Help me respond to my brother

[rhiannon55]

My brother sent me the following email today. I am not a gun owner and I don't know how to respond. What do DUer gun owners think about Obama's record on guns? What IS his record/stand? I googled "Obama's stand on guns" and got a lot of mixed stuff. I would really appreciate knowing what you guys think about this subject.

"Some of my concerns about Obama as President are listed below.

1) My #1 concern about any politician is their stand on the Second Amendment. I believe it is an individual right and is the key to our freedom. Every instance of genocide in history, including recent world history, was preceded by confiscation of firearms. Some of these include:

Bosnia-Herzegovina: 1992-1995 - 200,000 Deaths
Rwanda: 1994 - 800,000 Deaths
Pol Pot in Cambodia: 1975-1979 - 2,000,000 Deaths
Nazi Holocaust: 1938-1945 - 6,000,000 Deaths
Rape of Nanking: 1937-1938 - 300,000 Deaths
Stalin's Forced Famine: 1932-1933 - 7,000,000 Deaths
Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000 Deaths

I believe Obama, based on his record and public statements, is anti-gun and will take them if he gets the chance. He says that he supports the Second Amendment because he is for hunting. The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting."

[Mythsaje]

1. My dad has similar concerns, but he was more worried about Hillary.

I just wish we'd start actually enforcing the laws we have NOW rather than trying to make new ones.

[pt22]

2. Obama is way too ambivalent on this for me but I see why he thinks he needs to be.

However, your brother is mostly right. :D

[ingac70]

3. Tell your brother to get a life.

Bill Clinton didn't take his guns, Jimmy Carter didn't take his guns. He needs to stop brainwashing himself with this crap.

[pipoman]

19. With Bill it wasn't for lack of desire or trying, it was for lack of support

and militant resistance.

[ingac70]

42. Oh please...

More gun restrictions came out of the Poppy Bush Admin than Clinton's whole 8 years.

[pipoman]

60. I didn't say they were all sucessful

Almost immediately when Bill came to office he and his administration began suggesting various and sundry gun control measures. Some of the suggestions involved ammunition, perhaps most notably the suggestion to require manufacture of primers with a 3 year shelf life. The result was hoarding of ammo and primers. Both became in short supply. Many people began talking, soon the rise and organization of the unorganized militia became common in nearly every state. Fueling the issue was the memory of Ruby Ridge, then the Waco incident, then the AWB. Many 2nd Amendment supporters (both Dems and Thugs) were becoming increasingly irritated. Then the bombing in OKC which McVeigh admitted that he was highly motivated by the afore mentioned incidents. After that Bill, strongly encouraged by Dems and Thugs alike, decided to shut up about further gun control measures.

With Bill it wasn't for lack of desire or trying, it was for lack of support and militant resistance.

[ingac70]

61. ....

Ruby Ridge happened before Clinton got in office.

[pipoman]

62. I didn't state otherwise.

[SteveM]

71. With respect, you miss the point...

Any time Democrats (and some Repubs) float a gun control bill -- however ineffective it ultimately is -- the GOP ends up "taking" quite a few Democrats down. Bill Clinton recognized this when he opined that it was Gore's inconvenient support of the assault weapon ban which cost him the 2000 election. Gore's defeat, of course, doesn't include many U.S. Senate candidates, scores of congressional candidates and who knows how many state legislators. And a Democratic candidate in, say, North Carolina is not immune to being shot down even if he/she has no record of gun-control when GOP interests use the voting record of Diane Feinstein to "nationalize" the issue. For better or worse, the NRA has been described as the largest single-issue voting group in the nation, and the most powerful special interest group in the nation. And it shows.

[iverglas]

75. quote, please

Bill Clinton recognized this when he opined that it was Gore's inconvenient support of the assault weapon ban which cost him the 2000 election.

I've asked for it repeately, never got it, but this bilge keeps getting spewed.

Anybody here who doesn't think Bill Clinton is smart enough to say what he means and mean what he says just hasn't been paying attention.

Quote, please.

[Zavulon]

4. As an Obama supporter who is pro-gun,

I would tend to say that his first point is a bit alarmist but I agree with the essence (I don't want only government to have a legal right to guns).

I can't help you much here if you want to argue against guns, but as an Obama supporter I would love to know what his other points are.

[rhiannon55]

10. Here's the rest of his email

"2) He has no military experience. Regardless about what happens in the current war, it is likely that in the next 4-8 years, that we may be involved in another war somewhere or perhaps an extension of this war. I believe McCain's extensive military experience could be a real asset in any military endeavor.

3) Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, etc. Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground and bombed several government buildings. He not only is not sorry but has said recently that he wished the he had done more. We all have heard Rev. Wright's anti American rants. Obama having long-term relationships seems to indicate that he feels the same way about America.

4) Obama's charismatic speaking style could be an effective way for a man with dangerous anti-American sentiments to seduce Americans who are desperately wanting change. Hitler was very charismatic too.

I'm not saying that Obama is definitely bad. He just worries me."

[merwin]

12. That sounds an awful lot like he took talking points and just did a cut and paste on them.

He needs to stop watching FOX News.

[Zavulon]

58. Thanks. Man, what a crock that letter is.

"2) He has no military experience. Regardless about what happens in the current war, it is likely that in the next 4-8 years, that we may be involved in another war somewhere or perhaps an extension of this war. I believe McCain's extensive military experience could be a real asset in any military endeavor.

Then he should have voted for Kerry in 2004. What does he say about Bush's so-called "experience," or is he going to hide behind the "don't change horses in midstream" drivel? Besides, if Obama is president instead of McCain, the likelihood of us being "involved in another war somewhere or perhaps an extension of this war" drops significantly, whereas under McCain it would move from "likelihood" to "certainty."

3) Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, etc. Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground and bombed several government buildings. He not only is not sorry but has said recently that he wished the he had done more. We all have heard Rev. Wright's anti American rants. Obama having long-term relationships seems to indicate that he feels the same way about America.

Can't help you here. This bothers me, too - and even though I was in Obama's corner all through the primaries and remain there, I don't believe for a minute that Wright's "God damn America" routine was a surprise to Obama at all.

4) Obama's charismatic speaking style could be an effective way for a man with dangerous anti-American sentiments to seduce Americans who are desperately wanting change. Hitler was very charismatic too.

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing ever written. I don't even know where to start. The people I know who don't like Obama's ideas weren't swayed by his speaking style, which - even as an Obama supporter - I find a bit overrated. He's no more of a good speaker than John Kerry was, for instance. The Hitler remark was so fucking dumb that I won't waste time on it except for one remark: Hitler got where he got and got what he wanted by playing on people's fears. Ask him if his words on Hitler ever crossed his mind when thinking of George W. Bush, who did the same thing. I don't see Obama doing it, but I do see McCain doing it. If Hitler is going to be used as an example, then it would be a good idea to know something about history.

I'm not saying that Obama is definitely bad. He just worries me."

But McCain doesn't? The man is 311 years old and insane. Thanks for forwarding this, though - it sure was amusing.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Guns Are Basically Outlawed In Europe, Except For Switzerland

Doesn't seem to be a problem there. Look at this chart:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166

The countries with the lowest gun homicide rates have tight restrictions on guns. Of course, Switzerland's insistence that all men have a gun nets a (relatively) high gun homicide rate.

My own state of Massachusetts has the tightest gun laws of any state, and among the lowest gun homicide rates. I'm not too worried about our State Cops starting a genocide - they're usually nice enough.

As to Obama's record on guns - I've heard of no such thing. Perhaps your brother can point to specific statements?

[2Design]

8. florida practically gives them away it seems - high crime here n/t

[benEzra]

31. No higher than New Jersey (5.0 vs. 4.8, at last count).

Florida's murder rate is only about half that of Maryland (over 9.0 at last count), IIRC.

FWIW, Florida gun laws are comparable to most of the nation's, and slightly stricter than many.

[2Design]

46. orlando had 128 murders last year - that doesn't count the rest of the crime n/t

[pipoman]

63. And Baltimore had 270 and Chicago had 598...point? N/T

[pipoman]

64. BTW where are you getting your stats from?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/data/orl-homicidemap-main,0,4865031.htmlpage?coll=orl_news_custom_data_xpromo

In 2007, 98 people were slain in Orlando and Orange County, down from the record 113 people murdered in 2006. See a map of 2007 murders. In 1997, 40 people were murdered.<\b>

[beevul]

17. Its his voting record...

Its his voting record that sucks on gun issues...well...depending if you hold pro-gun views, or are a pro-control and/or gun banner.


Theres no spinning away, retreating from, or hiding from ones voting record, as a legislator. I'd bet dollars to donuts he gets pounded on his voting record where gun issues are concerned, once things start heating up. The reality of the situation, is that his adversaries will not have to make anything up - his voting record speaks for itself:

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

That stuff right there is enough to turn one hell of a lot of voters against him, and sufficient ammunition (no pun intended) for the other side to hammer him on the issue unless he makes some kind of public statement to counter it. Heller may insulate him from the issue to a degree, should it bear an individual rights ruling, but if it isn't, hes in deep trouble...we're ALL in deep trouble.


FWIW, I'll be voting for the guy but I am not happy about it, because of his voting record on the gun issue. As a gun owner, I have a very hard time trusting people that support/supported gun bans, and I'd be much more comfy if he'd publicly denounce them all together.

[trixie]

6. Not even the same thing

My family members are all hunters and this "gun position" has never bothered them. Now they don't have a hankering for assault rifles etc, no handgunse etc. Having strict laws on criminals and mental deficient persons has never been a threat to our society. Taking away our rights, like Bush has done has done worse for us then the controlling of guns. Your brother should be more worried that the government can lock him away for years without any right to council then his being able to buy a gun at the corner store without a background check.

[benEzra]

24. "Assault weapons" are the most popular civilian target rifles

and defensive carbines in the United States, and more people own them than hunt (taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition). About 2.5 times as many people own handguns as hunt.

Hunting is mostly irrelevant to the gun issue, as hunters are such a small percentage of gun owners (1 in 5), and most hunters also own nonhunting guns that the gun-control lobby wishes to ban.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[gorfle]

26. While BenEzra is right...

Your brother should be more worried that the government can lock him away for years without any right to council then his being able to buy a gun at the corner store without a background check.

While BenEzra is right about assault rifles and hunting, your above statement sums it up in a nutshell.

Except I will point out you cannot buy a gun at any store without a background check. :)

[Lex]

7. People don't have health care insurance, or jobs, or are being foreclosed on,

or may have their kids blown apart in Iraq, and they are still worried about their gun collection being confiscated?

No wonder this country is in the crapper.

[ingac70]

9. They'll need that gun to hunt for food...

or to become highwaymen and shake people down for cash to survive when the economy collapses.

:P

[benEzra]

22. Those things should NOT be mutually exclusive.

The reason we're in Iraq right now, and that health care reform hasn't budged since the early '90s, is that the DLC threw away Congress and the '00 presidency over a STUPID attempt to restrict the lawful ownership of popular guns. 2006 showed that taking gun bans off the table gets the wedge issue out of the way.

One should not have to make the choice of health insurance, OR not having your nonhunting guns banned, IMO.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[Lex]

28. not having your hunting guns banned is simply

a red herring to fool the foolish

[benEzra]

32. Hunting guns are IRRELEVANT. Most gun owners ARE NOT HUNTERS.

It is the proposed bans on nonhunting guns (handguns, small-caliber rifles with modern styling, shotguns holding over 5 shells, etc.) that is the problem. "Hunting" is a red herring used by those on both sides who don't understand the issue.

[Lex]

33. Guns, God, and Gays: or, how to keep the easily confused in line.

nt

[gorfle]

36. I reject that.

While there is no doubt that the Republican party has used firearms and religion as wedge issues, I reject your notion that people who understand the important role that firearms play with regards to liberty are "easily confused".

By your definition, our founding fathers were "easily confused".

Your condescension unappreciated.

[Lex]

38. Duly noted.

The founding fathers didn't contemplate the kind of weaponry teenagers have at their fingertips these days either, no doubt.

[benEzra]

40. Nobody is arguing for the right of TEENAGERS to own guns.

The issue is about the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to continue to purchase, own, and lawfully use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed civilian (NFA Title 1) civilian firearms under .51 caliber.

Pretend otherwise if you want, but those types of misconceptions are exactly what the repubs used to create the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme in the first place--by fooling the gun-404 into unwittingly supporting sweeping bans without knowing what they are talking about.

If you wish to outlaw the most popular civilian guns in the United States, don't be surprised when you get pushback from Dems and indies who own them.

[Lex]

47. Of course no one is. But they are at their fingertips nonetheless.

As is made clear time and again.

[benEzra]

66. Except you aren't trying to outlaw teen access per se. You are trying to outlaw ADULT access

using alleged teen access as an excuse. Child access is a separate issue from banning the guns of mentally competent adults with clean records. In most states FWIW, it is already a crime to allow a child unsupervised access to a gun.

Our family's guns are secured in a safe when not in use. But we reserve the right to choose to own them. You are free to choose differently for your home, but not ours.

[gorfle]

45. I do doubt.

The founding fathers didn't contemplate the kind of weaponry teenagers have at their fingertips these days either, no doubt.

Weapons have been abused and used for mayhem since man picked up rocks. I'm sure the founders were aware of this.

The founding fathers demonstrated acute foresight in their provisions for this nation and the way it was to be governed, and the way things could go wrong, and the checks and balances put in place to meet those eventualities.

You don't think it ever occurred to them that weapons might also advance? Of course it did. This was why they did not spell out the "arms" that The People have a right to keep and bear. It was assumed that the small arms born by the people would be those same small arms appropriate to the army - whatever those arms might be.

[Lex]

48. "it was assumed"

eh?

[gorfle]

50. Yes.

Yes it was. If you read any of the contemporary documents concerning the intent of the founding fathers you will see that the intent was to have a decentralized military system made up of the people of the states, who would be able to replace or counter a federal standing army.

In order to do this it is necessary that the people be armed with weapons equivalent to those of a federal standing army.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. A little over 10 years prior to the ratification on the 2nd Amendment

The Austrian army began fielding a 20 shot compressed gas rifle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

That same rifle was carried by Meriwether Lewis on the famed 'Lewis and Clark Expedition'.
Primitive and fragile, but it was a good preview of firing rates to come, in future firearms. I'd say the Founding Fathers were quite aware where the technology was going. At the time, increasing the rate of fire was as desirable as increasing the range and accuracy of rifles.

[Boomer 50]

69. Actually they did contemplate it

In several writings of the time, including the Federalist papers, the mention of "Arms of the Times" is used to refer to the advance in technology in firearms. The Founding Fathers knew that technology would advance as it had in the past and intended to have the populace equally armed as the governments. As an example, muzzle loading ignition methods advanced from holding a smoldering wick to a touch hole to trigger actuated devices such as the match lock, the friction lock, the flint lock and the cap lock which was invented in the 1800's.

And for those who will say there is no direct ancestry from the muzzle loaders to modern firearms, you're incorrect. The cap lock used fulminate of mercury tin caps to ignite the powder, this was the basis for all modern firearms. The caps were modified to house the projectile then later, enlarged to accomodate powder. Anyway, over time, they developed into what we know as modern firearms. ANY and all cartridge firearms are directly descended from the very first tube used to launch a rock.

The Founding Fathers weren't stupid and anyone who thinks that they were needs a history lesson.

Something else to remember too. Crime rates in the United States were very low for most of our history. Crime worsened in the late 60's coinciding with the 1968 Gun Control Act. After that, with each passing of a gun control measure, crime has worsened. The crime issue isn't one about guns, it's about society. Using gun control as a means to control crime is like using a bandaid to treat an arterial wound.

[iverglas]

44. and I couldn't have said it better

Now, I could have said it a lot longer ...

[Lex]

49. that's as good as it gets?

nt

[iverglas]

51. what's this "it" now?

My full agreement with you?

[SteveM]

72. And the Democratic gun-controllers are pushing the handle...

It seems that this rather recent issue of gun control has been a confection that liberals have become enamored with, to the detriment of the issues which you have cited. The gun-controllers in our own party have as much to answer for as those who oppose major reform. Remember: when Diane Feinstein, McCarthy, Lautenberg, etc. push their gun-control measures, the Democratic candidates necessary to vote in universal health care go up in smoke, esp. in states which have recently gone Red. How foolish, how very, very foolish of these "Democrats" to continue pushing crap gun-control legislation which is in the end totally useless. Except for the GOP.

[pansypoo53219]

11. how did he

react to georgee's illegal snooping on americas?

[rhiannon55]

13. I asked him once and he told me

that Bush NEEDS his "expanded" (my word) powers in order to catch terrorists. He said that he wasn't worried because he had nothing to hide. When I mentioned how too many people had this attitude in Nazi Germany, he got all kinds of defensive about this not being the same thing at all.

[iverglas]

29. gosh ... wouldn't one just think

When I mentioned how too many people had this attitude in Nazi Germany, he got all kinds of defensive about this not being the same thing at all.

... that if he can figure this out, he might be able to see his way through the far worse bullshit in his little email?

If George Bush isn't like Hitler, then it might be unsurprising that Obama isn't actually planning a genocide to rival the Holocaust ...


Basically, if someone is going to say "My #1 concern about any politician is their stand on the Second Amendment", what you need is a deprogramming facility.

Mind you, losing his job and getting cancer might do it. Evidently, other people losing their jobs and getting cancer isn't going to give him a moment's pause. And forgive me, but what we have there is an absence of morals, not an absence of information, and it's about as possible to fix that in another person as it is to fix somebody else's drinking.

[trixie]

68. Your brother's worry is with himself not Obama

He has already admitted to being ok with the lapse of his constitutional rights for he was "convinced" by a group of politicos he follows blindly. These same people could convince him to hand over his guns and he would do it. That is the power Bush/Cheney hold over people like this. Blind following!

[SteveM]

73. You might introduce your brother to "No Fly, No Buy"...

The No Fly edicts by GW Bush we are familiar with, having snagged Ted Kennedy at the airport about two dozen times. What most folks are not familiar with is legislation (which probably will die in senate/house committees) which would also list the No Fly people on the "No Buy" list; that is, you cannot buy a gun if you cannot fly. No surprise that some Democrats support this. But the legislation was requested by one Alberto Gonzalez. The last time I checked, he was a fulminating right wing Republican. 'Wonder where McCain stands on that one?

[disunderestimated]

14. I'd recommend he study a bit of the history..

The histories of these genocides are each unique and complex and not subject to wide generalizations. Of course you can never overlook racism, the after shocks of imperialism and wealth disparity.

However, any historical analysis of these events will point to a slow greying between the military and the executive branch, emergency suspension of rights based on an often imagined external threats and weakening of the courts systems. All behaviors I would suggest are central themes of the republican ethos.

I bet in many of these instances gun ownership was not only not a factor, but perhaps not even suspended.

Dare him to show you

If you simply ask him to give you any supporting evidence for his silly position on the role of firearm ownership in genocides. I GUARANTEE you he will have to reveal he pulled that garbage straight from a right wing memo / NRA and admit he actually doesn't know shit about Armenians, Cambodia or Bosnia or any of these genocides.

[krispos42]

15. There won't be a confiscation

It will move slower. A new and expanded "assault weapons ban", with already-existing ones grandfathered in. Then, 10 or 20 years from now, the law is amended so that grandfathered weapons can't be transferred to anybody except the police or a licenced gun dealer.

Withering on the vine, so to speak.

[solinvictus]

16. Apt analogy regarding government monopolies on weapons.

Don't you believe there are people in Darfur, Tibet, and Burma who desperately wish they had guns to at least have a fighting chance at freedom? My question to gun-grabbers is this: what does the government have in store for Americans that requires we be disarmed first?

[ingac70]

18. Plenty of folks walking around with guns in Darfur...

the ones losing are the ones outnumbered.

[iverglas]

20. reminds me of my cousin in Ohio

Once you start digging around in the genealogical tree, you never know what you'll come up with. I came up with a Republican cousin in Ohio.

She continually sent me bullshit like this. I told her to stop. Solved that problem. I recommend that solution.



Sure is a good illustration of the truth of this situation, though: gun militancy has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with maintaining right-wing control of the social and political discourse in the US, and of its governments.

[benEzra]

23. Then let's take the issue off the table, eh?

Stop pushing new bans/restrictions and the issue goes away---and then people have to make their choices on the basis of the issues you say you believe are more important, right?

At least that's what we're aiming to do in our country, and with our candidates.

[iverglas]

27. I say what?

Stop pushing new bans/restrictions and the issue goes away---and then people have to make their choices on the basis of the issues you say you believe are more important, right?

I don't recall saying that.

What I do recall saying, more than once, is that there is no "guns" issue. There is a vile right-wing agenda and vile right-wing organizations and individuals who have many ways of pushing that agenda, and creating a "guns" issue is one of them.

And no, one does not beat the right wing by giving in to it.

At least, that's not what we do in my country. And while we may have our ups and downs, we sure do seem to be getting along a little better than you when it comes to all those important issues, doesn't it?

[benEzra]

30. Keep believing that if you want...and if I were a repub, that's EXACTLY what I'd want Dems to think.

Maneuver Dems into unwittingly taking radioactive stances on the issue and then exploit the backlash. Newt Gingrich did just that in '94---you don't think he couldn't have killed the Feinstein bait-and-switch in conference committee? He WANTED Dems to pass it, knowing full well that the Dem leadership had absolutely no idea how offensive that would be. And even now, the repubs are busily trying to create the perception that guns are a "conservative" issue, and that true progressives want to take the guns of the working class. A perception that is (usually, except in your case) false.

Historically, in the USA, gun control was a province of the Right until relatively recently, as a way to keep guns out of the wrong color hands. In the UK, it was to keep guns out of the hands of "subversives" like union organizers and the Communist bogeyman. And so it goes.

If you want to keep helping the Right on this issue, keep doing exactly what you're doing. The rest of us will be working with our local, state, and national candidates to keep those with your views from pulling another 1994 in 2010.

[iverglas]

35. historically in the US

"Gun rights" was the clarion call of the racist right wing. As anyone who doesn't choose to pretend the last 40 years never happened knows perfectly well. And it still is.

And at present in the US, all you have to do is read the NRA enemies' list to see which side trade unions and African-American rights organizations and women's rights organizations are lined up on.

And if you want to keep helping the right wing, all you have to do is keep pretending that its hokey "issues" are legitimate, and demanding that the Democratic Party abandon the interests of its natural and historical constituencies and become the right wing.


The rest of us will be working with our local, state, and national candidates to keep those with your views from pulling another 1994 in 2010.

Gosh. If only you'd try working with them on advancing policies that are actually in the interests of your party's own constituency instead of pandering to people who aren't going to vote for you anyway -- at least, not until you look just exactly like the right wing and somehow go it one better.

Maybe you could just adopt all of the Republican Party platform *and* promise to pull out of Iraq. That should do it.

[gorfle]

37. Heh

Maybe you could just adopt all of the Republican Party platform *and* promise to pull out of Iraq. That should do it.

I think that was Ron Paul. :)

[iverglas]

43. Ha! True indeed!

Odd how popular he is in some circles too. ;)

[SteveM]

74. Gun control is the ESSENCE of de jure racism. (nt)

[iverglas]

76. and yet

it's all the white boyz whining about it ...

[Irreverend IX]

39. "gun militancy has nothing to do with guns"

"Sure is a good illustration of the truth of this situation, though: gun militancy has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with maintaining right-wing control of the social and political discourse in the US, and of its governments."

Can you explain your views on this in some more detail? I don't see how you can arrive at this conclusion.

[old mark]

21. Obama says he believes the Second Ammendment is about

the individual right to keep and use firearms, but it seems he fails to make a connection to keeping guns for defense. He talks about sporting used of firearms, but stated at one time that he would want to ban all "semi auto rifles and handguns", which is a very broad statement. I don't think ht knows much about guns, and I believe he relies very much on his staff people for his information in this case.

I am pretty certain the Supreme Court will vot against the DC handgun ban by a large margin, and that the votes WILL NOT follow the perceived conservative/liberal split. (Ginsberg seems to favor the individual right).
It is not really a liberal plank to be anti gun. It has grown out of a movement that was revived in the 1960's, (and fortunately seems to be receding now) toward a sort of Eurpoean socialist concept of government that restricts individual freedom in favor of a managed style of government. The UK has such a system now. They have great limits set on free speech as well as other individual rights.

I am an Obama supporter, but I will join any attempt to make him more aware of the reality of the lies told by the anti-gun cult.

Remember, here in the US even the President does not always get what he wants.

mark

[bossy22]

34. no he does mention gun ownership for defense

[solinvictus]

59. Where?

I'd like to see that and I'm not being a smart ass. The only admission I've seen from Obama re: RKBA is for "target shooting and hunting" with no mention of self-defense. Of course, he goes off on "sensible regulation" like the Brady Bunch and the now-defunct Million Mommies used to do.

[gorfle]

25. He's right, but.

Your brother is exactly right. I share his concerns. For a long time I was a single-issue voter and I voted Republican until the 2006 elections, mostly because of the firearm issue.

Barak's record on the 2nd Amendment is not good. My NRA magazine lately has been page-to-page criticism of Obama.

I wish he was more firearm friendly, but he's not, and that's the way it is.

What your brother needs to understand is that the Republican party has been playing the "God, Guns and Guts" crowd.

While standing firm on firearm rights, the Republican party has squandered trillions of dollars in what has become a giant police and welfare project to benefit Iraqis. The Republican party has used the "War on Terror" as a excuse to massively increase the police powers of the state, to the detriment of civil liberties. The Republican party has gotten cozy in bed with corporations that used to care about the welfare of the United States marketshare but now are global and no longer care about the United States.

So your brother has to ask himself: Is he going to allow himself to be a party to all the bad things the Republican Party has done and will continue to do all on the basis of firearms? I'm not.

Fortunately, the Democratic party got smacked down hard in the 1994 (?) elections because of the firearm issue. Since then they have largely been silent on it. It is my hope that they have learned that this is a Republican motivating issue and that they will leave it alone. Then again my fear is that once they control the congress and the president that they will re-visit the issue. But then again with the probably-positive supreme court ruling coming due any day maybe not.

I feel firearms are reasonably safe enough for the near term that it is worthwhile to vote Democratic as the bad things with the Republican party are too bad to ignore.

In short, if you believe that we own firearms as the ultimate means to keep an oppressive government in check, voting Republican means you will be more likely to have to exercise that option than if you vote Democrat. No sane person should want that.

[14thColony]

41. Bosnia is a BS case - it was the other way around

Yugoslavia defeated German occupation in World War II through widespread guerrilla warfare, and the national defense policy up to the 1990s was that in the event of another invasion (and they expected it would be the USSR the next time) the same tactic would work again. To that end the policy of Total National Defense called for universal para-military training (boys, girls, men, women), and weapons and ammunition as widely-distributed as possible, from armories in local reserve units to 'arms caches' hidden in pre-arranged locations in forests that local 'guerrilla cadres' new the locations of. This included not just assault rifles and pistols, but anti-tank weapons, mines, etc. On top of all this, estimates ranged as high as 1.6 million PRIVATE weapons in the hands of Yugoslav citizens when the war broke out. Yugoslavia ENCOURAGED private gun ownership due to the policy of Total National Defense! Assuming an even distribution, this would have been something like 275,000 private guns in B-H, in addition to the tens of thousands of light and heavy military weapons put there specifically for the public's use!

The massacre in Bosnia-Hercegovina was hardly a result of an unarmed populace. Quite the contrary. The Bosnia-Serbs may have been initially 'over-armed' but the Bosniacs and Bosnian-Croats had plenty of firepower too. Besides, it was a civil war within a newly-independent state...what was this central government that took away all the guns when the whole point was there was no central government?

Nazi Holocaust also smells of BS and manipulation - German gun ownership laws were quite liberal (practically non-existent) up until post-1945. The Jews, Gypsies, Communists, and Trade Unionists were not sent to the camps because the population had no guns with which to protect them. It's in (some small) part because the Nazi Party had co-opted the gun-owning part of the population to their side. They didn't take their guns, they fed them a nationalist and xenophobic ideology they lapped up like cream. Why bother taking their guns when they agree?

Rape of Nanking - disingenuous in the extreme. A Chinese city besieged and sacked by the Japanese Imperial Army. The Japanese Army did not get themselves elected to the city council in the months prior to the siege so they could ban gun ownership as part of their evil plot to pillage the place. They showed up with tens of thousands of well-equipped troops, tanks, artillery, and bombers and blew the living hell out of the place. Every resident of Nanking could have had an Uzi and the outcome would have been the same. A professional army will make short work of a disorganized citizenry in a straight-up fight, no matter how similar their weapons might appear.

I'm guessing his/the NRA's other examples are similar in taking liberties with the actual facts of the events.

That's the problem with crap like this - it takes way longer to debunk it than it took to sling it out.

[iverglas]

52. "similar in taking liberties with the actual facts of the events"

Yes, you can include Rwanda.

The genocide there wasn't actually some spontaneous madness by peasants with machetes. It was organized and orchestrated by people with AK-47s and other accoutrements of a military nature.

Aren't myths lovely?


That's the problem with crap like this - it takes way longer to debunk it than it took to sling it out.

Here's one for you:

Mark Twain: A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

It comes in handy hereabouts.

[14thColony]

53. Mark Twain was brilliant. Every word a gem.

I didn't even get started on his "every instance of genocide in history" part. I suppose Ghengis Khan banned assault rifles before he invaded the Khwarizmian Empire in the 13th century then. Very forward-thinking of him. And the beat goes on...

[DavidMS]

54. Most of the claims implied regarding germany are wrong

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=2&ar=7

The problem is that most American gun owners who believe this stuff are remarkably ahistorical (like most conservatives). And simply are abusing history to make their point.

As I understand it if the 1919 revolution in Germany had been successful or the leaders of the Communist party had not been executed at its conclusion, that in 1924 the communists would have taken power and there would have been no German Nazism.

Its got nothing to do with who has guns, its who has organizational strength.

[iiibbb]

56. Guns are high on my list...but...

...if we weren't at war I probably would be leaning McCain...

Bush has just done too much damage. I am hoping the Heller case will come out strong enough that Obama will stick to the war, the economy, and health care.

I don't think he can do too much damage in 4 years... and I think enough Democrats remember 1994's AWB aftermath to not particularly want to go that route anytime soon.

[Thelvyn]

57. Tell Your Brother To Stop Worrying.

I have a couple of points for your Brother, and I hope they help:

1) Nobody (that can do anything about it) is coming for his guns. The extremists like Carolyn McCarthy can't get any of their legislation passed because it is all way too encompassing.

2) Let's pretend for one second that there was another Assault Weapon Ban (which there won't be). What would that mean? First thing it would mean is that there HAS to be a GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. Now that won't help future generations from buying them, but it will help us and help you pass your guns along. Anything less than a grandfather clause is confiscation. That's not going to happen on a national scale, and a lot of laws in many states have been passed to keep from happening what happened during Katrina. No party is stupid enough to sign-off on confiscation. So that means, with a Grandfather Clause, that between now and some Assault Weapons Ban, you can buy as many AK-47s, AR-15s, UZIs, etc...as you want and there's nothing the gun grabbers can do about it.

3) Congress filled all the Republican seats with Pro-Gun Democrats. That's a big plus on our side.

4) The Democrats are scared to death about what happened in 1994 after they passed the AWB. They REALLY want to pick the next SCOTUS justice....which means they aren't going to jepordize their seats by do another ban.

5) The SCOTUS is about to rule in favor for individual rights for gun owners and destroy the D.C. Handgun Ban. That means that any future gun bans will be unreasonable. While they will still find ways to harrass gun owners, their days of outright bans are over with.

6) The President can not do anything about gun laws; only sign or veto the bills that are put on his.


So tell your brother to stop worrying, dance a jig in victory, and stock up on all he wants because, regardless of what happens in November, nobody is going to do a darned thing about it.

[rhiannon55]

65. Thanks for an enlightening discussion

I appreciate all the posts. I sent my brother the link to this thread. Rather than try to distill the information into my own response to him, I thought I would let him see what thoughtful Democrats think about this subject. He seems to get most of his information from right wing sources and seems to have bought the Limbaugh-and-Hannity-style propaganda about Democrats being anti-American terrorist enablers (who, ironically, are also anti-gun, flag-hating tree-huggers). The meme about Democrats being "anti-American" because they don't like the Bush administration has always struck me as being especially odd. He despised Clinton, but never thought of himself as "anti-American" because of it. I love the bumper sticker that says "blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism."

[benEzra]

67. He might also be interested in these threads:

particularly the first one.

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

And don't forget that the Bush Administration has asked Congress for the power to summarily revoke the gun ownership rights of any U.S. citizen they put on any of their secret blacklists.

Then there's this:

[T4RSR5]

70. Pretty much correct, except his numbers are far too low

Stalin took out between 20-50 million. Hitler took out about 8-12 million. (jews were not the only ones killed, old, sick, week, unpure, poles, gypsies, gays, and mentally ill were also put to death)