Kerry's stellar record on gun control

[DJcairo]

Kerry gets A's from gun control groups across the board and F's from pro-gun groups.

2003 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

2002 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Bar Association--Special Committee on Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999-2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.


1999-2000 On the votes that the American Bar Association--Special Committee on Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1999-2000 Based on the results of a questionnaire the Gun Owners of America assigned Senator Kerry a grade of F- (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F-).

1999 On the votes that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1999 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

1987-1999 On the votes that the The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considered to be the most important in 1987-1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103#Gun+Issues

[slackmaster]

1. And that is why I support Howard Dean

We don't need a knee-jerk gun control zealot as our Presidential candidate.

[DJcairo]

5. Then vote Republican, please.

[slackmaster]

6. Bite me

[IndianaGreen]

45. Gun rights are also civil rights!

"Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

--Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

We did. There are now over 35 Pink Pistols chapters nationwide, and more are starting up every day. We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community. We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage. Self-defense is our RIGHT.

The Pink Pistols get together at least once a month at local firing ranges to practice shooting, and to acquaint people new to firearms with them. We will help you select a firearm, acquire a permit, and receive proper training in its safe and legal use for self-defense. The more people know that members of our community may be armed, the less likely they will be to single us out for attack. Join us today. It is your RIGHT.

http://www.pinkpistols.com/index2.html

[Rose Siding]

2. Now there's a winning issue

:eyes:

[disgruntella]

3. Whether it's "winning" or not

I am glad to have this information. Thanks to the original poster.

[DJcairo]

4. Both Clinton and Gore supported sensible gun control

In case you forgot, Clinton won two terms and Gore won the popular vote. In addition, why is you all are for liberal positions (i.e. against the war in Iraq, rescinding the Bush tax cuts, etc.) and say we must not compromise our positions and then sound like Republicans on gun control. Please, most of the country supports sensible gun control. It's the right wing nuts you are aligning yourself with on this issue.

[slackmaster]

8. Howard Dean supports sensible gun control

Vermont has some of the loosest gun laws and lowest crime rates. There is no reason states shouldn't be allowed to determine what kind of gun controls are appropriate for them. Liberal gun laws are appropriate in states where people can be trusted with them. Good, intelligent, educated people like Vermonters can be trusted with their guns. In places with ignorant, poor, violent people who cannot be trusted with guns, stricter controls may be needed.

The only thing missing from our current federal gun laws is enforcement. A convicted felon who tries to walk into Big 5 Sporting Goods and buy a firearm might be stopped by the criminal background check, but the chance of that person being prosecuted for breaking the law by ATTEMPTING to buy the gun is less than 1%.

[blm]

26. depending on what state you live in...but

since when do guns STAY in the state they are purchased?

[slackmaster]

28. Most of them do

Those that do not have been moved by criminals. It's illegal for an unlicensed individual to transfer a gun to another state.

We should start enforcing the law before imposing any additional restrictions.

[sandnsea]

46. OMFG, I can't believe you posted this

Good, intelligent, educated people like Vermonters can be trusted with their guns.

In places with ignorant, poor, violent people who cannot be trusted with guns, stricter controls may be needed.

You know what FUCK YOU!!!

That was the most revolting thing I've seen posted on this board anad I've seen ALOT. And I'm not even going to pretend this is something Howard Dean said or would support.

[slackmaster]

48. Sometimes the truth hurts, doesn't it?

Sorry if I gored your state or locality, but violent crime is all about poverty and class and ignorance and segregation and not about guns. That's PRECISELY why Washington DC, New York City, Chicago, New Jersey, and California all have enacted stricter gun controls than most of the country. All of the above have blighted areas where underprivileged, downtrodden, poor, unemployed, undereducated, underclass people commit most of the violent crimes in the USA.

Some people are more trustworthy than others when it comes to how they treat others. Leave out the large crime-infested urban areas and the USA as a whole has about the same crime rates as England and Wales.

Blaming the problem of gun violence on guns is tantamount to keeping your head in the sand. It's the PEOPLE. Dean's point is that different states have different needs for gun control. The underlying reality which decorum and politics prevent him from saying explicitly is that some states have better-behaved people than other states. That is the truth, and it is easily shown by looking at crime statistics by state.

Rather than trying to fix the symptom by curtailing everyone's right to own a gun, wouldn't it make more sense to work on the root causes of poverty, inequality, and the class structure that is designed to keep some people down? Of the two choices, which really sounds more progressive if you look at the situation objectively? And let's end the pointless War On (some) Drugs while we're at it.

[sandnsea]

52. You're the one from California

I wouldn't be talking about MY locality, which by the way has been Oregon or Montana my entire adult life.

But seeings you're in California, we can only guess to whom you're referring when you point to the ignorant, poor, violent people who cannot be trusted with guns. And seeings California violent crime rate is generally in the top 10 or 15 of all states, California must be one of those states whose people can't be trusted with guns. Yet you still insist you be allowed to have one, anywhere, anytime.

And I certainly understand different states have different situations. But the problem is that some of the states who want to keep the guns the most are the ones with the biggest problems. And so if you want to pretend a state like Tennessee or Texas is rural and therefore ought to be allowed to make their own gun laws, then you'll have to continue to live with the gun violence in California when they bring their free-flowing weapons to you.

[slackmaster]

53. It's the CRIMINALS, most of whom happen to be poor and ignorant

California must be one of those states whose people can't be trusted with guns.

That is apparently what our state legislators believe. I do not agree with them.

Yet you still insist you be allowed to have one, anywhere, anytime.

Nice strawman. Of course it has no relationship to anything I have ever said or written in my entire life.

But the problem is that some of the states who want to keep the guns the most are the ones with the biggest problems. And so if you want to pretend a state like Tennessee or Texas is rural and therefore ought to be allowed to make their own gun laws, then you'll have to continue to live with the gun violence in California when they bring their free-flowing weapons to you.

California is a very big state and Texas is a very, very long way away. I can assure you that criminals in Los Angeles who want to buy illegal guns need go no farther away from home than they go to visit their drug dealers.

Whether or not you believe states should be "allowed" to keep making their gun laws is a moot point. The present laws and trends in laws clearly show that people in MOST states value the right to keep and bear arms. If the Democratic Party tries to go against that, it gives people one more reason, small or large depending on their personal views, to vote for someone other than a Democrat.

This map shows the trend toward "shall-issue" laws, which say that anyone who meets a set of objective criteria as defined by their state can obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Write it off as the product of the VRWC at your own risk. A lot of Democrats and voters live in those states.

[sandnsea]

54. Sad sad sad

You're using the fact that states have enacted laws setting requirements for people to carry concealed weapons as evidence that people are pro-gun? Is that what you mean? It's actually proof that people want regulations on who can carry a gun, it was certainly the intent here in Oregon, but maybe I misunderstand you.

States 'with poor ignorant people' have a need to pass gun laws is your position. This is what causes high crime rates according to you. Since California has a high crime rate, it's only logical to conclude from your statements that it's because of the 'poor ignorant people'. So it is certainly not a strawman to confront you on the contradiction in your own position.

And your comparison to the drug dealers is excellent. The drugs aren't being grown in L.A. They're coming from alot farther away than Texas. Good analagy for you to consider.

[slackmaster]

55. I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the issue

You're using the fact that states have enacted laws setting requirements for people to carry concealed weapons as evidence that people are pro-gun? Is that what you mean?

Affirmative. Most of the states that have gone to "shall-issue" have upgraded to that from "discretionary issue" systems which are prone to cronyism and discrimination. If a state was anti-gun, it seems reasonable to assume they would tend to not want concealed carry at all or would want to stick with discretionary issue (e.g. California).

It's actually proof that people want regulations on who can carry a gun, it was certainly the intent here in Oregon, but maybe I misunderstand you.

With the historical exception of Vermont, EVERY STATE used to have laws that prohibited anyone from carrying a concealed weapon. Permits were issued only to people who could prove to their local police or a countywide "gun board" that they had a valid reason to get one. Some states like Kansas have never issued permits at all.

Shall-issue laws take the cops and bureaucrats out of the equation. Any person who meets ONE statewide set of objective criteria can get a permit. Criteria typically include classroom instruction, hands-on training and/or passage of a shooting test, and a fee.

If you think gun control groups are pushing for liberalized carry laws you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. The Brady Center, Violence Policy Center, etc. are fervently opposed to shall-issue laws, and groups like the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association are cheerleaders for shall-issue. They are also pushing for a national concealed-carry reciprocity law so that every state would be required to honor other states' permits, just like driver licenses.

States 'with poor ignorant people' have a need to pass gun laws is your position. This is what causes high crime rates according to you. Since California has a high crime rate, it's only logical to conclude from your statements that it's because of the 'poor ignorant people'.

We do have a lot of poor ignorant people here. I'm sorry my sarcasm went over your head so thoroughly, but to be perfectly blunt I do not believe gun control laws are generally the best solution to criminal misuse of firearms. I find it insulting that my state's legislature treats us like children here in California. Education, economic opportunity, equality, justice, desegregation, and adequate support of needy people, treatment of addiction, etc. go a lot farther toward reducing violent crime than any gun law can ever do.

So it is certainly not a strawman to confront you on the contradiction in your own position.

I don't see any contradiction in my position. Your strawman was this statement, referring to me:

"Yet you still insist you be allowed to have one, anywhere, anytime."

I have never said any such thing.

And your comparison to the drug dealers is excellent. The drugs aren't being grown in L.A.

It depends on what drugs you are talking about. Most marijuana used in California is grown locally. Most methamphetamine sold in California is synthesized locally, as are fashionable drugs like Escstacy (MDMA or whatever). Only opiates and coca products are imported from far away.

They're coming from alot farther away than Texas. Good analagy for you to consider.

You should consider that if drugs can be imported from Afghanistan or Peru, so can guns. But guns can be made rather easily in a small machine shop. They do not have to be imported from places like the Phillipines or Brazil, both of which are famous for making high-quality copies of US guns, but they certainly can and will be if the supply of locally stolen guns in Los Angeles were to ever dry up.

It's simple supply and demand.

[MrBenchley]

12. Yes it is....

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

[searchingforlight]

7. This is not a black and white issue.

There are good reasons to own and shoot guns. There are reasonable people who use guns with respect and courtesy for their fellowman

I am not a gun enthusiast. I wasn't raised in a home with guns. I don't hunt and actually don't understand the thinking behing enjoying hunting BUT my sons and my husband's family are all hunters and gun owners. They enjoy it and who am I to say that they don't have a right to do that.

They are not the type to rob a bank or kill someone. They just like target shooting, skeet and the whole aura around hunting season.

[DJcairo]

9. I'm sure Charleton Heston would agree

But I don't. Hand guns are wrong. And, for Dems to pretend to be anti-war no matter what and then to sidestep gon control is an outrage. It just shows that we take the positions of the candidate we support and claiming that Kerry wants to have it both ways while Dean shoots straight is hypocritical if you are a Dean supporter. This issue is why.

[slackmaster]

10. I'll give up my handgun

When someone comes up with a less lethal personal self-defense weapon that is as effective as a handgun at making a person stop in his or her tracks.

[DJcairo]

11. Are you attacked often?

Geez man...chill.

[slackmaster]

15. I haven't been attacked in about 30 years

The gun seems to be working just fine. Why would you deprive me of the freedom to choose to own one? What would be the offsetting benefit to society of disarming me, personally? What kind of protection would you provide me against looters in the event of an earthquake, tropical storm, or other event that disrupted the civil order for several days?

I keep a gun and ammo in my earthquake survival kit. Californians who know what can happen are equipped to deal with it.

[DJcairo]

19. Good for you--

The simple fact is that countries that forcid the sale of handguns all together are safer and have far less crime and far lower homicide rates. However, no one is proposing to take your gun away, they are simply proposing that you not be able to buy more than one a month in California - and that is by far the strictest legislation around. How many do you need to buy a year - 12? 20? 100? Come on, admit its ridiculous. In addition, these gun store owners don't keep good records or have good security in their stores. There would have been no DC sniper had a certina gun store owner not been so negligent. However, when the Fed's discovered his negligence nothing was done. The guy paid a fine or something. It's a disgrace. That store owne was partially responsible for the deaths of 12 people.

[slackmaster]

32. Correlation does not prove causation

"...they are simply proposing that you not be able to buy more than one a month in California..."

Your source for this information is either mistaken or out of date. We have had a One-Handgun-Per-Month law in California for several years.

"How many do you need to buy a year - 12? 20? 100?"

Your assessment of my needs is not a valid basis for formation of public policy. I will buy as many handguns as I damn well please. I only have two hands, so what's it to you whether I own 2 or 100 of them in my collection?

There would have been no DC sniper had a certina gun store owner not been so negligent.

Your assumption is not supported by facts. Had they not been able to get that rifle there at that time they surely could have gotten another one somewhere else.

[MrBenchley]

40. Funny you bring that up

More than 300 guns walked out the door of the Bullseye Gun shop over the past couple years...which is STILL open for business...including not only the Beltway Sniper's gun but one of the guns Buford Furrow took on his wake-up call for Aemrica rampage where he shot up a daycare center and murdered a mailman.

Yet it's the RKBA crowd's contention that gun dealers are already significantly regulated....

Meanwhile, check out this new outrage....

"The rider that last week passed the full House Appropriations Committee by a 31-30 vote would cripple the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to enforce the nation’s gun laws against firearms dealers. The public’s safety and security will suffer if this amendment becomes law.

Specifically, the so-called “Tiahrt Amendment” would:

· Protect “Bad Apple” Dealers Who Cannot Keep Track of Their Firearms. The snipers who terrorized Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. obtained the assault rifle used in their sniper attacks from a Tacoma, Washington gun store called Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply. After the sniper suspects were apprehended and the gun was recovered and traced, Bull’s Eye claimed to have no record of selling the gun, and did not even know it was missing until the shooting spree was over. The snipers’ gun was just one of more than 238 firearms “missing” from Bull’s Eye’s inventory during the previous three years. Under the Tiahrt Amendment, ATF could no longer require dealers like Bull’s Eye to take a physical inventory of their firearms.

· Shield “Bad Apple” Dealers From the Public Eye. As ATF has indicated, analysis of crime gun traces and multiple sale reports has yielded a series of gun “trafficking indicators” that can be linked to particular firearms dealers, including multiple crime guns traced to an FFL or first retail purchaser; short time-to-crime for crime guns traced to an FFL or first retail purchaser; incomplete trace results, due to an unresponsive FFL or other causes; significant or frequently reported firearms losses or thefts by an FFL; and frequent multiple sales of handguns by an FFL or multiple purchases of firearms by a non-licensee, combined with crime gun traces. ATF has always made this information available to the public through Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests which allow for vital public oversight of the effectiveness of the Agency. Under the Tiahrt Amendment, ATF will not be allowed to release trace or multiple sale data, thereby shielding the worst firearms dealers from public scrutiny.

· End ATF’s Ability To Monitor the Small Group of Dealers Linked to a Majority of Crime Gun Traces. Several ATF studies have highlighted the fact that most crime guns are traced through a tiny subset of the federally licensed firearm dealers in this country. For example, in 1998, only 1.2 percent of the existing dealers (1,020) were responsible for selling more than 57 percent of the guns traced to crime. Most of these same dealers had a significant percentage of their traced guns linked to crime within a short time period, which ATF considers indicative of gun trafficking. One of the things ATF did was to require these high-risk dealers to provide information on sales of used guns to help identify additional crime guns linked to these stores. Under the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of ATF to gather additional data, ATF will be forced to abandon this focused enforcement effort.

· Require Destruction of Brady Act Records. Since its inception in 1994, the Brady Act has prevented more than 840,000 prohibited purchasers from getting guns. Pursuant to its regulatory authority, the Department of Justice (DOJ) currently maintains certain background check records for up to 90 days to ensure proper auditing of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and to ensure that if any criminals or other prohibited purchasers were incorrectly allowed to purchase guns, the mistakes can be corrected. Immediate destruction of the records, which the Tiahrt Amendment would require, would make it impossible for the DOJ to correct NICS errors and result in more criminals with guns. In a 2002 study, the General Accounting Office (GAO) noted the dangers of requiring that NICS records be destroyed within 24 hours. The GAO found that retained NICS records “that were more than 1 day old but less than 90 days old were used to initiate over 100 firearm-retrieval actions in the 4-month period beginning July 3, 2001 (when the current 90-day retention policy became effective) through October 2001. Thus, next-day destruction of NICS records could inhibit the ability of law enforcement to retrieve firearms from persons who were approved to purchase firearms but should not have been.” "

http://www.bradycampaign.com/press/release.asp?Record=500

[DrFunkenstein]

27. I Prefer a Bow and Arrow Set Myself

No one has bothered me for 60 years. Boss Hog and Roscoe have been on my ass since the 70's, but basically I'm just a good ole' boy never meaning any harm.

[searchingforlight]

13. Just out of curiousity.

Are you anti-hunting? Are you an animal rights activist? Have you ever been around guns? Have you ever known people who hunt and shoot? Do you think it is possible to own a gun of any kind and not use it criminally? (on edit) Have you ever lived in a rural environment?

I am just trying to understand your position and where it comes from.

[DJcairo]

14. I have no problem with hunting, it's hand guns i don't like

Why does this country need to sell guns made for the express purpose of killing other humans?

Answer me: Why are we the only western country that allows this?

[slackmaster]

16. We're not

Lots of "Western" countries allow citizens to own firearms for self-defense.

[DJcairo]

17. Name one

None of the European countries do.

[slackmaster]

18. How about two?

Canada and Australia.

Any Canadian or Australian citizen without a criminal record can obtain a handgun (up to a certain caliber) for self-defense. There are restrictions on size and type of action, but they can own guns.

[DJcairo]

20. Those are two restrictions we don't have

[slackmaster]

29. Don't move the goalpost

Your question was whether other Western countries allow their citizens to have handguns for personal use. Canada and Australia do.

[searchingforlight]

23. Canada

[searchingforlight]

22. I am not sure what you call a handgun.

If it is a gun that is held in one hand as opposed to a rifle, etc. there are good reasons for them. We have some pretty rural acres. My family strap a gun on when they go out to work in the woods often. They might come across the porcupine that has been eating the wood on our house or a rabid animal, or an animal that has been hurt and needs to be put out of it's misery. In snake country a handgun is very handy.

In addition, my family enjoys shooting at targets. It is a developed skill and it is something even the kids can do. It is also an opportunity to teach them responsible gun usage.

[DJcairo]

24. Fine---

But do you need to buy several of them every month. The most stringent gun control laws in the country are in CA and you know what they do.. They limit you to one a month. Now please tell me why the rest of the country can not have such a law. Do people need to be stockpiling weapons?

[slackmaster]

30. People have a right to stockpile anything they want

People don't need you to tell them what they do and do not need.

[searchingforlight]

31. I personally don't have a problem with that restriction.

There may be some good reasons but I can't think of one. California obviously felt it was a good deterrent.

So, in light of some of the things you have said, can you tell me why you don't think Dean's plan will work?

[DJcairo]

35. Clearly we need a more active Federal government

when it comes to gun control law. Dean says he favors states rights over who can own guns, not federal rights. I think that is a mistake and won't lead to any type of sensible Federal gun control legislation.

[slackmaster]

37. We already have plenty of sensible federal gun controls

The Gun Control Act of 1968 made these important changes in the law:

- Convicted felons, people dishonorably discharged from the military, people adjudicated as mentally incompetent, and illegal aliens cannot possess any kind of gun. Changes in 1994 added people who are under restraining orders for domestic violence.

- Created the Federal Firearms License system and made it a crime to deal guns without a license.

- No more guns by mail order. All interstate transfers and sales of new guns have to be done through federal firearms licensees.

The Brady Law and National Instant Check System made it possible to actually enforce the restrictions on prohibited classes of people, BUT IT IS NOT BEING ENFORCED!!! A convicted felon can walk into a gun store, sign an affidavit that he or she is NOT a convicted felon (Form 4473), get caught by NICS, and walk away free!

Here in San Diego last week we had a guy who was put under a restraining order by the mother of his 14-year-old son. The courts knew he owned three handguns and a shotgun because the woman mentioned them in her written statements. The man had threatened her and the boy. Because we have handgun registration in California the police knew about his guns. The temporary RO clearly says the restrainee cannot have guns, but NOBODY DID ANYTHING TO MAKE SURE HE GOT RID OF HIS! He shot his own son dead and then took his own life.

Don't try to sell that nonsense about not having enough federal gun laws. It's pure bullshit until we start enforcing the laws we already have.

[searchingforlight]

38. I think his position makes sense.

As the following poster says, we have federal gun control. We just don't have enforcement.

Further, if one is concerned about this issue, it is much easier to get legislation enacted on a State level.

He is not saying we don't need the rules. He is saying the States need to proactively decide what is right for their populations.

[Nicholas_J]

41. "Guns Dont kill people"

People with easy access to guns kill people"

[slackmaster]

43. And the opposite of having easy access to guns is...

Having NO access to them.

Are you being paid by the RNC or the NRA to post this stuff?

(Not an accusation, just a question.)

[DrFunkenstein]

25. Kerry Is A Proud Hunter

But he doesn't hunt with a hand gun or AK-47. On the other hand, gang members do.

My major issue here is that weapons can be easily bought in one state, and easily trafficked in another. From a law enforcement point of view, it is much easier to maintain sensible gun ownership at the gun shop than the highway.

[MercutioATC]

44. Yours is a far-left position on this issue, DJcairo.

To claim that people with more moderate views are "Republicans" is childish and divisive. I don't think anybody here is advocating handing weapons to kids or encourageing the personal ownership of nuclear weapons. Some of us, however, see a more pragmatic approach to gun control as a good thing.

[DJcairo]

21. Americans support gun control

From the National Gun Policy Survey:

A majority of Americans support having Congress hold hearings on the gun industry, and they want federal regulation of the design and manufacture of guns to protect the public safety.

The findings come from the 1999 National Gun Policy Survey, by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and the Joyce Foundation.

"Americans favor all measures to regulate firearms short of prohibiting guns in general," said Tom Smith. "First, most people, including most gun owners, believe there should be a set of common-sense regulations to control firearms, just as there are for automobiles. Second, most people's motto when it comes to firearms appears to be ‘safety first.' Gun safety is a concern of the vast majority of people."

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

thanks to a previous poster for the link

[MrBenchley]

33. They sure do

and across all demographic lines too....

The only people who don't want gun cotnrol are the sorts of trash clogging the aisles of gun shows in Confederate swastika shirts...and the corrupt gun industry itself.

[DJcairo]

34. and some of the people on DU apparently

I've never seen a confederate swastika shirt---jesus!

[DrFunkenstein]

36. It's Not About Slavery, It's About a Way of Life

<>

[MrBenchley]

39. You know

[Nicholas_J]

42. Shows the power

Of lobbying groups to oppose what the majority of the population see as a major problem and a hazzard.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. They sure do, but

Those who are opposed to gun control feel a lot more strongly than those who favor it. They will work hard to defeat any candidate who they think wants to take away their guns.

[kwolf68]

47. And this is A reason I support Kerry

Our nation is consumed with violence and death. Our way of life permeates killing…We spend billions of dollars every year to produce more machinery to kill more people, we invest science and research in devising new ways to murder more people, quicker and cheaper.

We have an epidemic of school shootings across our land, we have more guns than people, we have taken our lust for blood to the woods in the form of sport hunting…so many of us have to KILL KILL KILL. It’s a “Thrill Kill Cult.”

And at the end of the day it is couched as some “freedom” to have GUNS GUNS GUNS. I am not opposed to people having the right to bear arms. I am in support of the 2nd amendment, but its absolutist interpretation mocks reality, mocks what Jefferson himself said and shows the hypocrisy of the right while other “restrictions” on other amendments are put into place. After all, why can’t I own a SAM, a bazooka, or a tank? It is afterall a right to bear arms and overthrow the government-by force-if necessary.

Obviously, a 12 gauge shotgun won’t do much versus a tyrannical government? So I need access to better weapons, ones that can kill more people faster…Give it to me, it’s my RIGHT…God bless America and God Bless guns.

[slackmaster]

51. I think you need to study the situation a little more deeply

After all, why can’t I own a SAM, a bazooka, or a tank?

You can own all of the above if you live in a state that allows it, you can pass the federal background check, and you can afford it.

In fact a tank sans weaponry can be owned by anyone, anywhere.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. This will certainly help him carry the South