Quick Poll, Do you own a gun?

[NightWatcher]

I dont want justifications on either side, just a quick sampling of opinions here in the DU.

mods: can I please keep this here for just a little while before it gets sent to the dungeon?

Thanks

[Richard Steele]

1. Yes, several.

I've owned hundreds over the years, and still
have a few of my favorites.

[bigwillq]

2. No (nt)

[tammywammy]

3. I don't have one, right now

But, I've seriously contemplated buying one. I'm leaning towards it. I'm purchasing a condo on the first floor, and I'm a single woman, so it would be added protection in the worst case senario.

[krispos42]

123. Us DU gun nuts would be happy to help you pick one out

Make a post in the Outdoor Life Group and we'll swarm all over it :-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=271

[sammythecat]

215. I think that's an excellent idea.

It doesn't mean your going to reach for your gun every time you hear a bump in the night but it will help you fall back to sleep faster.

I'm sure you've hear this many times before, but I feel obligated to say that if you do buy a gun you should become as familiar with it as you can for your own safety and the safety of others. And make sure you shoot it. Do these things and you'll fall back to sleep even faster.

[sammythecat]

218. self delete. Bad aim. Meant to hit the original post

[WinstonSmith4740]

4. Yes, two.

My husband & I each have our own. But then again, I used to live in LA during the 80's & 90's. Car jackings were commonplace, and I was held up at gunpoint in the parking lot of my office in broad daylight.

Like they say, a moderate is a liberal who's been mugged.;-)

[JanusAscending]

5. My answer is no,

but I'm wishing I did have one, and am really beginning to think I might get one. There is a police firing range right up the road!! I would go through all the proper channels, but in the meantime, I do have a "Red Rover" BB gun under my bed, and a damn good aim.!! LOL

[geardaddy]

169. You'll put your eye out, kid.

;)

[JanusAscending]

232. I doubt it!! LOL

There's a better chance that the intruder would need a "seeing eye dog"!!!

[elocs]

6. Why would I even want to own a gun?

I do not hunt, will never hunt, and live in an area of very, very low crime. Not owning a gun is a no-brainer.

[guntard]

15. To answer your question: guns are fun

I own, according to my last count, approximately 100 firearms. I don't hunt, nor do I keep any of them handy for personal protection. I will admit that about ten or fifteen of them (shotguns) were purchased for my business, but the rest are just for fun.

Guns are fascinating engineering marvels. The combination of steel and wood can be sensuous and beautiful. Most of my firearms are historical artifacts, operating antiques, if you will. Shooting is almost the most fun you can have with your clothes on. One of my favorite shooters is an M1903 Springfield rifle made in 1918. How many machines do you have that work so well after almost 90 years?

They take up a lot less space than classic Chevys.

[mentalsolstice]

44. For you it's a hobby!

And I can understand the historic significance. I applaud you, in that you seem to be interested in them from an entirely peaceful standpoint...the same way my husband likes to take apart cars and understand what makes them go.

[Fovea]

63. I have a love

of repro B/P guns, colts, remington, spiller, etc.

And I keep a 3rd model dragoon by the bed, because I want not just to shoot my assailant, but set them on fire as well.

[Horseradish]

114. Ah, the A3-03 ...

I own a Remington-made A3-03 (remington also made them during the early years of WWII, as you probably know -- same design). Mine is from '42 bhut has the non-pistol-grip stock. Beautiful rifle. It's interesting to hear that out of 100 different firearms, this is one of your favorites.

I own it for collectability and the occasional range outing - wouldn't be the best protection in close quarters, but it would be scary nonetheless.

[guntard]

250. Springfields

The M1903A3 came a little later. I have one of those as well, also made in 1942. But the M1903 must have been fired about a zillion times because the trigger is the smoothest and nicest I have ever felt on a military arm. So the M1903A3 stays in the safe, most of the time, and the M1903 comes out to play more often.

I got my M1, M1903 and M1903A3 from the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which our previous Democratic Administration unfortunately tried to shut down.

[Thothmes]

265. O3A3

The Springfield O3A3 was a modified version of the 1903 Springfield pattern rifle. It design was based on the need for increased production speed. I have a 1903 A1, which is identical to the 1903 except it was made by Remington with the old Springfield arsenal tools. Also have an MI through the Civilian Marksmanship program. The 03A1 cost my dad $25.00 at J.C. Penny's in 1957.

[jmg257]

149. Love the M1 Garand for all the same reasons, some real

genius involved at a time when no one could get a reliable semi-auto arm to handle the cartridge. No tools to take apart, precise components that serve multiple rolls - a real nice gun for collecting, and learning about the history. Hopefull HR1022 won't pass - it would make make them illegal!

[guntard]

157. Love your M1

I do:

[jmg257]

160. Looks like a nice one too! Sweet!

I have a '45 SA. Wish I had kept all the ones I had and traded away!

[sammythecat]

212. Good for you and welcome to DU!

I have only one gun, a Sig pistol that I keep for peace of mind (and fun). I don't hunt either. I just like guns. Always have.

Even though I don't have a collection I share your love and fascination with firearms. If I could afford it, I'd have 100 too. :thumbsup:

[slackmaster]

186. I also live in a low-crime area and have never hunted

I collect firearms because they are interesting to me (historically and mechanically), are fun to shoot, and appreciate in value over time.

[NMDemDist2]

7. i don't have one right now, but may get one in the future

I'm not against responsible gun ownership

[karlrschneider]

8. About a dozen.

...

[jhrobbins]

9. Actually, I do have one, but it was given to me by my cousin...

it is a 357 and I have never fired it despite my cousins admonitions that I learn to handle it before I need to. I really never wanted a gun, but since I have had this one, I feel strangely safer - sorta.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. Your cousin is right

either put it in a safe away from the bad guys (if that is the intent)

Or go to the range and learn how to use it

[TomInTib]

10. Quite a few.

I have a thing about fine machines, ... gun, car, bike, whatever.

[michreject]

11. Yes

Almost one for every year of my age.

[Solo_in_MD]

12. Every member of my household can shoot well and has a handgun fitted for them

As soon as they are 21 it is transferred into their name. They are stored securely but accessible.

At various times I have had a CCW permit and carried, my wife as well. Hoping California gets its act straightened out and becomes a shall issue state, though I can probably get mine back when I return there. We have both needed them upon occasion.

[proud patriot]

13. Yep !

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

14. I live with a brown belt, a green belt, swords, knives and a

85 pound watch dog thats real quick.

[AnneD]

22. You sound safe but just remember....

never bring a knife to a gun fight;)

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

27. First they make you afraid.

The less guns we all had the more peaceful we would be. Peace be with you.

[Withergyld]

107. I disagree

I have a CCW permit. I find that I am more peaceable when I carry a firearm then when I don't. When I carry I am aware of the fact that I am carrying a deadly weapon and do all that I can to avoid situations where its use may be required.

[virginia mountainman]

108. I agree with YOU

It does make folks MUCH more peaceful, I have noticed the same effect you mention.

[Spiffarino]

220. I feel the same way when I carry

I don't have a concealed-carry permit, but even so I feel an awesome sense of responsibility when I'm carrying my rifle or shotgun. When I'm driving around and somebody cuts me off or acts jerky, I used to think, "I could just shoot that so-and-so." Now that I actually do shoot and own firearms, those thoughts don't cross my mind. Knowing the power of the thing makes me respect its potential.

[Faux pas]

122. I'm with you....but don't live with any belt holders or a dog. I

have one cat who can kick some serious butt though. ;)

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Not currently,

but I do have a sword and a battle axe.

[guitar man]

182. I have a battle axe too

...we've been married for 16 years now!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[RaleighNCDUer]

199. Used to have one of those, too,

but nobody objects to my hanging this one on the wall.

(I didn't really say that, did I?)

[guitar man]

203. ROFL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[hlthe2b]

17. Nahh... just a very alert doggie girl...

so, I'll have full warning in the event of a break in....

She just might surprise me and nail the intruder, too (she loves her "mama") :loveya:

[TZ]

52. and I have killer kitty cats aka attack cats! LOL

Actually my guys run away at a clap of thunder (tonight 1st thunderstorm of season):rofl: :silly:

[blues90]

18. No , however

I never wanted one and was always against having one but as things are now I may consider it . I don;t know if I would ever be able to use it . We can't carry one here in the street or loaded as far as I know .

[AnneD]

19. I grew up around guns....

learned how to hunt (can do bow and arrow too)and shot for target. Gun safety was never an issue in our house. We were taught respect for fire arms. Joined the military and got really good with a gun. I was not always happy about guns in the house but Katrina and our current government has made me want to be more prepared. I'll never be caught with my pants down if I can help it. I am an armed liberal. Unlike a chicken hawk GOP, I WILL stand up for myself and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights with force if need be. So they better think twice about rounding me up in a homeland security van in the middle of the night.

If you are a single female and don't like guns and are worried about protection, I would get a very large dog and train them. My shepard hybrid traveled on the road with me for years and was the best deterrent I could ask for. I know she saved me on 2 occasions. Gun ownership is a responsibility and you have to keep your skills up. Dogs require some training but are a bit more forgiving.

I guess my Texan is showing through on this one.

[Forkboy]

20. Guns dont kill people,people kill people...and monkeys do too [if they have guns].

Sorry,just watched this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmtX6Tj74oU

[youthere]

96. and monkeys do too [if they have guns]....or executive privilege.

[SJames]

430. guns Kill not monkeys !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[liberaldemocrat7]

261. Actually the bullet kills a person.

The person aims the gun and shoots the bullet, and the bullet ultimately hits the person and kills the person.

[SJames]

319. The person aims the gun and shoots the bullet

Therefore the PERSON is the killer .

[scarletwoman]

21. Kick - I'm definitely interested in watching this poll. (nt)

[Jacobin]

23. yes several. but no handguns

[HawkerHurricane]

24. "Not currently"

I might next month.

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. Nope. I was thinking about getting an AK-47 though...for when the

shit hits the fan, but it looks like Congress is saving me the $$$$ by exposing the criminal regime.

[ncteechur]

26. I have a hunting bow just in case I need to collect my own food from the wild.

[Jim Warren]

28. Yeah.

So what.

[ejbrush]

29. Sure. I even build them.

Good winter-time activity out in the shop. Carve some walnut, forge some iron, lots of meticulous carving and filing and sanding and polishing. I'm just on my way out to fritter away a few hours as we speak.
I picked up this hobby from my grandfather, who is 90 years old. Ninety years old and a Democrat for every one of them. I should be very lucky to live that long, but voting right isn't going to be a problem.

[sendero]

30. I own.

.... several, one for every purpose. And a couple just for fun :)

[11 Bravo]

31. Yes, four long guns and 2 handguns.

One 12 gauge shotgun, one .410 shotgun, a 22 caliber rifle, a .30-06 rifle, a 9mm pistol and my dad's old Colt 45.

[TahitiNut]

36. "This i my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting. This ..."

"... was ..." (sigh) :silly:

[DemBones DemBones]

89. . . .

:rofl:

Brings back memories of growing up on military bases, listening to the cadence calls. Not sure I should post any here.

[RaleighNCDUer]

183. I hear ya. nt

[Xithras]

32. A few, yes.

Not many gun owners have just "one". I have a hunting rifle, a shotgun, a handgun, two plinkers for the kids, and several collectible historic rifles...including an 1884 Springfield Trapdoor rifle, a 1943 Mauser K98k (German WW2 Wehrmacht battle rifle), and a WW2 Enfield jungle rifle.

[Norwood]

33. I own a couple

Turkish Mauser
Beretta 9mm

I'm toying with the idea of buying an AK-47

[Xithras]

39. I'd suggest a non-Chinese SKS over an AK47.

Mechanically, the two guns are very similar. They fire the same round, have equal accuracy, the same reliability, etc. The only advantages the AK-47 has over the SKS is in weight and ammo capacity (the AK holdds 3x more rounds, and weighs 1/3 less). I would rather have the AK if I were going to war, but I don't think you're buying a rifle to participate in an insurgency (hope not anyway). Compared to the utilitarian AK, the Russian SKS is a beautiful rifle with a heavy wood stock that reflects its Mosin-Nagant heritage. The AK was meant to be a "practical killing machine", while the SKS was designed with more of an eye towards classical rifle craftsmanship.

Avoid the Chinese SKS's though, especially the newer ones. The Chinese SKS's are cheap mass produced junk made out of cheap metal. The Russian SKS is a lesson in WWII era rifle craftsmanship.

*sigh* They don't let us buy either in California anymore. :(

[guntard]

40. SKS in California

*sigh* They don't let us buy either in California anymore.

The SKS is not banned in California. I have two. The Yugo SKS is available for $180 at Turners Outdoorsman.

[Xithras]

78. My dad had an SKS Sporter.

He had to sell it to a Nevada dealer before the ban went into effect in 2000. It's my understanding that any SKS with a detachable clip is illegal in California, which is basically every SKS I've ever seen. I know the SKS originally had a fixed magazine and used a stripper clip, but I've never seen one and assumed they were illegal as well.

[guntard]

111. SKS Sporters are banned, that's all

The California ban is for SKSes with detachable magazines. The only versions that came like that from the factory were the Norinco Sporters. All military configuration SKSes are perfectly legal in California*. As I said, you can pick up one at Turners (big SoCal sporting goods chain) for under $200.

They are fun rifles, easily the best value in semi-auto long guns.


* The Yugo 59/66 normally has a grenade launcher built into the muzzle. This, of course, is banned here, so Yugo 59/66 SKSes sold here usually have the grenade launcher removed and replaced with a muzzle brake.

[Xithras]

187. Very cool. Learn something new every day.

I seriously thought that ALL SKS's were banned. I may have to pick one up!

[slackmaster]

274. HR 1022 would ban fixed-magazine SKSs

Keep that in mind.

[jmg257]

151. Another vote for the Yugo - nice piece, though a bit heavy - built stronger 'cause their

ammo was bit more powerful. These can be found in near like-new condition with booklets verifying history etc.

[michreject]

136. The Chinese AK's

are some of the best made AK's anywhere. There not allowed to be imported anymore, since 89.

[benEzra]

145. It's easier to fit optics to a civvie AK lookalike, though...

since most of them come with the siderail optics mount. (See the photo in post #133.)

I agree with you on the quality of Russian SKS's, though. My wife has a 1952 Tula, and the fit and finish are top-notch.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

34. I had not owned a gun since I was 12. Then came Katrina

It didn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that under this administration, in a crises, you are truly on your own. I now own five. A Remington 870 with a folding stock, heat shield, extended Mag, 18" barrel that has been Vang Comped. A Walther P99, A Walther P22 with a laser sight, A Les Baer custom 1911 Thunder Ranch 45 A.C.P., and I'm building a 50 cal, circa 1770, Tennessee, flintlock, black powder, long rifle. In the near future I anticipate purchasing an M1A, chambered in 308 match grade along with building a set of 32 cal, flintlock dueling pistols.

People find it amusing that I am a card carrying member of the N.R.A. and the A.C.L.U. I see no conflict in defending my second amendment rights to preserve my first amendment rights.

[Raine]

35. Yes, several

all of them inherited but given the climate in this country...I'm keeping them.

[Vincardog]

37. I own several can I vote more?

[Der Blaue Engel]

38. I took a shooting lesson and hated it

I never want to touch one again, and I don't want one in my house.

[mentalsolstice]

41. I don't, but my husband does...

so I don't know where that puts me. Yes, we have gun in the house. No, I don't know how to use it. I've had one pointed at my head in the commission of a crime. As a result, I melt down at seeing one pointed in movies or TV. That little black hole has so much power over you, even if it's just for a few minutes, as in my case. I'm scared to death of having that power over someone else, even if my life depended on it.

I realize, obviously, knowing how to use one could save my life! And I hope I'm never faced with a situation where I regret not knowing how to use one.

This is one issue, I have real problems with...one day I'm on one side of it, the next day I'm on the opposite side.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

42. I would like to see this thread recommended to dispel the myth

that "Liberals" want to take away your guns. I'm so far left that my family nick-name is "comrade". I am also a card carrying member of the A.C.L.U. and the N.R.A.

Lets put this up on the board and talk about it! Do liberals want to take away your guns? This issue is like racism. Everyone wants to tap dance around it but no one wants to take it on. I say, lets put it on the table and deal with it!

[NightWatcher]

45. that's what I was thinking when I put the post up

It looks like I did it without pushing one position over another. I'm slowly learning.

Thanks for the honest answers and peacefulness

[Greyhound]

86. It's not liberals that want to keep trying prohibition, it's fear-mongering politicians.

Let's not forget that there is a great divide between Democratic voters and Democratic politicians.
:kick:

[jmg257]

152. Hear hear!! Not even worth adding more info! nt

[MGD]

141. Bullshit. H.R. 1022-Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

[formercia]

194. Why do the Dems keep shooting themselves in the foot?

by introducing such legislation. You would think it was a covert GOP plan to kill their chances of winning in 2008.

Punish people that use any gun as part of the commission of a Felony. Throw the book at them but don't restrict or punish otherwise honest citizens.

[BlooInBloo]

43. Nope - not scared.

[Lurking Dem]

46. Just one.

I have a marinized rifle on the boat in case the pirates don't look like Johnny Depp.

[DeepBlueC]

47. No, but I wish I did

I enjoy target shooting with pistol and rifle both. I belong to a club and we have club guns.

[Irreverend IX]

48. K+R

I do. I collect them for fun at the range, for their self-defense utility, for their historical significance, and out of an interest in precision devices. The events of the last seven years have made it quite clear to me that it's foolish to unconditionally trust authorities to take care of people and do the right thing, so I won't go without effective tools for self-defense.

Exercising the right to keep and bear arms can give you security and confidence, but it also means accepting a great burden of responsibility. I feel that it's one of the most fundamental expressions of individual sovereignty.

[Squatch]

49. Quite a few of them

and I have a CCW. I don't carry very often, but I have it if I want to.

[aikoaiko]

50. yes. more than 1 KICKED and RECOMMENDED

nuff said.

[TZ]

51. my philosophy is

never have a weapon that can be used against you. I think things like self-defense classes and noise makers to attract attention are pretty good, but admittedly if I am scared (a couple of times thought someone breaking in) I would grab a bat or knife, which still is harder to make a mistake with. Whatever else if I accidently hurt someone, or someone used my gun to hurt someone else I would never be able to live with myself

[scrinmaster]

53. Really? No one can take a knife or bat away from you?

With a gun, you can stop them from getting close enough to take away your weapon.

[TZ]

57. of course they could

but I feel like I would be less likely to hurt someone else. I would rather be hurt than inflict pain on others, really. Obviously in survival mode its different but I just know having a gun could be very bad for me psychologically.

[scrinmaster]

68. My brother's the same way.

He would rather help a burglar load up his possesions into the burglars van than hold the burglar at gunpoint until the police show up.

On the other hand, I'd have no problems whatsoever holding a burglar or theif until the cops come to take 'em away, or shooting someone who tries to attack or kill me.

[TZ]

130. My opinion is that its not risking my life or others for

my posessions. Do I WANT to have my stuff stolen, no of course not. I have also actually shot a gun, and know that its not for me. I do have to say should someone's life I care about be threatened, I would act in the appropriate way. But for me personally, I don't think a gun is right. What good is a gun anyway if you are too scared to use it. My aims atrocious anyway. Can't hit the broadside of a wall:-)

[guntard]

140. This is a reasonable opinion that should be respected by gun owners

While gun right advocates continue to fight the good fight protecting our civil rights, too many of them (especially conservatives) feel the need to argue with people who voice the perfectly reasonable personal decision to decline the use deadly force for their own self-protection. It is no more valid to dispute these people's personal choices than it is for the gun grabbers to deny us our civil rights.

The decision to employ deadly force is a very grave responsibility, and certainly not for everyone. Personally, I don't have any problem with the concept generally, but one reason I don't keep any of my 100 guns for personal defense is because I do not (yet) want to accept this responsibility for myself. It's easier for me, since I am white and male and almost six and a half feet tall, living in a pretty safe place, and have never felt threatened by anyone. If I was a woman, for example, or had children, I know I would feel very differently.

I characterize guns for personal defense as a form of insurance. In fact, given the odds in many parts of the US, personal assault insurance is probably more important than fire insurance (and yet you never hear that people who buy fire insurance for their homes are "fearful," "afraid," "paranoid" and "small-penised"). The cost of personal assault insurance lies in the responsibility inherent in having it, rather than an annual cash premium. At this moment, it's insurance I prefer not to buy. Gun rights advocates do themselves and their cause no favors attacking people who prefer, for whatever reasons, not to buy personal assault insurance. This is a tactic better left to the gun grabbers.

[TZ]

146. you have very good arguments and are reasonable

Although I suppose you would call me a gun grabber- I actually have no issues with guns at home but I hate concealed weapons and the idea of everybody carrying one around, that bothers me.
Okay look, I do hate guns but people do have a right to own them. Part of the problem in this country is that there are few responsible gun owners (you seem like you are definitely one) and some of the laws don't promote reasonable gun ownership either. I always thought well- we have to pass tests and be licensed to drive cars and keep proving at later dates that we still know all the rules. I really wish there were some universal system in place for gun ownership like that.

[jmg257]

154. Your opinions are very respectable; you know yourself better then anyone

else would on what level of responsibility you think you can handle, etc.

The truth is there are MILLIONS of responsible gun owners, who have made the same decisions you have, and come up with the other view - for their own reasons. With deadly gun accidents so rare and constantly declining (649 in 2004), I think a view of teaching even more responsibility would be better for safety then a "zero tolerance" policy that helps few. There are more and more guns every year in the public (as many as 3.5 million annually at one point, less lately), so education will help displace many myths, and the ignorance of how they work, and teach WHY they can be so dangerous in the wrong hands.

[ms liberty]

105. As a woman...

I have to say you've hit on a point that is pro-gun here - women are at a disadvantage physically in an altercation against a man, unless the woman knows self-defense or martial arts. Most women don't.

Of course, I grew up in a city, and never owned a gun til I moved to the country and got married. I always had dogs in the house, which is a much better home security measure than a gun. Dogs make too much noise and crooks don't like that!

[TZ]

135. maybe

but also it means they could get the gun out of my hands as well. Thats why it scares me. I don't think that pointing a gun at someone is ALWAYS the advantage people think it is. It helps in some situations no doubt. Also so many people have guns illegally anyway, having a personal gun might not help if your not quick enough either!

[scrinmaster]

195. Depending on just a gun to save you is like driving recklessly because you're wearing a seatbelt.

If you have security lights, good solid locks, an alarm or a loud dog, nearly all burglars or thieves won't even bother. A gun is just another level of protection.

A shotgun with a decent sling and a bright light is a very effective combination, the sling will make it much easier to retain your weapon, and a very bright light can blind and disorient an attacker in the dark.

[scrinmaster]

54. Yes, Five.

A WASR-10, a 7.62x39 Saiga, a Yugo SKS, an M44 Mosin-Nagant, and a Ruger 10/22. I might be building an AR15 soon, and I'll be getting a handgun for CCW when I turn 21.

[Aviation Pro]

62. Go with an M-4 semi-auto if you want the latest civilian version....

...of military hardware.

[scrinmaster]

69. There's a local company that sells stripped lowers

for $100, and laser engraves them for free. I'll get a rifle kit from Del-Ton, probably a 16" carbine length A3 upper, with a collapsable stock.

[qdemn7]

72. Really?

What comapny is that? Laser engraving sounds nice.

[scrinmaster]

115. Anvil Arms.

In Lakeland, Florida, less than 10 miles from my house. I would have bought a stripped lower from them at the last gun show they came to, but some guy bought all 300 lowers.

http://www.anvilarms.com/

[qdemn7]

119. Thanks for the link! N/T

[GoneOffShore]

55. No

Don't want one in the house.

[waiting for hope]

61. No - I have two small children....

and would hate having either one finding it. I know how crafty kids could be - I had found all my Dad's porn mags and I know he never knew. So, to be on the safe side, No.

[Mugu]

56. Yes I do.

More than I need, but less than I want

Regards, Mugu

[Fovea]

58. ten, actually

most of which shoot black powder. But they are not toys.

[kiteinthewind]

59. I grew up shooting muzzle loaders, competitively, with my dad, who's a collector.

He gave me one of them. Sentimental. My 18 year old has several rifles and shotguns, for hunting.

[panader0]

60. Guns have an aura of evil to me

What purpose do they have? To kill at some level, whether people or animals. WHY???

[scrinmaster]

73. My new guns have never killed anyone, or anything,

except some clods of dirt, pieces of paper, and a few cardboard boxes and milk jugs.

My M44 Mosin-Nagant might have killed a Nazi or two on the Eastern Front during World War Two, though.

[guntard]

112. Now I'm confused

My new guns have never killed anyone, or anything . . .

But everyone knows they are made for one thing only: killing!

Are you sure you're following the instructions correctly?

[DemBones DemBones]

87. Some people enjoy target shooting, which is much like darts.

You could kill someone with a dart, I'm sure, but most people just enjoy darts as a game.

A lot of gun owners are target shooters, not hunters. There is an international organization for people who use handguns for target shooting -- just a note to those who claim handguns are only used to shoot people.

[MGD]

139. People are evil and guns are frequently the only thing keeping that evil in check.

[jmg257]

155. I think mine are broken too - NO deaths yet!

Lots of reasons to own guns, while defense and freedom are certainly two, there are many viable reasons that don't involve imposing your will on someone or something.

[SteveM]

235. We all kill to eat; directly, through agents, by abstraction (agriculture) nt

[immoderate]

64. I have a Browning Hi-Power 9mm pistol.

It's beautiful, a great piece of sculpture. It's not for hunting or protection. It's for shootin'!



--IMM

[BlackVelvet04]

65. Yep....

a couple of handguns, a rifle and a shotgun.

My personal handgun is a Smith & Wesson 357 magnum.

[kineneb]

66. inherited several

from my grandparents. They all would be considered "antiques", but work perfectly fine. I consider myself a decent shot, although I haven't found a gun range nearby.

In the collection of things that don't go bang, Hubby has swords, and I have a medieval flanged mace and a spear with 8" head.

[DavidMS]

67. No...

But I did go to the NRA range with friends a year or two ago and have thought about it (mostly target shooting intrests me).

[qdemn7]

70. Own a Couple, Planning to Build One

Own a couple of handguns and planning to build my first AR clone.

[Gregorian]

71. Two shotguns. CLAY SKEET ONLY.

I don't shoot living things. And in fact, I don't shoot anything if the noise will bother anyone.

So there's almost no point in me posting this. It's like I don't own guns.

[billbuckhead]

76. Such an intense effort by the gun lobby and it's minions on DU

I guess they're looking for new host after they helped kill the Republican party.

[Irreverend IX]

79. Uh oh... he's on to us.

How did you find out, Bill? It's true, the Gun Lobby pays me $100 for every pro-gun post I make, and most of my fellow minions have similar arrangements. I heard that Slackmaster was just given a private island in the Bahamas by the president of Smith & Wesson in return for his diligence on DU.

[Gregorian]

81. Don't tell anyone- I have Charlton Heston tied up in my den.

:)

[Raskolnik]

83. $100!? I've only been getting a once-a-month foot rub from Wayne LaPierre

I feel dirty now.

[guntard]

113. Bastards!

It's true, the Gun Lobby pays me $100 for every pro-gun post I make, and most of my fellow minions have similar arrangements.

They only pay me $75! I'm getting ripped off!

[krispos42]

124. you get a C-note?

they only give me a Jackson, the cheap bastards!

[SteveM]

238. Minion? Isn't that a gear in a pifferential?

[benEzra]

271. LOL! (n/t)

[Raskolnik]

82. Progressive Democrats who own firearms = Minions of the gun lobby?

Really? That's the best you can do?

[krispos42]

125. Don't mind him, he can't reconcile liberals with guns n/t

[billbuckhead]

255. And which is the progressive gunner presidential candidate?

Draft Zell Miller?

[Raskolnik]

260. I have no idea what you think that means.

What on earth do you think a "gunner" is? Someone who owns a gun? Someone who believes people should be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, with few exceptions? Someone who frequently raises their hand in class and offers the answer to the professor's question?

Let me ask you a direct question, which I hope you will answer directly: do you think, as a general rule, U.S. citizens should have the right to possess firearms? I'm not trying to convince to own a gun, nor am I trying extol the virtues of gun ownership--I just want to understand your position a little better than your Zell Miller post allows. Thanks in advance.

[billbuckhead]

281. I don't think Americans should be able to own some types of weapons

I think all other firearms and gun ownership should be extremely well regulated. I think all guns should be registered and guns owners taxed in proportion to the costs incurred on society by guns. I think local governments should be able to ban guns entirely and sales of guns in areas that permit them should be at least as hard as getting a passport.

I think safe hunting should be tolerated within reason. I think target shooting should be permitted as long as the guns never leave the premises.

That's what I think and a majority of advanced nations and cities agree with me.

[jmg257]

282. Good thing you weren't one of the founders, your tryannical notions

are quite opposite those of life and liberty. Great thing about unalienable rights is, they can not be given up no matter how much some people (strangely) don't agree with them. That is where the true wisdom of the framers shown brightest, by articulating, enumerating, and protecting well-understood rights, even though many of them didn't think it necessary; luckily enough of the people foresaw how tryants and usurpers WOULD infringe on those rights, despite the laws to the contrary. Smart men, those - who loved freedom enough to fight for it, and to protect it for their posterity.

I would however gladly pay a tax for any damages society has incurred from any of my guns - $0 is an easy amount to come up with. It may indeed be a good idea to have criminals reimburse society for the damages THEY inflict - much more realistic settlement to justify, being they are not inanimate objects, and it can be done without infringing on a constitutionally protect natural right.

[billbuckhead]

284. The Constitution was only meant for white male landowners

The only real reasons for the revolution was to avoid commercial competition from the British (The East India company's tea was cheaper even after stamp taxes than John Hancock's) and to pre-empt the abolition of slavery that was rumbling in Parliament. BTW, aren't those freedom hating British our best ally for a century and the French and Dutch even longer?

[jmg257]

289. No doubt many of the framers were elitists, but luckily the document has come to protect

the rights of all people, regardless of race, sex, religion, political view, or financial status. At least it is supposed to - those in power now being no different, or worse, then those then. Anyway, an armed people (us) wisely compose the very institution intended to right things when it's powers are abused. It is only because the people themselves have refused to accept the responsibilties and duties placed on them that we have fallen so far. Usurption of our power has been gradual - but steady none-the-less.

Yep - Britian is indeed a great ally.

[Raskolnik]

309. Ok, that's fair enough. Now, if I disagree with you, does that make me a minion of the gun lobby?

I don't consider myself to be a "gunwhacko" or a "gun worshiper", yet apparently any reluctance to abridge a Constitutional right earns those labels from you. Maybe if you didn't assume bad motives from anyone disagreeing with you on this issue, you'd get a little more useful conversation and little less ad hominem attacks.

I'm quite curious about your statement that hunting should be "tolerated within reason"? What does that mean?

[bonito]

91. But but but I'm ACLU member as well.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

120. Oh yes.

It's all an organized effort by the ever evil "gun lobby" to take over DU and the Democratic Party. That's a wild conspiracy theory ya got going there, buddy.

[zanne]

126. There's nothing liberal about DU gun lobby.

As far as guns are concerned, DU veers sharply to the right. You just have to wonder about it. When we talk about guns, we're not on DU anymore. Fishy.

[Raskolnik]

132. Or maybe, just perhaps, this is one of those issues where liberal/conservative labels are not useful

But that certainly doesn't stop people from trying to attach them, does it?

[zanne]

137. Nice try.

DUers who espouse a gun in every hand are people who like to call themselves liberal, until it costs them something. They don't want to give up their toys for the sake of safety.

[MGD]

142. Wrong, we don't like to give up our freedoms for the sake of a false sense of security

[jmg257]

156. Of course not, 'cause they are not really related; not since

guns are alot safer then many other articles plenty of people have no problem owning - cars, pools, bathtubs, 5 gallon pails, poisons and matches come to mind.

[Irreverend IX]

178. Why do you think Dubya's minions should be the only ones with weapons? nt

[jmg257]

206. An illusion of a bit more safety is a pretty poor excuse for disabling a natural right.

Especially when the current administration shows EXACTLY what we the people have to fear if the govt or its agencies hold all the power in the nation. That's why the founders were so wise, they knew it could happen, and built in safeguards figuring the people wouldn't stand for it; they just never expected so many of us to smile and ask for more instead.

[slackmaster]

227. Who's espousing "a gun in every hand"?

:shrug:

They don't want to give up their toys for the sake of safety.

Nice false dilemma.

[Raskolnik]

230. You're taking several incorrect positions.

DUers who espouse a gun in every hand...

I don't know of ANYONE who espouses a "gun in every hand". Off the top of my head, I can think of several categories of people that have no business owning firearms: People who are not willing to properly secure their firearms; people who are not willing to educate themselves properly in the use of their firearms; people whose home situation makes firearm ownership inherently unsafe; people who use their firearms illegally or recklessly; people who simply don't want to have a firearm around. I have absolutely no desire to see firearms in the hands of those who don't want them or can't handle them. None.

...are people who like to call themselves liberal, until it costs them something.

I must point out that in this situation, it is *you* who is espousing your own "liberal" credentials only so far as you find it tasteful. *You* are the one arguing for abridging the Bill of Rights because you don't like the cost of the 2nd Amendment. *You* are the one treating the Constitution like a salad bar, picking and choosing which rights are "liberal" and which are "conservative".

They don't want to give up their toys for the sake of safety.

Can I assume, therefore, that you are willing to give up Constitutional rights in exchange for a promise of increased safety? If the President suspended the freedom of the press to prevent dissemination of classified national security info, would you happily oblige so long as you were promised increased "safety"? If we suspended the right to a jury trial to facilitate the prosecution of dangerous criminals, you'd be fine with that as long as it increased "safety"? See where I'm going with this?

I'm interested in your answers to my points. I'm sincerely not interested in a flame-war, and I'm not interested in a pissing contest to see which one of us is the more prototypical liberal. I'd simply like to hear your rationalizations for abridging a Constitutional right.

[SteveM]

241. Do you really hate us that much? Who else do you hate? nt

[guntard]

143. What is "liberal" about denying a civil right?

How is it "liberal" to insist that the people must remained disarmed before the armed representatives of the state?

On the contrary, liberalism is rooted in the notion of empowering the people against a corrupt and powerful state, with education, organization and, yes, arms.

The Democratic Party has only been in favor of gun control since the late sixties, as part of a cynical response to Republican claims they were soft on crime. There is nothing inherently "liberal" or progressive about disarming the people.

Folks need to put away their cynical electoral talking points for a minute and read up on the revolutions of 1776 and 1848 so they can understand, once again, what it means to be "liberal."

[jmg257]

158. Freedom? Liberty? Opposing tyrants? Self-determination? Sure sounds liberal to me! nt

[guitar man]

200. perhaps you haven't noticed

but there is a would-be dictator in the White House and a legion of brownshirts being whipped into a frenzy by a multi-billion dollar RW propaganda broadcasting network and the target of their hate is anyone and everyone they can hang the tag "liberal" on, namely, anyone who opposes this lunacy they are engaged in. Furthermore, the beast has been wounded of late, which may make them all the more dangerous.

Now, if the shit jumps off(which I sincerely hope it doesn't) you can choose to cower in a corner unarmed until they come to drag you off to a concentration camp. I'll be damned if I'll do the same. If that makes me not a "liberal" so be it. I'll take my liberty over some political tag any day.

[billbuckhead]

253. More like astroturf from gunwacko sites like "the High Road"

<http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=178815&page=2>

[FyurFly]

256. I am a good person!

Why do you demonize me? My firearms go from my safe to a locked case, to the trunk of my car and opened up at the range. Much fun is achieved! I Do not want to see the party fragmented because of bull-shit gun bans. You are working against the best interest of the party :(

[invader zim]

74. It's a hobby.

... I more guns than I need, but less guns than i want...

[The Doctor.]

75. Wow...

Wonder how all the RW/Freeper sorts feel that at least half of the people some few of them suggested 'should be done away with' are armed.

And I'd wager a large percent of those are also proficient.

[scarlet_owl]

77. No. I don't need one.

I had a bad experience with one, so I'm kind of scared of them.

[H2O Man]

80. Yep. n/t

[Hepburn]

84. No, I don't own a gun and have NEVER owned one ...

... and never plan to own one in the future and I have NEVER allowed anyone to bring a gun into my home ~~ unless a licensed peace officer on duty.

No guns...PERIOD.

[mitchtv]

85. Yes-several

there is something beautiful about precision instruments

[bonito]

88. Yep n/t

[lonestarnot]

90. A DUer who posts here is taking a break due to some crazy freak or freaks bugg'n him/her.

I shall not disclose whether or not I have a gun or guns, just on the-in-case.

[The River]

Used to Own Several

but then I grew up.

[Raskolnik]

94. Is it your position that one must be immature to own firearms?

Seems like a fairly bold stance to take, but I'd be interested to hear your argument.

[The River]

98. I Can Try

Maybe a better choice of words
would be: I evolved beyond the
fears that cause humans to arm themselves.
The Universe is no threat to me.

[scrinmaster]

116. When the rest of the universe evolves past the point

where they rob, rape, or murder, then I'll take your post seriously.

Not being afraid of being harmed doesn't mean you won't be harmed.

[StClone]

92. I have HAD many, none now

Outside of subsistence hunting they are way over-rated except as a profit centers. People collect guns, OK -- but shooting them for entertainment? I don't understand that. I have shot thousands of rounds and don't see any joy in it.

[slackmaster]

189. Wearing eye and ear ear protection helps

:D

[Ilsa]

93. We have two young boys in the house. No gun! I can't

take a chance on either one getting curious. And my oldest is curious and autistic. He doesn't understand consequences very well at all.

[bonito]

95. Thats being smart, I got rid of mine at that stage as well n/t

[slackmaster]

283. I owned just three rifles and no handguns when I had a child in the house

I kept them secured at all times.

Now that I am a divorced empty-nester, that restriction has been relaxed. I had to get a bigger safe a couple of years ago.

[Madspirit]

97. Texan

I grew up around guns. My dad was a collector. I learned to shoot when I was 9 or 10. I went to shooting ranges a lot when I was younger. I don't own one but have nothing against it. If the country goes much further right, I will get one. I don't want the police, military and the criminals to be the only ones with them.
Lee

[Laurier]

99. Just one rifle.

n/t

[ms liberty]

100. Yes...

Although technically the gun is mr liberty's. I know how to shoot it, although whether or not I could hit the broad side of a barn from 10 yards is questionable. I've never felt the need to own a gun, I've always had dogs inside the house. With a German Shepherd (for the brawn) and a Poodle (for the alarm)in the house, an ax, a couple of other large pointy things, and escape route, and a telephone, I never thought one was necessary. It's funny...I grew up in a large city, never had a gun. I moved to the middle of nowhere and got married, and acquired a handgun.

I'm okay with the gun because I do know how to operate it if I needed to; mr liberty took criminal justice (he originally wanted to be a state trooper) and is an excellent shot. We don't have kids, but the gun is still kept safe and locked up. And I believe in the right to bear arms, although I have no problem with commonsense regulations and restrictions.

[Straight Shooter]

101. One gun. No kids in the house.

Once in a while I do some target shooting, just to make sure the gun operates safely. Other than that, I don't think about it very much. The gun was a gift to me from a friend, back when I lived in Texas in a neighborhood that was seeing an uptick in crime. He became concerned, thus the gun.

But I used to handle guns as a kid, too, so I was rather neutral about the issue.

[Imagevision]

102. How many have had one stolen??

[slackmaster]

190. Not me, and I don't that ever happening

I keep them locked in a bigass safe.



And guarded by a vicious Attack Kitty.

[scrinmaster]

196. Nice collection.

Is that a AR50 in the back right? And what's that just to the left? An MG-34?

[slackmaster]

197. The MG-34 is a non-firing display piece

I built it up before a change in California law made it illegal to build one without mounting it on a board.

The AR-50 is quite real. I have it set up to mount on a machinegun tripod. I bought the rifle right before a change in California law made it illegal to...

Hey, about 10% of my collection was bought because of impending gun bans.

[MGD]

257. None stolen yet but that might not be true if HR 1022 passes.

H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022

[flvegan]

103. Yes, 3.

Colt .45 officer compact
Mossberg 500 12 gauge
.22 long rifle

[ThomWV]

104. Several - and a concealed carry permit too

And so do my wife and son.

[moondust]

106. Never have, never will.

Life in general is far better without a gun culture, without casual deadly force in the hands of thousands or millions of emotionally unstable and incompetent individuals, and the attendant unnecessary thousands of gun deaths and crippling injuries each year. Those who disagree should go live in Europe or Japan for a year or two to gain the experience necessary to make an informed judgement.

[Balbus]

109. It's times like this that I miss Benchley.

He'd turn a thread like this into hours and hours of entertainment.

[walldude]

117. Is he gone? In my 3 or so years here he was the only guy

to make my ignore list. Man he drove me nuts.

[slackmaster]

191. What a steaming pantload, you white sheat wearer!

Did that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

[IA_Seth]

346. "oh that is rich"

Man, good riddance!

[Lugnut]

110. My husband does

DH and our son used to hunt so we have several. Neither of the guys hunt anymore and haven't for many years. The guns, none of which have been fired in about 20 years, are all locked up in a gun cabinet and are now a valuable collection.

[GreenTea]

118. Many...just waiting for the republican police state and Ill be using them regularly against

the neocon bastards when they start to come for progressives!

[Trehuggr]

121. do you own a gun?

I own a few, mostly for target shooting.helps me relax

[CarbonDate]

127. I don't have a use for guns in my personal life.

I'll be issued a rifle when I go to Iraq. Aside from that, I can't imagine a situation where having a gun would make things better instead of worse.

[OhioChick]

128. Sure Do. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

129. No - most people don't in Britain

[donheld]

131. No I don't but I want one.

[benEzra]

133. Yes. My wife and I are two of those eee-villll "assault weapon" owners

that Sarah Brady and Bill Bennett warn you about. :P

FWIW, we keep our guns in a safe when not in use, make safety a priority, and follow the Four Rules religiously.



My wife's guns:


Her collectible Samozaryadnaya Karabina Simonova (a 1952 Tula) and her Glock 9mm



Mine:


Smith & Wesson Ladysmith 9mm



No, that is not an AK-47. It's a Romanian SAR-1 (NON-automatic) carbine with a Kobra collimator sight, comparable to a .30-30 Winchester.

[kdpeters]

134. I have two. I'm scared to touch them both!!

Don't get me wrong. I know how to use them. I just HATE them. I come from a rural small community. I was the pink sheep in many ways and one of them was the instinctual fear of weapons. (There was also that pre-school fondness for Barbara Streisand and Donna Summer, but that's another topic.) Still, while my rural family folk obsess over the never experienced intruder or assaults that I've experienced, and they obsess over my preference for inner-city neighborhoods and vacation spots -- they can't understand why I'm more comfortable with my street smarts than a weapon. So, I have two at someone's insistence or another, but thank god I have a combo-key-lock safe where I can lock them up and never have to look at them.

No way babe. I HATE weapons.

My father had a bit to do with that. He was a Vietnam combat vet and he freaked out about many things. One of those was weapons around me or my brother. He also freaked out if you surprised him from behind or crunched something really loud like ice as it "sounded like leaves" to him. He freaked out during the night a lot. So, I guess that helped me develop a nice healthy freak-out toward weapons.

[FyurFly]

138. I have plenty n/t

[Worst Username Ever]

144. Multiple

HK USP 40
Ruger 10/22 plinker
A couple black powder replicas
Great-grandaddy's 1890 break-action double-barrel scattergun ;-)

[LSK]

147. no

[ileus]

148. I have more guns than bush has told lies.

[file83]

248. Let me guess, you are Kim Jong-il?

[-..__...]

150. I used to own a 10/22 and a .38....

unfortunately I lost them in a tragic boating accident.

[madville]

153. A bunch for many different purposes

I have hunting rifles and shotguns(for deer, hogs, turkey, dove, duck, coyotes, etc), antique firearms I inherited, WWII rifles I have picked up over the years, and handguns/rifles for self-defense. I have a CWL and carry sometimes, have a few different guns I conceal carry on a regular basis, have a .45 I keep in my truck and another cheaper .45 that I throw in my boat box when I go fishing.

[bvar22]

159. NO, but I have a bunch of boxcutters,

and 12 box cutters brought the most well armed nation in the World to its knees.

/kidding, sort of


Actually, I own a .357Smith that has never been fired.

[jmg257]

198. Excellent point! 4 pistols in the right hands (pilots) could have saved thousands,

and many 100s of thousands more by averting *'s war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. Yes we do

[jmg257]

163. IF Bush and the BATF & FBI are listening - NO! Otherwise...

sure. NY already knows about my pistols, I have a few of them too.

[zanne]

164. THIS THREAD SHOULD NOT BE IN GENERAL DISCUSSION.

We have a gun forum for this subject. If we're not going to take the rules seriously, then I can start a religion thread, a north-south thread, or a Palestine-Israel thread in GD, right?

[guntard]

165. Why would you post a poll like this in the Guns forum?

Almost everyone there has a gun.

I suspect the OP was interested in polling the general membership of DU.

A shame the results aren't coming out the way you would prefer to see them.

[zanne]

166. We aren't all liberals, or conservatives

We aren't all gun-owners or anti-gun. But one thing that we're supposed to be is FAIR. We're supposed to FOLLOW THE RULES.

[-..__...]

174. You don't seem to have a problem with this thread/subject being posted in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=523696#523735

By your reasoning, it should have been posted in either the "Civil Liberties" or "Womens Rights" forums.

[NightWatcher]

167. I posted it here to get everyone's opinion and response

not just the few people that visit the gun forum. I tried to be very neutral with the post ass to not advocate on position over the other. This is a simple poll with no politics behind it. I was just curious.

If you will look at the OP, I only asked for numbers and did not want it to get too opinionated. It does not appear that anyone has taken this into an area that should get it sent to the gun forum.

[zanne]

172. No such thing as "no politics" with guns.

And I suspect you know that. It does NOT belong in General Discussion. It's one of those subjects that just divides us. It doesn't change anybody's mind, because we all already have an opinion on guns. It's a ready-made FLAME FEST, and you knew exactly what you were doing when you started it.

[NightWatcher]

175. no, I was not asking for a flame fest just numbers

and it's damn near a 50/50 right now. If you dont like, dont post.

[zanne]

177. I'll respond to you in The Gun Forum and nowhere else. nt

[Lugnut]

210. And yet you're here. n/t

[sammythecat]

222. I haven't visited the gun forum. Didn't know till now there was one.

I'll check it out.

In any case, I think this is a good post and an interesting one. I find the result interesting and I doubt you could have gotten a good sampling by posting this in the gun forum.

I think you did a good job in wording your post. You were doing what you said, looking for information. If it degenerates into a flamefest it's the fault of the flamers and not you.

Thanks for making the post. :thumbsup:

[benEzra]

273. There are actually two gun forums, in a manner of speaking...

Guns, which relates to gun policy, gun rights, and gun control: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

and Outdoor Life, which is the home for discussion of guns themselves, and the shooting sports (among other things): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php


So if you want to talk about attempts to ban civilian carbines, it would go in Guns; if you want to talk about optics for your carbine, it would go in Outdoor Life.

[sammythecat]

279. Thanks for the tip

I found guns and figured that was it.

Now I'll go check out Outdoor Life.

Nice to see them both here.

[FyurFly]

176. I don't see much flaming...

The OP posted a simple yes or no question. Please stop posting in this thread if you do not approve.

[guntard]

181. Flame fest?

The only one in this entire thread that is flaming anyone else . . . is you.

[-..__...]

184. None of my guns are registered to vote.

And I suspect you know that. It does NOT belong in General Discussion. It's one of those subjects that just divides us.

Divide whom? DU'ers, the Democratic party or all Americans?

You call it divisive. I call it a difference of opinion.

It doesn't change anybody's mind, because we all already have an opinion on guns.

I beg to differ. In the time I've been on DU reading and commenting on firearms related issues, I've
read comments from many DU'ers who have had a change of mind regarding the RKBA. Oftentimes it's a person who had previously had an aversion to firearms, but now suddenly they're asking for advice on
purchasing their first gun and asking about proper safety training.

What you probably find most upsetting is the increasing number of people here who wish the Democratic party would just stay away from, tone down and/or drop the gun control issue.

It's a ready-made FLAME FEST,

Flame fest!? Seems like the thread was going pretty civil and friendly until you had an issue with it.

and you knew exactly what you were doing when you started it.

Hello!!!!

I wasn't the one who started the thread.


Now... back to our regularly scheduled program...

I own roughly 20 firearms and enjoy them very much. B-)

[slackmaster]

236. Still waiting for that flame fest to erupt

:boring:

[SlowDownFast]

335. Ain't no body flamin' but you.

Go whine somewhere else.

[-..__...]

170. The poll would be off-topic in the Gun Dungeon.

It's reserved for discussions relating to public policy and legal issues regarding firearms.

[zanne]

173. Then I can post a poll that says "North or South--What's Better"

[Madspirit]

180. If the mods and owners

If the mods and owners didn't think it was appropriate in GD it would be closed or moved. So deal.
It's here.
Also, it hasn't seemed particularly divisive at all. People have just answered. A "North or South" poll would REQUIRE people insulting each other. This does not.
Lee

[Dorian Gray]

251. It's an interesting poll....

I don't understand your problem with it. It's not an issue.


My answer to the poll question:

No guns for me. I don't like them, an I don't need them. My husband and I are city dwellers. My father in law, however, is a cop and he has one gun at home. I'm not against them, but I just wouldn't like them in my household.

[slackmaster]

192. I think putting a poll in GD is perfectly valid

We also have a GLBT forum; putting a poll about peoples' sexual orientation there would be kind of pointless.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

312. Seems Perfectly Fine Here To Me.

It is a general question that requires the general DU population's input in order to carry any relevance to the poster whatsoever.

The poster didn't issue any opinion on guns or spark debate one way or the other, which then would make it a gun forum thread. It is just a general yes no poll which is perfectly acceptable in GD.

[Blue_In_AK]

168. We don't own one now

but we're thinking of doing a little more wilderness camping, as in getting flown out somewhere, so we'll probably end up getting one for bear protection, and would only use it if absolutely essential. I have pretty good karma with bears, but you can't be too careful.

[NightWatcher]

171. best bear protection: a jingle bell on a stick

then you cant sneak up on them. Once they hear you coming, they move away. The only time I pissed off a bear, I snuck up on a momma bear...lucky to be alive...I ran like Carl Lewis running downhill with the wind at my back.

[Blue_In_AK]

179. Oh, I know all about jingle bells...

beating on pans, singing lalalalala at the top of your lungs. I've been living here and being out since 1975 and haven't had any mishaps yet. It's mostly just my husband (a recently transplanted Texan) who's feeling a little shaky about being out somewhere with no car to jump into or whatever. If having a gun would make him feel more comfortable, I'll go with it. I doubt that he'd use it unless, as I said, the situation became really dire. We're not hunters and have no desire to kill anything (except fish).

[NightWatcher]

188. give him a box that a gun "could" fit in and inside place a jingle bell

I dont think that I'd even want to get into a shootout with a bear. I dont what would stop the bear vs. what would really piss the him off.

good luck

[Blue_In_AK]

208. Now, that's funny. :-)

[benEzra]

272. I heard about some guy who asked a gunsmith about modifications to his .38 revolver

that would make it more convenient as a backcountry bear-defense gun.

The gunsmith suggest removing the sights, bobbing the hammer, chamfering all the edges, and fitting smooth wooden grips.

Guy asks, "why?"

Gunsmith says, "So it won't hurt so much when the bear shoves it up your a$$..."

[scrinmaster]

204. You've probably heard the saying

that outdoorsmen should recognize the difference between black bear
and grizzly bear excrement: Black bear excrement is smaller and contains
lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear excrement has little bells
in it and smells like pepper spray.

[Blue_In_AK]

221. You guys are cracking me up.

My previous close encounter was with a couple of black bears, and although it was kind of scary, it didn't terrify me, as I'm sure running into a griz would. They're not the most predictable critters in the world.

[slackmaster]

185. Collector here - I have a type 03 Federal Firearms License

It allows me to acquire (and, should I ever lose my mind) dispose of curio and relic firearms through interstate commerce.

No California sales tax, no dealer markup, no Dealer's Record Of Sale fee, no 10-day wait, no pointless trigger lock. At last count, the portion of my retirement plan known as my gun collection has 53 working rifles, pistols, and shotguns plus a couple of non-firing display pieces and some works in progress.

[scrinmaster]

207. I have to wait another 16 months for mine.

There's a bunch of stuff for me to get when I turn 21, my CCW, a Glock 19, a .22lr suppressor, and my 03-FFL.

[slackmaster]

209. The 03 FFL covers the "shooting" requirement for CMP purchases

With that plus membership in a CMP-affiliated club, you can buy rifles and some parts and have them shipped right to your door.

The Civilian Marksmanship Program is the last vestige of Congress' constitutional obligation to "...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia...".

http://www.odcmp.com

[Irreverend IX]

224. What can and can't you buy with a C+R license, anyway?

Are you not allowed to use it to receive "common" firearms? I'm sure you can buy surplus rifles, etc., but could you get a SW Performance Center revolver? They're not relics, but some are rather unique as guns go. If you buy something really commonplace like a Glock, will the ATF kick in your door? Could you placate the agents by showing them that the gun in question is a limited-edition hot pink Hello Kitty Glock?

[scrinmaster]

228. Firearms that are over 50 years old, IIRC.

Check the ATF website, if it's on the list, it should be fine. Most surplus stuff like SKSs, Mosin-Nagants, K98s, M1 Garands, CZ52s, Lee-Enfields, K31s, are gonna be on the list.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/curios/index.htm

[slackmaster]

240. Proud to say I have bought at least one of everything you listed

It's a fun hobby but murder on the Visa card.

[scrinmaster]

246. Damn, I've got a lot of catching up to do.

[slackmaster]

239. State law varies, but there is some commonality

Are you not allowed to use it to receive "common" firearms?

In California I can use it to buy, and have shipped from out of state, any non-NFA long gun that is both on the federal C&R list and over 50 years old, provided that it does not qualify as a California "assault weapon" (e.g. M1 Carbine with folding stock). So as time progresses, the options expand. Now I can buy things like Russian and Romanian SKS rifles made before 1957.

Handguns are a little different. In most peoples' interpretation of the convoluted state code, I can buy C&R handguns out of state in person and bring them back to Cali, provided that I self-register them and pay a $19 fee for each one. However, there are wholesalers who ship C&R handguns to Cali residents who have type 03 FFLs.

Could you placate the agents by showing them that the gun in question is a limited-edition hot pink Hello Kitty Glock?

Some states like Texas give more leeway to "crufflers". In California the Department of Justice would take a dim view of that.

One of the best benefits is reduced prices on things. Brownell's gives 03 FFL holders the same discounts on things that they give to dealers.

[ecstatic]

193. whoa... I expected a way different response

I never bothered to click on this thread because I assumed it would be like 98% no. What a shock. :wow:

Answer: No, I don't have a gun; sometimes, however, I wish I had one and was trained on how to use it. For safety reasons of course.

[Sapere aude]

202. I wonder why you would assume we are that much different from the rest of the country?

The Dems vs guns meme is as much a myth as the Easter bunny is.

[dae]

213. There's no Easter Bunny? WWAAAAAAA!!!

BTW, handguns are my favorite. Currently shooting a Kimber CDP PRO II 45cal with a 22lr conversion kit for plinking. Made in the good ole US of A by dam Yankees in Yonkers, New York. A very sweet automatic, to hell with imports.
:toast:

[krispos42]

262. Well, it was until recently

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x136200

[truedelphi]

201. No gun - and until I am finally free of PMS, I intend to stay

That way.

I became very pro-gun once the current neo cons took over.

[Justpat]

205. Not yet. n/t

[caligirl]

211. house patroled by Giant Schnauzer, I pitty anyone trying to break in, the fool.

[jmg257]

214. Huge Shepard here, but he's a bit to big to conceal when going out! nt

[Madspirit]

216. More Democrats than ...

I think more Democrats than Republicans want guns gone but the gap just isn't as wide as the media and the politicians paint it.

I had to vote "No" because I don't own one but I totally support gun ownership and if the country moves much more to the right, I will get one.

That's the thing, Democrats are not ONE PEOPLE, undivided. We on the farthest left, want to be able to own guns because we fear some day we may need to use them against the far right. More right-wing Democrats want them for the same reasons Republicans want to be able to own them...Constitutional rights, afraid of commies...<g>...afraid of criminals, etc. So the anti-gun Democrats are the ones probably totally moderate...middle....and they are not the majority. Most of us, I would guess, lean either right or left, even in the same party. I don't know very many "true" moderates.
Lee

[krispos42]

217. Betcha the Freepers are going to have fits over this

"Holy shit, the Dims are armed after all!"

:rofl:

<edit: gotta use the plural... :banghead: >

[sammythecat]

219. Sig 239. Love it.

I'm a bleeding heart animal lover and have never had the need of a gun for protection, but that Sig would be one of the last possessions I'd ever give up. Maybe the last.

[derby378]

223. Technically, yes...

...but my wife and I have an agreement: no firearms in the house. So it's stored elsewhere.

It's an old Chicopee Arms 12-gauge shotgun that belonged to my great-grandfather. Single-load, made in the 1940s IIRC, and basically a wallhanger at this point.

In the future, who knows?

[SteveM]

280. Chicopee is a mark used by the extinct Folsom brand...

in turn bought out by Crescent, then Stevens. Depending on when the buy-out dates occurred and whether or not the bought-ought companies remained somewhat independent, your Chicopee may be older. This and scores of other "house brands" were considered good-quality low-priced utility guns. (My Stevens 311D is bone-dumb reliable and an old Crescent double I used as a kid was the same.) Yours may be worth a few hundred bucks. There is a rise in double barrels, esp. Stevens, due to the demand placed on them by Cowboy Action Shooters who employ short-barreled SxS guns for shooting sports: they cut off "standard" barrels to yield short, yet legal, lengths. Sob.

[pecwae]

225. Yes.

Snub .38 and wish the ammo wasn't so expensive so I could go to the range more often.

[Irreverend IX]

249. Visit gunbroker.com...

Sometimes you can find bulk quantities of ammo going for cheap. If you want to learn reloading, it's a few hundred dollars' investment up front but it can easily cut your ammo costs in half.

[piedmont]

226. Excellent poll question, and a sure way to dispell a powerful myth. nt

[Xela]

229. Yes, several. notxt

notxt

XEla

[Virginia Dare]

231. No, and it's a good thing too...

because I wouldn't have the foggiest notion how to use it. Some day I might try it though, I've got nothing against those who do as long as they are legal and safe with them.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

233. I'm pretty sure this poll was done before with similar results.

It simply isn't true that all, or even most Democrats are anti-gun.

[aikoaiko]

234. Over 500 votes and there is a 50 50 split. very interesting.

Good poll. Of course its not representative, but it is an interesting result.

[Alexander]

237. No, but I might some day.

[SteveM]

242. I have half a dozen, mainly for hunting.

Excellent question and it should be posted for general discussion -- this gives a good overview of opinion in DU, not just the gungeon.

[FyurFly]

254. This thread has given me renewed faith

In the Democratic party :kick:

[tbyg52]

243. You think I'm gonna tell you?

Or anybody else, especially Agent Mike..... ;)

[robinlynne]

244. why did you put the no red and the yes blue? try orange and green, ok?

[Jackeen]

245. Yes, but not enough.

Two pistols, two rifles, all auto-loaders. Both rifle types are disapproved of by the Party Leadership, and thus I've had to castrate them to comply with California law.

Currently engaged in trying to talk my Sheriff into giving me a CCW. Failing miserably. (Bay Area? Who am I kidding?)

[Township75]

247. ZOIKS SCOOB! I wasn't expecting this to be the result.

With that said, I have wondered for a bit if more Dems are gun owners than Repubs. Dems represent the lower class more, which hunts more and owns more guns than the upper class which is better represented by the Repubs.

[Jackeen]

252. Are you sure about that one?

I think that's an extremely shaky proposition. However, I'm not going to argue it as I don't want to turn this into a gungeonable thread.

[benEzra]

270. Repubs own guns at a somewhat higher rate, but Dem and indie gun owners outnumber repubs

by a small margin, accounting for just over half of gun owners.

It's also important to remember that only 1 in 5 gun owners is an active hunter; the vast majority of us (80%) are nonhunters, which is why fighting to ban the lawful ownership of nonhunting style guns is such a bad idea politically.

[billbuckhead]

288. And proof or are just making stuff up again? What poll? What facts?

It just sounds truthy to you gun guys. Just like gun lobby and it's minions endlessly propagandize about evil perps and gangbangers when in fact the truth is that far more wives and girlfriends are killed every year by guns than the around 200 justifiable homicides with guns every year.

[benEzra]

308. From one of your fellow Third Way'ers, bill...

And proof or are just making stuff up again? What poll? What facts?

It just sounds truthy to you gun guys.

From one of your fellow Third Way'ers, bill, and a gun-control activist to boot:

http://dispatch.third-way.com/articles/2006/01/25/taking-back-the-second-amendment

There probably is no political issue that progressives handle more poorly than guns. Our problems begin with some basic misconceptions about who owns guns and why they own them.

So let’s get a few facts on the table:

* Nearly half of the voting population of America has a gun in the home. That’s right — half.

* And these aren’t hunters. The vast majority of gun owners possess firearms for self-protection, not sport.

* Gun owners don’t live in trailer parks. In fact, gun owners are generally wealthier and more educated than the rest of the population.

* They are not right-wingers. Politically, gun owners are only slightly more conservative than non-gun owners. Their views on hot-button culture issues like abortion and gay marriage are just a tick to the right of all other voters. They attend religious services at the same rate as non-gun owners.

If you want more specific numbers, they are available. I've seen the ~50% of gun owners are Dems/indies stat in a few places, but the most recent data would be from the Nov. 2005 Gallup poll "Gun Ownership and Use in America." They work it from the front end, e.g. percentage of registered repubs, Dems, and indies who own a gun, but I have also seen it worked from the back end, i.e. what percentage of gun owners report repub, Dem, or indie affiliation.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=20098

Registration is required at the Gallup site, but a summary is available at various places on the 'net, such as http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article2844.html

According to those figures, Repubs are slightly more likely to personally own a gun than indies and Dems (41%, 27%, 23%), but if you apply those percentages to the number of registered repubs, Dems, and indies nationwide, Dems and indies together equal or slightly outnumber repubs.

Editor and Publisher reported on a Gallup poll in early 2005 and gave slightly higher numbers,

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000745373
Press Image of Gun Owner Not Far Off, Except for All Those Women

By E&P Staff

Published: January 04, 2005 10:00 AM ET

NEW YORK A Gallup Poll released this morning reveals that the average American owns 1.7 guns, with the average gun owner possessing 4.4 of them. The press is quick to promote stereotypes of the average gun owner as a white male, most likely Republican, living in a rural area or the South. But how well does reality match the image? The new Gallup Poll shows that the stereotype is not that far off, but with several twists.

For one thing, one out of three American women say they own a gun. That's not much below the overall mark of 40% for all American adults.

As for other elements of the stereotype: More than half (53%) of Republicans own guns, compared with 36% of political independents and 31% of Democrats. Whites are more likely than nonwhites to own (44% and 24%, respectively), according to Gallup.

[billbuckhead]

314. There would have to be twice as many Dems as Republicans to have more guns

41% Pukes vs 23% Dems in your own quote. There aren't twice as many Dems. 23% is closer to the number of black Republicans than to any kind of majority.

[ellisonz]

258. I have a howitzer.

[FyurFly]

301. I shot a cannon once!

My cousins potato cannon anyway :smoke:

[JohnnyRingo]

259. I've never slept in a house w/out a gun

I'll never shoot anyone, but I grew up with guns and can't imagine a life w/out one nearby.

Guns will someday be the last tool of the class oppressed.

[sanskritwarrior]

263. Yes I'm a Texan

I have 6 pieces right now.

My son just had a birthday and got his second gun, he has learned the rules and treats it responsibly.

My daughter turned 13 in Janaury and that means first gun time in my house. She got herself a nice beretta 9mm, I let her pick it out and took her to the range.........

they grow up so fast......I remember when all they had to play with were my hunting knives, now they are in middle school.........

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

264. Yeah, a few, old and new

some of my favorites at the range
Swede Mauser from 1900
Remington 40x .22 from the late 1950's
AR15 from 2001.

All are nice shooters.

[Thothmes]

266. Guns owned

1 1903A1 Remington mfr, 1 MI Garand, Springfield Arsenal mfr, 1 M1 Carbine, Winchester mfr. 1 1853 pattern Enfield, Parker/Hale mfr. 1 45ACP, Colt mfr. 1 model 10 Smith&Wesson .38 cal.

[Bridget Burke]

267. When "Concealed Carry" was being debated in Texas....

Molly Ivins suggested that those who "carry" wear propeller beanies, for identification.

[loudsue]

268. Sure do!!

:kick:

[agtcovert]

269. Yes, I do. n/t

[benEzra]

275. Looks like a lot of DU'ers own guns slated for bans...

I see Beretta and Sig pistols, M1 carbines, M1 Garands, a Remington 870 with an extended mag tube, a Browning Hi-Power, a Mossberg 500, an HK UPS, a few AR-15's, several SKS's, and a few civvie AK lookalikes.

Not sure how many are aware of this, but there is a bill in Congress (H.R.1022) to ban all shotguns holding more than 5 shells, all rifles and pistols holding more than 10 rounds, all self-loading rifles and shotguns with protruding handgrips or thumbhole stocks, as well as the M1 carbine, Ruger mini-14, and any self-loading rifle or shotgun with a military heritage (M1 Garand, SKS, Springfield M1A, etc.).

I personally don't think it will go anywhere, with only 30 cosponsors (there's no WAY the party leadership wants a repeat of the 1994 debacle), but the MSM wants more gun bans badly, and there are those in Congress who follow that drumbeat.

FWIW, all rifles combined account for less than 3% of homicides in any given year, per the FBI; as a for-instance, Maryland had 551 murders in '05, with all rifles combined accounting for only 4. Civilian rifles, of whatever style, aren't a crime problem and never have been.

[tenshi816]

276. I used to have a gun,

a .357 Smith & Wesson that had belonged to my ex. I used to tell myself that it made me feel safer because I was a young mother living alone with my child and needed to protect us. I finally had to admit that (a) I had no idea how to shoot a gun, and (b) even if I did, the fact that I kept it in the top of my closet, unloaded, in a shoebox that I would be lucky to find in a hurry if I needed it, meant that if an intruder entered the house the gun was unlikely to do us much good.

I got rid of the gun and got better locks for the doors and windows and a couple of Dobermans instead.

I've lived in the UK for nearly 21 years now, where handguns are virtually unheard of for the average person, although possession of firearms is way up with the gangs. Whatever problems start in the US usually make their way to Britain about 10 years later, it seems, so it's going to be interesting to see how law enforcement here deals with the ever-growing problem of gun-related crimes when as a rule the police themselves don't even carry guns.

[slackmaster]

278. Like any other weapon, a gun is useless for defense unless you practice

I wish the Brits the best of luck dealing with rising gang violence.

...it's going to be interesting to see how law enforcement here deals with the ever-growing problem of gun-related crimes when as a rule the police themselves don't even carry guns.

If history is a guide, the UK will simply ban guns, again.

Or perhaps the PM's initiative to monitor all children for signs of criminality will pay off.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2785778&mesg_id=2785778

[aikoaiko]

277. Over 600 votes and still 50-50. Nice.

Great polling thread about a topic that often causes flame wars here at DU.

[billbuckhead]

285. Yeah, 600 gun owners out of over 100,000 DUer's

Most people avoid gun debates with gunners like a steaming pile of crap on the sidewalk.

[Elwood P Dowd]

290. It's not a debate, it's a poll. You don't have to post or debate.

I know tons of democrats that own guns, so the 50% figure doesn't surprise me.

[billbuckhead]

295. Tons?

What does that mean?

[Elwood P Dowd]

298. Hundreds...

and most are overweight.

I only own 5 guns. Some were purchased and some inherited. One of them was manufactured in 1902 and originally purchased by my grandfather, so it's been in the family 105 years.

[FyurFly]

300. I have an Iver's Johnson .410

That My Granddad traded for two butter churns during the great depression. My dad and his three brothers put much needed food on the table (squirrels and rabbits) with that little shotty. Every male son from from my dad and his brothers took their first game with this gun. Now its at home in my safe :)

[Elwood P Dowd]

302. I know where you're coming from.

My grandfather was a poor sharecropper. He had to have that gun for food. The only meat the family had came from hunting and fishing. Without the game, they were left with homemade bread and maybe some beans.

[DemBones DemBones]

338. Damn, I meant to mention that in my post! And of course

the reason for having a poll in GD instead of the GunForum is that most people in the Gun Forum are gun owners, but lots of us who own guns rarely visit the Gun Forum.

[aikoaiko]

292. I can see why you would want to start flaming in this thread.

You know as I know, its an impressive response rate on the subject. No one is claiming that its representative, but it is informative.

Of course you're already on record accusing (insulting) the Democratic gun owners responding in this thread of just part of some gun lobby.

Go ahead, keep trying to stir up shit while the grownups have an interesting conversation.

You know, as I know, you hate and fear the results of this poll.

[billbuckhead]

297. That's why not a single leading Dem POTUS candidate has come against the AWB

Why didn't all these NRA Dems run Zell Miller when they had a chance? Why didn't NRA endorsed Dean win in 2004?

The real reasons? There aren't very many Dem gun worshipers

[aikoaiko]

299. thanks for kicking the thread to top.

;)

[billbuckhead]

303. And the gun free side just went up in this poll

:+

[FyurFly]

304. I feel sorry for you Bill

To go through life afraid of a common tool. Guns will never go away, but hey its your right to fear and rally against them.

[billbuckhead]

313. Guns have virtually gone away in many advanced nations

ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United States.
---------------------snip--------------------
<http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html>

[SJames]

318. People are the problem

Blaming a tool for the actions of the owner/operator is immature . Doctors kill more people per year than firearms and autos. Where's the CDC putting that info at ???

Face facts , people are going to kill no matter what . Your choice is 1. Be a victim . 2 Be a victor .

For those 15-19, increases in firearm-related homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury deaths were especially great.

Why ??? Ill tell ya why . MTV , no parental guidance , crummy public schooling . Kids are being raised not to fear punishment for their actions .

Just my .02 ...................Carry on

[SteveM]

310. What do you think of Gov. Bill Richardson? (nt)

[FyurFly]

293. Bill I am sorry you fear firearms.

That said, many good and responsible people own and enjoy firearms. If someone you know or love was injured or killed due to careless or criminal conduct, than I can completely understand your not wanting to be around them. Please do not infringe on my 2A rights.

[billbuckhead]

294. FIREARMS AREN'T TO BE FEARED? What world do you live in?

Especially with the USA's high death rate from guns, almost as much as car accidents only with far far fewer opportunities.

[guntard]

306. There are about fifty firearms within twenty feet of where I'm sitting

Oddly enough, I'm not afraid of them at all.

Yet you, 3,000 miles away, seemed pretty frightened of them.

Which of us is the least rational on this subject? Discuss. Show your work.

[SteveM]

311. The real one, Bill. However, there are some people I fear.

But I get 8+ hours of sleep a night -- and my gun safe is three feet from my bed. By the way, I am more fearful of drivers and their cars when I have to cross a damned street; in fact, when I am in the middle of a six-lane and trotting fast as I can, the thought of someone with a gun never crosses my mind.

[DemBones DemBones]

337. "!00,000" is the number of people who have EVER registered here, not people who are here NOW.

Many were trolls, freepers, or sock puppets who were banned. Many others left because they were told they couldn't be a gun owner or a Christian or a pro-lifer or a Southerner and be a liberal/progressive Democrat.

Those of us who have stayed are sick of all that crap. Democrats are not stamped out with cookie cutters and don't have to agree about every single issue. YOU live in the South yourself so you should know that stereotypes are never accurate. Then again, you may well believe that all native Southerners are racists, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Among the people I know, the most racist ones are from New York and New England, not the native Southerners. And I saw racism in action when I lived up North.

I usually avoid debates with anti-gun-nuts "like a steaming pile of crap on the sidewalk" but I'm making an exception just for you.

You've always been very anti-gun and that's your right. But you don't get to tell everyone else that they can't own guns. Guns are legal and many of us use them only for target shooting, though we would also use them as protection against someone who invaded our homes, cars, businesses. The old NRA slogan is true: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." And there are plenty of outlaws out there. We had a truck broken into years ago, while it was parked on a public street in Birmingham in broad daylight, and several hundred dollars' worth of property was stolen.

Neither of us would want to shoot someone but gun owners rarely have to fire a weapon to dissuade robbers and other criminals. There's an old story about a Quaker who was awakened by noises made by an invader in his home.

The Quaker grabbed his shotgun and confronted the intruder, saying "Friend, I would not harm Thee for the world, but Thou art standing where I am about to shoot."

We live out in the country and friends who are police officers have told us there's no way in hell that police could respond to a home invasion call out here in time to protect us. They said everybody out here ought to have guns. We do, and we always will.

You needn't bother to reply because I'm not going to "debate" this with you. You oppose the 2nd Amendment, I don't. Not much room for debate there.

[ikojo]

286. I don't have a gun but I do have a

lightsaber.

[marmar]

287. Nope. Never have....

Never will.

[Hosnon]

291. Nope...but I'm pretty young. Probably will in the next five years. NT.

[Bucky]

296. Yes, but I only use it for turning off the TV at night.

No, wait. I don't have a TV. Guess I don't have a gun either.

[ContraBass Black]

305. There I go unbalancing things.

It was 327 no and 327 yes before I voted no.

[Paladin]

307. Yes, I Own Guns. And I'm For Rigorous Firearms Control

If all gun owners were like me (well educated, law abiding, mentally sound, safety conscious), I would oppose gun control. But clearly, that's not the way it is. A brief glance at your morning paper gives solid proof that way too many jerks have easy access to guns in this country; it's a real and tragic problem. Want a gun to protect yourself from the Bad Guys? At bare minimum, you ought to provide ongoing, confirmed proof that you're proficient in its use, and that you're not a sociopath. If you think that's unreasonable, you're part of the problem....

[SJames]

316. Glad your better than the rest of the world

I own a couple , and carry every day . Why ............cause I can .



Some friends toys...............

[Irreverend IX]

329. Are those all M1A mags?

That's a hell of a collection. You could buy two or three more Glocks with the proceeds from selling the mags alone!

[krispos42]

332. Nice M1A's. Did you hear that CMP is starting to sell M1 carbines?

$495 plus shipping and handling. WWII issue. I'm thinking about it. It would be my first 'assault weapon'. :-)

[SJames]

340. yup

Thats only my range mags ................1/3 of total .

[krispos42]

345. Something tells me you'd be an interesting addition to the Gungeon

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

Welcome to the DU! :hi:

[SJames]

347. Thanks for the welcome krispos42

We shall see , Im a basic one issue voter . They ( whoever they maybe ) want my guns , it wont be easy or fun .

How I roll 24/7 .................

[derby378]

348. A couple of sites you might be interested in

Amendment II Democrats
Pro-Gun Progressive

[SJames]

356. Thanks

Will be sure to visit ...............

[krispos42]

351. That should do it, I would think.

Customized Glock, nice. Good-looking M4 as well. My roomie has one made by DPMS.

What's that black gadget partially covered by your range bag? Stun gun?

[SJames]

355. Coyote call's

Ar's not just for Homeland Defense !!:)

[krispos42]

407. You don't have to convince me! n/t

[Paladin]

392. Be Careful What You Wish For, krispos42

Your new buddy SJames took your advice and showed up down in the DU Gungeon---in your thread on the supposed birth of banning assault weapons policy, as a matter of fact. In post #149, he claims that Democratic Senator Thomas Dodd based the 1968 Gun Control Act on the gun laws of Nazi Germany, circa 1938.

Like you said, I think SJames is going to fit right in to the Gungeon. You guys enjoy one another's company.....

[piedmont]

400. Instead of dragging up stuff from another post on another board...

why don't you offer a rebuttal to his post over THERE?

[SJames]

402. Please prove me wrong .

Paladin you have the floor , sir.

[Paladin]

412. Suspicions Confirmed

By way of checking out your nasty little Democrats Are Nazis When It Comes To Gun Control effort, I Googled "1968 GCA, 1938 Nazi Gun Laws." And what do you know---this little tale is being tossed about by the most extreme, far right gun propagandists there are, notably the Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). These groups may impress people like you and Ted Nugent, but they don't do much for those of us out here in the Real World.

If you can document this supposed GCA/Nazi linkage with some credible, believable sources, I might carry this exchange on a little further; my bet is that you've got nothing of the sort---if credible sources existed, they would have turned up in the DU Gungeon long before now. I think you're just another gun radical, intent on making Democrats look as bad as possible, and I think you should be treated accordingly.....

[SJames]

424. So unless the research is done by some one you approve of it's BS ???

Not JPFO .........
http://usa-the-republic.com/jurisprudentia/firearms_1.html

The 1938 Nazi
Weapons Law -- which the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-Conn)
had the Library of Congress translate as the basis for the 1968
Gun Control Act which he authored .

And you deny this FACT ???? No matter who did the research ???

HHHMMMM read on ..............

Nazi WEAPONS LAW
18 March, 1938

(1) Handguns may only be received or transferred in exchange for a firearms acquisition permit.
(2) The firearms acquisition permit is valid for a year, counting from the date of issue.
(3) (1) does not apply to:
a) The transfer of handguns to a police-approved shooting range for use only at the shooting range;
b) the direct exportation of handguns abroad
c) the delivery of handguns through professional exporters, specifically shipping agents, freight forwarders, ship charterers, the German postal system, or German railways;
d) acquisition in consequence of a death. The GCA does not currently require a firearms license to buy, sell, or own a handgun, unless for commercial purposes. However, bills (most notably SB. 2099 and SB. 2525) are currently sitting in Congressional committee that would add provisions to the GCA that would require just such a license.
§ 10

(1) Firearms, professionally sold or otherwise transferred, must bear the manufacturer's name and consecutive manufacturer's number (serial number -trans.).
(2) Firearms which do not have the name of a domestic manufacturer, must bear - besides the prescribed information in (1) - the company name or the registered trademark of a domestic dealer.
§ 10

(i) Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify, by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the receiver or frame of the weapon, in such manner as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer.
§ 12

A firearms acquisition permit is not needed by:
1. Officials of the central government, the states, the German Central Bank, and the German Super-highways (Autobahnen) Company;
2. Communities (united communities) whom the highest government authority has permitted acquisition without an acquisition permit;
3. Departments of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and their offices as specified by the Führer's deputy;
4. Air Defense Departments and the National Socialist German Workers' Party and their offices as specified by the Minister for Air Travel;
5. Departments of the Technical Emergency Services as designated by the Minister of the Interior;
6. the business owners designated in §§ 3, 7 who can produce an official certificate.
7. Holders of firearms carry permits and annual hunting permits.
§ 12

(a)(1) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any Department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.
(2) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with respect to
(A) the shipment or receipt of firearms or ammunition when sold or issued by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to section 4306 of title 10, and
(B) the transportation of any such firearm or ammunition carried out carried out to enable a person, who lawfully received such a firearm or ammunition from the Secretary of the Army, to engage in military training or in competitions.
(3) Unless otherwise prohibited by this chapter or any other Federal law, a licensed importer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, may ship to a member of the United States Armed Forces on active duty outside the United States or to clubs, recognized by the Department of Defense, whose entire membership is composed of such members, and such members or clubs may receive a firearm or ammunition determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and intended for the personal use of such member or club.
§ 25

(1) It is forbidden to manufacture, to deal in, to carry, to possess, and to import:
1. Firearms which fold-down, break-down, are collapsible, or are speedily dismantled - beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities - or which may, in similar ways, be concealed in canes, umbrellas, or pipes.
2. Firearms equipped with a sound-suppressing device, or with a searchlight; the prohibition also extends to the specified devices themselves;
3. Cartridges of .22 caliber (= 5.6mm), short, long, or long-for-rifles (small-caliber cartridges) with hollow-point bullets (hollow cavity or notched bullets).
(2) The manufacture, dealing in, and possession of firearms, devices, and cartridges designated in (1) may be permitted for exportation.
§ 25
§ 922 Unlawful acts

(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply to--
(A) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition for the use of the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;
(B) the manufacture of such ammunition for the purpose of exportation; and
(C) any manufacture or importation for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary; and
(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply to--
(A) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for use of the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;
(B) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for the purpose of exportation;
(C) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for the purposes of testing or experimenting authorized by the Secretary.
§ 32

Provincial limitations on the manufacture, trade, acquisition, and carrying or possession of truncheons or stabbing weapons - with valid provisions for exceptions for Gypsies or persons itinerant like Gypsies - will become invalid no more than six months from the effective date of this Law.

U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968
§ 11

(1) Handguns may only be received or transferred in exchange for a firearms acquisition permit.
(2) The firearms acquisition permit is valid for a year, counting from the date of issue.
(3) (1) does not apply to:
a) The transfer of handguns to a police-approved shooting range for use only at the shooting range;
b) the direct exportation of handguns abroad
c) the delivery of handguns through professional exporters, specifically shipping agents, freight forwarders, ship charterers, the German postal system, or German railways;
d) acquisition in consequence of a death. The GCA does not currently require a firearms license to buy, sell, or own a handgun, unless for commercial purposes. However, bills (most notably SB. 2099 and SB. 2525) are currently sitting in Congressional committee that would add provisions to the GCA that would require just such a license.
§ 10

(1) Firearms, professionally sold or otherwise transferred, must bear the manufacturer's name and consecutive manufacturer's number (serial number -trans.).
(2) Firearms which do not have the name of a domestic manufacturer, must bear - besides the prescribed information in (1) - the company name or the registered trademark of a domestic dealer.
§ 10

(i) Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify, by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the receiver or frame of the weapon, in such manner as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer.
§ 12

A firearms acquisition permit is not needed by:
1. Officials of the central government, the states, the German Central Bank, and the German Super-highways (Autobahnen) Company;
2. Communities (united communities) whom the highest government authority has permitted acquisition without an acquisition permit;
3. Departments of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and their offices as specified by the Führer's deputy;
4. Air Defense Departments and the National Socialist German Workers' Party and their offices as specified by the Minister for Air Travel;
5. Departments of the Technical Emergency Services as designated by the Minister of the Interior;
6. the business owners designated in §§ 3, 7 who can produce an official certificate.
7. Holders of firearms carry permits and annual hunting permits.
§ 12

(a)(1) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with respect to the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation of any firearm or ammunition imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any Department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.
(2) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with respect to
(A) the shipment or receipt of firearms or ammunition when sold or issued by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to section 4306 of title 10, and
(B) the transportation of any such firearm or ammunition carried out carried out to enable a person, who lawfully received such a firearm or ammunition from the Secretary of the Army, to engage in military training or in competitions.
(3) Unless otherwise prohibited by this chapter or any other Federal law, a licensed importer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, may ship to a member of the United States Armed Forces on active duty outside the United States or to clubs, recognized by the Department of Defense, whose entire membership is composed of such members, and such members or clubs may receive a firearm or ammunition determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and intended for the personal use of such member or club.
§ 25

(1) It is forbidden to manufacture, to deal in, to carry, to possess, and to import:
1. Firearms which fold-down, break-down, are collapsible, or are speedily dismantled - beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities - or which may, in similar ways, be concealed in canes, umbrellas, or pipes.
2. Firearms equipped with a sound-suppressing device, or with a searchlight; the prohibition also extends to the specified devices themselves;
3. Cartridges of .22 caliber (= 5.6mm), short, long, or long-for-rifles (small-caliber cartridges) with hollow-point bullets (hollow cavity or notched bullets).
(2) The manufacture, dealing in, and possession of firearms, devices, and cartridges designated in (1) may be permitted for exportation.
§ 25
§ 922 Unlawful acts

(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply to--
(A) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition for the use of the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;
(B) the manufacture of such ammunition for the purpose of exportation; and
(C) any manufacture or importation for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary; and
(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, except that this paragraph shall not apply to--
(A) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for use of the United States or any department or agency thereof or any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;
(B) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for the purpose of exportation;
(C) the sale or delivery by a manufacturer or importer of such ammunition for the purposes of testing or experimenting authorized by the Secretary.
§ 32

Provincial limitations on the manufacture, trade, acquisition, and carrying or possession of truncheons or stabbing weapons - with valid provisions for exceptions for Gypsies or persons itinerant like Gypsies - will become invalid no more than six months from the effective date of this Law.
§ 32
§ 927. Effect on State law

No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.

These are but a few paragraphs, chosen at random. The similarities of the two texts - right down to the order and content of the paragraphs cannot be ignored.

The late senator Thomas J. Dodd was a senior member of the U.S. team which worked to prosecute Nazi war criminals at the Nurnberg trials in 1945 - 1946. Evidence, in the form of correspondence between the late Sen. Dodd and the Library of Congress indicates that the senator had, in his possession, a copy, in German, of the original Nazi weapons laws of 1938 prior to the drafting of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Quote / Quote .........................That will leave a mark !!

[Paladin]

390. Do Me A Huge Favor

You and your "friend" stay the fuck out of my neighborhood......

[qdemn7]

322. If All Gun Owners Were Like You...

Your attitude reeks of elitism, snobbery and classism. This type of attitude is why Democrats have lost so much of the blue-collar working class people in the South and the West. The attitude says that if you're not "educated", that is white-collar, you're a second-class citizen. Democrats have gotten to the point they only care about white-collar professionals in big urban areas in the Northeast, Great Lakes and West Coast. All this talk about the "working man and woman" is just lip service. Unless by "working men and women" you're talking about Union members who give $$$$$ to Democratic candidates through Union slush funds.

And yes, I think you are unreasonable.

[SJames]

341. qdemn7

Found the nail and sunk it with one hit . Good job !!!

[derby378]

353. All I know is, if I ever wind up with a Tantal rifle...

...then neither billbuckhead nor anyone else has to worry about that gun. I'd rather such a weapon be in my hands than in the hands of some boy-soldier thug in Sierra Leone or a two-bit gangster wannabe in a Mexican border town.

[Zookeeper]

361. So, "law-abiding, mentally sound, and safety concious"

as a requirement to own guns is discriminatory against working class, blue-collar people in the South and West? Wow! :wow:

Enjoy your stay! :hi:

[piedmont]

363. Did you purposefully omit "well educated?" That was the offensive part of the post. nt

[Zookeeper]

365. He said HE was well-educated.

I think you were cherry-picking to base your argument on that phrase.

[piedmont]

368. Do you want to review what he posted?

"If all gun owners were like me (well educated, law abiding, mentally sound, safety conscious), I would oppose gun control."

"Well-educated" was part of his requirement in order for him to oppose gun control. It certainly is appropriate to call him on it. You are the one who was cherry-picking in the post I responded to.

[Zookeeper]

384. You're right. "Well-educated" is a questionable...

requirement. But, being law-abiding, mentally sound and safety conscious is a reasonable standard for gun ownership.

[piedmont]

397. ok

"But, being law-abiding, mentally sound and safety conscious is a reasonable standard for gun ownership."
Yes, it is. It's pretty much the standard in most states.

[Zookeeper]

403. Unless you buy from a gun show....

flea market or private seller from what I gather. (I'm going on hearsay.)

[piedmont]

408. It's still illegal to possess a gun if you don't meet those criteria.

And I agree, private sellers should have the ability to run background checks.

[SJames]

375. Yes it is .....................

law-abiding, mentally sound, and safety concious

All 3 question are on the 4473 you have to fill out to buy a weapon . Lying on a 4473 is 5 years in the joint .

[qdemn7]

382. Cherry Picking? Hardly...

Looks like YOU are the one doing cherry picking! I specifically addressed his claim that only "educated" people should own guns. That means if you don't have an "education" which means at least a Bachelors degree, then you have no business owning guns. I noticed you ignored that part. Your post reeks of the same elitism and classism.

I imagine most people in the South and West know one hell of a lot more about being safety conscious than people in large urban areas who have never handled a gun.

Next time Democrats loose another election in the South and West, you won't have to ask why, you can just look in the mirror for your answer.

[Zookeeper]

385. You know nothing about me...

and I doubt that you read my OP.

I can imagine as many negative things about "people in the South and West" (especially because I'm very familiar with both areas) as as you can about "people in large urban areas who have never handled a gun." What does that prove?

You are right about the "educated" part. But, being law-abiding, sane and safety conscious is an entirely reasonable requirement.

Now...if the Democratic party loses in the South and West because Southerners and Westerners value assault weapons more than health care, education, civil liberties, a clean environment and being paid a living wage....well, then this country is beyond repair!

[qdemn7]

389. Democratic Party Losses

Now...if the Democratic party loses in the South and West because Southerners and Westerners value assault weapons more than health care, education, civil liberties, a clean environment and being paid a living wage....well, then this country is beyond repair!

I think the feel-good '94 AWB, then Congress going Republican, then Gore loosing his own home state of Tennessee in 2000, shows just how much the American people care about their 2nd Amendment Rights. And the 2nd Amendment IS a civil liberty.

Let me put it to you very simply. If you want Democrats to be the party in power, if you want: health care, education, civil liberties, a clean environment and being paid a living wage....then Democrats are going to have to give up on Gun Control. Period. No ifs, buts or maybes.

[Zookeeper]

405. Frankly, I don't waste any energy on gun control issues...

because the NRA and toy-obsessed "boys" have a strangle-hold on our elected representatives. But, that doesn't mean that I think it's right.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the "right" to own an assault rifle, btw. Assault weapon advocates need to stop being disingenious and adopt some common sense.

[Paladin]

394. And Just Where Did I Specify a Bachelor's Degree Requirement

I'm not going to waste time discussing the "well educated" thing; if it upsets you, that makes my day.....

[Paladin]

393. Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth

Many thanks......

[Paladin]

395. Brain-Dead, Guncentric Democrat-Bashing

Take it down to the Gun Dungeon, where you'll have a more receptive audience.

And enjoy your stay, short though it may be. I'll wear that "unreasonable" label from you as a badge of honor....

[Zookeeper]

358. Well said!!!

:thumbsup:

[aikoaiko]

315. we break 700?

[maxsolomon]

317. no gun, but i belong to a well-regulated militia

just like every responsible american gun owner.

[LaPera]

320. 'Happiness is a warm gun'

shoot, shoot, bang, bang!

[westerebus]

321. Not nearly as many as I used to own.

Down to 4 .38s; a colt diamondback 4",S&W air weight 3",and 2 taurus light weight CIAs. A .357 S&W trooper 4" and a custom compensated springfield .45. Then there's a .308 heavy barreled scoped "varmit" rifle. An two 12 ga. pumps,Mossberg and remington with extended mags. Barely enough to make a ruckus.
:evilgrin:

[ManiacJoe]

326. Oh, my!

> a .308 heavy barreled scoped "varmit" rifle

They must grow those varmits HUGE in your neighborhood!
:evilgrin:

[westerebus]

409. You never know when

you might have to reach out and touch some...:evilgrin:

[Dukkha]

323. just one my beloved M4 Carbine

if you have to have only one that is it IMO. it's banned in my city now unfortunately so I can't get more unless I keep it stores outside city limits which is about 100 yards from my house.

[Kerrytravelers]

324. No. I have no idea how to shoot one. If I bought one, I'd wind up shooting myself in the foot.

I was never good at Duck Hunt on my old Nintendo system, either.

[SJames]

342. No ya wouldn't !!

You should go to a range and rent one ( .22 to start ) . Ask about some instruction . You will enjoy it !!!

[XOKCowboy]

325. My grandfather's Winchester 1894...

The same rifle he let me fire as a reward for learning how to handle his 22 and 410 responsibly. That was over 45 yrs ago when I was 7 and it will be in my family forever.

How do you bring down gun violence while at the same time protecting responsible gun ownership? Tough question but I don't think that banning all guns will ever be the answer.

[Irreverend IX]

328. Ending the drug war would be a good start...

An estimated 65-85% of all violent crime is linked to the drug trade. But pols have decided it's easier to go after law-abiding gun owners.

[XOKCowboy]

330. I hear ya.

Prohibition has never been an effective solution to any problem. If we could only stop declaring WAR on obscure concepts and use that money to fund programs like Head Start, LIHEAP, universal health care, Planned Parenthood and education in general we would be on the right track to slowing violent crime. Give people a choice and a chance. Cliche but true.

[piedmont]

377. amen. nt

[Erika]

327. We have 3 rifles and 2 handguns

Everyone does in the NorthWest.

[Zookeeper]

331. Funny you should ask...

I'm thinking about signing up for a shooting clinic through the MN DNR, just because I think I should know how to use, at least, a shotgun. I've increasingly felt this way since watching the Rethugs erode our civil liberties. I'm also considering trying some hunting (Fowl.)

HOWEVER, this whole, "I need 20 guns and an AK-47 to protect myself from muggers and burglars" is just bizarre. I'm female, I've lived, worked, walked in big cities and managed to defend myself from harassers and attackers without a firearm. I really, really don't understand why some men are so paranoid and afraid they can't defend themselves. Especially, the ones who are 6 ft tall and weigh 200 lbs.

I understand owning a gun for hunting, and maybe for personal protection if absolutely necessary and not just an excuse to indulge "Dirty Harry" fantasies. Family heirlooms, antique guns...whatever. But, I fully support a ban on assault rifles. And I feel a little nauseous reading about some of these gun obsessions. (I ventured into the Outdoor forum looking for threads on fishing and mostly what I found was bragging and drooling over weapons of destruction.)

Tools are great, but the best ones don't kill people.

On edit: 'Sorry to do this to anyone who wants to flame me, but I'm off to bed. :hi:

[scrinmaster]

333. I'm 6'2" and 240, and I'm still going to get a concealed carry permit when I turn 21.

I'd rather shoot a mugger than get cut, stabbed, or shot. Plenty of people have been beaten to death, in fact, in many states more people are punched or kicked to death than killed with rifles and shotguns, including "assault rifles".

You complain about the Republicans eroding your civil liberties, and then two paragraphs later you advocate banning an entire class of firearms that are almost never used in crimes.

[Zookeeper]

354. Have you ever been attacked and unable to defend

yourself without a gun? The idea of a 6'2", 240 lbs, 21 year old man walking around with a concealed weapon is almost enough to make ME start carrying a gun! Is the place in which you live, that dangerous? If it is, why don't you move?

Being hyper-alert, avoiding trouble, knowing basic self-defense, carrying tear gas, walking strong, and going into crazy offensive mode when hassled worked for me, a 115 lbs (at the time) young female. Perhaps, as a large man, you aren't accustomed to having to be in hyper-alert, self-defense mode when you are in public (because you don't have the same risk of being attacked as a female). However, if you are frightened, you may want to try that and see if it works for you, before carrying a gun.

Yes, I'm unhappy about Republicans' eroding my civil liberties. That has absolutely nothing to do with banning assault rifles. There is NO reason to use or own an assault rifle outside of the military. Even if someone likes 'em and thinks they're really cool. As adults, we are obligated to think of the higher good and not just indulge our childish obsessions.

[SJames]

359. Really ??

There is NO reason to use or own an assault rifle outside of the military.

Coming from some one with ( admitted ) NO firearms experience , you make a pretty bold statement with no facts to back it up .

We have Hi Power rifle matches ( kind of an oxymoron here ) in which we use the AR platform for shooting . The AR has been ruling the roast for a few years , shooting heavy bullets at 1000 yards . The M14/M1A is still in use and makes a good showing every year .

I use my AR for coyote hunting as it can stand the harsh weather and allows a quick 2nd shot if I call in more than one .

As for defense , If you remember the LA riots , police LEFT the city to burn . Store owners protected their stores with rifles . Google some pictures . Pepper spray was not an option .

I wont even get into the debacle of New Orleans .................

So there ya have it 3 reasons .

[Zookeeper]

362. LA riots, New Orleans....

You're talking about some pretty extreme situations. If I owned a store in a run-down section of L.A., yes, I'd have a firearm on hand.

But, MOST people are not living in such extreme circumstances.

I don't need to have firearms experience to understand the negative impact on society of having a surplus of unnecessary weapons. What did people do about coyotes before there were assault rifles? My 16 year old son wants me to point out that assault weapons were used at Columbine. How many owners of assault and automatic weapons are using them to kill coyotes? How many end up stolen and used in crimes against people?

[piedmont]

366. Harris & Klebold only used 1 weapon that comes close to "assault weapon" status

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms):

Eric Harris
12 gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun Serial No: A232432
Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle with thirteen 10 round magazines fired 96 times
The shotgun was the primary weapon used by Harris and was fired a total of 25 times
Harris committed suicide with the shotgun

Dylan Klebold
9 mm Intratec Tec-9 Semi-automatic handgun manufactured by Navegar, Inc. with 32 round magazines
12 gauge Stevens 311D double barreled sawed-off shotgun Serial No.: ..A077513
The Tec-9 handgun was the weapon primarily used by Klebold and was fired a total of 55 times.
Klebold committed suicide with the Tec-9

----------------------------------------------------

Harris' Hi-point 995 carbine is incorrectly labeled a rifle in the article. It fires a 9 mm pistol round and is basically a pistol with a stock. It was not banned by the 1994 Assault Weapons ban.
So, the Columbine murderers used pistols and shotguns to carry out their crimes, and had planted bombs which would have caused massive carnage if they had gone off.

[scrinmaster]

367. Actually, the guns used in Columbine

Were actually bought during the Assault Weapon ban, and weren't actually "assault weapons".

Actual automatic weapons are extremely hard to legally aquire, the cheapest one you can get will cost at least $3000, and requires a very thorough ATF background check, and the purchase of a $200 tax stamp. To date, only one murder has ever been committed by someone with a legally held automatic weapon, a crooked cop who shot his wife.

[SJames]

371. Ok .

I dont need to build swimming pools to know more kids drown every year than are hurt or killed by guns.

If one teacher had a Carry permit in Columbine it would have ended much sooner .

How many owners of assault and automatic weapons are using them to kill coyotes? How many end up stolen and used in crimes against people?

#1 you have no clue what an assault weapon is. ( as there is only one )
#2 NFA weapons are not allowed in the field for hunting . ( you should go to a Machine Gun shoot , you'll meet some GREAT people , Doctors , Lawyers . People active in their local politics )
#3 Everything is stolen sooner or later . Not many . why ?? because people like me keep them locked up, like a good boy .
#4 The current FBI report ( give me a little and Ill find it ) clearly shows assault weapon , as you call them are far fewer time's in crime than previously thought.

Do you know how many of the 20,000 gun laws on the books were broken BEFORE Columbine even took place ?? About 20+ . All having 5 or more years prison terms.

By the by , Columbine troubled me deeply . Why ?? First the loss of life , kids , innocent , full of life , kids .Second, Because it painted gun owners in a bad light , the sick F$#%s that did that were a waste of flesh .

[piedmont]

360. Two points:

1) A 6'2" individual may be at an advantage against many aggressors in an unarmed, one-on-one fight. But it's the height of absurdity to think that's the only way an assault would happen. If the aggressor had a weapon (knife, rock, gun, whatever) or if there are more than one assailant, you're at a HUGE disadvantage. The only thing that would equalize the situation is a gun.
2) Assault weapons are useful for hunting and target shooting, as well as home defense. Also, most American adults are by definition part of the unorganized militia. These weapons are quite useful in certain times of crisis that tend to happen every few hundred years. That was part of the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment.
Also, as the saying goes, it's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

[Zookeeper]

364. Yeah, and you could be attacked by a bear while hiking....

so why not own a missile-thrower?

If, if, if! How many big men are just randomly attacked by armed assailants? And if it's not random, there's something to be said for staying out of the way of trouble.

Assault weapons may be "useful" for hunting and target shooting, but it's not like the alternatives are "useless." Target shooting? That's a fun hobby right? Hardly sounds like an assault weapon is necessary.

[piedmont]

370. Each individual should be free to assess their risks and act appropriately

I'm 6'3" and do not carry, because there are no active risks in my life to justify the trouble and expense. If I had a stalker, or a violent person who had a grudge against me, things would be different. Similarly, if I'm hiking in an area known for the potential for bear attacks, I would take reasonable measures.
I don't understand your focus on big men here, though. The same truths apply to smaller people.

If, if, if!
Do you have a problem with the word "if?" IF a fire breaks out in your home, then a fire extinguisher would be very useful. IF it rains today then you might wish you had an umbrella.

Assault weapons may be "useful" for hunting and target shooting, but it's not like the alternatives are "useless." Target shooting? That's a fun hobby right? Hardly sounds like an assault weapon is necessary.

Again, it's not a bill of needs. Why use a nailgun if a hammer also puts nails into wood?

[Zookeeper]

386. Well, I use a hammer instead of a nailgun...

I figure it keeps me stronger.

You can't put automatic weapons into the same category as fire extinguishers, umbrellas, nail guns, electric toasters or even a plain old gun. Why use a cast iron skillet to kill a fly when a flyswatter works as well?

You are making my argument for me when you state, "I'm 6'3" and do not carry, because there are no active risks in my life to justify the trouble and expenses. Exactly. If you had a stalker, I wouldn't fault you for carrying a gun. What I'm concerned about is level of paranoia I see in some men, who seem to think that danger lurks around every bush. MOST people do not really need to carry a gun!

[SJames]

391. Shallow thinking .

MOST people do not really need to carry a gun!

Yea to bad Susan Gratia Hupp had no need to carry her gun . Maybe her parents would still be alive.

I carry a sidearm every day . I refuse to be a victim . I will protect all of my loved ones with the most effective method I have . The person who begets violence on me or mine will get it back 10 fold . You do not choose the time or place , it chooses you .

[Zookeeper]

404. Unless you have a concrete reason to believe you or....

your family is in danger (stalker, high crime neighborhood, driving an armored car), you are being paranoid (IMHO).

I could give you examples from my life, but the quickest is an experience my DH had. He was walking home from a Grateful Dead concert in S.F., basically deaf from being too close to the speakers. Suddenly, he was knocked down from behind and saw two men standing over him shouting, "Give me your wallet, M***rf***ker!!!" He gave them his wallet. They left.

Now, if he had had a gun, he wouldn't have had time to use it. It probably would have been taken from him and he could have been shot with it. If his attackers had guns, they would have used them before he would have gotten to his.

Other the other hand, he might have avoided the situation if he had been alert to his surroundings. And he WOULD have avoided the situation if he had taken a taxi home.

For your Susan Hupp, I could probably find you a hundred situations where carrying a gun would have been of no help at all.

Some folks live in a very, very scary world (in their heads).

[SJames]

411. Good points Z ..................

First off I'm not paranoid , I'm PREPARED . I have the power to take another persons life strapped to my side . I also have the training , the morals and presence of mind to know when and when not to use it . Your situations you mention IE; stalker , high crime , work all lead to one thing ...........expect the unexpected . As your example shows with the 2 BG's , that time they just knocked someone down . Nice Adrenalin rush for them , next time they will go farther and the time after that even farther , till someone dies . Better them than some stoned sheep walking down the street .

You say IF he had a gun it could have been used to shoot him . Well being knocked to the ground is actually a good place to fight from . With proper mindset and training he would have won by a superior show of force . Never go to a gun fight unarmed. His attackers had no weapon ( so we think ) , well the victim would have won .................next time they might kill . Who should die , thats what you have to ask yourself .

Susan Hupp , a great woman IMHO , had to leave her weapon in the car , no CCP in Texas at the time . She states ( in front of Senators ) SHE could have saved lives that day .

While you state you COULD PROBABLY show me situations where a firearm would have been no help at all , I know for a fact that I CAN show YOU THOUSANDS of cases where a firearm has saved lives . I can also point out more where if LAW ABIDING , TAX PAYING , Citizen would be alive to day if they had been carrying a sidearm or had a home defense weapon .

You mention being paranoid and living in a scary world in ( their head ) . You must live in a perfect world where is all , peace , pot and microdot's .............Well i see (IMHO) your way of living as being a sheep , waiting for the wolf to come blow your house down , then you go out an try and talk him down . Guess what ?? The wolf will come back because you showed weakness and you will, sooner or later be eaten .

By the way you talk I can say your the poster child for the Brady Bunch and Rebbecca Peters .......sorry .

Awaiting your response , the floor is your's mame ........

[Zookeeper]

413. Actually, I'm not a "peace, pot and microdots (?)"

type at all. I don't even like the Grateful Dead, unlike my DH, who wasn't stoned just deaf and this happened about 25 years ago. (You're making a lot of really obnoxious stereotypical assumptions.) You've conveniently ignored the point of my story: If he had been more alert to his surroundings, he might have avoided the situation. If he had taken a taxi home, he WOULD have avoided the situation. (No gun necessary.)

If you read my OP and some subsequent posts, you will see that I am extremely security conscious without being paranoid. And I'm not afraid of guns.

As I stated, the paranoia of men who think they have to carry a gun with them, makes me think they would have a nervous breakdown if they had to live as a woman for a year.

You have NO IDEA of the hassles and attacks I've dealt with. But, gee whiz, somehow little old me, through common sense, alertness, basic self-defense knowledge, carrying tear gas (which I only got around to pulling out once), avoiding trouble and having an extremely nasty, offensive attitude when necessary, managed to keep myself from serious bodily harm or rape. I've lived and worked in and visited places that, apparently, would have you guys quaking in your boots. And the vast majority of the time I've had absolutely NO problems, because I'm prepared (without a gun) and I treat people according to the Golden Rule (unless they bother me). So, I'm pretty skeptical about MEN (who are the problem 99% of the time) being so damned scared! Buck up, guys!

The best defense is an intelligent defense. Lock your doors and windows, stay alert, etc. It's all pretty common sense, unless you're addicted to Rambo/Dirty Harry/Walker, Texas Ranger fantasies. And if you live someplace so dangerous that you feel convinced that you need a gun...MOVE! (Or figure out a way to change your neighborhood.) It's not rocket-science.

And your "sheep/wolf" speech is hysterical, immature BS. It sounds like a NRA/Rethug talking point. There are inherent risks in simply living. Your chance of being killed in a car accident is probably greater than being the victim of a life-threating attack (unless you live in a really, really bad neighborhood). So, why not stop driving? Of course, gun-toters probably drive Escalades and Suburbans so they'll be safer while menacing everyone else on the road. It's just a screwy mindset, IMHO.

[SJames]

418. I think we will have to agree to disagree , Z .

[Zookeeper]

426. So?

Some women own guns. What does that have to do with my point? Although, I think she has a lot more reason to own one than any man does.

[SJames]

419. Then we have these nice peace loving folks ........

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/04/BAGF7P12RN23.DTL&typ

It was supposed to be a birthday night out for the kids in San Francisco, but instead turned into a Critical Mass horror show -- complete with a pummeled car, a smashed rear window and little children screaming in terror.

The spontaneous Critical Mass bike rides, in which thousands of free-spirited cyclists roam the city, have been a fixture on the last Friday night of the month since the early 1990s. But even bike-weary cops, who have seen their share of traffic disturbances and minor skirmishes, weren't prepared for what happened during the latest exercise of pedal power.

Here's the story:

Susan Ferrando, her husband, their two children and three preteens had come to San Francisco from Redwood City to celebrate the birthday of Ferrando's 11-year-old daughter. They went to Japantown, where they enjoyed shopping and taking in the blooming cherry blossoms.

Things took a turn for the worse at about 9 p.m., when the family was leaving Japantown -- just as the party of about 3,000 bikers was winding down its monthly red-lights-be-damned ride through the city.

Suddenly, Ferrando said, her car was surrounded by hundreds of cyclists.

Not being from San Francisco, Ferrando thought she might have inadvertently crossed paths with a bicycle race and couldn't figure out why the police, who she had just passed, hadn't warned her.

Confusion, however, quickly turned to terror, she said, when the swarming cyclists began wildly circling around and then running into the sides of her Toyota van.

Filled with panic, Ferrando said, she started inching forward until coming to a stop at Post and Gough streets, where she was surrounded by bikers on all sides.

A biker in front blocked her as another biker began pounding on the windshield. Another was pounding on her window. Another pounded the other side.

"It seemed like they were using their bikes as weapons,'' Ferrando said. One of the bikers then threw his bike -- shattering the rear window and terrifying the young girls inside.

All the while, Ferrando was screaming, "There are children in this car! There are children in this car!"

She had the presence of mind to dial 911 on her cell phone -- and within minutes, the squad of motorcycle cops who were assigned to keep an eye on the ride descended on the scene.

The cyclists were loudly demanding that Ferrando be arrested for hit and run.

According to police, Ferrando had allegedly tapped one of the cyclists' tires.

When the alleged bicycle victim was approached, however, he said he wasn't hurt. He also refused to give his name or any other information.

Then, after a few swear words, the alleged victim took off on his bike while the rest of the crowd continued to yell at both the cops and the van.

Sgt. Ed Callejas -- the lead cop on the scene and a veteran of Critical Mass rides since their inception -- said he'd never seen anything like it before.

"I've seen the bikes swarm cars, and scratch them as they go by. I've seen guys get out of their cars and start fighting with the bikers, but if you had seen the faces on those little girls in tears,'' Callejas said. "All I could do was apologize for what they had been through."

The sergeant suggested that Ferrando write a letter to the mayor.

Estimated damage to the car: $5,300.

For Callejas and other cops assigned to the bike ride, Critical Mass has long been a study in contradictions.

For starters, San Francisco is a "green" city, and bike riding is about as green as you can get -- yet residents and commuters complain endlessly about getting trapped in the rides.

The city tries to ignore the unplanned rides, but there are always cops on hand to monitor the gatherings, even though any kind of traffic planning is impossible because no route is announced.

And even though the rides are held every month, Critical Mass has no organized leadership -- so no one can be held accountable for the group's actions.

In 1997, then-Mayor Willie Brown tried to control the rides. The result was anarchy and mass arrests.

Since then, the rides have shrunk in size. The city's generally hands-off attitude leaves cops as little more than bystanders.

"We sit there and they just go right through the red lights,'' Sgt. Callejas said. "What else can we do? Arrest one rider while 500 keep going?

"The only way to control this is through a massive effort by police and the Sheriff's Department,'' he said.

As for reaction from City Hall, Mayor Gavin Newsom said such acts of violence -- if true -- "only serve to undermine the worthwhile message of Critical Mass, which is to raise the awareness of bike transportation issues."

The mayor also said that -- if the charges are grounded -- he expected the attackers to be "punished to the greatest extent of the law."

Riiight.

[Zookeeper]

427. Then we have these intelligent, non-paranoid gun huggers....

Fatal incident

Two months into his stay in the Untied States, Hattori received an invitation along with his Webb Haymaker, his homestay brother, to a Halloween party organized for Japanese exchange students on October 17, 1992. Hattori went dressed in a tuxedo in imitation of John Travolta from Saturday Night Fever. Upon their arrival in the quiet working class neighborhood where the party was held, the boys mistook the Peairs' residence for the intended destination due to the similarity of the address and the Halloween decorations on the house, and proceeded to step out of their car and walk to the front door.

Hattori and Haymaker rang the front doorbell but began to walk back to the street where Haymaker had parked receiving no response to the ring. Inside the house, however, Bonnie Peairs had peered out the side door and saw two boys whom she did not recognize. Mrs. Peairs, startled, retreated inside, locking the door, and turned to tell her husband, "Rodney, get your gun". Hattori and Haymaker were still pondering the situation as they neared their car when the carport door was opened again, this time by Mr. Peairs, armed with a stainless steel revolver, yelling "Freeze." Simultaneously, Hattori stepped towards him saying "We're here for the party," unaware of the imminent danger. Haymaker, seeing the weapon, shouted after Hattori, but in vain as Peairs had already fired his weapon and run back inside, locking the door again. (Kernodle 2002; Fujio 2004; Harper n.d.) Hattori was shot in the chest at close range and was still alive as Haymaker rushed to him. Haymaker ran to the home next door to the Peairs' house for help and to call for an ambulance. Neither Mr. Peairs nor his wife came out of their house until the police arrived, about 40 minutes after the shooting. Mrs. Peairs shouted to a neighbor to "go away" when the neighbor called for help.

The shot had pierced the upper and lower lobes of Hattori's left lung, and exited through the area of the seventh rib; he died in the ambulance minutes later, from loss of blood.

District Attorney Doug Moreau concentrated on establishing that it had not been reasonable for Peairs, a 6-foot-2, well-armed man, to be so fearful of a polite, friendly, unarmed, 130-pound boy, who rang the doorbell, even if he walked toward him unexpectedly in the driveway, and that Peairs was not justified in using deadly force. Moreau stated, "It started with the ringing of the doorbell. No masks, no disguises. People ringing doorbells are not attempting to make unlawful entry. They didn't walk to the back yard, they didn't start peeking in the windows."

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

Since you don't actually read my posts, this is my last.

Enjoy your stay! :hi:

[SJames]

429. Ohhh Ive read your posts .

Im just glad I had my boots on .

[piedmont]

399. You are again confusing "Automatic weapons" with "Assault weapons"

I only addressed assault weapons in my post, since your post I replied to only mentioned assault weapons. Assault weapons are NOT automatic. Automatic weapons are already VERY tightly controlled and expensive.


You are making my argument for me when you state, "I'm 6'3" and do not carry, because there are no active risks in my life to justify the trouble and expenses. Exactly. If you had a stalker, I wouldn't fault you for carrying a gun. What I'm concerned about is level of paranoia I see in some men, who seem to think that danger lurks around every bush. MOST people do not really need to carry a gun!

I still don't know what your argument is. Do you want to make it illegal to carry a concealed weapon? Or are you just grousing about a perceived high level of paranoia in our society?
As I said, the trouble and expense of getting a gun and CCW permit and using it are enough that most people probably won't do it unless they sense a threat.

[Zookeeper]

406. To answer your question:

Yes, I'm grousing about a high level of paranoia, specifically among some men who have a lot less reason to feel threaten by every day life than most women. Honestly, the level of fear I hear from some men (or at least the excuse they use for owning more firepower than anyone needs) makes me think they'd have a nervous breakdown if they had to live for a year as a female. Yet, I don't hear women expressing the same level of fear and bragging about all the weapons they've acquired to defend themselves.

So, these paranoid men have the legal right to own (and in MN) carry concealed weapons. That does not make ME feel safer. Since so much of this self-defense b.s. is based on "ifs," what IF my 16 year old son approached one of these paranoid gun huggers asking for directions and got shot because he was perceived as a threat? (Something like that actually happened fairly recently to a Japanese exchange student who made the mistake of knocking on some gun nut's door.) Is that any more far fetched than believing the whole world is out to get you and your family, so you'd better buy the biggest, baddest weapon you can find (instead of a shotgun)?

Aside from that, my general philosophy is to not buy much more than one needs. That puts me pretty much at odds with most of America, right there.

[SJames]

374. Dear zoo , dear , dear zoo .

You letting you emotions run wild . Whats a missile "thrower"????

I would like you to look up the links and get and inside look at what we use these guns for .

http://www.machinegunshoot.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=13

http://www.3gunmatch.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAFDDurs4Hc

These are all GOOD GUYS . Law abiding , hard working and honest .

You could IM me and I would love to help educate you on these firearms .

[Zookeeper]

387. Dear, dear SJames....

Please read my OP. I'm not automatically anti-gun or anti-gun owner. And my emotions are not running wild, unlike the paranoid types who feel a need to own multiple guns for "self-defense."

[slackmaster]

378. Most US highpower rifle competitions involve weapons once called "assault weapons"

The AR-15 rifle is widely used in National Rifle Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio; competitions leading up to it; and similar events.

The US federal government has a constituational obligation to arm and train the militia, which essentially consists of every able-bodied adult citizen. Because the AR-15 is ergonomically identical to the US M16 military rifle (but shoots only semiautomatically), it makes perfect sense to use it in competitive shooting. Besides, it's inherently very accurate and numerous parts and upgrades are available to make it moreso.

The term "assault weapon" was based on traits that are largely cosmetic. The expiration of the federal ban in 2004 has done nothing to harm public safety.

[SJames]

372. I like the way you think , piedmont

[piedmont]

373. thank you. nt

[piedmont]

343. Assault rifles are pretty much banned under a 73 year old federal law.

Maybe you mean assault weapons?

[derby378]

349. Provided that any can even DEFINE "assault weapon" in the first place

But yeah, them terms can be so pesky...

[piedmont]

352. That's a discussion that has fueled MANY threads here.

And usually uncovers a staggering amount of ignorance on the part of gunophobes. But we shouldn't mess up this thread with wonky discussions like that.

[Zookeeper]

357. Yes, I mean assault weapons....

Thank you for clarifying.

:hi:

[Maine-ah]

334. 2

[SlowDownFast]

336. Sure do.

Born and raised with guns and hunting.

Member of the NRA and the ACLU.

[aikoaiko]

339. woo hoo, we broke 700 votes.... very impressive still 50-50.

[XOKCowboy]

344. Very enlightening poll..

I don't know what I expected but never expected it to be within 10-15 votes continually as the voting progressed.

[slackmaster]

350. I hope people pay attention to the core message, which in my opinion is...

We must be careful not to divide ourselves along the potential splits within our own party. Gun issues are one of many ways we can cut our voting power in half.

Alienating gun owners makes as much sense politically as alienating women, or non-white people.

[XOKCowboy]

369. I totally agree..

Not all Dems are anti-gun and the progressive message isn't anti-gun. We need everyone in our Big Tent and need to show the "Dems want to confiscate our guns" types that it isn't true.

[jody]

376. With over 700 votes, 51% yes and 49% no, it's past time for DU to bring RKBA out of the gungeon

and recognize the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense is one of the few divisive issues that can help we Democrats win or lose the presidency and congress in 2008.

[Marie26]

379. No way. nt

[Saphire]

380. Man of Texas had a felony when he was 17...we're not allowed.

[aikoaiko]

381. If interested, Man of TX may be able to get his voting and gun rights restored.

We need more Democrats at the polls come election season.

[aikoaiko]

383. Congratulations and thank you to NightWatcher.

I predict that your thread and poll will cited often in our ongoing DU discussion of gun control and gun ownership in the US.

After one week of being bumped and recommended your thread has garnered:
Over 7000 views
Over 700 votes
Over 300 replies
ZERO deletions by moderators for breaking DU rules.

and a whole lot of very interesting information.

Thank you and I look forward to seeing this thread continue on.

[piedmont]

410. kick

nt

[Megahurtz]

388. Black Powder

Civil War replica (and yes, it shoots)

[Purveyor]

396. 4 shotguns, 3 rifles, no handguns at this time.

[Maddy McCall]

398. Yep. More than one.

[piedmont]

401. For the record....

In case this gets moved, at the time of this post the poll is still in the GD forum and the vote total is 366 for "No" and 380 for "Yes."

[ProudDad]

414. Wow

385 gun nuts out of 102,533 DUers... :)

[DonP]

415. I guess that's one way to see it.

But most folks, with a fundamental understanding of statistics, would see it as a likely statistically projectable sample of the DU universe, showing that slightly over half of the people here own at least one firearm indicating a fairly even divide on the RKBA issue. On top of that it seems a lot of the "no" posts express an interest in getting one at some point.

Thankfully the Freedom of Speech "nuts" that run things around here, (just thought I'd borrow your perjorative approach to describing people that believe in the BoR) left this in the GD area and we got a lot of people posting that aren't "Gungeon" regulars.

[slackmaster]

416. I'd modify your statement slightly

...slightly over half of the people here own at least one firearm indicating a fairly even divide on the RKBA issue.

Insert "who bothered to vote in this poll" between "here" and "own".

I believe most people really don't care much about the issue one way or another. But those who do care enough to bother responding also care enough to communicate with their elected representatives about it, and positions on RKBA issues and gun control do influence their voting decisions. I've been up front about the fact that I have some money invested in collectable firearms, so it's in my personal interests to fight gun bans that don't do anything to enhance public safety.

So far I've gotten the cold shoulder from Democratic members of the House of Representatives who have declared themselves co-authors of HR 1022. They're all using the "You don't live in my district, so I don't have to listen to you" evasive maneuver.

[SteveM]

421. They don't have to listen to you, yet gun-owners listen to them. (nt)

[Elwood P Dowd]

417. Wow! Only 373 DUers who don't own guns.

:P

[Zookeeper]

428. We don't know that all of the 385 are gun "nuts."

Most of them are probably just gun owners.

But, yes, a few of them sound like nuts.

[SJames]

431. z

[Zookeeper]

433. You've finally shown your true colors....

:rofl:

I think you're a weakling.

[ComerPerro]

420. good Lord, its the thread that wouldn't die

[SteveM]

422. Indeed, yet so many think guns "aren't an issue." Hmmm.... (nt)

[ComerPerro]

423. its just the same people flaming some and having a circle jerk with others

[SJames]

425. incoming

[aikoaiko]

432. I think it doesn't die because people keep voting and posting whether they have a gun or not.

I see very little flaming in this gun ownership thread.

For the record while still in General Discussion:
Poll result (768 votes)
No, I dont have a gun (377 votes, 49%)
Yes, I have at least one gun (391 votes, 51%)

[Retired AF Dem]

434. I have a couple

Remington 700 308
Voere 30-06
Sako Finbear 338 Win Magnum
Krieghoff 375 H&H double rifle
Marlin 1895 CB 45-70
Marlin 1895GS 45-70
Les Baer TRS .45 acp
Colt Series 70 reissue .45 acp
Colt 1991 .45 acp
S&W model 27-2 .357 Magnum
S&W model 22 TRS .45 ACP
Glock Model 21 .45 acp (work gun)
I use to have several more to chose from but have kept the above to last me for rest of my life.

[Zookeeper]

435. Kick. n/t