons ban as president. 'There’s no way I can be associated with Bill Clinton in any way.'"
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/sep/03/gun-rights-leader-switches-support-mcwherter-hasla/?breakingnews

This was bad legislation way back then and it is STILL in our parties platform. It needs to be removed!

[shadowrider]

1. And people have llllloooooonnnnnnggggggg memories n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Fuck it!

Yeah, maybe you are right. Maybe Democrats should simply give up on sane, rational, reality based laws concerning guns to capture the sliver of the electorate that puts gun ownership above jobs, health, safety and all the rest. In fact, maybe the Democratic Party should begin to propose programs like "No Child Left Behind - Without a Firearm" or new laws allowing every 7/11 to sell guns with no background check or age verification. Hell, let's just propose that every American citizen gets a scary looking rifle and a few clips of ammo free on their sixteenth birthday or when they register for the draft or something. I would venture a guess that even with those types of proposals coming from Democrats these gun nuts would still hate Bill Clinton and continue to feast at the alter of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the right wing Church of Hate and Intolerance.

In short, Pope is a moron and I could give a flying fuck what that dumbass redneck has to say about anything.

[orwell]

3. +1...

...for "truthiness".

[SteveM]

61. Did you know Orwell supported the RKBA? In England? nt

[PavePusher]

4. How "inclusive" of you.

By the way, got any evidence to support that wild paint-spatter set of accusations you flung to the winds?

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Which accusation would that be?

Pope is a dumbass, moron redneck?

or

That the vast majority of single issue gun nuts that hate Democrats solely based on the lies and fear-mongering of the NRA and the likes of Rush Limbaugh would still hate Bill Clinton even if he offered to personally hand deliver a shiny new rifle to every ten year old in the U.S. of A.?

[shadowrider]

10. Tell me, wise one, what lies does the NRA spread, and be specific. n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

32. Here is a start!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=NRA+lies&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[shadowrider]

38. Fail. Those are opinion pieces. Tell me what lies, and please be specific.

Feel free too use the NRA site, quote them, then tell me why they're lies.

I'll wait.

[Vinnie From Indy]

55. The only fail here appears to be your unwillingness to actually read

any of the links provided. The NRA lies and has lied repeatedly whether you acknowledge that fact or not. The links provided do show quite clearly and factually when and where these lies happened.

[shadowrider]

66. Here's how it works. YOU said the NRA lies. YOU back it up. Please be specific n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

68. I was

Here is an example of the NRA LYING from just ONE of the links provided to you.

NRA Targets Obama
September 22, 2008
Updated: September 29, 2008

It falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense.
Summary
A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."

Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."

Here is the rest of the article that you will probably not read:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

Well? What say you now? That is simply ONE out of thousands of examples of the NRA lying and creating hysteria about guns in America. Whether you choose to admit it or not, the fact is that the NRA is a right wing lie factory that appears to be more interested in creating hysteria among its members to keep those fat checks rolling in than a responsible organization.

Cheers!

[PavePusher]

74. Not very convincing...

As none of the links track back to anything published by the NRA. Just more claims of what the NRA is supposed to have said.

The one picture of an alledged NRA "flier" had nothing on it that Mr. Obama had not voiced support for or actually voted for in his prior political history, except I'm not sure about item #7.



As a side note, that "Fact Check" article sure has a lot of weasel-wording and nearly twists itself in knots trying to explain away the Presidents anti-gun past. No bias there, nope, none at all...

[Vinnie From Indy]

75. Bullshit!

Factchect.org provies the linkbacks. You simply do not want to acknowlegde these FACTS. The NRA lies and has for years.

[PavePusher]

78. My apologies. One link led to a direct NRA source, the seveth link in the article.

I note that everything at that link seems to be accurate, though I admit to not having accomplished an exhaustive detail check.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=234&issue=047

Most of the remaining links seem to lead to biased websites, except where they go to voting records that support the NRA claims.

I'm still not convinced.

[Vinnie From Indy]

80. No worries!

Cheers!

[shadowrider]

76. What say I now? If Obama could ban guns, he would in a heartbeat

But it would be political suicide, so he avoids the issue.

[Vinnie From Indy]

81. I don't think there is any evidence Obama would do that

Also, you did not address the factcheck.org article that clearly lays out how the NRA has lied about Obama's position. Why is that?

[shadowrider]

82. I asked YOU to show me where the NRA lied by being specific.

You have yet to comply other than to refer me to opinion-based articles. Feel free to use the NRA website and tell me where they lied.

As far as Obama, simply check his Illinois voting record. I CAN get specific there if you'd like.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. He's yet to provide anything other than hearsay. n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

84. Really?

Please read the factcheck.org article about the NRA. The link and a brief summary are included up on this thread. The article links directly to the NRA's shameful, UNTRUE marketing piece about Obama's position on guns. The facts are there if you choose to look at them. If you prefer to be willfully ignorant on this matter it will make our conversation exceedingly difficult.

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. Really. There is *one* link to the NRA in that article. Show us where the lies are.

We have been told by you what they said was "shameful, UNTRUE"- but not one example of untruth has been demonstrated

Here's the link. Go ahead and show us what's untrue:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=234&issue=047

'Primary sources', remember? Argument by authority isn't the way we roll around here...

[shadowrider]

87. Not one example. True enough. All I (We) want is an example, from the NRA itself, of their "lies"

I don't believe it's forthcoming.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. UPDATE: Two days later, and no examples of NRA "lies" have been given.

As an aside, this subthread has contained the purest examples of 'argument from authority' I've ever seen here...

[Hoopla Phil]

117. Still waiting. . . .

[Vinnie From Indy]

85. I find your replies rather odd and slightly amusing

Comply? Are/were you in law enforcement by chance?

Factcheck.org is not a partisan organization and the specific example provided in the piece at their website is hardly "opinion". It is hard to know how to respond to your posts because you appear to be willfully ignorant in regard to the specific, detailed and factually supported example of the NRA lying through their teeth about Obama's record as spelled out in the factcheck.org article.

[shadowrider]

88. Be amused all you want. The question is simple. From the NRA itself, not a second party,

tell us where the lies are.

Easy.

[old mark]

5. There was nothjing sane about the "assault weapons ban" - it was bullshit from end to end.

It never really banned much of anything, never stopped or prevented any crime, made the democratic party an automatic target and enemy for EVERY gun owning rightwinger, and an embarassment to every gun-owning Liberal (and there are MILLIONS of us). All it ever really accomplished was to defeat a lot of Democratic candidates and to increase the prices of various rifles that were "banned".
(The Chinese SKS rifle I have in my livingroom closet cost about $79 before the "ban", and now sells for over $300.) The law is popularly known as the "Klinton Gun Ban" (Klinton as in KKK/Clinton), and people will fear and hate the party they hold responsible for it for another generation of more. All this to give some people the illusion that some politicians were actually looking out for the general public's interest...It was done for votes and nothing else.
It was totally cynical and self serving garbage legislation on bahalf of the Democrats.

To pass another "ban" would be remarkably stupid, even for the current administration...


mark

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. In fairness

you might be absolutely right about all of it. I guess my opinion is that we have much bigger problems in this country than a 15 year old law that you yourself claim has had zero impact (except for cost) on those wishing to obtain a rifle that has the same look as a fully automatic weapon. I, for one, have little time for appeasing people that put issues like this at the very pinnacle of their political decision making. I will also add that my opinion may change when the armies of darkness are marching on Indiana.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. "I, for one, have little time for appeasing people that. . ." Perhaps

you should make the time. Because it costs us (democrats) elections.

[benEzra]

15. It's not about "appeasing people".

It's about not forcing gun-owning Dems and indies to choose between their gun rights and voting for a candidate they would otherwise support.

Allowing the same civilian guns that have been legal for decades to remain legal takes no effort. We're not talking about legalizing anything here; we're talking about the utter stupidity of trying to ban the most popular civilian firearms in the United States, when more Americans own them than hunt.

[Callisto32]

20. Hey, it's okay to make voting more expensive...

as long as that's the only impact, right?

[rrneck]

31. Did everybody you know vote for McGovern? nt

[krispos42]

36. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

The AWB was passed as a "stepping stone" to more stringent gun control laws. Since more stringent gun-control laws are a restriction on a constitutional right, and such stringent gun-control laws have shown to have no benefit on public safety, then purely on a constitional basis, it should be a concern, even if you the laws won't affect you.

I am male. No abortion law, no matter how strict, will ever impinge on the sovereignty of my body. Therefore, I should not care about abortion laws... right?



Wrong. Turning a blind eye to the legal oppression of others enables, at some point in the future, to the legal oppression of me and my kind.


Same thing with, say, gay rights. I'm not gay. Yet I still care.

How about minority rights? I'm ⅞ white, yet I still care.

And so on...


And of course, any of us could be in the halo of secondary fallout from a restriction. I don't care about the right to an abortion... until my girfriend or daughter gets knocked up.




The other issue is that it doesn't really matter if it matters to you. What really matters is that it matters to other people!

I had this argument with my uncle about a month ago regarding why Arabs hate us so much. I explained about things like Operation Ajax, when the CIA overthrew the elected Iranian government in the '50s and installed a brutal but Western-oil-company-friendly dictator. He was like "that's in the past! Why are you still harping on that?"

I said that it didn't matter if you didn't care, it matters that they care! I asked him if he ever had gotten into an argument with a girlfriend over something he thought was stupid? It doesn't matter if one person thinks it's stupid; it's a real point of contention in a relationship regardless of any basis in reality. And simply telling the other person that their concern is stupid and irrelevent is a great way to a) expand the argument in time and space, and b) to make the other side become entrenched in their position out of sheer stubbornness.

He's still single despite regular dating attemps, so I'm guessing that it is in part because of this.

If the Arab people, as an ethnic group, or the Muslim people, as a religious group, have an ongoing beef over something that happened in the 16th century, it's still relevent simply because they have decided to make it relevent.

So if the people that put gun rights at or near the top of their political priority list, it is a relevent concern despite an absence of reason or prioritization or relevence.

[PavePusher]

44. So, it's O.K. for politicians to spend time and effort on do-nothing, feel-good...

obstructionist, vote-loosing issues that totally ignore the root causes of the problems they don't address and undermine the validity of the rest of the legislative and judicial process by their very existance....

But when Citizens call out about it, that's a waste of time and resources?

Wow, and I thought Republicans were blind and deaf....

[SteveM]

62. In fairness, would you join us in ridding the DNC Platform of its AWB advocacy?

[Vinnie From Indy]

70. As a matter of fact, I would agree that Democrats should abandon legislation like this

Cheers!

[Hoopla Phil]

73. Thank you. You'll note please that that was the point of my O.P.

We, as a party, need to remove the AWB from the party platform.

[Hoopla Phil]

8. The so called assault weapon ban was not sane, rational or based in reality.

Care to try again?

[benEzra]

12. Outlawing the most popular civilian rifles because their handgrips stick out is "sane, rational"?

Snort.

Do you have any IDEA how rare rifle homicide is in the United States compared to, say, knife homicide, blunt-object homicide, and even fist/feet homicide?

[jazzhound]

35. The Limbaughs of the Left aren't interested in your facts

benEza. Horribly sad, but true.

There was a time when I was astounded by the fact that so many "progressives" reverted away from intellectual curiosity and toward (faith-based) willful ignorance on the guns/violence issue -- essentially "turning Republican". At this point, nothing surprises me.

I'm now of the sentiment that the Democratic Party will likely have to be absolutely crushed with more 2A related political losses before they are willing to take on the willfully dishonest portion of their base and stand up for what is both morally and politically right. Along these lines, when I am asked for financial support for Democratic causes I will continue to mail back copies of my checks to the NRA and California Rifle and Pistol Association with the reminder that the Democratic Party will once again receive my support at such time as they get honest on gun "control".

[Vinnie From Indy]

56. Speaking of faith based willfull ignorance

Why is it that the rabid 2nd Amendment defenders that post in this forum do not simply lay out what the Democratic Party's position should be in regard to gun control in their opinion. Should Democrats simply adopt the NRA's positions down the line? Would that satisfy you people? Maybe the Democrats should go a step further to get folks like yourself to vote for them by adopting policies even more aggressive and far reaching than the NRA and the Republicans. As I wrote upthread, maybe folks like you would be happier if Dems passed out guns at all their political rallies or proposed a reverse gun swap where children could bring in broken toys and get a shiny new pistol or rifle. Should Democrats introduce legislation to allow Americans to own RPG's, fully automatic weapons and motorized artillery pieces? What exactly is acceptable to you people in regard to this issue?

[SteveM]

63. You would know what's acceptable to "you people" if you perused these threads...

Most here would simply like the Democratic Party to say: "We support the right to keep and bear arms." Some would add "individual" before "right." Either way is fine for me. And everyone favors striking the target-on-our-back language about "strengthening" and "making permanent" the punk AWB. Evidently, you have not been in this forum much or you would have seen these positions posted numerous times.

Then, we should practice what we preach by not proposing legislation which restricts that right.

All this hysteria about children getting a "shiny new pistol or rifle," etc., is your outlook, not mine. Note: from state to state, children are not allowed to purchase (even in a swap) a handgun.

[Vinnie From Indy]

69. As far as I know, Democrats do support the right to bear arms by individuals

So let's say Democrats abandon the AWB, would that be enough for you? What about other legislation concerning guns? What else is unacceptable to you in regard to gun legislation as proposed by Democrats? Are there any restrictions to gun ownership that you would accept? As I wrote earlier, would you propose that Democrats adopt the NRA's position on all gun issues and be done with it? Would you want Democrats to introduce legislation more agressive than the NRA such as a total lifting of the ban against fully automatic weapons for all Americans?

In regard to "hysteria", I would offer that NRA is a veritable "hysteria factory". It is how they get things done and have for many, many years. It is also how they keep those checks rolling in.

[jazzhound]

72. You know how else the NRA manages to keep those

checks rolling in? By publishing the hateful cartoons and speech by left-leaning geniuses like Paul Conrad!!

[pipoman]

77. If you spent time in here (the gungeon)

you would know that most pro-2nd Amendment Dems agree on most of this issue. Our party would do well to do tyhe same...that is come to those of us who know what this issue is about for the answers to the questions you ask.

[SteveM]

89. The best way for Democrats to deal with the "gun issue" is to...

view any proposed legislation with deep skepticism, especially since the players in the gun-control "movement" are usually quite open about wanting to effect massive bans and prohibitions (as one gun-controller put it "the edge of the wedge").

If the Democrats abandoned the AWB and proposed nothing else that would be enough. As for "other legislation," I wouldn't bother since the stronger pro-2A forces run the field and would surely turn such proposals into raw materials for their "hysteria factory." BTW, the NRA did not have much of an assembly line during my younger years; they only cranked it up after the worst of the gun-control groups started pumping their gas. The gun-control movement made the modern NRA.

Frankly, I have seen nothing that is acceptable in the way of Democratic proposals. Further, there are restrictions (mostly defended by Democrats) in states and localities that need to be removed; notably in California, N.Y., Chicago, Baltimore, D.C. and a few others).

The Democrats don't have to "adopt" the NRA positions. They only have to shut up.

As for full-auto weapons, I am content with the present position (though I would be hard-pressed to defend this restriction in a legal since). If it is challenged in court, and the 1935 Act ruled unconstitutional, then so be it. Given the paucity of owners, this is no real issue, other than a font for more "hysteria."

This is a lost culture war, and some gun-controllers on these pages don't want to give it up; hence their own "hysteria" (hidden behind their heavy use of "sarcasm"). When the smoke clears, what crime rates, what violence, what schoolyard spectaculars that go on will not be affected by a raft of new proposals. But one hell of a lot of Democrats will bite the dust in staking out their "moral" position. Democrats should be concerned with effective social policy that addresses real problems, and do so in a constitutional manner.

[The Green Manalishi]

118. Nationwide concealed carry "shall issue", no restrictions on caliber or capacity

In exchange I am cool with a uniform background check and required training.
Crazy people should not have guns.
People who can't hit a target should not have guns
People who don't understand gun safety should not have guns.
people who misuse a gun should *never* have access to another one again (personally, I think they should never get out of prison)

But for someone who is willing to demonstrate maturity and discipline, it is simply no on else's business what I do or do not carry, anymore than it is who my partner is or what, if any, religion I practice. The concern with licensing and the wide variety of background checks is that in practice they often devolve into the local sheriff or chief of police taking care of friends and the powerful while preventing citizens from owning firearms; New York is a good example, California, too.

[jazzhound]

71. As Steve mentioned, we *have* laid out what the

Democratic position should be on gun "control". You either haven't been paying attention or don't drop in with enough regularity to notice. I'll second what Steve said about dropping the "assault weapons" language from the Dem platform -- a point that has been brought up countless times in this forum. California's recent legislation (ammunition law, rifle/shotgun registration) is another example of worse-than-worthless BS. Given the animosity that the U.N. has for gun rights, President Obama would have been well advised to stay FAR away from the CIFTA treaty. Did he? Of course not -- and in the process he inflamed the well-deserved distrust he's earned among RKBA advocates. Were it not for Democratic Party dishonesty on the RKBA issue, do you think that Sotomayor would have pulled that deceitful stunt in describing Heller as "settled law" and then voting against McDonald? And then, interestingly, Kagan used the same "settled law" quote during her nomination hearing. :-/!

As I wrote upthread, maybe folks like you would be happier if Dems passed out guns at all their political rallies or proposed a reverse gun swap where children could bring in broken toys and get a shiny new pistol or rifle. Should Democrats introduce legislation to allow Americans to own RPG's, fully automatic weapons and motorized artillery pieces?

Do you think that setting up childish strawmen like these enhances or diminishes your credibility?

[Vinnie From Indy]

79. Strawmen aside, part of that passage was offered in all seriousness

I will admit that I only occasionally drop in the gungeon. Thanks for your reply!

Cheers!

[Callisto32]

19. The ignorance...

it burns!

[X_Digger]

27. In what universe is the "assault weapons ban" sane, rational, & reality based?

Rifles of all kinds make up less than 3% of the guns used in a homicide. The AR-15 and platform derivatives are the most popular selling rifle, bar none.

The '94-'04 fraud did nothing but make them more popular, yet crime continued to drop. Where's the rationality?

[rrneck]

30. Awwwww. You made me cry. nt

[spin]

33. The "assault weapons" ban accomplished nothing except to make this class of weapons ...

very popular.

The assault weapons ban was a "feel good" law pushed by groups such as the Brady Campaign and many Democratic politicians during a time frame when the concept of draconian gun control was more popular than it is today.

The law sought to ban firearms based on the fact that they looked like the weapons used by modern military forces. The problem is that modern military rifles are capable of fully automatic rates of fire, while the assault weapons that were addressed by the ban were semi-automatic and were basically similar in function to many common hunting rifles. They merely looked evil.

A method had to be found to describe the weapons that were to be banned and the law focused on cosmetic features.

Assault weapon refers to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully-automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

By former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Of course the manufacturers just changed the features of their firearms that were described in the law and continued to sell what was basically the same firearm. Who really needs a bayonet mount anyway?

Once the government tries to ban something, it always becomes popular. I remember that at the range I shot at, very, very few shooters had black rifles before the ban. After the ban, all the regular shooters just had to have one and they had to have high capacity magazines for their weapon. There was never a shortage of these magazines as long as they had been manufactured before a certain cut off date. They just were very expensive.

In your rant, you say:

"In fact, maybe the Democratic Party should begin to propose programs like "No Child Left Behind - Without a Firearm" or new laws allowing every 7/11 to sell guns with no background check or age verification. Hell, let's just propose that every American citizen gets a scary looking rifle and a few clips of ammo free on their sixteenth birthday or when they register for the draft or something..."

No shooters that I know propose anything like this. Most of us feel that current firearms laws like those in Florida are fair and reasonable.

[Pullo]

43. Just what part of the "Assault Weapons Ban" was "rational" or reality-based???

I'm really curious to read your response ......

[drumminor2nd]

67. Hmm...

"Hell, let's just propose that every American citizen gets a scary looking rifle and a few clips of ammo free on their sixteenth birthday or when they register for the draft or something."

It's called Switzerland. They also have very low gun crime rates. It also kept the Nazis out during WWII.

I am firmly in favor of just about everything in the 2008 Democratic Party platform. Love single-payer health care, fully in favor of full marriage rights for gays, allowing women to have abortions without government intervention, letting immigrant in to the US, and reforming the education system.

BUT, there is one part of the platform I cannot support: the AWB. It does not stop crime. The Brady Bill, while good at stopping point-of-sale access to some criminals, does not stop criminals from getting weapons through other channels.

A great example is called Columbine. The Brady Bill and the AWB were in place, but two high school kids were able to get guns (which were legally purchased at a gun show by legal gun owners, who then transferred them illegally to the boys) to commit the massacre.

[GreenStormCloud]

103. That "sliver" of the electorate has been enough to vote in a...

...Congress that is majority NRA "A" rated.

[benEzra]

104. About that "sane, reality-based" thing...

...tell me again how modern-looking rifles are such a crime problem in this country.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

Rifles (including the modern-looking ones that are the top selling civilian rifles in the United States) are the least misused of all weapons. Not just the least misused of all firearms, but responsible for fewer murders than knives, clubs, and shoes/empty hands too.

How, exactly, is outlawing the most popular rifles in America "sane, reality-based" legislation, in light of that?

[jaxx]

11. Clinging to their guns and their bitterness.

Nobody needs an assault rifle.

[Hoopla Phil]

13. Nobody "needs" a blog either. The Bill of RIGHTS, is not a bill of NEEDS.

[jaxx]

16. They didn't have assault rifles in 1791 when the 2nd amendment was passed.

Arms in 1791

Let's look at arms – specifically, guns – as they existed at the time of the ratification.

Guns in 1791 WOULD

* ...be made by a gunsmith.
* ...have rudimentary rifling.
* ...be single-shot weapons.
* ...be loaded through the muzzle.
* ...fire by means of a flintlock.


Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT

* ...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
* ...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
* ...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
* ...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
* ...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
* ...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)

http://columbiaacs.blogspot.com/2007/11/right-to-bear-ye-olde-arms.html
(I know nothing about the site, all I wanted was the information about what guns were available in 1791)

[Hoopla Phil]

17. Don't you love that living breathing document that IS the Constitution. It adapts

to times. Like how the 1A applies to blogs and the internet. You may want to look at the Heller decision for more info on the topic.

If you do not like the 2A you can lobby to repeal it. Till then it is part of that beautifully adapting Constitution.

Have a nice day.

[jaxx]

21. Why would anyone want to repeal the bill of rights?

It's some of the interpretations that are goofy.

[Hoopla Phil]

24. Two points: Are you saying that the "interpretation" of the 2A is "goofy"?

Please explain how. I see it as being correctly interpreted in its intention.

If you cannot own arms, at home, of the type and kind that the regular army has then what good is the militia when it is called forth?

Second point. Where did I call for repealing the Bill of Rights? I said "If you do not like the 2A you can lobby to repeal it. Till then it is part of that beautifully adapting Constitution." How do you get "repeal the bill of rights" from that?

[jaxx]

25. I'm saying some of the interpretations of the bill of rights are goofy.

It's like the bible, they interpret them to what they want it to say.

[Hoopla Phil]

26. You dodged one point and ignored the other. I'll have to restate:

Are you saying that the "interpretation" of the 2A is "goofy"?

Please explain how. I see it as being correctly interpreted in its intention.

If you cannot own arms, at home, of the type and kind that the regular army has then what good is the militia when it is called forth?

Second point. Where did I call for repealing the Bill of Rights? I said "If you do not like the 2A you can lobby to repeal it. Till then it is part of that beautifully adapting Constitution." How do you get "repeal the bill of rights" from that?

[hack89]

42. Yea - like how they got privacy and the right for an abortion out of it.

surely that is not what the founding fathers had in mind.

I love how on one hand we can only have weapons available in the 1770's and yet on the other have unrestricted access to a procedure that was a capital crime in 1770.

[old mark]

18. They wouldn't have any fucking computers, either, would they? nt

[Francis Marion]

22. What's the relevance of technological progress?

Yes, the tools change over time.

This ideal is timeless:

The People are in charge, and that is why We have every right to own military grade firearms.

Timeless? Yes, until such time as We relinquish conrol.

We certainly don't HAVE to be in charge and can let the whole thing unravel one right at a time.

[Taitertots]

23. They didn't have TV, radio, or the internet either

[X_Digger]

29. And the Girandoni repeating rifle..

20 round magazine, firing .50 caliber rounds at velocities similar to today's 45acp.

[Katya Mullethov]

39. 50 caliber terror !

Those can and will .....bring down an airliner !

Dig this rock and roll machine
http://nrablog.com/post/2010/08/30/Isaiah-Jennings-All-Metal-Breechloading-Flintlock-Rifle.aspx

[Euromutt]

34. By that token, "freedom of the press" doesn't cover lithography, offset printing, mimeographs...

...spirit duplicators, powered printing presses (including steam-powered), telegraphy and telephony--by wire or wireless--photocopiers, radio and television (broadcast or cable), desktop publishing (whether using dot-matrix, inkjet or laser printers), the internet, etc. etc.

Did you honestly think we hadn't heard that argument before?

Note, incidentally, that "assault rifle" is not synonymous with "assault weapon." An assault rifle is a selective-fire weapon (i.e. capable of controlled burst and/or full automatic fire), chambered for an intermediate-powered cartridge, capable of being fired from the shoulder, and generally designed to be employed at ranges of up to ~300 meters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle).

There's no single consistent definition of "assault weapon", but as a rule of thumb, it refers to a semi-auto-only variant of a firearm that was originally designed to be selective-fire. Examples include "AR-15" variants of the M16/M4 design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15), Uzi carbines and pistols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi#Civilian_variants), and countless semi-auto-only variants of the Kalashnikov design (e.g. Egyptian Maadis, Romanian WASRs and Chinese Norinco "AKS-47"s). The key point about the original, selective-fire designs is that they derive their lethality (particularly at short ranges) from their capability to fire on automatic; while a single round from one of these weapons may not incapacitate a target, several fired in rapid succession (read: on burst or automatic) are quite likely to. There isn't an organized military force in the world that uses "assault weapons," because they can get the original selective fire weapons, which are far more effective.

[PavePusher]

46. Are you courageous enough to extend that theory....

to anything else that was developed post-Constitutional ratification?

If so, your computer is no longer Constitutionally protected.

Somehow, I doubt you want to play that game.

[aikoaiko]

52. I thought posts like this were only made with sarcasm

who knew? :shrug:

[oneshooter]

53. There was a breech loading rapid loading rifle at that time.

The Ferguson Rifle was a breech loading flintlock rifle. Capable of fire at 3 times the rate of a Brown Bess.

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

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Abq_Sarah]

57. The 2nd amendment

Doesn't specify types and brands of weapons any more than the 1st amendment specifies methods of free speech.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. You do not know your history. Girandoni Repeating Rifle.

20 round magazine. Semi-automatic long rifle. Just like the AR-10 Assault Rifle. Hell, it was a bigger caliber too, between .46 and .54 cal, where the AR-10 is a .308.

Please do some reseach before you open your mouth.

[oneshooter]

60. But it is easier to remove foot from mouth than do research. n/t

[SteveM]

65. More flaws...

Concerning your "logic," the framers did not anticipate electric presses, T.V., radio, the internet or the device you are using right now. Should we be willing to regulate, tax, or prohibit these advances in the "free press" because of this lack of foresight?

You are still laboring under a corrupted definition of semi-automatic carbines by calling them "assault rifles." (See my previous post.) I would further point out that "full auto" weapons (which include true assault rifles) are already strictly controlled by the GCA of 1935.

[safeinOhio]

101. Times change

Thomas Jefferson on Constitutions as living documents


"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of... ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1816

[Hoopla Phil]

116. And that is why there is a means in place to CHANGE the Constitution. You don't

get to just ignore it because "times change".

[benEzra]

14. Nobody needs a Honda Civic either. Do you even know WTF an "assault weapon" is?

Here you go:



Non-automatic civilian gun with a brown wooden stock = "sporting rifle." Same non-automatic civilian gun with a black stock and a handgrip that sticks out = "assault weapon."

Considering that the "assault weapon" BS also seeks to ban the most popular civilian rifles in the United States (because their handgrips stick out too), don't be surprised when you get a backlash.

Oh, and later iterations of the "assault weapon" fraud included that gun with the top stock, too. I guess the prohibitionists got tired of embarrassing comparisons...

[proteus_lives]

28. Yes, I cling to my rights.

Because some people, including "liberals" are always willing to give them away.

[PavePusher]

45. Do you even know what one is? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

58. You don't even know what an assault rifle is.

[SteveM]

64. Some corrections are in order...

The Constitution is not based on a government-determined "needs" test.

An "assault rifle" is a carbine-sized weapon capable of full-auto fire; so-called "assault weapons" look like these "rifles," but cannot fire full-auto.

I don't "cling" to my guns. When firing, the grip should be firm, but not so hard (clinging) as to spoil the aim.

"Bitterness?" Who's bitter? Are you projecting?

[jazzhound]

37. On the subject of "assault weapon" misinformation........

..............L.A. Times cartoonist Paul Conrad just passed away. Here's one of his "strokes of genius":

http://www.canyons.edu/offices/artgallery/Paul%20Conrad/2010-08-18,%206-2010%20Paul%20Conrad/6-2010%20PaulConrad%20021.jpg

[Paladin]

40. Whatever Fallout Democrats Continue To Face Over This Issue....

....is being actively and loudly promoted by Gun Enthusiasts right here at DU, every single day. Last election, a poll in the Guns forum indicated that 45% of you were ready to vote Republican over guns---wonder what the percentage will be this time around?

[shadowrider]

41. Simple solution: Have more Dems be pro-gun/RKBA, problem solved n/t

[spin]

47. It doesn't appear that the Democratic Party is pushing for more gun control ...

True, our party hasn't fully embraced RKBA so it is still an wedge issue that the Republicans can use against us.

The idea of draconian gun control laws and bans still appeal to the very liberal portion of our party. A push for another assault weapons ban or gun registration or an attempt to impose some of the new concepts such as microstamping ammo will cost the Democratic Party dearly in many close elections.

I believe that we can work to fine tune and improve existing laws. The NICS background check has proven valuable but better funding would enable states to automate their records and update the federal database quicker. Millions of records are missing because of technology and funding issues.

We can also push for strict enforcement of existing laws. All too often, people are caught illegally carrying firearms in public and only receive a slap on the wrist. Imposing a stiff sentence for packing heat would reduce many gang related shootings and make our streets safer. This is just one example where we need make sure the current gun control laws have teeth.

You have to remember that many people have a considerable investment in firearms and enjoy the shooting sports. If you have a collection worth 5 or 10 thousand dollars (or more), you will definitely take the time to vote for a pro-RKBA candidate if you worry that your collection and hobby is endangered. Most people who oppose firearms don't own any and while they would like stronger gun legislation, it isn't as high a priority as stopping draconian gun legislation is to a person who opposes further gun control.

We do need to stop listening to the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center for advise on gun control. Following their suggestions and promoting draconian gun control measures has lead to Democratic candidates shooting themselves in the foot many times.

A quick look at this "Right to Carry" map should lead any rational person to understand that harsh gun control is a losing issue. If the majority of people were in favor of further harsh gun control laws, they would definitely would have shown up at the polls to stop laws that allow people to carry firearms in public.



You could argue that gun control is such an important issue that it takes priority over all other issues and that losing elections isn't as important as sticking to important principles. Most Democrats would disagree with you. Our party won the Presidency and control of Congress at an unfortunate time and we are faced with many important issues. Harsh gun control doesn't rank that high.

[oneshooter]

49. I am in agreement with this, but lets carry it one step further.

"I believe that we can work to fine tune and improve existing laws. The NICS background check has proven valuable but better funding would enable states to automate their records and update the federal database quicker. Millions of records are missing because of technology and funding issues.

Lets follow the law. To be turned down for a NICS to buy a weapon is in itself a crime. Follow up on this and put these felons in jail. Just as the law calls for.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[spin]

50. Not a bad idea. Assuming that you can appeal if a mistake was made ...

Sometimes the system screws up and denies honest buyers.

[X_Digger]

48. Is that what you've come to?

Quoting two year old hypothetical polls in which 100 people responded as though it weren't hypothetical and is, instead, gospel?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=154283

Poor, poor, Paladin.

Keep up the Culture War! I'm sure, you'll convince someone, somewhere, sometime!

[aikoaiko]

51. And just when I thought the adminstration learned to avoid stupid decisions regarding guns --

-- they prevent the return of Garands from Korea to be sold in the civilian market.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/08/205_71329.html

[jazzhound]

54. An example right here on DU of why we're still facing

fallout from the "assault weapons" ban:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4528694#4528800

Because we keep handing the GOP ammunition reminding gun owners of all political stripes that they are despised.

[jazzhound]

91. kick NT

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[X_Digger]

93. It'd be shooting yourself in the foot (pun intended)..

Lose a bunch of support in the center, give fodder to the right, and piss away any chance at meaningful legislation after that.

Lover-ly, wunder-micious! *snort*

[Hoyt]

96. Sometimes -- right is right, even if the gun advocates go home muttering and whining.

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. Or the Democrats lose the White House and majorities in Congress?

In which case, the attempt towards more gun control will also fail, with the added downside of having the wingers and teabaggers

running things.


But I suppose 100% of nothing is better than 80% of what you want, amirite?

[benEzra]

111. What makes legislating civilian rifle minutiae "right"?

Rifles are the least misused of all weapons (not just all guns, but all classes of weapons), and banning protruding handgrips, adjustable stocks, flame dampers, or whatever doesn't affect misuse potential at all.

[beevul]

112. Whens the last time that happened? n/t

[jazzhound]

94. Problem is, whenever you're asked to explain why it's

"right" you always fail to provide rational explanation -- while RKBA supporters are able to point out (for example) that:

a) "Assault weapons" are not fully automatic rifles as your leaders have dishonestly claimed, and......
b) Only a small percentage (2-3%) of rifles are used by criminals to commit murder.

[Hoyt]

95. IMO, anyone who lusts after an "assault weapon" is really not fit to own any weapon.

The mere fact that one would be interested in anything that approaches an "assault weapon" indicates we'd be better off limiting guns to six-shooters (derringers or muzzle loaders would be better yet). But six-shooters just don't get gunnies off nowadays.

[jazzhound]

97. Nonsense......as always.

And your use of emotionally charged terms like "lust" broadcast loudly that you have no game. I'm betting that you fall into the class of people who've been seduced by the lie that "assault weapons" are fully automatic rifles that "spray bullets". Could be wrong on that.

I have a good friend with a prosthetic leg who will soon be moving to a rural part of our county where law enforcement assistance in case of emergency is as good as non-existent. His wife doesn't get around well due to her MS. They will be 100% ON THEIR OWN in terms of self-defense, and there is no reason why Robert shouldn't be able to own a Ruger Mini-14 with a pistol grip, flash suppressor with high-cap magazines. If he had to deal with a home invasion involving multiple attackers, such a rifle would be the most effective defense. Lust has NOTHING to do with it. And the same would apply to anyone without a disability in environs that I described.

But six-shooters just don't get gunnies off nowadays.

No, they don't -- because they simply are less effective choices than others in terms of defense. But keep spewing that emotion-based bile. It only serves to sink your "cause".

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. When using an argument from authority, it's best not to use yourself as the authority.

I am reminded of our friend, the Savonarola of Upper Canada, who used to post here on a regular basis.


She apparently gave up in frustration after we simply refused for the umpteenth time to regard her pronouncements with

the same grave regard with which devout Catholics treat a papal bull. The natural lese majeste of an American political

discussion board is an ill fit for persons like her with an overwhelming sense of self-importance.


She was also fond of denouncing the (percieved) moral failings of others, and would be quite put out when we failed to

treat her moralizing like it was Paul's Letter to the Corinthians.


But carry on, my dear Hoyt! Perhaps you'll attract a disciple or two...

[X_Digger]

102. Why do you need this year's Toyota? Isn't your ten tear old toyota still running?

Increased reliability, decreased weight, better ergonomics, easier maintenance, more flexibility..

I'm sorry, what is it about 'assault weapons' that's so bad, again?

[oneshooter]

105. Nearly half of my collection is "assault weapons" ........

Ranging from the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Indian Wars, Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. They range from flintlock smooth bore muskets to to cap lock rifles to lever action rifles, bolt action to semi-auto weapons.

And you are paranoid about my collection? Do you believe that a free citizen should be allowed to defend him/her self, using the best means available?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

107. Not paranoid. Just sorry for your fear and obsession.

[benEzra]

110. The fact that you think choosing an ergonomic stock over a straight stock,

or a modular design over a single-configuration design, is based on "fear and obsession" suggests that you do not, in fact, understand the issue at all.

[Hoyt]

113. Cracking me up with your gun-porn photos. No one needs a gun like that, except those who need help.

Is that part of your personal collection?

[X_Digger]

114. And who's the Secretary of Need?

Did the president have to appoint someone via recess appointment, or did the Senate confirm them?

[benEzra]

115. That's a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, that particular example from 1989:

Dianne Feinstein herself defined as "particularly suitable for sporting purposes," and that's saying something. Yes, I used to own it, but I eventually sold it to fund the purchase of a target rifle that I'm sure you don't want me to own either.



Hmmm, do you think people should be allowed to own this semiautomatic 7.62mm assault pistol?





Hmmm, how about this one? Do you think civilians should be able to own the premier U.S. sniper rifle of Vietnam, based on a German military design created to kill human beings at extreme ranges?





Or how about this one, a true weapon of war that actually served in heavy combat during World War II? The sights go up to 2.0 kilometers, or 1.24 miles.






Or how about this one, currently serving front-line combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan in the sniper role?






Or this one, also a weapon of war with a long combat history?





Or this, a highly concealable semiautomatic 9mm capable of shooting a person in the chest 100 yards away?






Or how about a 34-round .440 caliber rifle capable of firing more than one shot per second?



All of the above are currently civilian legal (I own a few of them, but not all), and I'm wondering which of the above you would ban and why.

[benEzra]

106. Anyone who thinks common non-automatic centerfire .22's are ultra-dangerous

is really not fit to comment on gun policy.

And once again, for the factually challenged:

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

This despite the fact that more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt.

[Hoyt]

108. Those who feel the need to carry in public or own an "assault weapon" are even less qualified. n/t

[jazzhound]

100. Correcting an egregious mis-speak:

W/regard to item (b) meant to say "Only a small percentage of murders are committed by criminals using rifles". (the actual % of rifles used in crime would be significantly lower that 2-3%, of course)

[jody]

109. The Giffords tragedy predictably is being used by anti-RKBA activists again to prohibit inalienable

rights.

Many DU posts want to prohibit all people with mental problems, what every that means, from possessing firearms rather those who have been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution, source 18 USC 922.

It's sad that some in their hysterical thrashing about, so quickly rush to use the power of government without authority to infringe upon inalienable rights.

As we pro-RKBA activist have said repeatedly, our fight to preserve RKBA and all inalienable rights will never end.