Gun Control poll

[bluestateguy]

What most accurately describes your views on gun control?

[Terwilliger]

1. ...

:hi:

[billbuckhead]

3. This poll doesn't even mention the AWB, framed in an askew manner

In these terroristic times, why shouldn't government keep tabs on miltary style rifles? I wouldn't mind if at the city/county level rifles and other weapons were kept ready on a community basis but it doesn't make sense for anybody with money to have weapons of mass destruction.

[MrSandman]

5. The AWB does not address WMD...

The AWB outlawed features of semiautomatic rifles. The extended AWB proposed would potentially ban many more semiautomatic rifle and shotguns, at the discretion of the AG.

"`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

[Hrumph]

96. What BS!

What an asinine bunch of crap! Under such a law, 90% of the handguns (and a good number of the long guns) used in sporting competition would be banned.

[alwynsw]

6. Would you please translate that post into a coherent thought?

What are you referring to as "military style rifles"? Virtually every longarm made today has or had some military application.

Please clarify your second sentence. I can't seem to make heads or tails of it. You're either missing a comma or you've invented a new class of "city/county level rifles and other weapons". What "other weapons"? Knives?

Please explain "kept ready on a community basis".

The poll os asking about firearms, not WMD's. No firearm in existence is considered a WMD. Why enter WMD's into the equation?

[MrSandman]

7. Fawlty intel?

[alwynsw]

9. Methinks

[jimsteuben]

13. keep tabs on rifles

"why shouldn't government keep tabs on miltary style rifles?"

Like this Springfield 1903?



"The United States Rifle, Caliber .30, Model 1903 and its long, illustrious thirty-three year history as the standard long arm of the American military was started on 2 October 1900 as an experimental rifle derived from the designs of both the German Mauser rifle and the standard American long arm of the period, the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1898."

[iverglas]

29. yes ma'am

That rifle can be used to kill someone just as readily as any super-duper 2004 weapon can, right?

So ... if it is owned by someone who has been charged with threatening to kill his wife (i.e. a prosecutor has determined that there is credible evidence to support a conviction) and released pending trial on condition that he surrender any firearms he owns, or is convicted of doing so and placed on probation and under a firearms prohibition order (that's what we have up here) ... and nobody knows that he owns the thing in your picture ... exactly what protection does the wife in question have?

If he doesn't require a firearms licence to purchase a firearm -- i.e. if a private person, or one o' them gun show vendors, is allowed to transfer a firearm to him, on his word of honour that he is not prohibited from possessing it, with impunity -- what protection does the wife in question have?

Why shouldn't the government keep tabs on ALL firearms? That's my question.

It's rhetorical though, you see. There isn't an answer anybody could give me that would be sufficient to persuade me that the government should not do precisely that.

.

[Columbia]

Not surprising

Why shouldn't the government keep tabs on ALL firearms? That's my question.

It's rhetorical though, you see. There isn't an answer anybody could give me that would be sufficient to persuade me that the government should not do precisely that.

Authoritarianism at its best.

[MrSandman]

31. Saves trouble of arguing

[RoeBear]

38. If enacting...

...total registration were likely to guarantee a Republican landslide in the next election would you still be in favor of it?


Let's say we got a Dem president and legislature in 2004 and they were unwise enough to enact TOTAL GUN REGISTRATION immediately. I would predict disaster in 2006 as we would lose virtually every seat that were up for grabs. Followed by the presidency in 2008.

"It's rhetorical though, you see. There isn't an answer anybody could give me that would be sufficient to persuade me that the government should not do precisely that."

[MrBenchley]

39. Too funny, roe....

Considering that the DLC's propaganda (which the RKBA crowd posted five times without, apparently, actually reading) says two-thirds of adult voters want ALL firearms registered...the question to ask is why would anybody who wants Democrats in office OPPOSE such a proposal...much less slander every Democrat anyone's ever heard of and post crap from right wing cesspools like "americandaily.com"?

[RoeBear]

40. Someday I hope you get it...

...really I do.

If we are fortunate enough to win the Presidency and both houses of Congress this November I hope they don't so something stupid like propose national gun registration. The NRA would probably love it because it would boost membership through the roof. Then they'd use all that new money to absoluetly crush every Democrat everywhere over the next couple of election cycles.

[MrBenchley]

43. Dodge the question if you like

But why would somebody who actually wants Democrats to win want the party to alienate the majority of voters and suck up to the noisiest and most extreme group of republican supporters?

[RoeBear]

80. The only question was this...

"the question to ask is why would anybody who wants Democrats in office OPPOSE such a proposal...much less slander every Democrat anyone's ever heard of and post crap from right wing cesspools like "americandaily.com"?"

Since I didn't slander anyone or post anything from anywhere I haven't a clue what your question to me is.

To try to answer the question in this message I can only say YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

Even if the poll you quoted was honest; the 23% of people against registration would be galvanized to action in defeating any politician that was stupid enough to propose it.

[iverglas]

44. let's get something straight for once and fucking all, k?

If enacting...
...total registration were likely to guarantee a Republican landslide in the next election would you still be in favor of it?

I'll say this one more time ... and then I'll probably say it a few dozen times more.

Who you elect, and what laws the people you elect enact, is your business.

I have opinions about them. I think your constitution is antiquated and only ever served the interests of rich white guys in the first place, I think your political system is a virtual guarantee of bad government, I think a lot of your laws are idiocy, and I think a lot of your attitudes just plain stink. And I'm entitled, as we do all like to say, to express those opinions whenever and wherever and however and to whomever I like.

But I do NOT ADVOCATE anything when it comes to your laws and your elections. I do not advocate that any candidate for the leadership of your party/ies be elected, I do not advocate that you cast any particular vote in any of your elections, I do not advocate that you enact or repeal any particular laws.

I will have opinions about all the things you do do, but what you do, in your domestic realm, is up to you.

It's a little different on the international scene, where what you do is absolutely everybody's business. I *will* advocate that you, i.e. the US, do or not do certain things on that scene. I will scream at your diplomats when your country invades foreign countries in violation of international law, I will condemn your failure to sign on to the International Criminal Court and your rogue-nation behaviour in respect of weapons of mass destruction, and I will take opportunities as they arise to oppose -- advocate against -- or support and advocate for -- anything else you do that you should not do, or should do and fail to do.

I may have particularly strong opinions about things you do on the domestic scene that affect me and my country, and other people and other countries. Your generalized irresponsibility and selfishness in relation to firearms is one such thing. Your civil war on drugs, your domestic economic policy, are others. But they are still all yours to decide; that's the nature of "sovereignty", and I will not advocate that you do one thing or another.

And I may have particularly strong opinions about things that you do on the domestic scene that are matters of human rights, and not just your laws or constitutions or policies. Things like the use of the death penalty (particularly against minors), and interference in women's reproductive rights. Those are fundamental, they involve human beings whose nationality is irrelevant, they concern me as a human being whose nationality is irrelevant. And in those respects I may advocate something.

And in discussions of the merits of various aspects of public policy, I will advocate for some policies and oppose others -- for or against the policies, not for or against adoption of those policies by the US. *You* get to decide what policies to adopt and what laws to enact; but *I* get to tell you my opinion about the wisdom of doing it.


If *I* lived somewhere where supporting a party whose policies that I firmly believed were the best for my country, and opposing a party comprised of vicious stupid thug criminals bent on harming my country and people for profit, meant that a majority of the population would vote against my party and for the vicious stupid thug criminals, well, who knows, I might jump off a cliff. I have the wonderful luxury of not having to decide what to do.

But I also do not have to agree that this ridiculous false dichotomy of yours is a reality, and that abandoning my beliefs about what is best and doing something I believe to be harmful and wrong (apart from making my life pointless) is what would be necessary in order to defeat the vicious stupid thug criminals ... or that it would matter much if I did do that.

If I listened to you, I'd have to listen to the voices saying "but opposing the attack on Iraq will lose us the election", "but supporting women's reproductive rights will lose us the election", "but respecting the rights of unpopular minorities will lose us the election" ... . And then, if I acted on what those voices told me, well, as far as I can tell I'd be a Republican in blueface.

Let's say we got a Dem president and legislature in 2004 and they were unwise enough to enact TOTAL GUN REGISTRATION immediately. I would predict disaster in 2006 as we would lose virtually every seat that were up for grabs. Followed by the presidency in 2008.

And I am not here to disagree. I have never advocated that you enact gun registration, total or otherwise.

I happen to think it's an excellent idea. And I happen to know that a very large proportion of the US population thinks so too. So if anybody were asking me, I'd be suggesting that it's smart to play to one's strengths, rather than paint one's self red. But nobody asks me much, so I don't say.

And when I said:

"It's rhetorical though, you see. There isn't an answer anybody could give me that would be sufficient to persuade me that the government should not do precisely that."

... I was referring to the merits of a public policy, not the merits of an electoral platform or the timetable on which the policy should be implemented or anything else. Firearms registration is a GOOD THING. So are universal healthcare and universal childcare and a whole lot of other things. Some good things are goals that cannot, for one reason or another, be achieved in the immediate future, or be accepted simply by proposing them. They are still GOOD THINGS, but it will take work to achieve them.

And achieving them won't be done by pretending not to want to achieve them -- let alone by honestly rejecting them -- in order to get votes.

The problem we seem to have is that you don't just think that it is unwise to campaign on firearms registration, you are opposed to firearms registration. And while I'm not the least bit interested in discussing the merits of campaign strategies here, you're apparently not the least bit interested in discussing the relative merits of public policy options.

.

[FeebMaster]

45. Thanks for sharing. (nt)

...

[jhfenton]

50. Universality

iverglas typed:

Firearms registration is a GOOD THING. So are universal healthcare and universal childcare and a whole lot of other things. Some good things are goals that cannot, for one reason or another, be achieved in the immediate future, or be accepted simply by proposing them. They are still GOOD THINGS, but it will take work to achieve them.

If, by "universal healthcare" and "universal childcare," you mean that everyone is able to receive the healthcare he needs and that every child receives the loving care he needs, then I doubt you'll get any disagreement that those are "GOOD THINGS." If you mean that people have a "right" to them, or that the government should be in the business of providing them, then I'll disagree as vehemently as I do with your first proposition, that "(f)irearms registration is a GOOD THING."

And for what it's worth, I'm happy to discuss the relative merits of public policy options. Since I'm a libertarian Democrat, however, I don't think we'll agree on much.

[MrBenchley]

51. Welcome back, John!

I see your home page still doesn't say a damn thing about you being a Democrat....

http://www.johnfenton.org/index.html

and that you're STILL trying to pass off links to the Crazy Bill Buckley'sNazional Review and the Cato Institute as "non-partisan."

http://www.johnfenton.org/links.html

It's also swell to see you pimping for the Hitler Youth at Duke....even re-publishing their manifesto.

http://www.johnfenton.org/takes.html

[iverglas]

53. didya catch this bit?!

From the bloggy one:

It's still early in the year, but it's not too early to think about whom to support for
President. SelectSmart.com has a well-constructed Presidential Candidate
Selector that is worth checking out. Make sure you uncheck the exclude
third-party candidates box at the bottom of the page. Even if you won't vote for a
third-party candidate, it's educational to see where they pop. In my case, it is easy
to see why I am disenchanted with both major parties.

My Results:

1. My ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Libertarian Candidate (91%)
3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (52%)
4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (44%)
5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (39%)
6. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (36%)
7. Green Party Candidate (33%)
8. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (31%)
9. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (31%)
10. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (31%)
11. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (26%)
12. Socialist Candidate (23%)
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (20%)

Now, I did it for comparison (not that I should be where the bar is set, of course, but just for entertainment):

Your Results:

1. Green Party Candidate (99%)
2. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
3. Socialist Candidate (90%)
4. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (78%)
5. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (78%)
6. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (76%)
7. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (76%)
8. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (72%)
9. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (70%)
10. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (67%)
11. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (62%)
12. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (45%)
13. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (41%)
14. Libertarian Candidate (24%)
15. Bush, President George W. - Republican (9%)
16. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (9%)
17. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (8%)

Hey - at least I got ALL the Democrats in there ahead of Bush. ... as compared to, like, NONE. (But what's this Larouche nonsense? I feel dirty.)

Funny how, like, almost totally opposite we come out, eh?

And hey, how 'bout a little, um, non-partisan hyperbole?

After more than a week of wrangling and political posturing, the Wisconsin Assembly today came up one vote short in an attempt to override the governor's veto of SB214, the right-to-carry bill. 65 representatives, including all 59 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted in favor of the override. 34 Representatives, including Democratic Representative Gary Sherman, a co-sponsor of the bill, voted against the override.

The irony is that Rep. Sherman has been an out-spoken proponent of a right-to-carry law, penning an editorial in favor of the very bill he torpedoed this afternoon: Right to bear arms gives citizens power.

In the end, however, he placed party loyalty above his principles.

Rep. Sherman owes an apology to every Wisconsinite victimized by criminals newly empowered by his vote.

Hey JH -- back on 04/02/04 (which you of course call 02/04/04), you said:

There's nothing in these fifteen (15) clauses so far that authorizes Congress to enact Social Security or Medicare or the vast majority of federal laws. Let's take a crack at Clauses 1, 3, and 18 tomorrow.

Run out of steam? Or were you just unable to prove that health care and old age pensions (or any other bit of that social safety net?) were ultra vires the US federal government after all?

(Hope you didn't get sidetracked by that "porn magazine" at Harvard ...)

.

[MrBenchley]

56. Sez it all, doesn't it...

You might recall that Fenton brags a lot over here about supposed endorsement by the AFL-CIO....but there's not a word about that on his OWN site.

[jhfenton]

59. Red Herring

http://www.cincinnatiaflcio.org/newsletters/October%202003.htm

[MrBenchley]

61. Did you tell THEM Social Security was unconstitutional?

Hey, far be it from me to wonder out loud why somebody would hide that on his own website.....

Or why there'd be a link on that website to the CATO Institute and Crazy Bill Buckley's fantasy magazine, which are no fucking help to anyone who works for a living, and not to the AFL-CIO, which IS.

[jhfenton]

62. The local endorsements from the AFL-CIO didn't come until almost October.

That late in the campaign, I was out knocking on doors, not updating my website.

And I link to things that I find interesting, not to things that have MrBenchley's "Liberal Democratic Stamp of Approval."

[MrBenchley]

64. October was a long time ago

and you dodged the question: Did you tell them Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional? I bet they could have used the big laugh.

"I link to things that I find interesting"
I know....and I find it interesting that you link to far right wing crap over there and not the labor group you were shouting about over here.

[jhfenton]

67. October was very close to November 7 (election day)

And I never shouted about it over here. I merely put my two endorsements--the Ohioans for Concealed Carry and the Cincinnati AFL-CIO--in my signature. I took both off after the election, as I did the campaign version of my website.

[DavidMS]

90. The Cato Instute

They are a bunch of bomb-throwing anarchists, but at least they aren't religious fundamentalists...

Taditional Liberals (1848ers, etc) were for free trade. Democratic Underground's membership is not primarialy composed of traditional liberals. I get the feeling that most of us are conservative social democrats and many of us would favor a social market economy. I have also noticed a large social-anarchist streak. Favoring getting the church out of marrage (or our goverment out of the marage bussness), the bedroom (informed concent), and the school.

There was a major traditional liberal / social democrat schism in the late 19th centry which mostly had to do with the negative externalities (exploitation of workers) of a market economy.

[jhfenton]

58. Hi to you too, iverglas

Lieberman scored higher than Bush for me on that quiz before he dropped out. I excluded drop-outs in my posted tally. Unfortunately for Lieberman, there weren't enough sensible Democratic primary voters.

Run out of steam? Or were you just unable to prove that health care and old age pensions (or any other bit of that social safety net?) were ultra vires the US federal government after all?

Ironically, I was side-tracked by the deadline for the book I've been editing, All About Medicare. It went to the printer today, hence my free time this afternoon.

I'll be sure to take a look at those last three clauses next week.

But yes, I think most of the federal government's social programs are unauthorized by the U.S. Constitution. They should be state programs under our system of government as originally intended.

(Hope you didn't get sidetracked by that "porn magazine" at Harvard ...)

Sadly, the first issue doesn't come out till May.

[iverglas]

65. oh, phew

Ironically, I was side-tracked by the deadline for the book I've been editing, All About Medicare. It went to the printer today, hence my free time this afternoon.

Well that threw me into a boiling fwet. I hied me off to google, and discovered, to my everlasting relief, that it is a new edition of a program manual for users, i.e. about "Medicare", and not a screed about "medicare".

But damn, had it been, I woulda rushed right out and ordered it. Coulda been fun.

.

[MrBenchley]

68. So even though it's unconstitutional

Fenton is advising his readers how to cash in on it? Gee, doesn't that strike you as odd? Funny he didn't mention THAT on his blog when he was claiming it was unconstitutional...or mention his authorship of these books on his website.

[jhfenton]

72. It's my job.

I'm sure you understand that some of us work for a living, and do what our employers ask us to do.

I'm a tax attorney, and I write mostly about taxes, but I used to work for Pro Seniors, a non-profit legal services group for Ohio seniors. So, naturally, when I started here a year ago, my boss asked me to handle all of our Medicare and Medicaid content. It's not my job to comment on the politics of Medicare.

It's also not the purpose of my blog to sell my company's books. But you're right, I should give myself a plug on there. :) I'll be sure to add that real soon.

[jhfenton]

70. "All About Medicare"

You can still buy the 2003 edition, edited by my co-worker.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872186288/qid=1076712986/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-0587588-4566428?v=glance&s=books

The 2004 edition will be out sometime in March, edited by yours truly.

http://www.nationalunderwriter.com/nucatalog/product.asp?sku=740&dept%5Fid=1003

There's also the "Tools & Techniques of Income Tax Planning" which just came out recently. It's not on Amazon yet, but you can buy it from the company website!

http://www.nationalunderwriter.com/nucatalog/product.asp?sku=737&dept_id=1005

[jhfenton]

55. Thank you, MrBenchley

I see your home page still doesn't say a damn thing about you being a Democrat....

I see you haven't changed either.

For what it's worth, I'm not a candidate for public office right now. When I was on city council and running for Law Director, I was doing so in a Republican-leaning town. Why would I make an issue of my party affiliation?

and that you're STILL trying to pass off links to the Crazy Bill Buckley'sNazional Review and the Cato Institute as "non-partisan."

I put everything that is not affiliated with a "party" in that category. That is the meaning of "non-partisan."

As for the Cato Institute, I'm quite fond of them. I am a Jeffersonian Democrat after all.

It's also swell to see you pimping for the Hitler Youth at Duke....even re-publishing their manifesto.

Thanks for noticing. Their statement of principles struck me as very Jeffersonian. I happen to consider "Free men, free minds, free markets" a very "progressive" position.

Accept the fact, MrBenchley, that not everyone who calls himself a Democrat will agree with you. You are not the Democratic Identity police.

But thank you for all the links to my website. I'm happy to share. Would you care to share any information about yourself?

[MrBenchley]

57. Koresh forbid a "Democrat" mention that he was one

"Accept the fact, MrBenchley, that not everyone who calls himself a Democrat will agree with you."
So few of those who are Democrats and disagree with me seem to be ashamed of it, though.

"Would you care to share any information about yourself?"
Sure. I'm a liberal Democrat and damn proud of it. Piss on the NRA and right wing loonies anywhere else they congregate.

[jhfenton]

60. That's what's wrong with the national Democratic Party today.

Come to Norwood and see how you fit in with the Norwood Democratic Party.

[MrBenchley]

63. That they don't think Chimpy the Thug is their ideal?

"see how you fit in with the Norwood Democratic Party"
Somehow I doubt they're endorsing Bush and trying to pretend Medicare is unconstitutional...

http://www.ohiodems.org/

[jhfenton]

66. Who's endorsing Bush?

Now you're being dishonest by implication. Tell me where I endorsed Bush, or retract your remark.

Hint, I've never done so. In person, on this website, or on any other. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. I won't vote for Bush in 2004.

[MrBenchley]

69. Hey, it's your own blog

Now are you telling us you didn't write

"In my case, it is easy to see why I am disenchanted with both major parties.

My Results:
1. My ideal theoretical candidate. (100%)
2. Libertarian Candidate (91%)
3. Bush, President George W. - Republican (52%)"

http://www.johnfenton.org/takes.html

Sure says clearly there you're favoring pResident Turd over any actual flesh and blood candidate....

[jhfenton]

71. Still can't quite grasp the truth, can you.

I cut and pasted the results from the short, little quiz, I didn't endorse them as entirely accurate. The difference between Bush and Dean was minimal.

What I did say was that I was disenchanted with both major parties. That's hardly an endorsement of Bush.

[MrBenchley]

79. Hey, it's YOUR blog

[FatSlob]

98. Proof John Fenton is a Democrat...

www.hamilton-co.org/BOE/inputdata/Electionsresults/Final/candidates.pdf

go to page nine of the document.

DEM is right by his name.

Looks like the attacks on John Fenton are just hot air. Looks like some people think that they decide what it means to be a Democrat.

[alwynsw]

75. Could you condense that down to 2 or 3 coherent sentences?

Brevity is the soul of wit - or so I once heard. It certainly makes getting the meat out of a post easier when wearing bifocals.

[RoeBear]

89. Reminds me of an old saying...

...If you can't dazzle'em with your brilliance, baffle'em with your bullshit.

[RoeBear]

88. Zzzzzzzzzz....

.....zzzzzzzzzZ.

[demsrule4life]

91. The guns went

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload
boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

reload

boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom booom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom all through the night.

[MrSandman]

93. Except the Glock in .40 S&W...

It went:

boom boom boom KABOOM...owww shit...clatter, crunch, crack

[jhfenton]

95. Now, you just had to go and insult my Glocks.

:)

I love my G23 and G24C. I carry the G23 almost daily.

.40S&W Glocks are no more prone to kB than other .40S&W caliber firearms. The two big problems are over-charged reloads and reloads with lead bullets. You don't want to shoot lead bullets in Glocks. You get too much lead build-up in the barrel, the pressure spikes, and they will go BOOOM! I've shot thousands of reloads with plated bullets in my Glocks.

[MrSandman]

92. I am opposed to firearms registration

As both public policy and electoral strategy.

The U.S. has a background check system which cannot be enforced due to resource limitations. This is only prohibited individuals attempting to purchase firearms. Can we afford a two million dollar program turning into a two billion dollar program which cannot be completely enforced? See p. 5.

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/194051.pdf

Then there is that archaic document that so interferes with good government to consider. Of course that document prevents registration of printing presses, printer's ink, and word processors even when used by hate groups. That is why the minorities are protected from the majority.

[Hrumph]

97. The feeling is mutual. (N/T)

[alwynsw]

74. You just don't seem to grasp the concept of privacy

coupled with freedom, do you?

Total registration is one of the best tools for a totalitarian government to disarm the populace. Do I see that as a possibility? You bet your sweet bippy!

But then, the whole freedom concept is somehow misaligned by many in the anti- crowd. Freedom is fine, so long as I get to determine what you may own, how many you may own, and where you may own it.

[iverglas]

76. well I'm glad to see

Freedom is fine, so long as I get to determine what you may own, how many you may own, and where you may own it.

... somebody speaking for him/herself for a change. Even if what s/he's saying is kinda weird.


Total registration is one of the best tools for a totalitarian government to disarm the populace. Do I see that as a possibility? You bet your sweet bippy!

Sweetie, if you want to elect yourself a totalitarian government, there just isn't anything I can do about it. If you asked my opinion about the idea, I'd pretty assuredly give you a very negative one, but it would not be my place to interfere in your exercise of that right to vote. Damned if I know why you'd want to do it, but sometimes there's just no accounting for USAmericans, eh?

.

[alwynsw]

77. Well, Sweetie,

Freedom is fine, so long as I get to determine what you may own, how many you may own, and where you may own it.

I didn't realize that I needed to point out the sarcasm in that statement. If you missed the point that it was aimed directly at the heart of the anti-RKBA crowd I cannot but imagine how dull a spirited debate with you might be. I'll be certain to remember the No Doz.

Insofar as a totalitarian government is concerned; I always trust the masses to surprise me by doing silly things at the most inopportune times.

[beevul]

14. What exactly do you mean by...

"In these terroristic times, why shouldn't government keep tabs on miltary style rifles?"

I would be interested to know what exactly you define as "miltary style rifles".

[jhfenton]

46. Does this qualify as a "military-style rifle?"

Does this qualify as a "military-style rifle?"

Should the government "keep tabs" on it?

I purchased it in a "private transaction" from a friend, so I wasn't subject to a background check!

But don't worry, we weren't at a gun show, so it wasn't part of any "loophole."



It's my newest acquisition, a MAK-91, a high-quality Chinese AK-variant. Semi-automatic, of course. It was imported in 1993, before being banned by name in 1994.

[slackmaster]

18. Because "style" does not a military weapon make

It's really that simple.

...I wouldn't mind if at the city/county level rifles and other weapons were kept ready on a community basis but it doesn't make sense for anybody with money to have weapons of mass destruction.

Nice Red Herring. In the history of firearms only ONE has ever qualified as a weapon of mass destruction:

[lcordero]

2. i favor the last choice

:hi:

[FeebMaster]

10. me too.

Only I'd strike the virtually.

[lcordero]

16. You have a point

:bounce:

[jhfenton]

41. Agreed.

Agreed. That get's my vote.

[benddem]

4. I don't think

anyone needs an automatic weapon or a machine gun...or a nuke for that matter.:eyes:

[Stoker]

8. Fortunately...

Every time I buy a new gun nobody asks me if I need it or not.

Stoker

[lcordero]

17. It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it

[jhfenton]

42. Me either

I seem to be able to buy as many guns as I can afford!

Sadly, that's not as many as I'd like.

[alwynsw]

78. I appreciate that quality in a person

I seem to be able to buy as many guns as I can afford!

[FeebMaster]

11. nuke eh?

I'm invoking McFeeb's Law and declaring myself the winner of this debate.

[MrSandman]

12. Beware the retaliatory strike

[beevul]

15. Beware... McFeeb's Law in effect!!! N/T

[slackmaster]

19. I think I was out when McFeeb's Law was published

Could you restate it for the benefit of newbies and people who play hookey?

I was going to declare "Let's Play Nuclear Straw Man!" and give my usual "If you want a nuclear weapon and have the cash and can get all the paperwork done in your lifetime, go for it. If you don't want one please find someone who actually does before you attempt to raise this argument."

But if a simple invocation of McFeeb's clears the thread that's fine with me.

:evilgrin:

[-..__...]

21. Nukes = More bang for your buck.

Plus, they're the ultimate "penis enhancer".

[FeebMaster]

26. I don't have a link handy.

It went something like this.

Ever hear of Godwin's Law? Here's a link.
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Well, it seems to me, that in so many gun control debates, we'll be discussing small arms and getting nowhere, as usual. Then some intrepid gun grabber will play the nuke card. This usually doesn't happen for 10 or 12, sometimes as many as 20 posts.

I decided that we needed something like Godwin's Law for nuclear weapons being mentioned in gun control arguments. Since I came up with the idea, I decided it should be called McFeeb's Law.

With McFeeb's Law, the thread doesn't necessarily have to end, but the person that brings up nuclear weapons loses the argument. I haven't worked out an exact wording of the law yet, but I think everyone gets the basic idea.

Here was my mini-rant in the old thread about nukes in gun control arguments:

If you want to limit the 2nd amendment, I'll be more than happy to compromise with you. We'll ban nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Man portable and squad portable small arms will be unregulated. What should we do with artillery pieces and high explosives? Maybe have a background check requirement before someone can buy them. I don't think that's particularly fair, but I'm willing to compromise.

[FeebMaster]

28. Although come to think of it,

nazis get mentioned quite a bit down here in the dungeon. Godwin's Law could apply to half the threads at least down here.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Liberal Classic]

20. None accurately reflect

I would repeal some few laws but enforce the rest. For example, keep Brady but repeal the Gun Control act of 1968. I'd rather that law-abiding citizens retain their rights to own firearms, but keep the instant background check to keep people honest. Those who attempt to circumvent the background check can be assumed to be up to no good.

[Superfly]

22. And extend the NICS background check system

to private transfers, for a nominal fee.

[Liberal Classic]

23. Something along these lines would be a good compromise

In my opinion, of course.

[slackmaster]

24. That's my position too

Make it possible and easy and do everything reasonable to encourage private sellers to check the backgrounds of gun buyers, but absolutely do not create a registry of guns or gun owners.

[Withergyld]

25. I wonder what the results of a similar poll upstairs would be??

[FeebMaster]

27. Did people misread the poll options?

I mean seriously. I am shocked.

[Stoker]

32. It's fantastic!

After reading the vitriol of some of the posters here, I was really feeling bad about the DU environment concerning firearms. This poll restores my confidence!

Thanks DU! I knew there was more common sense here than there seemed!

Stoker

[FeebMaster]

33. I don't know.

I still think people misread the poll options. Maybe I misread them. I sure don't see anywhere near 24 people arguing that the government should repeal all the gun control laws. I can count one one hand the number of posters I've seen make that claim. Now, granted, maybe they just don't want to get involved in the day to day pantloading, but it's still shocking and almost unbelievable.

[Wickerman]

34. Lots of oddness in that poll

from someone who makes his living from surveying.

However, the oddest is the number of votes cast. Frankly, we don't have that kind of attendance.

[FeebMaster]

35. Yeah

That too. Although there are probably people up in GD who read the dungeon on occasion, but have no interest in posting here.

[MrBenchley]

36. Wonder where the votes are coming from?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33227&highlight=...

[slackmaster]

37. Last message in that thread is dated August 2003

Show us some other boring old information.

[Wickerman]

47. Thats an old discussion

but the folks over at the High Road DO regularly discuss DU (as I'm sure many here know). Suffice to say they don't think highly of us.

Fuck them, I'm off to eat some granola. Perhaps I'll pick up a latte as I drive my hybrid up to my save the spotted owls meeting. :eyes:

I love the posts - "If I can only convert one of them, (the poor heathen unwashed at DU) the pain (of infiltrating and posing as a disgusting liberal) will be worth it."

[FeebMaster]

48. I've never been there.

I love the posts - "If I can only convert one of them, (the poor heathen unwashed at DU) the pain (of infiltrating and posing as a disgusting liberal) will be worth it."

Hahah. They're probably all gun grabbers compared to me.

[MrSandman]

83. Walter Mitties

[FeebMaster]

84. Who

shot who in the what now?

[MrSandman]

85. On the other board...

preparing for the Apocalypse or invasion of Jack Booted Mutant Zombie Ninja's...like i said on the other thread, i have visited the board.

[MrBenchley]

49. I doubt very much

they've stopped trolling.

[slackmaster]

81. In this rare instance I agree with MrBenchley

And MrBenchley acts as a lightning rod to ensure that they will never stop.

[RoeBear]

82. To be fair it seems...

...to go both ways.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1121634

[Wickerman]

86. Care to expand on that?

The example cited was an excursion to Free Republic, not to the gun site. Yes, 30k members will not be contained and a few will troll. I really fail to see the parallel. DU members trolling a far RW site and us complaining about a gun site that is far right, yet that many of our own forum users frequent?

[RoeBear]

87. I thought it was a discussion of...

...High Roaders trolling here. And I was showing it goes both ways (except the wasy was to FreeRepublic not HR)

Nevermind

[NorthernSpy]

52. :(

"Wolf in sheep's clothing act", huh? Does this mystery provocateur really think that polarizing the debate over here makes it any easier for progressives who oppose gun control to argue our case?

That really sucks. :(


Mary

[iverglas]

54. didya check it out, M?

Does this mystery provocateur really think that polarizing the debate over here makes it any easier for progressives who oppose gun control to argue our case?

The provocateur ain't singular ... that little discussion runs to four pages and contains more DU personae than persons.

And ... they don't want to make it easy for progressives to do anything at all.

.

[NorthernSpy]

73. holy shee!

Oh my god! One of them was fantasizing about posting here under the name of the terrorist dirtbag who founded the klan.

And isn't it just goddamn delightful how they spend most of each thread assuring themselves of how wonderful and logical they are?

Of course, I guess those assclowns had better be sweet to each other, because nobody else is loving 'em. Normal Americans think they blow.


Mary

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Crachet2004]

94. I registered too late to vote...

But count me as "repeal virtually all existing gun control laws". The world really did change on 911. I have always owned guns, but hadn't bought or shot any in probably twenty years. 911 changed that. It isn't that I am afraid of terrorists...Where I live, I doubt one could get within a hundred miles of me, even if they do exist. It is because on 911, one thing became apparent: in the event of some great tragedy in this country, we are all individually on our own-our command and control types all headed for their panic rooms!

Hey, it was a terrible thing, but it was small compared to what it might have been! What would happen if something even worse happens? Anarchy, at least for awhile. And then of course, there is the Patriot Act. We must no longer be the party of gun-takers. We must be the party that is willing to defend the Constitution AGAINST Patriot...that is where the votes are; and it's the right thing to do.

People are afraid. Afraid of terrorists and our own government. Total Registration? All that does is turn half our population into criminals...the heavily armed half. Gun control is over. It died on 911. The wealthy are who don't want an armed populace-that would be the GOP. An armed population keeps them at least partly in check.

And many of the antigun arguments are true too, but there is always a price for Freedom. Benjamin Franklin said: "He who would trade Liberty for Security shall have neither"...or something pretty close to that. I think Ben was right.

[Wickerman]

100. Locking

we got the results we want now.