Report: Gun ownership is at 35 year low and dropping

[billbuckhead]

As National Rifle Association Meets in St. Louis, MO, This Week, New Comprehensive Survey Reveals That Gun Ownership Has Declined Dramatically Over Past 35 Years

Contrary to Gun Industry and Gun Lobby Claims, Only 34.5 Percent of U.S. Households Have Guns, Personal Gun Ownership Hits Low of 21.6 Percent

Washington, DC--Contrary to public claims by the gun industry and the gun lobby, firearms ownership has declined dramatically over the past 35 years according to new survey data from the General Social Survey (GSS) released today by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. Except for the U.S. Census, the GSS is the most frequently analyzed source of information in the social sciences and is the only survey that has tracked the opinions of Americans over an extended period of time. The NORC data comes out the same week that the National Rifle Association (NRA) begins its annual convention this Thursday in St. Louis, MO.

The NORC data shows that during the period 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported having any guns in the home has dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006. The data also shows that during the period 1980 to 2006, the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun dropped more than nine percentage points: from a high of 30.7 percent in 1985 to a low during the survey period of 21.6 percent in 2006. Charts for both household gun ownership and personal gun ownership using the NORC findings for the years 1972 to 2006 can be found in a new Violence Policy Center (VPC) analysis, A Shrinking Minority: The Continuing Decline of Gun Ownership in America. The VPC analysis also reveals that contrary to claims by the gun industry and gun lobby that firearms ownership continues to rise and that “nearly half” of all American homes have a gun, the reality, as the new NORC report "Public Attitudes Toward the Regulation of Firearms" concludes, is that “...gun ownership has been declining over the last 35 years and the 9/11 terrorist attacks did not reverse that trend.”

VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, “Society is leaving the gun culture behind. Nearly two thirds of American homes are gun free, and more than three quarters of Americans do not personally own a gun. Yet our nation remains hostage to the gun industry’s lethality-at-any-cost mentality as measured by nearly 30,000 gun deaths per year and tens of thousands of additional wounded.”
-----------------------snip----------------------------
<http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2059>
<http://vpc.org/press/0704norc.htm>

If liberals really want to show some spine, start standing up to the gun lobby bullies and it's minions. Dick Cheney? WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM SOMEONE WHO OWNS OVER 30 MACHINE GUNS!

[babylonsister]

1. Legal or illegal gun ownership? I would think the numbers change when

you weigh what's available illegally.

[TomInTib]

7. Dang right

I have many firearms of all types.

And not a single one is registered anywhere.

[whoneedstickets]

18. It's a social survey, a self report...

...not an investigation of the legal status of the guns. Respondents were simply asked "do you own a gun"? "Is there a gun in your house?"

They didn't ask "is it registered"?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

101. In other words, a useless survey

Not many gun owners would talk about their guns to a stranger on the phone.

Just like if someone called and asked if you keep cash in the house.

[Raskolnik]

2. What would you suggest Democrats do to "show some spine"? n/t

[Deep13]

5. Stock up on bullets before the price goes north again.

And then tell middle-American purple state voters with a straight face that we do not want to take their firearms away.

[havocmom]

6. plan works for me

:thumbsup:

[Deep13]

11. I have 3000 rounds of 0.357 Mag. I bought at $13/box.

I shoot them in my Marlin carbine. They're $18 a box now and that is still cheaper than MidwayUSA. Glad I stocked up.

[Raskolnik]

8. Something tells me that's not what the OP had in mind.

[havocmom]

14. And some of us don't dance to the beat the OP always pounds out

[Raskolnik]

17. Oh, I definitely agree--I was just just encouraging the OP to clarify his rather meaningless advice

I'm one of the folks that isn't eager to abridge Constitutional rights (i.e. a minion of the gun lobby).

[billbuckhead]

23. A well regulated state national guard is your constitutional right

Not every person the most powerful weapon they can obtain.

[Raskolnik]

27. Its a little early in the thread for strawmen, Bill.

Since no one here is arguing for the right to possess the most powerful weapon they can obtain, let's just stick to reasonable debate, ok?

Do you really think someone should have to undergo a background check to buy a box of shotgun shells to go pheasant hunting?

[billbuckhead]

34. No they should have one of those cards like the drugstore or Krogers gives you

The gun crowd argues all the time that everyone should have the most powerful weapons available and be able to take them anywhere.

[Raskolnik]

37. Dear, dear, Bill. Very little of that post was intellectually honest.

There may, in fact, be someone somewhere that honestly believes that there should be absolutely no restrictions of any kind on weapons ownership. That neither means that position represents the majority of people supporting 2nd Amendment rights, nor does it mean you are currently engaged with a person who holds such ridiculous beliefs.

If the only way you can discuss this issue is to caricature the opposing viewpoint, then you may need to rethink your position.

[billbuckhead]

42. Dick Cheney, Zell Miller, Grover Norquist, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay?

Guns at work? Guns in church? Guns in school parking lots? Duke Cunningham saying all liberals should be shot?

Any of that not true or caricatures? I'm not making up reality.

[Raskolnik]

45. Non-sequitors, much like lists of names, are not necessarily convincing argument.

So Duke Cunningham said that all liberals should be shot? Well, I guess that logically means that most supporters of the 2nd Amendment believe there should be absolutely no restrictions of any kind on firearm ownership. Right?

C'mon, Bill. Seriously, if the only way you can discuss this issue is with this kind of nonsense, I'm not sure why you bother. There are certainly reasonable, legitimate arguments to be made in striking a balance between Constitutional rights and public safety. Posts like yours, however, do not advance that discussion one bit.

[billbuckhead]

76. I'd run away from those names too and the deeds they did if I was a gunlover

How about this speech? Want to disassociate yourself from this as well?

"Now, I am not really here to talk about the Second Amendment or the NRA, but the gun issue clearly brings into focus the war that's going on.

Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens. After enough breakfast-table TV promos hyping tattooed sex-slaves on the next Rikki Lake show, enough gun-glutted movies and tabloid talk shows, enough revisionist history books and prime-time ridicule of religion, enough of the TV anchor who cocks her pretty head, clucks her tongue and sighs about guns causing crime and finally the message gets through: Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or—even worse—Evangelical Christian, Midwest, or Southern, or—even worse—rural, apparently straight, or—even worse—admittedly heterosexual, gun-owning or—even worse—NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or—even worse—male working stiff, because not only don't you count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress. Your tax dollars may be just as delightfully green as you hand them over, but your voice requires a lower decibel level, your opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and frankly mister, you need to wake up, wise up and learn a little something about your new America...in fact, why don't you just sit down and shut up?"
------------snip-------------------------
<http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/speech.html>

[krispos42]

139. So I'm suppose to turn tale and run away...

from my God-given, constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms because the MEDIA likes to play striking footage of ranting people?

So when are you going to retreat into silence because you don't want to taint your exercise of your First Amendment rights with drooling hate-filled idiots like David Duke or Michael Savage?

Nobody's trying to drive you away from free speech because it's also a tool of the Klan or Bill O'Reilly. And I'm not going to back down just because some right-wing idiot ALSO likes the RKBA.

[billbuckhead]

165. The public face of the "gun rights" movement are the worst people in America

Is there anyone in America more evil than Dick Cheney? I know, Sarah Brady.

[krispos42]

180. Well, it's not my fault the NRA picks whackos.

I mean, I've seen Wayne LaPierre do TV interviews and he does quite well. He's informed, factual, and articulate.

But when he gets in front of an audience he just goes kinda nutso.

There's a reason that most gun owners are not NRA members.

[billbuckhead]

185. Defending Wayne the dick?

[krispos42]

189. Telling how I see it.

In a one-on-one TV interview he lets the facts speak for themselves. Get him in front of a crowd and it's rhetoric.

[Name removed]

250. Deleted message

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

[krispos42]

138. So that means... what?

That because a .50-caliber rifle is available, everybody will want one? That everybody will carry one all the time?

Please spare me.

Fifty caliber rifles are available in 49 states. The reason that they are relatively uncommon is because of market forces. They are expensive and for most of the population not particularly suited to the most common of shooting tasks. You don't 'plink' tin cans for an afternoon with a $5,000 rifle and ammo that costs $3-4 bucks a shot.

It's like saying we can't allow Hummers to be sold because soon everybody will be driving a 8-mpg lumbering behemoth to the dry-cleaners.

Surprise, surprise, people buy stuff, including guns, based on what they want them to do. I want to get a 9mm Springfield Armory XD pistol. NOT a Smith & Wesson Model 500 revolver in .500 S&W Magnum. It is not the most powerful handguns in the world, not by a long shot. But it is the tool that I think will enable me to perform my shooting needs effectively.

If I was to take up deer hunting again my gun of choice would be a Winchester Model 70 Pro Shadow Stainless in .270 WSM. NOT a Model 70 Safari Express in .458 Winchester. For the same reason.

[Pro2nd]

48. Wrong!.......again.

In that glorious document we call the United States Constitution, which codifies into law that which should be self-evident, our founders, at #2 on the list, gave the government...the right....to arm..... ITSELF?

Why do people keep making that same idiotic argument? The whole "collective right" argument is complete B.S. That's why the Supreme Court hasn't heard a gun case in about 70 years. The anti-gun justices know damn well what the Constitution says, they just don't want it to be so. So they bury their heads and keep refusing to hear 2nd Amendment cases.

I suppose you'd be OK with Bush saying that society in general has a right to worship however they please, just as long as all the individuals are Methodists. Or that we're "collectively" protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, but individuals can have their houses tossed by the cops at any time without warrant.

The "collective right" argument is so asinine and illogical that I can't ever wrap my head around it.

[billbuckhead]

57. What you really mean is that settled law isn't on your side

The gun lobby and it's minions endlessly lie about about what the 2nd amendment means for cheap bucks and cheaper thrills.

"The Second Amendment in the Courts

As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.

In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime... ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon..."
-----------snip--------------
<http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second>

[jmg257]

61. The USSC in Miller agreed with the individual right, when they stated

that with the Militias, the people always armed themselves, with common military equipment in use. If Miller had been carrying a BAR instead of a sawed-off shotgun, M4s and M16s would be perfectly legal today (as they should be).

"Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" On the Miltia - "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline" "And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."


In the Dred Scott decision, the U.S. Supreme Court showed that it shared the same understanding - that citizenship excluded blacks, and because of the relationship between citizenship and the carrying of arms:
"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

[billbuckhead]

75. You're right and the ACLU is wrong, the chief justice is wrong

The whole rest of the civilized is wrong, but the same group of people who bragged that they did the most to put George W Bush and 60 machine gun Cheney in the white house are the smart and honest ones.


"The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. "
-------------------------------snip--------------------------------------------------------
<http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html>

[jmg257]

77. Agreed - they are wrong. So many people agree too, despite your view and the view of the ACLU.

The ones who trust Bush and Cheney with exclusive control of arms have no reason to bragg about ANYTHING. They are not worthy of such power - NO govt is.

[jmg257]

60. Sorry - the National Guard is not the Militia.

The NG are federal in creation (looooong after 1789), federally armed, federally controlled, federally funded and serve in numerous ways not in keeping with the Constitutional Miltia of the several States. The real Militia are required by the Constitution for very specific reasons - especially guaranteeing to each State a Repulic form of govt. (a well trained and well armed Militia is NECESSARY for a free State). The State Militias - required by the Constitution - pre-dated the Constitution by about 150 years, and were 1 of only 6 institutions recognized as permanent, and necessary, by that document.

Every person IS entitled to the common personal military equipment in use, otherwise what good would the Miltias be in meeting their obligations of fighting tyranny, repelling invasion, putting down insurrections, executing the laws, etc.? The unalienable Right first referred to in the militia clauses, and further protected by the 2nd to help ensure the people and the govt can fulfill their obligations, and so the people indivdually ALWAYS have the means to protect their own life and liberties.

IF the RKBA was ONLY meant for the common defense, the 1st Senate would have added that phrase to the 4th Article that became the 2nd amendment when they had the chance - they didn't. The people ratified THAT amendment - protecting THEIR personal and individual Right to arms.

[billbuckhead]

80. You're just making stuff up. What people? Ever hear about Shay's rebellion?

The people? What people? Women? African Americans? Immigrants? Non-landowners? Native Americans and Tories who had their land stolen?

The Constitution was written by none of those "people". In Shay's rebellion the people rebelled against high taxes and government oppression and the government used the second amendment to raise a miltia against them.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion>

[jmg257]

85. "The people" have changed along with the times, and the Constitution

has been amended to take that into account. It has NOT been changed to redefine the Miltia, or to redefine the Rights of we the people - only to extend them. Now ALL people of ALL races and sexes have the same Rights protected by the law of the Land. That is why the PEOPLE of the United States ratified the Constitution, the BOR, etc. - to protect liberty for themselves and their posterity. Brilliant huh? Now - ANY person can legally protect their own life and liberty - regardless of sex, status, race, etc. (except of course in places like DC where the crime rates are astromonical compared to the rest of the nation - luckily a federal court has once again recognized an individual right to arms - so this will change too).


And please - point out what I made up - I am curious as I think everything stated is well-documented in the Constitution, the Militia Acts, the Dick Act, court cases, etc.

[billbuckhead]

90. Just making stuff up. The ACLU says the 2nd is a collective right

I'll go with what they say rather than what you make up.

[jmg257]

109. Who cares what the ACLU says? Did they write the Constitution? Ratify it?

Again - what did I make up? Is "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to security of a free State; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" that difficult for you to understand? You really need it explained to you? Are all the words of the Constitution, so many of the founders, the ratifying committees, the state constitutions, the acts of the early Congresses, the USSC, the justice dept, etc etc. so difficult to read?

You don't agree with the amendment - fine!...have it overturned. To be so naive and ignorant as to not understand what it says is no excuse if that is all you are placing your reasoning on.

[billbuckhead]

177. A well regulated militia=National Guard

Thats's the way the courts have defined it over and over and over and over......

Here's what Democratic party intellectua Gary Hart has to say about the miltia being the national guard.l

A Well-Regulated Militia
The National Guard, not the military, should protect the homeland.

By Gary Hart
Issue Date: 11.1.03
Print Friendly | Email Article

Few Americans know that we have two armies and that both are acknowledged by the United States Constitution. One is the military that we know best, the regulars: the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy, joined later in history by the Marines and the Air Force. The other, originally known as the militia, is now called the National Guard.
Why would our Founding Fathers invite confusion and duplication by creating two separate military establishments? The answer dates to the earliest city-state republics in Greece. Throughout 2,800 years of republican theory and practice, a standing army has always been considered a threat to republican liberty and a potential instrument of tyranny. A standing army composed, necessarily, of professional soldiers rather than citizen-soldiers represented too convenient an instrument of power for a putative dictator, tyrant or "man on a white horse."

Educated in the classics, familiar with both Greek and Roman republican history and culture, and animated by the language and values of the republic, the founders were keenly aware of this danger. And it led to one of the most bitter struggles in the establishment of the new American Republic. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists saw the future of the United States as a commercial republic, with expanding trade frontiers and intricate alliances between political and business establishments. These alliances would be threatened by circumstance from time to time, whether by local political unrest or foreign commercial rivals. American commercial interest would have to be protected by land and by sea, and, therefore, in Patrick Henry's memorable and sarcastic formulation, "a standing army we shall also have ... to execute the execrable commands of tyranny." As glorious as such an army might be, Henry's anti-Federalist allies believed, it would also be expensive and politically dangerous. They were only partially satisfied by the constitutional provision limiting military appropriations to two years, and by civilian command and oversight of the military.

Though neither Federalist nor anti-Federalist, and largely absent as ambassador to France during the constitutional debates, the ardent republican Thomas Jefferson urged his ally James Madison and others to, at the very least, isolate domestic politics from the standing army and its international commercial concerns by providing for a separate army, a distinct military establishment, to protect and defend the homeland. This separate military force already existed in the form of state militias. Following ancient republican precedent and history, as well as radical Whig ideology, the core of this homeland militia would be citizen-soldiers, the successors to the Greek farmer-warrior. The militia would continue to be under the command and control of the respective states, but the Constitution also allowed Congress and the president limited authority to "federalize" the militia under certain circumstances. Article I, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution gives Congress the authority "o provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions" and "o provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." Article II, Section 2 provides that the president shall be commander in chief of the state militias "when called into actual service of the United States," just as he is to be commander in chief of the regular forces.

---------------snip--------------------------------
<http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/10/hart-g.html>

[benEzra]

203. Which didn't exist until, what, 1907?

A well regulated militia=National Guard

Which didn't exist until, what, 1907?

Good thing the Founding Fathers had Dr. Who shuttling them upwhen and downwhen in his Tardis, so they'd know to write the National Guard into the Constitution even though it didn't exist at the time... :eyes:

[jmg257]

216. Its obvious how much you love politicians, as you want them to have all the power.

And to keep quoting them as gospel. Obviously you want them to protect you exclusively; are you also THAT reliant on them to do your thinking for you? (you must be a real drain on your fellow tax payers). Why else would anyone would be so willing to give up such an important freedom, and to give up a protected personal unalienable right? Just because you don't have the balls to take advantage of it??? NO THANKS!

The State Militias at the founding were well-establshed - NOT by the federal govt, AND NOT BY THE CONSTITUION!!! Gary Hart is an ass if he thinks this! The Militias existed for almost 150 years before the Constitution was written - as Militias of the Colonies, and then of the States as they created their own constitutional soviergnty. The pre-constitution militia acts are out there to read, and so the established practice of THE PEOPLE ARMING THEMSELVES with every implement of war is WHAT WAS RECOGNIZED AS NECESSARY by the Constitution, and IS WHAT WAS accepted by the people. It was further reinforced by Congress because that is what the 1st Militia Act said that they past in 1792. IF the militias EVER became armed ONLY by the govt, they could easily be DISARMED by the govt, and how would that serve freedom OF THE PEOPLE? THAT IS WHY THE PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS ARMED THEMSELVES as part of the REAL Militia of the several States - THEY ARE SUPPSOED TO HOLD THE POWER - NOT Bush, NOT Hart, or any other "politician". The NG was federally created as a reserve for the Army and AirForce, it is armed by the feds, serves overseas, etc. etc.
The REAL Militias were to repel invasions, execute the laws, suppress insurrections - to help guarantee the security if a free State - period - NOT serve overseas - that is what the "Standing Army" & "Navy" were for. What good does the NG in Iraq do us here if they are needed?

Bush finally obsoleted the reason for the REAL people's Militia with the Warner Act - which give him control over the Guard whenever he pleases, even to serve in the roles the REAL Militias were REQUIRED by the COnstitution to serve - a further usurption of power FROM THE PEOPLE. We will see the the next polititcan in charge of executing the laws recends that - or just further establishes HIS exclusive power base.

[krispos42]

140. ***BZZZT!!!*** Oh, sorry, contestant! So close and yet so far...

What is the milita?

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
{wais.access.gpo.gov}
{Laws in effect as of January 20, 2004}
{Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004}
{CITE: 10USC311}


TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

Guess what? It's me! I'm a militiaman! By law, in black and white. I am a male between the ages of 17 and 45. Where's my government-issued M16A4 and ammo belt full of 30-round clips?

Oh, and incidently, why do you support a policy that would give about 57 million men the right to keep and bear arms but only a few tens of thousands of women? Do you think it's fair that the law sets the ratio of men owning guns to women owning guns at 1,000:1 or more? Isn't that a bit... sexist?

Why are you supporting a sexist policy like that?

[billbuckhead]

186. Sounds like you're ready for Iraq and that glorious struggle for the

2nd amendment.

[krispos42]

197. So why are you supporting a sexist policy?

You're dodging that one.

And I'll fight the Iraqis when they set foot on American soil, thank you very much.

[derby378]

226. Now THAT is so much BS...

...especially since Herr Deciders has "Federalized" all of the state National Guard units.

Checkmate.

[michreject]

146. I reload

A lot cheaper.:evilgrin:

[billbuckhead]

15. Putting crooked gun stores and sellers out of business right off the bat

Make it impossible to buy guns or ammunition without a background check that is kept on file. Al Queda and domestic terrorists wouldn't like that. Keep legal ownership of guns out of churches, schools, workplaces and as much of the public commons as is possible. Start keeping statistics of shooting victims and the costs. The NRA and the gun lobby wouldn't like that. Ban gun shows. Bring on a far stronger military style weapons ban including long range sniper rifles. Start taxing concealed carry permits to pay for the billions in cost from irresponsible and criminal gun owners.

[Raskolnik]

20. There are some rather extreme suggestions in there, no?

Ban gun shows? Require background checks for boxes of shotgun shells? A blanket ban of firearms in "workplaces"?

Yikes.

[Digital]

21. You've got to be kidding!

"Start taxing concealed carry permits to pay for the billions in cost from irresponsible and criminal gun owners".

That's the most asinine idea I've heard in a while. Tax and penalize law abiding citizens to pay for the damage done by people that break the law? How about enforce the laws on the books and make the people who break the law with firearms pay?

I bet you don't like that idea, because you're not actually concerned with punishing criminals. You are more concerned with restricting firearms and carry permits for everyone, criminal or not.

[billbuckhead]

22. Law abiding car owners, land owners, cigarette smokers, etc have to pay taxes

The gun lobby is just trying to avoid responsibility.

[-..__...]

70. You are aware that a Federal excise tax is paid on all firearms and ammuntion...

aren't you?

I believe the tax is waived for official law enforcement use and other government applications.

I also pay a sales tax on every forearm and box of ammo I purchase (%5).

If that's not enough for you... well then, too bad.

[billbuckhead]

169. Not enough to pay the 100billion dollars in costs

The gun manaufacturers should be treated just like the tobacco industry. If ever a product needed a sin tax, it's the gun industry.

[scrinmaster]

25. Has there been an epidemic of shootings with "long range sniper rifles"

or do you just want everything you're afraid of banned? A concealed carry permit in Florida costs $117, and the percentage of CCW holders convicted of felonies is lower than the rate at which cops are convicted. Do you think al Queda is going to buy rifles at gun stores? They could sneak RPGs and machine guns in through our wide open northern and southern borders, or land a boat anywhere on the coast.

[whoneedstickets]

29. The CCW laws should be a model for ALL gun ownership...

..you're right about CCW holders being law-abiding. In fact the CCW background check, mandatory training and registration and fee systems ought to be applied to EVERY gun purchase and EVERY gun owner.

We don't let untrained drivers drive unlicensed cars without up-to-date tags. Why shouldn't all gun owners follow the same model?

[scrinmaster]

32. The CCW laws are for you to carry a concealed weapon in public.

If you want to conceal carry on your own property, you don't need a license. If you want to drive a car on your own property, the car doesn't need license plates, you don't need a drivers license. I don't need a license to keep firearms on my own property, it's just when I carry in public that licensing comes into play.

[Raskolnik]

33. Nuts to that.

Do you honestly think that someone should have to register, train, and pay taxes on a 20 gauge shotgun they inherited from their grandfather?

(and how does your computer not explode making that post with your profile icon?)

[whoneedstickets]

38. Yeah, what are you afraid of?

CCW is a model for responsible firearms ownership. And I don't buy that 'you don't need a license in your home' nonsense. You still need a license to hunt or fish even if its on your own property. As for your ancient shotgun I suppose if you never took the weapon out of your house, nor tried to buy ammunition for it or tried to shoot it outdoors then it could be declared a collectors item or relic and not taxed (like an inoperable vehicle). The taxes raised from gun licenses could be channeled to training, registration maintenance, EVEN recreation facilities.

Edit--

As for HST, the fact that he blew his own brains out with shotgun in a pique of depression has not escaped me, has it you?
I'm fine with guns, fine with CCW AND fine with the reasonable public regulation of said guns including mandatory training, registration and even licensing. People diagnosed with depression or on medication shouldn't be allowed to keep them any more than blind epileptics should be driving. You can own what you want if you accept the responsibility (including paying fees) and you're not a danger to yourself and others.

[Raskolnik]

43. What am I afraid of? The government infringing on a Constituional right, that's what. A few points:

I'm not talking about "ancient" firearms. I'm talking about the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of shotguns and rifles that are used for hunting and target shooting. Do you really think that each and every one of those should be registered and taxed?

And, while it is true that you need a hunting license for your own land, but you most certainly do *not* need a license to shoot your own firearm on your own property to your little heart's content, provided it is not bothering anyone else. Why is that "nonsense" in your opinion?

[whoneedstickets]

46. Its nonsense...

because the implication was that the regulatory power of government ends at your property line. It never has and frankly never should. And yes, I think all firearms should be registered. Unless you're some kind of tin-foil hat type who believes the government is about to confiscate all guns, the presence of a registry would have some genuine law-enforcement advantages especially if the weapons were test-fired as part of the process. I also think a firearms operating license would be a prudent policy and the fees for this would support the registry and training. Why are you opposed to responsible gun ownership?

[Raskolnik]

50. Respectfully, the implication is not that at all.

And I do not think it requires tin-foil to be extremely nervous about the government infringing on a Constitutional right. I don't have to be worried about mass confiscation to rankle at the idea of eroding the Bill of Rights.

Of course there would be some law enforcement benefits to registering all firearms, just as there would be law enforcement benefits eroding several aspects of the Bill of Rights. That doesn't mean that we should be eager to give away Constitutional rights on the vague promise of some increased safety.

I need to ask you: why the hell do you have that icon on your profile if you hold these views?

[whoneedstickets]

52. No 'right' is unfettered...

..you're defending the second amendment as providing a right (a dubious proposition and one the USSC hasn't fully bought into, but that the NRA spews regularly) but surely even IF there is a right to own guns, no right goes completely unfettered. Yet that seems to be the position of the anti-responsibility crowd. My right to free speech has limits on it for sedition, libel, obscenity etc. My right to be 'secure in my house and effects' doesn't free me from property tax, nor does my right to peaceably assemble free me from paying the going rate for a license to hold an event at the local park.

Rights are constrained and regulated often with regard to the degree of public danger that they entail. Guns, which have the potential to kill, represent a distinct public danger. Does this mean I think we should be prohibited from owning them? No. Does it mean that I believe the government has the power to intrude on the individual to pursue distinct public goods. Should these include demonstrated competence? Mandatory safety training? The lack of a history of violence? None of these seem unreasonable requests unless you drag out some slippery slope illogic.

Anyway, what does any law abiding citizen have to fear from having his weapons registered and test-fired for law enforcement purposes. Again, the right wing cranks always call up images of Waco or Ruby ridge to argue that the Feds want to seize weapons, but really would a mass confiscation ever happen or is this the boogey-man dragged out by the firearms manufacturers whenever a reasonable law threatens possible sales volumes?

Again, as for HST, i am a fan of his writing. I even share some of his affinity for firearms and libertarianism, but I also think he'd still be here if someone had exercised some judgment on his behalf. Raw libertarianism is like raw communism, perhaps only a good idea in theory.

[Raskolnik]

54. Of course its not unfettered--no one is arguing otherwise.

The only person on this thread arguing for unfettered access to any and all firearms under any and all circumstances is Billbuckhead's strawman. I do support requiring concealed carry permits, as well as performing background checks and restricting access to very narrow classes of firearms. What I don't support are broad, practically unworkable proposals that like yours & Bill's.

Anyway, what does any law abiding citizen have to fear from having his weapons registered and test-fired for law enforcement purposes.

What does any law abiding citizen have to fear from having his newspapers and books registered? After all, if none of them contain obscenity, the owner has nothing to worry about. What does any law abiding citizen fear from volunteering his phone conversations to be warrantlessly monitored? If you're not planning any illegal activity, you have nothing to worry about. ((see where I'm going with this?))

And as far as HST, he died from being HST, not for lack of a government nanny.

[jmg257]

63. OF COURSE the fear of registration is confiscation. That is the only reason for it,

and history backs up that trueism. There is no "compelling interest" in banning, registering or controlling arms that does not infringe on the unalienable Right to keep and bear them. The Right is absolute, or Madison wouldn't have articulated it - as he stated himself in a letter to Jefferson.

You do not have your tonque cut out because you MIGHT yell "fire" a theater, you are not banned from buying a video camera because you MIGHT shoot kiddie porn, only once you commit those reasonably illegal acts are your rights fettered - and ONLY via due process. The Right protected by the 2nd is the same - and for very good reasons spelled out right in the Consitution itself - primarily because of the necessity of the Militia, but also for free men to have the best capabilities to protect their own life and liberty.

[billbuckhead]

108. The gunlovers just don't want to pay taxes to pay for the damages

They want to avoid responsibility on many fronts.

[jmg257]

111. For damages caused by criminals? Damn right! Taxes are high enough as it is.

Everybody pays for their actions as it is - housing them takes up ALOT of $$$ resources don't ya know. They should indeed back-charge them for their incarceration.

[billbuckhead]

114. How about damages caused by bullets? Over 100 billion dollars a year

Guns owners need to pay for the mess.

[jmg257]

120. OK - I will gladly pay for ANY damages done by my bullets. Easy!

Will they take a check for $0?

While we are at it though, I want a reimbursement of my portion of the MILLIONS of tax dollars spent on ballistic fingerprinting here in NY - which in 7 years has solved ZERO crimes. Can I expect my return soon?

[billbuckhead]

123. So we can mark your bullets so that they can be traced?

If you gun gets stolen, can you pay for the damages? It seems your whole class should pay the damages since there is no insurance policies possible. The state should protect the rest of society from the damages of the gun industry through taxation.

[jmg257]

129. Nope. Once the gun gets stolen - it is the responsibility of the criminal who stole it.

If someone stole your car and ran a red light and killed somebody - should you be responsible? I don't think so. Do You??? Hope not - I would back you up on that. Why would my gun be any different?..or any other dangerous object?

Nope - marking bullets adds an extra expense that is not justifed - YOU pay for the markings - have at it. There is no reason to think my bullets would be used to commit a crime, unless of course they too were stolen - hmmmm.... The 240 Million or so firearms and MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of rounds of ammo (already subject to federal tax) that will NEVER be used to commit a crime show how small the minority of those objects you are trying to target is - hard to justify such ideas and the cost involved when they will do so little to promote safety. This ballistic fingerprinting has been tried at great expense - and has done NOTHING to solve crimes, like here in NY.

What such expensive farces WILL do is further keep lower income people from enjoying their Right - are you against poor people? The elderly? Others on a fixed income?

[billbuckhead]

167. No it's YOUR responsibilty like a bad dog getting loose

It pisses me off how you gun lovers avoid responsibility. If guns can prevent all this crime then logically they can be the cause of crime.

[jmg257]

206. That's your biggest mistake right there - thinking GUNS cause crime.

SO don't get all worked up about it - fix your ignorant thinking! I don't think "guns" prevent crimes either, but they DO help me prevent crimes against ME. The more resonsible people who do that - the less crime. You can't handle the..."burden" - no sweat - let others worry about you then (lame - but your choice) being armed and safe isn't that hard. DO you drive a car? They are used to kill TONS more people then gun are.

THE CRIMINALS cause crime - so it is THEIR responsibility - not mine, not yours (unless you are a criminal???) Hmmm - is THAT why you don't want them being blamed? are you one? And if not, then why let others take the responsibility for your safety? You still haven't given a reason for that REALLY selfish notion.

Only once all guns are banned as you propose will guns "cause crime" - as alcohol did, and drugs do, so then guns WILL be the cause of ALOT more crime then they are used to commit now.

[billbuckhead]

232. Some crimes are only possible with guns and others are made more deadly

The husband kills his wife, girlfriend or child and then himself. I don't think Mark Barton would have been anymore successful than Eric Rudolph if he used a bomb. That's a popular guncrime trend. A lot harder to do without a gun. Columbine would have been much harder with a knife or a baseball bat. Larry Flynt might be still walking if guns weren't so available. Guns make killing and crime easier. and if you think owning guns keep one from being a crime victim, consider how many cops are killed every year.

At least our surgeons are getting a lot of training for when we go to war.

[krispos42]

238. Since when do guns gnaw through leashes and run off?

Hell, mine is so well behaved I just lean it up in the corner of a closet...

A stolen gun is not the owner's responsibility, unless the stolen gun was secured in such a crappy way that anybody could steal it. Like leaving it in the glove box of a convertable. Or in a nightstand drawer where a 6-year-old could find it.

[SJames]

249. Prove it ..............

100 billion ................where did ya come up with that # ???

[SJames]

254. I'll be more than happy to pay

OOHHHHH wait I know where my porjo's go ...............watch and learn billbuckhead

http://s137.photobucket.com/albums/q233/KIDGLOCK/?action=view¤t=Stuff001.flv

[krispos42]

142. Are the gun-banners in the UK paying a special tax for the higher crime rate?

Or are they avoiding responsibility on that front?

[LeftishBrit]

261. Huh?

Our crime rate, or at any rate our murder rate, is much lower than yours.

There is more crime than there used to be, partly due to the increase in poverty and inequality that started with Thatcher. Another factor is drugs and their prohibition. But violent crime is still not nearly as high as in America.

I would have to check on differences between tax rates in Britain and America. I would guess that the better-off do pay more taxes here than in America, due to our having a welfare state, rather than anything to do with guns.

[krispos42]

143. Ballistic fingerprinting, and a few other thoughts

Ballistic 'fingerprinting' is a crock. A gun is a mechanical object. Parts wear, parts can be replaced.

I can take a handgun with the ballistic markings registered, swap barrels, shoot somebody, dump the barrel in a river (or bottle of battery acid), put on the old barrel, and go about my merry way while the police waste time and money searching a database for a gun barrel that doesn't exist in it.

Not to mention that a gun barrel wears out the most when it is new as it breaks in. The markings on bullet fired and preserved when the gun was new will quickly wear within the first few dozen or hundred rounds. Can you say 'reasonable doubt'?

And you do realize that the rate of civilian ownership in the US compared to the rest of the civilian world is something like 40:1, don't you? That US citizens own 68% of all civilian-owned guns on the planet? That there are about 240 million civilian-owned guns in this country?

If guns caused crime, we'd be the worst in the world. We're ranked 24th worldwide in homicides, and 8th in gun homicide.

The UK registers all guns. All civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles ('deadly assault weapons') are banned, as are ALL handguns. The UK pistol shooting team stores their pistols in France, where they practice. In recent years, 4.2 million police-monitored security cameras of public areas have been installed, 400,000 in London alone.

Crime in the UK is at an all-time high. Murders are at record levels. Compared to 1967, homicide rates in the UK have DOUBLED, while ours are down by 11%.

Unless the problem you're trying to solve is that we don't have enough crime and murder, you're not solving anything.

[billbuckhead]

31. Al Queda put's it in it's handbook to take advantage of our weak gun regs

"ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS, 12/6/01: In this manual, Al Qaeda terrorists are now told how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us.

DEBORAH AMOS: But what Ashcroft did not point out: these manuals show Osama bin Laden's foot soldiers how easy it is to buy assault weapons in American gun stores and gun shows.

Al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations have exploited numerous loopholes in American gun laws — loopholes that exist because of consistent lobbying by the powerful National Rifle Association to stop any restrictions on gun purchases. Since September 11th, critics say, the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has chosen to side with the NRA at the expense of the war on terrorism.

Here in the rural Virginia town of Red House, one home grown militant group, five years on one of the State Department's terrorism watch lists, got around American gun laws in order to arm themselves.

They are Americans, many ex-convicts who call themselves Muslims of America, their leader is a Muslim cleric in Pakistan — their self-proclaimed goal — to purify Islam through violence."

<http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gunland.html>

[Raskolnik]

35. Are you serious? If the AG says terrorists could take advantage of our open communication systems..

would you would support abridging 1st and 4th Amendment protections? What if it could conceivably increase the general level of safety for our society?

[scrinmaster]

36. From the article:

Al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations have exploited numerous loopholes in American gun laws — loopholes that exist because of consistent lobbying by the powerful National Rifle Association to stop any restrictions on gun purchases. Since September 11th, critics say, the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has chosen to side with the NRA at the expense of the war on terrorism.

How many terrorist attacks have involved "assault weapons"?

I'll bet you don't mind Bush curtailing the rest of the bill of rights, either, if it makes it easier to deal with terrorists. Who needs the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments? If you don't have any problem tossing out one inalienable right, who's to say you'd have a problem getting rid of the rest of them.

[billbuckhead]

44. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, especially when lives are involved

Let's let them shoot a few planes down and assassinate a few liberal leaders before we act.

The rotting hoax of the gun lobby's interpretation of the 2nd amendment will be standing after all our rights are gone. It seems to serve the present fascists in government quite well.

[Raskolnik]

47. Holy Crap You Are Serious!

Are there any other Constitutional rights that you feel should be abridged to nominally (and hypothetically) increase our collective safety?

[billbuckhead]

55. Owning a gun isn't a constitutional right, a well regulated miltia is

[jmg257]

62. M-k, then I guess my Right to free speech is only applicable if I am a member of the press.

This is ALMOST, sort of, a correct statement you've made here, because the right to arms isn't a constitutional right - it is an unalienable one - and exists whether the constitution protects it (which it does) or not. Its unalienable - we could not give up that right if we wanted to - we cannot deprive our posterity of that right. The Clauses 15 & 16 or Article 1 Section 8 secured the right to arms with regards to the militias, the 2nd ensures it at a personal level. So not only is the individual right to bear arms a constitutionally PROTECTED Right, it is required and necessary for the people to be armed - to serve in the Militia.

If you take it upon yourself to ignore your responsibility as a citizen, and as a man, so be it - just don't infringe on the Rights or capabilities of the rest of us.

[whoneedstickets]

66. You make a big leap in logic...

..Yes the second amendment outlines a right to bear arms, but remember the amendments constitute restrictions on the federal government's power. "Congress shall make no law..." The point was to prevent the federal government from mandating the disarmament of the population thereby depriving the States of their militias. The ugly background to this amendment was southern slave states who needed the power of an armed populace in case of an uprising.

Nowhere in the BoR, constitution or preamble is the right to own a gun stated to be an inalienable right. You made that up. There may be an inalienable right to defend oneself, but that's not tied to any particular technology. And don't start with the Founder quote marathon because it's just as easy to drag out USSC ruling and rival quotes that frame the 2nd as a restriction on the US Congress from restricting the right of states to allow their citizens to own guns.

The upshot of this is that States have the power to restrict and control weapons as they see fit for the purposes of civil defense and domestic security. As the NRA does, you read too much into the second that isn't there when you frame it as an individual right. Oh, and don't get into that line about every other right in the BOR being individual. The first clause of the first amendment, prohibiting the establishment of religion, is not an individual right, but a restriction on federal authority as are IX and X. There's no reason to read the 2nd amendment as anything else.

[jmg257]

68. What's the supreme law of the Land? I have presumed no more then is stated there.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

ANY right articulated is protected against ALL govts and ALL infringements, "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding". Besides infringing on an absolute natural right, an infringement by the States denies the President an effective Militia required by the constitution, just as a federal infringement does. THAT is why the Militia (and now the NG) was/is to be called forth when ANY right, privilege, or immunity listed in the Constitution is violated by forces too powerful to be suppressed by ordinary judicial means. Hmmm...definitely is a Right - it says as much right there IN THE constitution: "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms...".

The right to arms derives from the right to life and liberty, and so is an unalienable right to self-defense. That was a given long before I was around to agree with many of the founders with regards to it. Not to tie it to the most effective means of self-defense doesn't really do a victim very good does it? Nor does limiting the power of effective defense to some govt agency - especially when liberty is at stake.

"The common good, therefore, is the end of civil government, and common consent, the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order, that what remained should be preserved: how great a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government, I shall not now enquire. So much, however, must be given up, as will be sufficient to enable those, to whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting the happiness of the community, and to carry those laws into effect. But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc." Sounds familiar? To the 1st 2 amendments doesn't it? Go figure - these guys weren't idiots, neither were the people who ratified the supreme law of the Land. They KNEW their unalienable rights were (supposed) to be protected.

[whoneedstickets]

71. Again...

You assert the logic of natural rights as if they axiomatic. They are not. The notion of natural rights may or may not be an instructive principle but to assert them uncritically is a dubious rhetorical strategy. Perhaps cut and paste is all you've got.

Though you don't supply the origins of the quote I assume its Madison who was attuned to the concept of the social contract whereby individuals relinquish some rights to a central authority in exchange for security. The sovereign (leviathan) holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The origins of this idea lie with Hobbes. Indeed, self-defense was seen as legitimate use of force even under the social contract. However, and I repeat: The notion is not tied to any particular technology. It does not include a gaurantee of access to the 'best available means' or anything like that.

The term 'bear arms' could mean, following a strict constructionist logic, muskets, swords or less! In fact what it means is WHATEVER the State decides is legitimate for citizens to possess for their defense. Clearly I can not purchase anti-aircraft rockets, chemical warheads or any other 'top of the line' military hardware. The government once deemed ownership of some fully automatic military weapons allowable under strict conditions and with a renewable license. Since 1986, new machine gun ownership is no longer allowed though older weapons are grandfathered. The USSC has upheld this restriction by refusing to grant certiorari to an appeals case that reversed a lower courts ruling re: 2nd amendment rights. Lesson: the government can move the 'wall' of legitimacy in the interest of public safety. It could be moved again (no center fire semi-auto, no handguns, etc..)

Interestingly England shares US common law traditions and has much more restrictive laws. This is more evidence that the right of self defense doesn't come with a hardware clause.

What I am arguing is that you should need to have a renewable annual license to own a firearm? The CCW model and the FFL model could both be employed.

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

[jmg257]

73. The state Militias existed at the time of the constitution, and the types of arms

the people kept and beared(?), and the method used to aquire those arms were well established, as was the Right to do so. The constitution recognizes those exiting institutions, the state's role/powers with regards to them (which it & the BOR limited), and the methods in practice at that time; and the 1st Congress further reinforced what was expected by proposing what became the 2nd to specifically protect the Right and declare the Militia's importance, and Congress again by passing the Militia Act of 1792 provided for the actual arming of the Militias - the people would continue to arm themselves at the least with guns, pistols, swords, etc. - as they always had - with military equpiment in common use. After the ratifications, the Constitution & the 2nd made sure NO BODY could restrict the people's right to arms - because this Right was/is so important to freedom & liberty. THAT ties the natural right of self-defense, which was well recognized, to arms - guns, firearms - every terrible implement of war, etc...the Constitution does, of course along with the thinking of the founders, Locke, etc. etc.

The quote is Yates (Brutus 2). Madison said he wouldn't propose Rights he didn't consider absolute, any which were in doubt even at times of emergencies he would avoid (letter to Jefferson). Apparently he had NO DOUBT the Right to arms was absolute - and what "arms" were was well-established and accepted. Making the protection of the Right the supreme law saw to keeping even the state's from changing from then on what was the norm - since A1,S8 explicitly says providing for arming the Militia was now a power granted by the people to Congress - NOT the States, and the 2nd says ANY infringement is unconstitutional.

And NO - I should not need a FFL to own a firearm. It is bad enough I need one to own pistols (here in NY) - so each and every handgun I buy is registered with the State - why? What good does it serve? Only confiscation - as they know exactly what handguns I have - which should be NONE of their business. Granting such a power to the feds with regards to long guns too, besides being unconstitutional, gives them the ability to confiscate my PRIVATE property. Again - there is NO other need for it, no power granted for it, and it has been proven to lead to further infringement.

[whoneedstickets]

79. Your own predicament re:handguns..

..is but more evidence on my side.

NY state has enacted a more restrictive interpretation of what constitutes legitimate self defense weapons while keeping in mind the public interest and the social contract. No court has struck this down. Nor will they.

The line separating acceptable arms and illegal weapons in not predetermined by ANY legal or philosophical principle. The line is where the state (acting on behalf of the people) draw it. No WMD, no machine guns for all states, some limits on handguns, with restrictions on who (or where one) can carry, cross state boundaries etc--That's the current law. It's certainly a long way from the situation in 1790. We've long strayed from any historical precedent where active military weapons were available to civilians. That ended with the M-1 rifle.

While you assert that NO BODY (sic) could restrict the people's right to 'every terrible implement of war' your own evidence suggests that this is clearly not true! I couldn't tomorrow go buy a standard infantry rifle (M-16). You can't own an unregistered handgun.

Is the primary reason for registration possible confiscation? Perhaps. I think there are several reasons related to public safety (like knowing how many weapons might be in an area like post-disaster New Orleans) but even if confiscation is the reason, the state and people have the power to do that AND have exercised it when certain types of weapons have been deemed no longer civilian in nature (typically this is is done with a grandfather clause so that the weapons slowly disappear--saving us from door-to-door searches). What arms are allowable is an open, ongoing and political question. Some day it might be only manual-reload long rifles for hunting.

So, I've demolished the natural right to self-defense = hardware connection. Shown that the 'right to arms' really means the 'right to arms that the state allows under the social contract' and have pointed out that there could be no arbitrary and pre-determine standard for self-defense tools. What do you have left for an argument? "I like my guns and object to state controls"?

Why shouldn't the state have knowledge of possible implements of insurrection, or for that matter defense. In the case of a N.O. style breakdown in civil order a registry could be used to call up lawful gun owners and deputize them -- then your right would be tied to a RESPONSIBILITY to act in a militia role (WAIT isn't that the point of the 2nd?).

I hope you're not one of those 'we may need to overthrow our government' types? Hate to break it to you, the uniformed military would win unless we all get access to M-1 tanks.

I'm all in favor of CCW, firearms ownership and self-defense, but I haven't crossed the line to invest my support of these positions with some ineffable overarching, nation sustaining good. I don't believe that an armed society is by definition safer (it might be, it might not be) there seems to be evidence on both sides. When someone resort to the 'its my right' argument its usually because they've tried and failed at an empirical position (like it's good public policy).

[jmg257]

92. The passage of laws does not make then constitutional.

as the recent DC case clearly proves (30 years later). When I used NO BODY - "body" was meant to show no individual OR govt body could infringe. If Miller had been carrying a BAR instead of S-O shotgun - according to the USSC decision you WOULD be able to buy an M16 - as a full-auto BAR was definitely part of common military equipment, and the NFA would have been ruled unconstitutional as it should be - it is only that the wrong part of the NFA was challenged.

You haven't demolished anything - mainly because your arguments suppose that every usurption of power by the State or federal govt is/has been constitutional. My arguments attempt (and rather well! ;)) to show most of them are NOT - although I agree they ARE law - nonconstitutional or not. I contend they would not pass muster if they were attempted in 1792 - not by the framer's views anyway; not with the importance placed on the role of the Miltia, AND the rights of the people. Malfeasance - the lack of the govt to fulfill its duty by ignoring or obsoleteing the Militia of the several States as mandated in the constitution - should also not be acceptable.

You keep saying the States have the power to mandate arms of the Militia - when clearly that power was given to Congress in Article 1, and besides the Right remains clearly & absolutley protected by the 2nd.

I have also tried to show that what arms are allowable is also protected - as those that best serve the people in their role as the Militia are REQUIRED in order for it to be of value as articulated in the Constitution - this is what was pratice then, and should be the practice now - otherwise the Militia is useless.

Post-Katrina is an example of EXACTLY why registration is bad - as when govt breaks down is EXACTLY when the Militia would be needed, and is EXACTLY when people need the best chance at self-protection (all those SHTF "nuts" vindicated!). That, and of course the very real threat of confiscation. If the real militia existed - "everyone "could be called up - not just the responsible gun-owners who understand THEIR duty. When many rightly refuse to register their arms, when we ARE subject to door to door searches, when we are forced into compliance with unconstituional laws, when our privacy is violated, when our rights are diabled, what is that but tyranny? WE no longer hold the power - but have instead become subjects.

[whoneedstickets]

119. So the premise of your position..

..is that YOU think these laws are unconstitutional. The NFA has never been ruled unconstitutional despite several challenges, your opposition notwithstanding.

As for 'usurpations' being unconstitutional, 'even though they are law', what is the criteria for your conclusion: 'I contend ...pass muster in 1792' oh, I see. So no REAL reason at all. Its the jmg257 standard? Guess all those justices--over 70 yeas--are wrong.

Name one state firearm restriction that has been overturned? The USSC hasn't taken up the issues since the 1930's so presumably, there hasn't been many cases that affirm your position. The DC case has yet to be considered by the USSC we'll see if stare decisis will fall in this instance. I doubt it will, and I suspect the court will void the ruling on some technical ground perhaps having to do with DC non-statehood. Even if it were to be uphold the ruling, the amjority makes the case that the Second Amendment is still "subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

What constitutes a reasonable restriction? I guess that depends. The strict scrutiny /'compelling state interest' standard for the restriction of fundamental rights would certainly apply to public safety issues. In fact protecting lives is a VERY strong argument in SS cases. I it could be empirically demonstrated that certain types of firearms were disproportionately involved in crimes then the state could ban, or heavily regulate them. So, even if DC passes it may only preclude an all out ban (as DC has tried), but it doesn't preclude much in the way of restrictions so we're back to my point: The state draws the line. DC should institute heavy background checks, waiting periods, mandatory training, and annual license since all of these fall short of a ban and could be justified under strict scrutiny to protect lives and public safety.

[jmg257]

125. OF COURSE it is my opinion - that is what we are discussing - opinions backed by facts.

I so use facts whenever possible to support those views, and common sense. I also tend to rely on the writings of others, the constitution mosty as it is self-supporting, but also the framers, the Acts in place, court decisions,etc. On an issue where so many have come down on both sides, one can probably find a statement to support just about any view. I have found that most views, including the document itself - matches my view - otherwise I wouldn't have that view.

Like I said, when reading the Miller decision - they shot down his defense because the sawed-off shotgun was not understood to be a military arm - pretty clear that if he WAS carrying a military arm - he would have won, and the NFA WOULD HAVE been ruled as unconstitutional....hence the BAR analogy. The problem with court cases used to determine lawful Acts is they are so narrow in focus.

"The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having
a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation
to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and
therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the
citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or
that its use could contribute to the common defense."

It is also my postion that the "compelling interest" argument due to safety concerns is overruled by the Constitution, as discussed ad nauseum above...the problem with most cases, as semi-auto bans, .50 caliber bans, "cheap handgun bans" etc, is that the people making the decision as to what constitutes a "bannable" gun very likely have a selfish interest in banning ALL guns. Again - why the framers made sure (supposedly) to avoid such usurption. Read HR1022 about "sporting arms" and you can see once again exactly why such bans are to be avoided - by my standard, and the standard of MANY others. "Reasonable restrictions" are contrary to the absolute rights Madison proposed, and which WERE accepted - you want to penalize me via due process for abusing any right AFTER I do something stupid - fine - but not before. Same with the 1st, same with the 2nd.

[whoneedstickets]

127. Reasonable restrictions are contraty to absolue rights?

You've clearly jumped the tracks here. The USSC has never recognized any absolute rights, only fundamental ones. This statement is so far out of the boundaries of con law that you're in la, la land now I don't care how many anti-federalist you want to quote, you're just making shit up.

[jmg257]

130. Again - you are using the interpretation of the modern USSC, I am using the author.

OF course you often have the current law on your side - I prefer Madison's views, and the actual documents he penned.


OK - so give me a "reasonable restriction" which infringes on the 1st amendment, and a comparable restriction on the 2nd...

[krispos42]

153. No no no, only if it's printed ON a press!

One of those movable-type ones, at that. So forget broadcast, Internet, and computer-printed information. Not printed on a printing press, not protected by the First Amenedment!

And none of those automated roller presses, either. The hand-run kind pressed together with a crank, like a giant C-clamp. Those automated jobbies didn't come along until decades after the Constitution and the 1st Amendment were signed into law, so they don't count!

:rofl:

[krispos42]

144. "A fried peanut-butter-and-banana sandwich, being necessary to feed Elvis..."

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

Hmmm... looks like I still have the right to keep and bear arms.

And again, I'm in the militia. Where's my M16?

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
{wais.access.gpo.gov}
{Laws in effect as of January 20, 2004}
{Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004}
{CITE: 10USC311}


TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

Wait, I don't want to have an M16. I wanna be the guy with the belt-fed machine gun. Where's my M249 and a few belts of linked ammuntion? With tracers, of course.

[piedmont]

212. Thank you. Thank you vury much :)

[piedmont]

58. Over 180 MILLION unarmed people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century

And you're falling for the "terror, terror, TERROR!!!" strategy.

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

[jmg257]

65. None of this hypothetical BS justifies disabling a natural right of the people, especially

one so important the framer's enumerated it in a very short list of absolute rights. People who think like you are the reason why they did - it shows just how smart they were, even though THEY took the Right so for granted they at first figured it wasn't necessary to protect, enough saw the wisdom - along with the PEOPLE - who made sure the amendments were added.

Enough usurption has gone on over the years since, we really don't need any more of our liberties taken away by nonsense arguments, lies, stupidity, hypothetical bullshit, and power-hungry elitists - in or out of govt.

[jmg257]

64. And what tyrant do you work for?

You really think Al Qaeda, who blew up 3000 people in a couple hours, who blew up the trade Center in '93, who commit mass murder around the world, will have a hard time getting anything they need to commit a murderous act? Do you think they really care if the gun they use is an illegal one the next time they shoot up a mall or school? I think they would be more concerned about armed citizens facing them down then getting arms - as happens in Israel.

Silly to think victimization of lawful citizens stops at church doors, school grounds, work places etc. Especially since recent tragic events proves HOW stupid that idea is. Do you think the murderer in Troy really cared that it was against policy to bring a gun to work before he blew away 3 people? Think those scumbages who went to schools to molest and murder kids cared if it was illegal to bring guns with them? Wake up - a lack of "sensible gun laws" ain't the problem! You want to charge CRIMINALS for their illegal actions - go for it, I agree - ANY REAL punishment can only help - since repeat offenders are responsible for 60-80% of gun violence.

Apparently you trust this govt so completely that you would give them, and their police agencies, ALL the power - by limiting the arms of the free people they work for. That is ridiculous enough; but why? Do you really think you are so inept that you don't think YOU can handle the responsibility of owning a gun? You would rather rely on others to protect you, even though they do not have to? How do you square it in your mind to drive a car, go swimming, or light matches, all which kill many more people then guns each year? Hopefully you will not try something REALLY difficult - like raising kids. Anyway, please don't project that ineptness to the rest of us. You are too willing to impose your will on us, no matter how useless such measures as you discuss have proven in actually affecting crime rates. Besides, it is UNsensible that you would let the reprehensible actions of the .12% who will criminally use a gun to justify disabling that unalienable Right for the other 99.88% of us. Thank God the Constitution protects us and our Rights from people like you.

[billbuckhead]

210. If God wanted you to have a gun you would have been born with one

BTW, do you have proof Al Queda blew up the trade center? I'd like to see it. There seems to be more proof it was a false flag operation by gun loving neoCONS like Dick Cheney.

[TX-RAT]

269. You've completely lost me now.

With statements like that, you've knocked your credibility to 0. You used to bring up some good point's with your anti gun arguments, but I'm afraid you've jumped of the deep end.

[dairydog91]

87. Ugh

Considering that a lot of military sniper rifles are just spiffed up hunting rifles, you've basically proposed banning all hunting guns.

[krispos42]

141. Well, I agree with your subject line. That's about it.

Al Qaeda and domestic terrorists use bombs, not guns. See Oklahoma City bombing (1995), US Embassy bombings (1997), and USS Cole (2000).

People who legally carry concealed pistols are far more law-abiding than the general public. How about we tax the general public for not being as law-abiding as concealed-carry citizens?

And you want to make people who carry lawfully but have never hurt anybody pay for the actions of criminals who shoot people?

Why are you hell-bent on banning guns that are virtually never used in crime? And 'long-range sniper rifles'? Do you know what the difference is between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle? Answer: what's in the crosshairs! Hell, a $450 off-the-shelf bolt-action deer rifle is accurate enough and powerful enough to score a kill on a person in excess of 400 yards! That's a quarter-mile away or more!

What the hell would good would keeping statistics on shooting victims and costs do? Enable the state to sue the criminal to recoup financial losses?!?!?

WHAT PROBLEM ARE YOU TRYING TO SOLVE? Or are you just so enamored of Britian's soaring crime rate you want to replicate it here?

[nebenaube]

3. using self reported data on this topic

in the context of current reality is a flawed logical premise...

[Deep13]

4. "...percentage ... that reported having any guns in the home..."

Here's what I see at the shooting range. Rifle sales are sucking wind. Fewer people are hunting because there is less open space available. Plus Ohio does not allow rifle hunting for deer (except muzzle-loading).

Handgun sales are through the roof. They can't keep Smith revolvers or small Sigs in stock. Every month it seems like they have completely different handgun inventory. They are being bought for self defense and conceal and carry. They can be shot indoors at pistol ranges and the bullets are a lot cheaper than rifle ammunition.

Frankly, I think people who own pistols for defense are reticent to tell some telephone survey. After all, the caller may be a potential burglar looking for guns to steal.

[Van23]

9. Yep..

you're right. With the current trend toward CCW laws in most states, handgun sales are through the roof. This is just more Gunguys.com crap.

[benEzra]

148. Some rifle sales are down, but black rifles are backordered

Here's what I see at the shooting range. Rifle sales are sucking wind. Fewer people are hunting because there is less open space available. Plus Ohio does not allow rifle hunting for deer (except muzzle-loading).

Some rifle sales are down, but black rifles are backordered. I looked into the possibility of buying a Rock River Arms LAR-15 carbine a while back, and my local dealer said they are backordered for MONTHS. SKS supplies are close to dry and prices are climbing, prices on civvie AK lookalikes are way up, and small-caliber rifle ammunition (especially 7.62x39mm) has about doubled in price in the last two or three years as more people get into those calibers and stock up.

Handgun sales are through the roof. They can't keep Smith revolvers or small Sigs in stock. Every month it seems like they have completely different handgun inventory. They are being bought for self defense and conceal and carry. They can be shot indoors at pistol ranges and the bullets are a lot cheaper than rifle ammunition.

I've heard a lot of the same regarding handgun sales being up. I think Smith's M&P pistol line is also doing well, and Glocks are still going strong.

Frankly, I think people who own pistols for defense are reticent to tell some telephone survey. After all, the caller may be a potential burglar looking for guns to steal.

I agree 100%. If a stranger called and asked if you own any appraised jewelry, and if so what type, and how is it stored, you'd be pretty foolish to answer in the affirmative.

[TomInTib]

10. Depends on how the question is posed

I have many firearms of all types.

And not a single one is registered.

No one has ever polled/surveyed me on this.

[Ilsa]

12. It'll increase again after Bushco declares martial law and gives

Blackwater hoodlums control of the streets.

[tularetom]

13. I have several guns here but if I were polled I'd certainly deny it

Nobody's fuckin business how many guns I have. So I'm skeptical of this poll.

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. That was my first thought too.. ownership isn't down, owners *admitting*

ownership is down. They are keeping a stash, and a low profile, for when the "gun hunters" come collecting. "Who, me? Naw, I don't own no guns, I sold them all a long time ago....(or, they got stolen.. burned up in the fire we had, etc, etc)..."

[AZ Criminal JD]

16. I would never report to anyone my gun ownership

Thats why these type of surveys are deeply flawed. No one I know would tell a stranger about gun ownership.

[whoneedstickets]

24. That's simply not the case..

for most survey respondents. The GSS has long asked numerous sensitive questions and a great deal of effort have gone into looking at whether there is systematic under-reporting of certain behaviors or attitudes. It turns out that when people under-report it is almost always to conform to a societal norm, just as they will over-report societally valued behavior (like voting or giving to charity). If people do refrain from reporting their guns it would likely be that they think societal norms are shifting against gun ownership.

Hopefully you see the irony here: Even if true ownership is higher than reported, the downward trend still indicates lower social acceptance which will eventually result in lower ownership levels.


Welcome to DU.

[pscot]

19. Who can afford a gun?

I got enough trouble just putting food on my family.

[originalpckelly]

26. And crime is up. Interesting.

I think that would at least suggest that the lack of gun ownership doesn't prevent crime.

[billbuckhead]

28. Gee, I though the gun lobby was saying crime is down?

No matter what the question, more guns is always the answer.

[Raskolnik]

39. Was the post to which you responded arguing for "more guns"? n/t

[krispos42]

145. And no matter what the effects, less guns is always the answer

"What, we've banned all handguns and crime is on the rise? Let's ban hunting rifles, too!"

[aikoaiko]

40. So which is it Bill? In previous threads you say there are too many guns and now

you're arguing that fewer and fewer Americans have guns. If your report is correct, we don't need anymore gun laws. Its just dying out anyway -- isn't it?

No matter the question -- your answer is to infringe upon the civil right recognized in the 2nd amendment.

[billbuckhead]

49. Fewer and fewer people have more and more guns. They need regulated

It's our Constitutional obligation to get this gun problem democratically regulated. Why should the non gun owning majority have to pay the way for gun owning mooches and crooks? Civil rights? What about the morality of one of the highest murder rates in the world and the terror that goes with that? Why is every single major African American political organization and African American leaders on the NRA enemies list? Are you calling them anti civil rights?
<http://www.nrablacklist.com/>

[krispos42]

157. Excellent point!

That is very undemocratic that only rich people should own guns. We need a public-assistance program that will help the poor own guns to counter-balance the arms of the rich.

[aikoaiko]

41. So which is it Bill? In previous threads you said there are too many guns and now...

...you're arguing that fewer and fewer Americans have guns. If your report is correct, we don't need anymore gun laws. Its just dying out anyway -- isn't it?

No matter the question -- your answer is to infringe upon the civil right recognized in the 2nd amendment.

[riverdeep]

51. If it is true

it could be a reflection of greater urbanization. In rural areas, activities involving guns are more common.

I'm a liberal overall, I believe in private gun ownership, but am also skeptical of the gun lobbies. I'm not sure where this leaves me.

[benEzra]

53. Gee, a ban-guns-lobby press release, quoting a survey FUNDED BY the ban-guns lobby...

Gee, a ban-guns-lobby press release, quoting a survey FUNDED BY the ban-guns lobby...what a surprise... :eyes:


If gun ownership is so low, and nobody is buying guns anymore, I wonder why so many types of civilian guns are BACKORDERED at the moment...

Hunting is in decline, yes (1 in 5 gun owners, and falling). But nonhunting gun ownership bottomed out around 1990 and has been on a fairly steady climb since. The prohibitionists have lost, bill.

I will say, though, that if the ban-guns lobby ever calls ME and asks whether I own any guns, the answer is "no."

[billbuckhead]

56. And what money grubbing corporation funds the "ban guns" lobby?

Your side has arms merchants and neoCON think tanks like the American Enterprise institute going for easy bucks and a general state of terror. Our side has patriotic Americans who value life and liberty. Hardly a stereotypical lobby.

[benEzra]

67. We have a few dozen million "little people" who vote the issue...

do volunteer work, and who contribute scarce cash on occasion. People who get together to talk about guns, shoot guns, and enjoy the shooting sports, and who organize at the grassroots level to ensure we keep the freedom to do so responsibly. There are dozens of forums on the 'net with tens of thousands of members each, where people gather to shoot the breeze about guns, the shooting sports, and life.

What's the paid membership of the VPC? The Brady Campaign? How many forums are there on the 'net where tens of thousands of people shoot the breeze about hating gun owners? On any given weekend, how many gun-haters pay to enter nationally sanctioned I-hate-guns matches, and how does that number compare to the number of gun owners who compete in IDPA, IPSC, SASS, benchrest, skeet, etc. or who hunt?

You know why the ban-people's-guns side doesn't have the numbers, organization, and enthusiasm that the pro-second-amendment side has? Because hating other people and their possessions absolutely sucks as a hobby, which is why the ban-guns groups are mostly funded from the top down. The ban-alcohol movement had, and has, the same problem, for the same reason; drinking alcohol responsibly with your friends is fun, but attending we-hate-drinkers diatribes isn't so much. Which is why the American Temperance Party ultimately didn't get its way, despite immense top-down support.

When you boil it down, the U.S. ban-more-guns lobby is some dude behind a desk at the Joyce Foundation who considers outlawing rifle handgrips the most important issue in America, and who hands out grants accordingly, to the VPC, Brady Campaign, Gunguys, and dozens of smaller groups funded from the top down. The U.S. gun lobby is a loose coalition of bottom-up organizations that don't get along terribly well due to the huge swath of idealogies represented (both righties and lefties), plus a couple of small industry groups (NSSF and SAAMI), and a few paid lobbyists at the NRA, and you know what? Those organizations could all disappear tomorrow and banning people's guns would STILL be political suicide. Not because of some monolithic "gun lobby" with magic mind-control powers, but because tens of millions of ordinary Americans own guns, lawfully and responsibly, and will put forth an immense amount of effort in order to continue to do so.

Gun industry money? Please. The U.S. civilian gun industry is about a $2 billion/yr business, with small margins, and even the big name manufacturers are small by the standards of most industries. To put it into perspective, I think the entire U.S. gun industry is about one fifteenth the size of the U.S. pizza industry. Yes, there are 65-80 million of us, but a gun is a rare purchase; a gun can last 500 years, unlike a pizza or even a car, which is why (absent prohibition) gunmaking is a low-margin endeavor that doesn't support a large corporate base.

And the AEI or whatever? LOL. They'd do more harm than good to the gun-rights movement if they actually gave a crap about it, which I'm sure they don't. Most of the theocrats I've encountered over the years have been anti-gun, not pro-gun...

[billbuckhead]

83. Gun lobby uses fear to get people to buy guns

and scare voters. No other industrilized nation has this sick relationship with internal arms merchants. Here's what the Brookings Insitute said about guns in America.

"Compared with other developed nations, the United States is unique in its high rates of both gun ownership and murder. Although widespread gun ownership does not have much effect on the overall crime rate, gun use does make criminal violence more lethal and has a unique capacity to terrorize the public. Gun crime accounts for most of the costs of gun violence in the United States, which are on the order of $100 billion per year."

<http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/evaluatinggunpolicy.htm>

[jmg257]

115. We ARE the gun lobby. The NRA represents 4 Million of us.

Most of who are quite responsible enough to want guns all on our own. Fear does have something to do with it in many cases - and justifiably so - 1.4 Million violent crimes means 1.4 million victims. Sure as hell my kids, my wife, and I will not be one without putting up a fight - hopefully a well-armed one.

Hmmm...maybe the criminals should fear US? THAT would be a REAL step towards lowering crime rates! Make it unworth their while, as the odds of THEIR dying could increase dramatically.

[benEzra]

147. Fear...rather ironic, don't you think?

Gun lobby uses fear to get people to buy guns and scare voters.

The only people using fear to get people to buy guns is the ban-guns lobby. More modern-looking carbines have been sold since 1993 than in the previous four to six decades combined, thanks to you guys. You made the AR-15 the most popular civilian target rifle in America...congratulations.

But about using fear to scare voters...

What do you call it when the gun-control lobby says that rifles are "the weapons of choice of criminals"?

FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon

Illinois
Total murders...............448
Total firearms..............339
Handguns....................328
Rifles........................4
Shotguns......................2
Firearms (type unknown).......5
Edged weapons................51
Other weapons................37
Hands, fists, feet...........21

Maryland
Total murders...............551
Total firearms..............418
Handguns....................394
Rifles........................4
Shotguns.....................15
Firearms (type unknown).......5
Edged weapons................68
Other weapons................47
Hands, fists, feet...........18

New Jersey
Total murders...............417
Total firearms..............276
Handguns....................260
Rifles........................1
Shotguns......................3
Firearms (type unknown)......12
Edged weapons................62
Other weapons................41
Hands, fists, feet...........38


Or when you guys try to trick people into thinking that military AK-47's and Uzi's can be sold over the counter at your local gun store, instead of telling them the TRUTH that possession of an actual AK-47 or Uzi without Federal permission is a 10-year felony?


Or when you try to make people think that "assault weapons" are more powerful and lethal than hunting rifles?

Firearm...............................Kinetic Energy
.Civilian Uzi lookalike (9x19mm)..........450 ft-lb
.AR-15..................................1,275 ft-lb
.Civilian AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm)...1,495 ft-lb
.30-06 deer hunting rifle...............2,900 ft-lb
.375 big-game hunting rifle (.375H&H)...4,230 ft-lb
.577 big-game hunting rifle (.577NE)....7,000 ft-lb


Or when you claim that an FN FiveSeven pistol with civilian ammunition (ballistically comparable to .22 magnum) can penetrate police body armor, when in fact it is stopped by any vest rated to stop .357, including NIJ Level II and IIIA?

NIJ Standard–0101.04, Body Armor Classification

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearmstech/fabriquen.htm">U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms - Statement on FN FiveSeven


Or when you compare a half-inch inert bullet from a civilian target rifle to a heat-seeking antiaircraft missile with a high-explosive warhead? Or when you claim that you can shoot down an airliner with a target rifle as easily as shooting skeet?


Or when you claim that self-defense laws obviating the duty to retreat allow you to shoot anybody if you "feel threatened," instead of telling them the truth about self-defense law?


Yes, there is a lot of fearmongering going on. And that fearmongering is precisely why the U.S. gun-control lobby is in the sorry shape it's now in--because you tried to use fear and panic to attack lawful and responsible gun ownership, instead of working to find common ground in the fight against gun MIS-use.

I bet you could have had background checks on all private sales, tax credits for gun safe purchase, mandatory theft reporting, and fully fund the tracing of all guns used in violent crimes by now. But you guys don't care about stuff like that, do you? You're too busy going after target shooters, hunters, and collectors who own and shoot non-Mauser-styled rifles...

[billbuckhead]

181. What's need is taxes for gun owners to pay for the damage their hobby causes

Why should non gun owners pay for America's failed gun policy and a dangerous unproductive hobby?

[benEzra]

201. And a tax on responsible drinkers to pay for alcohol related deaths and violence...

What's need is taxes for gun owners to pay for the damage their hobby causes

Why should non gun owners pay for America's failed gun policy and a dangerous unproductive hobby?

And a tax on responsible drinkers to pay for alcohol related deaths and violence...which, after all, outnumber gun deaths by a wide margin (100,000/yr, per the CDC, and quite a few gun deaths are alcohol-related). "Why should non drinkers pay for America's failed alcohol policy and a dangerous unproductive pastime?" :eyes:

FWIW, guns ARE taxed (11 percent Federal excise tax), plus state and local sales taxes, and various background check fees also factor in. You knew that, right?

You're still going to have to face reality at some point, Bill. 65 to 80 million Americans ALREADY own ~300 million guns, and we're going to keep them. You can accept that fact and work from there, or you can continue following in the footsteps of the American Temperance Party...

BTW, I see you changed the subject. Any comment on this part?

The only people using fear to get people to buy guns is the ban-guns lobby. More modern-looking carbines have been sold since 1993 than in the previous four to six decades combined, thanks to you guys. You made the AR-15 the most popular civilian target rifle in America...congratulations.

But about using fear to scare voters...

What do you call it when the gun-control lobby says that rifles are "the weapons of choice of criminals"?

FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2005, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon

Illinois
Total murders...............448
Total firearms..............339
Handguns....................328
Rifles........................4
Shotguns......................2
Firearms (type unknown).......5
Edged weapons................51
Other weapons................37
Hands, fists, feet...........21

Maryland
Total murders...............551
Total firearms..............418
Handguns....................394
Rifles........................4
Shotguns.....................15
Firearms (type unknown).......5
Edged weapons................68
Other weapons................47
Hands, fists, feet...........18

New Jersey
Total murders...............417
Total firearms..............276
Handguns....................260
Rifles........................1
Shotguns......................3
Firearms (type unknown)......12
Edged weapons................62
Other weapons................41
Hands, fists, feet...........38

Or when you guys try to trick people into thinking that military AK-47's and Uzi's can be sold over the counter at your local gun store, instead of telling them the TRUTH that possession of an actual AK-47 or Uzi without Federal permission is a 10-year felony?

Or when you try to make people think that "assault weapons" are more powerful and lethal than hunting rifles?

Firearm...............................Kinetic Energy
.Civilian Uzi lookalike (9x19mm)..........450 ft-lb
.AR-15..................................1,275 ft-lb
.Civilian AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm)...1,495 ft-lb
.30-06 deer hunting rifle...............2,900 ft-lb
.375 big-game hunting rifle (.375H&H)...4,230 ft-lb
.577 big-game hunting rifle (.577NE)....7,000 ft-lb

Or when you claim that an FN FiveSeven pistol with civilian ammunition (ballistically comparable to .22 magnum) can penetrate police body armor, when in fact it is stopped by any vest rated to stop .357, including NIJ Level II and IIIA?
NIJ Standard–0101.04, Body Armor Classification
U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms - Statement on FN FiveSeven

Or when you compare a half-inch inert bullet from a civilian target rifle to a heat-seeking antiaircraft missile with a high-explosive warhead? Or when you claim that you can shoot down an airliner with a target rifle as easily as shooting skeet?

Or when you claim that self-defense laws obviating the duty to retreat allow you to shoot anybody if you "feel threatened," instead of telling them the truth about self-defense law?

Yes, there is a lot of fearmongering going on. And that fearmongering is precisely why the U.S. gun-control lobby is in the sorry shape it's now in--because you tried to use fear and panic to attack lawful and responsible gun ownership, instead of working to find common ground in the fight against gun MIS-use.

I bet you could have had background checks on all private sales, tax credits for gun safe purchase, mandatory theft reporting, and fully fund the tracing of all guns used in violent crimes by now. But you guys don't care about stuff like that, do you? You're too busy going after target shooters, hunters, and collectors who own and shoot non-Mauser-styled rifles...

[krispos42]

155. No, the gun lobby holds up YOUR VIEWS to the public

That is enough to scare people into getting a gun before they're banned.

[michreject]

160. Your best post ever................nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

102. Soros?

What money grubbing corporation funds the NRA?

Well, that would be me. And millions of other voters from both parties.

[billbuckhead]

110. Soros has been quite an advocate for the little guy

and has done more to bring down rightwing governments lately than guns have. Ask Maggie Thacher.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

122. Not for this little guy, not on this issue

He's a rich guy funding gun-control. On this issue, he's no friend to me.

[billbuckhead]

166. Freedom is better than any gun.

Soros has done more to advance the cause of freedom without using violence more than all the gun lovers in the world using their precious tools. Every violent "victory" for freedom is flawed beyond redemption.

Ultimately, a man who can't be free without the crutch of a gun isn't very free.

[jmg257]

59. Hmmm - so a greater percentage of Americans are potential unarmed victims,

and refuse to take responsibility for their own safety and their own liberties.

Seems about right in this current day and age of shucking duty and relying on others; that's why the govt gets ever more control over us.

Of course the ever-increasing number of guns in the US and the 10-year drop in violent crime rates from '94-'04 aren't important any more, simply because they do not coincide with the anti-gunner's agenda, or this report.


Luckily we live in a republic, where unalienable rights are (mostly) recognized and protected; luckily many still understand the importance of an armed citizenry.

[Pro2nd]

69. With all this anti-gun talk

I had to get online and order another crate of 5.45x39 from Bulgaria and another 2-dozen '74 mags.

Molon Labe, McCarthy!

[Herman74]

72. Definitely a Favorable Development

"Gun Ownership Hits Low of 21.6 Percent!"

The SELFISH GUN NUTS, of course, would argue to the contrary, asserting that their right to own a gun supersedes the rights of, say, ten Amish girls (five of them critically injured, five of them shot dead). You know, the right to live and all. Of course too, if that number, 21.6 percent ever got down to say 0 percent, then NO ONE WOULD BE MURDERED BY THE GUN. Can't have that now, can we?

"But what about self-defense?" the gun nuts ask pathetically. The gun nuts would have us all not leave home in the morning without packing two guns in our holsters (mustn't rely on the government to defend us, right?). Imagine, since children themselves can be shot, may as well arm them too, including those Amish schoolgirls as well as their teacher. But ask yourself this question, "who draws his guns first, the criminal with foreknowledge that he is going to commit a crime, or the 'the law-abiding citizen'?" And your gun ain't really of much use if your hands are reaching for the sky, is it now? Interesting too that "self-defense" is definitely NOT a valid reason to own a gun in the U.K., a place far more sane than the U.S.

Alas, the carnage of gun-related murders will continue, to the everlasting shame of the gun nuts.

[billbuckhead]

78. It seems the only way some people want to participate in society is with a gun

Welcome to DU. These fellow travelers of the neoCON movement love to terrorize Americans with tales of predators, illegal aliens, gangbangers, whatever "other" du jour, anything to scare people into arming themselves with latest greatest and most profitable killing machines. The truth is that guns are most likely used on family and neighbors. Truth is that here are only 200 justifiable homicides a year vs 30,000 deaths from guns. The truth is that we have the most fascist government in American history and the NRA and it's minions celebrated when they took office.

[Herman74]

82. Well, thanks, and thanks too for posting the recent findings

It's good to know that at least someone cares about the ongoing gun-related carnage. You got to be prepared, though, for the illogical arguments that might arise in response to your last post. Like: "the most fascist government in American history, huh? Well, that's proof that the populace needs guns to overthrow the tyranny!" -- as if their puny little Smith & Wessons would be any match for Bushco's tanks, aircraft, etc.

What I find rather sad is that the "NRA's minions" are actually showing up at DU, bringing with them the specious arguments of Delay, Cheney, LaPierre, etc. They ought to go to Freeperville.

[billbuckhead]

86. As their republican hosts dies, they need a new host

They bring along many other "bluedogs"

[dairydog91]

88. Hmmm?

You mean like how the small-arms of the Iraqi resistance are causing no damage to the occupation forces? Hmmm?

[billbuckhead]

94. Bragging up the Iraq civil war as a success for RBKA? We are not on the same planet

I guess one man's hell is another man's opportunity to try out his new gun.

[dairydog91]

100. Oh, you big silly goose...

I was just pointing out that guns do, in fact, offer a large group of people the means to resist the US military.

[billbuckhead]

104. The majority of US miltary deaths are from IED's and not guns

But against each other, guns are promoting freedom and humanism among iraqis, NOT!

[krispos42]

156. And if the general population rose up against Bush, we wouldn't have IEDs?

We'd be doing the same thing the Iraqis are doing. More sniping, because there are large numbers of scope-sighted bolt-action hunting rifles in this country.

Regardless, the guns loose in Iraq are keeping the opressive Shiite majority from simply riding roughshod over the newly-depowered Sunni minority. The Sunnis are fighting for their rights against the Shiite and the US. They fear retribution by the Shiites after the decades of Sunni dominance.

[billbuckhead]

172. Yeah, the gun lovers are going to rise against Bush. what a joke

Obama or Hillary maybe.

[krispos42]

179. Gee, then I guess the liberals better begin arming themselves

to beat back the hordes of rebellious Bush supporters when they revolt against the next Democratic president. I'm all set on my end.

[billbuckhead]

190. Looking forward to shooting somebody?

It's like a big fantasy to you guys.

[krispos42]

193. Looking forward to a Christian theocracy with a lifetime president?

It's like a big fantasy to the right. "Permenant Republican majority" and all that. They are working very hard on it. Look at the recent revelations that the #2 university that Bush Administration officials are graduates from are Regency University, Pat Robert's personal college. Not Yale, not Harvard, not Stanford, not Princeton, not the University of Texas, even. An evangelical fundamentalist college who's law school was ranked 136th in the nation.

And I am absolutely terrified that the situation in this country might deteriorate to that extent, either through economic collapse or rebellion. I sincerly doubt the rebellion part, but I am very worried about economic collapse, especially considering the absolute brainwashing the Reaganomics and globalization proponents have done to this nation. The right may well be manipulating situations to make the public beg them for protection. The various MIHOP and LIHOP theories on 9/11, the Iran-Contra crack-cocaine explosion in the 80's, our huge population of current and former convicts... makes me wonder sometimes.

I see several historical warning signs that precede the collapse of a great and powerful nation happening in this country. Reading "American Theocracy" was an eye-opener, and there are a few others as well.

Now it seems the only thing I CAN get made in this country IS a gun or a Buck knife, and the Buck knife comes with a damn sermon in it!

[benEzra]

204. And if Feinstein et al get their way and push more gun bans,

repub hegemony is EXACTLY what will result.

[billbuckhead]

230. Some democracy you gun "enthusiasts" fight for

It's my way or fascism even though y'all are only a small minority of the population. In it's heart the intellectual force of the phony gun "rights" movement is a Maolike neoCON vision that all political power comes at the end of a gun barrel. I think that is a stupid, cowardly and despicable philosophy.

[derby378]

231. Sorry, but Feinstein et al have to learn to respect our Constitution

We saw what happened in 1994. Never again.

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

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

[billbuckhead]

228. So your answer is to kill people

That doesn't make you any better than them.

[krispos42]

240. So then you will not fight against the establishment of a king

and a theocracy?

That doesn't make you any better than them.

[billbuckhead]

244. You can fight more effectively without using guns and killing people

In fact at this point, it is the only way of winning. Every dead person makes a generational enemy and you haven't changed any minds.

[krispos42]

294. That is usually true

But not always.

There is a reason that nobody has taken up arms against Bush, and that is becuase all of believe in the system. Two more years, two more years...

<sigh>

[Herman74]

98. You must mean like...

...how that bomb blew up in that cafeteria, or on that bridge just recently? What??? There were no guns involved??? Well, I'll be damned!!

[dairydog91]

99. No

I mean like the small arms attacks that also claim the lives of American troops.

[benEzra]

149. Welcome to DU...

What I find rather sad is that the "NRA's minions" are actually showing up at DU, bringing with them the specious arguments of Delay, Cheney, LaPierre, etc. They ought to go to Freeperville.

"Showing up"? Gun owners have been on DU from the beginning. And of course, Sarah Brady is a Reagan repub and proud of it, the head of the Brady Campaign is a repub, and a quarter to a third of registered Dems and indies personally own a gun. The ban-more-guns crusade of the '90s was a "third way" DLC aberration, an attempt to look "tough on crime" to right-leaning authoritarian types. It bombed, and the party is moving on. End of story.

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Do You Own a Gun? (DU poll)

If you were really concerned about gun misuse, you wouldn't be going after lawfully owned rifles, would you?

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon

I'm no one's "minion," just a goatee-wearing, guitar-playing technical writer with a B.A. and some master's work in English, dad to a special-needs kid, who happens to own guns, who is married to a gun owner, and whose extended family, coworkers, and friends mostly own guns. If you are concerned with criminal gun violence, you need to target criminal gun violence, not responsible ownership.

Out of curiousity, where you stand on alcohol prohibition? Do you support responsible use by those 21 and over with stiff penalties for misuse, or are you in favor of outlawing alcoholic beverages?

[Herman74]

150. The Side You're On Includes such Luminaries as

Cheney (You know, the man who shot some poor guy in the face, demonstrating just how useful guns are, right???)

Delay

Bush

Reagan

etc.

And who the hell do you think the NRA gives most of its support to, Democrats or Republicans??? Take a wild guess.

"a quarter to a third of registered Dems and indies personally own a gun." -- benEzra

Wow, and that must mean that two-thirds to three-quarters DO NOT, and given that you have "indies" thrown in, undoubtedly even a higher percentage among true Democrats! Looks like you're far outnumbered, dude. Why don't you go visit a Republican-based website, say littlegreenfootballs.com? They just love guns over there, just like you. You'll find it far more to your liking.

"If you are concerned with criminal gun violence, you need to target criminal gun violence" -- BenEzra

Oh, and I guess a few days before the slaughter I should have used my supernatural forecasting powers and targeted that guy who shot ten Amish schoolchildren by asking, "Say, fellow, are you a criminal? If so, you need to relinquish any gun you have!" What the hell do you think his response would have been? Do you think he even had a criminal record??? DO YOU???

[michreject]

161. What a pantload

:blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush: Mr. Who?

[benEzra]

162. Reagan was the most anti-gun governor in California history,

The Side You're On Includes such Luminaries as Cheney (You know, the man who shot some poor guy in the face, demonstrating just how useful guns are, right???) Delay Bush Reagan etc.

Reagan was the most anti-gun governor in California history, up to that time, and was the one who signed the Mulford Act as a way to keep guns out of the hands of people of color. After all, only rich white people should be allowed to own guns, right? (Which is why the Brady Campaign and others support the right to own $2000 skeet shotguns and high-zoot big-game hunting rifles, but not inexpensive small-caliber carbines.) Reagan talked up support for the second amendment during his presidency, but endorsed Sarah Brady's crusade to outlaw rifles with handgrips that stick out after he left office.

Bush the Elder, and his right-hand man William J. Bennett (arch-right-winger that he was) stand on YOUR side; the original "assault weapons ban" at the Federal level was the brainchild of Bennett.

The conservative roots of U.S. gun control

But you know why the association fallacy is called a fallacy, right? Or did you get that far in Introductory Logic?

The egalitarian idea that "little people" could be trusted with weapons, instead of just the power elite, is very much a product of the Enlightenment, though parallels can be found in English common law. Last time I checked, Enlightenment thought was the foundation of progressive thought. Thomas Jefferson expressed that concept quite eloquently, I think (and that luminary was squarely in the egalitarian camp).

And who the hell do you think the NRA gives most of its support to, Democrats or Republicans??? Take a wild guess.

Did I mention the NRA? No...

The NRA is 4 million gun owners out of ~80 million. BUT, to address your point, our Democratic governor, Mike Easley, is NRA A-rated and was NRA endorsed in '04, as is most of our Dem state government in NC, even though many of them were running against pro-gun repubs. So at the state level, they're not too bad, as far as I am aware.

At the national level, I have gripes with them, most recently their endorsement of Macacawitz over Webb in Virginia, but they still gave Webb an A rating and he won with the help of gun owners.

So, yes, screw the NRA. But I'm not interested in defending the NRA; I am merely defending the right to live by my beliefs on the topic, instead of having your machinegun-armed proxies kicking down my door to compel me to live by your beliefs instead. Don't like guns? Don't own one, and let's work together on addressing misuse. But stay the hell out of our bedroom, our bookcase, and our gun safe, please.

"a quarter to a third of registered Dems and indies personally own a gun." -- benEzra

Wow, and that must mean that two-thirds to three-quarters DO NOT, and given that you have "indies" thrown in, undoubtedly even a higher percentage among true Democrats! Looks like you're far outnumbered, dude. Why don't you go visit a Republican-based website, say littlegreenfootballs.com? They just love guns over there, just like you. You'll find it far more to your liking.

Half of gun owners are NOT repubs; about 50% of repubs own guns, but there are more Dems and indies than repubs, so it comes out about even. And not choosing to own a gun doesn't equate to endorsing gun bans; check your logic. What percentage of the population is gay? That doesn't mean that the rest of us don't support gay rights, now does it?

I wouldn't fit on a repub site. I have no use for theocrats, I believe in a social safety net, and I subscribe to a live-and-let live philosophy regarding people's choices about their own bodies and their own lives. Which, apparently, you don't.

"If you are concerned with criminal gun violence, you need to target criminal gun violence" -- BenEzra

Oh, and I guess a few days before the slaughter I should have used my supernatural forecasting powers and targeted that guy who shot ten Amish schoolchildren by asking, "Say, fellow, are you a criminal? If so, you need to relinquish any gun you have!" What the hell do you think his response would have been? Do you think he even had a criminal record??? DO YOU???

There are around 12,000 gun-related homicides in any given year, mostly involving criminal violence; your man Bloomberg (also a repub, BTW) says that 90% of shooters and 50% of victims in NYC had criminal records. Yes, criminal violence does account for most of the total, largely because of the singularly idiotic way this country approaches the drug issue; we could learn a lot from the Netherlands, I think. But taking away everyone's rights based on an isolated tragedy is no different from the far right's justifications for the Comstock Law, Internet censorship, etc.

And BTW, what prevention would you advocate to stop the Amish school shooting? Outlaw hunting shotguns and all other firearms, suspend the 4th amendment, send the military door-to-door to take them all, APC's in the streets and everything, and somehow win the ensuing civil war? Methinks you aren't thinking all the way through this. There are already in excess of 300 million guns in private hands in this country, and they're staying there.

FWIW, merely raising prices on pistol magazines, and requiring newly manufactured rifles to have fake adjustable stocks instead of real ones, cost the House and Senate in '94, the '00 presidency (in WV and TN), and contributed to the '04 loss. Care to speculate on the political cost of an outright ban, affecting 40 percent of households and backed by threats of military violence? Any party that tried it would immediately join the American Temperance party in the political dustbin.

We Americans ALREADY own guns--mostly nonhunting guns, BTW--and we are keeping them. If the U.S. gun-control lobby would accept that fact and focus solely on misuse, they wouldn't be in the sorry shape they're now in...

[Herman74]

218. Okay, I would be willing to make a deal...

You want me to "stay the hell out of ... our gun safe, please." I would gladly do that, no problem, if all you gun owners would agree to keep all your nasty bullets to yourselves. Deal???

"So, yes, screw the NRA." -- benEzra

Why? You're on their side. They love guns too, just like you do.

"Thomas Jefferson expressed that concept quite eloquently, I think (and that luminary was squarely in the egalitarian camp)." -- benEzra

Strange, but I don't think that the slaves he owned would have found him all that egalitarian, what do you think??? Got an answer, dude? Or maybe, just maybe, one shouldn't try to impress others by appealing to the ways of one Thomas Jefferson?

"And not choosing to own a gun doesn't equate to endorsing gun bans" -- benEzra

And you won't find ANYWHERE where I said it was. If I recall correctly, an earlier post mentioned that a poll had found that 23 percent of Democrats own guns. Ergo, roughly 77 percent do not believe a gun is a necessity. This being Democraticunderground, you are outnumbered, dude.

"There are around 12,000 gun-related homicides in any given year" -- benEzra

Wow. Twelve thousand, huh? Four times the amount of Americans killed in Iraq. Not that you give a damn, your right to own a gun being more important to you than someone else's right to live.

"And BTW, what prevention would you advocate to stop the Amish school shooting? Outlaw hunting shotguns and all other firearms, suspend the 4th amendment, send the military door-to-door to take them all" -- benEzra

That might not be too bad, but far easier would be to outlaw not just guns, but the damn bullets as well. Eventually, people will run out of them. (Yes, they can be made, but many might not be willing to go through the trouble). In any case, with people like you becoming fewer and fewer in number (see original post), hopefully with time the carnage will diminish considerably.

"FWIW, merely raising prices on pistol magazines, and requiring newly manufactured rifles to have fake adjustable stocks instead of real ones, cost the House and Senate in '94, the '00 presidency (in WV and TN), and contributed to the '04 loss." -- benEzra

So congressional scandals and Bill Clinton's failed health policy initiative had absolutely nothing to do with losses in 1994, huh?? Right. And in your mind, that 2000 election wasn't stolen but was lost because Al Gore didn't pander to people like you and the NRA as much as he should have.

"90% of shooters ... had criminal records ." Fine then. Why don't for starters we propose that all those with criminal records be permanently banned from owning guns. Why don't you propose this at your next NRA meeting, and see how far it gets.

"We Americans ALREADY own guns--mostly nonhunting guns, BTW--and we are keeping them." -- benEzra

But most Americans do not own guns (see original post). We get by without them, although you might find that incredible, feeling utterly lost without your little pistol (or whatever). And the original post tells us that people like you must be getting increasingly lonely.

[benEzra]

242. Deal, as far as I'm concerned...

You want me to "stay the hell out of ... our gun safe, please." I would gladly do that, no problem, if all you gun owners would agree to keep all your nasty bullets to yourselves. Deal???

OK, my wife and I will keep my guns and bullets to ourselves, and you stay the hell out of our safe...

"There are around 12,000 gun-related homicides in any given year" -- benEzra

Wow. Twelve thousand, huh? Four times the amount of Americans killed in Iraq. Not that you give a damn, your right to own a gun being more important to you than someone else's right to live.

Hmmm. Do you support alcohol prohibition? If not, would it be fair to say that you don't give a damn about the 100,000 people killed by alcohol every year, and that you consider your right to drink more important than someone else's right to live?

I don't know about you, but I oppose alcohol prohibition, and support people's choice whether or not to drink, even though I do give a damn about alcohol misuse. Because I also give a damn about individual self-determination.

And you won't find ANYWHERE where I said it was. If I recall correctly, an earlier post mentioned that a poll had found that 23 percent of Democrats own guns. Ergo, roughly 77 percent do not believe a gun is a necessity. This being Democraticunderground, you are outnumbered, dude.

What percent of Democrats have abortions? Does that mean the rest don't believe abortion is a necessity? "This being Democraticunderground, you are outnumbered, dude."

Red herring. Only about 20% of the population support gun prohibition, per most polls; the other 80% support the right to choose, even if they don't personally exercise the choice.

"And BTW, what prevention would you advocate to stop the Amish school shooting? Outlaw hunting shotguns and all other firearms, suspend the 4th amendment, send the military door-to-door to take them all" -- benEzra

That might not be too bad, but far easier would be to outlaw not just guns, but the damn bullets as well. Eventually, people will run out of them. (Yes, they can be made, but many might not be willing to go through the trouble). In any case, with people like you becoming fewer and fewer in number (see original post), hopefully with time the carnage will diminish considerably.

The OP was a gun-control-lobby press release citing a gun-control-lobby-funded survey. BATFE sales figures and other data do suggest that the ranks of shooters are holding steady or slowly growing, rather than shrinking. Hunting is declining, but the nonhunting shooting sports aren't.

So congressional scandals and Bill Clinton's failed health policy initiative had absolutely nothing to do with losses in 1994, huh?? Right. And in your mind, that 2000 election wasn't stolen but was lost because Al Gore didn't pander to people like you and the NRA as much as he should have.

President Clinton himself said the Feinstein ban cost 20 House seats. No, I don't think the health policy issue had much to do with it, and there are always congressional scandals.

Gore lost his own home state (TN) and heavily Dem, pro-union WV on the gun issue. With those two states, he'd have won the presidency WITHOUT Florida (and Florida wouldn't have been close enough for a recount were it not for that issue; they don't call it the "Gunshine State" for nothing).

"90% of shooters ... had criminal records ." Fine then. Why don't for starters we propose that all those with criminal records be permanently banned from owning guns. Why don't you propose this at your next NRA meeting, and see how far it gets.

Done. In 1968, as a matter of fact. The Gun Control Act of 1968 made it a Federal felony for a convicted felon to so much as touch a gun, or a single round of ammunition. The NRA supported that, and still does (as do I, though I'd like to see an appeals process for people convicted of nonviolent felonies, like writing a bad check). The law was extended to certain misdemeanors in the '90s.

But most Americans do not own guns (see original post). We get by without them, although you might find that incredible, feeling utterly lost without your little pistol (or whatever). And the original post tells us that people like you must be getting increasingly lonely.

And I respect your choice on that issue, and others. You want to read stuff Jerry Falwell disapproves of? Smoke various herbs? Drink alcohol? Ride a unicycle in your spare time? Fine with me. Just don't drive drunk, and I won't shoot up in the air, and we'll all just live and let live. What a concept...

And no, I'm not lonely. I don't know many people who don't own guns, regardless of political affiliation, both here and in my wife's home state of Maine. No, we're not going away, but we can peacefully coexist.

Have a good day!

[Herman74]

289. No, we don't have quite have a deal yet....

...evidently, you overlooked the word, "all"; my proposal being contingent upon:

"if all you gun owners would agree to keep all your nasty bullets to yourselves." For us to have a deal all you gun owners would have to agree to keep your nasty bullets to yourself, not just you and your wife.

"Hmmm. Do you support alcohol prohibition? If not, would it be fair to say that you don't give a damn about the 100,000 people killed by alcohol every year, and that you consider your right to drink more important than someone else's right to live?" -- benEzra

Actually, I wouldn't mind alcohol prohibition, I never buy any alcohol myself, and have an alcoholic drink once every 12 months. I have heard that red wine may be good for the heart, though.

"President Clinton himself said the Feinstein ban cost 20 House seats." -- benEzra

So Bill Clinton is supposed to be an acknowledged expert in such matters, with no biases??? Please.

Read Wikipedia's 1994 election discussion and weep:

"The Democratic Party had run the House for forty years and had been plagued by a series of scandals. The Republican Party, united behind Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, which promised floor votes on various popular and institutional reforms, was able to capitalize on the perception that the House leadership was corrupt, as well as the dissatisfaction of conservative voters with President Clinton's actions (including a failed attempt at universal health care"). -- No mention of any gun bans there, huh?

Finally, you conveniently forget that the Democrats lost 54 seats in 1994, with Bill Clinton's oh-so-accurate 20 being notably less than 54. Even if Clinton's estimate is accurate, the loss in seats would by itself only have brought down the number of Democratic representatives to 238, not NEARLY enough to "cost" (your own word) control of the House

And Gore would have won the Presidency without Florida, and without the two states that you mention, if he had simply won New Hampshire. So what of it??? He won Florida and should have been awarded the Presidency, his stated position(s) on gun control notwithstanding. You would have us believe that "gun control" cost Kerry the election (see your earlier post). Kerry lost the Presidency by losing Ohio, which had a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on its ballot, which Kerry refused to publicly support. No, homophobia didn't have anything to do with Kerry's loss in Ohio, it was gun control, right, despite Kerry's efforts to hunt in Ohio?

Turning our attention to eliminating gun availability from those with criminal records, you forget that those who commit misdemeanors still have criminal records. So it looks as though you will have something to discuss at your next NRA meeting after all -- you can advocate that those with ANY criminal record be denied the right to own a gun. (Heck, go for broke, try to eliminate gun ownership from those who've committed summary offenses too).

Well, I would chat some more, but it appears as though one of your fellow gun lovers has just shot and killed more than 30 people in Virginia. Not that you give a damn, but I do.

[EstimatedProphet]

215. I was going to stay out of this thread until I saw this.

Let's forget the gun argument for a while, shall we? And let's focus on this:

Where the hell do you get off telling a longtime member in good standing of this site that they only belong on a Republican-biased site, NEWBIE?

You owe BenEzra an apology.

[Herman74]

219. Pay closer attention, dude

I encouraged benEzra to visit a Republican website, I didn't indicate that that was where he/she "only belonged." Just like I encourage you, a gun-owner, to visit the NRA website or Shooter's website.

[EstimatedProphet]

223. Yeah. sure. That's really what you intended.

[Paladin]

222. There's A Whole New Crew Of "Newbies" In The Gungeon....

....merrily spouting the pro-NRA, anti-Democratic line. I never cease to be amazed about how new crops of Gun Huggers turn up in the DU Gun Dungeon, all at the same time, spewing the same talking points. Makes you wonder.....

[billbuckhead]

292. They're trashing Elizabeth Edwards down there now. It's sickening

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x136762>

[piedmont]

220. And another gun-banner resorts to a hate-filled rant.

I think you blew out your logic circuits.

[jmg257]

84. Truths? Hardly!

According to a New Haven Gun Violence study: "Most offenders had serious criminal histories, and one fifth of offenders had been arrested for a prior gun offense, and three-fifths had a history of drug charges." So, 60-80% of offenders being serious criminals already hardly shows guns are "most likely to be used on family members". I doubt their victims were family members at all. Hmmmm..."Approximately one-third of offenders or VICTIMS associated with murders and armed assaults were members of neighborhood "groups" believed to be involved in other illegal activities." Why can I imagine the MOST of the other 2/3 of victims weren't related either?

What about the .5-2.5 MILLION times people use guns for self-defense - WITHOUT killing anyone? What about the 240+ MILLION guns that will NEVER be used to commit a crime? Or the 99.88% of the 300 million people who will NEVER use a gun to commit a crime? Isn't logical to so seriously penalize them for the actions of a tiny reprehensible group of PEOPLE/criminals that can easily be controlled - if we really wanted to do so.

IF you are so against the govt, why do want to ensure THEY have exclusive control of guns??? That makes NO sense.

When do you speak out about motor vehciles, which are used to kill MANY more people then guns? Swimming pools? Poisons? Matches and lighters? Firearms are SOO far down the list of cause of deaths - there are plenty of other objects you should be campaigning about - none of which will infringe on a protected right. And if you want to have a positive effect on suicides, maybe you should try elimanting the REASONS for people wanting to kill themselves, instead of an inaimate object - that way you won't leave out the OTHER 16,000 who prefer to die.

[billbuckhead]

89. T or F, the USA leads all advanced nations in murder by multiples?

Of course it's true. The only answer the gunlovers can give is that Americans aren't as good as Europeans or Australians.

I'm working for our democratic government to win without violence but am afraid of a well armed and immoral minority trying to overturn a democratically elected progressive government. IT'S NOT LIKE IT HASN"T HAPPENED BEFORE. Like the neoCONS tried in the war between the states when a democratically elected government even talked about outlawing slavery.

[jmg257]

97. I understand you fears. And the gun lovers are arming themselves -

for a situation when yet another government usurps powers not granted to them. Most are probably smart enough to know that trying to take on the US govt would not be fun - even if the majority of the military refused to fight them. They also are well-aware that gun-grabbers are more then willing to keep taking away their guns, taking away their rights, without pause and for NO justifiable reason...the facts SHOW gun bans etc have NO positive effect on crime, yet infringe on a person's right of self-determination. Gun owners DO KNOW IF the elected govt left the rights of the people alone - ALL rights - there would be NO need to overturn it. That too was a plus of a well-armed people - they would never have to fight another revolution because the government would know better then to become tyrants.

A progressive govt is great - as long as it is one that recognizes and supports the TRUE intent of the Constitution - all of it. THAT simple thing has NOTHING to do with crime rates, suicides or any such tragic incidents.

[billbuckhead]

107. The Bush misadministration is the most fascist and most progun

Doesn't seem to go with your logic. Saddam left people have a lot of guns, why not, they're no threat anymore to big government.

[jmg257]

116. Bush is a moron - I wouldn't trust him with exclusive control of arms;

why would you?...THAT is what you are asking for. He said he would support the retarded AWB if it came to his desk - luckily it didn't. He shows NO respect for many of the rights protected by the BOR, why would the 2nd be any different? Don't forget their goal - "more power in the hands govt means more control over the people". That is what gun control is all about - from politicians anyway - they want more power - and of course they do not trust you.

Not sure about Saddam and guns - but I am sure Saddam's people KNEW if they used them illegally they would be killed - quite a deterent, no? Punishing criminals - THAT works! OF course he punished plenty of innocent people too - being an evil, crazy dictator will do that to you.

[billbuckhead]

121. Most of your fellow travelers in the "gunrights movement" sure like Bush

and hate liberals. Think Zell Miller.

Here's a valentine from Saddam.

[jmg257]

131. Good for them - that's their problem. But you may also be amazed

at how many depsise him because of his dicking around with other protected rights, the Patriot Act, the Warner Act, the Real ID Act, etc. It is hard to pick and chose ONLY the ones YOU like and be sincere about liberty and progressiveness.

[billbuckhead]

170. What about the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness

that is robbed from millions of Americans every year by the gun lobby and it's minions?

[Irreverend IX]

124. Saddam didn't allow widespread gun ownership...

Until around 2002 IIRC. Before then, only members of the Ba'ath party in good standing could legally get guns. Once it became obvious the US was going to invade, he passed out as many surplus AKs as he could to make sure that there would be a lively guerrilla insurgency once Americans occupied the country.

[jmg257]

132. Thanks for the info! nt

[piedmont]

163. Damn, if we HADN'T invaded, we still would have destabilized his regime.

We basically made him arm his enemies. Iraq might have gone off in a completely different trajectory if we hadn't stepped in and provided a target other than the Baathists for all those disaffected folks.

[Retired AF Dem]

199. I love it Bill

You are calling Dems neoCons in this post.

[Pro2nd]

128. Look, Bill

My wife is 5'1" and weighs 105 lbs. She couldn't fight her way out of a wet paper bag. I encouraged her to get a concealed handgun license and to carry. Unfortunately, she had to use the pistol defensively one night. Some whack job tried to force his way into the car that she and a group of co-workers were riding in when returning from an obstetrics conference. The other women screamed, but he kept pulling at the door. My wife pulled a gun. Nothing but elbows and assholes to be seen from that guy. No shots fired, no injuries, just a carload of safe nurses thanks to the presence of a firearm. I can understand your views from an emotional standpoint. While most firearm deaths are tragic, the simple fact is that the police cannot protect everyone at all times. I know this because I'm a cop. At any given time, depending on manpower, I am responsible for protecting 7,000 to 9,000 people and their belongings. There's just not enough of me to go around. We do the best we can with the resources that we have, but we can't be everywhere, so a person's safety is primarily their responsibility until we arrive. If you choose not to protect yourself with a firearm, fine. If you choose not to defend yourself at all, also fine. That's a choice that everyone has to make for themselves. Just don't try to infringe on my wife's right to self-protection. If you'll look at crime stats for states that have enacted right-to-carry laws, the trend is that violent crime goes down, while property crime goes slightly upward. Basically, this means that criminals, instead of robbing a potentially armed victim, will wait until they leave home, then burglarize their house. Contrary to what you may believe, gun owners are not uneducated knuckle-dragging neanderthals. We believe that our safety is our responsibility, and that a firearm gives us the best chance of survival.

[jmg257]

81. The right to arms certainly supersedes any attempt to infringe on that right.

no matter the reason - especially something like gun bans which are shown to have NO positive effect on crime, violent crime etc. There is no "compelling reason" here worth overturning the constitution, and the positives of an armed people. The number WILL NEVER get down to 0%...Prohibition and the "war on drugs" show quite clearly the idiocy of trying to control bad behavior by controlling objects...criminal use of those objects INCREASED, as did the criminal elements involved, and the associated crime rates AND violent crime rates (highest rates in history coinicide exactly). Also, just so you know - the gun owners will NOT take on the shame of criminals - or their acts - that is their burden to bear (don't count on that either - if they had morals they wouldn't be criminals).

What's weird is that IF gun ownership is down to 21%, why did more then 50% of 1000+ people right here at DU say they owned guns???

You want to depend on the govt to defend you - have at it! I don't trust Bush that much, nor anyone else to be there when I need them to protect my life or my kids. AND NO - I don't think everyone should be armed - if you are that inept that you can't handle it - then you shouldn't attempt it. YOUR choice. LET the gov protect you - and good luck! I gladly & yes selfishly choose to take the responsibility on myself - whenever possible...I KNOW I can trust myself. What better reason then self-defense, and defense of my family, besides of course the whole life, liberty thing.

[Herman74]

96. "The Right to Arms?" How about the Right to Live?????

An NRA dude shows up at DU, huh?

"The right to arms certainly supersedes any attempt to infringe on that right." -- JMG257

But of course, for in your mind, "the right to own arms" even goes so far as to supersede the right of Amish schoolgirls to live, doesn't it? It even supersedes the rights of certain diners to eat and live and peace in say, Southern California:

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

or even Texas (gun ownership rates notwithstanding):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

"especially something like gun bans which are shown to have NO positive effect on crime, violent crime etc." -- JMG257

Tell that shit to the residents of the U.K. and then report back to us, okay?

"The number WILL NEVER get down to 0%" -- JMG257

Perhaps not, with too many selfish people in the world. But with the number falling to 21.6 percent, maybe you and your gun nut buddies will start feeling a bit outnumbered, maybe too even less carnage lies ahead for the American people.

"You want to depend on the govt to defend you" -- JMG257

Dude, unlike you and your concern about your own rights, my focus isn't primarily on myself. No, I'm thinking about the Amish girls kneeling before their deranged killer just before being shot. If I recall correctly, some of them were asking to be shot first, so they wouldn't have to hear the others die. I guess you believe that these girls were too reliant on government, that they instead should have been packing heat, right, dude? (Can't leave home without your guns -- America needs to return to the days of the Old West, right, dude?) But you're still faced with that thorny problem of the killer drawing his gun first, having foreknowledge that a crime is about to be committed.

"I gladly & yes selfishly choose to take the responsibility on myself - whenever possible...I KNOW I can trust myself." -- JMG257

Yep, we're not surprised that you undertake actions you yourself describe as "selfish." I hope you never have that feeling of the nozzle of a loaded gun touching the back of your head, (your own gun not being of much use to you at the time).

[jmg257]

103. You must be very self-critical if you can't take responsibility for your own defense.

Why you are so selfish that you must rely on others to provide YOU with protection is illogical. Why have others risk their lives to protect yours?...because "that's their job"? VERY selfish attitude right their - Dude. Stop relying on others, take some responsibility for yourself and your family!

Tragic incidents like school shootings you discuss do happen - and will continue to happen no matter how many gun laws you want passed - because overwhelmingly guns are not the problem - people are. Again - prohibition and the drug war proves it. Criminals want guns - they will get them - they WILL find a way - and some scumbags will GLADLY supply them so THEY can get rich. Only the law-abiding will suffer. I would MUCH prefer the ability to carry my gun on school grounds when with my kids - at least if something rotten were to go down while I was there I could make a difference; sure as hell the murderer isn't going to care if its legal or not when HE comes armed.

You have no idea of what I am, or others, are capable of, especially armed - I would MOST DEFINITELY rather go up against an armed attacker armed myself - VERY good chance I will prevail. IF I am unarmed?...a lot less chance. What will YOU do? Ask him to wait to stab you while you dial 911? Plead for him not to rape your wife at gunpoint, not to molest your kids until your cavalry arrives? GOOD luck!

Tell you what - you think GUNS are the problem - then let's do this: I will lock my daughter in a room with a loaded gun, and you lock your wife/daughter/sister/mother in a room with a rapist/murderer, and we will see who gets violated first.

[billbuckhead]

117. Always that rape fantasy from gun "enthusisasts"

Meanwhile back in reality there are 4 times more use of guns to kill wives and girlfriends than all the justifiable homicides put together.

[jmg257]

133. Good thing - glad to know justifiable homicides are so low,

despite the 2.5 million or so times guns are used for self-defense. Shows how responsible the VAST majority of lawfull gun owners really are, beside the stats showing weapon permit holders are less likely to commit crimes then the average population.

Rape is quite a nasty thing - I am sure you would not want to go through one, or have a close female relation do so. See why so many chose to protect themselves? Damn close to murder in my opinion. Chose NOT to be a victim - it isn't that hard!

[krispos42]

152. And 1.3 million criminals scared off by honest gun-toting civilians

All that proves is that honest people rarely have to shoot criminals in order to stop a crime.

[billbuckhead]

164. Any proof of this dubious assertion? And what about unreported gun crimes?

How many American women are terrorized by men who threaten them with guns? How many millions of that happens every year?

[krispos42]

176. Yes

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html

What about unreported defensive gun uses? If I'm an otherwise-honest person with a clean criminal record that carries concealed illegally, and I am forced to display my gun to protect myself, I'm sure a hell not going to call the cops.

And I have no idea how many women are being abused by their husbands any year. If you want to use that as part of your argument, cough up some numbers.

[Herman74]

214. And if you're doing something illegally, as in IMMORALLY....

...you may very well also elect to lie to people questioning you about your "defensive" gun use. Certainly not any stretch of the imagination there.

[Herman74]

134. My "defense" hasn't been of much concern to me...

...or not at least as much concern when compared to the rights of others to live. (Let's just say I've never called the police to intervene in an ongoing crime). I'll gladly give up the right to own a gun, if it means that some nutcase can't walk into his local gunshop and buy one.

"because overwhelmingly guns are not the problem - people are." -- JMG257

The NRA has definitely succeeded in infiltrating DU, dude here giving their classic line, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" Again, my reply: "If no one had a gun, no one would be murdered by the gun." And let's just say it's a bit harder to kill 20 to 30 at your local McDonald's armed just with a knife.

"Tragic incidents like school shootings you discuss do happen - and will continue to happen" -- JMG257

NOT THAT YOU GIVE A DAMN!!! What you say may be true, but the frequency with which they occur should go down over time, if the number of people owning guns continues to drop. (See original post at top).

"Criminals want guns - they will get them - they WILL find a way - and some scumbags will GLADLY supply them so THEY can get rich." -- JMG257

The "scumbags" who are the proprietors of the local gunshop? Or maybe the "scumbags" who provided Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine killers) with their guns. You know, the "gun show" guys.

"You have no idea of what I am, or others, are capable of, especially armed - I would MOST DEFINITELY rather go up against an armed attacker armed myself - VERY good chance I will prevail." -- JMG257

Armed attacker comes up from behind, shoots you repeatedly, briefly admires your lifeless body, and takes from your pants' pocket your wallet. Police officers note, "He actually got his hand touching his concealed weapon before he died. Too bad." End of story (and end of JMG257).

"What will YOU do? Ask him to wait to stab you while you dial 911? Plead for him not to rape your wife at gunpoint, not to molest your kids until your cavalry arrives? GOOD luck!" -- JMG257

Hey, why don't you ask this question to a chap in the U.K., you know, a fellow who is prohibited by law from owning a gun for self-defense? He'll likely respond, "Blimey Yank, gun violence isn't that big of a deal here!"

[jmg257]

136. I wont ask some chap in Britian because I could give rats' ass

about what his response might be - they will soon have their pictures taken when they take a dump, and someone there to measure the temperature of the water first. They are WAY TOO willing to be victims for my taste. Been there (Manchester after the bombings) - nice place but not really impressed. How is it all working out for them by the way? Do they still stand by and watch old ladies being mugged? Do they still wonder what they will do about the protrusion of ARMED gangs imposing their will everywhere?

I ASKED YOU what YOU will do?

I definitley give a damn about things like school shootings - I told you I wish it was legal for me to carry there too. What I HAVE seen is stupid laws like "gun free school zones" do NOTHING to help the potential victims. I have SEEN the number of shootings go UP after this idiotic law was passed. I have SEEN terrorists armed with box cutters murder 3000+ people because the pilots weren't armed. I have seen where MILLION UPON MILLIONS of people murdered BY govts they trusted because they were denied the right to defend themselves. I have SEEN people - helpless to defend themselves - become the victims of violent crimes. I have seen where armed terrorists took over schools, buses, theaters etc etc while unarmed victims were helpless to intervene. I have seen tryanny at work, where those in charge take the power from their unarmed subjects - the results are not pretty. I havs SEEN bans on other objects also proved useless in bringing about their hoped-for results - in fact having just the opposite effects.

IF no one had a gun, no one would be murdered by a gun does make sense - good luck with that; of course then we have to worry about knives, sticks, axes, bats, fists, cars swimming pools, pillows, poisons, fire, etc etc...I still want the option of being armed against any such weapon-bearing criminals.

And yes indeed the NRA is alive and well.

[LeftishBrit]

251. Just to clarify...

We do NOT have armed gangs imposing their will everywhere in Britain!!!! It's true that gangs and gun crime are more of a problem in some British cities than was the case 20 years ago; but they are far less of a problem than I understand them to be in some parts of America. The murder rate in Britain is much lower than in America.

And much as I don't care for our current and recent political leaders, they are not tyrants from whom we are likely to need to defend ourselves with guns.

If you wish to vote against restrictions on guns in your own state or country, that is none of my business; but most of us over here feel safer with restrictions as to what guns can be owned and by whom.

[krispos42]

159. Um... gun violence is a comparatively huge problem in the UK

They banned all semi-auto rifles, what the DLC likes to call "deadly assault weapons", and some shotgun types in 1987, a moral panic response to a mass shooting. They banned all handguns in the UK in 1998 in (another) moral panic response to another mass shooting.

Their crime and homicides rates continue to soar, with the highest homicide rate in 40 years being 2002.

In 1967, their homicide rate was one-ninth of ours, or 11%. Now their rate is 33% of ours. It had doubled since 1967 for them, while ours is down 11% compared to the same year.

Is it low compared to ours? Yes. It is high compared to their traditional numbers? Yes.

Read posts #160 and #177 on this post for your enlightenment.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x132832#133002

[billbuckhead]

171. "That because those Brits are 4 time better people than Americans"

It's not easy access to guns in America, that cause our murder rate alone of western nations to be in the third world category.

[krispos42]

178. Well, then they are slipping. They used to be 9 times better than Americans

Or maybe Americans simply doubled their goodness in the past 40 years.

Maybe you can answer this question for me: what percentage of guns must be removed and melted down from American society before there starts to be a reduction in violent crime and murder? Keeping in mind that the people that will give up their guns first are those that don't use them to commit criems in the first place.

[billbuckhead]

188. We're behind every advanced nation the world, even India beats us

It's shameful and cheapens life in this failing nation.

[Herman74]

213. One-Third the Murder Rate of the United States, huh???

I'll tell you what: You go on preferring the policies resulting in a murder rate three times higher (dang, that's got to hurt) than that of the U.K., while I'll go with the U.K., okay???

Heck, a couple of industrialized (highest-income) countries are known for their lax or nonexistent gun laws: the U.S. and Switzerland. They're the ones that presently also have the highest murder rates among industrialized countries.

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

Well, how about that?

And could perhaps that decline in the ratio of US homicides to UK homicides, possibly, just possibly be related to the decline in US gun ownership that was reported in the original post? What say you, krispos42???

And yes, krispos42, the murder rates in Britain have gone up substantially over the past four decades, (much of it coming in the 1970s) but I don't hear any clamoring across the pond to inundate the country with guns, do you???

[LeftishBrit]

262. We have always had pretty strict gun control...

Trust me, most people in the UK aren't even aware of these particular gun laws. Most of us didn't have guns before 1987 either.

This hasn't prevented the rises in crime that are common to many countries, and which here have a link to the increases in social and economic inequality that started under Thatcher, and also to drugs and their 'prohibition'. But gun control certainly hasn't *caused* the rise in crime, either!

[benEzra]

205. You mean *this* crime-free utopia?

(UK) Parents buying body armor for children after teen murders (Times Online)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

290. You look down like that on everybody who doesn't have a gun? -nt

[Pro2nd]

105. Nozzle?

The "nozzle" of a loaded gun pointed at the back of your head. It's "muzzle" you dim whit! It's people like you that are currently writing the new gun-control legislation. Basically, just going through a catalog "ooh, that one looks mean, let's ban that one."

Remember ladies and gentlemen, always practice safe gun handling.

Rule #1; Always keep the muzzle of the weapon pointed in a safe direction........like at a communist or a hippie.

[EstimatedProphet]

217. Being a hippie and a gun-owner, I have to object to that statement.

[krispos42]

154. 15,000 people killed last year, but not one gun death! Yay!

I'm assuming that's what you want?

Do you just not get it? What good does it do to replace GUN murders with KNIFE murders?

I refuted Billbuckhead here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=18255#18360

The bottom third of my post is particularly relevent to your post, I believe.

(And welcome to the DU! :hi: ) :-)

[billbuckhead]

183. Any smart person would fear a gun more than a knife but then gun owners.......,

How can someone with straight face say knives are a dangerous as guns? But then the NRA, the gun lobby and it's sad minions bragged about putting Bush in office.

In England a nut got loose in a church with a sword and injured several people but they all lived. About the same time in TeXXXas a nut used a gun in church and the 7 people died. That's the reality.

<http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec99/shooting_9-16.html>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/540387.stm>

[krispos42]

194. You misunderstand...

I want ME to have the gun and the CRIMINALS to have the knife! The policies you advocate for gives ME the knife and the CRIMINALS the guns!

And in England they have that new Jack the Ripper running around killing people with a knife. Last time I checked (it's been a while) he had six or seven notches in his belt.

In Huron, SD a few months ago the first murder in that city in like 20 years was a domestic fight that resulted in the woman killing the boyfriend, followed two months later by a high-school student who killed his mom with a sword and wounded three other people (including a cop) before the police gunned him down after the taser didn't work. The kid was drug-free, too, so that wasn't it.

The last murder there before that was, I think, in 1987 when a woman snapped and stabbed her crying 3-year-old some 70 times.

Hmmm... two knives and a sword... the only gunplay by the cops killing a kid with a sword... in a red state with lax gun laws and plenty of guns... hmmm...

Why don't you look at these sites and tell me how good those gun laws, lack of gun ownership, and general gun distaste are working out with lowering gun homicide rates and homicide rates overall?

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_tot_num_of_vic_percap-total-number-victims-per-capita
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun

[billbuckhead]

184. You said there was no class conflict in India!!!!!!!!

You cannot possibly be that ignorant. You don't mention India has a 20% lower per capita murder rate than the USA but then you either don't understand ther term "per capita" or you're being misleading.

[krispos42]

239. I addressed that in the first part of my reply

Of course, that was six weeks ago...

Regardless, the majority of Indians are Hindu, which is fundamantally different from Christianity and focuses heavily on self-awareness and non-violence. Modern reform has also introduced the idea of a classless society, and discrimination based on caste is against the Indian Constitution.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Good.

[doc03]

91. The percentage of people buying hunting

licenses has been dropping for the last several decades also.

[madville]

95. 80% of gunowners do not hunt

The right to own firearms has nothing to do with hunting, it is has everything to do with an individual's right to own a firearm if they chose to. I'm not talking about any right mentioned in the Constitution either, just a piece of paper that gets lip service these days. I'm talking about the right to own a tool that can protect your life or your property if need be, either from evil individuals or tyrannical oppression.

[doc03]

106. Don't misunderstand I am 100% for the right

to own a gun, just saying part of the reason there is less gun ownership is less people hunt. I used to be an avid hunter in Ohio but it's just gotten to be too much of a hassle anymore. When I was young in this area we could hunt on almost anyone's property you didn't even need permission. Everyone knew and respected everyone else. Today if a farmer gives a person permission to hunt he is opening up himself to be sued if they twist their ankle in a groundhog hole or something. Todays hunters are not respectful of other peoples property, many will get permission to hunt then cut the farmer's fences and ride their fat asses all over his land on a ATV. It used to be if a landowner didn't want you hunting he would report you, now the wildlife officers will go out and check people for permission on their own and you better be damn sure you are not accidentally crossed a property line. We had 10's of thousands of acres in this area that belonged to coal companies to hunt on but over the last few decades so called sportsmen clubs from the more populated and prosperous parts of the state have bought up hunting rights for the land. So the last few years I maybe go out 1 or 2 times on public land.

[madville]

93. Not trusting any firearms survey originating in Chicago

Chicago is one of the most anti-gun cities in America, right up there along with NYC and San Francisco. Anything that comes out of there is going to be biased to an anti-gun stance for sure. If someone calls my house asking how many firearms I own I would just hang up, none of their business and I don't want anyone to know exactly what I own anyway.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

112. So, Democrats should push for more gun control laws?

We are tired of being the majority party in the congress for such a long time? Feel the need to hand it back to the Republicans?

[Pro2nd]

118. I think your sarcasm was lost upon Xeno.

[Xenotime]

113. Good. The fewer guns out there, the safer we will be.

[jmg257]

135. Of course the 10 years from 94-04 show otherwise, but stats

don't always go your way. Why its a good thing not to rely on them - or silly studies predetermined to "prove" a point. Kind of like that Harvard gem about "more guns equals more murders", or was it "more murders equals more guns"? Hard to know really...especially when another study showed more guns equals LESS crimes AND less murders.

[Irreverend IX]

126. A VPC study?

They're the most dishonest of all the anti-RKBA groups. The VPC parroted the "48 times more likely to kill a family member" shit since long after it was debunked, and often cite their own studies and articles to make points. Hunting licenses are down? Well, most gun owners don't hunt.

[krispos42]

137. Yet 50% of DUers report owning guns

That nice survey done a couple of weeks ago.

So I guess if 50% of Democrats own guns, and Democrats and progressives are 50% of the population, then since half of a half is a quarter, Democrats and progressives own 71% of guns. To put it another way, Democrats and progressives that own guns are 25% of the country's population. Since only 35% of the country's population own guns in total, that means that the percentage of Democrats and progressives that own guns compared to Republicans and regressives that own guns is 25 divided by 35, or 71%. So, 29% of the guns are owned by Republicans and regressives.

Anybody else buying that?

Oh, and the Brady people have a shitty history of trying to get inconvienent things like 'facts' out of the minds of the public. They must be following the Rove playbook.

Remember that December 16th, 2006 shooting, where a guy shot his three kids, his cousin, and his girlfriend before killing himself? Here's the MSNBC story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16239023

The Philidelphia Inquirer ran a story on it that went into more detail. The Brady PR person lied his ass off to the reporter. The story has moved, but I spend a fair bit of time debunking the lies in this post, which contains a fair amount of excerpts from the story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x132832#132864

And gunguys.com claims that "Stand Your Ground" laws make the streets run red with blood, to the point they were making "Welcome to Florida" postcards with cemetary pictures on the front and handing out warning fliers to arrivals at the Miami airport stating that if that person ever made anybody feel 'endangered' they could legally be shot on the spot. They also continue to claim that .50-caliber target rifles can shoot down moving airliners with a single bullet.

How's that for integrity?

[billbuckhead]

175. Gallup poll shows only 23% of Dem and 27% of independents own guns

Real scientific polls show Dems gun owners are about the same percentage as black Republicans. Also the poll showed even counting RepuKKKes only 30% personally owned a gun, less than 1 in 3.
<http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article2844.html>

[krispos42]

182. 30% owned a gun, 12% say somebody else in the house does.

So 42% of Americans have a gun in the house, even if they don't own it.

In other words, three times as many people own guns as there are African-Americans in the country. Pretty sizable minority.

[billbuckhead]

187. You said it.......... MINORITY

The majority want stronger gun laws and less guns.

[krispos42]

191. Then it's a good thing the Constitution protects inalienable rights

It keeps any one majority from ruthlessly destroying a minority. Otherwise, as men (a minority) we'd both be kinda screwed, wouldn't we?

And one thing I have learned from hanging around in the Gungeon is that people are misinformed about the technical, statistical, and legal information about guns. The fact that 'the majority want stronger gun laws and less guns' when the a huge percentage of people are ignorant of the topic AND are drawing a false link between rates of gun ownership and crime tells me that what people want are less crime. They are expressing that desire by attacking what they perceive of as the cause of the crime. Remember, this the same population that 25% of things Jesus will return this calender year and can barely name a supreme court justice.

The MSM and people like Sarah Brady and gunguys.com don't help educate very much. To be fair, the NRA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation don't help educate very much, either.

I personally am self-taught on this issue. The Gungeon in general has been most informative, with locking horns with you and Iverglas particularly enriching.

[billbuckhead]

224. The gun lobby keeps lying about what the 2nd amendment means

It's obvious from the the way it was written that gun ownership was a communal right and responsibility. The 2nd amendment was meant to establish a citizens militia as a replacement for a standing army, not a license for anyone to have any weapon. If it was otherwise, they wouldn't have put in the introductory clause with the qualifying phrase of "well regulated". Notice that not one of the other amendments have these introductory clauses.

One can only embrace the NRA definition of the 2nd amendment as a poor scholar or a liar. In fact the NRA proclaim as a slogan just the 2nd part of the 2nd amendment."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not the same thing as "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In fact a compromise draft of the 2nd amendment written less than a month earlier by the senate before being sent to the house for a vote read as, "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>

[krispos42]

241. Asked and answered

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=642733&mesg_id=652560

But if it makes you feel better...

"A fried sandwich, composed of white bread, peanut butter, and sliced bananas, being necessary to feed Elvis, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous about their cholesterol shall be compelled to render consumption."

And when you argue that it's a collective right, not an individual right, you start sounding an awful lot like that great defender of the Constitutio, AG Gonzo. How many other rights in the Bill of Rights are collective?

[billbuckhead]

243. The second is the only one with a modifier at the beginning

So it is unique.

[piedmont]

245. It's a clause, not a modifier-- and the action of the sentence remains the same.

It still protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those are the same people that the other amendments are about.

[krispos42]

296. Yeah, Randi Rhodes was arguing that yesterday

Amazing how, when it becomes about guns, both you and Randi start sounding like Alberto Gonzales talking about hadaes corpus and such.

[Hippo_Tron]

260. Does the 2nd amendment give me the right to own a fully automatic AK-47

And a grenade launcher?

[benEzra]

202. Another recent Gallup poll gives different numbers...

another Gallup poll the same year gives different 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.

So another Gallup poll the same years says the 36% of indies and 31% of Dems personally own a gun. (I'd like to see the raw data, but you have to be a member to get access to that.) Taking both sets of numbers, you're still looking at a quarter to a third of Dems and indies, as I said, and Dem/indie gun owners would equal or outnumber repub owners under either set of numbers.

But consider this for a moment--can you win elections if you drive even 20% of Dems away? The 1994 House and Senate elections say a firm No Way--and the 1994 Feinstein only raised prices on pistol magazines, and didn't ban ANY guns. Care to speculate on the political fallout from the bans you advocate?

(FWIW, your link says 41% of repubs, not 30%, but that's not so relevant since we're talking about Dem/indie owners here. The Feinstein ban probably did help repub get-out-the-vote efforts, though.)

[billbuckhead]

248. Your link doesn't work and you're still a minority

Your own article says stereotypes of gun owners not far off. What's far off is the 1994 elections and whatever was the reason. Hillarycare, rise of fundie political power and welfare reform were more major factors than gunpowder.

[krispos42]

151. Oh, and I seem to remember a somewhere that...

More guns were being sold to the American public every year than the annual population increase.

[billbuckhead]

192. You remember in your fantasies. Here's reality from the Huffington Post

"A new Violence Policy Center analysis of the NORC data, A Shrinking Minority: The Continuing Decline of Gun Ownership in America notes, "When talking to the news media, gunmakers work to present themselves as a vibrant, growing industry that is an inextricable part of American society." For example, in a June 2006 press release, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) President Doug Painter states that "...gun sales and ownership in our country continue to rise." In the release, the NSSF adds without attribution, "The number of American households with at least one firearm is now estimated at nearly 47.8 million." According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 2005 there were an estimated 108,819,000 households in America. Using NSSF's figures, 43.9 percent of American households have a gun--more than nine percentage points higher than the most recent NORC household gun ownership figure.

The NSSF is not alone in its efforts to puff up the facts about how many Americans have guns in their homes or personally own firearms. The National Rifle Association (NRA) routinely claims that nearly half of all American households have guns and also misleadingly boasts, "The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high."

Yet, for the past decade, when talking amongst themselves in industry publications, the issue, as voiced in one gunmaker's ad in 1998 is, "It's not `who your customers will be in five years.' It's `will there be any customers left?'" This fact is openly acknowledged in gun industry publications and among the associations that act on the industry's behalf. Discussions of the continuing decline in gun ownership, and the inability to find replacement buyers to take the place of the aging primary market of white males, are often characterized by tones of panic and, at the same time, resignation.

So why--as gauged by their misleading claims on gun ownership--are the gun industry and gun lobby whistling as they walk together through the graveyard? Because the political might of both the NRA and the gun industry relies on consistently overestimating the number of Americans who own guns. To publicly acknowledge that the gun culture in America is fading away, and that they are a clear minority, undercuts their political power. Unfortunately for the NRA and the gun manufacturers, saying it doesn't make it so."
-----------snip-------------------------
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/gun-ownership-drops-drama_b_45485.html>

[krispos42]

196. Oops, wrong again

According to the Census Bureau, the US population increased by an estimated 2,868,903 from July 1, 2004 to July 1, 2005. According to the ATF, 2,856,014 handguns, rifles, and shotguns were made by US companies. 157,231 of those guns were exported. Oh, and the not-so-fine print on the ATF report notes that those numbers only include 79% of gun makers, i.e., 29% of gun makers didn't file production reports with the ATF.

I could not find a report on how many firearms were imported, but many popular rifles, shotguns, and pistols are made in Europe. The Glock pistols, for example, are made in Austria, Walther, SIG-Sauer, and H&K firearms are made in Germany, Brownings and FNs are made in Belgium, Berettas and Benellis are made in Italy, and many domestic manufacturers also import various models lines from overseas. Turkey, the Czech Republic, and Japan are popular places of manufacture.

Offhand, I'd say the Huffington post, and by extension you, got it major wrong.

http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/afmer/afmer2005.pdf

[billbuckhead]

208. You can't even do basic math 2,869,903>2,856,014

What about all the millions not counted in the census vs all your unreported gun sales?

It's mostly the same gun nuts buying more and more guns.

[krispos42]

237. Right into my trap

Bwa ha ha ha ha! *rubs hands*

2,869,903-2,856,014=18,889

2,856,014÷2,869,903-2,856=0.9952

In other words, for every 1000 people this country gained in population, it gained at least 995 guns.

Now, overall there are between 220 and 240 million guns in this nation of 300 million, which puts gun ownership rates in the 77% range. If this held true for the new arrivals (and, by the way, the millions of people here illegally can't buy a gun legally), then the 2,869,903 new people here would only want 2,209,825 guns.

Gun manufacturers have a very good record-keeping. As you'll note from the ATF report, only guns that were manufactured and sold in 2005 were counted. And ALL of those guns made and sold by the gun makers were sold to federally licenced dealers, usually wholesalers.

The Census estimate is just that, an estimate. It would include statistical analysis of who's missing, even if it can't be used for redistricting.

And I will again note that the number of guns made is NOT the total number of new guns in this country. 21% of manufactures are unaccounted for, and imports are not included in that number. For the sake of fairness and accuracy I will also note that that number does not include guns that are destroyed, such as through police seizures, gun buyback programs, lost, or broken guns, but those are probably fairly minor. Most police departments re-sell seized guns after they are no longer needed for evidence.

It could well be that for every 1000 people in this country there are 1100 new guns. Maybe more.

[billbuckhead]

246. Most of these guns bought by the same small per capita of hardcore gun owners

None of what you say proves anything about how many gun owners as you change the subject from actual gun owners.

[krispos42]

295. Got anything to back that up?

I seem to recall that more and more women were buying guns.

[Buzz Clik]

158. This came out during a snippet of an NPR program yesterday.

My local NPR station is in their spring fund drive; I contribute, but I don't listen to that crap. So, I've been tuning to the NPR programs on Sirius that I would never hear otherwise.

They were broadcasting from U of AZ and having a panel discussion about five questions run in a poll by the local rag. One question was, "Would you ever fire a gun in defense of your family?" The overwhelming response was "yes" -- I think it was about 75%. Interestingly, though, not even a third of those people even own a gun or ever plan to buy one.

So, not unlike the abortion issue, these good folks are happy to have guns legal and available but don't ever plan to use one themselves.

I found that fascinating.

[dysfunctional press]

168. it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun, and not have one.

i'm just sayin', is all...

[billbuckhead]

173. But guns keep going off when they're not needed

to the tune of 30,000 dead a year, 100,000 wounded and 100 billion in costs.

[dysfunctional press]

174. guns don't go off- bullets do.

i was never big on gun ownership until this current wrecking crew took hostile control of the government.

now you can count me as part of the "pry it from my cold dead hands" crowd.

[virginia mountainman]

207. WOW Billy!!

With that statement, and a few earlier ones in this thread.

You make it sound like they get up completely unassisted, load themselves, walk outside, and just start shooting people...

That is CRAZY!!!!! In all my years in firearms handling, I have NEVER SEEN ONE that could do ANY OF THAT! Have YOU?

Have you been drinking again?

[billbuckhead]

209. You gunworshippers's always say guns prevent crime

Then logically they can cause crime as well. Many arguments that would de-escalate without guns turn into murder with easy access to guns.

Then there is the domestic violence America is so well known for which is fueled by guns. The stereotype of the wife and family abusing gun owner isn't some Hollywood invention but a constant national tragedy on our TV news played out every day.

Now the greedy gun lobby wants to bring guns into our workplaces.

[virginia mountainman]

211. I did not say that Billy...

I was pointing out the folly of your statements..

You cannot seem to understand that a gun is an inanimate object...incapable of doing ANYTHING on its own... Your making the same kind of statements that a drunkard would.


You keep putting guns, on the same level as a criminal, or a big dog...The FACT is that guns do not have ANY ability to act on their own.

Back up your statement with facts please...

[billbuckhead]

225. It's billfrombuckhead. from one of the greatest communities in the world

The sight or threat of a gun is a terror agent and certainly people have been killed by just seeing a gun. Children are killed all the time by picking up loaded guns. People with no real reason to commit suicide other than depression are far more likely to succeed in suicide if the use guns than poisin or drugs.

Here in Atlanta, terrorist Eric Rudolph set off bombs at a lesbian bar, a womens clinic and Olympic park and 2 people were killed. In contrast the Buckhead financial center was attacked by Mark Barton using guns. This gun wacko killed nine people and wounded 13. The fact is that guns making killing easy, that's why you want them and I think they're a threat to civilization. American gun culture devalues life and decreases the quality of our society. Some don't car about anything but themselves but I contend those people are poor citizens and unworthy of being liberals.

[derby378]

229. Killed by "just seeing" a gun?!?

It's a freakin' gun, not the Medusa of Greek lore. C'mon.

[virginia mountainman]

233. Yea Billy...we know...*YAWN*

Your from Buckhead, you love Maserati cars, and imported beer....Your very proud of your urban roots, and your disdain for rural folks..You have made that ABUNDANTLY CLEAR in the past..

Reason rural areas have low crime is because there's nothing to steal

Author, Billy Buckhead

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x105696#105747


EDIT: for those of you, whom don't know Billy, their lots of tid-bits of his wisdom in that thread....

[billbuckhead]

235. Millions of people move from the city to the country to improve their lives

Millions of people from all over the world move from the country to urban areas to improve their lives. It's one of the defining features of the advance of civilization.

Besides, I thought rural people were going to get rich from ethanol.:sarcasm:

[friendly_iconoclast]

264. "killed by just seeing a gun"? Must be "Gun Chi"

I learned all about it from reply #19 at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x136762#136789

We love ya, Bill. Don't ever change!

[SJames]

258. This woman has seen the elphant , bill looks a flowers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTainp2cY_w

[Man_in_the_Moon]

195. I answered 'No' on a survey a few years back, and I could outfit a Platoon...

I was asked during a survey 3-4 years ago about gun ownership, I said I didnt own any, yet in fact at last inventory I had more then 30 AR15 Receivers and Rifles in various forms and states of assembly.

[Pro2nd]

198. Sadly......

I, too, lost all of my guns in a tragic kayaking accident a few years back.;-)

[Retired AF Dem]

200. I have never lost a gun :)

I guess old Bill can lead the charge on my house when the time comes. I consider anyone that wants guns banned with the current Govt in power a Bush supporter.

[qdemn7]

221. You What I Did billbuckhead?

Your little thread inspired me so much, I went out today.... and bought a gun. Just as a way of saying a great big ......! :rofl:

Oh yes, I bought it at a Gun Show! :bounce:

[Sparkly]

227. Why? What about the "little thread" got you so "inspired?"

:shrug:

[Unrepentant Fenian]

234. GUN FORUMS AFRAID OF DU !!! LOL !

The good folks at the AR-15 forum have gotten a hold of this thread, but they're AFRAID TO HOT LINK TO DU!
QUOTE;
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=567047

[billbuckhead]

236. Just more proof how DU is astroturfed by the gun lobby and it's minions

They endlessly try to amplify their minority status. And they get plenty of corporate help. Read halfway down this extremist site:


“Remington has spent tens of millions of dollars defending our Second Amendment rights to privately own and possess firearms and we will continue to vigorously fight to protect these rights,” commented Tommy Millner, Remington’s CEO and President. “As hunters and shooters of all interest levels, we should strive to utilize this unfortunate occurrence to unite as a whole in support of our Second Amendment rights.”

<http://www.ar15.com/>

[SJames]

247. bill you are a funny man .

You are getting killed here , for gods sake man quit while you can .

[Madspirit]

253. I HATE condescension

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is being astroturfed. Patronizing much. We actually hold opinions all our own.
Lee

[SJames]

256. Mad ,

I have to give the ________ credit , he really believes what he's saying . Ya have to admire that , I wish he'd wake up and come to reality . All I have to say is poor bill .

I like his fight , gotta give him that much !!!

Come get me bill , Love ya babe !!!

[billbuckhead]

273. You can't deny that DU is being freeped by gun "enthusiasts"

from The HIGH road, ARF.com and other gunwacko sites. Notice gun "enthusiasts" almost never link to a known liberal site.

[Madspirit]

252. Anyone

Anyone who thinks guns should be outlawed trusts the Right Wing a hell of lot more than I do.
If they outlawed them, I would make one. (Zip guns...easy to make and work really well...)

I don't own one but if the country swings much more to the Right, I will get one, legal or not.
Lee

[piedmont]

255. You just exposed the heart of the problem for gun-banners...

Guns, like alcohol and many drugs, are easy to make and conceal. Any attempt to criminalize them would end in massive non-compliance, increased business for gangs, a higher incarceration rate than the insanely high one we already are embarrassed with, and a right jolly clusterfuck all around.
Like with alcohol or drugs, you CANNOT win a "war on guns" because you cannot stop them or their ammo from being produced or even confiscate a non-trivial fraction of the ones already in the possession of American citizens.

[SJames]

257. I worry about the right and the left .......................

I roll in the middle . Fair is fair . Nobody gets more than they work for , no work , no food .











Dont trust anybody .:woohoo: :applause:

[Madspirit]

259. That's terrible

Inhumane and unfortunate. I suffer from a serious mental illness. I often cannot work. I have also been homeless.

You need to grow a heart. A society that does not take care of it's own is not one worth fighting for.

I totally support all social programs and wish the military budget could go toward taking care of our walking wounded, our disenfranchised, our marginalized...our ill, etc.

Lee

[SJames]

263. Mad ,

Looks like you dont need to be involved with firearms . If you are truley in need thats fine . If your homeless ( i have been also , but I got mad enough to fight my way back up ) do something about it .

I will support social programs , but for a limited time . As a booster to get people back on there feet . Not to live off my tax dollars for years and drive a newer car than me , ie; Section 8 housing .

A society that lets others feed of the backs of the few is worth changing .

I've watched people milk the syestem for to long , my x-wife for one . Just a baby maker ....to stupid to use the pill or something else ............

[ruralmom]

265. No guns=know peace

Guns are icky! They have no place in our society. The only people who should have guns are the military and police. I forgot to add bodyguards who protect important people. I would rather be raped repeatedly than have a gun in my house. My children's lives aren't worth the danger of a gun in my house, my life is not worth the danger.

[piedmont]

266. No need for fire missions here. The real progressives are having a discussion. nt

go home

[ruralmom]

267. I am at home?

Isn't this the place to express our views? I was just trying to add my thoughts. Sorry if I offended you?

[ruralmom]

268. What's a "fire Mission"?

It sounds scary!

[Irreverend IX]

270. Try harder next time.

We're busy ripping apart anti-RKBA arguments and we don't need trolls polluting the forum. Don't you think it's kind of lame to register just so you can pretend to be a cartoon parody of a liberal?

[ruralmom]

284. Why the attitude

I thought this was a forum where I could express my views among like-minded people. Is that not the case.

Guns scare me to death! I can't stand the thought of having a gun in my home. Anything is better than me being responsible for my own safety.

[billbuckhead]

275. That's what gun nut websites call freeping or Astroturfing

What a sad bunch of people. Big corpoartions pay people to pretend they're a grassroot organiztion when they're paid politcal operatives

[ruralmom]

285. gun nut website?

You mean all those people posting on pro-gun sites are paid to do it? One of those sites came up on a google search. There was like 12,000 members. How much do they get paid?
This is an outrage, we should pass a law banning gun forums!

[TX-RAT]

271. I would rather be raped repeatedly than have a gun in my house.

Not much i can say to that.

[ruralmom]

286. Why

should my life be more valuable than a rapist?

[Zookeeper]

293. You're funny!

Have a nice stay!

:hi:

[Madspirit]

276. Then!!

**I would rather be raped repeatedly than have a gun in my house.**



Then you've never been raped. That's the sickest shit I've ever heard in my life. Do you know how many rape survivors are NEVER the same again? Do you know how many rape survivors end up committing suicide? That is THE sickest crap I've ever read. You should be ashamed even typing it. How dare you!
Lee

[ruralmom]

288. How dare you

call me sick!! I'm a modern woman, and I have a right to my opinion!!! It's my opinion that it's better for me to suffer than endanger others with a gun!!!!

[Madspirit]

277. Making something clear

I am not your ally. I saw your pictures of your guns. What are you 14? Do you fondle them when you spank it? I don't love guns. I hate guns. I used to be as anti-gun as a person could be. It wasn't until I looked at how we can have Carter then Bush, Clinton then Bush, nice then nazi, nice then nazi...two steps forward, two steps backward. We're not getting anywhere as a species, evidently and with this latest Bush we get all sorts of nazi crap like The Patriot Act, etc. I hate guns. I simply do not trust our government OR people like you. I have only succumbed to the sad realization that we are still monkeys, evidently. It saddens me. ...but I don't fondle guns and I don't think they're pretty and I don't take pictures of them and I don't love them.

Your grasp of complex social issues is pathetic. That you could speak publicly that way, about a woman you once cared for, is reprehensible. You should be ashamed.

I am not your ally. I am not a Libertarian. I support social programs for as long as a person needs them, including if that's for life. I much rather support people, than support war. I think survival of the fittest is sick and sad. I think we cannot call ourselves civilized as long as we have a nation full of homeless, hungry, unmedicated, uncared for, etc.

To me, YOU are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Lee

[friendly_iconoclast]

279. Question for bill and Madspirit

Do you think that Chileans would have been better or worse off if
an armed populace had resisted the army coup that put Pinochet and cronies into power?

Next time someone proposes a government monopoly on military power, I'll ask them the above question.

Sorry, I prefer Concord April 1775 to Santiago September 1973

friendly_iconoclast

[Madspirit]

281. Did you misread?

I said I support gun ownership. I merely added that I hate it. I don't like guns. I used to be totally anti-gun UNTIL I saw how backward this fucking country is. We go Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Patriot Act, etc. We have a neo Nazi for president, an evangelical nutcase. I support gun ownership simply because, for the first time in my life, I do not trust my government. I think of my government as my nemesis. We, unfortunately, are still Neanderthals and I don't see that changing. We go two steps forward, two back, two forward, two back. We are a pathetic, gun-loving, hate mongering species. I support gun ownership simply because I am afraid, not because I love to fondle guns. I do not have one. However, keep in mind, I am a lesbian. People seem to forget, they stuck us in ovens too.
Lee

[billbuckhead]

291. An armed populace didn't do the Confederacy much good, did it?

Chile seems to have found a better way.

[billbuckhead]

272. I trust democratically elected government more than gun nuts&arms merchants

The country is swinging to the left and that's why DU is being so heavily Astroturfed by the gun lobby.

[Madspirit]

278. My Support

Please read my post, right above yours, "Making something clear" so you will know why and how little I actually support gun ownership. It's to the young man who even posted pictures of his lovelies...(guns).
Lee

[Man_in_the_Moon]

283. Come on, you can trust me

Even though technically I am a 'arms merchant'.

[ruralmom]

287. Amen brother!

The government exist to take care of us as citizens.

[GreenTea]

280. I'm going to buy some more automatic rifles, rocket launchers & bazookas for

a upcoming planned dove hunting trip...Also I need more weapons in strategic locations around my house to pick off the coming fascist attack from the SS!

God bless my weapons.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

282. I hope you have ALOT of cash laying around, and 6 months to wait

$200 tax to the ATF per automatic weapon. Plus $10-15k min per weapon.

$200 tax for eack rocket launcher, and $200 for each individual rocket. BTW a 'bazooka' IS a rocket launcher.

Plus you have to wait for the paperwork to go through the ATF, several months at least.