One issue I've changed my mind on and now agree with the right-wing

[Raenelle]

Gun control. All Dems, all liberals, everyone on the left should go out and purchase guns. The second amendment is the one right they are unwilling to mitigate, declaw, and render powerless, and I think we should be as vigilant in arming ourselves as they have been.

NOTE: It has been pointed out to me that this particular issue might prompt some of us to say rash things that we would not want John Ashcroft to read. Don't.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

i disagree!

guns actually do kill people...a business i am not interested in!

[Warpy]

I'm a lousy shot

...so I'd be a menace with a gun. No, thanks.

[havocmom]

28. cars kill too. Do you drive or ride?

Just sorta annoys me when people use the 'kills' argument. Autos kill more and get all sorts of governmental/societal support. The 'kills' agreement is not a good one to count on.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. yes but the purpose of guns is to kill

the purpose of cars is to travel....

[havocmom]

43. Hmmm, I used a gun to stop an attack and prevent a rape

and didn't have to drop anyone to accomplish that feat.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. may i ask you what you do professionally?

on edit: if you are in law enforcement...i think thats a whole different story

[havocmom]

54. I sew,(sorta like Betsy Ross)

but I sometime hike/camp alone in an area frequented by people (and large carnivorous animals) who are not all nice. I also lived alone for a long time in a city with a high (but not excessively so) crime rate and refused to be a 'house mouse' afraid to go outside because there are nasty people about.

Also, every woman I have personally known who was attacked and raped was attacked in her own home. I cherish the right to avoid becoming a member of that particular group.

[havocmom]

62. And one does not have to be in law enforcement to learn safe gun

use and reasonable self defense skills.

My step-mother, the cop, recommends it highly for most women.

[Az]

52. Could you have done the same

with a stick?

On Edit: Not to take anything away from your act of heroism.

[havocmom]

60. No, the 'gentleman' involved was twice my size and half my age

the woman who was being attacked also had a 10 year old daughter who managed to run off into the woods. It was gonna be cold that night and nightfall was coming fast. After getting the mother away from the attacker, we got the authorities to hunt up the daughter and all ended well.

I did not have to pull gun from holster. The fact that it was there and visible made the attacker agreeable to my terms and allowed the woman to get away and to where my daughter could get her into our car.

My 'coach' talked me down from the fear which was awful after the fact and when we were safely home. But I responded calmly during the crisis and coach told me that was the important thing. He then ordered my daughter to pour me some wine and draw me a warm bath "cuz your mom is gonna get suddenly cold". He was right. Cuz I knew I would have dropped the man if he had made any moves to any of us. My body language and the implement in my holster must have got that thru to the attacker. He backed down in a big hurry.

[Az]

65. Well then

I applaud your actions. That is indeed a valid use of a gun and why I do support the right (property right) to own a gun. It does not change my stance on the notion of regulating or restricting access to some guns though.

[Zynx]

108. Most people don't use them for killing.

Most use it for hunting or even more often at the target range. What's wrong with either one?

[nolabels]

76. So do trucks, and I try not to run over any cars while I am driving one

Sure get an estate somewhere out in the middle of no-where build 10 ft (or 40ft like Israel) get guard dogs, security systems. Maybe even a mote with draw bridge, underground bunkers, anti-aircraft guns, escape tunnels (just the whole nine yards). Will you really feel safer with *co in office. See koresh

[themann1086]

142. Yes, but

autos are also regulated by the federal government, which is what I support: regulation of the industry.

[Lindacooks]

154. And you're right

Some statistics:

Annually, abouat 30,000 people die of firearm injuries in the United States. In 2000, guns claimed 28,663 lives, the majority from suicides. Firearm deaths in 2000, by cause:

Suicide: 16,586

Homocide: 10,801

Unintential Shootings: 1,276
(includes accidental, undetermined and legal intervention)

http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/Gun%20Violence%20Fact%20Sheet%2Epdf

In 2000, 3365 young people ages 19 and under were killed by gunfire: an average of 9 each day.

Since 1979, more young Americans have died from gunfire than the number of soldiers who were killed in Vietnam.

'Nuff said. Gun control works, and our country is massacering its citizens with the ridiculous number of guns, the lax controls on them, and the easy accessibility.

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. yeah me too

when they come to our houses and kick down our doors,
we'll be ready for them

[SnohoDem]

4. "Head shots"

(G. Gordon Liddy)

[rockymountaindem]

2. I've changed too...

I guess I've never felt like a target before. I'm afraid of a mob, not the government.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[rockymountaindem]

13. No.

A war on American soil between the people and the government would destroy our country and our economy. I would prefer peaceful resistance, because I don't want to ruin our country.

[havocmom]

29. Remommend all DUers ignor questions like this one

It might just be bait to get one in hot h20 with DOJ and/or get DU taken down as advocating overthrowning the government.

Think it maybe, but do not write it down.

[Raenelle]

32. Good point, havocmom

And I wish I had thought about it before I posted this up.

[havocmom]

40. Gun issue is good to talk about; it's when someone asks "what would you

do if...." and people start writing about taking up arms against the government that I get concerned. When someone wants to take your discussion about a change of heart on an issue and try to get people to say "HELL YES! I will take up arms against the government" then I advise we do not take that particular bait.

The Patriot Act allows for pretty nasty responses to a rather loosely defined set of 'violations' and can be used to justify arresting/shutting down people/networks which the malAdministration doesn't like. We should be mindful of that when someone essentially asks us to go on record about civil disobedience and taking up arms against the government.

We need to remember that we are the government and should restore it by the legal means defined in the Constitution. We will make enemies within the ranks of those who subvert the Constitution while wrapping themselves in the flag. We must stay in the fight to save America and we can't do that if we get carted off to GITMO as enemy combatants for something posted on a message board.

[bearfartinthewoods]

33. from the rules page...no joke

Please do not post messages or jokes that could be construed as advocating harm or death to the president, or that could be construed as advocating violent overthrow of the government of the United States. The Secret Service is not known for its sense of humor.

[Doomsayer13]

3. I'm more conservative on guns too

though I think the NRA is a wholly owned Republican subsidiary, gun control just doesn't seem to be an effective way of curbing gun violence.

[progressivebydesign]

5. Nope! Guns in the home are statistically dangerous...

Most guns in the home, if used, are used against the gun owner, a member of the gun owner's family, in a suicide in that home, or stolen and used in another crime. The statistical instance of using that gun for any type of protection is nil. Why put something in your house that actually endangers you? Makes no sense.

[Jane Austin]

14. How about if your kids are grown and gone

and you and spouse are emotionally stable, and you use a gun safe?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. still dangerous

its mainly adult---alcohol---argument---fired

[Jane Austin]

37. I said emotionally stable. :))

Spousal Unit doesn't drink (never has, much), and I forget to. :)

[EstimatedProphet]

102. That's an invalid argument

The number of guns in the home in the US is very high. The number of them used in a crime situation is extremely low. The number of them used to defend the owner may be even lower, but it's still a miniscule number. Quoting that statistic makes it look like if you have a gun you are likely to get it stolen or be shot, which simply isn't true.

[sendero]

7. Done that....

... and will continue to buy a new gun every year.

It isn't just the right wing who is now afraid of their own government.

[Az]

8. No one ever seems to actually read the 2nd Ammendment

Particularly the first part of the sentence. Its the shortest freaking ammendment in the entire work. Why can't they be bothered to read the whole thing? Go. Read it now.

[FeebMaster]

17. We have read it.

You should read the 20 post argument I had about it yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1428751#1429514

[Devils Advocate NZ]

66. Yep - The right to keep and bear arms!

Just like this one:





Of course every child should be taught how to properly handle and shoot silencend Uzi sub-machine guns!

[FeebMaster]

80. What's wrong with a kid shooting a silenced uzi? (nt)

[Devils Advocate NZ]

86. Tell me... what is the purpose of a SILENCED Uzi?

Forget hunting - I ain't buy that. Forget self defence - a pistol is more compact, a rifle more accurate, and shotgun more powerful.

Why a SILENCED Uzi? The only purpose of such a weapon is to kill people with less risk of detection.

So tell me, why do you not see something wrong with children being taught how to use weapons that have no other purpose than killing people?

[FeebMaster]

89. Purpose?

"Forget hunting - I ain't buy that. Forget self defence - a pistol is more compact, a rifle more accurate, and shotgun more powerful."

To propel chunks of lead and copper at a high velocity.

I can certainly see a self-defense use for a silenced sub-machine gun. Not to carry around in public, certainly. Pistols are far better for that. Inside a house, for example, where a shotgun could lead to collateral damage or possible hearing damage.

Having that big damn silencer on the end of the gun will make the gun somewhat quieter, although certainly not enough to avoid detection. That silencer will also act as a muzzle brake, hence the "Recoil? What recoil?" Also, all things being equal, more weight = less recoil, and that silencer is going to add more weight to the gun.


"Why a SILENCED Uzi? The only purpose of such a weapon is to kill people with less risk of detection."

Silencers aren't silent. Not even close.


"So tell me, why do you not see something wrong with children being taught how to use weapons that have no other purpose than killing people?"

Why should I see anything wrong with it? As long as they don't go around murdering people what is the problem? Do you have a problem with kids learning a martial art whose only purpose is to hurt, maim, and kill?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

90. Ok, then why not give them hand grenades?

Inside a house, for example, where a shotgun could lead to collateral damage or possible hearing damage.

A shotgun is not going to lead to any more "collateral damage" than a silenced Uzi. In fact I believe an Uzi might just have a higher penetration than a shotgun.

As for possible hearing damage - the point is self-defence. Surely you would be more worried about STOPPING an intruder than protecting your ears? Which of course a shotgun would be far better at.

Silencers aren't silent. Not even close.

No shit. In fact I should have called it a supressor (or a supressed Uzi) for that very fact, but most laypersons know them only as silencers.

Do you have a problem with kids learning a martial art whose only purpose is to hurt, maim, and kill?

Martial Arts are also used to teach self-discipline, and to increase fitness, but yes I WOULD have a problem with CHILDREN being taught how to KILL "with one thumb" or whatever.

I don't have a problem with firearms - CIVILLIAN firearms - being used by children under supervision. What I have a problem with is children being taught how to use a MILITARY weapon that's sole purpose is killing other human beings.

Like I said in my subject, why not just give them hand grenades? How about teaching them how to use a garrotte, or the proper technique for stabbing someone?

[FeebMaster]

109. Grenades are legal.

"A shotgun is not going to lead to any more "collateral damage" than a silenced Uzi. In fact I believe an Uzi might just have a higher penetration than a shotgun."

The uzi may have higher penetration, assuming it's not using subsonic ammo, but the shotgun's shot spreads out. Penetration using heavy shot isn't too shabby either, from what I've heard.

"As for possible hearing damage - the point is self-defence. Surely you would be more worried about STOPPING an intruder than protecting your ears? Which of course a shotgun would be far better at."

If sub-machine guns weren't effective at stopping people indoors SWAT teams and the like wouldn't use them all over the world. The point is I don't want to make the choice for everyone what they can or can't use for self defense. As far as I'm concerned, it's their choice. If they want to use a shotgun, that's fine. If they want to use a silenced sub-machine gun, that's just fine with me too.

"Silencers aren't silent. Not even close.

No shit. In fact I should have called it a supressor (or a supressed Uzi) for that very fact, but most laypersons know them only as silencers."

I don't have a problem with calling them silencers, even if they aren't. But you said "The only purpose of such a weapon is to kill people with less risk of detection." If someone wants to kill someone quietly, a gun is not the way to do it, not even a silenced gun.


"Martial Arts are also used to teach self-discipline, and to increase fitness, but yes I WOULD have a problem with CHILDREN being taught how to KILL "with one thumb" or whatever."

Shooting can be used to teach self-discipline too, lots of things can.


"I don't have a problem with firearms - CIVILLIAN firearms - being used by children under supervision. What I have a problem with is children being taught how to use a MILITARY weapon that's sole purpose is killing other human beings."

Civilian firearms, military firearms. What's the difference? They shoot the same damn bullets and they'll all kill people quite effectively.


"Like I said in my subject, why not just give them hand grenades? How about teaching them how to use a garrotte, or the proper technique for stabbing someone?"

Like I said in my subject line, grenades are legal. They're an expensive hobby, but you can get them legally. Garrotes? Stabbing? We already discussed martial arts and you said you were fine with them as long as you weren't teaching kids to kill with their thumbs or whatever.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

138. Hmmm...

The uzi may have higher penetration, assuming it's not using subsonic ammo, but the shotgun's shot spreads out. Penetration using heavy shot isn't too shabby either, from what I've heard.

Actually, a shotgun's spread is not that much. Remember we are talking about self-defence which is a close range affair:

Some misconceptions may exist regarding the spread of shotgun pellets or balls. It is not enough to merely point the shotgun in the general direction of an assailant and let fly. Birdshot or buckshot does not create a huge cone of death and destruction that devastates everything in its path. Rather, for a defense or "riot" shotgun with an 18- to 20-inch open choked "improved cylinder" barrel, the pellets will spread out about one inch for every yard of range traveled. Across a large room of 18 feet or so, the spread will only be about 6 inches, a circle as big as a coffee cup saucer. At 50 feet, the spread will only be about 16 inches, the size of a large pizza. It is obvious from this information that a shotgun blast will not incapacitate multiple assailants at close range.
http://www.internetarmory.com/shotgun_ammo.htm

A 6 inch spread at 18 feet is NOT going to be anymore likely to cause "collateral damage" than a hastily aimed sub-machinegun, yet it is going to be a far more likely one-shot incapacitation.

If sub-machine guns weren't effective at stopping people indoors SWAT teams and the like wouldn't use them all over the world. The point is I don't want to make the choice for everyone what they can or can't use for self defense. As far as I'm concerned, it's their choice. If they want to use a shotgun, that's fine. If they want to use a silenced sub-machine gun, that's just fine with me too.

That is NOT why they use them. They use SMG's because of their ability to carry large amounts of ammo ready to use (30 rounds being common where as a shotgun is likely to carry between 5 and 10) and because they have a high rate of fire, allowing the user to take shots at multiple persons in a shorter span of time - ie it is an effective ATTACKING weapon.

In fact, these same SWAT teams train constantly under real world conditions to be accurate enough with an SMG 3 round burst to actually stop an opponent. Unless these kids are being drilled on a daily basis in a "killing house" they are likely NOT going to be as effective with an SMG as with a shotgun.

I don't have a problem with calling them silencers, even if they aren't. But you said "The only purpose of such a weapon is to kill people with less risk of detection." If someone wants to kill someone quietly, a gun is not the way to do it, not even a silenced gun.

You may not have noticed that I said LESS RISK of detection. The fact is, that is what a silencer is for. There is NO OTHER reason to have it on the weapon - it slows down the bullet, and thus reduces it's stopping power. I thought we were talking about self-defence, which of course requires the greatest stopping power possible. A silencer is actually detrimental to that.

Shooting can be used to teach self-discipline too, lots of things can.

Yes I know. But just as in martial arts, I have no problem with children being taught how to shoot CIVILLIAN firearms, in fact I would encourage it. However, teaching them how to kill people with MILITARY firearms is wrong.

Civilian firearms, military firearms. What's the difference? They shoot the same damn bullets and they'll all kill people quite effectively.

What's the difference? Think of it this way, why doesn't the US military issue bolt action hunting rifles to its soldiers as their standard weapon? Surely there is no difference?

Of course there is a major difference! Military weapons are designed to give the user the ability to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time - high rates of fire, large magazine capacities. In fact they are often less accurate because of this need to maximise "rounds on target".

This means that for civillian purposes (hunting, target shooting) they are actually LESS useful than a normal hunting rifle. But if the purpose is to kill lots of people, then there is nothing better.

Like I said in my subject line, grenades are legal. They're an expensive hobby, but you can get them legally. Garrotes? Stabbing? We already discussed martial arts and you said you were fine with them as long as you weren't teaching kids to kill with their thumbs or whatever.

So you think children should be able to learn to blow shit up with hand grenades? WHY? What pupose could there be for such a thing? As for the martial arts, I already said that children shouldn't be taught how to kill people with them, just like I already said that children shouldn't be taught how to kill people with firearms, even though I have no problem with them learning how to shoot.

Its NOT that they are learning to shoot that bothers me, it is that they are learning to KILL PEOPLE. I mean can't you see how sick that is? Sure once they are adults, if that is what they want to do, but why create children with mindsets that KILLING PEOPLE is somehow cool or fun or acceptable?

[FeebMaster]

140. hmm

"A 6 inch spread at 18 feet is NOT going to be anymore likely to cause "collateral damage" than a hastily aimed sub-machinegun, yet it is going to be a far more likely one-shot incapacitation."

And if you miss you have a six inch spread of a dozen or more .30 slugs tearing things up. Why would the sub-machine gun be hastily aimed anyway?

But like I said, I'm not really interested in debating the merits of using an smg vs a shotgun for home defense. I just want people to be free to make the choice for themselves.

"You may not have noticed that I said LESS RISK of detection. The fact is, that is what a silencer is for. There is NO OTHER reason to have it on the weapon - it slows down the bullet, and thus reduces it's stopping power. I thought we were talking about self-defence, which of course requires the greatest stopping power possible. A silencer is actually detrimental to that."

Silencers don't slow anything down so the stopping power will remain the same regardless of whether or not you use one. Come to think of it, I take that back. Some silencers, like on the mp5sd do slow the bullet down, but those are inferior designs.

"What's the difference? Think of it this way, why doesn't the US military issue bolt action hunting rifles to its soldiers as their standard weapon? Surely there is no difference?"

They used to. Snipers are still issued what is essentially a bolt action hunting rifle.

"Of course there is a major difference! Military weapons are designed to give the user the ability to kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time - high rates of fire, large magazine capacities. In fact they are often less accurate because of this need to maximise "rounds on target"."

So the military is now issuing inaccurate weapons with high rates of fire that shoot weaker cartridges than your standard hunting rifle. This somehow makes them more deadly.


"This means that for civillian purposes (hunting, target shooting) they are actually LESS useful than a normal hunting rifle. But if the purpose is to kill lots of people, then there is nothing better."

If you just want to kill lots of people there are lots of things better. Like bombs.


"So you think children should be able to learn to blow shit up with hand grenades? WHY? What pupose could there be for such a thing?"

I said grenades are legal I didn't say kids should be able to blow up anything they want with them. Although if their parents want to blow things up with them in the backyard or something I don't really have a problem with that, as long as it doesn't endanger the neighbors.


"As for the martial arts, I already said that children shouldn't be taught how to kill people with them, just like I already said that children shouldn't be taught how to kill people with firearms, even though I have no problem with them learning how to shoot."

If you know how to shoot, you know how to kill someone with a gun. It's fairly straightforward. Knowing a martial art makes it easier for you to kill someone. How complicated is beating someone to death with your fists and feet? Knowing a martial art just makes it more efficient.


"Its NOT that they are learning to shoot that bothers me, it is that they are learning to KILL PEOPLE. I mean can't you see how sick that is? Sure once they are adults, if that is what they want to do, but why create children with mindsets that KILLING PEOPLE is somehow cool or fun or acceptable?"

What's the difference between learning to shoot and learning to kill people? How can you tell from the picture of the kid with the uzi that he's learning specifically to kill people as opposed to just learning to shoot?

Who is saying that killing people is cool or fun or acceptable? Other than in self-defense, of course, and we'd probably have to limit that to acceptable.

[Guaranteed]

97. Yeah...I guess you could kill 25 people without anyone

knowing about it.

[library_max]

134. You know,

you would probably have done better to just let "What's wrong with a kid shooting a silenced Uzi?" have just sat there in all its magnificent fatuity. Sometimes, the straight line is so good that any punchline just detracts from it.

[FeebMaster]

136. Punchline?

What is wrong with a kid shooting a silenced Uzi?

[library_max]

143. Nothing wrong except the "kid" part. And the "shooting" part. And

the "silenced" part. And the "uzi" part. The rest of it makes perfect sense.

[FeebMaster]

145. Alright.

What's wrong with kids?
What's wrong with shooting?
What's wrong with silencers?
What's wrong with usis?

[library_max]

157. Kid. n. Child. Also, in the legal sense, minor. A person who is not

considered to be fully responsible for his or her actions due to lack of emotional, intellectual, and moral maturity. A person who cannot reasonably be counted upon to grasp the ethical differences between video games and real life.

Shooting. v. The act of discharging a firearm. In the case of firearms not loaded with blanks, this involves creating more-or-less irreparable holes in targets, animals, and people. Sadly not limited to the in-itself-pointless practice of putting holes in paper targets.

Silencer. n. An accessory or system for supressing the sound of a firearm. Not used in hunting (see also "Uzi" below). Worse than useless in self-defense, when a loud noise is advantageous for deterrence and for alerting possible help, such as the police. Of some limited use in certain military and paramilitary situations (see "Kid" above), but primarily useful in the commission of crimes.

Uzi. n. Any of several models of submachine guns, preferred for rapid discharge of high-powered ammunition. Not used in hunting and massively over-powered (particularly in ammunition capacity) for self-defense (see also "Silencer" above). Used primarily in military and paramilitary operations (see "Kid" above) and in the commission of crimes. Also used to put holes in paper targets (see "Shooting" above); however, as many tools will perform that function with much greater efficiency (see "Paper punch"), not reasonably assumed to be manufactured or purchased primarily for that function.

[FeebMaster]

160. What about any of that makes

kids, shooting, silencers, or uzis bad?

"Kid. n. Child. Also, in the legal sense, minor. A person who is not considered to be fully responsible for his or her actions due to lack of emotional, intellectual, and moral maturity. A person who cannot reasonably be counted upon to grasp the ethical differences between video games and real life."

Uh huh. So what's wrong with kids?


"Shooting. v. The act of discharging a firearm. In the case of firearms not loaded with blanks, this involves creating more-or-less irreparable holes in targets, animals, and people. Sadly not limited to the in-itself-pointless practice of putting holes in paper targets."

I'm not seeing what's wrong with that.

"Silencer. n. An accessory or system for supressing the sound of a firearm. Not used in hunting (see also "Uzi" below). Worse than useless in self-defense, when a loud noise is advantageous for deterrence and for alerting possible help, such as the police. Of some limited use in certain military and paramilitary situations (see "Kid" above), but primarily useful in the commission of crimes."

Why wouldn't a silencer be useful when hunting? Why would it have to be useful in hunting? What does hunting have to do with anything? I certainly disagree on the self-defense part. Primarily useful in the commission of crimes? That is hilarious. Why don't you cite us some examples of silencers used in crimes. Silencers aren't silent. Not even close. If you want to kill someone silently, using a gun, silencer or not is certainly not the way to do it.


"Uzi. n. Any of several models of submachine guns, preferred for rapid discharge of high-powered ammunition. Not used in hunting and massively over-powered (particularly in ammunition capacity) for self-defense (see also "Silencer" above). Used primarily in military and paramilitary operations (see "Kid" above) and in the commission of crimes. Also used to put holes in paper targets (see "Shooting" above); however, as many tools will perform that function with much greater efficiency (see "Paper punch"), not reasonably assumed to be manufactured or purchased primarily for that function."

High-powered ammunition? Not even close. The uzi fires pistol ammo and not even powerful pistol ammo. Of course I have to stick in the usual: "What the hell does hunting have to do with anything?" Uzis used in the commission of crimes? That's almost as funny as the silencers in crime claim.

[library_max]

161. I hoped that elaboration might make you think about what you were saying.

Lost cause. Oh well.

[FeebMaster]

162. I'm thinking just fine.

But you still haven't explained what's wrong with a kid shooting a silenced uzi.

[Pithlet]

163. I know

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading in this thread!

[FeebMaster]

164. Maybe you could explain

what the problem is with a kid shooting a silenced uzi?

[library_max]

166. It'd be like explaining a rainbow to someone who was born blind.

[Pithlet]

167. Maybe you could explain

The need for them to do so.

I mean, there are limits. I think a parent that would let their children play on a busy free way is nuts. Sure, the kids might enjoy the thrill, and after all, they WANT to. I put letting children handle automatic weapons in that same category. Sure, it would be fun. I'm sure they'd get a thrill out of it.

Okay, here's my explaination. It's an automatic WEAPON. That is the reason.

[FeebMaster]

169. Need?

"Maybe you could explain The need for them to do so."

I was under the impression that we valued freedom in this country and could do things we want to do as long as we aren't violating the rights of others. I didn't realize there had to be a valid need to do things.


"I mean, there are limits. I think a parent that would let their children play on a busy free way is nuts. Sure, the kids might enjoy the thrill, and after all, they WANT to. I put letting children handle automatic weapons in that same category. Sure, it would be fun. I'm sure they'd get a thrill out of it."

I think playing on a busy freeway is somewhat different from firing a gun, but then my parents told me not to play in the street when I was growing up. Not to mention that playing in the freeway is a good way to get hit by a car, but shooting a gun, as long as you follow safe gun handling procedures and barring some freak accident like the gun exploding, is perfectly safe.


"Okay, here's my explaination. It's an automatic WEAPON. That is the reason."

So basically, you're saying you don't like guns, or automatic weapons at least. Does that include semi-automatic weapons too or just fully automatic ones? I have no problems with guns myself, which is probably why I have no problem with kids shooting one.

[Pithlet]

170. I knew

You were going to jump on my need comment, despite the fact that I never stated that I thought anything should be illegal.

You think children playing on a freeway is different than children firing guns. Technically you would be right. However, they are both dangerous. Believe me, there is no way that you can convince me that guns aren't dangerous, no matter what your stance on gun ownership is.

I never said I didn't like guns. That has nothing to do with it. This is about children handling Uzis. You might be just a little bit shocked to find out that many people, regardless of their stance on the gun issue, think that's taking gun ownership and responsibility just a bit too far.

[FeebMaster]

173. I didn't say anything about making things illegal.

"I knew You were going to jump on my need comment, despite the fact that I never stated that I thought anything should be illegal."

I simply don't think that a person needs to justify a need to someone before enjoying themselves.


"You think children playing on a freeway is different than children firing guns. Technically you would be right. However, they are both dangerous. Believe me, there is no way that you can convince me that guns aren't dangerous, no matter what your stance on gun ownership is."

Well if I'm not going to convince you, then there's no point in trying.


"I never said I didn't like guns. That has nothing to do with it. This is about children handling Uzis. You might be just a little bit shocked to find out that many people, regardless of their stance on the gun issue, think that's taking gun ownership and responsibility just a bit too far."

So if the kids had been handling say a suppressed Remington Model 700, would that have been alright? I'm not shocked about anything people think about guns. Why just this morning we were discussing terrorist-grade firearms down in the dungeon, whatever terrorist grade is supposed to mean.

[Pithlet]

174. You were implying the legal aspect

when you countered my need with the whole "free country" bit. While ignoring my question, I might add.

So if the kids had been handling say a suppressed Remington Model 700, would that have been alright?

We were talking about your question about kids and Uzis. That is why I used the term Uzi. I'm not okay with children handling weapons of any kind. Weapons are dangerous. I think that parents who let their children play with guns are out of their minds, whether they justify it to me or not.

You seemed to make an assumption about my attitude about guns by saying you didn't think I liked them. I never said anything of the sort. Just because I think they are dangerous, and nothing children should be handling doesn't mean I have an inherent dislike of guns. I just acknowledged that they are indeed weapons, and not something as innocuous as, say, a hula hoop.

[FeebMaster]

176. If I was implying a legal aspect

when I mention the whole "free country" bit, then you were implying the legal aspect with the "explain the need" bit.

"We were talking about your question about kids and Uzis. That is why I used the term Uzi. I'm not okay with children handling weapons of any kind. Weapons are dangerous. I think that parents who let their children play with guns are out of their minds, whether they justify it to me or not.

You seemed to make an assumption about my attitude about guns by saying you didn't think I liked them. I never said anything of the sort. Just because I think they are dangerous, and nothing children should be handling doesn't mean I have an inherent dislike of guns. I just acknowledged that they are indeed weapons, and not something as innocuous as, say, a hula hoop."

Well, I disagree.

[Pithlet]

178. I was implying no such thing.

By asking you why you think a kid needs to have an uzi, I was implying nothing legally. I was simply asking a question.

Me: Why does a kid need an Uzi?

You: It's a free country.

Note that doesn't answer my question. What it does do is imply that I think it should be illegal, otherwise, why would you remind me that it shouldn't be because it's a free country?

Why don't you answer the question? Because really, if the need outweighs the danger, then I could possibly reconsider.

It would also be nice if you could explain why weapons aren't dangerous. I've never heard that argument before. I could maybe possibly be persuaded there, too. You never know. Is it just a myth that weapons fire bullets that kill people? Are all those stories about children accidentally killing themselves or their playmates made up?

[FeebMaster]

182. There's a difference between having and uzi

"I was implying no such thing. By asking you why you think a kid needs to have an uzi, I was implying nothing legally. I was simply asking a question.

Me: Why does a kid need an Uzi?

You: It's a free country.

Note that doesn't answer my question. What it does do is imply that I think it should be illegal, otherwise, why would you remind me that it shouldn't be because it's a free country?"


and shooting an uzi. Frankly, I doubt the kid in that picture can afford to own a suppressed machine gun in this day and age.

We weren't discussing ownership, we were discussing the act of shooting the uzi.

Me: "Maybe you could explain what the problem is with a kid shooting a silenced uzi?"

You: "Maybe you could explain The need for them to do so."

You'll also note that I didn't say "It's a free country." I said "I was under the impression that we valued freedom in this country and could do things we want to do as long as we aren't violating the rights of others. I didn't realize there had to be a valid need to do things."


"Why don't you answer the question? Because really, if the need outweighs the danger, then I could possibly reconsider."

I'm not interested in justifying need to you and I still don't see any particular danger with a kid firing a suppressed uzi.


"It would also be nice if you could explain why weapons aren't dangerous. I've never heard that argument before."

I don't believe I ever said that weapons aren't dangerous. I did say, "shooting a gun, as long as you follow safe gun handling procedures and barring some freak accident like the gun exploding, is perfectly safe."


"Is it just a myth that weapons fire bullets that kill people?"

No. People use guns all the time to kill other people.


"Are all those stories about children accidentally killing themselves or their playmates made up?"

As I recall from the last time it was discussed in the dungeon, there are around 700-800 accidental firearms deaths a year in the United States, which includes both children and adults. So as you can see, it does actually happen, although it's fairly rare.

[Pithlet]

186. When I stated that weapons are dangerous

you simply responded "I disagree" So, I assumed you disagreed that weapons are dangerous.

Valued freedom/free country. Semantics. It sill implies that I think it should be restricted/made illegal.

If you weren't interested in answering the question about need, then why didn't you just say so? I would have understood.

If you don't agree that kids handling Uzis and other such weapons is dangerous, that's one thing. I just don't understand the reaction to those of us who do, as if we're being so unreasonable in our stance. It's good that you actually understand that weapons are dangerous. I'm relieved. So, why is it so unreasonable to think that letting children play with them is a little bit out there? Why would the reaction to "what's wrong with that" be so out of line?

[FeebMaster]

188. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I was disagreeing with this statement:

"I'm not okay with children handling weapons of any kind. Weapons are dangerous. I think that parents who let their children play with guns are out of their minds, whether they justify it to me or not."

[library_max]

190. Hey, Pithlet, aren't you glad you argued with this guy?

He's never going to hear you, he's got his head stuck too far into his ideology. You can't point-by-point people like that, they have no sane point of reference to understand when their arguments have been refuted.

[FeebMaster]

191. I'll say. (nt)

[FeebMaster]

192. Ohh. You were talking to the other guy.

:eyes: I have to tell you, my feelings are hurt. It's a good thing you guys are so open minded on the issue or your post would sound silly.

"Geez, aren't you glad you argued with this guy? He's never going to hear you, he's got his head stuck too far into his ideology. You can't point-by-point people like that, they have no sane point of reference to understand when their arguments have been refuted."

[library_max]

193. See, it's those razor-sharp listening skills I was talking about.

The ones that gave you the idea I might be agreeing with you and not with Pithlet.

[FeebMaster]

194. I don't know how things work out on your browser,

but at around 20 replies deep on mine replies stop indenting. Of course, you can still check the response to tag in the upper right of a post. I did this, of course, but I thought my replies would be a good laugh. They were.

"See, it's those razor-sharp listening skills I was talking about. The ones that gave you the idea I might be agreeing with you and not with Pithlet."

[slackmaster]

147. Sound suppressors reduce the need for hearing protection

Less chance of permanent hearing damage, and less potential to piss off your neighbors.

[reformed_military]

179. Additionally...

Some of you are making a few assumptions.

- That it is an automatic uzi. They are regulated by the ATF under the National Firearms Act (1930's(?)), and subject to a background check and a $200 tax stamp. I can't see the selector lever from the pictures and neither can you, so we can't assume it is one.

- That it is real supressor, not a "barrel shroud". Same regs as above.

What we can see are two minors holding a weapon (which is a variant of or copy of the Uzi) .

- The weapon does not have a magazine in it.

- The sub-machine version fires from the open bolt position. Meaning that bolt needs to be in the rear. If you look above their hands, you will see that the bolt is forward (or closed). If it is a sub-machine version, it could not fire.

- The kids are both displaying proper weapon handling. Neither has their finger in the trigger shroud. Both have the weapon pointed in a safe direction. And both are at a shooting range.

When you make something taboo, like a gun, kids will be drawn to it. Both of these kids have been exposed to it, so the weapon is just a "so what".

The boy could not look any more bored. He would like to get back to listening to "Rancid"

I have a .22 rifle that I shoot sub-sonic ammunition in. It just pops like a bb gun. My 16 yo daughter can go out with me and she can shoot, and neither of us need to wear earplugs. That means dad does not have to YELL when helping her learn, and she does not flinch from the bang.

[FeebMaster]

184. Good points. (nt)

[rockymountaindem]

19. I agree.

And I know the 2nd ammendment is for militias only (the National Guard). However, since nobody in government interprets it that way these days, then I don't want to be the only one without a gun.

[Az]

24. And having a gun does what

Specifically? Guns do not stop bullets. They are not defensive tools. You want defense you wear a bullet proof vest. Unless you are Wonder Woman you are not going to stop bullets with your gun.

I am not for eliminating guns. Regulating most and banning some yes. But outright elimination is unnecissary. But this notion of guns as defense? Sorry, don't buy it.

[ieoeja]

93. Wrong!

The 8th and 9th amendments, with 110 and 130 characters respectively, are shorter than the 2nd amendment with 144 characters.

Perhaps conservatives feel it is okay to skip the first portion of the 2nd amendment so long as they make up for it by skipping the last portion of another amendment (the 10th).

[FeebMaster]

9. Do you agree with right wing politicians or voters?

For all the talk about how pro-gun the Republicans are they've certainly passed a lot of gun control in the last 25 years.

[wryter2000]

10. The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment protects the states' rights to raise a militia, not individual rights to own guns. I'm not for banning guns. Maybe some kinds, I don't know. But it isn't the case that you have a Constitutional right to own them.

[FeebMaster]

22. The only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment

is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[Desertrose]

11. yup, just what we need...more guns

actually...thats the LAST thing we need with the pervasive fear and spy on your neighbor mentality that is being fostered...just give eveyone more n' more guns and they'll kill each other....

no, sorry to disagree...more guns is the last thing we need....today on April 19. Waco, OKC, Columbine anniversary coming up...hasn't anyone figured out the violence begets violence- fear creates more fear...this is no solution folks....

PEACE
DR

[DaveSZ]

16. Most state constitutions grant private ownership rights of firearms

I've never been afraid of the government before either until now.

[rucky]

12. It's more consistent with the liberal philosophy of personal freedom

that's why I switched.

still won't go near a gun, myself, but go ahead if you want to.

[Az]

18. Does that mean

I can have my own thermo nuclear device? Hooboy.

The government restricts weapons. Its allowed. Guns are weapons. End of story.

[FeebMaster]

25. I'm invoking McFeeb's Law.

We're talking about firearms here. Let's try and keep the nuclear weapons strawmen to a minimum.

[Az]

35. Can I have

A gattling gun?

[FeebMaster]

55. You can have a gatling gun right now.

If it's hand crank operated you don't even have to pay a $200 tax on it, you can just buy it like a regular gun.

[Az]

61. Na

I want one of those Kill everything in sight belt driven gattling guns. I want to rig it in a crows nest on top of my house and put a laser site on it with a remote camera so I can train it on everyone coming up to my house. Think that will be allowed?

[FeebMaster]

63. It's already allowed.

As I said. You'll have to go through all of the NFA requirements like getting a signature of a chief law enforcement officer, pictures, fingerprints, background checks, paperwork, long waits for approval, the $200 tax on transfer, the massively inflated prices from all of the regulation. But you can own one quite legally.

[Az]

67. Ah, so it is regulated

Nuff said.

[FeebMaster]

68. I didn't say it wasn't regulated.

You asked if you could have a gatling gun. I said yes.

[Az]

69. Then forgive my vehemence

I mistook you for a different stance. My bad. To be specific, I am pro limited gun ownership under property rights (not the 2nd) and proregulation and limitation of certain kinds of weapons.

[FeebMaster]

81. My stance

is that there should be no laws regulating firearms, at all. I was just pointing out that gatling guns are quite legal and there are varying degrees of regulation on them depending on what kind you buy.

[slackmaster]

151. There's no law preventing you from owning a nuclear weapon

If you REALLY WANT ONE, have the money, the facilities to transport and store it safely (per federal regs and licensing requirements), and can pass the background check I have no problem with you acquiring one.

Of course if you really DON'T want one your post is just a silly straw man. I see McFeeb's Law has already been invoked.

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. for the purposes of what?

The end-all civil war?

Please.

If 20 armed agents come to my door I'm opening it, not challenging them to a duel.

[DaveSZ]

21. "It's more consistent with the liberal philosophy of personal freedom"

I agree.

This is why I changed my viewpoint as well.

We already do a better job at protecting the Bill of Rights than the Fundies.

:)

[THUNDER HANDS]

39. what about my personal freedom to not be a victim of gun violence?

huh?

[FeebMaster]

56. We have laws against murder. (nt)

[Pithlet]

168. Murder is a lot easier and more effiecient with a gun. n/t

[FeebMaster]

171. I wouldn't know, I've never committed murder.

What does that have to do with anything anyway? I was discussing the subtleties of personal freedom and laws against murder with Magic Rat. What does the efficiency of methods of murder have to do with anything?

[Pithlet]

183. It has everything to do with it.

Magic Rat says he/she doesn't want to be a victim of gun violence. You respond that that is what murder laws are for. It seemes to me that one would respond that way to point out that people are already punished for murder, so there is no need to restrict guns. Is that not what you meant?

[FeebMaster]

185. That's exactly what I meant. (nt)

[Pithlet]

187. Okay

That's what I thought. Then how does my response not make sense? It is easier to murder somone with a gun than just about any other personal weapon. You can do it from a greater distance, and inflict more damage in one action with a gun than you can with a knife or blunt object. Guns are used in murders very frequently. So, how is it irrelevant? You can disagree, but you certainly can't say it's irrelevant.

[FeebMaster]

189. Alright.

DaveSZ said: "It's more consistent with the liberal philosophy of personal freedom"

Magic Rat said: "what about my personal freedom to not be a victim of gun violence?"

I said: "We have laws against murder."

I thought it was clear that I was pointing out that simple ownership of a gun hurts no one. To be a victim of gun violence someone has to misuse the gun. They either have to threaten you with one, and there are laws against that sort of thing, or you have to be shot, which at the very least should result in a charge of assault with a deadly weapon if not attempted murder. If you die, then it should result in a murder charge.


Then you jumped in talking about guns being more efficient for murder. I still don't understand what that has to do with anything. If you're murdered with a knife you're just as dead as if you're murdered with a gun or car.


Then I asked: "What does the efficiency of methods of murder have to do with anything?"


You responded: "It has everything to do with it. Magic Rat says he/she doesn't want to be a victim of gun violence. You respond that that is what murder laws are for. It seemes to me that one would respond that way to point out that people are already punished for murder, so there is no need to restrict guns. Is that not what you meant?"

The part I was agreeing with was "You respond that that is what murder laws are for. It seemes to me that one would respond that way to point out that people are already punished for murder, so there is no need to restrict guns. Is that not what you meant?" Sorry if I wasn't clear.


It is easier to murder somone with a gun than just about any other personal weapon. You can do it from a greater distance, and inflict more damage in one action with a gun than you can with a knife or blunt object.

Other than the greater distance part, I disagree. A knife or a hammer can kill someone just as easily as a gun. It only takes one good blow to the head to kill someone. It only takes one slash to an artery or one stab of a vital organ to kill someone. People get shot all the time and recover. Guns aren't some miracle killing weapon.

"Guns are used in murders very frequently. So, how is it irrelevant? You can disagree, but you certainly can't say it's irrelevant.

How can you disagree? Guns are used in murders very frequently. But how is it relevant to the rest of this discussion? Murder is murder. Magic Rat is concerned about his freedom not to be a victim of gun violence and that's fine, but how are restrictions on gun ownership going to make it less likely that he becomes a victim of gun violence when there are already laws against murdering people?

[Lisa0825]

46. I changed my POV for this reason as well.

[Ysabel]

64. hell with that...

i'm out the window...

:)

[redqueen]

20. Nothing wrong with owning a gun

As long as you keep it safely away from children and educate older children about them.

[Pithlet]

165. But

Shouldn't they be able to fire giant uzis with silencers on them if they want to? I mean, what is wrong with that?

I'm not for banning guns, btw. I'm just reacting to some shocking posts I've seen in this thread.

[RaulGroom]

23. I don't have any particular love for gun control

But for anyone who entertains some quaint idea of keeping guns to protect yourself against an out-of-control government, allow me to quote the Mighty Mos Def:

"And while we rantin' and ravin' about gats
N***a they made them gats, they got some shit that'll blow out our backs"

And that's the truth. Our protection against a government out of control is the mechanism by which we exert control over that government - the battered and rapidly diminishing power called Democracy.

[apnu]

26. gun control is FUBAR no matter what your stance on it is.

The laws in place now, and the laws pending, just don't solve the problem. They don't place responsibility in the proper places, they fudge and gray classifications on guns. The whole thing is a mess. This is one of those things in politics where the whole law needs to be tossed out and an entirely new set of laws put in place.

[David__77]

30. I've never supported "gun control."

I think this is a general movement, recognizing the importance of the right to have weapons. The same people that want to abolish habeas corpus and institute fascist legal concepts will before long get along to trying to disarm people and revoke this right as well. Progressives will hopefully learn that this right must be defended.

[Sliverofhope]

31. I'm beginning to agree

And we could seriously remove some support for the GOP if we started a new approach about this.

[veracity]

34. How silly....

Just random gun ownership? Dang, - we don't even allow people to cut hair without a license. You need to pass a test to drive a car. Gun CONTROL limits gun ownership....and we have far more liberal laws here than in any other industrialized nation. Not even the Israeli's allow guns to be carried by their citizenry. What a really poorly thought out suggestion. Sorry, that's my opinion....

[noiretextatique]

41. i don't agree with the rw's views on anything, including gun control

like abortion, this issue is way overblown.
sensible gun control, as you mention, makes common f'ng sense. that gets turned into "they want to take your guns" by the rw to divide and conquer. likewise with abortion...whar should be a person decision between a woman, her partner, and her doctor had become some litmus test on how pious some folks are when it comes to other people lives and choices.
sensible gun control doesn't impede your ability to own a gun, if you choose.

[FeebMaster]

58. Maybe you shouldn't require a license

for people who cut hair. :eyes:

[flaminlib]

38. Show support for gun rights

Whether you own firearms or not, if you believe in the 2nd ammendment's guarantee that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, you should make that known. Too often we are labeled as pacifists and gun control freaks. I know too many liberals who are gun owners, and as staunch in protecting that right as any conservative. We need to be more vocal about it and remove the labels.

I dont agree that the 2nd applies only to militia's. As with most of the constitution, it is subject to the interpretation and the standards of that time. I think a majority of americans support the right to own firarms.

[Az]

45. Sorry

But the courts consistantly uphold the right of the government to regulate arms. The 2nd ammendment is window dressing used by the NRA to support their tirade against the government.

Yes, you have property rights to own guns. But they are just that, property rights. It really can't be explained simpler. The rights you have to own a gun are the same rights you have to own a TV. If your TV had the capacity to pierce police armor they would be regulated too.

[flaminlib]

48. I didnt argue against gun control

I was simply pointing out that we are too often labeled pacifists who want to ban all firearms. I would prefer that those of us who do believe in the 2nd, should be more vocal about it and stop the labeling.

[Az]

51. But as I said

The 2nd ammendment is not really relevant. Sure owning a gun is a right. But the 2nd ammendment is simply put a flawed ammendment. It was illworded in its time and misunderstood in ours. Pin gun ownership to the proper legal path. Don't fall victim to the NRA's false claim.

[flaminlib]

59. Im not following you.

Why is the 2nd not relevant. It states explicitly that the right we have the right to keep and bear arms. More importantly, the sentiment of the time was that firearms in the hands of civilians is a good thing.

How is it flawed and illworded?

Not sure what you mean by pinning gun ownership to the proper legal path. I didnt really understand your tv analogy either. Ownership is ownership, tv or gun. But the 2nd guarantees us the right to keep arms.

Im not a member of the NRA. Clearly that are a political tool that the right uses for its own agenda but, that doesnt necessarily mean that the RKBA is inherently flawed because of that.

[Az]

70. The 2nd ammendment

The courts have consistantly sided with regulation and restriction of weapons based on an understanding of ownership comes from property rights and not the 2nd ammendment.

The 2nd ammendment was specifically placed in there to create a balance of armed forces between the states and the federal government. The ammendment establishes the right of the states to maintain a well armed militia. And since the militia was drawn from the populace it was left open in its wording. Later reference to militia specifically places the congress in charge of the militia. Thus the Army is the Presidents armed forces and the militia was to be the congress's. It is not a blanket ownership clause for the populace to own guns. The NRA merely plays it that way.

[flaminlib]

75. Hmmm.

So do you believe that private gun ownership in the "absence" of a militia is a right? Constitutional? You mentioned property rights, since the constitution doesnt expressly grant property rights, should I assume that you mean we have NO constitutional rights to arms?

[Az]

77. I have as much right to own a gun

as I have to own a baseball bat. It is property. A private citizen is not constitutionally guaranteed the right to own a gun by the 2nd ammendment.

[flaminlib]

82. Well we will have to disagree

I understand what you are saying though.

"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."

Ive taken your "intepretations" assertion on its face value since I dont have the time to go back through ALL (or any) of the rulings associated with the 2nd. Later today maybe.

[Solon]

42. Let's put it this way.

If you think that owning one gun, 10 guns, or a 100 will protect you from the government, then you are deluding yourself. Now if you had like 100 RPG's and some friends then you might be in a slightly better condition. However, the 2nd Amendment today is NOT a check on the government, protecting your life and property is fine, also your right to a gun is not disputed by me. I am just pointing out the obvious here :)

[havocmom]

49. Just like to note here that the might and resources of the United States

military seems to be having a fair bit of trouble with a well armed population which is managing to assemble itself into a militia to defend against an invading force.

[Solon]

72. Problem is, of course, that the US is the invasion force.

No rebellion in the history of the world was ever sucessful without at least 30% of the population backing it. Support here for such an action would probably be half that. Also the Iraqis have access to military grade weapons even we cannot get, they have the support of certain nations "under the table" as it were. Would owning a gun protect you from being "disappeared", no it will not, it only guarantees that you can go out in a blaze of glory while trying to kill as many brownshirts as possible.

ON EDIT: I talked about this very senario at this post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1435355

[blindpig]

99. #'s for successful rebellion

If I remember correctly according to Robert Aspery in War in the Shadows: 10% active and 50% passive support will do the trick. Otherwise I agree with you 100%

[Solon]

137. Yes I somewhat combined the two

The passive support would be necessary to support the insurgents. Though I will say that I base this roughly on the American Revolution, where 1/3 supported it, 1/3 didn't care one way or the other, and 1/3 opposed it. I would see the same divisions today as 200+ years ago. Looks like the political map between liberal/Moderates/Conservative to me.

[scarletwoman]

124. To me, the most intriguing part of the 2nd Amendment is the part about

"Well-regulated militias." (I don't know if that's the exact quote) Does that mean that militias are constitutionally permitted? Does it grant to any particular government entity the (sole?) power over the formation of "well-regulated militias"? That is, "regulated" by whom?

I haven't really looked into this issue much, but after spending over half of my adult life in rural areas in several parts of the country, I'm pretty much all for country people owning all the guns they want.

Myself, I have never owned a gun, nor shot one. I've lived with partners who kept hunting rifles and shotguns, and one handgun, but it's never been a big deal to me. That's just part of the household when you live in the boonies.

Obviously, the cities are a whole other matter. But I have truly come to believe that to concentrate all gun regulation efforts at the OWNERSHIP level is totally missing the point. Regulation needs to be aimed at the MANUFACTURERS and the DISTRIBUTORS.

There are enough guns and weaponry being made to arm every man, woman, child, and dog in this country. And those who want them badly enough WILL figure out to get them, no matter how many strictures on ownership are set out.

We have to start hacking away at the roots, quit being distracted by petty squabbles about how much we want the State telling us what we can and cannot do.

I may decide to get a rifle or something someday. I live alone out in the country, it might come in handy sometime for food at least. (there's a gazillion deer in this area)

And with the way things are going, I'm thinking that maybe I ought not put it off too long -- I would not want to discover that it's too late when I finally get around to it, that my participation in activist groups has landed MY NAME ON A LIST (thanks to the Patriot Act, or Carnivore, or TIA, or whatever...), whereupon I will NOT be allowed to purchase a firearm.

Liberals ought to be thinking about THAT, imho.

sw

[Catfight]

44. I don't own a gun, but if I want to, I like that possibility:

Guns: I'm all for leaving guns alone, but being responsible if your gun is involved in a crime, accidental or not. I don't even believe in the 3 day waiting period. Especially now since someday I can see our government, under the current Bush administration, going to every house and collecting registered guns. So I'm on the Repug side on this, however, I really don't think the repugs are being honest about this...somehow I see them eventually changing their tune and collecting American guns to have the ultimate control. Let's say dumbya gets another 4...beware...nothing will stop him at that point. Say bye bye to America as we know it.

[Cleita]

50. Well, I don't think any of our candidates should make an issue of it.

Also, they shouldn't let the Republicans make an issue of it to distract from more pressing issues, like this phony but deadly war. I hope Kerry takes Howard Dean's position that gun control is best handled on a state level.

[markses]

53. Gun control is a big loser issue, and always has been

I don't know why the Democrats insist on the gun control issue. It's useless, and - truth be told - contrary to the will of the American people.

[havocmom]

106. Yep, there are laws against murder, reckless endangerment, so on

but it still happens and doesn't always involve a gun. Constantly pushing this one issue doesn't make America a safer place but it does lose elections for us. We need to address more that is wrong in this nation than just gun violence but we can't do it from the sidelines.

If we can get more liberals in all levels of government, we stand a better chance to make the changes which will bring more justice and opportunity to the nation. That will lower violence across the board.

If lowering the level of violence is the true aim of the gun control faction of the liberals (and they are a faction, not the entirety of liberals) let's do it right. Win elections, return policy making to a procedure which includes civil discourse and rational compromises to make America work better for all Americans and there will be less violence/more tolerance.

Gun control is a trap they set for us and we keep tumbling into it.
What was it Randi said to Ralph? "I love ya, but we can't afford ya now!

Let's think about grabbing the brass ring right now and then tackling the issues once we are in a position to do more than whimper.

[ACK]

57. Gun control is one of only three issues

That Democrats on a national stage have to moderate on.

It is my complete conviction that if Dems moderate on three issues they can go as liberal as they want on most other issues. One of the three positions is all about what you say and not what you do as well that is military spending.

What are those three issues?

They are the wuss issues. What is the easiest way to die a horrible death as a liberal on the national stage? Get caught by any one of these three issues.

1. Gun Control. Americans like their guns. Talk about gun safety laws to bait the extremists but talk about banning handguns and on the national stage you might as well buy one yourself, go home and put on in your own head. It is political suicide.

2. Death penalty. Americans want vengence. It is not about deterance or anything at all resembling reason and thought. It is about unholy frickin' vengence against those convicted of murder. It is sad but true.

3. A strong Military. Never, ever sound anti-military or talk about America's military as being anything less than #1. Does that mean you can't cut defense spending? Hell no. Clinton closed bases and cut spending. How do you do it? Talk about creating a more efficient defense force. Talk about cutting waste. Talk about balancing the budget. But understand how to voice the message in a populist way.

What about everything else?

Go as liberal as you want.

Just remember if you cannot come up with a populist way to explain the position to the American people you might as well through it out of the platform because it will not fly.

For example:

Do you talk about hating all corporations? No, you talk about them playing fair by the rules and paying their fair share. You talk about competition and greed and about how to promote small businesses. You talk about protecting the little guy from the multinational corporations that only a government by the people and for the people on the national stage has a chance to do that. This is just one example but I hope you get the picture.

+

[w4rma]

83. I agree on #1 and #3, but somewhat disagree with #2.

I think times are changing with respect to the death penalty. The government shouldn't have the power over life and death with respect to it's citizens, there is *much* potential for abuse, there. And with DNA evidence cropping up all over the place proving that folks who have been administered the death penalty were innocent of their crime(s), that only goes further to show that the death penalty is a bad thing.

In fact I would go as far as to say that the death penalty helps criminals by allowing them to frame someone else, wait for their death penalty and live their criminal life without worry that the guy who they framed will work to hunt down the real criminal(s).

I do, however, think that the case against the death penalty can be framed in the manner that you state: vengence (but for the CORRECT person).

[Th1onein]

71. I agree!

The purpose of that amendment was so that Americans could defend themselves against their own government. I think that that time is coming sooner than we think, if Bush stays in office.

I also am anti-abortion. I consider the right wing's insistence on capital punishment and anti=abortion stance inconsistent, and I consider the left wing's pro-choice and anti-capital punishment stances inconsistent.

[Az]

73. Actually

It was put in there so the congress could defend itself against the president. The militia was a volunteer military body to be controlled by the congress. Its not about individual ownership.

[leanings]

84. Militia ain't volunteer

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311.

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.

And it was generally controlled by the state governments, not the Congress.

The 2A was put in place so that a tyrannical government would have to contend with an armed populace. That's the spirit and the letter of the 2A, and I don't understand why people argue otherwise. If it's poorly written, or obsolete, push for an amendment. But don't tell my that it applies only to the National Guard, which is fully equipped by the Fed.

[Th1onein]

98. Interesting.

I still think it's important to own a gun. A bulletproof vest does nothing if someone is bigger than you and wants to cut your throat.

[Az]

103. It all depends on what sort of society we decide to build

The idea that one has to depend on being more heavily armed than an attacker suggests we have already missed the point. I don't think guns are the only problem but they are certainly not the solution and regulating them does not cause any further problems and may even clear up a few.

[FeebMaster]

112. We've been regulating guns at the federal level

for 70 years. What problems has it cleared up?

You don't necessarily have to be more heavily armed than your attacker. If someone comes after you with a pistol you don't need a rifle to stop them. If someone comes after you with a rifle, you don't need a rocket launcher to stop them. The whole idea is that guns are an equalizer. In a physical confrontation the bigger and stronger person will always have the advantage. Guns remove that advantage.

[Az]

144. So you

Walk around with your gun drawn all the time? I often wonder what sort of situations people imagine a gun can protect them in. Particularly in the face of another gun.

Lets be sure of one thing. Guns do not stop bullets. They are not a defensive tool. They don't put guns on tanks for defense. They put armor on for defense. The gun is for offense.

Now in a confrontation between you and an armed aggressor who do you suppose has their gun out first? Unless you walk around with your gun at the ready all the time I would wager that the aggressor has their gun trained on you. At this point owning a gun becomes useless. If you try to get your gun out you are going to be dead very quickly.

Against a larger opponent I don't think they are going to be standing around while you dig your gun out. Again any move to draw the gun will only accelerate the issue and put your life in greater danger. The only occurrence where a gun will be of advantage is when you can get the first move in. But at that point nearly any tool would make a difference.

[FeebMaster]

146. Well, I'm not a gun owner

"So you Walk around with your gun drawn all the time? I often wonder what sort of situations people imagine a gun can protect them in. Particularly in the face of another gun."

so I'm not really walking around with anything. There are plenty of situations in which you can use a gun to protect yourself, even from another gun. That's why the police carry them.


"Lets be sure of one thing. Guns do not stop bullets. They are not a defensive tool. They don't put guns on tanks for defense. They put armor on for defense. The gun is for offense."

Please. If you use a gun to stop a threat then it's a defensive tool regardless of whether or not you had to attack with it.


"Now in a confrontation between you and an armed aggressor who do you suppose has their gun out first? Unless you walk around with your gun at the ready all the time I would wager that the aggressor has their gun trained on you. At this point owning a gun becomes useless. If you try to get your gun out you are going to be dead very quickly."

So you can imagine a situation where a gun would be useless. Did you have a point with this one? I wonder how those "clerk pulls gun on armed robber, shots exchanged" stories don't all end up with the clerk dead.


"Against a larger opponent I don't think they are going to be standing around while you dig your gun out. Again any move to draw the gun will only accelerate the issue and put your life in greater danger. The only occurrence where a gun will be of advantage is when you can get the first move in. But at that point nearly any tool would make a difference."

That's great. So if some big guy decides he's going to rape you or beat you to death, there's nothing you can do about it. If you try and draw a gun, which takes what, a second or two, he's going to get you. Probably take the gun away from you too and use it on you. :eyes:

[DrWeird]

74. I believe in the second amendment.

I also believe that gun control such as assault weapons bans and gun registration isn't contrary to the second amendment.

And I don't see how people who are legitimately concerned about gun safety and ownership are opposed to this, unless it's just the slippery slope argument.

[Bridget Burke]

78. I know hunters & people who collect guns.

They're fine people. (Well, a few are drunken Yahoos, but I stay urban when deer season begins.)

But I don't want to encourage people to buy guns for the purpose of shooting US soldiers or law enforcement officials. First, this sounds like an idea intended to cause legal trouble. Also, the government will have bigger guns....

[CBHagman]

79. No, no, we're supposed to be FRIENDS to the police.

We're the pro-law enforcement party, no two ways about it. Look at what Bush has done to community policing (in a nutshell, he did what he wanted to do with Reading is Fundamental). Even Tom Ridge squawked about how we shouldn't spend federal funds on law enforcement (It's funny that they don't make that argument about promoting marriage or financing "faith-based" groups).

We also actually READ in the Democratic Party, which means that we know that the Second Amendment refers to a well-regulated militia, not our drunken, hot-headed neighbors brawling on a Saturday night.

[FeebMaster]

85. How is gun ownership unfriendly to the police?

You're right, the 2nd amendment does refer to a well regulated militia. It also mentions the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[CBHagman]

107. Does the term "cop-killer bullets" ring a bell?

How about the term "bullet-proof vest"?

I don't know what newspapers you've read recently, but I keep seeing full-page ads from police organizations calling for the renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Again, the Second Amendment refers to a well-regulated militia -- not unlimited weapons access for every looney in the States. I have NO PROBLEM regulating devices designed to maim and kill.

[FeebMaster]

110. What does the Assault Weapons Ban

have to do with cop killer bullets and bullet-proof vests?

Could you explain to me what a cop killer bullet is? Is it a hollow point? Is it armor piercing?


"Again, the Second Amendment refers to a well-regulated militia -- not unlimited weapons access for every looney in the States."

Yes the 2nd Amendment does refer to a well-regulated militia. It also says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"I have NO PROBLEM regulating devices designed to maim and kill."

I do.

[Libertarialoon]

126. Bounty Hunters

A few years ago here in AZ, a group of bounty hunters decked out in body armor stormed a person's house and killed him and his girlfriend.

It turns out they were at the wrong house and shot the wrong guy.

"Cop-killer" bullets may have saved that man's life.

As far as asssult weapons, I can definately see a need for a shopkeeper in a crime-ridden area to brandish heavy artillery. Banning guns is akin to prosecuting someone for a thought crime and not an actual crime. Law-abiding citizens shouldn't be restricted from owning whatever weapons they feel they are best able to protect themselves with.

[devinsgram]

87. Oh yeah, just what this world needs

more guns and more killing. Yep, that'll do it.

[Libertarialoon]

127. Wrong

Studies indicate that concealed-carry laws reduce the rate of violent crime.

[kcr]

181. Wrong

There is no evidece of this, none at all. John lott's work has been discredited, and there is no tother comprehensive study that proves this.

There is none that prove they increase crime, either, but what you just said is a myth.

[Zomby Woof]

88. let people have all the guns they want

But ban the bullets. :evilgrin:

Yeah, Waco and Ruby Ridge sure showed the government how arming yourselves to the teeth took a stand against tyranny, eh?

And if John Ashcroft reads DU, I will eat the mug I drink my coffee out of.

[PatGund]

91. Agreed

And I say that as a moderate liberal *and* a gun owner.

Funny thing, almost every liberal I know, (some far more "lefty" than I am), are also gun owners and passionate about their 2nd amendment rights. Now more than ever.

Gun owners are not all right-wing mouth breathers.

[eurolefty]

92. That's nice!

Maybe this could be the new liberal anthem?

Die Fahne hoch, die Reihen dicht geschlossen!
SA marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt.
Kameraden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen,
Marschiern im Geist in unsern Reihen mit.

Die Straße frei den braunen Bataillonen,
Die Straße frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann.
Es schaun aufs Hakenkreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen,
der Tag für Freiheit und für Brot bricht an.

Zum letzten Mal wird Sturmalarm geblasen.
Zum Kampfe stehen wir alle schon bereit.
Bald flattern Hitler-Fahnen über alle Straßen,
die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit.

:silly: (sarcasm)

[MAlibdem]

94. I suppose I'm more concerned about the Culture of Death

in our country. But I don't know if gun violence is a contributor or a result of this culture...

[library_max]

95. Left, right, or sideways,

nobody's going to outshoot the US military. If that's the plan, get a new plan.

[FeebMaster]

113. Have you been watching the news? (nt)

[library_max]

119. Ah, yes.

The insurgents are going to be booting the US military out of Iraq any day now. NOT. If we pull out, it'll be because Americans of good will and good conscience are sick of this empire business, not because the US military gets its butts whooped by insurgents. Look at the kill ratios and who actually controls the streets.

[FeebMaster]

121. I didn't say they were going to boot the US military

out of Iraq. Kill ratios not withstanding, the US military can't even control a tiny country like Iraq. Do you think they could control the entire United States if they had to?

[library_max]

129. So that's your model? Beirut and Ulster at the height of hostilities?

Perpetual mutual warfare? Yeccccch. Include me out. I'll be over here working on a political solution.

[FeebMaster]

131. My model?

I'm just pointing out that the military is having some problems in Iraq and if there ever were a similar situation here in the US it would be even more difficult for the military.

[library_max]

132. Okay, my bad I guess.

I thought somebody was advocating private gun ownership as a realistic defense against the right-wing takeover of this country. Coupled with your remarks about Iraq, I thought you were saying that left-wing gun owners could and should mount an insurgency against the government in this country, if the politics get bad enough. Otherwise, what's the political point in owning guns?

[FeebMaster]

133. I'm not advocating anything.

You said no one is going to out shoot the US military and I disagreed. That's all.

[library_max]

135. Ah, I see.

I still don't see where you provided an example of anyone outshooting the US military. I will concede that you provided an example of people shooting back who aren't all dead - yet.

[neverborn]

96. ...agree?

You agree with the Right Wing on this? The Right wants unrestricted, unregulated access to any guns. I don't agree with the Right on anything, and certainly not that.

[FeebMaster]

114. If the Right wants unrestricted, unregulated access

to any guns, then why haven't they removed some of the restrictions now that they control both houses of Congress and the Presidency? Why did they pass more restrictions when Reagan was in office and when Bush the First was in office?

[havocmom]

118. what did the shrub say he would do re the assult weapons ban running out?

wasn't he for renewing it?

Yep, the right has their gun control supporters too, but the Dems are the ones who get nailed on the issue. If we stop making an issue of it, maybe we could win more elections and fix a few things around the nation.

[FeebMaster]

122. The Republicans have the advantage that their voters

are stupid and for some reason believe that Republicans want smaller government and are pro-gun. Then again, a lot of people here at DU will try and tell you the Republicans are pro-gun too.

It would take more than not making an issue of it to diffuse the gun issue. An issue should be made over gun rights, and Democrats should come out in favor of them. I'm not talking about the usual "I'm a hunter" crap you hear from pretty much every candidate either.

[EstimatedProphet]

100. Already done

And I agree. IMO the Democratic party's position on gun control (as reflected from my experience talking to some other Democrats) is an untenable one, and really has to do with restricting access nationwide because of New York and Los Angeles.

[IronLionZion]

101. sounds good but what about assault weapons?

Tons of good liberals have and use guns: John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Michael Moore.

I strongly support the right to bear arms, but there is no right to bear assault weapons. An M-16 is not used to hunt deer and it is not used for self-defense. It is used to kill a lot of people very quickly.

I realize that the founding fathers put in the amendment not so people could hunt, but so that if the need arises we may overthrow an oppressive government. But they did not have assault weapons or rocket launchers back then.

cheers
Indy

[EstimatedProphet]

111. The fundamental problem with the assault weapons argument

No one knows what an assault weapon is.
I'm against the AWB in Congress, because their definition of an assault weapon isn't what the press has been calling an assault weapon, or what springs to mind when people think of assault weapon: namely, an automatic rifle, or "machine gun".
The AWB concerns itself with the following:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
A grenade launcher.
Clearly, some of the things on this list are something that should be limited access, such as a grenade launcher. But a folding stock? If I wanted to rob a bank, and conceal a rifle (which is where I assume the rationale for this came from) I would have just as easy a time sawing off the stock and concealing the gun as I would having a folding stock. This doesn't make anyone significantly safer.
The AWB DOES NOT ADDRESS AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. Everyone I have talked to about it that supports it, supports it because they think it will take automatic weapons off the streets. BULL$HIT! The National Firearms Act of 1934 has already done that. It is possible to own a machine gun, but only after:
FBI background check (not the Instant Background Check; but a full 6-month or longer investigation)
Registration of weapon
Transfer tax of $200 per NFA item
State approval
Local law enforcement approval
Weapon must be produced prior to 1986
ATF Approval
It is highly doubtful many people on this bulletin board could pass this list. I couldn't. I have some problems on my credit report. No crimes in my history at all, only 1 speeding ticket, and there is no way I could pass the background check. It's that restrictive.
Machine guns are already being taken care of. The AWB doesn't do anything about them at all. It just makes weapons that look like M-16s illegal. I personally find the AWB ridiculous because I have 2 rifles that would fall under the assault weapons ban as I understand it, and neither one of them is any more lethal than the average hunting rifle. But the AWB to so many people's minds will rid the streets of all the Uzis, how could it not be a good thing? This is another problem foisted upon us by a lazy press that never bothers to do background research anymore.

On edit: my source: http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm

[slackmaster]

150. An M16 is not an "assault weapon"

You've repeated a common misperception.

Any weapon that fires more than one round per trigger pull is legally a "machinegun" and not an AW - the proper legal term being "semiautomatic assault weapon".

See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html and subsequent sections for the actual text of the law.

[fujiyama]

104. I've become

more moderate regarding that issue. It doesn't mean anything for me now.

I used to support licensing and registration, but now I wouln't consider it. I also do support concealed weapons laws in some cases.

I'm sort of unsure about the assult weapons ban though.

[Roon]

105. No need to waste your money on a gun

Once the shit hits the fan, there will be plenty of guns to go around. The trick is, being willing to use one..

[SmileyBoy]

115. I don't like the fact that everyone can have guns, BUT...

...It's in our Constitution. And if it's in our Constitution, then I feel an obligation to support that right. I may not like the fact that everyone in good mental health can purchase firearms, but it's apparently an inalienable right in our country. So I feel I should support it.

[library_max]

120. It's not in our Constitution.

No Supreme Court, liberal or conservative, has ever ruled that the Second Amendment establishes an unrestricted right for private individuals to own firearms.

[ulysses]

116. I've moderated on it a good bit too.

Wouldn't say that I agree with the rw on it, and, much as I've been tempted in recent years, I don't imagine that I'm probably going to ever buy one, especially with us trying to adopt, but I'm pretty much in tune with gun ownership when restricted to at least the degree of a driver's license. And never say never. I know how to use guns.

Side note to Zomby - I agree with you on defense against government intrusion, but it's the freelance hairballs around here I worry about sometimes.

[Selwynn]

117. YES! ITS ABOUT TIME WE HAD THE 92342342382352835 GUN THREAD! WOOT!!!!

[JanMichael]

123. I've done a 180 on it myself over the last 3 years.

This Leftist is armed:-)

Edit: OTH I still believe that reasonable waiting periods are a "good" thing, and those gawd awful gun shows need to be shut down. Oh and certain types of bullets cannot be allowed on the market. Deer don't wear Kevlar.

[MoonRiver]

125. I don't think guns will help US against the gestapo.

At that point its up to the international community to bring down our fascist regime. I will bow out and lay low.

[tom_paine]

128. Hear Hear! I think the Busheviks have shown many Liberals

the virtues of the 2nd Amendment.

I agree. If we were not an Armed Populace, the Busheviks would be Gulagging us RIGHT NOW.

But they dare not risk damaging the Prize, the Amerikan Empire. They want to seize it undamaged.

So they wait and go slow.

[freetobegay]

130. I've been a gun toting Homosexual all my life!

& of course am proud of it!

[K8-EEE]

139. God!! What Is Bringing Out The Gun Nuts Tonight??

Sheesh!! I feel unsafe just knowing y'all are out there.

[Piperay]

141. I agree

I will never give up my guns while that bunch is in power.

[slackmaster]

148. Best reason yet to embrace the RKBA

I will never give up my guns while that bunch is in power.

:toast:

[slackmaster]

149. It doesn't have to be a "right-wing" issue

I support the right to own and use firearms for the same reason I oppose the War On (some) Drugs.

Exchanging personal liberty for public safety is fine IF the safety is actually delivered as promised.

Reasonable restrictions like not allowing convicted felons, etc. are fine with me. I just want to see them all enforced before any additional ones are proposed.

[rman]

152. do you realize that "gun control" means guns are allowed?

Guns not allowed would be "gun ban".

Gun control in essence just means regulation of gun ownership, like there's regulation of car ownership, and regulation of something completely non-lethal like amateur radio licencing.

[slackmaster]

153. Car ownership is NOT REGULATED!!!

Sorry, but the analogy doesn't hold.

Car USAGE is regulated. Anyone with money can buy a car. There may be some local exceptions - I believe Ann Arbor, Michigan requires even garaged cars to be registered, but generally there is no requirement to obtain car registration or have a driver's license to own a car or to drive it on private property. Race cars (that are never used on public roads) are not registered.

...regulation of something completely non-lethal like amateur radio licencing.

Again that's licensure of the manner in which a radio is used, not ownership of transmitting equipment.

Anyone proposing to regulate gun ownership is talking about an entirely different concept than driver's licenses, car registration, or amateur radio.

[Az]

155. Car manufacturing is regulated

Very regulated. :evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

156. So is the manufacturing and distribution of firearms

See http://www.atf.gov/firearms/index.htm

And http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nlc/ffl/ffl_types.htm

[Az]

158. Well there ya go

I could stand to see some more regulations. Even could tolerate some easing of some regulations too.

[mzmolly]

159. I do think owning guns should be legal, but I don't want one.

:hi:

[Pithlet]

172. Should? No. Should be able to? Yes, with restriction.

I do take exception with being told I SHOULD buy a gun. I don't want a gun in my house. I have children. I don't think there is any "should" there. If people want to have guns, that's fine. But I can't think of a single reason why anyone should own one if they don't want to.

[Joanne98]

175. I agree. I am a good shot. Use all your rights while you have them.

[bluestateguy]

177. Me too

but I won't join the NRA. If they had their druthers only rural white men would be allowed to own guns. I feel that there are many dangeorus people in this country who would do harm to non-heterosexual, non-Christian, non-white, non-male people. There are also many local governments that could care less about the protection of such groups. Hence, I belive that such groups should be armed, free from government interference. I don't trust John Ashcroft's "Justice" Department with a list of gun owners. It would only be a matter of time before guns were confiscated from all people with last names that sounded a little to "ethnic" (if you know what I mean). Gun control is a sissified issue agenda that promotes victimization and ultimately allows the government to pick and choose who is allowed to defend themselves and who is not .

[geniph]

180. I've always owned a gun. I have every intention

of continuing to do so. That's not necessarily a right-wing/left-wing issue; I think there are a lot of Democrats who aren't comfortable with the idea of gun control as promulgated in some quarters.

I used to be an NRA member, until they were taken over by lunatics.