Do you think a citizen should be able to buy more than1 handgun a month?

[billbuckhead]

Friday, October 07, 2005

Kilgore receives gun lobby stamp of approval

The GOP gubernatorial candidate flew into Roanoke for the nod of the National Rifle Association.

By Cody Lowe
981-3425
The Roanoke Times


Declaring that "Tim Kaine should be ashamed" of his record on protecting gun owners' rights, his Republican gubernatorial opponent, Jerry Kilgore, accepted the endorsement of the National Rifle Association on Thursday.

During a fly-in at the Piedmont Aviation terminal in Roanoke, Kilgore was introduced by Wayne LaPierre, a former Roanoker who is now the executive director of the NRA.
-----------------snip---------------------------
She said Kaine failed the NRA "litmus test" for its endorsement, which involves a pledge to repeal the state's law limiting handgun sales to one per month. "There was no way we were going to get that endorsement," Skinner said, because Kaine has said he would not do that.

"What we saw four years ago was an attack on Mark Warner and Tim Kaine when they were running for office, saying they would take guns away, and four years later, they've not done that," Skinner said. "What they have done is put the state on the right fiscal track, they've invested in public safety, invested in education, and created one of the fastest growing job markets in the country."
--------------snip---------------------------
<http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/35202>

[Momgonepostal]

1. Not a gun person, but tell me...

why does an individual want more than one handgun at all, let more than one a month?

[htuttle]

3. To resell them

...probably without paperwork.

[Junkdrawer]

4. ..Remember: the more illegal guns sold, the more fear that prompts...

legal gun sales. Good for Business.

:sarcasm:

[madeline_con]

298. Excuse me, we have more than one, and don't sell them. n/t

[bonito]

8. I agree, its a dumb issue

As I see it.

[-..__...]

12. I have adjustable wrenches, box wrenches, pliers and ratchet sets...

in my toolbox.

Each can be used to achieve a similar operation, but I'll be damned if it makes any sense to use a 1" socket to unfasten a 5mm bolt.

Why more than one a month?

I dunno... suppose one makes a handgun purchase at 'Fast Freddie's Mid-Night Pawnshop', then a few weeks later spots a bargain at 'Wild Willies Gunshow' on a handgun he's been looking for for years?

What if it's part of an estate purchase or auction?

I can give you other examples, but the point is there are legitimate reasons for purchasing more than one handgun a month.

You and others might find the reasons trivial or ridiculous, but as you say... you're "not a gun person".

[stepnw1f]

55. A Handgun is not a Tool

Jesus Christ, that is one of the worst analogies I have read in a loooong time.

A tool for a soldier of or a cop. Not a civilian. Puhleeeeeeeeeeze.

[Fountain79]

71. Your right...

A handgun is not a tool it is a means to protect oneself.

[stepnw1f]

72. For Civilian Paranoids

It makes them comfortable, while endangering all other saround them. Kinda like those who feel safe in their giant gas guzzling waste of space SUV's. Sureeee. They are safe, but everyone else isn't.

I call it stupid and paranoid.

[Fountain79]

73. Our founding fathers...

Seem to think it was important.

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.

[stepnw1f]

76. Blah, Blah, Blah

to form a militia. Where's the militia? I didn't think so.

The NRA/Gun Industry thinks you are doing a terrific job! The check is in the mail.

[Fountain79]

129. How mature.

It's amazing when one tries to have a discussion over such a matter and people reduce the argument to such childlike retorts. The amendment is essentially saying the government has to form a militia in order for the country's safety. In doing so citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, for their safety and protection from the government.


If the check is in the mail I haven't heard about it.

[Savannah Progressive]

133. What is the definition of Militia

From 1785 we are wondering what the definition of Militia that was used in this amendment?

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


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

So we see that by Legal Definition the Militia consists of all able bodied men who are over 17 years of age, and can be members of the Militia who are not members of the National Guard, or Naval Militia.

Does this keep with the definition of Militia that was used at the time the Constitution was written? Do you realize what would happen when Bush's cronies on the Court get to debate this issue? We might win, and be able to take arms from individual citizens. They may well decide that all regulations on firearms are Unconstitutional, and in a single ruling, nuts running around the street armed to the teeth with rocket launchers will be a daily view.

[Fountain79]

135. hmmm...

"We might win, and be able to take arms from individual citizens."

That is not a victory.

[Realityhack]

245. I must agree.

that is not a victory.

[MrBenchley]

158. Even more interesting...

which half of that definition amounts to the "well regulated militia" that the Second Amendment actually refers to? (If you said "organized," pat yourself on the back. )

[Silverhair]

138. Second Amendment has been defined.

On Oct, 20, 2005 this passed both houses of Congress. It appears that congress has defined what the second amendment means.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

The above is from the text of the bill from Thomas.gov

[Fountain79]

139. interesting

That's what I have been saying all along.

[Realityhack]

248. I do not beleive that they have the legal power

to 'find' that. The interpretation of constitutional law is not up to a simple majority in congress, its up to the supreme court.

However... part 2 is what the courts have already basicaly established.

As for part 1 it sounds like some ratther extreamist people would like to link seperation of church and state to gun laws... either practicaly no gun laws at all or you have to let us do religious stuff cause its the same language, blah blah blah...

Thankfuly I do not believe this is theirs to interprate.

[Realityhack]

244. Well regulated huh...

sounds a bit like a regulation to me.

BTW. I would be more in favor of say 2 a month or something. 1 seems a little restrictive to me as well but I also don't think you should be able to run out and buy a case at a time all day long. Some reasonable regulation to curb illigal sales is probobly a good idea.

[gizmo1979]

293. You seem to have left parts out?

[PerpetualWinter]

286. How are my guns locked in a cabinet...

endangering anyone? Horrid logic that plays on the actions of a far minority in an attempt to punish the majority.

[PerpetualWinter]

285. You're mostly right...

I know I don't keep my guns for protection, sure they are there if needed, but I don't keep a loaded gun in the house (if its not loaded its pretty much not for protection). Guns are also "adult toys" (yes, a gun is not a toy, but neither is a car and both can be referred to as such), they are as much for recreation as they are for protection.

Also, the guys comparison between tools and guns really wasn't relevant to his points. Really it just detracted from the last paragraph of his post which definitely hits some of the nails dead on.

[porphyrian]

204. That's not true, weapons are specialized tools.

The only difference is that they are made for the function of killing and destruction. I understand your point, but it is incorrect to say that weapons are not tools.

[Greyhound]

45. Different guns have different capabilities/purposes

As to the question of how many to buy in a month, I might want to get the latest BFG 9000 for myself and a new 9mm for my girlfriend.
How about a compromise, 1 gun per month that's cumulative. So I don't buy any for a year and then buy 12 for Xmas.

[ComerPerro]

74. Well, you got your one gun that comes in from the "Gun of the Month" club

And that's your limit. You can't buy any others.

Sucks...

:sarcasm:

[benEzra]

175. My wife and I own multiple handguns

Not a gun person, but tell me...why does an individual want more than one handgun at all, let more than one a month?

Guns are like golf clubs; different designs fill different niches.

I have one handgun for the primary self-defense role, a Smith & Wesson 3913 LadySmith 9mm, and I am licensed to carry it and do so on occasion. My wife owns a Glock 26 9mm, for which she has a 15-round Glock 19 magazine, and she obtained a carry license when we lived in Florida.

I also used to have a North American Arms .22 revolver, and my wife owned a Phoenix Arms Raven; we've since sold both. My wife would really like a Colt .45 (a 1991A1 or a Mark IV) for recreational shooting and possibly as a primary defensive gun, but she'd still keep her Glock since it is smaller and more practical under certain circumstances.

I know a former police officer who also happens to be a hunter, and he occasionally hunts with a large handgun. A large frame .44 magnum or .50 S&W is not the best gun for self-defense (well, maybe defense against bears), but it's great for hunting. And so on.

Ditto with rifles. There are big rifles (for hunting and long-range target shooting) and small rifles (for recreational shooting, target shooting, or personal defense); precision rifles and "tactical" rifles; functional rifles and historical rifles.

[Realityhack]

252. Its nice to hear from a gun owner.

I would be interested to hear what your feelings on limiting gun purchae frequancy are?

[benEzra]

262. Mixed feelings...but some thoughts:

my biggest concern is the fact that to have such a system, you have to have registration, and my feeling is that the anti-gun lobby is more interested in the registration angle than in any anti-reselling benefit.

One gun per month is also an exceedingly arbitrary figure, and if this became a national phenomenon, it would only be a matter of time before the prohibitionists were asking "why would anyone NEED to buy more than one gun per year?" for example.

Still, if you could somehow guarantee that

(1) the system could NOT be used to record what type of gun was purchased other than "handgun," e.g. no make/model/serial# info;

(2) all purchase records would automatically be deleted 30 days after the purchase date, with NO possibility of illegal retention or diversion of information (as unfortunately happened with the Federal NCIS check records for years) and the law included whistleblower provisions and felony criminal penalties for such diversion; and

(3) the allowed number of purchases could never be reduced in the future;

then I would be a LOT less concerned about such a law than, say, the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch.

Still, if the goal is to reduce intentional criminal diversion of guns from legal purchasers, I think a greater effort to actually trace crime guns under the system already set up under the Gun Control Act of 1968, to find out where the guns jumped from the law-abiding world to the criminal world, and then prosecuting any straw purchasers or crooked dealers you find, would do a lot more toward halting straw-buyer sales than a one-gun-per-month law. Hypothetically, if a gun smuggler has ten or twenty "mules" he can use to legally buy handguns, and each can buy 12 guns per year, that's still plenty of smuggling. But if law enforcement bothered to trace guns back to the "mules," they could likely bust the smuggler, if they simply bothered to actually run the traces.

[KittyWampus]

2. there should be a law requiring each citizen to buy one handgun a month

or at least help subsidize those who can't afford to.

[catmother]

6. guns

when i moved to phoenix from new york one of the first things i did was buy a handgun. in new york city you couldn't -- only the bad guys had them.

i own 2. i think my husband has 2 or 3. i keep one in my nightstand. i have a love/hate relationship with the NRA. i want my handgun, but there have to be rules. the brady bill has worked well but the bad guys are still getting them at gun shows and through other people. so we need stronger laws. and shit who the hell needs an assault weapon. we're not fighting a war here. i just want to be able to protect myself if necessary.

[benEzra]

176. Your handgun may BE an "assault weapon"...

when i moved to phoenix from new york one of the first things i did was buy a handgun. in new york city you couldn't -- only the bad guys had them.

i own 2. i think my husband has 2 or 3. i keep one in my nightstand. i have a love/hate relationship with the NRA. i want my handgun, but there have to be rules. the brady bill has worked well but the bad guys are still getting them at gun shows and through other people so we need stronger laws.

I agree with the NCIS point-of-sale background check. Gun shows are a red herring, though. I think the percentage of of criminals who obtained their guns at gun shows in a recent study was only 0.7% (perhaps because a majority of show sales are from dealers so they involve a NCIS check and BATFE form 4473 anyway. A much bigger issue is undoubtedly straw purchasers (who rarely get prosecuted, even though it's a big-time felony).

and shit who the hell needs an assault weapon. we're not fighting a war here. i just want to be able to protect myself if necessary.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch did not cover a single military weapon. Military AK-47's and Uzi's and M16's are strictly controlled as Title 2/Class III automatic weapons by the National Firearms Act of 1934; the AWB covered only CIVILIAN firearms, and was based on silly characteristics like how a rifle's stock is shaped.

BTW, considering that the primary effect of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was to jack up the price on replacement magazines for full- and intermediate-sized 9mm handguns, your handgun may have been among the guns most affected by the ban, depending on what type handgun it is.

[Silverhair]

93. Kennesaw, GA passed a law required each resident to have a gun in the hous

Burglary rate dopped to zero and stayed there for 18 months.

[MrBenchley]

189. Ah, those "freedom loving gun owners" (snicker)

You vvill have a gun and like it, or else.....

By the way, you claims of a crime drop are so much hooey...in fact, crime is higher there than in neighboring towns of comparable size. And the "law" is an embarassment that the local cops don't bother to enforce.

[gizmo1979]

292. that's quite absurd.

[Journeyman]

5. Grant me an unrestrained First Amendment. . .

and I'll concede an unrestricted Second.

[billbuckhead]

9. Good point to make since "gun" rights bull#it is vastly rightwing oriented

Playing footsie with the NRA doesn't work. Nothing satisfies them. For instance in Virginia, the Warner/Kaine administration had already allowed guns on school property and at least one commentator thought Warner's submission to the NRA cost Warner one of his poliitcal allies in a tight race. The common sense of the voter, they didn't want guns in Virginia schools.
--------------------snip---------------
All politics is local.

One Pundit's View

Paul Goldman
[e-mail]

"One involved several votes that Mr. Miles had made in favor of several new laws, all signed by Gov. Warner and backed by the Democratic Party Establishment, allowing guns on school property and making it harder for local police to stop illegal gun sales at gun shows.

To be honest, no one had really known about these new laws until the campaign had started. When I first realized this situation, it seemed hard to believe. But a little research showed that despite campaign promises to the contrary, the governor and the Democratic Party Establishment had been trying to make nice with the NRA and others to prove they weren't liberal.

I have always respected the NRA as a political force and in all my campaigns, we never had a problem with the NRA. And in all these years, I don't recall the NRA being focused on changing the law on these particular matters.

Given that the NRA has given Democrat Tim Kaine an F in the 2005 governor's race, and now is calling on Kaine to pull one of his radio ads, it seems that these new laws hardly did what Warner, Miles and the Dem establishment had hoped.

------------------snip----------------------------
<http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$35210>

[Retired AF Dem]

125. Thats strange

the rank and file members (not the kooks you see on the news) don't think the NRA does enough to protect gun rights.

[gizmo1979]

294. You have to be joking?

How much more money could they possibly spend to buy politicians?

[Greyhound]

46. Sounds reasonable to me. n/t

[petronius]

84. Why is it a trade-off?

Personally, I favor minimal restriction on both amendments. If either speech or gun rights are to be restrained, I want to see a darn good reason...

[Unstable Mabel]

105. Is there a five day waiting period on he publishing of an article?

Are you required to register with state and federal goverments before posting here?

The only assualt that I see in regards to the first is..........

[gizmo1979]

295. Good nickname

unstable and guns always a good mix.

[bigwillq]

7. No (nt)

[MrSlayer]

10. Twelve handguns a year seems fair to me.

Dealers are obviously exempt and so too should be licensed collectors.

[XemaSab]

137. "Licenced" collectors?

When the Bushreich takeover comes, the "licensed" collectors will be the first against the wall, to our detriment.

I'm not a gun-lover, but people should be able to protect themselves from burglars, rapists, and Nazis. In short, protect their homes, persons, and freedoms.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from a fascist takeover. "The security of a free state" doesn't just mean Russians or Muslim fundamentalists or whoever, it means our own potentially tyrannical government.

If the bad guys are the only people with the guns, what then?

[oregonindy]

11. so can people only buy one screwdriver a month?

more people are killed by screwdrivers/shanks than guns.

Fear makes people do silly things.

[MrSlayer]

13. A screwdriver has an actual practical use besides killing.

And they are used millions of times a day for this use without anyone being killed. How often, when a gun is used, does a fatality occur? This argument is ridiculous.

[-..__...]

16. A knife has a actual practical use also.

Yet knife laws... in particular carrying one as a concealed weapon, are even more restrictive than gun laws. Where's the logic in that?

Granted, only a fool would bring a knife to a gun fight, but guns, like screwdrivers and knives are tools that can be abused.

I own a number of handguns :scared:. Have owned anywhere from a dozen or more to my current inventory of 6. I've been a gun owner for at least 30 years now. Not all of have any practical use for killing (just some of them ;) ).

I've never shot anyone, nor have I ever had a desire to shoot anyone (FWIW, a self defense shooting is a gun owners worst nightmare).

I don't hunt, and I have no problem with people who do. I shoot at mindless, defenseless paper targets.

I guess in your view that's impractical?

[MrSlayer]

19. I'm not anti-gun, I own a few myself.

Nor am I against target shooting. I'm just saying the sole purpose of the handgun being invented was to kill people, I don't believe this can be disputed. The screwdriver was not. 99.9% of the time when you go for your screwdriver it's to drive a screw. Therefore it would be silly to restrict the sale of screwdrivers in the same manner of guns.

[oregonindy]

20. I think some research is needed on your end

not trying to be snide but when you look at murders and attacks and look at weapons of choice you find household objects make up the bulk of attack items and killed by items.

I teach knife defense. which is basically you will get cut and most likely bleed to death because all pointy objects go easily into skin and a very very small hole can kill you. If I have a knife and am within 21 feet of you and your firearm is holstered I win because I will be on you with my knife in your wind pipe or kidney before you can draw your single directional weapon to bear.

you fear firearms because thats what you've been taught but have you seriously looked into the issue and researched it?

objects dont kill people on their own it takes a human mind to put the object to bad use.

[Realityhack]

255. OTOH

reasonable gun laws DO reduce death rates from gun violance and CAN reduce gun deaths from accidents.
Yes more people are killed by household objects etc. But that doesn't mean we should take an anything goes approch to guns.

[benEzra]

177. Very, very rarely...

A screwdriver has an actual practical use besides killing."

And they are used millions of times a day for this use without anyone being killed. How often, when a gun is used, does a fatality occur? This argument is ridiculous.

Very, very rarely indeed...guns are used hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of times a day also. Lawfully and peacefully. Our family's guns could be said to be in near-constant use, if defensive standby duty is considered a "use" (I would consider it so).

But if you want to exclude all but instances in which a gun is actually fired, guns are fired billions of times a year in this country (yes, billions with a "b"), almost always lawfully and peacefully...

Our family's guns alone have been used tens of thousands of times at the shooting range...

[billbuckhead]

14. Any proof of your assertion about screwdrivers? Doesn't sound believable

According to the links below, there were 12658 murders per capita in the USA and 82,59 were with firearms.

<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir>
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur>

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

15. Poster probably does not.

But you have to admit, it sounds good on first blush. ;-)

Frankly, anyone that buys more than one handgun every 6 months to a year, I would give a wide berth to.

[oregonindy]

26. here are some statistics as of 1999

percents of weapons on aggravated assaults

35 percent were blunt objects and other dangerous weapons
29 percent were of hands, fists, feet
18 percent were of knives and cutting instruments
18 percent was firearms


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_99/99crime/99c2_06.pdf

[billbuckhead]

28. You said killed to begin with.

This what you said, "so can people only buy one screwdriver a month?

more people are killed by screwdrivers/shanks than guns.

Fear makes people do silly things."

BTW, I wonder how many assaults turned into fatalities because guns of America's easy access to guns?

[kwassa]

77. But what about the statistics on MURDER?

Out of 12,658 murders, 8,259 were by firearms, 1,667 were by knives, and 736 were by blunt instuments.

same source as you.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_99/99crime/99c2_03.pdf

table 2.11

[Realityhack]

256. Week at best

Aggravated assult?
That includes a single punch, throwing an object, etc.

Sorry but I have to go with the actual MURDER rates the other poster sited.
And that person's stats did not include accidental firearms deaths.

[Broken_Hero]

17. You should be able to...

Buy as many guns as you want. If you clear with the FBI and what nots. America is about choice, and freedom, limiting handgun sales to one a month, is a step closer to taking choice away. My dad is a gun nut, he has a bunch of them, its one of his things. Whats next, i can only buy one violent video game a month? Its control, but on the other hand, i do believe in restrictions on some firarms, mainly the fully automatics, who the hell needs an uzi, all of those fully automatic assault rifles are made for one thing, killing people...

[catmother]

18. guns

i agree. no one needs an uzi.

[Silverhair]

21. Full autos are already covered by old 1934 law.

That problem has been solved for 71 years. The Assault Weapons Ban did NOT cover full auto stuff, it only covered guns that cosmetically looked like military hardware, but internally worked like ordinary hunting rifles.

[MrBenchley]

51. It also covered guns that can be easily converted to full auto...

Funny you left THAT out.

"it only covered guns that cosmetically looked like military hardware, but internally worked like ordinary hunting rifles."
Then you really don't need one, do you?

[crankybubba]

56. an ar15 cannot be easily

converted to full auto. every single part inside the rifle is different that the m16. also it would require prescision drilling of the lower reciever to install a full auto sear. the lower recievers of most ar15's consructed today are made so that a full auto sear cannot be installed. It would also be illegal to posses the parts to make the rifefull auto without a federal permit. The batfe has taken the position that if you possess an ar15 and some machine gun parts(not necessarily installed in the rifle) you have an illegal unregistered machine gun. For which you will go to federal prison. The brady v.p.c. crew would like everyone to think that it is easy to convert these types of weapons to full auto but it is not.

[MrBenchley]

58. Wouldn't it be pretty to think so? (snicker)

[crankybubba]

66. here are the differences in the parts

also here is bushmaster(a leading ar manuf policly on m16 parts.


Bushmaster Statement Regarding Machinegun PARTS

BATF's position is that if your AR15 type rifle contains even one M16 component, it is a Machine Gun. If you own an AR15 from any manufacturer, check to make sure there are no M16 components in its assembly. If there are, remove them immediately; machine them to AR configuration or have them replaced and destroy the M16 components. Refer to the illustrations below to determine if you have M16 components in your assemblies. If you have any questions about your parts, give us a call and we'll be glad to supply you with the legally acceptable parts.

Sales of M16 components by Bushmaster Firearms, Inc./Quality Parts Co. will only be made to the following categories of customers:

Class 3 (NFA) Dealer
Individual who has a registered NFA weapon
Federal Firearms Licensee with a customer who has a registered NFA weapon
so what you posted actually means nothing. unless you have an ar and want to go to prison <sincker>


BTW you must hav ALL of the parts for it to be able to be full auto.
the pic does no show the full auto sear which is critical for it to be full auto

[Name removed]

69. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Retired AF Dem]

130. That book is outdated

civilian ar-15 receivers are not made the same way as when that book was written. (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

155. Sez you.

Good thing all of those older AR15s have evaporated....oh, wait!

[aikoaiko]

166. But those older ARs weren't affected by the 1994 AWB.

You're right, some of them are still around from before the AWB, but the AWB did ABSOULTELY NOTHING to make those go away. So what was that 1994 AWB good for? Oh yeah, getting a republican majority congress. Nice going.

Do the Democrat party a favor and never advocate for the useless AWB again. Please.

[MrBenchley]

187. Funny how for a bill that was "ineffective"

so many gun owners claim to be oppressed by it.

But then I've noticed that nobody who ever says the assualt weapons ban was "ineffective" ever wants a ban to be made effective...

Just like I've noticed that pretty much every argument that can be made against banning assault weapons is horseshit at the bottom.

Support for an assault weapon ban is in the 80% range...even a majority of gun owners agree they don't belong in gun stores.

[aikoaiko]

203. wow, even for you that was a silly reply.

You wrote:

so many gun owners claim to be oppressed by it.

This is true, it was oppressive in the way that it banned some guns aribitrarily and features that had little bearing on the guns effectiveness as weapon in most instances. It was akin to the fed saying that people can't put spoilers or alloy rims on their cars because of their effectiveness on race courses.

Was the AWB effective at decreasing gun violence? I don't think even someone like you could make that case

You wrote:

Nobody was says the assault weapons ban was inneffective ever wants a ban to made effective.

This is brilliant. You are correct as far as my position is concerned. I do not want gun bans to be effective. I think you now understand the my pro-gun position even more than I do not want useless laws on the books. Brilliant.

You wrote:

Just like I've noticed that pretty much every argument that can be made against banning assault weapons is horseshit at the bottom.

I've noticed that you think this, but I think there is still hope for you. Keep an open mind.

You wrote:

Support for an assault weapon ban is in the 80% range...even a majority of gun owners agree they don't belong in gun stores.

mmmmmm. that depends on the what the definition of is is. ;-)
Seriously, I've met very few people who understood what the ban actually banned, what it didn't ban, and who didn't want to ban more/all guns who was in support of the AWB. The Brady campaign and MSM did a massive misinformation campaign that would have made the NRA proud if it hadn't been against their position. I can't tell you how many times I heard the "spray bullets while firing from the hip" rhetoric and images of full auto while disucssing the AWB.

Actually, that was the point of my response which you completely igniored. Some earlier types of AR15 are easier to convert than the later types, but the AWB which you implied was useful in preventing the convervsion of the these early AR15 weapons had nothing to do with them being available in the open market especially since the manufacturers had already made changes to comply with other laws and on a voluntarily. Again, you are a good example of someone who supports the AWB but has a poor understanding of what it did.

[MrBenchley]

213. Really, what else was needed?

"Was the AWB effective at decreasing gun violence?"
Yes it was. In fact, crime with assault weapons dropped 66% during the ban, according to the ATF. (Worth noting that the GOP response was to prevent the ATF from continuing to track those numbers after 1998).

"I do not want gun bans to be effective."
So there's no more reason to accept your advice on the subject than there is to take an arsonist's word on fire prevention.

"I can't tell you how many times I heard the "spray bullets while firing from the hip" rhetoric and images of full auto while disucssing the AWB. "
Wow...wonder if you were pretending that assault weapons couldn't be converted to full auto while you were discussing it...

[crankybubba]

226. some interesting stats on assault weapons

The following summary of police statistical surveys is excerpted from Kopel, David B, Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition. (Kopel's paper contains the citations for these surveys and lists a few more studies as well.)

California. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases." Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons."

Chicago. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was perpetrated with a military caliber rifle. Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were "military style weapons."

Florida. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Reports for 1989 indicate that rifles of all types accounted for 2.6% of the weapons used in Florida homicides. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in 17 of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986-1989.

Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons."

Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.

Massachusetts. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved "semiautomatic assault rifles." From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings.

Miami. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were "assault weapons."

New Jersey. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey. No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988. Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey.

New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.

New York State. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.

San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition.

San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.

Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapons analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons."

National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.
Gary Kleck, in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997), summarizes the findings of forty-seven such studies, indicating that less than 2% of crime guns were assault weapons (the median was about 1.8%). According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, (Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993, May 1996) offenders were armed with a firearm in 10% of all violent crimes. That would mean less than .20% (one-fifth of one percent or 1 in 500) of violent crime offenders used an assault weapon (1.8% X 10% = .18%).

why did we need an aw ban then??? Could it be to hurt the democratic party??? makes me wonder who's side you are really on???

[MrBenchley]

238. That would be nutso David Kopel who writes for the National Review

Nice source.

"Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns."
Oh no! How awful for trigger happy loons here in the Garden State! What a shame that sane people here know what a pantload that is. Which doesn't stop gun loonies all over the country from pissing and moaning.

"why did we need an aw ban then??? Could it be to hurt the democratic party??? makes me wonder who's side you are really on???"
Funny, i wonder the same about anyone who pretends David Kopel is worth hearing. But then I know how popular the Assault Weapons Ban is, and what good it does.

[crankybubba]

243. popular enough that no one

wanted to bring it up again on the federal level. a new height in bullshit for you my friend.

[MrBenchley]

251. Wow...not even close to true....

Sometime you should take a peek at the Democratic platform...

[aikoaiko]

228. Nice misinformation.

On the rate of using the so called assault weapons in crime:
Yes, the rate of using the specfic weapons in the AWB went from almost nothing to less than almost nothing. Nice how you didn't use the actually percentages. Can any drop in actual overall gun violence rate be attributed to the AWB? Go fetch and good luck with finding that info.

One accepting advice:
There is no more reason to accept your advice on gun control than any other fascist who wishes to oppress the american people even if your intentions are good.

On the conversion issue:
When are you going to learn that the AWB did nothing to prevent the relative ease of converting semo-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons. AR15s and AK47-style semi-auto variants were still for sale as designed by the law makers. If that were the goal of the AWB than even you would have to admit it was a complete failure. You have the most amazing ability to talk about the things you don't understand as if you understand them even when its pointed out to you that you are incorrect.

I'll stop replying to you now as I see that you are incapable of learning something. Good luck with life.

[MrBenchley]

239. It's actual fact, bubba..tough titty if you don't like it.

"Nice how you didn't use the actually percentages. Can any drop in actual overall gun violence rate be attributed to the AWB?"
In a word, yes.

"There is no more reason to accept your advice on gun control than any other fascist who wishes to oppress the american people even if your intentions are good. "
And yet I'm not the one pimping Crisco John AshKKKroft's policies, bubba. That would be YOU.

"When are you going to learn that the AWB did nothing to prevent the relative ease of converting semo-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons."
Jeeze, bubba, didn't you spend umpty-ump posts above pretending it was nigh unto impossible top do so? In fact, it's hard to think of a better reason to ban assualt weapons than "the relative ease of converting semo-automatic weapons into fully-automatic weapons." Which is why you were screaming in rage when I pointed it out before.

[crankybubba]

246. other than the illegality

and the requirement of machine shop. and the diffulculty in getting the necessary parts.it should be easy right?? but the AWb did not address that at all did it. You are the one being a facist wanting to remove rights from law abiding people so you can "feel" safer in your own little world.You are presented with adequate evidence that the awb did not accomplish anything. you then keep posing more and more absurd arguments to support your cause. I'll tell you what if it's so easy go out and get an ar15 and convert it yourself. prove to me that it's that easy and accessable.

[MrBenchley]

249. So in other words...

you want to claim it's impossible but easy. Ho-kay.

"You are the one being a facist wanting to remove rights from law abiding people"
Not even close to true, Bubba. Just because a Nazi piece of shit like John ashKKKroft lies to you doesn't mean you have a right you don't have.

"You are presented with adequate evidence that the awb did not accomplish anything."
No, I'm presented with a farrago of right wing horseshit and silliness. And it shows.

[crankybubba]

309. Re read my posts

i never said it was impossible. I said it was not "easily done"
You do not just drop in a new part and magically have full auto is these guns.It would require ALL the parts. Presicision machining, and the skill to put it all together. Could you do it?

[aikoaiko]

261. call me a bubba if wish -- at least i'm not intellectually dishonest,

too bad the same can't be said for you judging from your posts.

[MrBenchley]

265. Two claims, both hooey....

Get back to me when you get near a fact...

[gizmo1979]

297. what happens if I change the

firing pin.Oh so that AR15 was from an alien planet.

[Silverhair]

83. The AWB had nothing to do with that.

That loophole was closed, and is still closed, under Ronald Reagan in 1986.

Who are you to tell be what my gun may or may not look like, if the internal workings comply with the law? What do you care about the looks of a gun.

Of course, your true aim is to remove ALL guns from ALL civilian ownership, as you have made clear in many posts. Obviously, I will work to defeat such laws.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

156. Again, that's not even close to true...

"Who are you to tell be what my gun may or may not look like, if the internal workings comply with the law?"
I'm a responsible citizen, who belives what roughly 80% of the country believes.

"Of course, your true aim is to remove ALL guns from ALL civilian ownership, as you have made clear in many posts. Obviously, I will work to defeat such laws."
Hey, if you want to pimp for Republican policies, be my guest.

[slackmaster]

169. Bullshit

Ease of conversion to fully automatic had nothing to do with whether or not a firearm was classified as an "assault weapon". Guns made after the ban, in compliance with the law, were no more difficult to convert than were their pre-ban equivalents.

[MrBenchley]

214. Still pretending that silliness, slack?

"Guns made after the ban, in compliance with the law, were no more difficult to convert than were their pre-ban equivalents."
So are you telling us that your fellow trigger happy chum is lying when he claims that they ARE?

[slackmaster]

230. It's quite true, MrBenchley

The AWB did not result in weapons that were any more difficult to convert to fully automatic. Expiration of the ban has not resulted in weapons that are easier to convert.

Truth hurts, doesn't it? I do amateur gunsmithing, MrBenchley, and I am very familiar with the internal works of the AR-15 rifle, AKs, and so on. I'll certainly take my word for it before I'll take your unsubstantiated, mean-spirited drivel as fact.

So are you telling us that your fellow trigger happy chum is lying when he claims that they ARE?

I have no fucking idea what you are referring to.

[MrBenchley]

232. Not even close to trtue, slack...

"The AWB did not result in weapons that were any more difficult to convert to fully automatic."
And since that wasn't what I said, it's disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise. Big Fucking Surprise that you'd pull a crapass trick like that.

"I have no fucking idea what you are referring to."
Then read the fucking thread, slack.

[slackmaster]

272. Yes it is exactly what you claimed

To quote MrBenchley...

It also covered guns that can be easily converted to full auto...

Which is pure baloney, since ease of conversion had NOTHING TO DO with whether or not a firearm qualified as an "AW".

This thread is a waste of time.

[GoneOffShore]

22. You're equating guns with video games?

That's your basic 'apples and orangutangs' comparison.
And PLEASE, don't go on about the 'thin edge of the wedge' - it's not about 'choice, and freedom, limiting handgun sales to one a month, is a step closer to taking choice away.' What rubbish! It's about trying to eliminate the violent paradigm in out society.

[Broken_Hero]

29. What?

IT is about choice, it is about freedom, if you dont' see that, maybe you should ponder on it a bit more. If they limit guns, whats next? Limiting how much sugar we can buy, limiting the movies we can watch? Or getting rid of cars, because car accidents kill so many people? Its not the guns that kill people, its the people who pull the trigger, the gun is metal, and moving parts. If you want to wipe out the violent paradigm in our society deal, taking guns isn't going to solve much of anything. Ever watch Bowling for Columbine? Our country is so steeped in being brutal, warlike its ridiculous. If you want to cure that violent paradigm its done at home, with a decent set of parents, with education, and many other essential things (even though these are in place wont weed out all idiots).

Limiting guns, essentially is only going to hurt/slow down the honest gun buyer who wants to buy a handgun/gun/rifle/shotgun, or whatever they want. My dad collects guns, like how, my wife collects turtles, or how i collect hats. So if someone shoves a turtle statue down a persons throat to kill them, should those turtle statues be outlawed, or you can only buy one a month? Restrictions usually only effect, the honest joe....

[billbuckhead]

30. Guns multiply violence & were meant to be well regulated

Let's give everybody:nuke:

[Broken_Hero]

31. I can understand

where you are coming from, and yes i do believe that violent people use guns as a means to and end, and i do believe in regulations, but i don't believe in regulating people to one hand gun a month. I own a good handful of guns, i'm responsible with them, i know how to shoot, i train with them weekly, and so far, i haven't killed anyone...(yet..:)...)

I do believe in regulation, you cannot believe what i had to go through to buy my first gun (shot gun at walmart) they treated me like a criminal just about, three people were involved with the process, and it took me about an hour to clear through all the paper work, and i cleared. I went to a huge gun nut friend of mine (viet vet) and i had him show me the ropes...cause in this case, my dad didn't let us shoot worth a damn when i was growing up, funny, i was raised around guns, but never allowed to use any of them, unless i was strictly supervised. I believe in regulation, i truly though, but limiting hand guns purchased a month? So, whats that going to solve? a murderer can only buy one, once a month? or is that burglar going to break into a home (maybe someones' like mine) take my guns, and use it to blow someone away? I think this type of regulation will essentially only effect the honest joe.

I do agree with your post though, regulated for sure...but when is enough, enough?

[billbuckhead]

33. We need the strong gun regs and enforcement Europe has

Compare and dispair for the warlike casualty count America's failed gun policy has wrought.
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap>

[Jack_DeLeon]

37. Where does it say guns were "meant to be well regulated"

I'm guessing you are just jumbling the words of the US constition to suite your own ends.

The 2nd amendment mentions nothing about the regulation of firearms.

The "well regulated" refers to the militia.

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

It doesnt say anything about "well regulated" firearms.

Perhaps you should brush up on your language skills, reading is fundamental.

[MrBenchley]

90. Hee hee hee hee hee....

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
"
In other words, firearms can be well regulated as Americans wish.

[Jack_DeLeon]

101. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Nope, laws that regulate the keeping and bearing of arms are unconstitutional, regardless when politicians and some courts claim otherwise.

[MrBenchley]

102. But only in Crisco John AshKKKroft's wet dream...(snicker)

Here in the real world, gun control is perfectly constitutional and the Second Amendment refers only to well regulated state militias, of the sort that have evolved into the National Guard. And that's the truth...

[Silverhair]

110. Then take a look at this law about the second amendment.

On Oct, 20, 2005 this passed both houses of Congress. It appears that congress has defined what the second amendment means.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.


That is copied from Thomas.gov The bill is S 397

[Name removed]

113. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

157. In other words, the GOP is lying about the Second Amendment

AGAIN.

What a shame for trigger happy gumps everywhere that this law doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the Second Amendment itself.

[Silverhair]

173. About 1/3 of the Democrats voted for it too.

And it IS an act of Congress, passed by BOTH houses, and will be signed by POTUS. That makes it law.

[MrBenchley]

190. And two thirds, sensibly, did not....

"That makes it law."
Along with the tax break for the rich, the cut downt eh forests act, and all the crap.

It's always instructive to see what the trigger-happy cheer for. Juyst like it's instructive to see that they think that the GOP lying about what the Second Amendment says changes the meaning of the Amendment.

[Retired AF Dem]

126. Is it tough

switching from Bill to Bench? Damn I could never keep it straight.

[Savannah Progressive]

136. In an effort to eliminate a violent Paradigm

I have a question. If twice as many people were murdered with blunt objects, or other dangerous weapons, as were murdered with Guns, do we ban the blunt objects?

Roughly as many (percentage) were murdered with knives, as with guns, so we ban knives.

We keep banning the tools, but we don't address the situations that arise and lead to the violence. We like inept Doctors, treat the symptom, a headache, and ignore the nail sticking out of the guys head.

Anger Management, learning to disagree without violence, learning to communicate effectively, and learning to manage the situation is the key. Violence happens when people won't back down and instead the situation escallates to violence. How many murders happen over a football game, when opposing viewpoints turn insulting, and from insulting to violence?

That is the all to often blunt object and other dangerous weapons situation. A couple people get to argueing, and they jump to a fight, and someone grabs a pool cue, tire tool, base ball bat, something, and bash the brains out of the other party. We have guns in our home, so do our neighbors, and when my neighbor got angry, OK, enraged at someone on the next block, he picked up a hammer and headed over there. Not one of his guns, I had been shooting with him before, and know he owns guns, to settle the matter. Two of us talked to him, calming him down, and now it's a punch line.

Point is, he wanted to bash the individual, not shoot him. He was so angry he wasn't thinking straight at all. He isn't a bad person, just someone who was tired of the argument, I don't remember the arguement as a matter of fact. I guess he wanted to beat some sense into the other individual, it's hard to say. He actually passed a shotgun to get the hammer is another interesting point.

How many Father/Son arguments turn violent? Most murders are crimes in the heat of passion, when emotion over-rides the logical processes in our minds.

[aikoaiko]

167. Hey Savannah Progressive -- I'm one too.

Keep up the good posts. I think like you. Savannah has seen way too much violent crime (much of it with firearms), but I think we need to concentrate on root causes and not the tools.

[crankybubba]

48. I agree with you

the fully autos have HEAVILY regulated since 1934. Pass a govt background check and 200.00 tax stamp before you can consider buying one. also no fully auto guns made since 1986 are allowed into private hands. this makes the cost of a legal machine gun very prohibitive. ex. a real m16 will cost 15,000.00 easily for one that can be owned by civilians.

[Greyhound]

49. Have you ever shot a full-auto UZI? It's really fun. n/t

[gizmo1979]

299. Not an accurate weapon.

Anything with a 2 inch barrel while amusing is usless.

[Realityhack]

257. Actualy

a lot of those people buying lots of hanguns... are turning around and selling them illigaly.
Thre are a lot of gun laws of various types that actualy do reduce both gun murder rates and accidental gun deaths.

There is a huge step between limiting gun sales and limiting video game sales. That argument is like saying if we let gays marry we will have to let people marry sheep. Its completely dishonest.

[rucky]

23. You can pry my gun of the month club membership card...

from my cold dead wallet.

[Silverhair]

24. Yes.

1. It is a freedom issue.

2. A person may have a sudden need for more than one gun in a particular month.

In a typical year, I won't buy any guns at all. But a few months ago, a sudden event cause me to buy four handguns. I haven't bought any more since then. I don't expect to either.

[immoderate]

25. I own 1 gun.

I've had it for 20 years.

Like a poster above, I use it for mostly paper targets, but if I can get out to the desert, clay pigeons and the most desirable rotten fruit.

I occasionally go to gun shows. If I see some particularly attractive bargains there, I would like to be able to take advantage of them.

Granted, a gun is not a good defense weapon unless you have a lot of room and fair warning. I recommend a stick for defense.

However as an American, I don't like to be told what I can and can't do.:patriot:

--IMM

[Silverhair]

34. A gun is an excellent defensive weapon.

Maybe a shotgun takes a lot of room, but a handgun doesn't.

[immoderate]

38. Only when it's in your hand.

--IMM

[Silverhair]

39. A stick that isn't in your hand is equally useless.

Once in hand, a gun beats the hell out of a stick.

[immoderate]

40. Ah but a stick can be a cane or umbrella,

And you don't look as conspicuous walking around with it as you would with a gun.

There are other hazards presented by using a gun, not to mention liabilities.

--IMM

[Silverhair]

82. I don't look conspicuous with a concealed handgun on me.

And, depending on the level of preparedness, I can draw and accurately fire in between 2.5 seconds (Unalert - Unprepared) to .65 seconds (Alert & ready, hand on gun but still concealed).

Those ready times rival those of your cane. And once the gun is out, it will beat the hell out of a stick.

And it takes less physical fitness and training to handle a gun than to be effective with a stick. And a criminal is going to fear my gun more than he will your stick, so that, once he sees that I am going to resist with a gun he is far more likely to turn and run than he is from your stick, so nobody gets hurt.

[immoderate]

86. It's a tough call.

I would say that both require considerable training to be really effective. I submit that many people are hardly ready to shoot to kill even with some training.

Effectiveness of self defense methods will vary with circumstances. A person not as proficient as yourself may be in much greater danger than if they were unarmed, as introducing the gun to the situation escalates the potential for violence.

We would probably agree that places that have liberal carry policies are safer because the perp doesn't know who might be packing. We might be disagreeing on what is defensive. To me, guns are offense; body armor is defense. Just a point. I know what defense means in the practical sense.

I use a test that if I feel the need to have a gun to go someplace, maybe I shouldn't be going to that place.

--IMM

[Silverhair]

92. Avoidance IS the best defense.

Indeed, we try to stay out of areas where that level of defense may be needed. But sometimes you can't. It is nice to have it there, just in case.

I didn't mean to minimize the level of training needed with a gun. But to be effective with a stick is going to require much more martial arts training, and physical fitness. Then the size of opponent, and their mental state (high on certain drugs, wacked out psycho), and age also comes into play too. If all of those are stacked in favor of one person (Male, young, tall, muscular druggie needing money for a fix vs Female, senior, short, some arthritis, clear headed but scared.)then the intended victim needs more help than a stick.

There is a reason for the old adage: "God created all men to be equal, but Sam Colt made them equal."

[XemaSab]

141. I'm a biologist

and sometimes I work out in the scary woods and sometimes I work in the scary part of town.

We can't all pick and choose where we want to go...

[immoderate]

147. As I said, I own a gun too.

The point I'm making is that there are some who might say, "I have a gun so I'm safe," I've met such people. Usually they have not had arms training. I'm not saying you or Silver are like that, but you know it's not that simple.

Sometimes you can flash your gun and end the incident. (Even though that's illegal where I am.) But it's not always like that. A determined, drug crazed, adversary, or innocent bystanders complicates things. I havve friends who insist that my 9mm lacks stopping power, and wouldn't arm themselves with less than a .45 or a .357 magnum.

Some people, when faced with an actual confrontation, would not be able to kill their attacker(s). They might have a better chance being unarmed and handing over their valuables. There are legal and perhaps civil issues. There is much to consider.

--IMM

[Silverhair]

174. Yes, very much to consider indeed.

That is one of the reasons that all of us who are both pro RKBA and regulars in the gungeon say that proper training with a firearms is an absolute must.

A 9mm does have less stopping power than a larger gun. But that has to be balanced by ease of use. I first learned to shoot a handgun in the service with a .45 so it feels natural to me. But for someone else, a 9mm is better.

It is illegal to wave one's gun around to end an incident. That is called brandishing. But in a self defense use, there is often a second or two between the drawing of the gun and the firing of the shot, in which the attacker can stop. It is a fine line. You have to, and should, wait until the gun is absolutely needed and you are drawing with full intent to fire as soon as you are on target, yet a part of your mind is still evaluating the situation, and hoping for, a last second change that will remove the need to fire. To cover yourself legally, you need to report the incident to the police.

My point is that it is far easier to reach basic effective proficiency with a gun than any other weapon.

[gizmo1979]

301. Why are you so scared?

Were you whipped alot as a child?Why do you feel you need a weapon to protect yourself.

[gizmo1979]

300. So is my fist.

elbow knee foot head.

[leesa]

27. Long as there's a background check and they are cleared for mental

health history, violent crime history, and they pass a gun safety test, no prob.

No one wants to take away your guns but the fascists of the far right...which they would LOVE to do right now.

[Rosco T.]

32. I have a friend that's a collector...

.. and collecters are a different... er... caliber (ouch) of gun owner. For a long time he routinely bought 2-4 handguns a month.. and traded off the like number to get pieces for his collection. And his collection was on display in his home, behind locked, shatter-proof glass. I doubt many of the pieces had been fired more than a dozen times.

[Jack_DeLeon]

35. Americans should only be able to buy one cheeseburger a week...

its for the children... :eyes:

[gizmo1979]

302. Man that's cold

what did my cheeseburger ever do to you.

[cynatnite]

36. One handgun a month is too much...

That's just me, though.

Kilgore is a bastard. I watched one of his ignorant ads and I was fuming. He had a guy saying that Kaine said Hitler didn't deserve the death penalty. It was something close to it.

It was a disgusting ad and shows the lengths Kilgore will go in order to win. I don't even live in VA and I hope this guy goes down hard on election day.

[Taxloss]

41. Other: A simple law, one should be allowed to buy zero guns a month.

The number of guns one should be allowed to own should be set at the same easy-to-remember number - zero.

It seems to work OK for us.

[Jack_DeLeon]

42. I'm sorry to hear that your government doesnt trust its citizens...

Personally I dont trust blindly trust government.

I'm not rich, while I live in a decent neighborhood I'm not so arrogant to reazize that others might not be able to afford to.

The government isnt looking out for me and my loved ones, the police are not bodyguards. Its up to me and my loved ones to protect oursevles from whatever.

If you put all your trust in government you'll end up like the people who were stuck in New Orleans looking for a way out.

[Telly Savalas]

43. You don't seem to trust your fellow citizens either

if you feel you need a gun to protect yourself from them.

[MrBenchley]

52. It's always cracked me up

to hear people who claim they have to run around heeled and needd an arsenal snivel that nobody trusts THEM.

Frankly, I've never come away from a conversation with a gun aficionado thinking "There's somebody I'd trust with a weapon."

[Celeborn Skywalker]

53. Here's the thing

I dont' by any means own an arsenal. As I said in an earlier post, I own one shoutgun that's used every few years. But I still support people's right to buy as many firearms as they wish.

[MrBenchley]

62. Here's the thing....

Peddle it to somebody who gives a shit. There's no good reason anyone should buy more than one gun a month...

Any more than there's a good reason to hand out pistol permits like candy, or let assault weapons be manufactured and sold, or let the gun show loophole remain open, or protect the gun industry from being sued, or let gun dealers operate without the need for a written inventory and frequent inspections by the BATF, or any of the other scummy crap the gun lobby and the GOP has foisted on us.

[aikoaiko]

168. No good reason to buy more than 1 ... what about Christmas gifts?

geeeeesh. What a scrooge you are.

eta: In case you were wondering, yes, I do buy my friends guns. This year, I was thinking about the Keltec P11. At 14 oz unloaded and 10+1 of 9mm, it makes for a very nice pocket/purse gun for under $300.

[tigersumtin]

171. thanks for the info

I was looking for something different for my mother, and girlfriend, where exactly can I buy a Kelter P11 9MM for under $300.

[aikoaiko]

172. Local gunstore, gunshow, or gunbroker.com

Depending on where you live, you can find your local gun dealer in the yellow pages and make a few calls to see if anyone has them in stock or could order one. You shouldn't pay more than $300 for a Keltec P11, but you probably won't see one in a gunstore for less than $245.

Gunshows often have them as they are big sellers.

I like using gunbroker.com for a selection on prices. Buying a handgun new there is really pretty easy and you can find decent prices (but rarely any true bargains). Gunbroker is an auction like ebay. The thing about buying a gun via gunbroker and across state lines is that you have to line up a person with an FFL (i.e., a gun dealer, most pawn shops are) to send it to and then pay a transfer fee (generally 25-35 dollars, $50 tops) for the service. You should line up the dealer with an FFL and the transfer price before bidding on the firearm. The online dealer will probably want a copy of the dealers FFL signed in colored ink first before mailing the firearm (shipping is more added cost). Often, the big online dealers have your local FFLs on file.

For example, a quick perusal of gunbroker.com, I found a Keltec p11 New in the box for 230 with a $15 shipping fee. If a local FFL transfers it to you for $25 (there should be no tax), then you have it for $270 total.

Sometimes you can get the FFL to beat the total price of the online transaction if they order it. I always give my local funstore the chance to match the online transaction price. I live in a state with 6% sales tax so the transfer fee and tax mostly balance out.

IM me if you need any more direction.

ps. Keltecs are mostly reliable guns, but they often need some breakin in before they are 100% reliable or need a little fluff and buff. I wouldn't trust it for self-defense until you can put 250 rounds through it without a failure to feed or extract. Again, IM me if you have questions.

[gizmo1979]

304. I'll take the 300 bucks

If you can afford to buy all your friends 300 dollar guns,you're no democrat.

[Jack_DeLeon]

54. Trust is earned...

I trust my self, my family, and my friends. I have varying levels of trust for others.

However just because I may not have full trust in people that I dont know that doesnt mean that I would want thier rights to be taken away by the government.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Silverhair]

94. There are a few that are NOT trustworthy.

I suppose in your ideal world, street crime and burglaries do not exist.

[MrBenchley]

103. In my actual real world, the corrupt gun industry

and dishonest gun wackos DO exist.

[crankybubba]

106. news flash!!!!!!!!!

ashcroft is'nt attorny general anymore(thank god)

[MrBenchley]

108. News flash!! He's still a delusional piece of shit

and his lies about the Second Amendment are still lies.

[crankybubba]

117. he is irrelavant now

so why even talk about him??

[MrBenchley]

118. He's a delusional racist piece of shit who peddles "gun rights"

and like everything else he peddles, it's horseshit.

[crankybubba]

120. but he is still irrelavant

what's your point. why don't you talk about nixon next he is just as irrelavant in this day and age.

[MrBenchley]

123. Says you....

He's exactly the sort of racist shithead peddling this bogus gun rights crap.

[crankybubba]

124. you may be obsessed with ashcroft

but I have moved on and am glad he is gone...

[MrBenchley]

152. As long as you peddle his lies

he's standing right there beside you....

[MrBenchley]

151. No, he's just the sort of delusional racist who stands for gun rights...

And there's notrhing more to the movement than scumbags like him.

[benEzra]

178. 2004 Democratic party platform--"We will protect..."

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms..."

Sounds like the platform recognizes that "Americans" have a right under the Second Amendment to "own firearms"...

Had party advisors not fallen for the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch...if only...

[MrBenchley]

191. And that wasn't enough for trigger happy loonies?

Fuck 'em then. There's no reason to compromise with nutcases who need more than that.

By the way, here's the full quote from the platform:

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do. "

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:yuZQIPNpi3sJ:www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf+Democratic+platform+2004&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I support Americans right to own firearms as part of a well-regulated state militia, just as the Second Amendment says.

And by the way, if gun control is such a loser of an issue, why do you suppose "as President Bush proposed and failed to do"? Why wouldn't pResident Turd be running around saying "assautl weapons for every nutcase who can hold one?" or "let the gun shows run without background checks?" After all, the gun loonies supported that corrupt drunk enthusiastically, and their only complaint about him was that he wasn't enough like Hitler to suit their tastes.

By the way, if trigger happy "democrats" want to blame somebody for the 2004 defeat I suggest they look into their own curdled hearts. The gun owner forums on-line were thick with dittomonkey nonsense, with not a dissenting word from any "gun owning democrat" that anyone could see.

Did NRA member democrats complain when Deadheart Dick Cheney was convention keynote speaker? Nary a peep. Did they complain that the NRA spent every day during the election flogging the swift boat lies? Nope. Not a word.

[Greyhound]

57. SCOTUS ruled many years ago that the police have no

responsibility to protect you. I think that this admin certainly demonstarates the reason for a lack of trust. I also find it ironic that so many on this board think that somhow prohibition will work with guns when it has failed in every previous instance. Insane. :crazy:

[mr blur]

65. You could always move,

to a more civilised country where people aren't constantly paranoid and all filled with the mad idea that they all need guns to protect their families from each other. I've never held a gun and never want to. I don't know anyone who does. The idea is absurd. I thought America was supposed to be the "beacon of freedom and hope" for the world. Yeah, right. Total paranoia. I find it really scary (and fucked up) that people feel the need to own a tool of destruction so they can sleep easily at night.

[Jack_DeLeon]

70. Thats kind of arrogant...

to assume that I have the money or the desire to leave my current home.

[gizmo1979]

306. Again why so scared?

Who scares you so much that you feel you need a gun to protect your family?It must be really horrible to be so frightened everyday that you feel the need to have a gun all the time.Were you the class nerd that got beaten up all the time?

[crankybubba]

337. thats kind of an inflamatory

question is'nt it. i can speak for myself I carry a gun daily as a police officer. I own other guns for different purposes. ex trap shootings,target shooting,varmint shooting, hunting etc.I could'nt do my job if I was "scared" all the time. you kno what they sat about assuming things(;))

[gizmo1979]

375. I didn't answer your particular

post,put if you feel the need to carry a gun for protection,does that not say you are fearful of something?There are 1000's of people who use this argument, all are not police officers.In my hometown,50000 people very low crime rate people use this argument for passage of concealed weapon law.They must be terribly frightened little people if you feel the need to carry a concealed weapon in a place like this.wouldn't you agree?

[crankybubba]

376. i can agree

I can carry anytime any state due to h.r. 218. when I 'm not working I don't usually carry unless there is some reason to.that said, I support a persons right to own firearms. Including so called assault weapons. if they have a permit to carry It's not my decison on when or where they carry. limiting a peoson to an arbatrary number of guns per month or year is not going to effect the crime rate.

[Taxloss]

85. The UK and the US have very different histories.

You won and maintained your independence in a popular guerrilla insurgency, based on civilians fighting tyranny. You were also a frontier culture, and appreciate the danger that both wild beast and lawless man can present from within living memory. The right of gun ownership is enshrined in your constitution.

However, the English national psyche is marked by our Civil War to an extent that few foreigners, Americans included, understand. It still has a psychological hold,despite happening 350 years ago. This country went through decades of agony and lost a huge chunk of its population. The strife was both political and religious and civilians were routinely massacred nationwide. It culminated in our shambolic "republic" - basically, a military dictatorship - and its hopeless collapse. Once the war was done, the English people made a pact with themselves, which holds to this day:

1. The military will have no part in public or political life.
2. The Church of England will not bend to the monarch in matters of doctrine, but also will not be an evangelical church.
3. The population must be disarmed.

Yes, this arrangement involves a great deal of trust of the state. But it removes the fear of neighbour turning on neighbour, it removes the fear of civilian militias, it removes the fear of religiously inspired pogroms and bloodshed. And it is a reciprocal arrangement. In return, the people get a military that is basically not under political command, unlike a system with an executive commander in chief. And we get one huge advantage in self-protection - if you call the police and use the word "gun", an armed-response team will be breaking down your front door in minutes. They don't muck about. We even have jokes about it.

[Silverhair]

95. Interesting post. That would explain a lot of the difference.

I was recently reading a book about crime in your 19th century and was surprised that even though guns were legal in England, the armed criminal was rare and a gun crime was shocking. In our same time period we had the James gang, the Daltons, the Hole-in-the-Wall gang, and numerous famous desperados.

[XemaSab]

142. Forgive my ignorance...

Does your civil war go by another name?

And who controls the military?

Thanks.

[Taxloss]

150. It's just called "The English Civil War".

The military swears allegiance to the Crown, not to the government. Technically, the Queen is the supreme commander, and could over-rule parliament's orders to the army if she wished. Of course she never would because to do so would kick off the most extraordinary constitutional crisis and, very possibly, another civil war. So really political independence is a bit of a con, but it does mean we get far less of the posturing with the armed forces that Bush enjoys so much, because the military are not beholden to the CinC and would be within their rights to say: "Tony Blair wants to jet onto the deck of the Ark Royal in a flight suit for a flight suit? Tell him to get stuffed."

Obviously they'd do it a bit more tactfully than that.

You have to remember that we don't have a clear constitution like yours; our constitution is called "unwritten", but simply means "not codified in a single document". It's a slapdash, jerry-built morrass of agreements, pacts, precedents, understandings, procedures, workarounds, loopholes and legal ad-libbing built up over a thousand years. It's a mess. Works OK, though, after a fashion.

[crankybubba]

44. thats the great thing

about this country you have the freedom to own as many or as few as you like. I myself own quite a few guns. I don't believe the govt(particularly this admin) should be in the business of determining the number of anything that I can or cannot own. Firearms are already heavily regulated. background checks,federal permits before purchase of n.f.a. items (machine guns)dealers are licensed by fed govt etc. not to mention the countless laws that focus on the illegal use of firearms on both the fed and state level. some people will illegaly use guns to commit crimes they should be severly punished for it. but to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens is a knee jerk response that will never eliminate the criminal elements use of firearms.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

47. Oh well

This isn't the UK and the UK doesn't get to set policy for the US. I'm not a gun fanatic by any means. I think there should be some reasonable gun control laws put in place. I have a shotgun that's used about once every few years for bird hunting and that's it. But I still don't think the government should be in the business of telling people what guns they can or can't buy.

[Greyhound]

60. Added that during my lifetime the english police have taken to being

armed. They can't keep guns out of a tiny island country that has the most restrictive gun laws on earth, but prohibition is going to work here. :crazy:

[Taxloss]

81. Our police are not routinely armed.

And although it's impossible to eliminate all guns, gun control operations such as Operation Trident are very effective. And you're right, an attempt at prohibition would mean civil war in the United States.

[Balbus]

121. Another reason to scratch the UK off my "places to move to list." - eom

[Taxloss]

132. I'll try to contain my disappointment. n/t

[Romulus]

170. too bad about Switzerland

Beating the UK with a lower murder rate,

while keeping its gun laws nearly identical to the US . . .:eyes:

[Celeborn Skywalker]

50. Yes. (nt)

[Fox Mulder]

59. What do you need more than one handgun/month for????

If you ask me, 12 handguns/year is too much.

[Silverhair]

78. Who are you to dictate to me how many of something I may buy?

I can see, and agree, that all transfers of gun should be with the assist of a dealer (nominal fee) for a background check and records keeping. But I want to spend my own money and can afford it, then it is my freedom.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Ksec]

61. Id be OK with one gun a year

How many guns do you need to protect yourself or hunt a rabbit?

[Silverhair]

79. Not all guns are suitable for the same tasks.

A .22LR can be excellent for hunting rabbits, but is about the least effective thing you can get for self-defense.

One may want to buy a .45 for self defense, and the same gun in .22 caliber to be able to target pratice with a gun that has the same feel. (In case you don't know, .22 ammo is extremely cheap compared to .45. The feel of a gun is an important part of Point-shoot marksmanship. Point-shoot is a very important skill in self-defense)

Normally, in a year I don't buy any guns at all. But a few months ago a situation arose that caused me to buy four handguns in one month. Each one has a different specific purpose.

Now, I expect not to buy any guns again for a very long time.

So I would fight against your limit.

[Xithras]

287. True, but the OP was talking about handguns.

At the moment, my gun safe has seven weapons in it, only one is a handgun. The rest are various flavors of rifles and shotguns meant for different tasks.

Nobody in their right mind needs to buy 12 handguns a year, because there are only a few valid reasons to have a handgun. The vast majority of valid reasons for firearms ownership apply to rifles and shotguns, not to pistols.

[sweetheart]

64. Whatever, its called "free will"

For another upstanding respectable citizen to exercise their rights,
is not consideration of mine own.

You have the right to buy and smoke as much cannabis as you want in
one month, by that same argument, as much sex, as much alcohol, as much
television, or any other form of consumption.

And you can buy as many fucking condoms as you want, as many bottles of
whiskey, stickey stinky skunk buds, slurpees and macdonalds burgers.

The focus of the law is masplaced on this silly appraoch, and rather
the focus needs putting on institutional crimes, like serial warmaking
and mass murder by republican theives. Leave the citizen alone.

[NoBushSpokenHere]

67. Only if the gun buyer is a Democrat.......LOL n/t

[rfkrfk]

68. unlimited handguns, but only one StreetSweeper per month n/t

[ComerPerro]

75. This is why Fascism is on the march

Because idiot FReepers are more concerned about stupid nonsense like this and registration of weapons than they are with their most basic rights and freedoms.

So, as long as BushCo lets them keep their guns and, more importantly, makes them feel that Democrats will take their guns away (not likely) then that's all they need to get elected.

BTW: These idiots actually think that their "malitia", made up of their drunk, fat-assed, too-chickenshit-to-join-the-military buddies, will be able to take on the government?

Come on...

That's what always cracked me up during the nineties, when they were all convinced that they could take on the US armed forces just because they had a ranch, a bunker, and fifteen friends (yes, gasp, these "patriots" hated the US as recently as six years ago).

No. If the military, any military, comes after you, you're dead if they want you dead. Especially the US army.

What were those idiots expecting to do when a division showed up to fight them?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

97. The Iraqi insurgents

seem to be putting up a pretty damn good fight against the US military. You may not win all out against the US government, but you could drive them out of power with small arms.

[Freedomfried]

80. Self delete

[formercia]

87. I voted yes, but

In case of extreme emergency and I wanted to arm as many of my family and friends as possible, otherwise I think handguns are dangerous, I was injured many years ago by a nazi Walther P-38 that had been booby trapped by the slave laborer that made it. It went off fully automatic. Another time, a new .45 Colt auto hung up just past half cock and as I swung it to put it in my belt, it went into battery and discharged, It was night and I didn't see the malfunction. That was a near miss. Automatics are dangerous. If you have to get a handgun, get a revolver and you won't leave any brass to find. If you really want something effective, get a double barreled 12 ga. and load it with the hottest and biggest steel magnum shot that it will take. inside of 25 yards, it's hamburger. You won't need more than 2 quick shots.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. Only if they register them and store them in an armory.

I have a friend, who usually votes Repug, loves to hunt, but would have no problem with registering all of his guns and keeping them in an armory until needed. But, then, he's not a paranoid nutcase who "needs" a gun to protect him and his family from the bogeyman.

[Silverhair]

96. I suppose in your ideal world, street crime and burglars

are only figments of the imagination. In my world, they are a reality.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. Perhaps you should consider moving.

Most of the civilized world seems to get along pretty well without toting shooting irons.

I'm 61 years old. Grew up in Watts. Been poor and homeless. Lived in some pretty rough areas inhabited by some pretty rough people. Did a job that required me to deal with junkies, drunks, criminals. Somehow I managed to survive without having to resort to a gun.

You? Lotta people out to get you?

[Silverhair]

100. Been a crime victim before. Don't wanna be again. NT

[Kathryn STone]

98. gimmie a break what do you want to be like Chow Young Fat?...

those John Woo movies that started the deal holding 2 guns and shooting both like Tarrantino and well now it's just passe.

[BlackVelvet04]

107. Why shouldn't they?

Unless one has a police record why not? Because liberals are afraid of guns? It's called freedom folks. The guns in my house are no threat to you whatsoever unless you break into my house.

This is an issue that liberals need to come to terms with if they ever want to move forward. In case you haven't figured it out yet, americans aren't giving up their guns.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

159. Liberals are not Americans?

Hmmmmm.....

[LWolf]

111. How many handguns does one citizen need,

and how many can he/she use at one time?

Some for skeet shooting competitions, some to threaten and/or shoot trespassers with; what else are they for?

Or is the point of buying as many as you want to arm others?

[Silverhair]

112. How many of anything do you need?

How many pair of shoes do you need? After all, you only have one pair of feet.

Why should the gov't dictate to me how many of anything I can own, if basic ownership is legal?

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

145. That's a good question.

I need a pair of breathable canvas sneakers, a pair of hiking boots, a pair of barn boots, a pair of reef shoes, and a pair of shoes that will pass as "professional" at work. And I like to have a pair of slippers. Of course, covering my feet is not really a choice; it is mandatory at work, and necessary for health and safety in the winter and on the ranch.

I need as many as it takes to get the job done.

The government shouldn't dictate to you how many of anything you own, as long as you don't use them to cause harm. That's the sticking point, isn't it? Once you figure out that someone can't be trusted with a weapon without causing harm, the damage is already done. I think that's why we are constantly balancing individual freedoms against responsibilities, and the debate goes on. As it should.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[crankybubba]

116. this illustrates the point that

many people who are not knowledgable about firearms buy what the ypc is selling. Skeet is a game played with a shotgun not a handgun. It is shooting a moving clay pidgeon from various stations on a special skeet field. what else are the for?? some are rare and are collectors items. some people just like owning different calibers of guns because the enjoy the variety of shooting different ones. who is anyone else to say how many of anything that someone can own if it is legal to own.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

143. I know what skeet shooting is.

I used to watch my first husband compete. I just figured I'd try to find another actual use, other than threatening or shooting someone.

I guess "collecting" is another use, although I can't relate. I don't relate to book collectors who don't read their collection, either. I don't try to stop their collecting. Of course their books aren't weapons designed to kill people.

I also don't relate to the "enjoyment" factor. I see that it's real, I just don't relate. Why would shooting a weapon intended to kill people be "enjoyable?" :shrug:

That's just my perspective. In reality, I do see people with an emotional attachment to their guns, just as I have an attachment to my books. I just don't get it, but then I don't have to, do I?

[Retired AF Dem]

131. I have never tried skeet shooting with a handgun

I bet that is tough. A shotgun makes it a little easier. Oh I guess that is why skeet shooters use shotguns.

[LWolf]

144. see # 143 n/t

[Kablooie]

122. Guns should be offered as prizes in cereal boxes.

[LWolf]

146. lol

A marketing tool for your personal brand of cereal, I presume?

[Retired AF Dem]

127. I don't ever remember a time

your poll results have ever come out the way you want. I feel for you.

[the_spectator]

128. Do YOU think a citizen should be able to buy...

more than 1 case of MERLOT a month? Walk a mile in the other man's shoes, my friend!

Sure, one might usually be able to get by on one case, but what if you have an especially large dinner party that month?

Just as one might usually be able to get by on one gun a month, but what if, say, you just got married and you want a gun for yourself and for your wife in your newlyweds' cheap apartment in a sketchy part of town?

(Half kidding here, mostly :) )

[pinto]

134. Sure, long as he doesn't live in my house.

[Irish Mastiff]

140. Democrats Gun Control positions had me voting Republican.

I am in my 50's and have voted against Democrats just on the gun control issues my whole adult life. I voted for Shrub in 2000.
After * came out and admitted there was no Saddam/Sept 11th connection, I decided I had enough of his lies and could no longer support him. I voted Democratic for the first time in my life in 2004.
I think if Bush stays in office America will turn into a clone of Nazi Germany. My biggest fear now is those damned voting machines.
Anyway, back on topic. Those of you touting gun control are just playing into *s hands. A very large number of people are convinced you guys do intend to take away our guns. I am one of them. Bush however, intends to take away all our other rights. If the Democrats would let gun control slide, you would get a considerable number of Bush voters over to your side. A lot of hunters are very PO'd about what Shrub has done to the environment. I was arguing with some of them during the election last year, telling them to vote for Kerry. I got back from them "But he wants to take our guns away!"
Allowing law abiding citizens to own firearms isn't going to harm society. We have had them for centuries. Your ideological position may in fact make us less safe. In any case, it strengthens Shrubs position. Let it go.

[immoderate]

148. Bingo! Gun control is a loser!

I know some others like yourself. It doesn't seem American to me to tell me I can't do things or have things (unless the consequences are a direct threat to others, like environment stuff.)

I am with you. (Though I can't vote Republican for many reasons.)

Welcome to DU!:toast:

--IMM

[MrBenchley]

154. And that;s why pResident Turd

was running around last fall sayiung "Let's put assault weapons back in the stores..."

Oh that's right, he didn't dare say that out loud. Because then he'd have been left with just the Randy Weaver fan club voting for him. And that's a fact.

Even a rancid little turd like Tom Delay has to pay lip service to gun control.

[benEzra]

180. "Back in the stores"--LOL

Let's put assault weapons back in the stores...

That's pretty funny, considering that if you go by the VPC/Bradyite definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon," far more were sold after 1994 than in all the previous decades combined...

I bought my civilian AK-47 lookalike (NON-automatic, like all civilian rifles) in 2003, during the ban; it's a 2002 model. Has the evil protruding handgrip, but the friendly crowned muzzle and the friendly short gas block as required by the 1994 law. :)

[MrBenchley]

188. Tee hee hee....

"far more were sold after 1994 than in all the previous decades combined..."
Then there was no reason not to renew it, was there? But somehow I doubt your claims.

"I bought my civilian AK-47 lookalike (NON-automatic, like all civilian rifles) in 2003"
And you couldn't muddle along with that and needed an even scarier gun? That is pathetic, er hilarious, er, telling....

[benEzra]

193. Huh?

Then there was no reason not to renew it, was there? But somehow I doubt your claims.

Actually, there was plenty of reason not to renew it, the chief among them being that it was a silly law to start with. The whole concept of banning a gun based on how the stock is shaped is pretty dubious...particularly when long guns of any sort are quite under-represented in homicides and such compared to handguns.

The AR-15 has been on the market since 1961. The VPC had some figures out a while back showing that more were sold after 1994 than 1961-1993; I'll try to dig those up. I know AR's now dominate organized centerfire target shooting, having almost completely displaced the older, larger-caliber guns like M1 Garands and M1A's.

And you couldn't muddle along with that and needed an even scarier gun? That is pathetic, er hilarious, er, telling....

Huh?

I still have it, and it's not a "scary" gun at all; just very modern looking. I haven't threaded the muzzle for a brake, though I may at some point just to make it more correct looking historically (low on the priority list, though).

A 12-gauge shotgun, now that's scary. .729 caliber, or 8 rounds of 9mm with a single pull of the trigger...but I don't own one, and don't care to.

[MrBenchley]

194. Like I said, tee hee hee....

"The whole concept of banning a gun based on how the stock is shaped is pretty dubious..."
Which is why trigger-happy claims about the AWB always sound so silly....these being no exception.

"A 12-gauge shotgun, now that's scary."
Better hide under the bed then.

[MrBenchley]

153. But what do you care? you've got a popgun! Yippee!!

"I think if Bush stays in office America will turn into a clone of Nazi Germany. My biggest fear now is those damned voting machines."
Yeah, good thing you put your cheesy hobby ahead of the good of the country.

"Those of you touting gun control are just playing into *s hands. A very large number of people are convinced you guys do intend to take away our guns. I am one of them. Bush however, intends to take away all our other rights."
Yeah, but you've got a popgun. Be sure and strut up and down with it, acting proud.

"If the Democrats would let gun control slide, you would get a considerable number of Bush voters over to your side."
Sure we would. (snicker) Hey, if we sucked up to racists, opposed environmental laws and reproductive choice, and

[crankybubba]

161. well said..

and welcome

[gizmo1979]

307. URGENT Bulletin!

No One Is going to take your fucking gun away.The NRA hasn't changed it's sales pitch since the 70's.And you still have your gun right?It's not going anywhere.This is the most retarded thing people believe.How the hell are they going to take away 100,000,000 fucking guns?!

[hopeisaplace]

149. I'd be ok with no guns ever

for anyone anywhere anytime.
*sorry Utopia was fun for minute*
back to reality, rackem' packem' and stackem'.
j/k (being from Canada gotta tell you, I've never
actually seen a handgun myself. ever...hunting guns
yes, seen those)
I hate guns.

[MrBenchley]

160. Worth noting most Americans support gun control

including most gun owners....

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/new/gunrpt.htm

And that most Americans don't own guns now...



"The proportion of households with a firearm has been in slow decline over the last quarter century (Table 6). In the early 1970s about 50% of adults lived in households that kept a firearm. This now has fallen about 34-35%. Similarly, the percent of adults living in a household with a gun fell from a high of 51% in 1977 to a low of 32-33% in 2000-2001."

Harris Interactive
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=298

Hence this hysteria on the part of the trigger-happy.

[crankybubba]

162. interesting

look at the poll in this thread a majority here do not support the gun per month scheme. gun control is dead and buried. the american people will not stand for taking away guns. In rural america there are MANY good democrats that are big 2nd amend supporters. Where i live the mayor is a self proclaimed "yellow dog" democrat and probably owns 50+ guns. Bill Clinton himself said the gun control issue has cost this party dearly. Do you believe him? Why should this party alienate law abiding democratic voters over a dead issue? It also hure Kerry when he co-sponsored an ill-written assaualt weapon ban bill and went against the national party platform. Is'nt bush confiscation of weapons in new orleans evidence of what he would do if we played into his hands and had more gun control? After that I think it should be mandatiory that every progressive own a gun.

[MrBenchley]

186. Don't you ever get tired of peddling right wing horseshit?

"In rural america there are MANY good democrats that are big 2nd amend supporters. "
And there are just as many people in rural America who support gun control.

What's more, you're asking us to think that there are lots of people who don't mind an illegal, immoral war, open corruption, pollution, and the rest because they have popguns. Why on earth would anyone want to piss off the majority of Democrats to pander to such selfish, mindless individuals?

You know, 85% of the country is not rural, and they overwhelmingly supprot gun control. Why should the Democrats piss them off just to appeal to the gun loonies?

"It also hure Kerry when he co-sponsored an ill-written assaualt weapon ban bill and went against the national party platform. "
Kerry's Assault Weapons Ban was well written and badly needed...and banning assault weapons was part of the party platform.

"Bill Clinton himself said the gun control issue has cost this party dearly. Do you believe him?"
Gun nuts drag this butchered quote of Bill Clinton's out constantly on this board...but it's a defiant defense of gun control...

"And then we got into the gun business. We passed the Brady Bill, and we passed the assault weapons ban -- (applause) -- which Senator Feinstein was especially active in passing. And, oh, they said, the world was going to come to an end. And we lost -- I'm telling you, we lost a lot of members of the House of Representatives on the budget bill because the people hadn't felt the benefit of the improving economy by '94 and on the gun issue. I'll never forget, when I went back to New Hampshire, which is a state like my home state of Arkansas, where more than half the people have a hunting license, and I said, I want to go into the middle of a bunch of hunters -- and I went back in '96, because they beat a congressman up there because he voted for the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill.
And I told those guys -- I remember, there were just all these guys in their plaid shirts just looking at me kind of sulled up, and I said, you know, if any of you missed a day, even an hour in the deer woods on account of the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban, I want to vote against me, too, because that congressman lost his job because of me. But if you didn't, they lied to you and you need to get even. And they did."

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/040200-speech-by-president-at-dccc-reception-san-jose.htm

Here's Bill Clinton at the Democratic Convention this year...

""In this year’s budget, the White House wants to cut off federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police, including more than 700 on the New York City police force who put their lives on the line on 9/11. As gang violence is rising and we look for terrorists in our midst, Congress and the President are also about to allow the ten-year-old ban on assault weapons to expire. Our crime policy was to put more police on the streets and take assault weapons off the streets. It brought eight years of declining crime and violence. Their policy is the reverse, they’re taking police off the streets and putting assault weapons back on the streets. If you agree with their choices, vote to continue them. If not, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter, and stronger.""

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/billclinton2004dnc.htm



"Is'nt bush confiscation of weapons in new orleans evidence of what he would do if we played into his hands and had more gun control?"
Who but trigger happy loonies thought that what the people in New Orleans needed was shootouts?

[crankybubba]

231. you have to look at

the defination of rural the u.s. census bureau uses. according to them a small town with 2000 people is not a Rural Area. it is considered a urban pocket. "What's more, you're asking us to think that there are lots of people who don't mind an illegal, immoral war, open corruption, pollution, and the rest because they have popguns. Why on earth would anyone want to piss off the majority of Democrats to pander to such selfish, mindless individuals? " These are not the issue in this thrad this is just another sad attempt at distraction by you because you have no valid argument.I for one have a problem with the war and the way the economy has gone into the toilet among onter issues but those are not the titles of this thread are they?You continue to malign and misrepresent the gun owners on this board. You will probably just answer that you don't"give a shit" or "boo hoo hoo" or something equally childish. don't bother we've heard it all from you before.

[MrBenchley]

233. In other words, 85% of the US is not rural

"These are not the issue in this thrad this is just another sad attempt at distraction by you"
That's exactly the issue, bubba. You're claiming that we Democrats ought to ignore what most Americans want, to pander to people so mindlessly imbecilic that they put their crappy little hobby ahead of the good of the country.

And I'm not misrepresenting a fucking thing about the trigger-happy.

[crankybubba]

240. yes you are

there is a difference of when people define themselves as rural and what a statistician deems is rural. It's pure 100% unadulterated, chrome plated, extended cab bullshit to claim that the good of the country is at stake over the ownership of guns. You continued imbecelic ranting is doing nothing here but make you look foolish. The american people are not going to give up thier guns no matter how hard you gesticulate and pontificate. the gun ban crowd has lost so as you like to say cry me a fucking river.

[MrBenchley]

253. You can take the yokel out of the horseshit, but you can't....

But then you're the one ranting, bubba.

I'm just pointing out there's no reason to abandon gun control, favored by an overwhelming majority of Americans, just to pander to the sort of trigger happy shithead who puts his cheesy popgun hobby above the good of the country.

Of course, the bulk of the gun rights crowd are the sort of racist fuckwits who are never going to vote Democratic. They hate blacks, Jews, gays, and uppity women as much as they love them guns.

[crankybubba]

163. do you agree with this quote???

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns Magazine, Page 4, Feb. 1960.

by a liberal and democrat.

[LiberalPersona]

164. Armed citizens is not protection from the government in any way

Citizens with arms are not going to stop a determined army. They have tanks, grenades, planes with bombs, bazookas, armored vehicles, rockets, etc. Do you really think a handful of citizens with a few handguns and shotguns could ever win in a civil war against the most powerful army in history? Violent rebellions would not win over the superior arms of the American army, not even with the support of another country's best firepower. The only way our government could be overcome is from within, eating at the law slowly piece by piece like conservatives have done to America.

[mondo joe]

165. They're NOT? Have you heard of Iraq? n/t

[MrBenchley]

183. Yeah, but neurotics with popguns get chubbies pretending they are....

Sad to say, though, every once in awhile one of these charmers forgets that it's just blowhard rhetoric and does something like shoot a postman or blow up a day care center....

Still a pretty penny is made by some peddling this horseshit to loonies at gun shows and other such venues.

[MrBenchley]

182. Do you think you could dredge up something older and less relevant?.

And by the way, piss on Guns magazine. Anyone who believes a source like that is honest deserves all the jeering they get, and then some.

[crankybubba]

195. if you say that

then the same can be said of all of you rhetoric from the v.p.c.

you kept bring up ashcroft... I claimed he was'nt irrelavant. you can't have it both was sparky.

[MrBenchley]

198. Yeah, I'll say that....

But then the VPC isn't a bunch of right wing trigger-happy fuckwits.

[crankybubba]

200. you just have to take out trigger happy

for your statement to fit them perfectly<snicker>

[MrBenchley]

201. Not even close to true...

but then no nonsense is too absurd for the triggerhappy, as this thread amply demonstrates....

[crankybubba]

206. here ya go

fixed for ya.

but then no nonsense is too absurd for the V.P.C./Scary Bradys, as this thread amply demonstrates....

[MrBenchley]

210. Hahahahahaha....

[-..__...]

179. Gun controlers... give it a rest.

When the yeas out vote the nays on a web forum like DU that leans more to the left than the average/moderate Dem or independent voter, then it's time to STFU and sit down.

More strict or repressive gun control laws just ain't gonna happen... no matter who runs the White House or Congress.

[MrBenchley]

185. Not a chance, pal....

"More strict or repressive gun control laws just ain't gonna happen..."
Sez you. Me, I plan to keep going.

By the way, where do all those pro gun posters come from, I wonder?

"Kicked off Democraticunderground for the 9th time My wolf-in-sheep's-clothing act gets better every time out, but invariably I panic some blissninny into alerting the moderators about my non-liberal chakra or something....Any advice for attempt number 10? My 2A evangelism is needed where it would do the most good."

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33227&highlight=%2ADemocratic+Underground%2A

[crankybubba]

196. you go ahead

might as well pound sand for the good it will do you.(;))

The gun control agenda has lost every major fight for the last ten years. thats not about to change. Americans do NOT want more gun control. They want crime control. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizen.

here is a quote you might like

"A very large measure of individual liberty is not necessarily the sign of a high degree of civilisation. On the contrary, it is the limitation of this liberty, within the framework of an organisation which incorporates men of the same race, which is the real pointer to the degree of civilasation attained."

can you guess who????????

[MrBenchley]

197. I'm happy to....

But then I don't have to depend on right wing horseshit and phonyt old quotes.

"On the contrary, it is the limitation of this liberty"
Sort of like trigger-happy loonies forcing everyone to have a gun in some jerkwater burg in darkest Dixie? Or somebody pretending that we all must follow what somebody else said long ago, especially when it's wrenched out of context?

[crankybubba]

199. do you agree with the quote

or not??? and why?

[MrBenchley]

202. I really don't give a shit about the quote....

And the reason should be pretty obvious.

[crankybubba]

205. you have a tendacy

to not give a shit when you are backed into a corner and cannot give a rational/logical answer. I guess you are stumped. it's the same agenda as the vpc...

spout more propaganda. call every gun owner here a freeper/neocon
if that fails result to personal attacks. It's your standard playbook.

[MrBenchley]

209. Cry me a river, cry me a river....

"t's the same agenda as the vpc..."
Yeah, you'll notice they very rarely waste time fussing about out of contrext quotes dredged up by the trigger happy either.

"call every gun owner here a freeper/neocon"
Don't need to...they're doing a good enough job demonstrating it themselves.

[crankybubba]

212. thank you

for proving my point so completely.(:))

[MrBenchley]

215. You're welcome

I'm always happy to show what a melange of right wing propaganda, disinformation and hysteria the gun rights argument is.

And not only are all the gun rights arguments bogus, the movement has a clear cut provenance back to right wing racism....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

[crankybubba]

217. racism

prove it. post proof other than discredited vpc/hci rethoric.

[MrBenchley]

220. Been there, done that....

[crankybubba]

223. again avoid

because you have NO answer. Typical right out of your playbook.

game over...you lose thanks for playing (;))

[MrBenchley]

234. Haven't avoided a goddamn thing, bubba...gun rights is racism

hiding under a new sheet...

There's not a racist high or low who can't be found wailing and pissing about how awful gun control is....imbeciles like the KKK and the Aryan Nation spout "gun rights" left and right. Gun shows are awash in swastikas and Confederate flags, and the NRA contains open racists on its board. The second largest gun owners group, the GOA, has its head a racist so virulent that even Pat Buchanan had to flee his company in public.

[crankybubba]

242. bullshit...

You make blanket statements like that.. back them up.. post proof or go away. just how many gun shows have you been to? spouting v.p.c. exaggerations will not win you this debate. can you think for yourself or do you get your marching orders straight from sara brady.

[MrBenchley]

254. Actual fact, bubba...and I already backed it up...

[crankybubba]

274. you gave no facts only your biased opinion

[MrBenchley]

278. I gave facts, bubba, and you want to cry about it....

Here's some more...let's look at some noticeable gun rights supporters...

Let’s start with Trent Lott. Trent Lott led a campus riot to keep blacks out of the U of Miss in the 1960s. In this century, he announced that we wouldn’t have "all these problems" if we still had Jim Crow. If gun control is racist, you’d expect helmet-hair to be four-square for it…but he isn’t. In fact, he’s spent his career pushing the phony "gun rights" issue.

How about John AshKKKroft? Got his career started fighting integration in Kansas City…he was noticeably timid in protecting the rights of minorities, and notably gung-ho trampling the Constitution to punish them. Again, he’s not only pro-gun rights; he’s one of the shrillest and most strident proponents of the dishonest "individual rights" revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. He’s so pro-gun rights that he refused to let the FBI check to see if terrorists bought guns after 9/11.

Jesse Helms? The old turd used to scream that the UN was trying to ban gun ownership in the US to inflame his inbred supporters. Bob "C of CC" Barr? He’s on the board of the National Rifle Association.

And which side of the debate threw out an ignorant slur in Congress not so long ago about all black people being drug addicts? The gun rights crowd, which at the time was trying to engineer immunity from liability for the corrupt gun industry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1249-2003Apr9

What about that National Rifle Association? What’s their record on bigotry and tolerance? Well, it’s not so hot…

Outgoing president Charlton "Moses" Heston made big capital of the fact that he marched ONCE with Martin Luther King, Jr. But that didn’t stop him from making racial slurs in front of the far right wing Free Congress Foundation, nor did it stop him from calling for a lynch mob in Michigan in 2000.

But what about the other board members? Well, board member Ted Nugent spewed racial slurs during a radio interview in Denver earlier this year. What did the NRA do about this disgrace? Nothing.

Board member Jeff Cooper calls blacks orang-outangs in public. Several board members have ties groups like English First.
Then there’s the publisher of Soldier of Fortune…who can forget all the stirring calls for brotherhood and racial tolerance in SOF magazine (snicker)?

Pretty much every group in America working for tolerance and civil rights ended up on the NRA enemy list.

But the NRA is just one group. What about other gun rights groups?

Well, about the next largest is Gun Owners of America…which is pretty much a goober named Larry Pratt. Larry is so racist that even Pat Buchanan had to back away from him in public.

How about racist groups like Aryan Nations or the KKK? Nope, again, you’re talking about big gun rights supporters. Railing about gun control makes up a large part of their message.

Here’s the Texas KKK:
"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

[crankybubba]

218. answer the question then.

[MrBenchley]

221. Gave it all the answer it deserved, and then some

[crankybubba]

224. avoid,avoid,avoid.

keep it up. Your answers are helping law abiding gun owners. thanks(;)) btw 61% here in the poll hmmm......<snicker>

[MrBenchley]

235. I plan to keep it up....

so cry me a river....

[drb]

181. If there are no indictments, I plan to stock up. Couple of pistols, a...

...12 gauge pump, and as many 50 cal assault rifles as I can afford.

[OrlandoGator]

184. "One gun per month" is arbitrary and stupid.

If someone were to go on a kill-crazy rampage, they wouldn't buy multiple guns. They'd buy one gun and a shitload of ammo and magazines.

.
.
.


Oops, I forgot that I'm on DU. Guns are evil, guns are bad, ban them all. We must protect the children from hunks of metal and plastic! Do it for the children.

Good grief this place frustrates me sometimes.

[Mutley]

192. Why does it matter?

There is no shortage of illegal guns in the black market. I don't think limiting people to one gun purchase per month is going to change anything. What percentage of gun enthusiasts even buy more than one gun per month anyway? Guns are expensive, and only people with a whole lot of money will be buying them that often. Those same people can afford really good security for their houses, and don't have a need to sell their guns on the black market.

[Silverhair]

222. Sometimes, special situations arise.

In a normal year, I don't buy any guns at all. However, a few months ago, a special situation arose and I bought four handguns in one month. I now expect not to need to buy any guns again for years, if ever.

[porphyrian]

207. The Gun Control Wedge Issue

The problem with this argument is that there is evidence to support both sides. Canada has nearly as many guns per capita as we do, yet they do not have nearly the same gun-related crime rates that we do. On the other hand, countries with gun bans also have far less gun-related crime. As suggested in Bowling for Columbine, the issue is much bigger than simple access to guns. Arguing only the gun access angle is futile and inaccurate.

[MrBenchley]

211. Then in that case....

You migth want to look at those pushing for gun control themselves (Schumer, Kerry, Edwards, Feinstein, McCarthy, Emanuel, Rangel, Frank, etc.)

and contrast them with the wowsers in the Second Amendment Caucus....(Musgrave, Feney, Heyworth, Hosteter, Tiahrt, Tancredo), who stand four-square for right wing idiocy.

Which group is likely to improve society and reduce the causes of violence?

[porphyrian]

216. That doesn't mean they should focus on this issue.

Authorities don't always have your best interests in mind just because you trust them. I would question why they are focusing on this rather than everything else this administration has screwed up that needs to be fixed, especially when it is more divisive than effective.

[MrBenchley]

219. Sez you....

"I would question why they are focusing on this"
So who are you questioning? The fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus?

"I would question why they are focusing on this"
Again, a solid majority of Americans support gun control.

[porphyrian]

225. Yes, well, I made a good point.

"So who are you questioning? The fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus?"

I'm questioning why anyone in Congress would rather focus on this issue than health care, fixing FEMA, fixing our economy, an exit strategy for Iraq, rolling back giant tax cuts that help only the smallest minority in America at the expense of the rest of us, or any other more pressing issue than gun control.

"Again, a solid majority of Americans support gun control."

Assuming that this isn't merely conjecture, that doesn't change the fact that it is a bandaid solution to a much greater problem, and a distraction from a number of other, more pressing issues our lawmakers should be focused on right now.

[crankybubba]

227. contray to

what mr. benchley would like you to believe. We in fact DO have a reasonable amount of gun control in this country already. for example:

can anyone run down to the corner store and buy a gun without a background check: absoulely not. There are federal laws in effect requiring a background check to be made by a dealer.

can a criminal legaly buy a gun: absouletely not. there are already federal and state laws prohibiting a convicted felon from LEGALY purchasing a firearm.

machine guns are common and easy to get. false..A LEGAL machine gun requires a federal permit 200.00 tax stamp and backgroung check. Furthermore no machine gun made after 1986 is allowed to be sold to ANY civilian. The awb did NOT cover machine guns. Only Semi-autos with certian cosmetic features that did NOT affect the operating of the rifles in question.

mr. benchley has no argument except to parrot v.p.c. scare tactics and fear mongering which have cost us elections for over 10 years.
I agree that we do need to focus on other issues such as health care,jobs, economy etc.. If we do we WILL win elections.

[porphyrian]

229. Glad I'm not the only one who thinks so.

While I do think gun-related crime needs to be addressed, it's obvious that merely passing more laws will not fix the problem given what you and I have pointed out. I have to wonder about the motives of legislators who continue to pursue further gun control in light of this.

[MrBenchley]

237. No, you've got the NRA and the Reverend Moon on your side...

Not to mention John AshKKKroft...

[crankybubba]

241. and you've got famous gun grabbers like

Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, etc...


thats the company you keep. I am for personal freedom, You are Not.

end of story cry me a river sparky.

[MrBenchley]

250. What a preposterously silly statement....

In fact, every humhole running around with a swastika today is opposed to gun control and peddling this gun rights horseshit.

"I am for personal freedom, You are Not."
You and John AshKKKroft. (snicker)

[crankybubba]

275. the quote I gave you

was hitler. you seem to agree with his position.HMMM...<snicker>

[MrBenchley]

276. Actually, as I said more than once

I really didn't give a shit whose quote you dredged up...although I must say I'm not surprised whenever "gun enthusiasts" can dredge up such things at the drop of a hat. After all, gun shows are lousy with swastikas and Nazi crap.

[MrBenchley]

236. Hahahahaha...

"I'm questioning why anyone in Congress would rather focus on this issue than health care, fixing FEMA, fixing our economy, an exit strategy for Iraq, rolling back giant tax cuts that help only the smallest minority in America at the expense of the rest of us, or any other more pressing issue than gun control."
Ask the Second Amendment Caucus...they're the racist bastards blocking health care reform, who trashed FEMA, who wrecked the economy, who pimp for the Iraq war, who put through the giant tax cuts, and block many more pressing issues. They're anti-envirnment, anti-choice, and pro-theocracy.

Funny it's so hard to get a word out of you criticizing THEM.

Of course they also pander to trrigger happy neurotics.

"Assuming that this isn't merely conjecture, that doesn't change the fact that it is a bandaid solution to a much greater problem"
It's fact, not conjecture. And bandaids stop bleeding.

"other, more pressing issues our lawmakers should be focused on right now."
Like bending over and spreading for the gun lobby?

[porphyrian]

260. Is something funny?

"Ask the Second Amendment Caucus...they're the racist bastards blocking health care reform, who trashed FEMA, who wrecked the economy, who pimp for the Iraq war, who put through the giant tax cuts, and block many more pressing issues. They're anti-envirnment, anti-choice, and pro-theocracy."

So your answer is to focus on ineffective solutions to the complex problem of gun-related crime? Or are you suggesting that finger-pointing might be more effective?

"Funny it's so hard to get a word out of you criticizing THEM."

No it's not. You obviously haven't read much of anything else I've ever posted. I've made a legitimate and rational claim. You're trying to get me to jump through hoops to please you. Suffer.

"Of course they also pander to trrigger happy neurotics."

...

"Like bending over and spreading for the gun lobby?"

What the hell post have you been reading? Your personal issues have nothing to do with my cogent analysis of the problem of gun-related crime and the ineffectiveness and poor timing of further gun control legislation in solving it at this time. Let me know when you have something to contribute.

[MrBenchley]

263. It's grimly hilarious

to watch you struggle to avoid saying anything about the gun loonies in Congress...especially since they're the scum of the earth.

"So your answer is to focus on ineffective solutions to the complex problem of gun-related crime?"
They're sure effective in countriues like England and Australia. So far we've got only your claim that they're ineffective.

"No it's not. You obviously haven't read much of anything else I've ever posted."
Don't see much incentive to do so. Again, it;'s noticeable you yet to say anything about the fuckwits at the Second Amendment Caucus and their focus.

[porphyrian]

267. Blah, blah, blah.

One trick pony with grade school tactics. Why don't you go eat your cereal and send an adult over to discuss the effectiveness of gun control?

[MrBenchley]

268. And what do you know, folks...he STILL can't do it!

Let's examine that Second Amendment Caucus in a little more detail...

You know, you'd think the FACT that some of the really slimiest characters around make up this ugly little klavern ought to be a hint to any "gun-owning democrats" what the "gun rights/Second Amendment" movement really is about.

Let's look at the "leaders" of this "gallant cause" ...:

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 Hostettler-- the imbecile who got caught trying to sneak his gun onto a plane last year
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...that's some swell "effectiveness" by jinkies!

[porphyrian]

269. If you're done with your cereal, you ought to be getting to school. - n/t

[MrBenchley]

270. And he STILL can't bring himself to do it!!!

Guess we can see that "concern for social issues" of yours for what it really was.

[porphyrian]

271. You're being infuriatingly daft.

What I refuse to do is take commandments from you to say something bad about Congressmen who support the gun lobby, which is OFF TOPIC FROM MY POSTS, HAD YOU BOTHERED TO READ THEM. Just because I won't play your stupid game doesn't mean anything about my stand or my concerns. So, if you're ready to grow up now and re-read what I've posted, then discuss the valid and sensible points I've made despite your inane ranting, then I will do so. Otherwise, stop wasting my time.

[MrBenchley]

273. And HE STILL CAN'T DO IT FOLKS!!

So focusing on gun legislation is only bad when liberals do it, I guess. When right winger slike these do it, it's hunky dory (snicker).

Otherwise I don't see anything either valid or sensible in your post beyond the usual crap. You want to pretend we have to solve all the evils of mankind before we can do something both needed and sensible like banning assault weapons or closing the gun show loophole, as a majority of Americans wish. I see no reason to do the same.

And it's noticeable you're dodging the question of which group is more likely to improve those social conditions you pretended were of such great concern to you...the liberals who also sensibly support gun control, or the screwloose fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus.

By the way, the candidates who are supported by folks like the Brady Center are also overwhelmingly pro-labor, pro-environment and pro-choice. The gun lobby on the other hand supports just the opposite sort of folks (in fact, scumbag Grover Norquist is on the board of the NRA).

[porphyrian]

277. How do I continue without personal attacks on your intelligence?

"So focusing on gun legislation is only bad when liberals do it, I guess. When right winger slike these do it, it's hunky dory (snicker)."

Well, that's a very stupid supposition you have there, not at all based on anything I posted.

"Otherwise I don't see anything either valid or sensible in your post beyond the usual crap."

So, then, you believe that gun control laws are both effective as is and that focusing on creating more will both solve gun-related crime and be the most effective use of legislative time at this moment? Well thought out, if you can't think much.

"You want to pretend we have to solve all the evils of mankind before we can do something both needed and sensible like banning assault weapons or closing the gun show loophole, as a majority of Americans wish. I see no reason to do the same."

You enjoy making up things you'd like me to have said, don't you? Well, you're wrong, but keep stabbin', buster.

"And it's noticeable you're dodging the question of which group is more likely to improve those social conditions you pretended were of such great concern to you...the liberals who also sensibly support gun control, or the screwloose fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus."

I wasn't dodging the question, I was refusing to take commands from you, especially since it is irrelevant to what I was saying, which you haven't read yet.

"By the way, the candidates who are supported by folks like the Brady Center are also overwhelmingly pro-labor, pro-environment and pro-choice. The gun lobby on the other hand supports just the opposite sort of folks (in fact, scumbag Grover Norquist is on the board of the NRA)."

The grass is often green. The sky is often blue. Wow! I never realized how much fun it is to make irrelevant factual statements in an argument until you showed me! It's a shame we can't address the points I brought up.

[MrBenchley]

279. You mean like the ones I've been ignoring...

"So, then, you believe that gun control laws are both effective as is and that focusing on creating more will both solve gun-related crime and be the most effective use of legislative time at this moment? "
Yup.

"I wasn't dodging the question, I was refusing to take commands from you"
I see. So I have to take commands from you instead. Fuck THAT shit, as they say in Brooklyn.

"which you haven't read yet."
Jeeze, it hasn't gotten any fresher with age. In fact, it's still crap, for what are becoming very very obvious reasons.

"The grass is often green. The sky is often blue."
Gun rigths arguments are always dishonest, and the politicans who push them are the scum of the earth. Wow, you're right that IS fun!

"It's a shame we can't address the points I brought up."
Hey, I've not only addressed them, I've exposed them as the sham they are.

[porphyrian]

280. Yes, those.

After all, you responded to my post in the first place, although with a bunch of babble that had nothing to do with it. I can only assume you came to pick a fight, which I'm more than happy to supply.

"Yup."

Well, then, you're part of the problem with our party today. Diverting our resources to further wedge-issue gun control legislation at this time, when there are a multitude of more pressing issues which can be more effectively addressed, is a strategically dumb move. Whatever, you're entitled to your opinion.

"I see. So I have to take commands from you instead. Fuck THAT shit, as they say in Brooklyn."

So, you understand my position, yet continue to try to force me into compliance, hmm?

"Jeeze, it hasn't gotten any fresher with age. In fact, it's still crap, for what are becoming very very obvious reasons."

Oh? Exactly which part do you have a problem with specifically?

"Gun rigths arguments are always dishonest, and the politicans who push them are the scum of the earth."

It's comforting to know that you don't just see everything in terms of black and white. It's important to be open to new ideas and possibilities such as you express.

"Hey, I've not only addressed them, I've exposed them as the sham they are."

Hey, no you haven't. You've merely restated your same unwavering position and demands for me to acknowledge how bad pro-gun legislators are time and again. If you're looking to get the last word here, I'll give it to you, but I'm really interested in hearing an intelligent response to the points I raised.

[MrBenchley]

281. Insults as lame as the rest of your limp diatribe....

"Well, then, you're part of the problem with our party today."
Sez you. Guess I'll just have to console myself with the fact that pretty much every Democrat and liberal around agrees with me. But don't worry, you've still got John AshKKKroft to back your position up.

"So, you understand my position, yet continue to try to force me into compliance"
No, just noticing aloud that you can't say boo about the fuckwits in the Second Amendment Caucus and don't want to answer what is an obvious question. In fact, keep silent and don't answer it...each succeeding post of yours shows more clearly what a sham your position is more clearly than anything I could ever say.

"It's important to be open to new ideas and possibilities such as you express."
Whereas trying to pretend that the deregulation of the gun industry should be allowed because "root causes" ought to be addressed instead is a tiresome wheeze.

"I'm really interested in hearing an intelligent response to the points I raised."
You got it and you want to piss and moan about it. Here's something else they say in Brooklyn: Tough shit, chief.

[porphyrian]

282. You're a funny guy, benchley.

Not very bright, but a funny guy.

[MrBenchley]

283. Insults as lame as the rest of your limp diatribe...

And I'm bright enough to notice what a fucking disaster the lack of gun control has been for America....or who in public life is opposed to gun control...or what other scummy things those fuckwits promote.

[crankybubba]

284. fixed for ya benchley

And I'm not bright enough to notice what a fucking disaster gun control has been for America....or who in public life is in favor of gun control...or what other scummy things those fuckwits promote.

there made you sound 1000% smarter hahahahaha (;))

[MrBenchley]

313. Nope, all you did is show us what right wing crap you'll swallow...

"who in public life is in favor of gun control...or what other scummy things those fuckwits promote."
Yeah? Tell us what scummy things John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumber, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Rahm Emanuel, John Lewis, Max Cleland, Dick Durbin, Carolyn McCarthy, Molly Ivins, etc., promote.

[Realityhack]

258. Hmmm...

I agree that there are larger underlieng problems. But that doesn't make reasonable gun laws completely a 'band aid' solution. You can pass more than one law a year you know.
Those underlieng problems will take a LONG time to fix. So why not have reasonable gun laws in the meantime?
In addition I beleive the other poster is correct in his statement about the majority being in favor of stricter gun laws.

[porphyrian]

259. Two things.

One, you seem to be suggesting that we don't already have reasonable gun control laws in place. We have plenty of gun control laws in place, and they are not fixing the problem. We need to look elsewhere, at the entire picture, rather than focusing on this oversimplification of a solution just because it will take a LONG time to fix the problem.

Two, gun control laws only work on people who are willing to obey the law or who get caught breaking it. The majority of the people who are willing to commit a crime with a gun aren't concerned with waiting periods or assault rifle bans - they're getting their weapons through the black market. I'm not saying we shouldn't have these laws necessarily, only that focusing on them isn't solving the problem.

This is not a simple problem. There won't be a simple answer. Thus, focusing on gun bans is a bandaid solution to a complex problem, and we should be focused on more effective solutions to more pressing problems instead.

[hogwyld]

288. If there was a buyout like Australias?

We would have a significant decrease in crime. Australia basically outlawed all handguns for citizens, and compensated the owners upon confiscation. We've tried everything except to confiscate ALL firearms. There would be no black market if there were no guns allowed in the country. JMTCW

[porphyrian]

291. Whoa...

"There would be no black market if there were no guns allowed in the country."

Are you kidding? That's exactly why and how black markets exist. They deal in illegal and otherwise difficult-to-obtain products and services. Laws only work on people who obey them or in punishing those that can be caught breaking them.

[hogwyld]

377. Then make the punishment severe enough

Where if you have a gun, and the police catch you, you can kiss the rest of your life away.

[Realityhack]

290. Good points but I disagree on both points

There are a number of sensible reasonable gun laws that are not on the books in much of the country.

And as far as gun laws only working on those willing to obay them etc... that is open to exceptions. For instance making it harder to buy large numbers of guns for quick resale does in fact affect people who are breaking the law through the actions of those obeying it.

As for your final statement... that is a classic false dicotomy. You are implyining that we can not both apply temporary releif through so called 'bandaid' solutions AND work on the deeper societal problems.
Thats simply not true.

I am all in favor of working on the deper problems. But some will take generations to solve. There is no reason not to have some reasonable gun limits in the meantime. I am not anti-gun, they are actualy quite fun to shoot (IMO). I just think there are some sensible limits that can reduce fatalities, both intentional and accidental.

[porphyrian]

303. Well, at least you're civil.

"And as far as gun laws only working on those willing to obay them etc... that is open to exceptions. For instance making it harder to buy large numbers of guns for quick resale does in fact affect people who are breaking the law through the actions of those obeying it."

Yes, but it is only a temporary impediment for those who wish to do otherwise. Also, it doesn't address the heart of the problem - why do we have such a high rate of gun-related crime when countries like Canada with similar per capita gun ownership and laws do not? Something else is at work here, and we should spend more time trying to understand it.

"As for your final statement... that is a classic false dicotomy. You are implyining that we can not both apply temporary releif through so called 'bandaid' solutions AND work on the deeper societal problems.
Thats simply not true."

Well, it wasn't intended as such, so allow me to clarify. As we have limited resources, and as gun legislation is only somewhat effective, if at all, in solving the problem of gun-related crime, and as gun-related crime is not one of the most pressing issues today compared to the abuse of power and corporate influence in our government, thousands dying in an unnecessary and illegal war, the total incompetence displayed by federal emergency response organizations, and the worst economic state our country has ever been in, I believe we would better spend our time and effort elsewhere.

"I am all in favor of working on the deper problems. But some will take generations to solve. There is no reason not to have some reasonable gun limits in the meantime. I am not anti-gun, they are actualy quite fun to shoot (IMO). I just think there are some sensible limits that can reduce fatalities, both intentional and accidental."

And I'm not against further gun control, I'm just not convinced that now is the time to be pushing for it. The thing is, we already have a number of gun control laws in place, for what moderate good they do, but I still hold that they are a temporary solution to a bigger problem I don't see anybody half as fanatic about investigating as they are to ban guns. And, if this is indeed a problem that will take generations to solve, don't you think we should try to understand it now and choose the wisest, long-lasting solutions to apply?

[MrBenchley]

318. Again....

"it is only a temporary impediment for those who wish to do otherwise."
So why not let the gun industry cash in, eh? (snicker)

"why do we have such a high rate of gun-related crime when countries like Canada with similar per capita gun ownership and laws do not? Something else is at work here, and we should spend more time trying to understand it."
And when we do, we find that it's in large part because Canada has that social safety net that liberals have been trying to put in place...and that's been bitterly opposed by fuckwits like the Second Amendment Caucus.

"as gun-related crime is not one of the most pressing issues today compared to the abuse of power and corporate influence in our government"
Now that IS rich. Has there been a more flagrant example of "the abuse of power and corporate influence in our government" than the actions of the gun lobby?

"they are a temporary solution to a bigger problem I don't see anybody half as fanatic about investigating as they are to ban guns."
Tee hee hee....

[porphyrian]

319. Oh Christ, benchley...

...don't you ever give it a rest?

"So why not let the gun industry cash in, eh? (snicker)"

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I stand to benefit so much from the profit of gun manufacturers. I'm getting ready to retire based solely on my kickbacks from the industry.

"And when we do, we find that it's in large part because Canada has that social safety net that liberals have been trying to put in place..."

Oh? Where's that study, Benchley? I had no idea that your apparent disregard from a cogent argument was that you had solid evidence to the contrary. Let's have it.

"...and that's been bitterly opposed by fuckwits like the Second Amendment Caucus."

...and that has nothing to do with my argument.

"Now that IS rich. Has there been a more flagrant example of "the abuse of power and corporate influence in our government" than the actions of the gun lobby?"

How do you function in life with such a single-tracked mind? Yes, the gun lobby, the abortion lobby, the media lobby and every other corrupt special interest and corporate lobby, but thanks for naming one.

[MrBenchley]

320. Who Would Jesus Plug?

And no, I don't see any reason to give it a rest. Especially when the gun rights movement is so dishonest...AND laden with hypocrisy.

"I had no idea that your apparent disregard from a cogent argument"
Jeeze Louise...so your "cogent argument" was that we should let the gun lobby run wild like a rabid hyena as Americans die while we have a study or two? Talk about fucking "ineffective"....

By the way, if it's not the social safety net that's responsible for less gun violence in Canada than the US, what is? The prevalence of flannel shirts in Canada? The fine singing voices of the Mounties? Thicker bacon?

"that has nothing to do with my argument"
So we should focus on "issues" but pay no attention to who's exacerbating those issues and why? What a fucking weird idea.

"How do you function in life with such a single-tracked mind? "
Imagine that. In discussing the gun issue, I can actually remain on topic. Must be those amazing mental powers I got from years of study in a Tibetan lamasery...

"Yes, the gun lobby, the abortion lobby"
Tell us please, what corporations are IN the abortion lobby?

[porphyrian]

321. ...

"And no, I don't see any reason to give it a rest. Especially when the gun rights movement is so dishonest...AND laden with hypocrisy."

This is your problem. You assume that just because I don't agree with you, I must be shilling for gun rights. I'm not. I don't own a gun. I don't plan on owning a gun. I don't work for anyone remotely connected to the gun industry, and I have nothing to gain or lose from them. I don't give a shit about the gun rights movement because, like with gun control, I believe they are wasting resources better spent elsewhere. You, however, are an anti-gun crusader closed to any ideas outside of your anti-gun dogma, and I think that's stupid and intellectually dishonest.

There's no point in discussing anything with you because your mind is made up, and you only seek to deride anything said that doesn't properly fit your anti-gun opinion.

[MrBenchley]

324. Hey, nobody's holding a gun to your head, binky....

"I don't own a gun. I don't plan on owning a gun. I don't work for anyone remotely connected to the gun industry, and I have nothing to gain or lose from them. I don't give a shit about the gun rights movement because, like with gun control, I believe they are wasting resources better spent elsewhere."
And yet you jumped right into a thread discussing gun issues to attack liberals working for needed gun control because you "don't give a shit". Uh-HUH.

"There's no point in discussing anything with you"
The answer to that is so simple as to be simple-minded...

"you only seek to deride anything said"
Really, what else does such stuff deserve but open derision?

So I guess you don't want to tell us what Canadian attribute OTHER THAN the social safety net (opposed by fuckwits like, say, gun manufacturer Sun Myung Moon or NRA board member Grover Norquist, or NRA keynote speaker Dick Cheney or NRA life member John AshKKKroft) accounts for the lower gun violence rate in Canada...

[crankybubba]

326. how about para-ordinance

a gun manufacturer based in canada. or ammetec a canadian ar15(gasp)manufactuer recentely bought by colt inc.You're getting off topic. let me ask you since we have thousands of gun laws on the books already. what further gun control measures do you want? and what about progressive gun rights groups like. pink pistols, jpfo(jews for the protection of firearm ownership).etc. Offer still stands I'll let ya shoot my evil ar15 if ya ever come out my way. what do ya say.

[MrBenchley]

330. Babble on. bubba....

See if you can dredge up another Hitler quote, why doncha?

"what about progressive gun rights groups like. pink pistols, jpfo(jews for the protection of firearm ownership).etc."
What about them is in the least "progressive"?

The Pink Pistols put people like Barbra Streisand, Barney Frank and Anne Heche on a hate list but haven't got a single unkind word to say about right wing shitheads like James Dobson, Fred Phelps, or Pat Robertson. They also endorse candidates opposed to gay marriage, tried to disrupt a peaceful gay rights march in Ohio, and used to link openly to the right wing think tank that whistled them out of thin air and chortled about"what a "good trick" they were on "liberals".

"Reno, Nevada-- The National Rifle Association, holding its annual convention in this dry desert city, took an opportunity Sunday to demonize the gay and lesbian community with inflammatory homophobic rhetoric.
Anti-gun talk show host Rosie O'Donnell was called a "freak" by one speaker for her recent admission that she's a lesbian. O'Donnell had a much publicized disagreement with pro-gun actor Tom Selleck in 1999 on her talk show. Selleck walked off the show during taping over O'Donnell's remarks.
Debbie Schlussel, a frequent guest on The Howard Stern Show and an avid supporter of the NRA referred to O'Donnell when she said, "She's not cool. She's a freak." Schlussel went on to bash actor Jude Law who recently admitted in an interview that he hesitated to handle a gun in the filming of his latest movie fearing it would contribute to people thinking guns were cool. Schlussel referred to the heterosexual Law as a "girly-man".
Kelly Anne Conway, a conservative pollster, droned on for some time about how the "liberal" media has forced changes in the public school curriculum that put gay and lesbian tolerance ahead of the basic studies of math, English and History. "They're so worried now about how many mommies Heather has that (the teachers) run out of time" Conway went on to state venomously that gay and lesbian issues aren't important to "real" Americans.
Grover Norquist, an NRA Board Member and columnist for American Spectator Magazine, not to be outdone, put forth the barb; "we don't have annual parades for gun owners so everyone can appreciate that gun ownership is an alternative lifestyle and look at how great we are." He also quipped that liberal Americans "don't want (men) to date women." "

http://gaytoday.com/garchive/events/050102ev.htm

Guess which of the figures named in that story landed on the "Pink Pistols" hate list? Here's a hint: it was the only gay person named.

As for JPFO, they pimp openly for the Confederate flag and used to carry essays by somebody who boasted openly that her ambition was tho get on the SPLC watch list alongside David Duke.

I'm always amused when gun "enthusiasts" here dredge up JPFO as if their existence made them "liberal"...."That here's a Jew, Clem. He must be librul"

[porphyrian]

329. Who's binky?

"And yet you jumped right into a thread discussing gun issues to attack liberals working for needed gun control because you "don't give a shit". Uh-HUH."

I "jumped" right into a gun issue discussion to add my opinion. I don't give a shit if you can't understand that.

"The answer to that is so simple as to be simple-minded..."

Yes, I think you are.

"Really, what else does such stuff deserve but open derision?"

Intellectual debate? I'm sure you can't understand.

"So I guess you don't want to tell us what Canadian attribute OTHER THAN the social safety net (opposed by fuckwits like, say, gun manufacturer Sun Myung Moon or NRA board member Grover Norquist, or NRA keynote speaker Dick Cheney or NRA life member John AshKKKroft) accounts for the lower gun violence rate in Canada..."

Thanks for validating my analysis.

[MrBenchley]

331. Guess....

I understood perfectly, which is why you continue to trot out lame insults and keep dodging the central questions. For what are VERY obvious reasons.

[porphyrian]

334. You're not getting the last word.

You don't deserve it.

[MrBenchley]

335. Hahahahaha....

[porphyrian]

338. I'm glad you liked that. - n/t

[MrBenchley]

341. It always makes me laugh

when arguments such as yours are unmasked as the right wing horseshit they are...

[porphyrian]

343. And it makes me laugh...

...when people are too stupid to know how wrong their assumption is.

[MrBenchley]

344. It shows (snicker)

[porphyrian]

345. Yes, it does. - n/t

[MrBenchley]

347. And that's why I'm laughing and you're pouting

and throwing out lame little insults....

[porphyrian]

349. I'm not pouting.

And my insults are no lamer than yours.

[MrBenchley]

351. It shows (snicker)

[porphyrian]

354. Yes, it does. -- n/t

[MrBenchley]

356. HA ha

[porphyrian]

363. It's important to me that you're amused. - n/t

[MrBenchley]

365. Must be since you keep doing it...

To sum up, even though you don't give a shit about guns, you jumped into a thread about guns...

...to attack liberals who waste time on gun legislation although you can't say a bad word about right wing shitheads who waste time on gun legislation...

...because gun legislation is clearly only a bandaid to the problem of gun violence (although mysteriously, only when liberals propose it)....

..because liberals who waste time on gun legislation should be focusing on more important issues of the sort that the right wing shitheads who waste time on gun legislation are bitterly opposed to...

...because after all, there's less gun violence in Canada than there is here, although that's NOT because Canada has a social safety net of the sort that liberals who waste time on gun legislation are trying to enact over the objections of the right wing shitheads who waste time on gun legislation, who are bitterly opposed to the social safety net and all liberal ideas......

[porphyrian]

373. You're wrong, but it's not worth the effort to prove it again. - n/t

[MrBenchley]

381. Hahahahahaha....

I've pegged you and your spurious gibberish exactly.

[porphyrian]

385. Actually, no, you haven't.

But you're proving that either you can't understand that or that you enjoy lying about it.

[MrBenchley]

386. Actually, yes, I have....

[porphyrian]

387. Wrong again, but thanks for proving it. - n/t

[MrBenchley]

388. Tee hee hee...

[porphyrian]

389. There's nothing funny about you being so wrong. - n/t

[MrBenchley]

392. Since I'm not wrong, there's plenty funny...

[porphyrian]

393. Wrong again. - n/t

[MrBenchley]

394. HA ha....

[crankybubba]

336. poor deluded benchley

can't come up with a logial argument or even put together a cogent sentance. You have been the one here hurling insults no one else. how many posts in this thread of yours have been deleted because of insults? YOu are not worthy debating with since you do not use logic and reasoning. all you do is parrot dubious v.p.c. rethoric and infer anyone that does'nt agree with you is a freeper and a racist. You make outrageous claims and fail to back those claims up with unbaised sources. btw it's now 62% here on d.u. against 1 handgun per month(;))
I know it hurts but you'll get over it.

[MrBenchley]

340. Trot out another Hitler quote, why doncha?

Guess I'll just have to console myself with the FACT that an overwhelming majority of Americans, including pretty much every notable liberal or moderate around is on my side, and leave you to chum around with David Duke and John AshKKKroft.

"You make outrageous claims and fail to back those claims up with unbaised sources."
Says the guy who was trying to pass off a bogus quote from "Guns" magazine...(snicker)

[crankybubba]

346. you still have'nt

discredited the hubert humphrey quote. DId he say it or not??? If he did'nt, disprove it. you can't that why you engage in histronics. Fact huh??? the topic loses here on d.u. and it's not because of freepers etc. it's because most progressives are for freedom. not limitation of rights. answer this: as a guns rights advocate what are your goals?

[MrBenchley]

350. It's GUNS magazine, bubba...orf course it's horseshit.

"most progressives are for freedom."
Which is why they're not dumb enough to fall for the crap AshKKKroft and his trigger-happy chums are peddling.

"answer this: as a guns rights advocate what are your goals?"
Jeeze, bubba...you ought to know by now I'm not a "gun rights" advocate...that whole movement is nothing but racist right wing extremism hiding under a new sheet.

[crankybubba]

355. you know what i meant

as a anti gun advocate what measures to you advocate. it's an easy question. and you have'nt refuted the quote. provide proof

[MrBenchley]

358. How the fuck am I supposed to know what you mean?

And it's rich that NOW you want to have a discussion of "measures."

Trot out another Hitler quote, why doncha?

[crankybubba]

360. I asked you a simple question

yet don't want to commit to an answer. do you have a call in to sara brady and are waiting on her to tell you what to say????

[MrBenchley]

364. And I no longer care what you ask....

Now trot out another Hitler quote and I'll have a good laugh...

By the way, if you're so adamant about questions being answered, when are you going to answer any of mine? For example, tell us what scummy things do John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Diane Feinstein, Charles Schumber, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Rahm Emanuel, John Lewis, Max Cleland, Dick Durbin, Carolyn McCarthy, Molly Ivins, etc., promote?

You claimed they did, back in your post #284.

[crankybubba]

366. very telling

you don't want to answer a question about you own position on this subject. Oh weel I guess were done here. It was a parody of your quote in humor. You are reaching now.

1. you have not refuted that the parts in an ar15 are different
2. you have not refuted that hubert humphrey made the quote
3. you refuse to state you gun banning goals.
4. you refuse to back up ANY of you statments with unbiased sources
etc,etc,etc.

bradys haven't returned you call yet huh. cry my a river and all that ok.(;))

[MrBenchley]

369. Yup, it's telling that all you've got are bogus quotes

and crap from GUNS magazine....

Guess you're dodging that question of mine, too.

[crankybubba]

371. so...

still waiting on the phone call huh..let me know when she calls ya and give you you opinion, ok. I answered your question already read the posts.

[MrBenchley]

379. Yup...all you've got are bogus quotes...

By the way, what the fuck is anyone supposed to DO with those quotes? Is the idea that I'm supposed to fall to my knees and cry "Oh no! Hubert Humphrey said it (according to the lying fuckwits at Guns magazine hahahahaha) so I must obey!"

That's sure as shit some swell "freedom-loving," all right.

[crankybubba]

374. here is the complete quote

"And I'm not bright enough to notice what a fucking disaster gun control has been for America....or who in public life is in favor of gun control...or what other scummy things those fuckwits promote.

there made you sound 1000% smarter hahahahaha ( )"

left off the laughter at the end did ya. Just goes to show how dishonest you are intellectually. have to edit a quote to make it fit you agenda. ver, very sad benchley. it's obvious it was satire directed at you. It did make you sound smarter that way though(;))

you have'nt responded yet so i guess sara must be busy. let me know when she gets back to ya.

[MrBenchley]

383. So I guess you ARE going to dodge the question....

"ver, very sad benchley"
What isn't sad about the trigger happy?

The gun rights arguments are moronically dishonest and usually delivered in an incoherent manner.

The gun rights public spokespeople are the actual scum of the earth.

The entire movement is nothing but racist right wing extremism hiding under a new sheet.

The gun industry is made up of scumbags like Sun Myung Moon and neoNazi sugar daddy Gaston Glock...

[crankybubba]

391. did'nt you just say that??????

sad when the bradys won't call you back to give you your opinion.

[MrBenchley]

264. You will notice

that the current "guns guns guns" policy has been an utter disaster in every way, with as many as 115,000 Americans shot in a typical year. That is WHY the majority are in favor of gun control.

You'll notice our chum is noticeably reticient in mentioning how much the members of the Second Amendment Caucus (and other pro-gun Republicans) are doing to EXACERBATE those social problems that we are forbidden to put so much as a bandaid on.

[crankybubba]

311. thomas jefferson

had this to say.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.--Thomas Jefferson, quoting with approval a noted criminologist of his day."

[crankybubba]

312. or walter mondale

"“Gun bans don’t disarm criminals, gun bans attract them.” ~~ Walter Mondale"

[MrBenchley]

316. That would be "anti-gun Walter Mondale" (snicker)

Here's racist fuckwit and gun rights advocate Larry Pratt, lying about the 2000 elections (Be sure and note the scummy Nazi turds he IS endorsing)...

"anti-gun former Vice President Walter Mondale"

http://www.gunowners.org/smu1302.htm

"and recalling that Walter Mondale supported a ban on personal defense handguns when he ran unsuccessfully for president in 1984"

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/2002electionMN.htm


Here's one of the leading pro-gun screwlooses, Neal Knox....

"NRA rated Coleman as an "A," which may be a bit generous,
but former Vice President and Sen. Walter Mondale was an assured "F.""

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:eSF4-SmIlz0J:www.nealknox.com/alerts/msg00122.html+%22Walter+Mondale%22+anti-gun&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

And so once again we see that "gun rights" is just plain old right wing racism hiding under a sheet.....

[MrBenchley]

314. Dredge up them empty old quotes, bubba...

"a noted criminologist of his day"
Yeah, science was really at its apex in 1790's....

[crankybubba]

323. still going by the playbook huh

not answering questions and bringing up the same tired responses.

<sarcasm>good job<sarcasm>

[MrBenchley]

325. What question did you have there, bubba?

You presented a Thomas Jefferson quote (which as far as I know is as bogus as the other crap you've dredged up) like we're all supposed to fall down and blindly obey what was said 200 years ago when the world was very different.

Fuck THAT shit.

[crankybubba]

328. according to your logic we

might as well throw away the constitution because it was written in a different time. <sarcasm> nice<sarcasm>

[MrBenchley]

333. So I wasn't dodging any question after all....

And your quote IS bogus. Thanks for confirming both halves of that.

[crankybubba]

339. I don't know where you got that

out of my post. time to check your meds.

[MrBenchley]

342. It's blindingly obvious from your posting, bubba...

[crankybubba]

348. run out of arguments huh>

[MrBenchley]

352. Yup, it looks like you've run completely out of arguments...

Not that the ones you had were worth considering...

Trot out another Hitler quote, why doncha?

[Junkdrawer]

208. And put gun-runners out of business? Doesn't the Second Admendment...

guarantee the right to run guns to anyone, regardless of their criminal history?

[Fairlyunbalanced]

247. How will we protect ourselves from the government?

Anyone know where I can purchase an anti aircraft gun, an anti tank missile, and an enormous army?

Oh! And if you don't mind, please send me an anti vote fraud truth ray. I'd like to upgrade to the 2008 version, as the 2000 and 2004 models seem to have been flawed. I hear that the 2008 model also comes with an optional anti propaganda bayonette.

Furthermore, to protect against the criminal element, I would like a bulletproof vest that I can wear to the gas station, and when I'm walking down the street.

I have a knifeproof vest, but I hear that those aren't very effective in stopping random gun crime. Also my patented anti-screwdriver and blunt object cream, gave me a rash. So i'll have to settle for kevlar :sigh:

To protect my children in school i think that they should all be able to openly carry weapons. That way no kid could shoot another kid without getting shot himself. Or at least, maybe the kids will be nicer to each other knowing that within 5 seconds any slighted individual could end their lives.

Carrying openly works very well for my personal protection. I almost got in a fight at the local pub the other night, but we both drew our chromed gloks and frolicked around each other in a Desperado-esque dance of mutual detterrence. Afterwards I hopped on my horse and rode off into the sunset with the girl.

She was blonde.

She had very large breasts.

My horse was very smart.

He also has a gun.

So don't mess with him.

[evirus]

266. provided

provided that the buyer is mentaly competent, has a vary good record, and have taken a gun safty corse in the past 3 years, id say at that point they can buy more then 1 a month.

hay collecters are collecters, if the records fit then let them buy their hobby

[Beelzebud]

289. Issues like this is what turns the "average Joe" away from the dems...

God, guns, and gays, as the saying goes. Wedge issues.

We would do better by focusing on healthcare, job security, and an intelligent national defense strategy.

Ban guns, videogames, and smoking in private businesses, and you're going to turn off a whole hell of a lot of people.

[gizmo1979]

308. Yea that's at the top

of the list.Ban guns.Don't be stupid.

[MrBenchley]

317. Yeah, them bigots sure hate gays and blacks and Jews and love them guns...

"Ban guns, videogames, and smoking in private businesses, and you're going to turn off a whole hell of a lot of people. "
Yeah! Fuck public safety-- let corrupt corporations run wild and free like rabid hyenas...

Don't gun "enthusiasts" ever get tired of swallowing right wing horseshit?

[madeline_con]

296. "... as many guns as possible" ???

How about as many as they damn well please as long as they're law abiding citizens, and others keep their noses out of it?

[crankybubba]

310. thank you

for injecting some sense into this thread.

[KamaAina]

305. The one-handgun-a-month law was not aimed at Virginians

it was aimed at bootleg dealers from the Northeast who would head down I-95 and pick up a load of guns under Va.'s then-lax gun laws to take back and sell on the streets of NYC, Philly, etc. Apparently the NRA is nostalgic for the days when it was unsafe to walk around, say, the East Village.

[sendero]

315. Couldn't the law..

... apply only to non-state residents?

I mean after all, it is not hard to require proof of residency to make a purchase, I do it all the time.

I could totally support a law that restricts out of state residents, but not a law that applies to residents of the state.

[LynneSin]

322. Why do I need to buy more than 1 handgun a month for?

:shrug:

I see nothing wrong with this law - no one needs to buy more than 1 per month, hell you can only really use 1 at a time (ok, maybe 2 if you're good with the gun) but unless you plan to give guns away as xmas presents I see no use!

[MrBenchley]

327. To peddle them to criminals and loonies, obviously...

Which is why the arguments arguing that the law ought to be overturned are so lame and palpably dishonest.

(edited to make it clear that the rhetorical second person general wasn't meant as an attack on LynneSin)...

[LynneSin]

357. Whoopsies my bad - I should know better

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

359. LOL!

Even Dirty Harry seems to be able to muddle along year after year with just the one handgun....

[crankybubba]

362. btw I have a smith and wesson .44 mag

if you would like to try it sometime(;))

[MrBenchley]

367. Wow... you must be one manly mothafucka, bubba....

What a shame your intellectual arsenal is so empty...

[crankybubba]

368. yawn..............

the best you can do? sara still has'nt called ya back huh.

[MrBenchley]

370. The best would be wasted on you....

(snicker)

[crankybubba]

372. weak.

try paging sara brady next time maybe she will get back to you sooner.

[Name removed]

380. Deleted message

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

[crankybubba]

390. sad

sara brady STILL has'nt got back to ya. no argument=personal attack

[ArkDem]

332. All citizens should be required to buy 2 handguns a month.

[MrBenchley]

353. Ah, them "freedom loving" gun owners...

Why not send the dough directly TO the Republican party and cut out the middle man?

[ArkDem]

378. Detecting scarcasm is not your strong suit.

[MrBenchley]

382. Look up and down the thread

at all the mindless pro-gun pronouncements...

Yours isn't that far off the real mark...

[OrlandoGator]

361. Interesting poll results.

Although I'm sure the anti-gunners will just claim the poll was Freeped.

[Junkdrawer]

384. How many links from pro-gun forums do you think point to this poll?

I'll bet lots. The early voting was FIRMLY against more than one a month, then the pro-gun numbers shot up quickly, no pun intended.

[Skinner]

395. I think 400+ replies is enough.

I hope you don't mind if I lock this thread.