Democrats for Guns - Ted Rall

[w4rma]

By Ted Rall
Why Kerry Should Stand Up for the Second Amendment.

NEW YORK--"Law-abiding citizens of the United States have the individual right to own a firearm," Dick Cheney told the National Rifle Association's annual convention on April 17. Should the Democrats recapture the White House, Cheney warned, that right would be imperiled. "John Kerry's approach to the Second Amendment has been to regulate, regulate and then regulate some more." NRA first vice president Sandra Froman echoed Cheney's campaign pitch to gun owners: "There is no greater threat to gun ownership than John Kerry as president." If Kerry campaign officials thought their candidate's Vietnam resume or membership in the NRA--he enjoys hunting as much as any red-blooded American--would inoculate them on the gun issue, they were as badly deluded as the folks who thought Saddam had WMDs.
…
Besides, abolishing handguns is a lost cause. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, roughly 70 million Americans own more than 200 million guns--with four to five million new weapons manufactured annually. Even if Congress authorizes police to break down every door in the country to confiscate them--a task our military can't carry out in occupied nations subject to martial law, like Afghanistan (news - web sites) or Iraq, let alone in Wyoming and New Jersey--the gun genie is never going to get stuffed back into the bottle.

The best argument for coming out as a pro-gun nut relates to the need for an adjustment to the long-term strategy of the Democratic Party. For too long, both parties have treated the Constitution like a Chinese menu. Republicans whittle away at the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and smear opponents who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. Democrats rail against the states rights expressed by the Tenth Amendment and absurdly argue that the placement of a comma reflects the founders' original intent to limit gun ownership to members of 18th century militias. Aside from its fundamental intellectual dishonesty, our politicians' take-some-leave-others attitude deviates from most citizens' belief that every section of the Constitution holds equal weight.

Constitutional purism lies at the heart of libertarianism, one of the three main strains of American political thought--the big ideas that unite the overwhelming majority of American voters no matter where they live or how they vote. Two other primary impulses, liberal compassion and fiscal conservatism, also resonate with the electorate. (Bush sold himself as a "compassionate conservative" to co-opt the Democrats on caring; Clinton balanced the budget to steal away GOP prudence.) A party capable of synthesizing these three grounding impulses could form a virtually invincible majority for decades to come. And Democrats, forced into becoming the de facto party of fiscal conservatism, are currently in a better position than Republicans to adjust to such a majoritarian strategy.
…
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20040427
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclicktext/20040429/cm_ucru/democratsforguns

I am in almost total agreement with this column by Ted Rall. I only disagree with Rall on two minor points:

• Both parties abuse the 10th amendment (states' rights). They both shout states' rights with it's their issue being gutted at the federal level and both ignore states' rights when their issues are being pushed at the federal level. "Bush v. Gore" is an excellent example of how to ignore states' rights. (Note Bush is listed first in the case name, because it was Bush who brought the case to the federal courts - i.e. Bush was the plaintiff). It definitely isn't only Dems doing this. Repugs do this, and IMHO, a *whole* lot more than Dems.
• I don't think that the Democratic liberal base is as pro-gun control as we were soon after the Kennedy assassinations, or even before the invasion and occupation of Iraq. So, I don't think that Kerry would be breaking, that much, with the liberal base.

[MrBenchley]

1. What a dreary misshapen mess....

Leaving aside the unavoidable FACT that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right to own guns (a FACT the courts have upheld again and again and again and again), there's this:

"The outcome of this year's presidential election hinges on the economy and the war in Iraq, not guns. And while most Americans believe that they enjoy the right to carry firearms, they also favor government regulation."

So we should ignore what most Americans want and what the Constitution ACTUALLY says to pander to a tiny, dishonest fringe group out of touch with the key issues...and one that is out of touch with what most Americans want on other issues as well? Uh-huh.

"Had Al Gore convinced 270 Floridians that he would have been more likely than Bush to allow them to keep their guns, after all, we wouldn't be facing a projected $6 trillion federal deficit. "
Hell, if Jeb Bush hadn't knocked 90,000 black Floridians off the voter roles, or if Tony Scalia wasn't a corrupt piece of shit, that would be true too. If the gun lobby hadn't pitched millions into dishonest inflammatory propaganda (Charlton Heston called for his inbred supporters to lynch Al Gore) that would be true.

"Democrats, however, still need to make the libertarian case. That's where guns come in. Accepting and promising to defend the Constitution as a whole, including the Second Amendment, could jumpstart the return of the American left from the fringe to the mainstream."
This is the least honest part of the whole argument. Again, leaving aside the FACT that the Second Amendment guarantees individual gun ownership is a flat-out LIE, where is there anything even mildly left wing about libertarianism? The Libertarian Party is pretty much right wing nuts masquerading as something they're not.

Want to bring back the left into the mainstream...then let's stand for something other than Tom DeLay's legislative priorities. Let's close the gun show loophole, and renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban. It's hilarious that the Chimp tries to pretend he is for gun control (although he doesn't do a fucking thing in that direction)...and mordantly funny that Rail wants us to pander to the crazies even pResident Turd doesn't want to get too close to.

[el_gato]

2. sorry benchy

You lose

[MrBenchley]

9. Sez who, gato? You?

[el_gato]

14. I know you're upset right now

go take a walk, take a deep breath

this blows a hole a mile wide in your "gun owners are all
nasty republicans" mantra.

Oh, well. maybe you can come up with a new tactic

[karabekian]

3. BS the constitution does guarentee guns

and this would be a great way to get some more voters. Why do you insist on disarming the citizens? As long as our party does, we will lose voters. Your vision for a gun-free America is utopian and goes against what a lot of people in the counrty believe. Also your understanding Libertarianism is a tad weak. Check out their platform. Its right wing to you and left wing to conservatives. Is being for gun rights and private enterprise and individual liberty over society right-wing to you? Lets not forget the hundreds of Democratic politicians (both national and local) who lost their jobs to republicans because of the assault weapons ban (clinton said it cost us congress), a ban that has been show to have done absolutely nothing at all. Lets jump off that cliff again...

this would be a perfect oportunity for Kerry to jump in to the right of Bush on an important issue (and I think he should do it on the War on Terror too) that will give him a change to win some southern, traditionally democratic states. But it wont happen because many of the members of our party subscribe to the belief that gun control works (which it doesn't) and people want the government to ban guns (which they dont'). Its a shame really.

[MrBenchley]

11. Nope...guess again....

The courts have upheld that there's no individual right AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=49341#49459

"Also your understanding Libertarianism is a tad weak."
No, it's right on the money...

"Lets not forget the hundreds of Democratic politicians (both national and local) who lost their jobs to republicans because of the assault weapons ban"
When was this...when Newt dragged out the dishonest Contract on America? Not a word about guns in Newt's contract.

"a ban that has been show to have done absolutely nothing at all."
Gee, if that were even remotely true, the scumbags in the gun lobby wouldn't have scuttled their "immunity from liability" bill in the Senate when an amendment that does "absolutely nothing at all" was attached, would they?

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0%2C2061%2C569685%2C00.html

"this would be a perfect oportunity for Kerry to jump in to the right of Bush"
Yeah, THERE's the problem--this unelected drunk is too left wing!

[karabekian]

27. wrong

the courts are wrong then. I can read the amendment it is pretty clear (more clear than the "right" to gay marriage from the equal protection clause--just so you know I think government should not be involved in marriage in anyway since its a religious ceremony and all).

"Also your understanding Libertarianism is a tad weak."
No, it's right on the money...
I will pose my question again: Is being for gun rights and private enterprise, and individual liberty over society right-wing to you? If so anyone who isn't a socialist is a right winger.


"Gee, if that were even remotely true, the scumbags in the gun lobby wouldn't have scuttled their "immunity from liability" bill in the Senate when an amendment that does "absolutely nothing at all" was attached, would they?"

Because they are weak and they figure that eventually a court will be found where someone can sue the manufacturer of an inanimate object for the actions of someone who uses that object. They figure they should protect their ass before that happens. Show me one study that shows the merits of gun control and a real link between gun control and confiscation and a reduction in crime (that is the point of it isn't it--CDC, no matter how hard they tried couldn't)? Heres one that shows it is a http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf">failure. Real classy to broadly paint a large segment of the US population as scumbags. You'll get a lot of gun owners to agree with you that way... Admit it. You want all guns banned. You can't stand that our constitution is a road block in your way can you?

""this would be a perfect oportunity for Kerry to jump in to the right of Bush"
Yeah, THERE's the problem--this unelected drunk is too left wing!"

On NO!!! god forbid we embrace an issue that many of our party cares about and is a main reasons people dislike our platform. God forbid our party stand up for the rights of a huge portion of our population. We wouldn't want to take votes away from a president who is weak on the gun issue and ripe for the expoitation of this issue.

[MrBenchley]

46. Yes, you ARE wrong

"Is being for gun rights and private enterprise, and individual liberty over society right-wing to you? If so anyone who isn't a socialist is a right winger."
Boy o boy...there's a candidate out there made for YOU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=1075178&mesg_id=1075178

"They figure they should protect their ass before that happens."
Yeah, we know the gun lobby were trying to get a special immunity for their scummy actions. But then they scuttled their bill when those amendments they say "do nothing" got attached...showing the entire world they've been LYING all along.

"god forbid we embrace an issue that many of our party cares about"
Like who...a guy who screams about "Democratic talking ponits" and accuses people of being "socialist"?

Tell you what, minority voters support gun control even more strongly than white voters do, and minority vote for Democrats is said to be falling off....why not energize THAT base instead?

[debsianben]

126. Lay off socialists!

Most socialists I know are pro-2nd Amendment. Socialism has nothing to do with government control over individuals. See "Socialism as Radical Democracy," the statement of principles of the Socialist Party USA, pretty much the largest and oldest socialist group in the US-- http://www.sp-usa.org/about/principles.html

"Private enterprise" is an undemocratic system of the control of the working majority by an unelected corporate aristocracy. Socialism is about expanding individual rights and ensuring real democracy in all spheres of society, and shouldn't be confused with the miserable totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe that stole its flag. What I'm describing is what was advocated by Marx, Engels, Gene Debs, Bill Haywood, Mother Jones, etc.

[RoeBear]

154. Geez now Benchy is getting beat up by...

...people who are further to the left than he is.

[MrBenchley]

165. Says who, roe?

Nobody's laid a glove on me....

[RoeBear]

175. ADRIAN!

Dey never laid a glove on me.

[claret1995]

81. LOWER COURTS

ONLY LOWER COURTS HAVE TRIED TO CHANGE CONSTITUTIONAL GUN LAWS ,
BUT SCOTUS HAS UPHELD THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

[MrBenchley]

110. And the Supreme Court upheld them...

But hey, the only attempt to change the accepted interpretation of the Second Amendment was the nutcase right wing fifth circuit with "Emerson"...and even then, they found another pretext to take away that loony's guns.

[DoNotRefill]

112. There's a pretty big difference....

between SCOTUS refusing to hear a case, and SCOTUS upholding a case.

[MrBenchley]

119. Just like there's a big dfifference

between these folks....who don't have to lie about what the courts and the Constitution say


and this scum that does...

[Jane Austin]

18. Kerry has an official group called

Sportsmen for Kerry, so I went to Kerry's website to maybe buy a bumpersticker saying that.

Such a bumpersticker could only help here in Texas, and although we don't hunt, we do keep guns for target shooting and protection - - we have coyotes and snakes out here in the country.

We also participate in Retriever hunt tests, and there are guns used in those.

Kerry's website has only two bumperstickers for sale: the Kerry for President and Veterans for Kerry ones.

I'd like to see the campaign gear up with more stickers for all kinds of supporters.

[MrBenchley]

21. You will notice that this hasn't kept the gun lobby

from lying their asses off about Kerry.

[el_gato]

25. the nra is a hack organization but not all gun owners are nra supporters

I know that's a little complex but I'm sure you'll figure it out sooner or later.

[LiberalFighter]

228. Who really runs the NRA?

Could it be the gun manufacturers? Could it be that they have a vested interest?

[MrBenchley]

286. Their board of directors includes

Right wing fuckwit Grover Norquist, racist dimwit Ted Nugent, a bunch of "militia" loonies, some criminals, and the humhole who publishes "Soldier of Fortune" magazine...

"NRA Family Values
The Extremism, Racism, Sexism, Legal Woes, and Gun Industry Ties of the National Rifle Association's Board of Directors"

http://www.vpc.org/studies/nrafamst.htm

[Mountainman]

4. Everyone who owns a gun is not crazy or is a gun nut or is a repub

To continue to attack gun owners is a losing proposition and is not supported by all on the left. We let the right hang that albatross around our neck.

Americans are for sensible gun control laws but not for feel good laws that do nothing to stop gun violence but only make a few self righteous people ease their consciences.

There are far fewer gun nuts than there are anti gun nuts.

[MrBenchley]

12. They just act that way on the internet?

"Americans are for sensible gun control laws"
Yeah, they are....and acording to gun nuts there aren't ANY.

"There are far fewer gun nuts"
Well at least you got that part right...a solid majority of voters support gun control. That's why virtually everybody decent in America ended up on the NRA's scummy enemies list....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=15904

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=17304

[el_gato]

15. too bad benchy your rhetoric falls flat

Every sane person in America realizes the government is
way too powerful and does not need more power over
our personal lives.

[MrBenchley]

23. Gee, gato...

I got links to facts...you got empty yammering

[el_gato]

28. Nobody is buying into your spiel anymore

the desperation is apparrent

[karabekian]

32. your what he is calling the anti gun nut though benchly

n/c

[MrBenchley]

39. Tough titty...

Guess I won't send Ted an Xmas card this year....(snicker)...but wait! the phrase "anti-gun nut" doesn't appear in Ted's essay!

Wow...that pretty much sums up how dishonest the "gun rights" cause is. Even when its advocates find a piece of evidence, they can't tell the truth about it.

[Mountainman]

47. NRA members fear gun control because they see it as the path that

could ultimately lead to outlawing of guns. They understand how the slippery slope works. Many of the gun control laws that anti gun people want to enact will make criminals out of law abiding sportsmen and collectors. Many anti gun people can see no difference between a cheap hand gun used in a criminal hold up and a treasured pistol used for target practice or hunting.

I think that it is true that outlawing guns will lead to only outlaws owning guns. When ever there is a terrible shooting there is a call for more gun control but the laws the controllers want would have not stopped the shooting that just took place. Most people can get their hands on a gun if they want to no matter what laws are passed. If you outlaw guns you just drive them underground were you can never control them.

I think that some people never think through what they are proposing. They just feel good that they did something about it whether what they did is effective or not. I believe most gun control laws proposed put restrictions on law abiding people and do nothing to stop gun violence and so they are worthless and never should be enacted.

It is the anti gun nuts that give purpose and power to the NRA.

[MrBenchley]

51. They also hate gays, blacks and uppity women

and they're the scum of the earth.

"Many of the gun control laws that anti gun people want to enact will make criminals out of law abiding sportsmen and collectors. Many anti gun people can see no difference between a cheap hand gun used in a criminal hold up and a treasured pistol used for target practice or hunting. "
<sarcasm>And that's why we have to have a loophole so that "law abiding sportsmen and collectors" can continue to buy a "treasured pistol" without undergoing a background check.</sarcasm>

"I think that some people never think through what they are proposing. They just feel good that they did something about it whether what they did is effective or not. I believe most gun control laws proposed put restrictions on law abiding people and do nothing to stop gun violence and so they are worthless and never should be enacted."
And I think there's nothing as full of crap as "gun rights" arguments.

[el_gato]

54. and You hate Democrats who own guns

[MrBenchley]

61. Gee, gato...

I sure don't see many "Democrats who own guns" saying word one where their fellow gun owners can hear them.

Where were these "Democrats who own guns" last week when the NRA was pimping for the Chimp in Pittsburgh? Where are they when freeper rubbish is bandied about on sites like highroadrage.org and glocksuckersunited.com?

[el_gato]

69. Why do you hate Democratic Gun Owners?

You have to deny that democrats own guns too because your
whole position relys on trying to associate anybody who owns
a gun with tom delay. Your hitting a wall called reality.
The reality is that not all democrats are anti-gun zealots.

[MrBenchley]

72. Why are they such wusses?

How come you never see any on gun owners' forums arguing for Democratic points of view?

"Your hitting a wall called reality"
And that's why I'm referencing actual court decisions and what actual politicians have said and stood for....and you're babbling rubbish over a cartoonist's opinion....

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Jane Austin]

102. Well, I'm not going to spend any time on a gun owner's

forum.

Too busy with this one, our business and Golden Retriever forums.

We're not gun fanatics, just gun owners.

(Edited to add last sentence.)

[MrBenchley]

108. Amazing...

All these Democratic gun owners...but not one of them seems to want to ever say a Democratic thing where other gun owners might hear them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=170057

[Jane Austin]

134. I'll say it on my car if

you can find a bumpersticker.

I can't find one.

[immoderate]

148. Democratic gun owners come to DU

I'm a gun owner and I have posted on many threads where there were other DU gun owners.

I haven't much interest in posting on other gun web sites, except for technical assistance, should that be necessary.

The gun sites (no pun) you refer to are political sites where shooters think that liberals want to take away their guns. Freepers don't talk about taking away liberal guns, y'know. Gun control, as most liberals pose it, is impractical and unconstitutional.

Sorry to repeat, as I've said this at DU so many times, "I'm freepers' worst nightmare, a liberal with a gun."

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

152. Koresh forbid a holy gun forum be sullied with liberal thought!!

"The gun sites (no pun) you refer to are political sites where shooters think that liberals want to take away their guns."
Gee, how many gun nuts are shrieking that right here in this thread?

"Gun control, as most liberals pose it, is impractical and unconstitutional."
Neither half of that is true.

"I'm freepers' worst nightmare, a liberal with a gun."
A freeper's worst nightmare is somebody actually publicly putting up a fact that shows how full of shit they are.

[immoderate]

162. Because you say so?

[MrBenchley]

166. Because freepers lie? Or doesn't that matter to "liberal" gun owners?

Guess they really aren't so much Democrats and very much gun nuts....

[OpSomBlood]

169. How many liberal gun owners are in this thread alone?

Or do you put everyone who disagrees with you on "ignore"?

[MrBenchley]

180. None that want to say a word where other gun owners can hear them

obviouslyt...

But then how many "liberals" are pretending the stentorian is a source of fact, or sobbing aloud because Pete Coors is revealed as the ugly scumbag he is?

[OpSomBlood]

196. www.floridashootersnetwork.com

Look for the Iraq threads in particular.

[MrBenchley]

201. Plenty of ditto-monkey rubbish there, op...

[OpSomBlood]

218. Yes, there is...and I countered a lot of it.

[MrBenchley]

222. All by yourself?

Do tell....

[Kali]

127. question and comment

"I sure don't see many "Democrats who own guns" saying word one where their fellow gun owners can hear them."

Just curous what you meant by this?

Democrat. Female. Gun owner. Not a nut. Realize "gun control" is yet another bandaid aproach to a complex Problem. My take is a more efficient (though still a bandaid) approach would be enforcement of already existing laws.

[MrBenchley]

132. Happy to explain...

The web is full of gun owners' forums where gun owners get together and spout NRA propaganda and whatever horseshit Rush or Hannity or some other right wing fuckwit has put in their empty little heads. Not to mention racist, bigoted garbage.

Find a gun owners' forum (and it's not that hard to do) and you'll rarely if ever (and I can't find even one example) find any of these "rootin' tootin' gun totin' Democrats" that I keep being told are so common murmur even a dissenting word. You would think that somewhere, at least one gun owner would have a liberal opinion.

When I asked this down in the gungeon (and posted some examples of racist and outrageous freeper shit from those forums) I got lots of bitching from "enthusiasts" about how unfair it was to ask this question aloud. I got "enthusiasts" bitching "if we found one, you'd say there was only one." What I didn't get was even one example of a liberal (or even moderate) opinion. Nor did the "enthusiasts" rush over to sites where gun nuts were posting racist crap to murmur a speck of disapproval. Funny, huh?

And it's not like there's any shortage of gun owners from here on those forums...of course, most of them are run of the mill right wing dimwits sneaking on...

Here's a thread which shows them boasting about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=170057

For that matter, where were the "Democratic gun owners" when the NRA was holding its "pimp for the Chimp rally" in Pittsburgh last weekend? Certainly nowhere to be found. There were plenty of Democrats protesting, and John Kerry even spoke...but all of that was in favor of gun control.

The only gun owners I found who were at all objecting to the NRA snuggling up to that corrupt asswipe Dick Cheney was that far far far right wing loony Angel Shamyala (or whatever the fuck her name is) who was bitching because the Pirates of Halliburton aren't CRAZY ENOUGH.

[FeebMaster]

133. Speaking of bigoted garbage.

I seem to remember an interesting sub-thread on the subject of bigoted garbage.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x51444#51452

[MrBenchley]

140. Yes, feeb...

It's amazing what kind of crazed loonies the gun nuts will stick up for, and how cheap and feeble-minded their arguments become.

[RoeBear]

156. I don't know how I missed that entire thread but...

...but that was incredibly funny in a sick twisted way.

A person would make observations on a person, based solely on his physical appearance. Another would point that out that as bigoted behavior. The first person would get all huffy and then go right back and make another slur at the person in the picture.

I post this as a person who knows a little bit about being judged on appearance.

[Kali]

138. I guess I still don't understand

What is it exactly you want? Liberal gun owners to go on those sites and post liberal stuff? I just didn't quite get it? I'm not a gun enthusiast, as in clubs and fondeling it all the time, I just own one and use it occasionally, like any other tool. Its not even a hobby ya know? That would be my reason for not hanging around gun forums.

The link you gave me was of a post where you cut and pasted some admittidly rude comments but they weren't exactly racist:

"Kicked off Democraticunderground for the 9th time...My wolf-in-sheep's-clothing act gets better every time out....They're terrified of debate...that's so funny...makes me feel good...how else would you get away with proliferating liberal nonsense...My favorite screename I came up with was "left of stalin"...After hanging out with the DU crowd, I'd suggest a good shower at a biohazard facility..."

"A bit more of the enlightenment from this intellectual haven: "That would lull them into thinking you're one of the "progressives" while actually showing a wee bit of true colors...Reading that message board is like watching a political debate between semi-literate 4-year-olds...."shallow-thinker" "blind-sheep" either one should get you appointed to a "moderator" status fairly quickly on those liberal lemming sites....Demorats have had that problem for a very long time now. They would dearly love to have their socialist utopia, but they know they must make their way through the intransigent partisans to get there..."

And most hilarious of all: "...at least we don't have to hide "underground" from the light of day."
______________

You ask where are the Dem. gun owners at the NRA rally? I also don't understand. Do you mean protesting Cheney? I have NO idea how many Dems are NRA members, (I'm not) but those would be the ones to protest nra support of bush, I would think. Is that what you mean? Its my understanding the NRA originally was kind of a support for gun owner organization - sponsored safty classes and such. I don't know when they got political, maybe they always were, but my point is that the organization seems pretty right wing now and it makes it pretty awkward to join if you are more liberal. Probably both organizations would benefit from kicking the extremists out - then maybe more Dem gun owners would join. To me guns are kinda like anything else - if you don't like em don't own one, but why do you want to tell someone else they can't have one?

[MrBenchley]

143. What's to understand?

"Liberal gun owners to go on those sites and post liberal stuff?"
Why the fuck not? I keep being told not every gun owner is a right winger....but I never see any even mildly liberal things said. Compared to "Democratic gun owners" Alan Colmes is a fire-breathing radical.

"The link you gave me was of a post where you cut and pasted some admittidly rude comments but they weren't exactly racist"
Nor did I say those particular posts were the racist posts. But poke around any gun site and you're sure to find some.

"You ask where are the Dem. gun owners at the NRA rally? I also don't understand. Do you mean protesting Cheney?"
Gee, why would any "Democratic gun owners" want to do something drastic like that that? Clearly their popguns are more precious to them than trivial crap like the good of the country.

[Kali]

159. I am just trying to understand

what it is you are complaining about. Am I correct that you want liberal gun owners to go on gun forums and post liberal views? If that is correct, I believe I gave some explanation as to why some would not. Those sites you mention AND describe, I might add, are obviously right wing dominated forums, so in essence the answer is why would anybody go there? Well, obviously to scope out the "enemy" and or cause trouble. Now I admit that can be fun on occasion, but most folks aren't into it. I wonder (there must have been a poll) how many DU inhabitants sneak onto right wing sites regularly, much less right wing gun sites. I know there are some, I've seen quite a few posts, but haven't taken the time to notice if they were always the same people or what. What is the percentage? Does everybody do it? What I'm getting at is you seem to be demanding something that is illogical.

On a related note does anybody know if there are more centrist or even left leaning gun sites? I simply don't know, like I said I am not a gun nut. Surely based on this discussion there must be some sort of organization or website or something aimed at liberals for guns! One thought on the demographics of this has to do with urban vs rural culture, and since the Democratic party has kind of abandoned rural America and the other side has sucked a lot of, at least white, rural America in with some of its more devisive rhetoric I can see where one might get the perception that the left is anti gun and viceversa. Urban people for a variety of reasons tend to fear guns and want them restricted. Again though, that is a bandaid to a much more complex problem. A better first step would be enforcement of already existing laws and regulations. The psycho with the machine gun that we are all so afraid of is still a psycho when you take his gun away and trust me he is still capable of mayhem. The real solution is working on what causes the violence in the first place. The cliche is lame, I know but it is people that do the killing.

[MrBenchley]

185. Jeeze, is everything in life this big a mystery to you?

"Am I correct that you want liberal gun owners to go on gun forums and post liberal views? If that is correct, I believe I gave some explanation as to why some would not. Those sites you mention AND describe, I might add, are obviously right wing dominated forums, so in essence the answer is why would anybody go there?"
Gee, because you might want to post your own opinion? Because you might want to put the good of the country over your gun fetish? Gun nuts are sure not shy about coming over here and posting idiotic right wing gibberish.

"I wonder (there must have been a poll) how many DU inhabitants sneak onto right wing sites regularly"
Gee, isn't the whole point of those sites supposed to be that they are not freeper outposts, but honest gun owning folks saying what they feel?

I sure as hell argue the liberal point of view on open poltiical forums such as Delphi. I don't sit around with my thumb up my ass when people slur my party and candidates in the open, or when imbeciles post bigoted statements in public.

"What I'm getting at is you seem to be demanding something that is illogical. "
I'm not demanding anything...I'm just pointing out that the only place on the web I ever see "Democratic gun owners" or "liberal gun owners" is here...where they post slurs against respected Democrats and pimp for Republican legislative priorities. Funny how they never have word one to say where other gun owners can hear them.

"Surely based on this discussion there must be some sort of organization or website or something aimed at liberals for guns!"
Geeze, you sure would think so, wouldn't you? But instead all the "Democratic gun owners" do is sit around here and bitch about how unfair it is to point out what sort of right wing scumbags are trumpeting this pro-gun rubbish. And of course, as we see, when faced with actual fact (like court decisions) they got nothing but horseshit.

It don't bother them that there's racist imbeciles leading the two largest gun owners groups in the country...what bothers them is when people point out in public there's racist imbeciles leading the two largest gun owners groups in the country.

Makes me think there's lots of "pro-gun" and nary a speck of "liberal" in these enthusiasts.

[OpSomBlood]

189. floridashootersnetwork.com

Search for my user name.

[MrBenchley]

193. Wow!

Here's that buttwipe Joe Scarborough openly accusing Senators Kerry, Clinton and Kennedy of treason....impressive the way you spoke up there (oops, you didn't).

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php3?t=2540

Here's another charming bit of rubbish...not a word from you there...

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php3?t=2475

Here's the "shoot and pollute" bill Jebbo and the NRA were pushing...not a word from you there...

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php3?t=2495

Here's another idiotic smear of Kerry...inspiring how you and the "other liberal Florida shooters" responded. (snicker)

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php3?t=2429

And let's see what you had to say here...

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php3?t=2382

Why, nary a word!

[OpSomBlood]

197. Am I supposed to comment in every thread posted there?

Not everyone has your internet stamina. And besides, I haven't posted there in several months.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

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

[OpSomBlood]

214. I dredged it up....

...and I also said to do a search for my user name. You were the one who claimed that none of us ever present liberal viewpoints at gun sites. I gave you an example of one where I have.

[MrBenchley]

223. And there ain't a single one there today

Nor would I bet many at all....

"You and I agree on more than you think, Nick. It's a scary slope we're slipping down."

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php3?t=1317&highlight=

[OpSomBlood]

233. Oh, I forgot.

I'm supposed to hate and disagree with everything every Republican ever says.

[MrBenchley]

240. Gee, op...

Guess you save that hate and disagreement for Democrats like Diane Feinstein...

Good thing you found that website from Jebbo's banana republic. That's convincing evidence of how many gun totin' liberals there are around <snicker>....

[Kali]

219. please read what I wrote again

I told you I owned a gun and that I didn't spend time obsessing about it. I don't go on gun forums - its not my thing. I think this WOULD be a logical place for someone such as myself, who isn't a fanatic and doesn't spend much time on these internet forums much at all, to mention about owning a gun, especially when coming across such an apparently rabid stance as yours. You seem to have a problem accepting the diversity of opinion on this matter in your political party. I know one of the reasons the right is so succesful and that the left is not, is tolerance of diversity naturally blurs things. Its so much easier, in the short term, to promote an absolutist agenda (such as yours) because a strong united front is harder to divide. But one of the good things about our messy system is allowing for individuality and diversity and in the longer scope of things diversity is more stable. The Democratic Party is not predominatly rich white christians. That's one of things that draws me in.

I also tried to point out that you are free to choose not to own a gun and asked why you would want to prevent me from doing so. Is that also a question worthy of snide remarks?

[MrBenchley]

224. Gee, it's really pretty amazing

Far as I can see, op is the only liberal posting on any gun forum anywhere....and he don't seem all that liberal there, nor is he saying a word about some really outrageous dittomonkey shit there today.

"Is that also a question worthy of snide remarks"
Hell, I can't think of a better one for snide remarks. Funny to hear people who can't get by background checks plead for assault weapons...

[Kali]

242. avoiding the question?

I also tried to point out that you are free to choose not to own a gun and asked why you would want to prevent me from doing so.

Why do you want to prevent me from owning a gun?



" Funny to hear people who can't get by background checks plead for assault weapons..."

Are you refering to me? I am not pleading for assault weapons nor unable to pass a background check. Please answer why you feel the need to prevent me from owning a gun.

[MrBenchley]

249. Be happy to answer it...

Just first show me the post where I mentioned that you could not have a gun.

[Kali]

279. fair enough

You seem pretty enthusiasically anti-gun. One might EASILY conclude you do not want any one to own a gun. In what, if any, circumstances would you consider letting the average citizen own guns?

[FeebMaster]

280. Good luck with that one.

I'm still waiting for an answer on what an acceptable need to carry a concealed weapon would be and that was damn near a month ago now.

[Kali]

281. trying to understand

I used to argue with a couple of rightwingers on a really small board - like I think there were only 5 people on it this guy sounds almost exactly the sme as this one guy except he would be calling everybody pansy assed communists (yes still), he didn't know how to deal with my basically left views except on guns, public lands grazing and homeschooling. Very intolerant of any variation in expectations. Like I told this guy the acceptance and tolerance which can be a political weakness for the Dem. party is also its greatest appeal, but when you get guys like this demanding everybody tow some imagined party line, its a turn off.

[OpSomBlood]

282. We've been here before...

Benchley puts up literally thousands of posts filled with angry and condescending anti-gun rhetoric...then periodically says, "I don't want to ban guns."

It is truly a fascinating and unexplainable phenomenon.

[Kali]

284. I'm gettining the picture

After watching this thread for what a day and a half?, I see a real pattern that's for sure. So he quits and doesn't answer after a while? (or everybody else does? has a last-word fetish?)

[OpSomBlood]

285. Two things...

He has a last-word fetish, but also conveniently ignores all threads that compellingly support the individual right to own a gun (like stories about people successfully defending themselves or 911 operators who refuse to dispatch police to the scene).

Check out the J/PS forum and see for yourself.

[MrBenchley]

288. Actually

I'm pretty enthusiastically anti-right wing horseshit, anti-outright lies, and anti-nutcase fantasy. It's noticable that "enthusiasts" are so busy telling me what I think that they never pay any attention to what I DO say.

Americans have the right to own a gun for personal use the same as they have the right to own a rosebush or a doorknob. The Second Amendment confers no individual right to do anything but join a militia, as the courts have ruled AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

I think we have a right to expect that the gun industry be tightly regulated and that it not be allowed to set public policy. I think we have a right to keep military-style weapons off the market, and expect guns to be registered and gun owners to be licensed and subject to periodic reporting. I think the gun show loophole should be closed. So do most American voters, as polls have shown again and again.

A sizable minority of Americans (38-40%) think handguns should be banned, and the more I listen to "enthusiasts" babble paranoid horseshit and lie their asses off, the more i lean to that sentiment. If it came up seriously, I'd support it. There's also a sizable minority think gun shows should be banned, and I'd agree with that.

I think public Congressional hearings should be held into gun industry marketing and business practices, ala Big Tobacco. I think the gun industry should be subject to liability laws and should not receive any special protection. I'd also like to see one into the hunting industry--the public rationale for hunting is to reduce populations in the wild, but a sizable percentage of hunting takes place on game farms these days.

Piss on the NRA and the GOP...and anybody who puts their popgun fetish above the good of the country.

And for the record, almost everybody (who was not a cop, or did not live in a starkly rural environment) who owned a gun I have ever known was either a lowlife or somebody who shouldn't be allowed to have blunt scissors. I think gun ownership in modern urban and suburban life mainly appeals to a dangerous sort of neurotic, or a criminal.

And I've yet to meet anybody spouting this "gun rights" rubbish (assault weapons are no different than ordinary guns, criminals don't go to gun shows, the unorganized militia is well regulated, yadda yadda yadda) who wasn't a libertarian fuckwit.

[Kali]

291. "Americans have the right to own a gun for personal use the same as they h

Guess that answers my question. On to the next. Maybe you could leave some of the rabid sounding rhetoric out, I read it several times, it gets kind of repetitious and then turns readers off of trying to figure out what your points are.

Next:

"I think public Congressional hearings should be held into gun industry marketing and business practices, ala Big Tobacco. I think the gun industry should be subject to liability laws and should not receive any special protection. I'd also like to see one into the hunting industry--the public rationale for hunting is to reduce populations in the wild, but a sizable percentage of hunting takes place on game farms these days."

No opinion on inquiries to marketing and business practices, though just from my perspective I don't recieve much marketing info - the occasional gun show add in the local paper. I haven't studied the issue, know there is some controversy, but suspect that like a lot of demands for the government to DO SOMETHING, it will likely be some sort of ineffective bandaid, if not an out right whoops we made the problem worse. (does that sound right wing? maybe I'm really a libertarian, sometimes I think so, but the party seems so full of nut cases)

Curious about your statement re: hunting, seems pretty strongly regulated where I am (Arizona) and while there is an aspect of controling numbers, the hunters and Game and fish, at least, claim that fees paid and other contributions made are aimed at maintaining viable hunting populations of various game animals. (though its my understanding the Elk situation up north is problematic) I don't hunt, but where I live I get quite few families that seem to actually be supplementing their food supplies, especially a couple of hispanic hunters that have been in the area for years. I live in the country so I see the populations and while I have a mild feeling of "we don't really need to do this" (plus if they want some, wild range grown meat I would do better selling them beef), I also know the numbers of stuff that gets taken deosn't seem to hurt anything. I also have the opinion that while I don't hunt, and it doesn't hurt me or anybody else I can tolerate it. Plus, for me by having a positive relationship with them they become extra eyes on a big space that I am responsible for...

[MrBenchley]

293. Disagree strongly

"like a lot of demands for the government to DO SOMETHING, it will likely be some sort of ineffective bandaid"
See many segregated buses lately? Many bank closings? Expect Ken Lay to run off with your Social Security? Government can be marvelously effective.

"where I live I get quite few families that seem to actually be supplementing their food supplies"
That happens in way backwoods communities...I doubt there's as many as 100,000 families doing that across the entire country. Google "game farms" and Arizona and see what you get.

And in most states hunting programs cost a lot more than they take in. Not to mention the public costs (not usually counted on any hunting department ledger) of rescuing hunters who have shot themselves or gotten drunk and fallen down and busted a leg.

The largest of the Califronia wildfires last year was started by a hunter who got lost and started a fire to signal for help. How many billions of hunting licenses will we need to sell to make up THAT cost?

[Kali]

301. where I am

I did not say ALL. Don't misinterpret.

I see a LOT of ineffective govt programs, the top one around here right now is probably how we are trying to deal with the massive human migration across the imaginary line we call a border. Almost no program initiated by the govt pays for itself so that argument is kind of lame, I mean plain old recreation on public lands doesn't pay for itself, and morons set fires and need to be rescued all the time, its not just hunters, hell a damn fire-fighter set the biggest fire we ever had.

Besides you seem to advocate actions that are more restrictive on the individual, as oposed to the examples you gave which are protective of the individual. Do you see the difference?

[MrBenchley]

306. Ahem...

"Almost no program initiated by the govt pays for itself so that argument is kind of lame"
Gee, you were the one who brought up the revenue from hunters...I don't see why we the taxpayers should have to lay out dough that could be used for schools or health care because 6% of the population needs to get its rocks off killing something.

"morons set fires and need to be rescued all the time, its not just hunters"
So that excuses the hunters who do? Some logic, there....

"Besides you seem to advocate actions that are more restrictive on the individual, as oposed to the examples you gave which are protective of the individual. Do you see the difference?"
No...and in every case I mentioned, the opposition began railing that something was being taken away from them. "Do you want big government telling you you have to sit next to people you object to on the bus? That is authoritarianism, elitism, blah blah blah blah blah..."

I can't think of anyhting more protective to the individual than making sure that there aren't criminals and loonies with guns wandering around the streets...

[Kali]

313. but they aren't supposed to have them now

"I can't think of anyhting more protective to the individual than making sure that there aren't criminals and loonies with guns wandering around the streets..."

I agree. How do you propose to stop them then? By restricting EVERYBODY? Or by enforcing existing laws? Or do you have some other suggestion?

[MrBenchley]

318. Gee, a good start would be

closing the gun show loophole and policing existing gun dealers more closely. I'd also like to have Congressional hearings into gun manufacturers' business practices, expecially distribution and marketing.

[Kali]

323. I know I'm a little ignorant but...

Can you (objectively) tell me what the gun show loophole is?

[JayS]

326. There is no gun show loophole. Private sales, which are...

...common at gun shows, are not subject to a background check. (The same is true for a private sale conducted anywhere). This is the so-called loophole. If you hear a politician talking about a gun show loophole then he/she either has no clue what they are talking about or is telling a deliberate lie.

[Kali]

329. So in effect...

A gun show is a concentrated place to do private sales with no "oversight" or "in complete freedom" depending on your perspective.

What are the current regs for retail? is it the same state to state? I have only bought ammo (no regs just pay), never a gun. mine were gifts.

[JayS]

331. That is pretty much it. In my area there are always a lot of...

...collectors looking to buy or sell, along with dealers. Often the show has vendors of camping, fishing, hunting, and other outdoor activities.

To make a purchase in my state, Texas, you have to fill out Form 4473, as all states are required to have you do. After that you can make your purchase if you pass a background check. It is my understanding that procedures vary greatly in the rest of the states and even within a state. The NRA website has the requirements for the states, as does the ATF. I used to have a bookmark for that info on the ATF website but it is no longer valid as the site was changed when the ATF moved to the Justice Department.

One big problem with the background checks is addressed in this letter. http://www.kc3.com/news/dingell_reno.htm

Note also that the War on Drugs has created an efficient market for illegal weapons. You do not need to worry about a background check there. :)

[Kali]

332. this is going to sound wierd

but it seems to me if you can check folks at the retail level why not at private sales? I can't sell a cow privately without an inspection. Now having asked that I want to stat my opinion that my gut says NO to any backround checks - why do I have to have my background checked out? What do they do with the record? Then the gov. KNOWS you bought a gun? I don't know that bothers me. I don't like the idea of using grocery store cards! And schools requiring fingerprints for volunteers. SS number for drivers license. I don't know, having it be illegal to not carry ID just kind of strikes me as being something other than FREE. But I digress.

[JayS]

345. Nothing weird about that question at all. There have been...

...several attempts to expand the NICS system to private sales but the proposals all get wrapped up in politics and eventually die. Rep. Dingell did have a good one going the last session but I think it failed to go anywhere. It was a nice, simple plan that had the support of many gunowners. Maybe that is why it failed. :)

Background checks are a fairly happy medium and the system has improved greatly. It weeds out some of the people that try to purchase weapons that should not have them but is not very effective for someone that really wants a gun.

The record of the purchase stays with the dealer and a copy goes to a government warehouse in Virginia, if I remember correctly. So if the government really wanted to know who purchased a weapon they could find out...but it would generally be a waste of time. The records are not supposed to be all that accessable anyway. However, you may remember the big flap over records retention from the NICS system or the transfer of records to a non-governmental agency. Not a good thing.

This site will tell you what those records can be used for:
http://www.psn.gov/Safer.asp?section=109

Note that since the Lawful Commerce in Arms act has failed, thanks in part to a certain presidential candidate, cooperation between the government and the manufacturers and dealers is not as open as it could be. To be helpful is to get sued.

This site will show you how gun control is being addressed down here:
http://www.psn.gov/About.asp?section=63

[Kali]

366. whew - complicated

thanks for the link(s)

So what happens if you buy a gun and then try to resell it or take it to a shop for some work or something and it comes up say involved in a crime? I guess it could be confiscated for evidence - do they check things like that? Do gun shops send in serial numbers if somebody brings one in for some reason? Should probably wander off to a gun forum now I guess. I just never thought of this stuff before. On a ranch, grandpa always carried a pistol and usually a rifle in the truck, I was never really into them but have a couple for the occasional need to euthanize large animals etc and hubby has some he inheiretid from his Dad plus a little 22 for plinking. Just a normal part of country life.

We have a lot of illegal immigrant traffic and drugs too, I'm sure (thought all I ever find are cut fences, abandoned vehicles, and empty backpacks! All my neighbors tell me to keep the gun with me at all times especially when I am out alone, but I sorta figure it might get taken away from me and used ON me so I take my chances. Problem is a guy staying with us got beat up a couple weeks ago and that brought the reality a little closer.

[JayS]

367. I am sure that it varies by state. Here you are in the clear once...

...you sell the weapon, but if it later turns up involved in a crime, as the last owner of record you can expect to get some questions. I have not heard of any dealers that routinely call in serial numbers though. It sounds like it would be more work than it is worth.

I hope you like the PSN links. That is the new gun control solution that is being tried in many areas. We have it here and so far it shows promise.

It sure sounds like you need to be careful where you live. The illegal aliens are rarely a problem but the drug dealers, they are bad news, especially now that border security is increasing.

[Kali]

369. oh....

the smugglers are the same guys, trust me - the load is bulkier with people, but they can carry too AND getting caught with people has virtually no consequences. Its up to $1500 - 2000 just to get them to Phx. per person - 20 in a van. Makes it profitable enough for some pretty bad characters and of course now they are starting to fight for turf - shooting each other and stealing loads. Just a few years ago it was like 200 bucks and they were being led through here by local kids from Douglas - AP area.

All wars involve escalation. Time to learn to SOLVE problems not FIGHT them.

[immoderate]

298. Benchley, you really should look up militia

You don't *join* a militia in the sense the second amendment uses it.

You are or you aren't.

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

300. "You are or you aren't"

You are or you aren't a shitload of things...dishonest, trigger-happy, spouting NRA propaganda, fuckwitted, crazy as an outhouse rat, etc. etc....

But joining the "well regulated militia" is a matter of choice, no matter what dimwitted propaganda you want to spout.

And do you really think I haven't heard right wing pieces of shit spout this "everybody is the militia" bullshit before? And bullshit is what it is.

[Kali]

302. And bullshit is what it is.

and why or why isn't that?

[MrBenchley]

304. Do you really need to be told how to use a dictionary?

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/50/m0295000.html

Notice those are all collective terms...

[Kali]

309. the three

My question was how is "EVERYBODY IS THE MILITIA" bullshit?

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service

The definitions you provided taken together sure sounds like all qualified citizens could actually be MANDATED to be armed, I know I sound kind of stupid - it's for two reasons, one I've never really explored the issue and for another you come across so angry and arrogant that its hard to get what your message really is. That may be my fault, if so I am sorry, if on the other hand you are just a trouble making jerk, well I can play for a while.

So I have to go read the second ammendment's exact words again and see what I think. In the mean time I'm not sure you really explained how the concept that everybody is the militia is bullshit. At least not by the definition you linked - maybe in your own words? (and while I don't have a real problem with swearing, it is more effective if not done every time one says something....)

[OpSomBlood]

310. The check on an oppressive government...

...is the oppressive government's own military forces. The individual has nothing to do with it.

According to Benchley.

[Kali]

312. well

even beyond the check on our own opressive govt and/or military it seems like having the citizens armed would also be an advantage in the event of an outside oppressor as well. I don't know.....kinda seems like they not only wanted to protect the right to be armed but ALMOST wanted to REQUIRE everybody to be armed.

[MrBenchley]

316. The "well regulated militia" is the National Guard nowadays

as the courts have ruled again and again and again and again.

Of course, there are tiny pockets of loonies who daydream about shooting the postman with their popgun when the revolution comes...we even got a few in this thread. But they're crazy as shithouse rats.

"The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. "

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

[Kali]

325. please let him answer

I am trying to understand how the jump is made from individual to collective.

[Kali]

311. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

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.

I am sure you have participated in parsing this thing before, but I've never really taken it apart and looked closely, nor read much of the legal desisions around it. I know somewhere you were claiming something or other about the courts...but just using common sense and reading it, seems like people have a right to their arms, that that right can not be infringed upon, and the reason is because a well armed militia (populace?) is needed for the security of a free state. The fact of armed individuals confers protection from tyranny?

So if you say some courst have found against it (which I find hard to believe else why can I own a gun?) what exactly did they do to the words? What I mean is how did they interpret what was meant?

[MrBenchley]

315. Hey...you asked

"So I have to go read the second ammendment's exact words again "
Don't miss "well-regulated" and "defense of a free state."

[Kali]

324. I told you how it came across to me

If the courts have determined that it is not about allowing individuals to bear arms, then how come I can own a gun without actually being or being in (whichever it is) a militia? Seems to me if you are correct and "courts" have determined that the 2nd ammendment doesn't apply to individuals, then individuals don't have a right, therefore it would be illegal to own a gun, as an individual. Am I missing something here?

[Kali]

303. And bullshit is what it is.

And why is that?

[OpSomBlood]

305. How do posts like this escape the moderators?

You are or you aren't a shitload of things...dishonest, trigger-happy, spouting NRA propaganda, fuckwitted, crazy as an outhouse rat, etc. etc....

But joining the "well regulated militia" is a matter of choice, no matter what dimwitted propaganda you want to spout.

And do you really think I haven't heard right wing pieces of shit spout this "everybody is the militia" bullshit before? And bullshit is what it is.

These three paragraphs alone completely violate the "Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect" portion of the board's rules.

Give it a looksee once in a while:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#civility

[MrBenchley]

307. Might as well cry for Momma, op

It's not like you guys got any logic or facts to stand on....

"2. Used to refer to an indefinitely specified person; one: You can't win them all."

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/65/y0026500.html

Unless you think that your new little buddy meant that I and I alone am the militia....and while no absurdity seems too far-fetched for some "enthusiasts," I don't think that's the case.

[OpSomBlood]

308. Whatever you say, Boudelang.

[slackmaster]

330. SO many internal contradictions in one post

Americans have the right to own a gun for personal use the same as they have the right to own a rosebush or a doorknob.

Funny, that's exactly what I've been saying for years and still MrBenchley hates me.

I think we have a right to keep military-style weapons off the market, and expect guns to be registered and gun owners to be licensed and subject to periodic reporting.

That's like saying "I think we have the right to keep hybrid tea roses off the market, and expect rose bushes to be registered and rose growers to be licensed and subject to periodic reporting." Completely inconsistent with the previous statement about having a "right to own a gun"; sounds like you believe gun ownership should be reduced to the level of privilege. Other than voter registration, which serves to keep people from voting more than once and disqualified people from voting at all, there are no requirements for people to register in order to exercise any other rights.

Of course with registration and licensing inevitably come fees. Until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 some states charged poll taxes.

The Second Amendment confers no individual right to do anything but join a militia,

Wrong. The Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. That's because the states' militias consist of the whole of the people, or any subset the state wishes to define as their militias.

And for the record, almost everybody (who was not a cop, or did not live in a starkly rural environment) who owned a gun I have ever known was either a lowlife or somebody who shouldn't be allowed to have blunt scissors. I think gun ownership in modern urban and suburban life mainly appeals to a dangerous sort of neurotic, or a criminal.

Your personal opinions don't amount to a hill of beans as a basis for public policy.

And I've yet to meet anybody spouting this "gun rights" rubbish (assault weapons are no different than ordinary guns, criminals don't go to gun shows, the unorganized militia is well regulated, yadda yadda yadda) who wasn't a libertarian fuckwit.

You mean those lower-case 'l' libertarians that you keep denying exist at all?

The Second Amendment makes no distinction between the unorganized militia (i.e. all of the people) and select militias.

[Mountainman]

60. Opinions are like ass holes, we all have one

[MrBenchley]

68. And it's amazing how many

assholes in this world are pro-gun. Think of just about any scumbag in the GOP, and odds are good he'll be peddling this gun rights crap.

Fopr that matter, look up any racist piece of shit on the Internet, and odds are good he'll be peddling this too.

I think I'll stick with the actual Democratic platform and gun control. The smell is much better.

[el_gato]

70. just more empty over the top insults

how sad

[DoNotRefill]

83. Yup, that's true...

they hate gays, blacks, and women.

That's why they provide firearms instructors to the Pink Pistols, a pro-gun homosexual group, whose motto is "Armed gays don't get bashed."

They hate Blacks, which is why Roy Innis of the Congress Of Racial Equality (CORE) is on the NRA BoD.

They hate women, which is why Marion Hammer was their president before Heston, and why Sandy Froman is in their #2 spot, and will most likely be their next president. Are those women "uppity"? Well, they're running things...

[MrBenchley]

100. Too too funny, refill....

"they provide firearms instructors to the Pink Pistols, a pro-gun homosexual group, whose motto is "Armed gays don't get bashed.""
And the Pink Pistols enemies list somehow numbers Barbra Streisand, Barney Frank and Rosie O'Donnell, while ignoring Fred Phelps and Rick Santorum. THAT's very convincing (snicker)

Tell us, refill, when has Roy Innis ever done anything but pimp right wing causes?

[kiahzero]

67. What slippery slope?

"Slippery slopes" are a LOGICAL FALLACY. Not a "weak argument", but a fallacious argument.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm
In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

The slippery slope fallacy, in addition to being a misuse of the -> operator, is also a misuse of an inductive proof.

[Mountainman]

120. The fear is that each success emboldens the effort for a greater success.

It is the same tactic that the right to life people are using. If they can get people to be against partial birth abortion then they will be stronger in their attempt to restrict what ever the next level up is.

Your explanation doesn't prove that the fear and the tactic don't exist.

[Kali]

129. I agree

another example might be medical marijuana

[kiahzero]

216. Policy should be determined on whether or not it's wise

Which "direction" the overall government is going is inconsequential to whether or not a given policy proposition is a good idea or a bad idea.

In other words: the partial birth abortion ban is not wrong because it will "embolden the effort for a greater success" - it's wrong because it prevents doctors from performing a necessary surgery to save the life of a woman.

Specific to this case: Gun control is not wrong solely because it may lead to the outright banning of guns. They are two different propositions, and should not be falsely conflated with one another.

[MrBenchley]

225. Quick!

Which folks of these are more likely to be wise?

These...


Or these...

[DoNotRefill]

82. The second amendment is far too important to leave...

to the gun nuts.

[MrBenchley]

122. Funny, they're the only ones who seem to have a problem with it

hence the constant lying about it.

[Michael Costello]

158. I agree 100%

I live in New York City, and the Democrats appeal to me insofar as they are for organized labor at a rank-and-file level. This being my frame of mind, I talk to a lot of left wing people in New York City. The kinds of things some of them say about gun control is the most shocking. I agree with them on most everything else (labor, racism is bad, the US shouldn't be an empire etc.) that I guess they talk openly about it. They say stuff like that the fact that guys in Appalachia and Wyoming and Idaho having guns scares them. Like gun owners in these places are some kind of menacing potential fascist force or something. I feel the exact opposite. I sleep pretty well at night knowing that working people in Appalachia, Wyoming, Idaho and whatnot have guns. Yaa, some of them are gun nuts and are bad guys, but that's a small minority, the vast majority are good working class people who wouldn't bother anyone who didn't bother them. Maybe these people should watch "Harlan County USA" or something - some of those Kentucky miners are more radical than anyone I meet in the city.

I see it as classic divide and conquer. I think working people have a lot in common and should organize together in unions. This threatens the privilege of some people, so they want to divide working people. Black people have families, go to church and want a better life but they portray black people badly. White people are portrayed to black people as all racist. In the same manner, there is the rural/urban thing. Rural people are portrayed as reactionary ignorant "rednecks" who only find hateful messages in the Bible. City people are portrayed as living in crime-plagued, self-indulgent atmospheres. Of course there is a grain of truth in everything, the city country thing goes back to the ancient Roman Aesop city mouse country mouse story. But it is exacerbated to try to cause division, when the reality is that a construction worker and his family in northern Mississippi probably has more in common with a construction worker from New York City (or even Ottawa) than is commonly portrayed. In other words, I think these liberals of this mindset are buying into stereotyping that they are usually on the lookout for in other forms. Of course, this is not the attitude of all gun control people, some of them are just nice people like mothers I know. But I have come across this attitude before. I even question whether it could be called left wing.

[asthmaticeog]

5. You're making a common mistake

Don't confuse small "l" phiilosophical libertarianism with the big "L" Libertarian Party. Not the same thing.

Also, don't assume that all people who value their second amendment rights are "crazies."

[MrBenchley]

13. You're making an even commoner one

The Second Amendment confers no individual right to a popgun, despite the lies of the gun lobby.

[el_gato]

16. get real bench

noone is gonna give up their guns
just because you hate them
your's is a lost cause

[asthmaticeog]

48. Yes it does.

Spout all the revisionism you want, the 2nd amendment confers the right to gun ownership to America's citizenry. It's an impressively tight little piece of writing, the 2nd amendment, and its meaning is a clear as a bell. That the arguments that "support" your position tend overwhelmingly to be tortuous, byzantine (though I suppose you'd call that "nuanced?") and highly speculative ought to be a freakin' hint that they're utter bullshit.

[MrBenchley]

55. No, it does not...

"the 2nd amendment confers the right to gun ownership to America's citizenry"
Nope. And the courts have ruled that it does not, again and again and again. And that's not revisionism but established FACT.

"That the arguments that "support" your position tend overwhelmingly to be tortuous, byzantine (though I suppose you'd call that "nuanced?") and highly speculative"
Gee, it's hard to be more ridiculous than that. "The courts agree" is neither tortuous, byzantine or speculative in any fucking way.

"ought to be a freakin' hint that they're utter bullshit"
Gee, John AshKKKroft and Tom DeLay and Pat Buchanan and David Duke and Trent Lott agree with you...Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and John Edwards and Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis agree with me and THAT isn't any sort of fucking hint?

[asthmaticeog]

73. Your rhetoric-fu is NOT very good

"Gee, John AshKKKroft and Tom DeLay and Pat Buchanan and David Duke and Trent Lott agree with you...Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and John Edwards and Nancy Pelosi and John Lewis agree with me and THAT isn't any sort of fucking hint?"

That's what's called a "Circumstantial Ad Hominem" and is inadmissable; just becuase I favor individual gun ownership does not make me of like kind with the persons you cite; indeed, some of the people you cite are (or at least have in the past been) open antisemites (which is prejudicial use of language, an emotive argument, itself a seperate fallacy) and I'm of Jewish heritage, but nice try. It also contains the appeal to authority, which is utterly fraudulent in this case because you cite politicians, not constitutional scholars, to "support" a constitutional argument.

In short, you got nothin'. I won't even address your courts arguments because you're cherry-picking. If your assertions were true, Americans wouldn't be legally allowed to own guns, and yet we are. As well we should be.

By the way, just in case you're keeping score at home, I don't own a gun and have only ever fired one once in my life, at a range. Am I still a gun nut?

[MrBenchley]

75. It's better than anything the gun nuts got...

"That's what's called a "Circumstantial Ad Hominem" and is inadmissable"
What do you think this is, Judge Judy's show? YOU were the one trying to pretend the simple phrase "The courts agree" was somehow "tortuous, byzantine (though I suppose you'd call that "nuanced?") and highly speculative".

"just becuase I favor individual gun ownership does not make me of like kind with the persons you cite"
Nor did I say you were. But it is noticeable that in order for your position to make sense, all of those REALLY SCUMMY RIGHT WING PIECES OF SHIT would have had to stumble onto one nugget of truth that had somehow eluded SOME OF THE BEST PEOPLE IN PUBLIC LIFE.

Now you don't have to have studied formal logical inquiry in life to figure out that Tom DeLay's side of the field has a particularly disgraceful odor, and that the odds that he's as full of shit and wrong-headed on that issue as he is on everything else are pretty near fucking certainty.

"By the way, just in case you're keeping score at home, I don't own a gun and have only ever fired one once in my life"
Whoop-dee-fucking doo!! Next ask me if I care. For all you know, I own a gun myself...it doesn't make this horseshit about the second amendment any less horseshit.

[asthmaticeog]

78. GOD, you're amazing.

"YOU were the one trying to pretend the simple phrase "The courts agree" was somehow "tortuous, byzantine (though I suppose you'd call that "nuanced?") and highly speculative"
Never, at any time, did I ever state that the phase "the courts agree" was tortuous, etc. YOU introduced that phrase into the argument AFTER I used the terms you're recycling in a misleading way. There are plenty of 2nd amendment revisionist arguments that are exactly as I characterized them.

"But it is noticeable that in order for your position to make sense, all of those REALLY SCUMMY RIGHT WING PIECES OF SHIT would have had to stumble onto one nugget of truth that had somehow eluded SOME OF THE BEST PEOPLE IN PUBLIC LIFE."
Untrue. Different lines of reasoning can lead to the same conclusion, and reasonable people can disagree. Unreasonable people can agree and disagree and so forth and so on in an amazing number of possible combinations. IT IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE INCORRECT to assume that because an odious individual supports a given position it must automatically be wrong. Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian.

"Now you don't have to have studied formal logical inquiry in life to figure out that Tom DeLay's side of the field has a particularly disgraceful odor, and that the odds that he's as full of shit and wrong-headed on that issue as he is on everything else are pretty near fucking certainty."
Correct. But you DO need to learn the rules of argument to avoid looking like a total jackass for equating 2nd-amendment-supporting liberals with David Duke.

[MrBenchley]

84. Gee, I'm not the one peddling horseshit

"Never, at any time, did I ever state that the phase "the courts agree" was tortuous, etc."
I don't know what the fuck else you could have been referring to. I said "The Second Amendment doesn't confer an individual right to own guns" and "the courts agree."

"There are plenty of 2nd amendment revisionist arguments that are exactly as I characterized them."
And they're all on the gun nut side..and usually involve trying to pass off Tench Coxe and George Mason as great Fouynding Fathers, or cockamamie interpretations of how the phrase "well regulated militia" means the exact opposite.

"you DO need to learn the rules of argument"
Been there, done that.

"equating 2nd-amendment-supporting liberals with David Duke"
Jeeze, most liberals I know would certainly get a fucking clue from finding out they shared a position with Duke AND with the Aryan Nation AND with Tom DeLay and with John AssKKKroft AND with Pat Buchanan AND pretty much every other bit of right wing scum around.

And remember, that was what YOUR whole argument (being generous in that description) was about, some kind of ethereal hint I was supposed to be getting for supporting common sense gun control, the kind most voters want.

[el_gato]

86. man this person is totally destroying your arguements benchy

It's almost painful to watch

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[OpSomBlood]

96. Check out the J/PS forum.

He does this to every pro-gun Democrat he encounters. Talk about the circular firing squad.

The strategy he uses is, "keep saying the same thing over and over until the other guy walks away."

[MrBenchley]

99. Show 'em the stentorian, op...

That'll fetch him.

[OpSomBlood]

106. You claim that most Democrats want gun control...

Yet there's one person who consistently agrees with you on the entire Democratic Freaking Underground message board, and they are Canadian! Most everyone else here tells you to fuck off when you spout your gun grabbing bullshit.

Doesn't that send up any red flags to you?

[MrBenchley]

109. Gee, op...

I can think off hand of at least half a dozen who agree with me. But hey if you think having "honest," "persuasive" "enthusiasts" like feebmaster, fat slob, and gato on your side tips the scales, I have to laugh out loud...

Not to mention that my position is shared by the presidential nominee, almost every Democrat in Congress (except a few Zell Miller type DINOs) pretty much every Democratic governor and mayor, AND the Democratic platform.

"Doesn't that send up any red flags to you?"
Jeeze, op, the first time you put up shit from the stentorian the red flag went up. And "You're picking on Pete Coors because he's Republican" left no doubt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=170057

[OpSomBlood]

111. Shoot the messenger.

For those who care (probably about a half dozen), "Stentorian" is a reference to when I linked to a right-wing website that contained these images of Dianne Feinstein dangerously mishandling an AK-47:




So now Benchley thinks I'm a traitor because I would dare disparage such a great Democratic leader.

As for Pete Coors, he and another poster were drawing conclusions about him being a scumbag by mere virtue of his political affiliation. How dare I ask the question, "how does being a Republican make him a scumbag?"

Just to clear the air: I'm a right-wing, gun nut Republican...because Benchley says so.

[MrBenchley]

114. Gee, op, stupid is as stupid does...

You still can't tell us what the point of a photo showing Diane Feinstein holding a prop gun proves, other than that gun nuts love to slander respected Democrats.

And yeah, Pete Coors IS a scumbag, as was demonstrated over and over again.

[OpSomBlood]

116. He may be a scumbag...

...but being a Republican is not irrefutable proof of that assertion.

[MrBenchley]

121. May be? Who DO you think you're kidding?

And YOU jumped into the midst of a bunch of posts detailing his scummy activities to snivel about poor Pete...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=52325&mesg_id=52325

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

139. I have a hobby....

It's showing up gun nuts for what they are...especially when they post crap from cesspools like the stentorian and pimp for Pete Coors.

[JayS]

160. When are you going to start? This should be interesting. n/t

n/t

[MrBenchley]

167. Been there, done that, Jay

None of the gun nuts has yet to have a single FACT in the whole thread. And you'll notice for all his horseshit, op still can't tell us what the point of the Feinstein picture is supposed to be....other than that gun nuts here like to pass along freeper gibberish.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

172. Jeeze, op...

I consider it a badge of honor to have the sort of specimen who posts seriously from the stentorian telling me to fuck off.

Now go and snivel about "poor Pete Coors" to some other "enthusiast."

[OpSomBlood]

178. There are about 20 other people in this thread...

...telling you to fuck off, too. Thank them first.

[MrBenchley]

181. I been told worse by better, op

[OpSomBlood]

184. Figure out why everyone tells you to fuck off.

Maybe then you can articulate your arguments in a more compelling manner. Because your angry, condescending and rude rhetoric is only serving to push the people in the middle over to the pro-gun side.

[MrBenchley]

186. Gee, op...

In the 60's it was because I was for civil rights and against the war.

Today it's because I'm opposed to the scummy gun lobby and right wing loons.

"your angry, condescending and rude rhetoric is only serving to push the people in the middle over to the pro-gun side."
Yeah, I can tell you're vitally concerned about that. (snicker) Tell it to the fucking stentorian.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

98. You haven't debunked a fucking thing....

And I'm not the one who's running to hide either.

[DoNotRefill]

90. Just as the Supreme Court ruled...

that blacks, slave or free, could NEVER be citizens, because if they were citizens, they'd have an individual right to keep and bear arms. See Scott v Sanford.

[karabekian]

7. democratic talking point man

"Let's close the gun show loophole, and renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban."

Felons and criminals are by law unable to purchase guns at shows or anywhere else. Also only less than one percent of gun crimes are committed with guns that were purchased at a gun show.

The "assault weapon ban" bans guns due to cosmetic features. A bayonet, a muzzle brake, a shortened stock. oh no! it doesn't matter that there are plenty of guns that shoot the same ammo at the same rate that are not included. This like most gun control is based on irrational fear and bogus "facts"

Gun Control is a loser. And considering that many here believe that we are one step away from nazi germany, is now the best time to disarm ourselves in any way?

[MrBenchley]

17. Wow...imagine that! A Democratic point of view on DU!?!

"And considering that many here believe that we are one step away from nazi germany"
Funny how many want to pander to a demented fringe group; every humhole you can find wearing a swastika today is hanging out at gun shows and spouting this idiotic "gun rights" rheotric...as is the scum of the GOP: DeLay, Lott, AshKKKroft, Duke, etc.

And it's even funnier how many "sane, responsible law abiding" gun owners turn out to harbor these nutcase "I'll use my popgun when the revolution comes" fantasies that they spout at a moment's notice. The sad thing is that every once in a while one of these darlings loses all contact with reality and plugs a postman...or blows up a Federal building with a day care center.



But gun owners ain't been a speck of help to decent freedom-loving Americans, and a shitload of help to the Pirates of Halliburton. Fuck them and the rest of the right wing lunatics.

[karabekian]

29. why are you so hostile to guns

why do you care if I want to have an assault rifle? Couldn't be that you think you know whats best for me and everyone else could it. Your the reason why "swing voters" view our party as anti-gun.

[el_gato]

30. it's just like the anti-choice crowd

trying to shove their point of view down everybody else's throat

[MrBenchley]

37. The second amendment caucus in Congress--pro- or anti-choice

Answer: Virulently anti-choice...they're among the scummiest folks in the Republican party.

[el_gato]

38. and your tactics are rhetoric are just like thiers

tells me alot about your views on freedom

[MrBenchley]

40. Gee, gato...they're anti-choice, not me...

Nice playmates you got.

[el_gato]

43. YOU are anti-choice, you are against my choice to own a gun

and your brethren in the anti-abortion crowd talks
just like you do. And the pathological desire to use
the tools of the government to control the behaviour
of others is exactly the same as those in the anti-abortion milieu.

[MrBenchley]

49. The Second Amendment Caucus is anti-choice

as is pro-gun John AshKKKroft.

But then so few sane people confuse a sex life and playing with popguns. But then that's gun nut "logic": "If you oppose some other loony issue that anti-choice people also hold dear, then you must be just like the anti choice people, even though you're opposed to them and pro-choice."

"the pathological desire to use the tools of the government to control the behaviour of others "
Like keeping honest hard working factory owners from dumping toxins in the water? Or regulating the stock market? Or keeping the sort of folks who are spouting "gun rights" from harassing black people at the polls?

Yeah, gato, it's a real bitch ain't it? Guess I'm one of those big government liberals that humholes like Rush are always raving about to their ditto-monkey clot of listeners.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[el_gato]

53. Hey bench, why do you constantly attack Democratic supporters

who want to keep the constitution in tact

show a little respect for once.

[immoderate]

163. The anti-choice caucus prefers vanilla ice cream

So therefore we shouldn't buy it?

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

171. Jeepers, do you think they really do?

In fact, the anti-choice fuckwits in the Second Amendment caucus are among the scummiest Republicans around.

Gun nuts have such NICE playmates.



And it's telling that it don't bother our "pro-gun Democrats" to pimp openly for these specimens and their idiotic and dishonest creed. It only bothers them when somebody points out the humholes they're snuggling up to.

Let's look at the "leaders" of this "gallant cause" and the "vanilla ice cream" they prefer:

Marilyn Musgrave
"2003   On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
1995-2003   On the votes that the Planned Parenthood (House) considered to be the most important, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Americans for the Arts considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 8 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Sierra Club considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 13 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the American Association of University Women considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in the first quarter of 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Friends Comm. on Nat'l Leg. considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Americans for Democratic Action considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 15 percent of the time.
2003   According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted more liberal on social policy issues than 5 percent of the Representatives."

On the other hand, some people loved her...and what a bunch THEY were....

"2003   On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 2003 , Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Eagle Forum considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time."

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BS020598



How about the other asshat, Virgil Goode?

"2003   On the votes that the Americans for the Arts considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2001-2002   On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002 , Representative Goode voted their preferred position 7 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 15 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 17 percent of the time.
2002   On the votes that the National Education Association considered to be the most important in 2002, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the League of Conservation Voters considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Sierra Club considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 13 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the American Association of University Women considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the National Committee for an Effective Congress considered to be the most important in the first quarter of 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the U.S. Public Interest Research Group considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the State PIRGs Working Together considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Friends Comm. on Nat'l Leg. considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Public Citizen's Congress Watch considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 17 percent of the time.
2003   According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2003, Representative Goode voted more liberal on social policy issues than 0 percent of the Representatives.
2003   On the votes that the Alliance for Retired Americans considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Bread for the World considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time."

But right wing scumbags love this yobbo too...
"2003   On the votes that the Christian Coalition considered to be the most important in 2003 , Representative Goode voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Eagle Forum considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 96 percent of the time.
2003   On the votes that the Family Research Council considered to be the most important in 2003, Representative Goode voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. "


http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=BC036722

Here's some other members...
John Hostettle-- the imbecile who got caught trying to sneak his gun onto a plane the other day

Tom Tancredo--the anti-immigrant crusader who hired illegal immigrants to remodel his home for cut-throat pay

Sue Myrick--openly racist on the floor of the House.

J.D. Hayworth--MSNBC's favorite Republican gas bag

Roscoe Bartlett--perhaps the stupidest person in the House

Yeah, gun nuts have hitched their wagon to some real stars there...

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

203. Deleted message

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

[immoderate]

205. If Tom DeLay said, "Shit stinks'"...

...you would say, "No it tastes GREAT!"

You didn't look up "well regulated."

--IMM

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

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

[immoderate]

232. You should answer what I said...

...Not what you want me to have said.

I assume your non-denial is acceptance of defeat (though you don't know it.) I don't form my opinions by gainsaying Tom DeLay. But you do.

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

244. I answered it....

"I don't form my opinions by gainsaying Tom DeLay. But you do."
No, I actually form my opinions from my experience, my education, and common sense. It's just a handy rule of thumb that there are ugly pieces of shit like DeLay around peddling horseshit to loonies and acting scummy, like blocking the AWB and putting assault weapons back on the market.

Like I said, if you want to give DeLay and his legislative priorities a big old victory, be sure to bend over and spread those cheeks. I don't give a crap...and it sure reinforces the gun nut position as people who put their gun fetish over every other consideration.

But jeeze, if I found out that Tom DeLay shared my point of view on an issue, I'd sure give it a lot of second thoughts. And if John AssKKKroft agreed on that issue, I'd sure be racked with doubts.

And I can't imagine what issue I'd want to share with John AssKKKroft AND Tom DeLay AND Pat Buchanan AND David Duke AND the Aryan Nation AND Tom Tancredo AND J.D. Heyworth AND Roscoe Bartlett AND Jeb Bush AND Ann Coulter AND Sean Hannity AND Roy Moore AND Fred Phelps AND Dick Cheney AND Wayne LaPierre AND Grover Norquist.

[immoderate]

275. Your first paragraph makes some sense...

...but then you go ahead and contradict it.

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

34. Gee, you mean besides the fact that

you're not the only one (assuming you're a law abiding citizen and not a crazy who hears voices in your head, of which we got no assurance at all) who would be getting his shaky sweaty hands on an assault weapon?

Maybe it's just because I like to put a thumb in the eye of the scum in public life who want to put assault weapons back on the market.

Tom DeLay wants assault weapons back on the market
Trent Lott wants assault weapons back on the market
Dick Cheney wants assault weapons back on the market
John AshKKKroft wants assault weapons back on the market
Larry Craig wants assault weapons back on the market
Sean Hannity wants assault weapons back on the market
David Duke wants assault weapons back on the market

Maybe it's because I like the sort of people who want to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban
John Kerry wants to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban
John Edwards wants to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban
Howard Dean wants to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban
Ted Kennedy wants to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban
Diane Feinstein wants to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban
Nancy Pelosi wants to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban
Barney Frank wants to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban
John Lewis wants to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban
Dennis Kucinich wants to renew and strengthen the assault weapons ban

[DoNotRefill]

91. George Bush has said he supports the AW ban....

look at the scummy people you're hanging out with... ;)

[MrBenchley]

101. So has John Kerry

and unlike that unelected piece of shit, Kerry will fight to get it renewed and strengthened.

[DoNotRefill]

113. It'll be too late then.

and there's no way in hell it'll pass again. Congresscritters LIKE to stay in Congress, rather than be thrown out on their asses in the next election.

[MrBenchley]

117. Says you...

Always swell to have "Democrats" pushing for one Tom DeLay's priorities.

And you might remember that there was "no way" the disgraceful immunity from liability bill was going to fail...until John Kerry and the Democrats stood up. It's called leadership....and the pro-gun nuts have these guys.


Here's mine...


I'll keep mine, thanks. They're not the scum of the earth.

[DoNotRefill]

135. Sorry...

as of September 13, at 11:59.59 PM, the AW ban will expire. ALL of the classifications of AWs in it will cease to be. It will be completely legal at that point to put "evil features" onto guns. Even if another AW ban is passed later (a practical impossibility), they can't make it an ex post facto law.

Since Ted Rall has come out as pro-gun, I have to wonder if you classify him as scum now, too.

[MrBenchley]

144. Yeah, and the immunity from liability bill couldn't be stopped

Anbd as I said, it's wonderful to see "Democrats" pimping for one of Tom DeLay's legislative priorities.

[DoNotRefill]

168. So....

when is it going to be voted on? Got a bill number?

[MrBenchley]

174. Gee, refill...

DeLay has the bill bottled in committee...just like he does hundreds of needed bills on education, social justice, the arts, the environment, etc.

DeLay serves the scum of the earth.

And yeah, I've got the bill number. How come you don't?

[DoNotRefill]

183. But you seem so sure....

that it'll see the light of day. Not bloody likely....and that's a GOOD thing. Rall has solidly anti-Bush credentials. He seems to not want gun control to be an issue. Does that mean he's "pimping" for Delay?

[MrBenchley]

191. Gee, refill...

So why don't you know the bill number?

"He seems to not want gun control to be an issue. Does that mean he's "pimping" for Delay?"
It'sd his two cents...but yeah, he is on this issue. He's basically proposing we ought to fold up and let this fuckwad win this battle... which is terrible advice.

It's akin to saying let DeLay get abortion banned so we won't alienate the tiny bunch of nutcases who want abortion banned...

And remember, the public is lukewarm on abortion rights...but strongly opposed to assault weapons. Seems like a win-win issue for Democrats. You either force the Republicans to cave publicly before Democratic leadership (as they did on the "immunity from liability" Senate votes)...or you get every Republican candidate running for the House have to expalin to a public that doesn't want assault weapons in gun stores why assault weapons ought to be in gun stores. (And there isn't a reason why that isn't utter horseshit.)

And if you do get it passed, you make pResident Turd either sign the bill and alienate the only enthusiastic bunch of supporters he's got, or make him veto it and lose the only claim he's got to be a moderate.

And even if you don't get it through this session in time, you remind the entire country what a lying hypocrite this unelected drunk is on yet another issue.

He lied to the country in 2000 and said he wanted the assault weapons ban renewed. Now let's see him campaign on that out loud again. Every fucking day.

[immoderate]

202. But...

I'm a gun owner and I have been a help to decent freedom loving Americans. That falsifies your argument. q.e.d.

BTW, would you know when you're defeated?

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

213. But...

So far in this thread you ain't been nothing but a source of tedious horseshit.

"BTW, would you know when you're defeated? "
It won't be by pinheads trying to pretend right wing idiocy is vanilla ice cream.

[immoderate]

252. OK but...

Benchley, see below where I give you a reading lesson. I already gave you a logic lesson. Calling me names does not negate my arguments.

The vanilla ice cream analogy was an attempt to illustrate something in terms that were simple enough for even you to understand. It appears I have underestimated your obstinacy.

You see, if a right winger happens to like vanilla ice cream, that does not mean automaticly that vanilla ice cream is...oh good grief, who am I talking to?

I will admit though that you are impervious to knowledge.

--IMM

[NickB79]

8. What court has ruled the 2nd is not an individual right?

There has only been one significant Supreme Court case involving the 2nd Amendment (US vs. Miller), and in it they ruled that the 2nd ONLY protects your right to own weapons suitable for militia usage. The person being charged had been in violation of the then-new 1934 Natl. Firearms Act for posession of a sawed-off shotgun. The justices ruled that this weapon was not suitable for use in a militia in defense of the country, thus the government had a right to regulate them. This was probably the most bald-faced lie I have ever read though, as short-barrelled shotguns were a common firearm used in WWI trench warfare, and at least one of the justices on the court had fought in the trenches of WWI so he should have been familiar with this. So at best, this implies that citizens of the US have the right to own military-style assault rifles, shotguns and handguns more than they do hunting guns, no?

[karabekian]

10. that justice was wrong then

our blacked robed overlords can be wrong from time to time too. I guess since Dred V. Scott reafirmed a slaveowners rights, that was right too.

[MrBenchley]

20. Not hardly...

"I guess since Dred V. Scott reafirmed a slaveowners rights"
Funny, isn't it? Every racist piece of shit around is psouting this "gun rights" crap around.

[el_gato]

22. so do you think ted rall is racist because he's not a gun grabber?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[el_gato]

26. your logic is absurd

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

36. Gee, I'm not the one pimping for the gun lobby...

and for Tom DeLay's legislative agenda...


"You cant respond to everyone"
I am perfectly able to respond to everyone, and with facts instead of distortions, hysteria and "Ad hodiem"

[el_gato]

41. your getting confused again bench

This is the Democratic Underground.
If you want to argue with the Tom DeLay crowd go to FR.
We are freedom loving democrats and you aren't supporting
your gun grabbing agenda.

[MrBenchley]

56. Gee, gato, you're the one pimping for DeLay's agenda

not me....

[el_gato]

62. gee bench your the one attacking Democratic Gun Owners

show some respect this is not FR

[MrBenchley]

65. Gee, gato, John Kerry shares my position

Trent Lott shares yours....

[el_gato]

71. I don't see Kerry running around screaming "gun owners are scum"

Next

[MrBenchley]

74. If I had a nickel for every thing you don't see, gato

I could retire tomorrow.

But the only one screaming "gun owners are scum" is YOU...and that's only because you cannot refute the FACT that so many scummy people are pushing this utterly bogus "gun rights" crap.

[el_gato]

87. you've lost, and now your lashing out

sad

[DoNotRefill]

93. Lawrence Tribe says the Second Amendment is individual...

does that make HIM scum too?

[MrBenchley]

103. Big fucking deal....

Show us where in the Constitution it says Lawrence Tribe gets to decide what the document says...

[DoNotRefill]

115. well....

He's got a hell of a lot more credibility on constitutional issues than you have...

[MrBenchley]

124. Says you...

But then I'm passing along what the courts actually HAVE said...as well as the ACLU.

[DoNotRefill]

141. You're misrepresenting what has been said...

by both the courts AND the ACLU. The ACLU's statement uses "weasel words" like "primarily". Words which, when taken in their normal usage, don't state absolutes, like "exclusively".

The ACLU says it's "primarily a collective right"...that means that part of it is an INDIVIDUAL right, or they'd have left out the "primarily".

As for the courts, you keep pushing a completely bogus interpretation from the 9th Circuit, which relies on a factually incorrect misreading of Miller.

Lawrence Tribe has a stellar reputation for constitutional analyis, and solidly Liberal credentials. That's why Al Gore hired him. You're badly out of tune with much of the Democratic party, and constitutional scholars, even LIBERAL constitutional scholars.

"there's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction."--Frank Herbert

[MrBenchley]

146. The hell I am...

"You're badly out of tune with much of the Democratic party"
Says you. Of course I'm not pimping for one of Tom Delay's legislative priorities, either. That would be YOU.

[DoNotRefill]

164. Uh huh...and Ted Rall...

is pimping for Tom Delay, too... :tinfoilhat:

[MrBenchley]

173. He is here, refill....

You want to surrender to the fuckwad from Texas, be my guest. I plan to fight him on every front with facts...and not fold up because a second rate cartoonist disagrees.

[DoNotRefill]

92. Yay! Benchley said "Pimping!" Yay!!

Bench, I love you in a completely heterosexual manner, man!!!


:loveya:

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[DoNotRefill]

118. Are you insinuating in a negative manner...

that I'm homosexual?

[RoeBear]

123. I'm impressed with your restraint...

...it took you 50 some posts before you started using the race baiting word 'pimping'.

[MrBenchley]

125. Gee, roe...

It only took you one to play your dishonest race card....

[RoeBear]

151. Incredibly funny!

You use the racist language AND say I'm playing the race card.

[MrBenchley]

153. Too too funny, roe...

Of course, you were also the one who posted a turd from American Daily but failed to notice the idiotic racist story ON THEIR FRONT PAGE.

Funny, you never have a cross word to say about Larry Pratt.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

176. Nothing like informed discussion

Especially among gun nuts, who don't know shit about anything except gun porn.

And for the record, Larry Pratt is the leader of Gun Owners of America, the SECOND largest gun owners' group...and a fuckwit so racist that Pat Buchanan had to flee his company when it was discovered he was part of that imbecile's presidential campaign.

[DoNotRefill]

188. When Ted Rall starts pimping for the gun lobby...

maybe there's more going on than just pimping for the gun lobby....

[MrBenchley]

195. When a second rate cartoonist says "jump"

I always laugh my ass off, personally.

"maybe there's more going on than just pimping for the gun lobby."
Sure there is...there's "pro-gun Democrats" who are all "pro-gun" and no "Democrats."

There's people who want to lie about what the Constitution and courts say.

There's people who don't mind that the gun lobby and the scummiest politicans around are in bed together, but get bent out of shape if somebody else points that out, for whatever bizarre fucking reason.

[MrBenchley]

19. Every one...

The only one that didn't was the fifth, the most conservative and ideology-driven court in the Nation....and to do so they had to disregard two of their earlier rulings. And they STILL found a way to take guns away from the crazy in the case.

[NickB79]

57. And you can back that up with some links?

Reading material please?

[MrBenchley]

63. Been there, done that...

Go back up the thread and take a look...

[ieoeja]

52. And I know a number of Chicago cops ...

... who will tell you they wish people DID use sawed off shotguns for personal home defense as a sawed off shotgun blast will not go through the wall, across the street, through your neighbor's wall and into a sleeping child.

[DoNotRefill]

80. Come on, Bench...

I want to hear you say that Rall is "pimping for the scummy corrupt gun industry and their Republican lackeys", or something along those lines...

You keep complaining about the company the pro-gunners keep. Looks like Ted Rall just joined our company. It's going to be a VERY hard sell that he's pimping for the Republicans...

[MrBenchley]

128. No problem...

A second rate cartoonist thinks we ought to pander to the scum of the earth. I disagree.

And even your newest bestest friend admits most Americans want gun control.

[FailureNoOption]

131. Charlton Heston called for supporters to lynch Al Gore

I don't recall seeing this before. Could you post a link where he did this or did you just make it up?

[MrBenchley]

147. Yeah, he did...

Here's a crappy bunch of right wing gun loonies cheering the senile old piece of shit on....

http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/2520

[Mick Knox]

6. Of course it does

It is one of the most clearly worded Amendments; I dont even think it is a gray issue. We lose way to many elections because too many in the Democratic Party either have their head in their ass over this issue or can be painted as such by the right.

[MrBenchley]

33. Nope, no individual right

It clearly places the people's right to keep and bear arms (perform military service) in the context of a well regulated state militia, as the courts have affirmed AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

The Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud’, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
         - Warren Burger, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice

"We lose way to many elections because too many in the Democratic Party"
That's way-y-y-y-y-y-y funny. Go to any gun owners' online forum and you'll find them crawling with imbecilic and dishonest freeper talking points. It's funny how it's impossible to find any "Democratic gun owners" on those forums even attempting any rebuttal or response.

For that matter, those forums are lousy with idiotic bigoted statements...but you never see any of those "rootin' tootin liberals" we keep getting told are so pletiful murmur even the slightest word of disapproval where their fellow gun owners can hear them.

Where were the Democratic gun owners last weekend when the NRA was pimping for the Chimp in Pittsburgh? No where to be fucking seen or heard, that's where.

[el_gato]

35. yes an Individual right , and state sanctioned paternalism sucks ass

Democratic gun owners are gonna take our party back from
the people who have helped destroy our voter base and there
is nothing you can do about it benchy.

[MrBenchley]

42. No individual right...

"state sanctioned paternalism sucks ass"
Sorry, gato...but its the gun nuts who suck ass...and here they are sucking up on camera.

Smooch!!

[el_gato]

44. Your just smarting because nonrepublicans like Ted Rall are pro gun

and it's just burning you up

so you desperately try to continue your smear by association tactic
that we here are so familiar with.

When someone like Rall comes out against your agenda it blows your
"all gun owners are scum" mantra out of the water.

This is all very very damaging to your anti-freedom crusade.

[NickB79]

59. Can you tell me what the court-recognized definition of militia is?

Tell us what the courts have ruled on the definition of militia, because they have stated this in previous rulings.

[MrBenchley]

64. Yeah, and I did so...

further up the thread.

[sangh0]

79. The 2nd talks of "well-regulated militia"

and not any run of the mill militia

[MrBenchley]

88. And well regulated militia for defense of a free state

not any bunch of whackoffs...

[sangh0]

94. They are so predictable

with their "Do you know who the militia is?" ploys. They think it's so clever, when the truth is, you can get that on any pro-gun board.

[MrBenchley]

105. That's one of the things that gets me...

Funny how you never see these "pro-gun Democrats" over on any pro-gun board countering the ditto-monkey horseshit that's up...or the racist gibberish those boards are often laced with.

[immoderate]

207. Ad hominem alert!

you can get that on any pro-gun board.

See Monty Python: "The Argument"

--IMM

[hansberrym]

283. Why not just read US v. MIller to find out how the Supreme Court

defined what the term "militia" means in the second amendment.
That would be the logical first step, and I suppose it would also be predictable.


But if you prefer clever bullshit, then I suggest Silveira. The Ministry of Truth has got nothing on Judge Reinhardt, and it is hours of fun (so unpredictable at every turn!) because you just never know what clever half-truth or out right lie the judge will come up with next. Its DOUBLE-PLUS GOOD to the last sentence.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x54661#54758

[DoNotRefill]

95. It also talks of the people...

which is seen as being indicative of an individual right.

[MrBenchley]

107. As in "We the people"

Not "us, a bunch of individuals"....

"The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. "

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

[DoNotRefill]

142. "we the people"...

PRECLUDES the States. The Constitution was written as a compact between the people, NOT the States. If you'd ever had even a BASIC Constitutional Law course, you'd have covered this in the first week of it.

[MrBenchley]

149. And it refers to collective action.

[immoderate]

206. Nice rewriting of the Second

Since when does "keep and bear arms" mean perform military service? I have a gun, I keep it. I bear it. I'm not in the military.

The Constitution does not specify a *state* militia.

As I've said elsewhere you should look up the meaning of militia and regulated. You will be surprised. It's tough to argue with folks who have their own meanings for words.

I have to admire your ability to take a beating. You've been whomped real good, but you keep coming back.

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

229. No rewriting at all...

Writers taking this approach ignore, or are not familiar with, the authoritative conclusions of the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, which declares that "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight"

http://www.potomac-inc.org/emerappa.html

"The Constitution does not specify a *state* militia."

TOO fucking funny for words.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

The Federal Paper discussing the militia is addressed "To the People of the State of New York: "
That wasn't because Alexander Hamilton didn't want to discuss state militias.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html

"At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths? "

[immoderate]

243. I don't see where...

...this says that the right to bear (possess) arms is limited to those who are in active service of the state. You are ignoring definitions of words that support other views.

Are you saying that the only acceptable definition of militia is those in conscription to the state? A well regulated food supply is also necessary to the security of a free state. Does that mean the state should own the food?

You conveniently leave out that, "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." According to you this means the right of the people to join the army shall not be infringed. I don't think that's what it says.

Hamilton says to the people of New York:

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.

...making it quite clear that the militia, who should be well regulated (qualified) are not necessarily in the service. Again, you conveniently misread what is quite plain.

You think you should have the power to take away my gun. You are a tyrant.

--IMM

[ieoeja]

45. I disagree with both you and Rall on Dems and the 10th

If you look at issues where Democrats have opposed States Rights, they have (mostly) acted against state laws that ATTACKED individual rights, e.g. Abortion and Segregation.

If you look at issues where Republicans have opposed States Rights, they have (mostly) acted against state laws that DEFENDED individual rights, e.g. Medical Marijuana and Same-Gender Marriage.

Since the 10th Amendment guarantees rights to "the States respectively, or to the people" Democratic attempts to overrule state laws at the federal level have usually had a sound constitutional basis in our attempt to defend rights of the people. Conversely, similar Republican attempts have lacked this constitutional justification.


Of course, the topic was gun rights, not states vs individual rights. Still the above paragraphs do help to illustrate a point concerning that. Rights guaranteed to "the People" in the US Constitution and its Amendments have been consistently interpreted to mean individual rights, not collective or local/state government rights with a singular exception: the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Why is this? Those who argue against the wall of separation of church and state fail in their argument because there is no shortage of supporting literature outside the Constitution in which the authors make it clear that they did, in fact, intend the 1st Amendment to create such a wall. That supporting literature is, in fact, where we get the phrase "wall of separation between church and state". And the existence of that literature proving the author's intent has been used as the basis for many US Supreme Court rulings on the subject.

Likewise there is no shortage of extra-Constitutional writings by the authors in which they explain that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was meant to apply to each enfranchised individual, not as some sort of collective right. And, yet, shortly after the Constitution's ratification, the US Supreme Court ruled otherwise and have relied upon the precedence of that first ruling ever since.

My guess is that the Supremes of the day simply blanched at the thought of the "rabble" possessing this right. And the Supremes since then have lacked the intestinal fortitude to correct this misruling.

And I believe my fellow rank-and-file Democrats today also act out of fear. Which is odd when one considers that it is the Republicans (or, more accurately, Conservatives) who have, in so many other instances such as the Patriot Act, shown themselves more than willing to throw away their rights in exchange for useless guarantees of safety. Why does this one issue so frighten my fellow Democrats?

[MrBenchley]

58. Not really

"Likewise there is no shortage of extra-Constitutional writings by the authors in which they explain that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was meant to apply to each enfranchised individual"
The Federalist papers clearly express that it is a collective right...and in fact, the only time during the Constitutional debates that the concept of individual ownership was raised was in Massachusetts (in a proposal usually falsely attributed to Samuel Adams) and the concept was VOTED DOWN.

"And, yet, shortly after the Constitution's ratification, the US Supreme Court ruled otherwise"
And has continued to, across nearly 240 years....and it's worth noting that despite their dishonest claims (which if true, would render EVERY gun control law unconstitutional), the National Rifle Association has never sued to overturn a single gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. That's never, as in not ever.

What does it say when someone won't put their money where their mouth is?

[NickB79]

66. Can someone recall this Supreme Court case?

I recall reading about a SC case where the courts ruled that the definition of the phrase "the people" as spoken in the Constitution meant the same thing throughout all the Amendments: individual citizens. I believe it was the early 90's, 1991 perhaps, and was US vs. U-something or other. Does anyone know of this ruling? I've been doing a Google search but can't find it. Or perhaps it was the California Supreme Court?

[sendero]

76. I'm a Democrat...

... and I own 5 firearms. While in a perfect world, there would be few if any handguns - that's not the world we live in.

There was a time that I was for gun control, but that was a while back. I support background-check laws, and not much else. Even the "assault-weapons" ban is nothing more than an joke if you examine its actual effect.

There are a few issues that I think will always be wedges. Reproductive rights for example. I'm not willing to waver on that right under any circumstance. But guns should not be a wedge issue, first because legislatively there is essentially no rememdy to the "problem" and second because most folks have figured out that these little piecemeal regulations against gun rights have accomplished jack shit except for losing Dem votes.

[FeebMaster]

77. Some good points

but Rall makes it sound like the Republicans are actually pro-gun. Sure they might talk guns up like they're the great supporters of the 2nd amendment, but their record speaks for itself.

[Guaranteed]

130. Rall's right, as usual. nt

[Vickers]

137. I like guns, and I'm voting for Kerry

What's the problem?

[Redneck Socialist]

145. The problem is that the pubs have successfully

used this is issue to peel away voters that would otherwise be voting Democratic.

Like yourself I am pro gun and pro Kerry. Unfortunately all too many folks buy the "Kerry's gonna grab yer guns!" propaganda coming from the right.

[MrBenchley]

150. the "Kerry's gonna grab yer guns!" propaganda coming from the right.

Gee, and you think that if the Democrats ignore what most voters want and pander to the lunatic fringe, that's gonna end?

[Vickers]

187. You calling me a lunatic?

Is that what I'm gathering from your various posts?

[solinvictus]

157. Ted's right

It's inconsistent to interpret the first amendment to cover porn, performance art involving feces, and a newspaper but to insist that the definition of the second should fit in a thimble.

[MrBenchley]

177. To whom?

And we don't have 30,000 Americans a year killed by performance art.

[bvar22]

161. Gun owning life long Democrat here.

Gun control is a losing issue for this election cycle. DEMANDING that Gun Control become a spotlight issue for the Democratic Platform will help bush* into a 2nd term.

What are your priorities?
I'm voting for Kerry.
I'm keeping my gun.
I'm focusing on winning issues that will unite our Party.
I will NOT help the Republicans by obsessively insisting that I'm right, and Democrats that disagree with me are pimping for Delay.

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

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

[OpSomBlood]

182. You're up to 74 posts in this thread....

And still the only person here who agrees with your rants is you.

39% of Democrats own a gun. Are they all right-wing traitors too? Are you willing to turn your back on two-fifths of the party's constituency? That's the core issue here...Republicans decided about 30 years ago to make guns a wedge issue, and people like you took the bait.

Circular firing squad.

[MrBenchley]

194. Too Too funny...

"39% of Democrats own a gun."
Yeah? How many of them think Kerry's going to take their gun away, do you suppose?

"Republicans decided about 30 years ago to make guns a wedge issue, and people like you took the bait."
Yeah, those savvy Republicans...they figured out the only wedge issue in American public life. Clearly people like you, who want to spread your cheeks and take it up the butt from the GOP, have figured out the way to fight them. (snicker)

[OpSomBlood]

198. Thanks for the mature discourse.

You think every gun owner is an irresponsible bloodthirsty lunatic and an unwitting Republican slave (except John Kerry).

Thanks for inserting the (snicker)s to let everyone know when you are snickering at your computer screen. It really paints the vivid picture we're all striving for.

[MrBenchley]

204. Any time at all, op...

And thanks for the link to those nutcases down in Jebbo's banana republic...those gun owners sure seem eager to beat their meat over any ignorant ditto-monkey crap they can find.

And it's way inspiring to see the way you're fighting right back with stony silence.

[Lil Timmy]

209. Try here

Some Dem gunowners post on gun nut forums.

Try here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/

And here for a thread where some Dems discuss Ted Ralls gun editorial:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=d28ea890c176dc9bb02602b4d480d0ae&threadid=79634

Most of the people on that board are either right wingers or libertarians, but quite a few Dems post too, and debate fiercely. Board members are of all sorts, different races, women, Europeans, the only thing that unites them is an appreciation of firearms. If you believe all gun owners are right wing bigots, inbred bubbas, you are simply wrong. The gun issue has pushed plenty of Democrats out of their party.

[MrBenchley]

211. I know all about highroadrage and the ignorant crew festering there

"Kicked off Democraticunderground for the 9th time...My wolf-in-sheep's-clothing act gets better every time out....They're terrified of debate...that's so funny...makes me feel good...how else would you get away with proliferating liberal nonsense...My favorite screename I came up with was "left of stalin"...After hanging out with the DU crowd, I'd suggest a good shower at a biohazard facility..."
A bit more of the enlightenment from this intellectual haven: "That would lull them into thinking you're one of the "progressives" while actually showing a wee bit of true colors...Reading that message board is like watching a political debate between semi-literate 4-year-olds...."shallow-thinker" "blind-sheep" either one should get you appointed to a "moderator" status fairly quickly on those liberal lemming sites....Demorats have had that problem for a very long time now. They would dearly love to have their socialist utopia, but they know they must make their way through the intransigent partisans to get there..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=170057

"The gun issue has pushed plenty of Democrats out of their party."
So did civil rights for black folks. And now the last gasp of those folks still opposed are all pushing this ignorant and dishonest gun rights crap. Funny that all these "pro-gun liberals" don't seem at all shy in sticking up for them and even pretending that they fall in that crowd and are being slandered whenever ugly pieces of shit like Trent Lott or David Duke is mentioned.

[FeebMaster]

212. The irony, of course, being

Republicans decided about 30 years ago to make guns a wedge issue

that the vast majority of federal gun control in the last 30 years was signed by Republican presidents.

[OpSomBlood]

215. Must make Benchley's ears smoke...

...when he considers that there are plenty of Republicans who have supported gun control over the years.

...but Republicans are always wrong!

...but gun control is always right!

...does not compute...

Pop.

[FeebMaster]

217. Other than the occasional pro-gun Democrat,

most people, Republican and Democrat alike, just ignore the whole thing. Perhaps you've heard the argument that the Democratic Party shouldn't become more pro-gun because it would be pandering to the right? How would it be pandering to the right if the right is busy passing all of the gun control they've passed?

People on the right who are pro-gun really like to ignore Republican gun control. They're pro-gun. They don't like talking about how they voted for a bunch of gun grabbers. The best they'll ever come up with is, "well it would have been worse if a Democrat had been in office." Right. The old lesser of two evils argument. Always a classic.

I've asked on a few message boards why, if the Republicans are so pro-gun, hasn't any federal gun control been repealed since they control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. My favorite response to date went something like this. "I'm sure President Bush is pro-gun, but he just has other priorities right now."

[DaveSZ]

220. Well here's how I see it:

If Bush can pretend to be the environmental president on Earth Day, Kerry can do the same.

I hope he'd change his thinking though instead of simply pretend.

[FeebMaster]

221. A Democratic candidate who came out in favor

of the 2nd Amendment, and I mean really in favor like actually advocating the repeal of at least some of the federal gun laws, not this "I'm a hunter" crap every candidate peddles, might have a shot at picking up some serious votes. Not necessarily Republican voters who are going to jump sides, most of them are too busy pretending that the Republicans are pro-gun to vote for anyone else. People like that are hopeless.

There are a lot of people who don't vote in this country because they don't see the point in voting. You can vote for a Democrat who wants to take away your freedom or you can vote for a Republican who wants to take away your freedom. So they just don't bother. If a candidate from either party came out in favor of restoring some of those lost freedoms and was believable about it, that candidate could pick up a lot of votes. Of course, the candidate would have to follow through with those promises after being elected or they certainly wouldn't be reelected.

It's all a pipe dream, of course. Getting rid of gun control is about as likely to happen as ending the war on drugs or war on terror.

[MrBenchley]

226. Jeeze, op, I'd have to be dumb enough to take feeb's shit seriously...

although I imagine he seems like a deep thinker to stentorian fans.

"there are plenty of Republicans who have supported gun control over the years"
Yeah, there are...and in fact, most of them have to pay lip service to gun control, like the unelected drunk in Al Gore's office did...

Think that's because gun control is so popular?

Worth noting though that all the really scummy Republicans support this gun rights horseshit...John McCain, for example, wants to close the gun show loophole.

[FeebMaster]

227. Lip service?

What about all the gun control they've actually passed?

[MrBenchley]

230. Lip service, feeb...

But hey, I'm not going to argue with you...gun nuts are too screwloose even for the Republicans to deal with.

After all, Chickenshit Cheney wouldn't go near them unless they were run through metal detectors...and those were supposed to be the ones that loved him.

[FeebMaster]

231. How is it only lip service to gun control

when they actually follow through with it? The only lip service on the Republican side are the claims of being pro-gun.

[Name removed]

234. Deleted message

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

[FeebMaster]

235. I've spent a good portion of the day outside

and it is quite a fine day. But the draw of the gun control argument is too strong for me to resist and so I keep coming back for more.

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

238. Deleted message

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

[OpSomBlood]

241. If only you had better talking points...

...than a website that hosted an image I referred to once. Juvenile.

[MrBenchley]

245. If only you had any...

but you don't...just this dreary gun nut crap.

[OpSomBlood]

273. Like all of the other pro-gun liberals in this thread.

Or did you just not notice the fact that nobody here has agreed with you yet?

[MrBenchley]

287. Tell it to the ditto-monkeys in Florida

"did you just not notice the fact that nobody here"
Says it all...

[karabekian]

339. better yet

go to the range +)

[MrBenchley]

236. How tragic for you, feeb...

Guess neither major party wants gun crazies...

Fortunately, you've got Roy Moore....he wants to repeal all gun laws.

Of course, he's crazier than a shithouse rat.

[FeebMaster]

239. Yes it's very tragic.

But you still haven't explained how the Republicans only pay lip service to gun control when in fact they actually claim to be pro-gun while at the same time passing more gun control.

[MrBenchley]

246. I think it's fucking hilarious, feeb...

"you still haven't explained how the Republicans only pay lip service to gun control when in fact they actually claim to be pro-gun while at the same time passing more gun control."
Why do YOU suppose that is, feeb?

[FeebMaster]

248. How should I know?

Despite the occasional claim otherwise in the dungeon, I don't have the ability to read minds or to control other people's thoughts.

Maybe you could just tell me why you haven't explained how the Republicans are only paying lip service to gun control when in fact they actually claim to be pro-gun while at the same time passing more gun control. Or, better yet, instead of telling me why you haven't told me, you could actually explain how the Republicans are paying lip service to gun control when in fact they are actually passing gun control and paying lip service to the pro-gun view.

[MrBenchley]

250. Feeb, I don't expect you to know a fucking thing

Back when you were claiming you had no idea who Trent Lott was, I knew you were utterly clueless.

"you could actually explain how the Republicans are paying lip service to gun control"
Been there, done that. Which unelected drunk who bangs his face on the floor eating pretzels claimed he supported the assault weapons ban but hasn't does a fucking thing about it?

[FeebMaster]

255. Actually what I asked was

How can the Republicans be said to pay lip service to gun control when in fact they actually claim to be pro-gun while at the same time passing more gun control?

"Which unelected drunk who bangs his face on the floor eating pretzels claimed he supported the assault weapons ban but hasn't does a fucking thing about it?"

As I recall something was said about signing an AWB renewal if Congress passed it. I think it was the same guy who banned all NORINCO imports. He's in the same party that claims to be pro-gun, but despite controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress hasn't managed to repeal any of the federal gun laws.



Maybe you could post a link to where I said I had no idea who Trent Lott was, while you're at it, because I don't recall making such a claim.

[MrBenchley]

260. Gee, feeb...

"As I recall something was said about signing an AWB renewal if Congress passed it. "
And there's your lip service. Now tell us, do you think whistleass posed as being in favor of gun control because it is unpopular?

Gee who's that playing dumb about Trent Lott and what he's been up to in his wretched career? Why it's YOU, feeb.


"FeebMaster
53. I wouldn't know.
I don't know a thing about him. I just figured, what with republicans being so pro-gun and all, that maybe pro-gun republican Trent Lott might have worked to repeal some of the federal firearms laws. "

"FeebMaster
61. Like I said
"blocking" the renewal seems like an empty gesture to me. If the republicans are so pro-gun a renewal would never pass anyway.
And I didn't say I didn't know who Trent Lott was. I just said I don't know a thing about him, except that he's "pro-gun" of course. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=35580

[FeebMaster]

264. Well there you go.

I clearly didn't say that I had no idea who Trent Lott was. Thank you for clearing things up with the link.


"Now tell us, do you think whistleass posed as being in favor of gun control because it is unpopular?"

Fine it's lip service until he follows through with it. Now maybe you could explain how the Republicans are pro-gun considering all the gun control they've passed. Or is all the pro-gun talk just lip service?


"Gee who's that playing dumb about Trent Lott and what he's been up to in his wretched career? Why it's YOU, feeb."

Who's playing dumb about all the gun control the Republicans have passed?

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

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

[FeebMaster]

272. Right.

"Yeah, feeb, there you go, clueless as ever and chock full of horseshit. But hey, I've known that from about your first post."

I'm not the one ignoring all the gun control the Republicans have passed.

"Who's that in the idiotic Second Amendment Caucus? Why, it's a bunch of humholes from the GOP."

Yes. That's what I'd call lip service.

"If you want to claim they're not pro-gun to suit, then you haven't got a friend in the world except maybe Roy Moore. It's no fucking skin off my nose."

Well, I wouldn't make the claim that they're pro-gun at all. There are plenty of people in the world, not to mention right here on DU, that agree with me as far as federal firearms laws are concerned.

[bigbillhaywood]

247. Oooh...but I don't like guns! They're scary and they hurt people. If it

becomes necessary to resist gov't/corporate tyranny, I'd much prefer using flowers, and love and puppies than guns. After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi used non-violence, which obviously means those tactics are universally applicable to every situation, even when objective circumstances dictate that pacifism is tantamount to suicide. Can't we all just get along?

Proud Supporter of the Million Mom March--
ensuring only responsible people like police and soldiers will have access to handguns and assault rifles.

[MrBenchley]

251. You'd be a fucking idiot to listen to a second-rate cartoonist then

wouldn't you?

"objective circumstances dictate that pacifism is tantamount to suicide"
Are those REALLY the objective circumstances you're faced with, Bill? Being kept from voting, deprived of civil rights, and made to sit in the back of the bus, are you?

"Proud Supporter of the Million Mom March"
Hey, so am I. And the next one is coming up next month. Let's show Tom DeLay and John AssKKKroft where to stick their "gun rights."

[bigbillhaywood]

253. A little angry huh?

"objective circumstances dictate that pacifism is tantamount to suicide"
Are those REALLY the objective circumstances you're faced with, Bill? Being kept from voting, deprived of civil rights, and made to sit in the back of the bus, are you?

Not yet, Benchley. I hope it doesn't come to the point where we need to take up arms to defend our freedom against the gov't or corporations, but I'm not naive enough to think that day will never come.

[MrBenchley]

256. Not me, bill...I'm laughing my ass off at this crap

It's more fun than the zoo and doesn't have an admission charge...and what a parade of peculiar specimens!

"I hope it doesn't come to the point where we need to take up arms to defend our freedom against the gov't or corporations"
Who are you kidding? You were practically twitching with glee over the prospect in the last post.


"I'm not naive enough to think that day will never come"
Well, it's comforting to know that if that day does come, gun nuts will have a steady stream of lies and horseshit to inspire their fellow citizens with.

And just look at the terror on the tyrant Cheney's face as he stood before America's gun owners last weekend...

[bigbillhaywood]

257. Typical liberal dogmatism. Snidely put down every one who disagrees with

your views. I'm happy to have a discussion (or argument) with you, but I'm not gonna waste my time if you insist on treating me like an idiot.

[Name removed]

262. Deleted message

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

[bigbillhaywood]

254. And by the way, you're anti-gun activism is ensuring ONLY Ashcroft and his

thugs (and the cops and the military) will have access to assault weapons. Disarm them first, and we'll talk about the rest of us giving them up.

[MrBenchley]

258. Yeah, there's that sterling gun nut "logic" or whatever it is

<sarcasm>The only way to stop Asskkkroft is to bend over and give Crisco Boy exactly what he advocates...because actually opposing his idiotic proposals is helping him.</sarcasm>

And as I said before, scratch a "sane law-abiding responsible gun owner" and suddenly this "I'm going to need my popgun in the glorious revolution" horseshit pops up. The sad thing is that every once in a while one of you sweeties actually forgets what horseshit this is and shoots a cop or postman.

"But the real surprise was in the basement, in what one city police official described yesterday as Mr. Boschi's Armageddon den.
In a 12-by-12-foot cinder block bunker, Mr. Boschi had several AK-47's with bayonet mounts, a shotgun, several rifles and handguns, a grenade belt, seven homemade and fully functioning bombs, and 10,000 rounds of ammunition, officials said at a news conference in Manhattan where they displayed some of the seized items. The bunker also contained Nazi paraphernalia, like a red wool armband and a four-inch steel dagger from World War II with Nazi markings, officials said. Alongside the gas masks and chemical suits, the shelves were stacked with canned meat, jars of vegetables and bottled water - enough to feed his family for months, the police said.
"It was like he was getting ready for something really big," said John Peluso, an assistant special agent with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. "But we have no idea what." "

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/30/nyregion/30bomb.html?ex=1084075200&en=34d0361da7a53751&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

[bigbillhaywood]

259. Stop calling me a "gun nut" I don't accuse you of being a shill of the New

World Order, no matter how much I disagree with your views. I'm sick of this bullshit that all of us that believe strongly in gun ownership are NRA pawns, and so beneath you, high and mighty Benchley.

[MrBenchley]

261. The New World Order?!?

Jeeze, I've never heard anybody but the sort of screwloose who thinks the Art Bell show is news use that phrase seriously. Are you afraid of the Masons. Think the illuminati are under the bed?

"I'm sick of this bullshit that all of us that believe strongly in gun ownership are NRA pawns"
Jeeze, if it wasn't that all you guys use the same few screwloose talking points, it might seem like bullshit. But you do, and it ain't.

"so beneath you, high and mighty Benchley."
Here's a hint: the kind of person who jeers about Gandhi and Martin Luther King is generally beneath all contemtpt.

Here's another...it ain't pretty when somebody cries when they get handed back what they started dishing out...but it serves them right.

[bigbillhaywood]

265. I attacked the position, I did not attack you.

I did not jeer MLK or Gandhi. I was trying to make the point that the non-violent tactics they use were effective in the particular circumstances in which they were operating, but they are far from universal means to achieve liberty or fight fascism, despite the belief of many pacifists that they are.

And I used the "New World Order" phrase to illustrate a point. If I said that to you, you would think I was a right-wing nut (which you obviously do anyways). Me making that kind of accusation is as patently stupid as you labeling me as some sort of NRA "gun nut" simply because I disagree with you.

[MrBenchley]

267. Gosh, Bill....

"I did not jeer MLK or Gandhi"
Sure you did.

"I used the "New World Order" phrase to illustrate a point"
And what a point it was too....right out of la-la land...the sort of rubbish I used to hear from gun nuts convinced Y2K was an excuse for Hillary to declare herself empress for life.

"Me making that kind of accusation is as patently stupid as you labeling me as some sort of NRA "gun nut""
Well, it's hard to figure how somebody who deliberately says something stupid can bitch about an accurate description. But then I yet to hear anything in your posts that I haven't heard from right wing loonies fo years, too.

[bigbillhaywood]

263. Million Pedestrian March

Support the Million Pedestrian March.

Thousands of people are killed in auto accidents every year involving Ford F350 and Dodge Ram 3500 pick-up trucks. Although the majority of auto accident fatalities are caused by other vehicle makes, these pick-ups are the most likely to cause fatalities when involved in an auto accident. They kill thousands more a year than guns. Therefore, we are marching to have Congress ban them.

Some of the right-wing pick-up truck apologists argue that these pick-ups are often used by construction contractors that need their payload and towing capacity. However, we have found that most of these trucks are not owned by contractors but by ordinary rednecks with small penises. So can the "contractor" argument really justify the thousands killed every year by these trucks? We think not.

We have also found that the vast majority of these trucks are owned by rednecks that support George W. Bush. These truck owners are shills for the billion-dollar truck industry. Should we allow these narrow-minded "truck nuts" to recklessly possess vehicles which can potentially cause major injuries or fatalities? Join with us in voicing a strident "NO!". NO! to George W. Bush and NO! to right-wing truck-nuts. One child killed by a Ford F350 is too many.

Join the Million Pedestrian March!

[Name removed]

266. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

268. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

270. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

289. Gee, I hand back what I get from strangers...

You jumped in here with insulting gibberish, and now you're acting prissy because you got it right back.

Which Bill is which?
"If you act that way on the street, I'm sure you would have your share of ass-beatings. But then again, maybe your street is different than my street. Maybe the only thing you have to worry about there is getting hit by the soccer mom in the Lexus SUV."

"that's why I'm not threatening you "


"You're not just speaking your mind, you're being arrogant and insulting"
Jeeze, and yet I ain't said anything about handing YOU an "ass-beating". But hey, like I said, nothing as sad as an internet tough guy.

[MrBenchley]

271. P.S.

I guess it must be almost time for Big Bill to declare victory and run away.

Helluva funny thread...one bozo bent out fo shape by "Democratic talking points" and another gnashing his teeth of "liberal dogma." And on a site called Democratic Underground for democrats and progressives, too! Who'd a guessed somebody might run into Democratic talking points and liberal dogma there?

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

278. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

277. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

290. Privileged communication, op

Consider yourself privilieged to hear it, and go snivel about it to someone else....

"still not a single person drawn to your side"
Jeepers, I guess I'll just have to console myself with the FACT that my position is shared by the Democratic presidential nominee, all of the candidates who were running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Al Gore, virtually all of the Democrats in public life, about every liberal or moderate columnist, and all of the groups and individuals on the NRA's enemies list...not to mention the majority of American voters.

Don't worry, though, op...you still got gato and feeb...not to mention the Aryan Nation and Bernie Goetz on your side.

[hansberrym]

292. John Kerry's official website says your wrong.

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/rights.html

Supports the Second Amendment & Will Defend Hunting Rights –
John Kerry is a gun owner and he believes in the right to bear arms. During his announcement speech, Kerry emphasized his strong belief in the Second Amendment by saying bluntly: “I’m a hunter and I believe in the Second Amendment.” Additionally, Kerry has said he will work to defend hunting rights. “I enjoy going hunting. I'm prepared to stand up and defend common sense on guns.”


John Kerry's view of the Second Amendment is considerably broader than yours. You don't have to join the state militia to hunt now do you?

Kerry's view seems closely alligned with the that stated some 230+ years ago in The Address of the Pennsylvaia Minority which your favorite Judge (Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit) characterized as "unambiguosly" intending an individual right to bear arms:



That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. (my emphasis)

(from The Anti-Federalist and the Constitutional Convention Debates; Ralph Ketcham, Mentor, copyright 1986)

[MrBenchley]

294. Not so, hans...

But it's hilarious of you to pretend so...

“We can do better – if we put public safety ahead of powerful interests.  As President, I will fight to preserve and strengthen the assault weapons ban.  One in five law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty is killed with an assault weapon.  The police officers who put their lives on the line every day should not be outgunned by criminals armed with weapons of war.   We need to stand with them – and stand up to the NRA.  I’ve done that throughout my career – and I’ll do it again as President."

"But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands.  John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place.  He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock."

click on "gun safety"
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/crime/

"John Kerry's view of the Second Amendment is considerably broader than yours. You don't have to join the state militia to hunt now do you?"
You don't have to join the state militia at all, hans. But the Second Amendment still doesn't give you any right to do anything BUT join the state militia, as the courts have ruled AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.

[hansberrym]

295. You are still wrong, John Kerry supports sportsmens rights to hunt

and to bear arms, not to join the state militia.

(you said)
You don't have to join the state militia at all, hans. But the Second Amendment still doesn't give you any right to do anything BUT join the state militia, as the courts have ruled AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN



But where in US v MIller does it say that the defendant Miller had only the right to join a militia? If this were so, the Miller Court would surely have ruled that since Miller had not joined the State militia, he did not have standing to bring a second amendment defense. Neither did the Aymette decision require that the defendant be in the state militia to have standing.

[MrBenchley]

296. Yes, hans...

ALL the judges are lying. All the newspapers are lying. Only YOU (and some of the worst people on earth) know the truth.

"John Kerry supports sportsmens rights to hunt"
Good for him--but it's still a dying sport, viewed by most Americans on a par with torturing household pets.

Kerry also wants to close the gun show loophole, crack down on gun dealers, and get assault weapons off the market. Those are the most important issues.

If we could get gun deaths and woundings in America down to the handful of "sportsmen" who perforate them selves and others, I'd sure be a happy man.

[hansberrym]

297. John Kerry is NOT lying, but SOME judges are.

Is John Kerry among the worst people on earth?

Why have you not told the truth about John Kerry's support of an individual right to bear arms?



(Quoting "Honest Abe" Reihardt from Silveira )
Moreover, in other public fora, some of the framers explicitly
disparaged the idea of creating an individual right to personal
arms. For instance, in a highly influential treatise, John
Adams ridiculed the concept of such a right, asserting that the
general availability of arms would “demolish every constitution,
and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed
by no man — it is a dissolution of the government.” 3 JOHN 50
(end quote)


The actual quote in context exposes the Judge's lie.


Defense of the Constitution, John Adams
”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, EXCEPT IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENCE, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws..."
(My emphasis)


The good judge could not have missed John Adams exception for
PRIVATE SELF-DEFENCE, nor could he misunderstand the meaning.
He is a liar.

Can you explain how the phrase "private self-defence" could plausibly have any collective meaning?

Or why a Federal Judge would use the quote in the way that he did?

[MrBenchley]

299. Sez you, hans...

"Why have you not told the truth about John Kerry's support of an individual right to bear arms?"

Jeeze, hans, I quoted Kerry directly...

"John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. "

Here's more from Kerry....

"Democratic candidate for President John Kerry wrote a letter to the hundreds of individuals, celebrities, authors, religious organizations, and businesses blacklisted by the NRA, to join him in standing up to the divisive agenda of the gun lobby and standing up for gun safety.

In a letter to the many prominent Americans put on the NRA’s publicly advertised “anti-gun” list, Kerry said,  “The NRA’s blacklist is the modern day equivalent of Richard Nixon’s enemies list. This blacklist is precisely the politics of division and distortion that have turned too many people away from participating in the process. We can’t let the NRA scare people into silence.  I know what it’s like to be targeted by the NRA, and I refuse to sit idly by during my campaign for the presidency while they push their divisive agenda on America and slander those who stand up for gun safety.”
Kerry also promised to continue his fight for gun safety during his campaign for the presidency: “Why should those on the NRA blacklist courageously risk their livelihoods when Democratic candidates for President aren’t willing to stand up against powerful interests and risk their political capital? I believe that standing up for gun safety is important, and I refuse to be a candidate who retreats from the issue out of political fear or one who tries to have it both ways.  I’m a hunter and a gun owner, but I’ve never gone hunting with an AK-47.  I’ll stand up to the NRA when they call law enforcement officers ‘jackbooted thugs’ or stand in the way of common sense efforts to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of felons and children. The Democratic Party will never be the choice of the NRA—and I’m not looking to be the candidate of the NRA.” "

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1030.html

You want to pretend private self defense is only possible with assault weapons (which is what Reinhardt was discussing when he made his ruling)? Do it without me.

[hansberrym]

314. Sez John Kerry, Bench

You said:
But the Second Amendment still doesn't give you any right to do anything BUT join the state militia, as the courts have ruled AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.




And you also said:
Jeeze, hans, I quoted Kerry directly...

"John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. "


Note that John Kerry never says anything about law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns IF THEY JOIN THE STATE MILITIA.

Your position is NOT supported by the Democratic nominee for President.

[MrBenchley]

317. Not even close to true, hans...

I don't see John Kerry saying anything about the Second Amendment, and Kerry wants to close the gun show loophole, ban assault weapons and police the gun industry more closely.

Hell, even I say Americans have the right to have a gun, the way they have the right to own a chickencoop or a paperweight. But it's an ordinary consumer product, and ought to be regulated as such...with a sharp eye toward what protects society. And that doesn't mean letting neurotics tote them around in their pockets because the gun lobby commissioned a bunch of lies from a right wing screwloose.

[hansberrym]

319. What's your definition of "see"

(you said)
I don't see John Kerry saying anything about the Second Amendment



But unless your eyes are closed, you can't help but see it.

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/rights.html

Supports the Second Amendment & Will Defend Hunting Rights –
John Kerry is a gun owner and he believes in the right to bear arms. During his announcement speech, Kerry emphasized his strong belief in the Second Amendment by saying bluntly: “I’m a hunter and I believe in the Second Amendment.” Additionally, Kerry has said he will work to defend hunting rights. “I enjoy going hunting. I'm prepared to stand up and defend common sense on guns.”

[OpSomBlood]

320. If John Kerry is a gun owner...

How can he believe that individuals do not have the Second Amendment right to bear arms? Wouldn't that be hypocritical?

[MrBenchley]

322. Now show us where he says

the Second Amendment makes gun control unconstitutional, or any of the idiot sludge from gun nuts.

Hell, I believe in the Second Amendment too...the way it's written and the way the Courts interpret it...not the lies that John AssKKKroft and his ilk peddle.

[hansberrym]

327. But do you believe, as does John Kerry, that the second amendment

protects the rights of sportsmen and hunters?

That is the question that you keep dodging.


Your position is NOT in agreement with the Democratic nominee for President.

[Name removed]

328. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

340. Jeepers Bill, which was your attempt to have a serious discussion?:

Was it the one where you were sneering at Martin Luther King and Gandhi? Or was it the one with the rednecks with tiny dicks?

"There are many people on DU that are, intentionally or otherwise, disruptors"
Like the ones that jump in to shout "Ooh, I'm scared of guns."

"Post away, MrBenchley, I'm not gonna be suckered into responding."
Fine with me. I don't need to be asked twice to show what a pantload the "gun rights" cause is from stem to stern.

[MrBenchley]

333. Please tell us, hans...

Do you suppose this means that gun nut forums will stop sprouting every ignorant bit of diito-monkey crap they can find? Do you think that this will send all you pro-Democrat gun owners over to those forums to speak out for Kerr--

Can't even type that with a straight face! You and I both know the glocksuckers will be hanging out here, posting ignorant horseshit from sites like the stentorian, slandering Democrats like Diane Feinsteion and Chuck Schumer, whining that their popguns are in danger, and pissing and moaning about "Democratic talking points" and "liberal dogma."

[bigbillhaywood]

334. Actually

There's at least one pro-gun DUer I know of who is not simply content to just hang out at DU and post stuff here (can't say the same for myself). His website: www.liberalswithguns.com

[MrBenchley]

343. Actually

Here's the right wingers' worst fear...





And that's because this mighty throng of freepers and dimwits...all 14 of them...is what they've got to counter with...

[bigbillhaywood]

348. Not interested in a debate about the content of the site, just thought I

would bring it to people's attention.

[hansberrym]

364. Probably not, but it will take away their battle cry.

If your goal is really gun control and not confiscation, then maybe John Kerry's approach (Loudly defend a broad individual right to bear arms for reasons including hunting, but also be ready and willing to regulate for public safety) is the better approach.


Besides, Judge Reinhardt's approach of outright lies will not succede in the long run. There is no Memory Hole, information is everywhere, and anyone can look up the facts (i.e. definition of "militia" in Miller, John Adams actual words, meaning of keep and bear arms in Miller and during the ratification debates, etc.) and know the truth. Judge Reinhardt's approach actually aids the NRA because it gives them a prime example with which to illustrate the slippery slope argument to anyone who doubts that there are gun grabbers willing go to any lengths, even the re-writing of history, to achieve their goals.

[bigbillhaywood]

365. No!!!Hans!!!!Not back into the abyss!!!!!

[JayS]

368. Has Kerry actually said anything about an individual right? I...

...looked at his web page and did not see anything like that there. I did see mention of the Million Mom Marchers, some stats that come from the Brady Bunch, and very little else. I know he says that he believes in the Second Amendment but that is not saying very much.

I did find more on his work in defeating the Lawful Commerce in Arms Bill and an attempt to ban some common ammunition. I think he has some explaining to do.

[Young Socialist]

321. hate to agree with Benchley, but John Kerry is not pro-gun, nor is

he pro-hunting. he voted to specifically ban the 30-30, 308win, 223 rem and 30-06 as being "bullet proof vest piercing cop killing sniper ammo" during his uncle teds ammendment to the defeated firearms liability protection bill. I don't see how you can be pro-hunting and want to ban the most popular ammo used in about 90% of hunts.

[NJ Blue Collar]

335. Some gun control is necessary

to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals; but I don't think they should be banned.

[bigbillhaywood]

336. Welcome aboard, NJ Blue Collar. Nice avatar. n/t

[NJ Blue Collar]

337. Thanks!

:)

[MrBenchley]

338. Welcome!

Been to the New Jersey folder yet?

[NJ Blue Collar]

342. Yes, and I commented

on the Rasmussen poll showing Schundler ahead of McGreevy.

[MrBenchley]

346. You might recall

One of the things that made Schundler's campaign in 2001 go down the toilet was his "gun rights" idiocy...he told his nutcase core of right wingers in the primaries he was going to repeal the assault weapons ban, hand out pistol permits like candy, etc...and then he had to spend the rest of the campaign running around the Garden state like a crazed squirrel denying he'd ever said any such thing.

Glad you're going to be with us. I was talking this AM with another NJ Dem about planning some fund-raising events for Democratic candidates this fall...

[NJ Blue Collar]

352. I'm no gun nut, but

I live in JC and many of the gang-bangers and thugs carry (illegally, I presume), so I really don't have a problem with other people carrying, as long as they are licensed and go through some sort of qualification test (written and practical).

My biggest beef w/ the GOP in NJ is the sprawl of yuppie McMansions, that hurt the enviornment and destroy natural space. Hard-working Blue Collar types are forced to live further and further from their jobs by the McMansions. That and all the union jobs are leaving the state in favor of Wal-Mart. W/ Schundler in particular, I don't like his big business "I love corporations" philosphy. Like you said, he's a big RW phony.

I was sitting on the parkway in bumper-to-bumper traffic and I saw this bus that says something to the effect of getting rid of parkway tolls and SCHUNDLER in big letters.

I bet a lot of fence-sitters noticed. I think that our party should pre-empt Schundler's crap and if not get rid of the tolls (and raise the gas tax to compensate, or perhaps put a small tax on the purchase of new SUVs) the state should re-vamp the tolls to be like the Turnpike.

Take good ideas away from the gop and leave them with their winger-ness.

[MrBenchley]

354. I'd love to see the tolls go...

although I'd have to see how the revenue would be made up..., a tax on SUVs would be very unpopular, but we might have to bite the bullet....and it might be accepted if we gave some sort of tax credit to hybrids.

I still can't believe that Christie and her GOP mob managed to make EZ-Pass a money loser...have you heard any more about that?

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/press/2002releases/071102.htm

Did you see this?

http://www.stopbretschundler.com/

[NJ Blue Collar]

356. Thanks for the Stop Bret link!

I don't mind paying the toll, but I hate the traffic backup problems caused by having a toll plaza every few miles. I also don't understand how a system that replaces toll collecters with computers could lose money. McGreevey did inherit a screwed up system from Witless, not to mention the whole deficit problem to begin with.

I don't think an SUV tax would be popular, but maybe like a $50 surcharge on new SUV purchases combined with a $.01 gas tax increase could off-set the money made from the tolls.

My other suggestion would be to make it like the turnpike; pay when you get on, and pay when you get off.

[MrBenchley]

361. Any time...

I disliked Schundler the first time I encountered him, and everything I've learned since has only sharpened that feeling.

[FeebMaster]

344. Why don't you give us an example of a law that

will keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

[NJ Blue Collar]

355. The Brady Bill

n/t.

[FeebMaster]

358. How does the Brady Bill keep weapons out of the

hands of criminals?

[NJ Blue Collar]

359. It keeps convicted felons and people with domestic

violence convictions from purchasing guns.

[FeebMaster]

360. Purchasing guns legally you mean.

Why would someone who can't pass a background check even bother trying to buy a gun where a background check is required? They're going to buy the gun in an unregulated market, where there are no background checks.

That's assuming that this criminal can't pass a background check in the first place. Although, if they haven't been convicted yet, is it really fair to call them a criminal whether or not they've committed crimes? Of course, as one of our friends down in the dungeon is so fond of saying, "It only takes a split second to go from being a law abiding gun owner to a criminal." Or something like that.

So, really, what is the Brady Bill other than a feel good piece of crap?

[NJ Blue Collar]

362. If they were felons, they would still be purchasing

the weapon illegally, even if they were purchasing it from a legal source. You also make the assumption that 100% of felons and domestic violence offenders have access and $$$ to purchase arms on the black market. I'm not sure that is always the case.

If a certain percentage of crooks were denied the purchase of weapons due to Brady (NICS) then I would deem the law a success.

Then again, there are straw purchases to contend with.

[FeebMaster]

363. Whether they buy the weapon legally

"If they were felons, they would still be purchasing the weapon illegally, even if they were purchasing it from a legal source. You also make the assumption that 100% of felons and domestic violence offenders have access and $$$ to purchase arms on the black market. I'm not sure that is always the case."

or not, they're still getting the weapon. You make it sound like buying a gun on the black market is some complicated thing full of mystery and intrigue. I'm no expert on the subject, but if I wanted to get a gun on the black market I think I'd ask one of my dope smoking friends to hook me up with his dealer then I'd ask him if he could hook me up with a gun or someone who would sell me one.

You're also making the assumption that guns on the black market cost significantly more than guns on the legal market. It depends on the kind of gun, of course, but for some guns, machine guns especially, there is simply no way an illegal one is going to cost as much as a legal one.


"If a certain percentage of crooks were denied the purchase of weapons due to Brady (NICS) then I would deem the law a success."

And if ten minutes later they buy a gun on the street would you still consider Brady a success? I doubt they'll have to go through a background check to buy that one. Oh wait, we're right back where we started.

[Name removed]

341. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

350. Jeeze....Want a bullet to bite on?

(snicker)

[Cerval]

347. Personally, I believe that gun regulation...

...is essential. I do not believe that a hunter needs an assault rifle to hunt deer with. Nor do I believe that bears wear body armor so, there is probably no need for the average joe-hunter to have armor-piercing bullets. I do not believe that hand-guns have any other purpose than killing people. I believe that there were more than 15,000 gun-related deaths in this country last year.

In spite of all of this, I have owned firearms. I had a .22 pistol that I used to carry on my trips to the desert. I kept the pistol loaded with snake-shot because, well, there are many rattle-snakes out in the desert. I owned a Glock 19 9mm for a few years. I used this for target practice. I enjoyed the challenge of target shooting and the Glock was an easy, accurate, and forgiving piece to fire. I owned a .227 hunting rifle and a Winchester 12 gauge as well. I have since sold all the guns that I have owned.

On the side of the 2nd Amendment, however, I believe that the Founding Fathers wanted people to have guns, not because they were worried about a foreign invasion, but, because they were afraid of the amount of power that government still wielded. I believe that Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, et al., were intelligent enough to foresee that governmental power might be abused at some time in the future and provided for the "common defense" accordingly. Our forefathers wanted to make sure that power remained with the people and that the government would act in a regulatory capacity. For crying out loud, our forefathers were freakin' radicals who had just thrown off the rule of the largest empire in the world at that time. They were afraid of government... even a government that they had built!

These guys wanted to make sure that the common citizen had a say in how they were ruled and, of course, back then they expected that there would always be a Militia rather than a professional army. The Continental Army was, in essence, a huge Militia of common people.

In summary, I believe that many guns should be regulated, especially assault weapons. I mean really, who is going to invade the U.S.? Canada? Mexico? But, handguns represent a gray area, still, why can't you wait two weeks to get your gun? Any gun?

Again, this is just my opinion.

[bigbillhaywood]

349. Welcome to DU! n/t

[Cerval]

351. Thanks...

For the Welcome!

[MrBenchley]

353. Welcome...

"Our forefathers wanted to make sure that power remained with the people and that the government would act in a regulatory capacity."
At the same time, they had just won a revolution with their collective arms...

Worth noting that the Federalist paper concerning the militia is entirely concerned with collective action...

" To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html

[Cerval]

357. Of course.

The Federalist Papers are fairly clear about the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Of course, I don't believe Hamilton ever conceived of a time when people would have enough money to own guns just to own guns. He was thinking that most people would know how to use a gun because they had to hunt to subsist and that the citizens would band together and form militias that were like the Minutemen. Obviously, since we have a well-armed police force and a standing army, there is very little reason for citizens to form militias. We have given the power to defend the country into the hands of the military, not to me or my next door neighbor like it was at the end of the Revolutionary War. Federalist 29 in particular speaks to the regulation of a Militia by the State (which is also stated in the 2nd amendment by the language "...a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."). The only problem is that "well-regulated Militia" is not defined.

I do believe that most people who scream about the 2nd Amendment are trying to skirt the intent of the Constitution; however, this is, again, an opinion. I do not necessarily know what the intent of the founding fathers was.

Things have changed so much since the late 1700's and early 1800's.

[OpSomBlood]

370. Welcome again...

And I am just about the most pro-gun person around here, and I agree with most of your rational and well-thought points. My only question to you is on this:

I do not believe that a hunter needs an assault rifle to hunt deer with. Nor do I believe that bears wear body armor so, there is probably no need for the average joe-hunter to have armor-piercing bullets. I do not believe that hand-guns have any other purpose than killing people. I believe that there were more than 15,000 gun-related deaths in this country last year.

By "assault rifle" are you referring to the traditional definition of the term, or the re-definition set forth in the 1994 AWB? Because if you can tell me the mechanical difference between a semi-auto hunting rifle and a semi-auto "assault rifle," I'm all ears. Hunters agree that .223 Remington is the perfect caliber for varmints and medium-size game. This is the ammo that the AR-15 fires.

And your thoughts on handguns cut both ways. If handguns serve no other purpose than "killing people" (which I think is a false assessment, I am an avid target shooter), then shouldn't law-abiding citizens be allowed to defend themselves against a criminal element that possesses this lethal power? As the saying goes, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and the unfortunate reality is that sometimes a gunfight comes to you.

I agree with your thoughts on armor-piercing ammunition, simply because standard ammo can neutralize a threat regardless if they are wearing body armor. All self-defense courses teach "shoot to stop, not to kill" and a decent shot at center-of-mass is putting anyone down...at least long enough to get away.

[MrBenchley]

371. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: Ted Rall sucks.

That is all.

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000395.html#comments

Tee Hee Hee...