Jackson faces jury trial after arrest over gun shop demonstration

[billbuckhead]

Source: Chicago Tribune

By MICHAEL TARM | Associated Press Writer
6:55 PM CDT, August 6, 2007

MARKHAM, Ill. - It's familiar territory for the Rev. Jesse Jackson: Facing legal trouble for his activist politics. This time it's for protesting gun sales he says provide Chicago gang members and criminals easy access to firearms, with deadly consequences.

Jackson, 65, has been arrested about 15 times during his career as a civil rights leader, dating back to the 1960s when he worked closely with Martin Luther King Jr., said spokeswoman Rashida Restaino.

On Monday, a relaxed-looking Jackson stood in a light pinstriped suit and asked a judge for a jury trial on misdemeanor trespassing charges stemming from his June arrest outside a gun shop where he was demonstrating in support of tougher gun laws.

Prompted by the shooting deaths of nearly three dozen public school students in Chicago during the last year, Jackson and the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a South Side Catholic priest, have held several protests at Chuck's Gun Shop in south suburban Riverdale.

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-ap-il-jackson-guns,1,3393195.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

---

Kudos to Jesse Jackson for standing up to these lowlifes. Where's Illinois favorite son Barack Obama on this?

[Vidar]

1. Jackson's a real hero; Obama just plays one on TV.

[yellowcanine]

2. Feh. Jackson is a bit of a showboat, imo. It is his major weakness.

[goclark]

4. He is certainly a hero in my opinion and his strength

is revered by many.

He has been there for those that have no one to speak for them.

He is certainly recognized and dearly loved in the African American community.

He speaks for JUSTICE ~ something that is missing in Bush America.

[jobycom]

6. The media has tried to portray him that way, but I completely disagree.

He got that reputation at a time when it was unpopular for black people to speak up. Anyone who did was "uppity." By the eighties it became unacceptable to call black people "uppity" anymore, because of the racist history of the word, so Jackson went from being uppity to being a showboat, an ambulance chaser, and all of that.

To me, he's an amazing man. He's been a champion of civil rights for forty years, as everyone knows, but he's been a champion for civil liberties and for the peace movement as well. Twice, at least, he's even taken a hand in foreign affairs. During the 80s when Reagan was bombing Lebanon for his ego, two of our pilots were shot down and captured, and they looked doomed, frankly. Jackson went to Beirut, against the protests of Reagan, and negotiated their release. Then in the 90s, when Bush began threatening Iraq over the Kuwait invasion, our diplomats in Iraq were taken hostage, by Hussein himself, who planned to use them as a shield. Again Jackson went, again over the protests and criticisms of the Republicans (who made all the same claims, that Jackson was showboating, he was only in it for his ego, all that). Again Jackson was successful, saving lives that the Republicans had written off. That one was amusing afterwards, because once Jackson succeeded, Bush changed his tune, and started claiming that they were all pulling for Jackson all along, but didn't want to say so because it might hurt his mission.

Jackson's a hero. He should have been awarded every medal this nation gives out. Instead, the Republicans have won the PR war on him. Sad to see.

[ProudDad]

109. So were those uppity ex-slaves

Frederick Douglas and Sojourner Truth...

Ambulance chasers do it for their own personal gain. I have met Jackson -- back in the early 70's and in the late 90's.

He's a sincere advocate for Civil Rights as were the above-mentioned uppity persons.

Of course, to a bigot or someone deluded enough to think that there's no "race problem" in the U.S. of (bush) A., they are all beyond the pale...

[mikelgb]

9. MLK was a show boat too...

[Vidar]

13. Anyone who seeks to lead the public successfully has to be a "showboat".

It's a strength, not a weakness.in this case.

[Seabiscuit]

59. His public posturing in favor of keeping Terry Schiavo hooked up was pure publicity whoring.

And downright immoral as well.

[knight_of_the_star]

5. I have to disagree with that

Considering he was at the head of the lynch mob with the Duke lacrosse case and refused to apologize after the case was dropped by the DA and they boys were exonerated after being dragged through the mud with Jackson leading the charge. He may have been a hero once, now I think he's more interested in getting his picture on the news.

[-..__...]

37. Like congratulating Barry Bonds.

Bonds Passes Aaron’s Home Run Record

CHICAGO (August 7, 2007) The following is a statement from Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr., founder and president of Rainbow PUSH Coalition, regarding the new Major League Baseball record: Barry Bonds hits 756 home runs, beating Hank Aaron’s record from 1976:

I join Hank Aaron in congratulating Barry Bonds for his record-breaking home run tonight. Just after celebrating his 43rd birthday, Bond’s now holds one of sports most cherished records – a feat accomplished through a career of consistency, excellence and discipline. Barry’s record-breaking home run is not just a personal accomplishment, but one that hopefully will inspire young people to pursue and fulfill their hopes and dreams.

Barry has survived the ‘home run chase’ with dignity, integrity and self-respect. He remains the most feared batter in the history of baseball – not only as home run king but also as the career record holder for the most walks.

I know his father rejoices tonight, along with the San Francisco Giants and sports fans around the world.”

"dignity, integrity and self-respect"

Ok, Jessie... if you say so.

http://www.rainbowpush.org/FMPro?-db=rpodata.fp5&-format=rainbowpush%2fdata06%2fdetailpress.htm&-lay=main&-sortfield=date&-sortorder=descend&category=press&-recid=33711&-find=

:eyes: :crazy: :silly:

[saigon68]

3. They'll just use knives

Maybe Molotov's too

[billbuckhead]

7. Much much harder to use knives. That's why bad guys want guns

Which would you rather have, someone chasing you with a knife or a gun? Pretty much a no-brainer.

[Speaker]

8. That's why bad guys want guns.

And why bad guys will always get guns.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-borderfear_27tex.ART.North.Edition2.2328b0b3.html

But in the last year, the risks of drug-fueled terrorism have raised the stakes to scary levels. Rifles and handguns have been replaced by rocket-propelled grenades, or RPGs, and high-caliber machine guns.


Bad guys will always get guns. Gun laws only affect the good guys. The bad guys have rocket propelled grenades.

[billbuckhead]

10. They don' get guns very much in Japan , Ireland, the Uk, Sweden, etc

America just about gives bad guys guns with the help of the NRA and it's minions.

[beevul]

12. Yet Japan has a high suicide rate.

I have yet to see you propose 1 single solitary idea that would prevent "bad guys" from getting guns, while leaving legitimate gun owners alone.

Why is that?

[billbuckhead]

15. When "legitimate" gun owners quit killing other Americans then I will

[beevul]

17. It would be refreshing...

"When "legitimate" gun owners quit killing other Americans then I will"

Legit gun owners killing others is the exception, not the rule. But you know that already. If it werent, the yearly deathtoll would be in the tens of millions. Clearly it is not.

It would be refreshing to see you treat it as such. Why can't you?

[billbuckhead]

58. It's a fact. Most murders are between people who know each other

The Issue Isn't Crime

Faced with the staggering facts of crime and living under a barrage of TV and movie images that reinforce the link between crime and guns, Americans unsurprisingly equate firearms misuse with criminal violence. The phrase gun violence conjures a host of stereotypical images: robbers lurking in dark alleys; street gangs; convenience-store holdups. Recent additions include crazed loners rampaging through fast-food restaurants and embittered ex-employees returning to former work sites to seek retribution.

Contrary to popular perception, however, most murders do not occur as the result of an attack by a stranger but stem from an argument between people who know each other and often are related. For murders in 1992, for example, in which the relationship and circumstances were reported (61 percent of all murders):


Almost half of the victims were either related to (12 percent) or acquainted with (35 percent) their killers. Only 14 percent were killed by strangers. Twenty-nine percent of female victims were slain by their husbands or boyfriends.

Twenty-nine percent stemmed from arguments, compared with 23 percent resulting from actual or suspected felonious activity.

Ninety-four percent of black murder victims were slain by black offenders. Eighty-three percent of white victims were killed by white offenders. In addition to being intraracial, murder is also intragender for men. In single victim/single slayer situations, 87 percent of all male victims were slain by a male offender. Nine out of 10 female victims, however, were slain by a male.

The crazed loner and the robber in the alley do exist. What FBI statistics reveal and police officers have long known is that most homicide does not result from criminal attacks or pre-meditated murders. The majority of firearms homicide stems from arguments that turn deadly because of ready access to a gun. As the country's firearms population has increased, so has its per capita homicide rate. From 1963 to 1973, the per capita homicide rate more than doubled: from 4.3 per 100,000 to 9.3 per 100,000. During this same period, the nation's handgun population tripled.
A more striking contrast comes from comparing firearms with nonfirearms homicide trends for the same period. The nonfirearms homicide rate increased 55 percent, from two per 100,000 in 1963 to 3.1 per 100,000 in 1973. The firearms homicide rate, however, jumped 148 percent, from 2.5 per 100,000 in 1963 to 6.2 per 100,000 in 1973.
---------------snip------------------
<http://www.vpc.org/studies/cfcrisis.htm>

[beevul]

64. The VPC? You have got to be kidding.

And even if all that reasonobabble is within a mile of being true, it still doesn't counter what I said.

There are 80 plus million gun owners in America possessing what latest estimates say is upwards of 290 million firearms. If legitimate gun owners are as a RULE a problem, rather than an EXCEPTION, millions would be dieing every year instead of the 12 or so thousand murdered.

Neither You, nor the vpc, nor the brady bunch have anything on that.

Yet they and you treat the exception as if it were the rule.

Buy, beg, borrow or steal a clue please.

[billbuckhead]

67. The highest murder rate of all industrial nations by multiples! Year after year

More people than all the wars America's ever fought, dead from weak gun laws! This is human sacrifice on a massive scale. Who cares about Iraq when we can't even respect other Americans lives.

[beevul]

84. Yet you focus on the tools rather than the causes, of those murders. N/T

[billbuckhead]

86. It's much harder to kill without guns, that's why bad guys want guns

Easy access to guns is the difference that leads to America's extraordinarily high murder rate.

AND HERE"S WHAT NO AMOUNT OF GUN LOBBY BLOOD MONEY CAN HIDE<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop>

[beevul]

89. You don't care about the murder rates, you just hate guns.

You can whine and cry all you like, but you demonstrate this with each and every vitriolic post and porrly thought out argument.

Your cause has no worse enemy than you. You and your words, faulty arguments, misrepresentations, and outright untruths, and those of your counterparts at brady, VPC, gunguys, <insertgunbannergrouphere, are the reason you are losing the gun issue.

How truly sad that you are so blinded that your willing to take THIS party down the tubes with you.

I pity you.

[billbuckhead]

91. Guns make killing easy so even Scotland has lower murder rate than USA

Even though Scotland leads advanced nations in assaults and general violence, America blows them away like a gunshot when it comes to murder and gun violence. Take a bow NRA! What the gun lobby and it's sad minions want is easy killing.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4257966.stm>

[beevul]

92. And yet you regularly go after rifles seldom used in murder.

You are a prohibitionist, bill. Just admit it.

I'm off to bed.

G'nite ralph.

[billbuckhead]

102. Let's see, JFK and MLK can come back to life since rifles didn't kill them

And Larry Flynt can walk again.

[beevul]

107. Which of those was shot with a so called "assault weapon"?

None of them? And so called "assault weapons" are used in less than 3 percent of homicides. Yet so called "assault weapons" are right at the top of your list of things to prevent people from owning.

And now you have made it plain that regular old rifles are on your list too.

Like I said, you are a prohibitionist.

[billbuckhead]

113. We don't know what kind of gun killed JFK. Some say an AR-15

Might have been one of the first AR15's, the stereotype black rifle.

--------------snip----------------------
This revelation received scant notice in the press and only passing mention in the committee’s final report. But again, to Donahue, it was easy to surmise what might have taken place if someone knew the original fragments from the brain were verifiably from the AR-15. It was likely, he thought, that the original brain fragments were simply switched with pieces from Oswald’s ricocheted bullet , a number of which he believed had ended up on the floor of the President’s limo. This swap enabled the “brain fragments” stored at the National Archives to be traced to Oswald’s rifle, and at the same time, covered the disappearance of the four genuine fragments taken from Kennedy’s brain. If, for example, among those original pieces were shards of zincless copper jacket, the Carcano could be eliminated as the source of the bullet and suspicion would turn to the AR-15.
---------------snip-----------------------
<http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t67591.html>

[Realityhack]

117. WTF?!?

The AR-15 reffrenced in that quote is one beloning to the Secret Service.

Forgetting about wither the quote is reasonable or not (lets not debate JFK here), it is hardly a good way to make a case that civilians should not have rifles.

[pipoman]

93. 1963 to 1973 Jesus H. Christ

VPC, the MOST outrageous lying, anti-freedom organization is making points based on 40 year old stats...LMFAO Since all the stats are available from the CDC and the FBI through 2005 why wouldn't they use a little more current info? Don't bother, we all know why because the stats and their assertions will not stand up since crime has been on a 15+ year decline and gun sales have been on a 15+ year increase. What a joke.

[jaybeat]

19. "Good guys' " guns get stolen by bad guys...duh!

One of the largest conduit for guns and ammo into the black market is through burglary. Getting guns is one of the main motives for burglary. Many of the guns killing people in the inner city are stolen from NRA members homes in the suburbs. So, having a gun in your home can actually result in TWO crimes--theft of said gun, and its later use.

Could you look the mother of a dead child (who was killed with your gun after it had been stolen) and tell her that you having that gun was helping to defeat the bad guys?

Makes about as much sense as telling the mother of a dead soldier that her child died so we "wouldn't have to fight them here."

[beevul]

21. So go after the "good guys" guns before the theives, right?

"One of the largest conduit for guns and ammo into the black market is through burglary. Getting guns is one of the main motives for burglary. Many of the guns killing people in the inner city are stolen from NRA members homes in the suburbs. So, having a gun in your home can actually result in TWO crimes--theft of said gun, and its later use."

I'd really like to see your source for such a claim. And, it would be refreshing to see any interest at all on the part of the restrictionists/prohibitionists in attacking the root causes of crime. Me, I just am not seeing it. The first thing mentioned is nearly always guns. You yourself appear more interested in going after guns than the theives that steal them. You wont be making any freinds that way. Well, except maybe with the brady campain, and the bannem'all crowd.

And having a gun in MY home really just isn't going to result in any crimes, I assure you. I live out in the middle of nowhere and the nearest town is 15 minutes away with a population of 39 people. Guns are a necessity here. Coyotes...brazen little buggers...wander into our yard and try to make off with our cats and dogs, and yelling at them just doesn't work.

Could you look the mother of a dead child (who was killed with your gun after it had been stolen) and tell her that you having that gun was helping to defeat the bad guys?

Could you look the mothers of everyone killed in DC and Chicago in the eye and tell them that banning guns saved lives, just not their childrens lives?

I can understand if you're still stuck in the old way of thinking. But we gun owners...we're keeping our guns. And all you are going to do is screw yourself and a whole lot of other people and the country, by going after them. Tis aweful hard to do the things that the Democratic Party stands for when a loud minority screams things like going after rifles used in less than 3 percent of homicides, bans on large caliber rifles used in less crimes than you have digits on your hand, and a host of other gun control...and keeps the party in minority party status. At some point, whether you like it or not, you are going to be forced to look at the big picture, and decide if all the things that this party stands for are worth risking over the gun issue.

[jaybeat]

29. Taking away a gun that could kill me is self-defense

Society protecting itself isn't "going after" anybody.

And, funny how the NRA seems to think that the only thing we need to take care of crime is for everyone (except the "criminals"--how would that work, exactly?) to have guns! They don't seem very concerned with the "root causes of crime," and neither are their bought and paid for servants, the GOP.

5 minutes of Google found this and a lot more:

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Guns Used in Crime: Firearms, Crime, and Criminal
Justice--Selected Findings

July 1995, NCJ-148201

By Marianne W. Zawitz
BJS Statistician

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/guic.txt

All stolen guns are available to criminals by definition. Recent studies of adult and juvenile offenders show that many have either stolen a firearm or kept, sold, or traded a stolen firearm.

The Victim Survey (NCVS) estimates that there were 341,000 incidents of firearm theft from private citizens annually from 1987-92. Since the survey does not ask how many guns were stolen, the number of guns stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents of gun theft.

The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) stolen gun file contained over 2 million reports as of March 1995. In 1994, over 306,000 entries were added to this file including a variety of guns, ammunition, cannons and grenades.

More...

Children and Gun Violence
In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

America and Gun Violence
American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

Guns in the Wrong Hands
Faulty records enable terrorists, illegal aliens and criminals to purchase guns. Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records. (Broken Records, Americans for Gun Safety Foundation)

"Banning guns" hasn't saved lives in DC and Chicago because IT HASN'T HAPPENED! Last time I checked, people (and their guns, stolen or otherwise) were MOBILE. Unless we have comprehensive, nation-wide gun control, it won't work.

Oh, and as to whether it would work at all, see references to other countries. Oh, but, of course, that wouldn't hold in Amerika. Too many gun nuts who would go to any lengths to get their guns. Which would then get stolen, and used in crimes.

But we gun owners...we're keeping our guns.

And there you have it, folks. It all comes down to "I won't do what you want, and you can't MAKE me." You won't give me (or society) your guns, and even if society (through our elected representatives) asks you to, you still won't. Or else. Or else, what? You'll shoot me?

Really sane, really smart, really... CRIMINAL!

Want a gun? Join the National Guard. (You know, that "well-regulated militia" that you guys always seem to forget about.) I've heard they're offering some significant cash, too. Plus, you'll get lots of practice in how to use it. And unfortunately, you or your buddies will also get first-hand experience on what its like to have it used against you. Funny, how even though the U.S. has plenty of guns, the folks in Iraq who don't like us do, too, and haven't showed any signs of giving up in the face of our clearly superior fire power. Much like "criminals" everywhere, I suppose.

[beevul]

53. False dichotomy...no gun can kill you on its own.

Society protecting itself isn't "going after" anybody.

You talk as if "society" doesn't include MILLIONS of gun owners. You need to come to terms with the fact that they exist, ARE indeed a large segment of society, and that there are political costs associated with attacking them no matter if you label it "Society protecting itself" or "metal recycling". It is what it is, and costs what it costs.

And, funny how the NRA seems to think that the only thing we need to take care of crime is for everyone (except the "criminals"--how would that work, exactly?) to have guns! They don't seem very concerned with the "root causes of crime," and neither are their bought and paid for servants, the GOP.

Funny indeed. Funny that the NRA recently endorsed improvements to the mental health system, funny that they worked WITH Democrats on that. See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=143330

The NRA is a single issue lobbying group. It stands to reason that they would focus on that issue, and not others. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you can explain to me why PETA doesn't seem too concerned about the root causes of crime. Beyond that, the NRA was once not an enemy of Democrats, but people with acidic hatred of guns managed quite successfully to push them and one hell of alot of gun owners into the waiting arms of the republican party. You can whine and cry and complain to your hearts content about the NRA and the GOP but the truth is, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY. You DON'T WANT the NRA on Democrats side. That makes all the whining and crying hollow. I'll be waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong.

"Banning guns" hasn't saved lives in DC and Chicago because IT HASN'T HAPPENED! Last time I checked, people (and their guns, stolen or otherwise) were MOBILE. Unless we have comprehensive, nation-wide gun control, it won't work.

But you are wrong. It HAS happened. Everyone that obeys these stupid bans have no guns. Only the criminals have them.
And, is there some magical wall where US territory ends that prevents guns from entering the country? Maybe you can point them out and suggest they be adjusted so that they work on cocaine and marijuana too then eh? We HAVE comprehensive nation-wide DRUG control...regardless your stand on drugs, IT DOES NOT WORK. Why would it work for guns?

Oh, and as to whether it would work at all, see references to other countries. Oh, but, of course, that wouldn't hold in Amerika. Too many gun nuts who would go to any lengths to get their guns. Which would then get stolen, and used in crimes.

The last estimate I saw on how many guns were in America was 290,000,000. Thats two hundred and ninety MILLION guns. Now, your not talking about controlling all of them in the possession of one person. You are talking about directly effecting 80 million plus people. Only 1 in 5 gun owners hunt, the other 80 percent own them for personal protection, target shooting, collecting, and other legitimate uses. Last time I checked, 300 thousand (those stolen guns anually) was less than one percent of 80 million (a conservative estimate of the number of gun owners). You can label people gun nuts til you're blue in the face, but the reality is that when you propose taking away or heavily restricting the private property 80 million PLUS people, they may vote to make sure you can't.

And there you have it, folks. It all comes down to "I won't do what you want, and you can't MAKE me." You won't give me (or society) your guns, and even if society (through our elected representatives) asks you to, you still won't. Or else. Or else, what? You'll shoot me?

You just don't get it. Gun owners vote. And they vote to make sure people like you can't be in a position to be taking their legally owned property from them. Take the issue of gun control off the political agenda, and those interested in reducing violence might win more elections -- and then enact anti-violence policies other than gun control that might actually accomplish something.

Really sane, really smart, really... CRIMINAL!

Lovely. So anyone that prevents through political process the further restrictions or outright banning of something they own, or their constitutional rights are criminals. Got it.

Want a gun? Join the National Guard. (You know, that "well-regulated militia" that you guys always seem to forget about.) I've heard they're offering some significant cash, too. Plus, you'll get lots of practice in how to use it. And unfortunately, you or your buddies will also get first-hand experience on what its like to have it used against you. Funny, how even though the U.S. has plenty of guns, the folks in Iraq who don't like us do, too, and haven't showed any signs of giving up in the face of our clearly superior fire power. Much like "criminals" everywhere, I suppose.

Your ignorance is astonishing. Here, chew on some current federal law:

Section 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://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311



Want a gun free country? Move to one. Because I will fight politically your attempts to make MY home one with every resource available to me. And I wont be alone in that. The only thing your going to succeed in doing is making matters worse for EVERYONE by ensuring that gun owners continue not to vote for Democrats, and you, me, and EVERYONE ELSE will suffer for it because you and those like you can't see past your hatred of guns.

[jaybeat]

65. The NRA isn't on my side, and neither are you. Don't let the DU door hit you on the way out.

Hard to know where to start, but against my better judgement to try and speak reason to someone who clearly has no use for it, I'll try and hit a few highlights, er, lowlights?

...the NRA was once not an enemy of Democrats, but people with acidic hatred of guns managed quite successfully to push them and one hell of alot of gun owners into the waiting arms of the republican party.

Funny. That sounds an awful lot like "people don't kill people, guns kill people."

:wtf:

Irresponsible gun owners aren't responsible for crimes committed with their guns, but Democrats are responsible for gun nuts joining the Republican party because Democrats support *reasonable* limits on the "rights" of gun owners. (Reasonable, as in, it would still be easier to legally get a gun than to drive a car.) And darn it if we stupid Dems aren't responsible for driving the segregationists out of our party, too. Though, I suppose, a lot of the segregationists probably supported the NRA, so they would'a been two'fers. (For the record, I'm *not* saying the correlation would got the other way around.)

You can whine and cry and complain to your hearts content about the NRA and the GOP but the truth is, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY. You DON'T WANT the NRA on Democrats side. That makes all the whining and crying hollow. I'll be waiting for you to tell me I'm wrong.

You'll be waiting a long time, then, I guess.

I *don't* want the NRA on the Democrats' side because their views are inconsistent with the values of the Democratic party, at least according to me and most other Democrats. If you want to lobby within the party to change the party's positions on gun control, great. Otherwise, leave us alone. As far as I'm concerned, the NRA isn't on MY side.

I was in the hospital visiting a relative only yesterday, and happened upon a 2 year old copy of the official NRA mag. (It's got hunting or sporting in the title, despite the fact, as you point out, "only 1 in 5 gun owners hunt." A tad misleading, then, wouldn't you agree?)

What really stood out to me as offensive, was an editorial about how important it would be to prevent the Dems in Congress (before they were in the majority) from trying to block Bush's Supreme Court nominees. It practically drooled organsmically over the possibility of a court with a majority that was aligned with Thomas and Scalia, who would allow absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever. This was before Roberts and Alito, so I'd imagine they, unlike most sane Democrats I know, are quite happy about the current SCOTUS.

Everyone that obeys these stupid bans have no guns. Only the criminals have them.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! They want to take away your guns! And poison your bodily fluids!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

So, then, by your own numbers, the 290,000,000 guns in America are ALL owned by CRIMINALS???!!! I guess that proves the old slogan, "If you make gun ownership criminal, then only criminals will own guns!" I used to work with someone who was into guns. As in, had a *lot* of them, and liked to shoot for fun. Even had a full-auto MEC something-or-other. He was a *fanatic* about how he had complied with every law, paid every fee, dotted every "i" and that every license, registration and permit was up to date. Go tell him he doesn't have any guns unless he's breaking one of those "stupid" laws. I'd think you'll find out that you are, er, mistaken?

:popcorn: :popcorn:

You just don't get it. Gun owners vote. And they vote to make sure people like you can't be in a position to be taking their legally owned property from them.

The only reason gun owners would oppose mainstream Democratic positions on gun control is if they are drinking the NRA/GOP misinformation Kool-Aid. Of course, many are, but for those that aren't, and can't figure out what all the ruckus is about, here's a quick cheat-sheet:

Reasonable gun regulation = Taking away your guns
Assault weapons ban = Taking away (all) your guns
Brady bill = Taking away your guns
Making ammunition traceable = Taking away (the bullets for) your guns
Requiring reporting of stolen guns = Taking away your guns (TWICE! The thief already took 'em once!)
Requiring guns be registered every 2 years = Taking away your guns (Just like they took away your cars! Oh, er, never mind.)
Appointing Roberts and Alito to the SCOTUS = (Keeping those commie Democrats from) Taking away your guns

Then, of course, there's:

Wondering why countries with (more) gun regulations have fewer gun deaths = Wanting to make the US "a gun free country" (which is the same as TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS!!!)

and

Giving tax breaks to the richest 1% = Helping working families
Starting an unjustified war with Iraq = Protecting American families

Etc., etc.

I *do* get that, in this supposedly democratic country, people like you and me are free to disagree, and to support and vote for the candidates whom we think will best represent our views and interests in governments of every level. I also get that you and the NRA have and will continue to misinform and mislead a huge number of people in ways that, I think, make our society and myself personally, less safe and secure. We can and should have a fact-based argument over whether or not the regulations I support would make our country more or less safe. But instead we have you trying to make it sound like Democrats who oppose the NRA want to "take away your guns!"

And, finally:

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.

I'd love to know when class "b" was last "called up" for duty. I'd also love to see the reaction if the government informed all of us "ignorant" males between 17 and 45 that we were, unbeknownst to us, "members" of the militia, and that we were to report for duty, so that we could be trained, equipped and sent off to Iraq.

Anyone who protests, we'll just chastise them for how "astonishing" their "ignorance" is.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Besides, none of that contradicts the notion that the militia should be "well-regulated." So, I assume it would be OK with you if the Federal Government announced that "Every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 years of age shall be issued a government-issued M-16 rifle, for use in official militia duties. Use for ANY other purpose, private possession of ammunition or ANY OTHER FIREARMS is a felony crime." That'd be "well-regulated," don't you think?

:sarcasm:
(Just in case anyone's hot and bothered enough to think that I'm actually suggesting this as good policy, constitutional though it may be.)

The only thing your going to succeed in doing is making matters worse for EVERYONE by ensuring that gun owners continue not to vote for Democrats...,

Actually, you, Faux News, Hannity, et. al. and the NRA are doing that by characterizing any and all attempts at reasonable gun regulation as "Anyone except NRA-approved fanatics want to take yer guns away! Vote GOP or else a dark-skinned drugged-out criminal-type is gonna break into your house, rape your wife and daughter and kill you in your sleep, proving that your nothing but a Girlie-Man!!!" hysteria.

...and you, me, and EVERYONE ELSE will suffer for it because you and those like you can't see past your hatred of guns.

Actually, it seems like we are all suffering because you and the NRA are effectively preventing a rational, fact-based debate on this issue. Much like the GOP's "War on Terra" smokescreen prevented any reasonable debate on the war in Iraq, or how GOP "they want to raise your taxes!" BS is designed to prevent a real debate on public spending for public priorities, or the massive transfer of wealth from workers to the rich.

We are all suffering because you and your GOP cronies believe that you have to MISLEAD people in order to have any chance of winning the debate on these and a host of other issues.

And on that point, you would, in fact, be quite correct.

[beevul]

66. Excuse me?

You have no idea who I am or what I am about, except that I oppose draconian restrictions on a civil right, and call your bullshit for what it is. I have been around here a lot longer than you, friend, and my views are quite well known by anyone that knows me, or knows what I am about. So you can take your thinly veiled accusations that I don't belong here and stick them up which ever orifice you find most uncomfortable.

You don't counter this point:

"the NRA was once not an enemy of Democrats, but people with acidic hatred of guns managed quite successfully to push them and one hell of alot of gun owners into the waiting arms of the republican party."

And you can't because its true.

Then you come up with this:

Irresponsible gun owners aren't responsible for crimes committed with their guns, but Democrats are responsible for gun nuts joining the Republican party because Democrats support *reasonable* limits on the "rights" of gun owners. (Reasonable, as in, it would still be easier to legally get a gun than to drive a car.) And darn it if we stupid Dems aren't responsible for driving the segregationists out of our party, too. Though, I suppose, a lot of the segregationists probably supported the NRA, so they would'a been two'fers. (For the record, I'm *not* saying the correlation would got the other way around.)

No, not "Democrats are responsible for gun nuts joining the Republican party because Democrats support *reasonable* limits on the "rights" of gun owners." Thats YOUR little creation. ANTI-GUN democrats are responsible for gun owners joining the Republican party because they pushed UNREASONABLE things like the assault weapons ban and quite a few other rediculous attempts at over-regulation. I tripple dog dare you to even TRY to show that banning a class of firearms used in less than 3% of ALL homicides nationwide is in any way shape size or form reasonable. Go ahead. The rest the paragraph is just garbage.

"You'll be waiting a long time, then, I guess."

Now theres a huge surprise. Not.

I *don't* want the NRA on the Democrats' side because their views are inconsistent with the values of the Democratic party, at least according to me and most other Democrats. If you want to lobby within the party to change the party's positions on gun control, great. Otherwise, leave us alone. As far as I'm concerned, the NRA isn't on MY side.

I was in the hospital visiting a relative only yesterday, and happened upon a 2 year old copy of the official NRA mag. (It's got hunting or sporting in the title, despite the fact, as you point out, "only 1 in 5 gun owners hunt." A tad misleading, then, wouldn't you agree?)

What really stood out to me as offensive, was an editorial about how important it would be to prevent the Dems in Congress (before they were in the majority) from trying to block Bush's Supreme Court nominees. It practically drooled organsmically over the possibility of a court with a majority that was aligned with Thomas and Scalia, who would allow absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever. This was before Roberts and Alito, so I'd imagine they, unlike most sane Democrats I know, are quite happy about the current SCOTUS.

Well, gee. The NRA's views are inconsistant with the values of the Democratic party, at least according to you and most other Democrats. So where were you and most other Democrats when the party was working with the nra recently? Where were your protesting voices? I have been working within the party on and off in my own way, for the better part of 5 years. And I have been only one of many. And, change IS happening, albeit possibly too slow to keep this party from shooting itself in the foot again this cycle. And as far as 1 in 5 gun owners being hunters being misleading, well, its fact. I suggest you see this poll regarding Democrats views:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1543559

Well, I can only assume they were trying to block ANTI-GUN Democrats efforts. You know...the ones that keep trying to push another assault weapons ban where one is neither wanted or needed. If not for the pushing of that ban, and the continual attempts to ban things like high caliber rifles that are essentially NEVER used in crime, they might not have gotten involved at all. But hey, you can choose to characterize any reaction you like as an action. Just remember it doesn't make it so.

As far as the rest, you can thank your prohibitionist buddies for the situation were all in. If not for their efforts, gun owners might have stayed home on election night. And when I say election night, I mean pick one any time between 1994 and the present. Ask Tom Daschle why he isn't in office anymore. Ask former speaker Tom Foley why he became the first house speaker to be unseated in over 130 years. Ask Bill Clinton what happened after they passed the original assault weapons ban, and WHY it happened. At some point the the truth has to sink in, even to you.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! They want to take away your guns! And poison your bodily fluids!!

I was talking about places like Chicago and DC, where some guns HAVE been outlawed, yet criminals continue to possess them...places that incidentally have the highest murder rates.

So, then, by your own numbers, the 290,000,000 guns in America are ALL owned by CRIMINALS???!!! I guess that proves the old slogan, "If you make gun ownership criminal, then only criminals will own guns!" I used to work with someone who was into guns. As in, had a *lot* of them, and liked to shoot for fun. Even had a full-auto MEC something-or-other. He was a *fanatic* about how he had complied with every law, paid every fee, dotted every "i" and that every license, registration and permit was up to date. Go tell him he doesn't have any guns unless he's breaking one of those "stupid" laws. I'd think you'll find out that you are, er, mistaken?

Can you read and comprehend at the same time? I was talking about places whre guns ARE banned. As far as this friend of yours, he was right to obey the law, and right to be *fanatical* about those things. An NFA violation would disable him for life from possessing a firearm. He appears to value that right.

The only reason gun owners would oppose mainstream Democratic positions on gun control is if they are drinking the NRA/GOP misinformation Kool-Aid. Of course, many are, but for those that aren't, and can't figure out what all the ruckus is about, here's a quick cheat-sheet:

Reasonable gun regulation = Taking away your guns
Assault weapons ban = Taking away (all) your guns
Brady bill = Taking away your guns
Making ammunition traceable = Taking away (the bullets for) your guns
Requiring reporting of stolen guns = Taking away your guns (TWICE! The thief already took 'em once!)
Requiring guns be registered every 2 years = Taking away your guns (Just like they took away your cars! Oh, er, never mind.)
Appointing Roberts and Alito to the SCOTUS = (Keeping those commie Democrats from) Taking away your guns

Such a list. First of all I support brady background checks as does the nra so you can nix that from your list.

Ill see your list and raise you one:

Reasonable gun regulation = codespeak for unjustified prohibition of some guns and marginalization of those that oppose it. Hr1022 is touted as reasonable. Banning large caliber rifles essentially never used in crime is touted as reasonable.

Assault weapons ban = Unjustified attempt at banning a class of firearms used in less than 3 percent of homicides. Used less overall in crime than handguns or shotguns.

Making ammunition traceable = Unworkable. No crime has ever been solved using it.

Requiring reporting of stolen guns = I have no problem with this.

Requiring guns be registered every 2 years = Not going to happen. Its noone business what kind, how many or if I own any at all, so long as I am a law abiding person.

Appointing Roberts and Alito to the SCOTUS = Enabled by many things, reaction to prohibitionist agenda among them.

Giving tax breaks to the richest 1% = Helping working families
Starting an unjustified war with Iraq = Protecting American families

Again, enabled by many things, reaction to prohibitionist agenda among them.

I *do* get that, in this supposedly democratic country, people like you and me are free to disagree, and to support and vote for the candidates whom we think will best represent our views and interests in governments of every level. I also get that you and the NRA have and will continue to misinform and mislead a huge number of people in ways that, I think, make our society and myself personally, less safe and secure. We can and should have a fact-based argument over whether or not the regulations I support would make our country more or less safe. But instead we have you trying to make it sound like Democrats who oppose the NRA want to "take away your guns!"

For what its worth, I have not been a member of the NRA since the 1 year membership I got when I took gun safety in my teens ran out. That was many decades ago. I am not misinforming about anything. I'd like to see the gun issue stop being the albatros that it has been, and will likely still be this cycle. Thats a tough row when you get people clamoring for an assault weapons ban, or banning large caliber rifles. That wont do anything but piss off a large bloc of voters. Not only that, but theres just no justification for either. I'd love to have a fact based argument with you. You start by telling me how hr1022 isn't trying to take away any guns.

I'd love to know when class "b" was last "called up" for duty. I'd also love to see the reaction if the government informed all of us "ignorant" males between 17 and 45 that we were, unbeknownst to us, "members" of the militia, and that we were to report for duty, so that we could be trained, equipped and sent off to Iraq.

Anyone who protests, we'll just chastise them for how "astonishing" their "ignorance" is.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Besides, none of that contradicts the notion that the militia should be "well-regulated." So, I assume it would be OK with you if the Federal Government announced that "Every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 years of age shall be issued a government-issued M-16 rifle, for use in official militia duties. Use for ANY other purpose, private possession of ammunition or ANY OTHER FIREARMS is a felony crime." That'd be "well-regulated," don't you think?

:sarcasm:
(Just in case anyone's hot and bothered enough to think that I'm actually suggesting this as good policy, constitutional though it may be.)

Actually, the militia has been activated semi-recently if memory serves. It was during a hurricane, or flood or some such thing. Ill get details and get back to you on that. Beyond that, well regulated doesn't mean what those words commonly mean in this day and age. I suggest you research the history of the second amendment and the people that authored it, to gleen the correct definition of the term as it was intended to mean at the time it was written.

Actually, you, Faux News, Hannity, et. al. and the NRA are doing that by characterizing any and all attempts at reasonable gun regulation as "Anyone except NRA-approved fanatics want to take yer guns away! Vote GOP or else a dark-skinned drugged-out criminal-type is gonna break into your house, rape your wife and daughter and kill you in your sleep, proving that your nothing but a Girlie-Man!!!" hysteria.

I have no doubt that the republicans, the nra, faux hannity et all WILL make much hay with things like hr1022 and the 50 cal ban, bidens comments, Obamas comments about banning all semi-automatics, Kucinich's authoring of a ban on all handguns...The problem is they don't have to make those things up. They don't have to engage in hyperbolie. They don't have to lie or mischaracterize any of them. Those things are true and real. No amount of burying ones head in the sand, no amount of characterizing them as reasonable, no amount of labeling those that oppose those things...will make them go away, or make those things reasonable, or keep those that oppose those things from voting against them.

Actually, it seems like we are all suffering because you and the NRA are effectively preventing a rational, fact-based debate on this issue. Much like the GOP's "War on Terra" smokescreen prevented any reasonable debate on the war in Iraq, or how GOP "they want to raise your taxes!" BS is designed to prevent a real debate on public spending for public priorities, or the massive transfer of wealth from workers to the rich.

We are all suffering because you and your GOP cronies believe that you have to MISLEAD people in order to have any chance of winning the debate on these and a host of other issues.

And on that point, you would, in fact, be quite correct.

I am not preventing any debate. Fact based or otherwise. And you can check your snide remarks at the door too. The gop are not 'my' cronies. They are not benefiting from my efforts, they benefit from the efforts of prohibitionists - those that I oppose.

If you want to have one, then fine, lets do it. You start, next post.

[jaybeat]

68. You want facts? Ha! I'll keep this short.

I have kids that need to go to bed. (Safe, un-"protected" by any firearm that, statistically, is more likely to hurt or kill THEM than any overly-feared attacker. No, I don't have a link, but I know that the #1 cause of gun injury is accident. Not a home invasion by someone from "da-hood."

FACT: A 50 caliber rifle can take down a JET PLANE. If I'm not mistaken, that's what 50 caliber machine guns (some of which are still *legal*--WTF?) are for.

OPINION: I have no problem banning these, at least within range of an airport, or any other living thing. (We ban boxcutters for chrissakes, we can ban these.)

FACT: An assault weapon is a MILITARY weapon, designed to be used by the MILITARY.

OPINION: If you're not IN the military, what legitimate business could you possibly have in owning one. Common sense says, none.

FACT: Countries which restrict private gun ownership have less gun violence per capita than we do.

OPINION: Should it be political death for an elected official to consider whether or not we might be able to save lives by moving in their direction? No.

FACT: The NRA opposes laws that would require gun owners to promptly report if their weapons have been stolen.

FACT: You have taken your opposition to the above (not the last one, duly noted) and used it to transform firearms regulation into "They want to take away all your guns!!" hyperbole, by calling supporters of regulation "prohibitionist." You equate regulation with an outright ban. Cars are regulated. Medicine is regulated. Food is regulated. Development is regulated. But almost any attempt to regulate guns you label "prohibitionist."

OPINION: That's because, since a majority of Americans DON'T own even one gun (everyone *other* than the 80 million or so gun owners you talk about, who must average 3-4 each? Yikes!), you and yours need to blow FEAR up everyone's a** because if you asked most people if a gun should be more or less regulated than a car, they'd answer, "more." When common sense is your enemy, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are your friends.

[beevul]

71. This is going to be fun.

FACT: A 50 caliber rifle can take down a JET PLANE. If I'm not mistaken, that's what 50 caliber machine guns (some of which are still *legal*--WTF?) are for.

OPINION: I have no problem banning these, at least within range of an airport, or any other living thing. (We ban boxcutters for chrissakes, we can ban these.)

A fifty caliber rifle, NON-AUTOMATIC, wont be taking down any jet planes any time soon. Your fact isn't much of a fact. 50 caliber MACHINE GUNS on the other hand, fire rounds called tracers. Every 5th round (or something like that) has phosphorus on it and burning after its fired, and this serves as a visual indicator of where one is firing rounds. And yes, I am sure there are a very few NFA legal privately owned 50 caliber ww2 vintage machineguns in circulation. Likely it would cost a person over 20 grand to aquire one, assuming one passes the necessary additional NFA background checks. A fifty caliber semi automatic rifle, or bolt action/single shot rifle won't be taking down any aircraft though, I assure you. Try aiming a 30 plus pound rifle ar a 'moving at 400 miles per hour target' and let me know how many hits you get, ok? WE ban box cutters ON airplanes, and IN airports, not from the population at large.

FACT: An assault weapon is a MILITARY weapon, designed to be used by the MILITARY.

OPINION: If you're not IN the military, what legitimate business could you possibly have in owning one. Common sense says, none.

You have been had. Someone has lied to you. An assault weapon is by NO MEANS a military weapon. Military rifles fire fully automatic, or fire a 3 round burst. Fully automatic weapons and weapons that fire bursts (the military weapons you THINK are at issue), or are easily converted to fully automatic or burst operation are already tightly controlled by the national firearms act of 1934. The weapons that the original assault weapon ban (and now hr1022) targeted were civilian LOOK-ALIKE weapons that are functionally no different than a semi-automatic deer rifle, and many less powerful than one. I say again, they are NOT military weapons. They are civilian semi-automatic weapons functionally no different than a semi-automatic deer rifle. That there is a FACT. If you don't believe me, then read the national firearms act, read the assault weapons ban. See what the regulations actually effect. I repeat, someone has been lieing to you about these weapons, and you have made a terrible misjudgement because you have not been given facts.


FWIW, I don't even have a dog in that fight. I own no so called "assault weapons" and have no intention of owning them.

FACT: Countries which restrict private gun ownership have less gun violence per capita than we do.

OPINION: Should it be political death for an elected official to consider whether or not we might be able to save lives by moving in their direction? No.

Thats great. This country has a thing called the constitution, that shackles the power of government. The government can act in good faith within the confines of that document (present government somehow seems to think it is above all that, but thats neither here nor there). They (technically) may not act outside the confines of the constitution. To paraphrase the second amendment:

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

Thats a direct limitation on the power of government. Just like the rest of the BOR.

Now, whether it should or shouldn't be "political death" for an elected official to consider whether or not we might be able to save lives by moving in their direction, the genie is out of the bottle, and its never going back in. Gun owners have and will continue to vote against those making attacks on their rights (real or percieved). Its a simple reality.

FACT: The NRA opposes laws that would require gun owners to promptly report if their weapons have been stolen.

FACT: You have taken your opposition to the above (not the last one, duly noted) and used it to transform firearms regulation into "They want to take away all your guns!!" hyperbole, by calling supporters of regulation "prohibitionist." You equate regulation with an outright ban. Cars are regulated. Medicine is regulated. Food is regulated. Development is regulated. But almost any attempt to regulate guns you label "prohibitionist."

OPINION: That's because, since a majority of Americans DON'T own even one gun (everyone *other* than the 80 million or so gun owners you talk about, who must average 3-4 each? Yikes!), you and yours need to blow FEAR up everyone's a** because if you asked most people if a gun should be more or less regulated than a car, they'd answer, "more." When common sense is your enemy, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are your friends.

I have not heard this. Why does the nra oppose laws that would require gun owners to promptly report if their weapons have been stolen?

Beyond that, you have me all wrong. Gun owners already live within the NFA. That is, the national firearms act. It regulates fully automatic weapons, short barreled shotguns, grenade launchers, grenades, most rifles over .50 caliber, and destructive devices. So its not as though I or gun owners are fighting against any and every restriction. I don't equate regulation with an outright ban. I equate weapons bans with banned weapons. Kucinich proposing to ban and confiscate all handguns. Thats some prohibition there. I never said they want to take ALL guns. Do they have to take them all for it to be a prohibition? HR1022 would outlaw most semi-automatic rifles in this country, even if not immediately. Thats some prohibition. The bans proposed on 50 caliber rifles...what happens when these people figure out that the .496 rifle is about as powerful? And some of the lower .40 rifles that have near the same balistics as the .50? You think for a second that those will still be allowed? Thats more prohibition.

Cars are only regulated OFF of private property. I can drive one on private property just as fast or reckless as I want so long as I do not interfere with the rights of others, and without being licensed myself or license or registration on the vehicle.

Heres a fact:

Lets just imagine a scenario here. All handguns are banned. All semi-automatic weapons are banned. All rifles .50 caliber are banned. That right there constitutes a clear majority of all privately owned firearms in this country. It may as well be ALL the guns at that point.

I label prohibitionist only that which IS prohibitionist.

Banning handguns is not regulation of handguns, its prohibition of them.

Banning civilian semi-automatic weapons (not military fully auto/burst weapons) is not regulation of then, its prohibition of them. Not to mention there no justification for doing so.

Banning large caliber rifles is not regulation of them, its prohibition of them. Again, no justification.

You can not sit here and paint me as "against all regulation" or "transforming any and all regulation to mean prohibition".
I named 3 specific proposals that have been or will be introduced by Democrats. Those proposals are much more than "regulation". They are a cut and dried prohibition of either handguns, semi-autmatic rifles, or large caliber rifles. Theres no way around that for you, or for the people proposing and or endorsing them. They will cling to the people that propose them, endorse them, and the party to which those folks belong. Not because I say so, but because this gives those that will all the ammunition they need to paint the Democratic party as the party of firearm prohibitionsts. Every time someone calls one of those proposals reasonable they poison the use of the word. Which gets us to where we are today. Someone hears the word reasonable when used in firearms debate, and automatically assumes the person using it is a prohibitionist, because they have had a monopoly on its use and therefore define it.

This party desperately needs to shed that prohibitionist image, and that isn't going to happen until proposals for further prohibition of any firearms, and describing them as reasonable, stops for good.

[billbuckhead]

76. Hell, most of the Republicans as well as the rest of the civilized world are for strong gun regs

The only Republican almost running with a strong gun lover background is Thompson and his Frednecks.

The strongest independent almost running is Bloomberg and he hates and despises the gun lobby and it's minions worse than me.

The whole Democratic field(except one) and most of the Republicans have gun regulation records in their background

That leaves you gun "enthusiasts" with Big League Liar Bill Richardson.

That leaves the gun crowds only hope as corrupt judges and phony elections. Winning is a devil's bargain.

[beevul]

81. Lieing to slam a Democrat...I am unsurprised.

The strongest independent almost running is Bloomberg and he hates and despises the gun lobby and it's minions worse than me.

I strongly doubt ANYONE hates the gun lobby or its supporters more than you. Not even bloominidiot.

That leaves you gun "enthusiasts" with Big League Liar Bill Richardson.

In the summer of 1967, he played for the amateur Cape Cod League's Cotuit (Mass.) Kettleers. The words "Drafted by K.C." appear next to his name on a faded team program, the Journal reported.

"When I saw that program in 1967, I was convinced I was drafted," Richardson said. "And it stayed with me all these years."

Then-general manager Arnold Mycock said the biographical information was supplied by players or their college coaches.

On a biographical sheet Richardson completed for Tufts in his junior year, he wrote, "Drafted by Kansas City (1966), LA (1968)." He said he wrote those words because he believed they were true.

"I never tried to embellish this," he said. "I never tried to mask it."

Lieing to slam a Democratic presidential candidate because you hate guns, and by extension hate his views on them. A new low for even you. Even "B" never went that far. You offend me. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That leaves the gun crowds only hope as corrupt judges and phony elections. Winning is a devil's bargain.

And a Democratic Pro-gun congress. How telling that you forget them. Speaking of devils bargains, hows republican paul helmke doing over at the brady campain? Nice bedfellow there bill.

Because anyone that disagrees with billbuckheads stand on guns - particularly the courts - well they're corrupt, and any elections of Democrats that don't want to ban guns, well, they're just phony.

How are you liking the Democratic Pro-gun congress now days, bill?

[billbuckhead]

83. Many Republicans are for stronger gun regulation as well as most independents

as well as almost all the political parties of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Massachussetts. Sorry that there are somewhat civilized Republicans with a lick of sense.

A Bluedog Democrat is just a Republican with made up like the sleaziest of whores. I don't like this Congress much but I love our Presidential candidates. How about that Kucinich? I bet he actually get more votes than the liar from New Mexico. Want to bet?

[beevul]

85. And Im sure you'd take them over Richardson, purist that you are.N/T

[billbuckhead]

87. Richardson is "target shooting"

Someday he will be telling people he would have been drafted for president, if it wasn't for Hillary, Obama, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, etc.

[billbuckhead]

69. Like peanuts don't get eaten if they're not easily accessable

America make guns accessable on a moments notice and people take advantage of it which leads to murders and a general disrespect for life.

[Realityhack]

120. Funny logic there

I think the causal factor you are looking for may be the general disrespect for human life NOT the 'easy' access to guns.

[derby378]

96. You just don't get it, do you?

I shouldn't have to join the military just to exercise my Constitutional right to own a gun. And neither should you.

[billbuckhead]

77. Why switch from murder to suicide? Trying to change the subject???????

What's legitmate? I think the National Guard is legitimate and I don't think a gun for every nut is legitimate.

[beevul]

116. Typical from someone that pads their stats with both.

When you say "More people than all the wars America's ever fought, dead from weak gun laws! This is human sacrifice on a massive scale. Who cares about Iraq when we can't even respect other Americans lives" surely you include suicides.


Pot, meet kettle.

"I think the National Guard is legitimate and I don't think a gun for every nut is legitimate."

Thats nice. I think that this federal law is legitimate for the most part:

Section 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://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311



Can you point out (with supporting evidence) who thinks "every nut" should have a gun?


I thought not. Just more huff and puff.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[billbuckhead]

16. Did you know Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus is on the NRA enemies list?

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

[-..__...]

20. My how times have changed...

My guess is that they wouldn't be on the list if they weren't pushing for stricter gun control laws.

Looks like for some, some civil and/or Constitutional rights are acceptable and some aren't.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

45. Baloney

No, they're not on that list.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Well, they're black.

So stands to reason the NRA doesn't like them.

[slackmaster]

48. I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that

The NRA has no interest whatsoever in not liking black people.

I've seen their membership application. There isn't a place to designate one's race.

The NRA works in favor of the gun industry and shooting sports. Anything that sells more guns, training, supplies, etc. is favorable to them. Black people buy guns too.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Yes, yes.

I'm sure many of their friends are dangerous ethnic minorities.

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

50. Do you have anything to back that up?

Or are you running on pure stereotype mode today?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. ...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=w-RRe_2tvUo

[slackmaster]

57. mmmmmmmmmmkay

No mention of black people or even race per se; just a ham-handed reference to "mixed ethnicity" by an obviously senile man, who actually has a history of supporting rights for black people.

[billbuckhead]

60. Defending the NRA and it's obviously racist leadership once again?

Paul Blackman
Head NRA Researcher

On crime victims:
" In fact, studies of homicide victims -- especially the increasing number of
younger ones -- suggest they are frequently criminals themselves and/or drug addicts or users. It is quite possible that their deaths, in terms of
economic consequences to society, are net gains."
"The Federal Factoid Factory on Firearms and Violence: A Review of CDC
Research and Policies."

On Inner-City Redevelopment:
" he NRA is composed primarily of non-big-city middle-class white males... They cannot be counted on any more than any other non-big-city middle-class whites to actively lobby to rebuild the inner cities. Further, even if the NRA attempted fully to address the problems of the inner city, it would no more be welcomed unhesitatingly and un suspiciously than would any other proposed interference by people who do not look as if they belong in the inner city?."

Charlton Heston
Former NRA President

"Mainstream America is counting on you to draw your sword and fight for them. These people have precious little time and resources to battle misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, the feminists who preach that it is a divine duty for women to hate men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek preference with the other ?"

"I remember when European Jews feared to admit their faith. The Nazis forced them to wear yellow stars as identity badges. It worked. So what color star will they pin on gun owners chests? How will the self-styled elite tag us? There may not be a Gestapo officer on every street corner, but the influence on our culture is just as pervasive."

"On the other hand, I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton's cultural shock troops participate in gay-rights fundraisers but boycott gun-rights fundraisers and then claim it's time to place homosexual men in tents with Boy Scouts, and suggest that sperm donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served and more loved." --Speech to Free Congress Foundation


" I was astounded to read these courageous remarks by Charlton Heston. I am thankful to hear a man with such high esteem say essentially the same things for which I have been reviled by the liberal media. His words should be reproduced and put into the hands of every American."
--DAVID DUKE's response to Heston's speech

Ted Nugent
NRA Board of Directors

"Apartheid isn't that cut and dry. All men are not created equal. The
preponderance of South Africa is a different breed of man. I mean that with
no disrespect. I say that with great respect. I love them because I'm one of
them. They are still people of the earth, but they are different. They still
put bones in their noses, they still walk around naked, they wipe their
butts with their hands ? These are different people. You give 'em
toothpaste, they fucking eat it ... I hope they don't become civilized.
They're way ahead of the game."
--Detroit Free Press Magazine

On Racism:
"I'm a fun guy, not a sexist or a racist?. I use the word ni##er a lot
because I hang around with a lot of ni##ers ?."
--Detroit Free Press Magazine

Jeff Cooper
NRA Board of Directors

On Inner-City Violence:
"…the consensus is that no more than five to ten people in a hundred who die by gunfire in Los Angeles are any loss to society. These people fight small wars amongst themselves. It would seem a valid social service to keep them well-supplied with ammunition."
Cooper's Corner, Guns and Ammo

On the value of diversity:
"The goal of good government is the optimum balance of liberty and order. Social diversity does not pull in that direction. Liberty is what we seek over the centuries, but if we grant it to too diverse a population, order disappears. Regarding the United States… it would seem that we ought to choose assimilation over diversity. It seems to me that diversity, rather than being a goal to be sought, should be an obstacle to be circumvented." Jeff Cooper's Commentaries (self-published newsletter)

<http://www.nraleaders.com/index.html>

[billbuckhead]

79. No answer to that. Facts are stubborn things

The NRA has been a dog whistle to racism for some time.

[beevul]

63. Yeah...thats it...

Losing two sons to urban gun violence influenced Innis' views on crime and victims' rights so dramatically that he became one of the most vocal and active advocates of the Second Amendment rights-especially decent citizens' right of self-defense. Innis lectures throughout the United States and in foreign countries on gun issues.

Mr. Innes was re-elected to the NRA Board of Directors in 2002 for a 3 year term.

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/bios99/innis.html


Yeah. The NRA dislikes black people so much that Innis got elected to their board of directors.

[FredScuttle]

114. LOL

Roy Innis? The same house Negro who raised funds for Ghouliani in his mayoral campaign and served as NY State Chair for Alan Fuckin' Keyes' presidential campaign?

What's next? You going to bring up Michael Steele as another bonafide?

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[saigon68]

11. Any MOFO who chases me

Will look like a piece of "SWISS CHEESE"

[-..__...]

18. Jackson needs to put his money where his mouth is...

and stand-up to the "low lifes" and gang-bangers whom are responsible for the gun violence and other criminal activities... like say calling for stricter prison time for those committing the violence.

Until he does that... he's just another publicity seeking blow-hard.

[slackmaster]

22. Amen to that

:toast:

[-..__...]

26. Don't forget to mark your calander...

August 28th is "Buy a Gun Day"! :woohoo:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/trafficking/aug28/?bro_issue=summer&bro_year=2007

[slackmaster]

27. August 28 is the anniversary of my buying Sturm, Ruger & Co. stock at $9.05

I just ditched most of my holdings at $17.31, so I may actually have some cash to do just that.

:D

[-..__...]

30. Buying ammo is always a good investment.

The way the prices are going up it's probably more profitable than the stock market. :-(

[Kolesar]

31. Therefore, you are an owner of a firearm manufacturer doing advocacy/PR on the internet

Advocating for less restrictions on your company's product.

[-..__...]

32. What'choo talking about, Willis?

I'm not the owner of any "firearm manufacturer" (although I have built for my own use a number of firearms... 3 AR-15's, 2 AK-47's and 2 FAL's to be exact :smoke:).

"Buy a Gun Day" is a grassroots counter-protest to Jacksons and the Brady Campaign/Million Mom March drivel.

Ohhh... and BTW... I'm for fewer restrictions... not less;)

[Kolesar]

34. You still own Sturm, Ruger & Co. stock, don't you?

Is not that what you said upthread when you said you sold some but held some stock?

[slackmaster]

35. No, that was me owning the stock

How about some disclosure of stocks you own, TheBorealAvenger?

BTW, I bought AMD with most of the proceeds from my RGR sale. Guns are out, computers are where it's at!

[Kolesar]

38. Ha, I missed that. Cannot figure out why D_S was answering my post

I was not looking at the author when I responded back. Oh well.

For the record, I own GE and I do advocate for wind turbine technology. That the prime reason that I bought GE. Did you know that GE bought the wind turbine business from the collapsed Enron company?

[slackmaster]

44. Smart move on GE's part, good on them

And good for you too. My mom has owned GE stock for about 40 years. She's done very well over the long haul. I think you will too.

[-..__...]

39. My bad...

I misread the tread.

:blush:

[slackmaster]

33. No, that is not a true statement

I advocate only on behalf of my own personal interests, not those of any corporation or other business. My equity interest RGR is a tiny fraction of a percent of the company's outstanding stock. I do not work for them, nor do I hold a seat on their board of directors.

Where have I ever on DU advocated for less restrictions on any kind of firearm that company manufactures? I've generally maintained that implementing more restrictions is not appropriate until the ones we have now are properly enforced.

[Kolesar]

36. Busting on Jesse or advocating for less restrictions

I suppose there is a fine distinction there.

[slackmaster]

42. All I did was agree with D__S that JJ should be going after violent criminals and gangs

That's got nothing to do with advocating for fewer restrictions on firearms.

[Kolesar]

40. If RGR sells more product, you do better

It's the way of business, whether the gain would finance a yacht or a canoe.

[slackmaster]

41. RGR is probably the most socially responsible of all gun manufacturers

The market is there, so the more RGR sells the better off everyone is.

BTW - I bought that stock at a strategic moment, just before verdict was announced in a big lawsuit against the company that in my judgement was legally baseless. The plaintiff was the city of Chicago. The stock dipped in the days leading up to the verdict, and I worked the situation to my advantage.

Gun ban fanatics in the Windy City created a buy opportunity for people who were paying attention to the company's fundamentals, its reputation, and the legal scene.

[billbuckhead]

62. It's all a big Amwaylike scam to con insecure men out of their money

Why do think they fight so hard for those sicko gun shows?

[slackmaster]

121. I've been accused of some pretty bizarre things in my life

But that pretty much tops them all.

:crazy:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. You're saying Jackson supports gang bangers?

Jesus, it's like Bill O'Reilly.

[-..__...]

25. Where did I suggest anything like that?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Post #18.

[-..__...]

61. I don't see how you equate my comment that...

"Jackson needs to put his money where his mouth is and stand-up to the "low lifes" and gang-bangers"

I'm not implying that by not standing-up to gang-bangers = support for gang-bangers.

I'd just rather see him put his energy towards demanding harsher penalties and tougher policing of gang activities.

Night basketball games and 'reaching out' just isn't going to cut it.

Go after the gangs first and foremost... not the guns.

[GeniusLib]

24. Jackson needs to realize that guns are here to stay in America

and protesting gunshops will not accompish anything.

The proven method of reducing violent crime is to have long mandatory sentences for those committing crimes with guns. He should be at the state capital demanding state legislatures install mandatory minimums for violent criminals, that is if he's serious about lowering crime and not just interested in getting his name in the paper.

[merh]

28. Show the stats

I don't think he is seeking to get guns banned so your topic line is off.

Gun regulations do not equate to gun bans.

[GeniusLib]

43. He wants guns banned from urban areas

"Metropolitan areas -- where most people live -- have no use for gun peddlers, for people packing concealed weapons, for kids fighting gang wars with assault weapons. If given their choice, most citizens in cities and suburbs would simply ban handguns, ban assault weapons and ban gun shops and gun dealers. Hunters could buy their guns in the rural areas where they hunt."



http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/395313,CST-EDT-jesse22.article



Saying that most people living in cities and suburbs want all guns and gun shops banned is pretty presumptious on his part, considering that people living in urban areas are much more likely to be victims of violent crime and possibly needing a firearm for their own protection.

[merh]

51. That is not banning guns or violating the 2nd amendment

Folks can still get weapons and have them, pipe dream regulatory desires (as in it will never happen) do not equate to banning all guns, thus violating the 2nd amendment.

And the stats I want are your crime figures, prove what you say with some source.

.

[beevul]

54. So your saying...

that to violate the Second Amendment, all guns would have to be banned?

I'd sure hate to see that standard applied to the First Amendment.

[merh]

55. Did you know that there are regulations in place for years now

that have limited the access to types of weapons and arms, that prevent the private ownership of certain arms?

Those regulations do not violate the 2nd amendment.

And the same goes for the 1st amendment too. Certain words are actionable, whether in print or spoken.

[beevul]

56. Which ones are those?

"that prevent the private ownership of certain arms?"

Can you name for me which regulations prevent private ownership of certain arms?


On edit: You are aware, I trust, that DCs handgun ban was struck down as a violation of the second amendment?

[billbuckhead]

70. The machine gun ban works OK

Other gun laws can work as well. Can't we do better than the Japanese and Irish or are they just better than us?

[beevul]

72. Thanks for trying...

But its not a machine gun ban.

[billbuckhead]

73. What is it then?

:rofl:

[beevul]

75. I believe the question was...

Can you name for me which regulations prevent private ownership of certain arms? Do pay attention.

If you want to play along, then by all means, answer the question, bill.

[billbuckhead]

80. Machine guns are banned except for the Dick Cheney's of AmeriKKKa

[beevul]

82. Bzzzzt. Wrong answer.

The question was:

Can you name for me which regulations prevent private ownership of certain arms?

Talking out your ass because your mouth knows better doesn't count.

[billbuckhead]

90. The question is why does America lead the industrialized world in gun crime?

That's that only only question that really matters. Playing childish immature gun trivia bullshit while more Americans die from guns than from all the wars and terrorists in our whole history is so ...... I can't say the word.

[Realityhack]

118. What?!

I don't see how that would not be over the line in terms of the 2nd amendment as now interpreted as it clearly 'infringes' on their right to bear arms (leaving asside the keep part). I do not think a blanket ban on having guns in a given geographical area (a city) would stand any chance of passing constitutional muster (though I obviously agree that this is somewhat of a mute point anyway).

The regulation in question is almost an exact analog of people only being able to have free speach outside the city.

BTW I would like to see those figures as well. I don't know the stats on mandatory sentancing but it would be interesting to see.

[billbuckhead]

88. "The American people need to understand"

Yep, where have we heard that before?

[JVS]

74. I don't think he's a blowhard but you're damned right about whom to blame

it wasn't the gun shop that murdered those kids

[billbuckhead]

78. These gun shops and America's sicko gun culture ONLY enable it

The worst shame imaginable on the gun lobby, it's sad minions and this evil industry that preys on all our children and peace in general.

[pipoman]

94. Sacrifice your rights for the chillen

Sacrifice your rights for safety. Demonize those who exercise the rights. Doesn't sound very Progressive to me.

[zanne]

95. And you sound more conservative than my aunt Pearl.

I know, you'll come back and say that's not true, that you're as liberal as everybody else here. The fact is, you may have a few issues, but gun issues are number one for you. There are alot of people who come to DU who are one-issue posters (and voters), but the gun people are the loudest and noisiest. I don't for one second believe your liberal credentials.

[pipoman]

97. Please tell me one other

civil right that the Democratic party routinely advocates abolishing. As for "single issue voters", you are right that this issue is the only one which could loose my vote. In fact nearly every voter in this country are 2-3 issue voters with one issue which opposition is a deal breaker. It wasn't until the late 1980's that the Democratic party began beating this anti-2nd Amendment drum. It has cost the party more elections than any other single issue perhaps in the history of the party, definitely in the last 20 years. Keep beating, keep loosing national elections.

[zanne]

98. Could you provide sources for your statistics, please?

Gun people always have lots of data to disprove us pro-gun regulation people, but they rarely provide a link. (Are they all from the same place)?

[pipoman]

99. On the contrary

"Gun people always have lots of data to disprove us pro-gun regulation people, but they rarely provide a link."

Most anti-2nd Amendment people want to get their stats from VPC, the Brady's, etc. who have been proven time and again that they make shit up.

Which facts in my previous post would you like me to site links for?

[billbuckhead]

104. Discredit the source since you can't discredit the truth

What have the "Brady's" made up? Sounds like shades of the dreaded"liberal media".

[zanne]

108. Ummmm....Could you answer my question, please?

Why can't you provide links to your data? (And please be specific--no "in general" comments).

[billbuckhead]

103. LBJ said that when he signed the civil rights bill the south was lost for a generation

The "gun rights" crowd is mostly the old racist crowd with a different sheet over their heads.

[derby378]

100. And meanwhile, Rev. Pfleger threatens the lives of gun dealers and legislators...

...and gets reprimanded by no less than Cardinal Francis George for it. Not exactly clean hands, here.

"Get rid of guns, or we'll snuff you out!" Ooooh, violence against violence! Gonna strangle us with your rosary, Padre? Come on.

[Wcross]

101. I sure wish Rev. Jackson luck although I disagree with his approach.

Guns sitting in a gun store do not commit gun crimes. Guns can't commit anything on their own. They have to be operated by a human being (although there have been cases of dogs managing to get a shot off).
I wish he would look at the big picture and realize that if guns were the cause of gun violence then wouldn't it follow that rural areas would have a higher per capita gun violence rate? Wouldn't there be murders at gun shows and at the range? If guns cause murder I will have to get my money back because my guns are defective.
The Reverend Jackson needs to work on the reason there is gun violence. Did Madd focus on the automobiles or the drunk drivers when they started the fight against drunk driving deaths? I suggest the Reverend Jackson focus on those that commit the violence rather than the weapon used.

[jaybeat]

105. MADD covered a *lot* of bases

They got laws passed making bars and even private parties libel if someone leaves drunk and then drives. They got the legal drinking age raised, state by state. They made it harder to get a license to sell alcohol, and passed restrictions on where and how it could be sold. They passed increases in alcohol taxes.

Translate that approach to guns, and watch the NRA and the gun crowd go, er, ballistic:

Liability for gun shops who sell to people who then use the gun in a crime?

Legal gun ownership age of 21?

Additional regulation and restrictions on gun dealers and shows?

Additional taxes and fees on firearms sales?

Yeah, the NRA would LOVE that!

Bwaahahahahahaha!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[beevul]

106. Actually...

Liability for gun shops who sell to people who then use the gun in a crime?

Legal gun ownership age of 21?

Additional regulation and restrictions on gun dealers and shows?

Additional taxes and fees on firearms sales?

Yeah, the NRA would LOVE that!

I suppose it would be interesting to see someone sue sara brady when someone passes the brady background check, then commits a crime.

One must be 21 years old to purchase at retail a handgun.

Gun dealers face additional restrictions at their place of business and at gun shows that private sellers do not.

Firearm and ammunition sales also face additional taxes and fees when at the retail level.

Reality is not as far from your comparison as you might think.

[jaybeat]

112. Great. Things are better than I thought (nt)

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Wcross]

111. Have you read the rules about flame bait sir? n/t

[Realityhack]

119. We can have reasonable gun laws without going coo-coo

With all due respect to Mr. Jackson he should have had a source for his choice of gun shop or left his reasoning out as well.

I don't blindly agree with every gun law. But there are many I do agree with and that many gun owners agree with.