Every statement Obama has made about firearms is a direct quote from our 2008 Dem Party platform.

[jody]

So far however, Obama has not publicly stated if he supports “reinstating the assault weapons ban” (AWB) so 54 million gun-owners may conclude Obama supports reinstating the ban unless he specifically and publicly promises to veto any bill that includes it.

Firearms

We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Gun-owners will be influenced by Obama’s choice of Biden who claims to have written the original AWB and is the sponsor of S.2237 that includes:

TITLE VI--PREVENTING ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF FIREARMS

Subtitle A--Firearms Background Check Enhancement Act of 2007
Sec. 6101. Short title.
Sec. 6102. Findings.
Sec. 6103. Extension of brady background checks to gun shows.

Subtitle B--Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007
Sec. 6201. Short title.
Sec. 6202. Restriction on manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.
Sec. 6203. Ban of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
Sec. 6204. Study by Attorney General.
Sec. 6205. Effective date.
Sec. 6206. Appendix A to section 922 of title 18.

Those sections from Biden’s bill look suspiciously close to portions of our platform “We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals.”

IMO Obama must promise to veto S.2237 unless “Subtitle B--Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007” is removed.

Absent that specific promise, Obama should not be surprised if 54 million gun-owners conclude he supports reinstating the assault weapons ban with its onerous and useless bans of semiautomatic firearms.

One should not forget additional evidence showing our Democratic Party supports reinstating the assault weapons ban contained in H.R. 1022 cosponsored by 67 Democratic congresspersons.

Obama has made progress by declaring his support for the Second Amendment but his use of our party’s platform phrase “we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne” shifts the burden to him to either publicly repudiate “reinstating the assault weapons ban" OR be viewed by 54 million gun-owners as ready to sign Biden’s bill S.2237.

In case of a tie in the senate on S.2237, gun-owners would probably believe a Vice President Biden would break the tie in favor of reinstating the assault weapons ban.

Moderators can move this to the Guns forum but IMO it belongs in General Discussion: Presidential because it is one of the few divisive, polarizing political issues that could win or lose swing states for our Democratic candidate for president, Senator Barack Obama.

[Captain Hilts]

1. He has seen to it the platform coddles the firearms lobby.

His 180 on the gun ban in DC is an example.

[jody]

11. "coddles the firearms lobby" perhaps but Obama's recent aggressive PR efforts showing him as a 2nd

Amendment supporter suggests he knows 54 million gun-owners have enough clout at the ballot box to win or lose swing states such as MI, PA, OH, FL.

[appal_jack]

54. exactly: win or lose?

I want to add my voice as a fervent Democrat/Obama supporter, that Obama can and should explicitly promise to veto any and ALL new gun-control legislation during his time in office, and simultaneously promise to devote his administration to the better enforcement of existing gun laws. This would have three important impacts:

1) It allows Obama to continue to avoid using the phrase "Assault Weapons Ban," which is certainly a hot button issue on all sides of the debate, yet it takes the potential of an AWB off the table.

2) It sends a message to gun owners (like myself), that an Obama administration will be targeting criminals, rather than increasing the burden and red tape that peaceable citizens must endure in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

3) Combined with the Heller decision of the Supreme Court, it effectively removes the gun issue from the election entirely.

I live in the Appalachian South, and have many acquaintances (and even some I would call friends) who will never vote for Obama, given his history of statements regarding the 2nd Amendment. But I know at least as many RKBA supporters who recognize that Obama offers such a better plan for our economy, health care, foreign relations, and those many civil liberties outside the 2nd Amendment, that they are willing to consider voting Democratic this year. If Obama makes the promise that I suggest above, he will not likely pull many voters out of the first group. But the numbers he might gain from that latter group of open-minded 2nd Amendment supporters might be just enough to turn North Carolina blue in 2008.

I very much hope this comes to pass: as Jody said already, its about winning or losing.

-app

edit to change "gun-rights" to "RKBA" above, as the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" resides within the people (and not in guns or any other inanimate object)

[SteveM]

84. How did the DNC Platform "coddle the firearms lobby"? Especially...

since it called for a renewed ASB with even MORE guns to be banned; some kind of trigger lock, and "closing" the so-called "gun show loop hole." Sounds like the DNC is "putting out the fire with gasoline." (David Bowie)

[keithjx]

2. Meanwhile, this gun owner has no problem with the AWB....

:shrug:
KJ

[jody]

6. H.R. 1022 includes a section that gives the Attorney General authority to ban most semiautomatic

firearms.

When you say "this gun owner has no problem with the AWB" without a qualifier such as "if it does not ban semiautomatic firearms" then you are part of the small gun-control group that wants to ban all semiautomatic firearms.

[SteveM]

86. Giving the AG such authority is an unmitigated blow out of the 5th Amendment, too (nt)

[MercutioATC]

10. Percentagewise, I'd bet you're one of the few.

As you know, the AWB doesn't address fully-automatic weapons...they're already regulated. It bans certain semi-automatic firearms...and it (IMO) doesn't do it in an intelligent way. The criteria are based more on looks than on function.

Under the AWB, this is legal:
(Remington 750 Woodsmaster)




...and this is not:
(Armalite AR-10A2)




The difference between the two guns? Magazine capacity. There is no other difference that affects the operation of the firearm. Same caliber, same action, same one-trigger-squeeze-one-shot.

[EstimatedProphet]

13. I do, but it's not a deal breaker for me by any means

I think the AWB is written poorly and driven by people who don't know anything about guns. However, I want health care and a strong economy.

[SteveM]

85. The so-called "assault weapon" will soon be the standard for hunting...

and it is already the largest-selling center-fire rifle type in the U.S. (perhaps 12-15 million owners). My only gripe is that anyone using a semi-auto carbine of moderate power (what is REALLY the gun in question) should have MORE powerful (and usually larger caliber) ammunition in order to assure a clean kill of big game.

The AWB is the litmus test for gun-controllers to prove their bona fides; for MANY 2A advocates it is also a litmus test for who is a true defender of 2A. Such is the way of culture war -- and on this issue alone one side has been beaten back into the hills, yet continues to exert a peculiar influence over the DNC, convincing many to once again do the zombie walk in front of the NRA's cross-hairs. Very peculiar. Is it because the Brady Center is founded and run by Republicans?

Have you seen the role (or lack thereof) these weapons play in homicide? Less than 3%? Have you fired one?

[Testament]

114. 6.5 Grendel...6.8 SPC....300 whisper...7.62x39...50 Beowulf

All in the AR-15 platform and capable of taking white tail cleanly.

Go to the AR-10 and you have a lot of choices. Of course, there are .50 BMG uppers available for both types of lowers, so you can hunt with that too if one so desires. It may not be legal in some states due to the fact that the .50 BMG requires the use of a solid for hunting.

[1corona4u]

3. So, who are you voting for?

Is this the "big" issue for you? Is it the only issue for you?

[jody]

4. Don't you understand, it's not how I will vote, IT'S HOW 54 MILLION GUN-OWNERS WILL VOTE !!!!!!!!!

[1corona4u]

24. Yeah, I totally understand...

because you post this shit over and over....it's divisive, and you know it, but you do it anyway.

Sheesh...

[benEzra]

34. Yes, it's divisive. Which is why the AWB needs to be dropped.

This particular bait-and-switch has hurt the party badly since September 1994. 2006 (when anti-AWB Dems turned the Senate blue) is a far better pattern to emulate.

[SteveM]

87. Yet, you are here. Perhaps you refuse to see the problem (I think you do)...

If you have read the posts here for the last year-and-a-half, you would see calls by pro-2A Democrats for candidates to learn about guns and to change their outlook; particularly Obama and Hillary. There is still time for Obama to make a substantial change and help his candidacy. One way Jody has proposed is for Obama to support the Second Amendment. Period. Another is to promise to veto any gun-control legislation and instead take the position that states/localities take what actions they think are necessary and let the courts decide from there on out.

It is disingenuous to call these posts "divisive" and I think you know it. Obama may have a close race which can easily be decided by a handful of states with enough one-issue voters who vote McCain or take a walk.

Posts of this kind WILL be posted in the future because it is our responsibility to push back the gun-controllers who are addicted to both a losing culture war & prohibition. And they will be posted in hopes that the discussion gets back to Obama.

Sheesh...

[tucsonlib]

129. Then Why Not Work On Convincing Those "54 Million" To Vote For Obama??

You are NOT going to succeed in getting the Dems to change their platform before the election. Your ranting and complaining is counter-productive. That percentage of the "54 million gun-owners" who are actually planning to cast their vote based solely on the gun issue must be dissuaded from acting so foolishly. GOD! Anyone with half-a-brain should be able to see that this country is in deep shit. And it's not because of the AWB or some perceived threat to our RKBA. Elect Obama. Then work on stopping the passage of legislation you oppose. Priorities, People!

[SteveM]

138. Don't worry, we're doing our part. But are you?...

You MUST know by now that the assault weapons ban is nothing more than a golden fleece of culture war which the Democratic "leadership" clings to like a junky. I tried to stop its inclusion in the platform (no answers); I am still trying to convince Obama's campaign to disavow it.

What did you do about the platform's AWB plank?

[TellTheTruth82]

143. Working on it

We've had several years to work on it, and are still going nowhere on getting DUers/DLC/DNC to to drop gun-control as an issue. Don't stop now!!

[tburnsten]

15. It would be really great

If we could have our more or less ideal candidate be strongly pro-rights in all senses, and stand up for constitutionally protected rights no matter how his hometown feels about one of them in particular, and I don't want to see any president who is willing to sign into law expensive, cumbersome, hassling, and totally ineffective legislation. The previous AWB accomplished nothing in terms of crime, and neither will a future AWB.


Is it too much to ask for him to be as on point with firearms as with the rest of the issues?

[IndianaJones]

5. who gives a crap about the AWB? nt.

[jody]

7. I do as a Yellow Dog Democrat still angry over my party losing the last two presidential elections

in which our candidates supported the AWB and lost.

[IndianaJones]

8. is "yellow dog democrat" a southern thing? nt.

[jody]

12. You betcha, see Yellow Dog Democrat History link below.

Yellow Dog Democrat History

[slackmaster]

9. As a serious collector who has a substantial investment in firearms, I give a crap about it

Anything that threatens to reduce the value of my personal property without any offsetting return (e.g. public safety) is a very real problem for me.

[ContinentalOp]

16. Didn't the assault weapons ban greatly increase the secondhand value of guns that fell under the ban

Didn't the value of your collection and your "investment" increase?

[msallied]

19. An illegal investment isn't exactly worth something, is it?

Unless said collector wanted to become a criminal.

[slackmaster]

21. I asked my tax account about it this year

He told me that if, say, an M1 Garand rifle becomes unsellable because of legislation, the only way I can partially recover the lost value would be to document it, then destroy it and declare it a loss.

[ContinentalOp]

25. It is not illegal to own existing guns though. -nt-

[krispos42]

76. They weren't illegal

The "ban" was on sales of new guns that had sufficient cosmetic features to be defined as "assault weapons".

Guns in private hands before the AWB took effect were grandfathered in. At least on a federal level.

[SteveM]

89. So, do you support (yet again) the AWB? Why? (nt)

[slackmaster]

20. The old AWB did that for some people, but because I live in California it didn't do that for me

However, expiration of the federal AWB allowed me to reconfigure a few of my registered California AWs into configurations that were illegal during the federal ban. And firearms whose value was artificially inflated by the federal AWB lost that excess value when the ban expired.

The problem with the AWB that is now in Congress, H.R. 1022, is that firearms stigmatized as AWs (far more types than the old ban BTW), could no longer be sold in a free market. "AWs" could be sold only into the inventory of specially licensed dealers. The value of many collectable firearms would essentially drop to zero.

The effect of H.R. 1022 on my collection would not be much different than that of an uncompensated seizure of some of my assets. That would not be fair to me, and it wouldn't do ANYONE any good at all.

You don't hear many wine collectors calling for a renewal of the Volstead Act. That's pretty much how I feel about the AWB.

[ContinentalOp]

27. If you can only sell it to dealers, you can still sell it. -nt-

[tburnsten]

28. And if they can't sell them to anyone

they aren't gonna be buying anything but personal use guns, and you can bet they will use the "I can't sell this" line to offer a ridiculously low price for it.

[ContinentalOp]

32. Who says a dealer cant sell them?

The law says:

SEC. 6. REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR THE TRANSFER OF LAWFULLY POSSESSED SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

(5) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon to which paragraph (1) does not apply, except through--
`(A) a licensed dealer, and for purposes of subsection (t) in the case of such a transfer, the weapon shall be considered to be transferred from the business inventory of the licensed dealer and the dealer shall be considered to be the transferor; or
`(B) a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

So all transfers have to be done through a dealer so that a background check can be done. Big deal. Sure, this means you can't sell directly to someone else, and the dealer gets a cut but it doesn't mean you can't sell it.

[slackmaster]

39. The point is, it would no longer be a free market so collector's value would be effectively lost

With no offsetting benefit to ANYONE (except dealers who can indulge in profiteering at the expense of consumers and collectors).

Even machine guns can be sold directly from one individual to another, within the same state.

[ContinentalOp]

42. Right. It ISN'T a free market and we don't want it to be one. It's a regulated market.

We want the guns registered. Pharmaceuticals are legal with a prescription but it doesn't mean we have a "free market" where you can buy a bunch of vicodin and sell it on to somebody else. It doesn't work that way.

Plus the law appears to have a provision for legally doing a transfer through local law enforcement.

a State or local law enforcement agency if the transfer is made in accordance with the procedures provided for in subsection (t) of this section and section 923(g).

Doesn't that mean there's probably a way that you can sell things individual to individual as long as you do the proper paperwork and the purchaser goes through a background check?

[slackmaster]

56. Who is "we"?

:shrug:

We want the guns registered.

Whoever "we" are, "our" position is at odds with that of the Democratic Party and a whole lot of voters.

Doesn't that mean there's probably a way that you can sell things individual to individual as long as you do the proper paperwork and the purchaser goes through a background check?

Why should the buyer and seller have to go through that kind of extra hassle and expense, when it doesn't have ANY upside whatsoever?

[ContinentalOp]

58. "We" who support gun regulation. "We" as a society time and again reject this fantasy...

that there is some kind of a pure "free market." Again, why is it wrong to regulate the sale of weapons but it's ok that I'm not allowed to freely buy and sell vicodin on the open market?

Elsewhere you said that you're not opposed to any and all gun regulation, but now I'm curious: If you don't even favor the idea of gun registration, what kind of regulations would you allow?

[slackmaster]

63. You still have not provided ANY reason why there should be an AW ban

If you don't even favor the idea of gun registration, what kind of regulations would you allow?

I think the laws we have in place now are almost sufficient. The National Firearms Act of 1934 effectively draws a distinction between civilian and military weapons. The Gun Control Act of 1968 as presently amended, correctly identifies people who should not be permitted to own any kind of firearm at all.

The biggest problem with the present system IMO is that in most states, people who have used firearms to sell have no way of positively veryifying that a prospective buyer is not prohibited from owning firearms. The National Instant Check System (NICS) which was one of the permanent provisions of the Brady Act (which requires background checks on sales by federally licensed gun dealers), is by law NOT AVAILABLE to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer.

The federal government has no authority to regulate private, intrastate sales of used firearms. State regulation, while it works out OK in California, is politically unfeasible in most states.

I say doing two things would go a long way toward preventing unauthorized people from acquiring firearms:

1. Make NICS available for private-party transfers, with controls to prevent abuse of the system, and

2. Require the states to place some kind of easily identifiable mark on driver's licenses and ID cards issued to people who fall into a prohibited category (convicted felons, people dishonorably discharged from the military, people who are in the country illegally, etc.)

[ContinentalOp]

77. Well, see those proposals sound good. Why can't we debate the specifics of the policy...

rather than screaming that any kind of gun control legislation means that the man wants to take away your guns and tear up the second amendment? Why do pro-gun liberals always have to bring this stuff up around election time and do the opposition's work for them?

[slackmaster]

91. Speaking on behalf of pro-gun liberal-leaning people in general

We are tired of having the people in power in our party ignore our sound advice, and tired of losing elections (or having elections stolen because they are so close they can be stolen, if you prefer to look at it that way).

I really hope we win this one, but if we don't you'll never hear the end of us.

[SteveM]

93. "bring this stuff up around election time"? Can't think of a better time...

Who is doing the "opposition's work for them?" The gun-controllers (knowing full-well the massive defeats they have suffered "around election time") who continue to push for an AWB and other ill-defined controls, or pro-2A Democrats who are trying to convince our own party to junk a junky's habit? I think it is clear who is doing the "opposition's work for them" and it is abundantly clear that they have no problem with losing more elections to maintain a gun-control "fiction."

Stay in this forum and you will hear some reasonable measures (as suggested above) which ensure the privacy (i.e., non-registration) of gun-owners. Certainly, more reasonable than the blurry, beery calls for yet another round of gun-control suds at closing time.

[beevul]

125. You didn't get the memo, Steve?

"Who is doing the "opposition's work for them?" The gun-controllers (knowing full-well the massive defeats they have suffered "around election time") who continue to push for an AWB and other ill-defined controls, or pro-2A Democrats who are trying to convince our own party to junk a junky's habit? I think it is clear who is doing the "opposition's work for them" and it is abundantly clear that they have no problem with losing more elections to maintain a gun-control "fiction."


You must not have...


The AWB people, and the rest of those pushing garbage like the AWB...


They get a f r e e p a s s. Every damn election year.

Those of us on the other side, well...WE are apparently worthy of all the scrutiny and criticism in the world for our reaction... But noooooo...they sure aren't for doing the things that CAUSE that reaction. In fact, like some posters say, we should just shut up about it. We ought to just "go to the back of the bus" when we're told to. :sarcasm:


Again, this is not new. They have been getting a free pass for many years.

Though, given time, that too wil lose its effectiveness.

[SteveM]

137. No back of the bus for me. Not this time. Thanks (nt)

[tburnsten]

59. It would be great if there were a way

for private citizens to check one anothers eligibility to purchase firearms without the time, expense, and hassle of using a dealer for the transfer. Like a small marking on the drivers' license/state ID of everyone who is prohibited from purchsaing a gun, that would be a very easy, effective, and foolproof way for individuals selling their private property to another private citizen. Right now all we can do is check to ensure they are of age and a state resident. Otherwise it IS a free market.

[ContinentalOp]

60. It sounds like the law allows you to go through local law enforcement.

What's the big deal? So you have to do a little paperwork. I can't sell my car to somebody without going to down to the DMV and dealing with some paperwork. That's just how it is.

[tburnsten]

64. Which law? Currently that is not the case

National Instant Criminal Check System is what any buyer purchasing a gun from a Federal Firearms License holder (gunshop, dealer of any type) goes through. It is a long page where you fill out all your personal information and answer a bunch of questions such as "are you a fugitive from justice?" and "have you ever been convicted of a crime for which you COULD have been sentenced to more than one year in jail?" and the FFL calls it in, relays all the information very carefully (even a misspelled word on a form 4473 can result in a revocation of the FFL, it happens quite often. Obviously that is disastrous for the business who is targeted by the ATF spelling police, yet nets no actual gain for public safety or efficiency of government or anything else).

The person on the other end does their check, and they either approve the transfer on the spot, delay the transfer no more than three business days, or deny the transfer altogether. If they delay the transfer, that just means that they for whatever reason have a question or a flag was raised that they need more time to look into, and it gives them time to call back and deny the transfer if that is the appropriate course of action. Delays are pretty frequent events, people with common names and troublemaking relatives as well as people who may have one or two misdemeanors from a younger age are the ones who get delayed most often.

I don't know if local law enforcement even has access to the NICS. It would be best if there were a way for private citizens to determine a persons' eligibility other than knowing them personally or dealing with the hassles of a transfer, but currently there isn't really any good alternative.

[ContinentalOp]

81. I was referring to H.R. 1022 which was mentioned earlier in the thread.

The text of the bill makes it sound like you're free to sell grandfathered weapons but that a background check is required of the purchaser so the sale must happen through a dealer or through local or state law enforcement.

[slackmaster]

65. I sold a pickup truck a few years ago without ever setting foot in a DMV office

I had to fill out a little form on their Web site.

What you STILL have not provided is a reason why anyone selling certain types of used firearms that are not covered by the NFA SHOULD have to go through some kind of extra hassle.

[SteveM]

94. Cars AND drugs are not constitutionally protected (nt)

[east texas lib]

124. What?!!

Damn!;(

[SteveM]

136. LOL.

[gorfle]

67. A proposal for firearm background checks without registration.

We want the guns registered. Pharmaceuticals are legal with a prescription but it doesn't mean we have a "free market" where you can buy a bunch of vicodin and sell it on to somebody else. It doesn't work that way.

You need to understand that a lot of people do not want guns registered. The primary reason why our founders wanted an armed populace was to serve as a counter to federal military power, as a deterrent to tyranny.

If you provide the government with a list of firearm owners this deterrent capability is greatly diminished, for they can easily be targeted and arrested at a whim. Thus anonymous firearm ownership is a must.

Thus any gun control scheme that involves firearm registration is a non-starter for me. I will never voluntarily register my firearms, or at least, I will never register the numerous ones I own with no paper trail associated with them.

Doesn't that mean there's probably a way that you can sell things individual to individual as long as you do the proper paperwork and the purchaser goes through a background check?

I have come up with a proposal, heavily borrowed from another DU member, that will provide for end-to-end background checks while preserving the anonymity of firearm ownership.

Currently, the only firearm sales that require background checks are sales through FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealers. Private sales do not require background checks. Thus anyone can purchase sell or purchase a firearm at their kitchen table, through a newspaper ad, online forum, or countless other ways without a background check. This makes it very easy for any criminal with half a brain to obtain a firearm without risking a background check.

Here is what I propose:

Everyone, by default, will have a NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check done when they apply for a driver's license. People will have the option to opt-out of this background check if they wish. If/when the applicant passes the NICS background check, their drivers license will have a green "F" printed on the back of it along with an ID number. People without driver's licenses would be allowed to obtain the same mark for a state-issued ID.

This would pre-screen most of the population for eligibility to own firearms, while providing zero data to the government about which of those qualified individuals actually own firearms or not.

Whenever a person purchases a firearm, they would be required to show their driver's license (or state-issued ID) with the green "F" and ID number on it. The seller, be it a dealer or an individual, will be required to keep a record of the sale for 10 years, including the date of the transaction, the ID number of the buyer, and the serial number of the firearm. In this manner any firearm obtained through a criminal investigation can be traced from owner to owner, though through a tedious, non-computerized mechanism through actual hands-on police work of going door-to-door from owner to owner.

Now you may ask, why would private citizens bother keeping such records? Simple: Provide for substantial criminal penalties if a firearm no longer in their possession is traced to them without paperwork to show it left their possession legally. No one is going to sell a firearm to someone else with the risk that that firearm might be used in a crime and recovered by the police if that firearm leads right back to them by tracing it from original owner to owner to owner. No one would straw-purchase a firearm for someone else with the possibility that that firearm would later be recovered at a crime scene and traced back to them.

If some people, through criminal conviction or adjudicated mental defect, become ineligible to own firearms after they have already been approved to own them, it would be a simple matter to send the local sheriff to the address of the person to revoke their license and confiscate any firearms found on the premises. Moreover every time you renew your driver's license you get re-screened.

This proposed idea would insure a NICS background check for ALL firearm transfers, unlike today where they are only done for store-bought firearms, and yet it preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

[one-eyed fat man]

126. 4473's never die

Prior to GCA '68 there was no Federal requirement for .22's and some other guns to even have a serial number. Guns were sold in general stores, hardware stores and through the mail with no license required.

With GCA 68 many things changed. First, every manufacturer had to report each days' production to the ATF on a Form 1. For the first time every gun made had to be issued a serial number and a "birth certificate"

Dealers were licensed and every gun they bought, sold, took in trade, or otherwise came into their possession had to be recorded in their "bound book."

When a sale was made, a 4473 was filled out by the buyer and the FFL was required to keep it. If the ATF asks for info on a particular gun, the dealer has to produce the gun or the 4473 that says where it went.

Every gun legally built in the US since 1968 the ATF has listed on Form 1's.

Every gun built before 1968 that was ever sold or traded to an FFL is in a bound book someplace.

Any FFL that retires, sells out, dies, or otherwise quits the business must provide the ATF with all his records within 14 days. Failure to do so is a felony and being dead does not mean the ATF won't charge you.

What happens to these records after they get to Martinsburg, WV is subject to debate.

A couple of ATF directors have been quoted as saying that these out of business records are scanned and collated into a database.

The same directors have denied the database's existence when Congress has pointed out the agency has been prohibited from compiling a list of gunowners.

While there appears to be no convincing evidence either way, there is no doubt that 40 years worth of 4473's are out there and a lot of those musty boxes of records are in WV someplace.

Anonymous firearms ownership? A gun with no paper trail?

Odds are decreasing exponentially with every passing year.

[tburnsten]

134. Not all of us are clerks...

things get lost, paper doesn't last forever, I don't think criminal penalties should be given freely.

[SteveM]

90. Ah, so you REALLY want "guns registered," but a ban on AWs will do for now?...

Your comparison with drugs doesn't cut it because drug sales are NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION; hence, they are pro forma subject to significant regulation without the protections of the Constitution.

I do NOT want ANY arms (hand-held and incapable of full-auto fire) registered when used for home defense, hunting or the shooting sports. This would defeat the intent of the militia clause by giving the government access to those who might oppose it if the U.S. goes authoritarian. Any "registration" should be for concealed-carry, which is now the case in most states.

[slackmaster]

38. Yes, but only for what dealers are willing to pay

No compensation for loss of value, compared to what you could sell it for in a free market.

[benEzra]

33. Oh, the 16 to 40 MILLION people of voting age who lawfully own them...

who gives a crap about the AWB?

Oh, the 16 to 40 MILLION people of voting age who lawfully own them, depending on how you define the term. By comparison, fewer than 15 million Americans hunt.

[krispos42]

37. If nobody gives a crap about it, then the Democrats should drop it.

Problem solved.

[SteveM]

88. Enough voters to swing an election. As has happened before. (nt)

[tularetom]

14. Guess it depends on your definition of Assault Weapons

A double action revolver which was in use in the late 19th century is an example of a semiautomatic weapon. I personally own three of these. as well as a semiautomatic shotgun. I don't consider either an assault weapon.

But I do have a problem with people running around with fully automatic weapons.

Perhaps the definitions need to be made clear.

Semi automatic - one trigger pull fires a round, ejects the cartridge from the chamber and inserts a new round.

Automatic - fires, ejects and reloads continuously as long as the trigger is held down.

[jody]

17. S.2237 and H.R. 1022 define AW and I gave links to those bills. Suggest you read them because the

definition is rather involved.

For example, H.R. 1022 could ban such firearms as the Remington model 1100 shotgun with over 4 million in use.

[msallied]

18. And fully-automatic weapons are already heavily regulated

The AWB is a P.R. tool and nothing more, designed to placate uneducated people.

[slackmaster]

23. Most people do not understand that the old AW ban had nothing to do with fully automatic firearms

Those have been regulated since 1934, and were unaffected by the old AWB.

[msallied]

22. Careful, Jody

There are a bunch of knee-jerk types here who would love nothing more than to strike down the Second Amendment simply because guns make them feel all oogy. They'll make snarky genitalia references and attempt to make you feel like a crazy person for caring about defending yourself against tyranny. They think that if "their" guys are running the government, we'll be safe and have no need for guns. Their idealism blinds them to the fact that power corrupts.

They don't see that their own hypocrisy is no better than the wingnuts who want to trample all over the First Amendment. They think that by banning ALL guns, we'll be safer just like the fascists who want to ban our freedom of speech and religion thinkg we'll also be safer, more righteous, and obedient. "It's for our own good." They'll say. That's the justification for any person who wants to justify robbing Americans of their basic liberties. They don't understand that a criminal will always be able to find a gun outside the "legal" channels, but as a non-criminal I do not have that option. That if said criminal wants to open up a clip on me in my house, I'd have no recourse of my own because the government decided that "guns were bad" and didn't think I should be able to protect myself.

These kinds of Constitutional extremists scare me far more than any gun. And in fact, it's the Constitutional extremists that make me want to own a gun.

[ContinentalOp]

36. Absurd.

This is one issue where otherwise liberal gun owners turn into knee-jerk libertarians who want to strictly interpret the constitution on the one issue that benefits them. It's one thing to have a reasoned debate about what specific bills are good and bad and which specific regulations are helpful or useless, but too often the pro-gun side of the debate resorts to a total anti-regulation point of view. Stoked on by the NRA, you guys raise all of these phony fears of gun-grabbing liberals who want to do away with the second amendment completely.

Talk about scary. You think people who want to regulate specific weapons are scary and yet you're buying right into the anti-regulatory mindset that pervades Republican and Libertarian thinking on every issue.

[msallied]

45. Where in my post did I say I was against any regulation of guns?

Nice straw man. It will not work. I was arguing SPECIFICALLY against those who will ridicule the OP and put forth they want to ban ALL guns. That is EXACTLY what happened in a post yesterday.

The AWB is not a regulatory measure. It is a public relations measure designed to allay the fears of those too ignorant to know that automatic weapon regulations have been in effect since the 30s.

So you tell me exactly what the AWB will accomplish that WON'T infringe on the rights of Americans to have something as common as a hunting rifle.

[ContinentalOp]

57. No, you created a straw man of the gun-grabbing democrat who wants to ban ALL guns...

and completely obliterate the second amendment. When the fact is, we were talking about a specific piece of regulation (the assault weapons ban). So yes, if you attack people who are in favor of gun regulations and claim that they want to trample on the second amendment, the only logical conclusion I can make is that you are opposed to any and all weapons regulations.

If you support some regulations some of the time, then there's no reason to bring up the second amendment. There's no reason to try to portray anti-gun DUers as people who want to seize your personal property and tear up the constitution.

Feel free to attack this piece of legislation which is probably stupid and unnecessary but don't expect to bring that right wing NRA BS propaganda over here and not get called on it.

[krispos42]

78. What they want to do is steadily increase "banned" weapon classes...

...and steadily restrict their ability to be transferred until finally nothing is left.

California has already done that. In California owners of "assault weapons" had to register them with the CADoJ by a certain date. Once that date passed, no more AWs could be registered in the state. Posession of an unregistered AW was outlawed.

Furthermore, sale of AWs to the general public was outlawed because they could not be registered, nor could AWs be passed on in a will or given away to anybody in California. If you didn't want your AW anymore, you had to sell it out-of-state or turn it in to be destroyed by the government.

So California created a fixed pool of legal AWs in such a manner that, over the course of the next 60 years or so, will eventually decline to zero.

[one-eyed fat man]

99. didn't California do worse??

Did not they tell folks certain SKS versions were not assault weapons under Roberti-Roos, and tell folks they didn't need to register them. Then they changed their minds and required registration. Folks that were told the first time around the gun didn't need registering then went to register under the "new" ruling. Next thing that happens is California decides the new registrations are no good and sends everyone letters to turn in the guns they once said didn't need registration.

Any remember for sure how all that went down? I recall a machinist friend who used to build rifle barrels in California, finally quit and moved out of state things changed faster than he could keep up with.

[slackmaster]

141. Here is my memory of the SKS situation in California

The Department of Justice initially ruled that SKS rifles with detachable magazines were NOT AWs since they did not normally come with pistol grips, threaded muzzles, or folding stocks. They sent letters to that effect to about 3,000 SLS owners who had inquired. So the registration deadline for AWs, IIRC March 2000, came and went.

Then Handgun Control, Inc. and other gun control pressure groups filed a lawsuit claiming that the AG had overstepped its authority in that ruling. The state lost the suit.

The Department of Justice then sent out a terse letter to the 3,000 people who had inquired about that type of rifle, stating that there was no way they could be legally register their rifles. Their only legal options were to dispose of them out of state, sell them to a licensed AW dealer in the state, or destroy them. People who failed to comply would be subject to criminal prosecution, blah blah blah.

However, the DoJ has never followed up. There would be a significant evidenciary issue if they tried to prosecute those people, since the owners potentially all have letters on state letterhead stating that the rifles would not need to be registered.

I haven't seen an SKS equipped with detachable magazines since early 2000. I suspect most of them are stashed away in closets and attics.

The most common types of SKS rifles have fixed 10-round magazines and have never qualified as California AWs. They are still widely available, older ones by mail order to those of us who have C&R collectors' licenses.

[one-eyed fat man]

144. You have my sympathies

Looks like the California DOJ rulings are as inconsistent as the ATF.

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/2004-09-30%20String%20Trick%20-%20ATF%20FTB%20Reiterates%201996%20Position.pdf

Kinda like dealing with the craziness that a bootlace is a machinegun ..........

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/2007-06-25%20String%20Trick%20-%20ATF%20FTB%20Overrules%20Itself.pdf

until the ATF changes its mind and it's not.

[SteveM]

96. I'm calling YOU on it. Why do you favor the AWB?

We DO "attack this piece of legislation" AS stupid and unnecessary. You have chosen to call it "right wing NRA BS propaganda," yet you still DO NOT TELL US WHY you support an AWB.

[iverglas]

49. and

they do it in the middle of a tight presidential election campaign, doing nothing but (and for no apparent purpose but to) stir up popular opinion and sentiment against the policies of the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate.

What other group within that party that dissents from some aspect of its electoral platform (and we know there are many) behaves like this?

Parties do not amend their policy programs in the middle of election campaigns.

Candidates do not repudiate their parties' policy programs in the middle of election campaigns.

What good faith purpose could be served by demanding that a party or candidate do that?

[msallied]

51. You do it to get people to the damn polls. Plain and simple.

That's the whole point of bringing up these issues and discussions in the first place.

[iverglas]

53. excuse me???

You do it to get people to the damn polls.

You denounce the electoral platform of the candidate and party you claim to support, and demand that they repudiate it, in order to get people to the polls?

The only sensible interpretation of that statement is that you do it in order to increase the turnout among voters who will vote against that candidate and party.

I doubt that this is what you were intending to say, but there really is no other sensible interpretation of either the behaviour or the intent you ascribe to it.

[ContinentalOp]

55. Yep, you do it to get Republicans to the polls. I agree with you.

There doesn't seem to be any other point to harping on this issue at this time.

[one-eyed fat man]

102. yeah..........

I am sure 'Pugs come here to see who to vote for.........

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. Iverglas does it just to get republicans to the polls?

Maybe in bizarro world.

David

[gorfle]

69. Years.

they do it in the middle of a tight presidential election campaign, doing nothing but (and for no apparent purpose but to) stir up popular opinion and sentiment against the policies of the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate.

We've been doing it for years, Iverglas, not just now in the middle of a campaign.

What good faith purpose could be served by demanding that a party or candidate do that?

Because if our party would public ally disavow gun control it would turn this election from a tight race into a landslide.

[iverglas]

73. of no relevance

We've been doing it for years, Iverglas, not just now in the middle of a campaign.

You are NOW in the middle of an election campaign. What you did in other circumstances is of no relevance.


Because if our party would public ally disavow gun control it would turn this election from a tight race into a landslide.

(a) Assertion oft made, never demonstrated to be true or even reasonable.

(b) So would publicly disavowing women's reproductive rights.


How many times ...

[gorfle]

75. Now or later.

You are NOW in the middle of an election campaign. What you did in other circumstances is of no relevance.

Your post insinuated that this was some new discussion coming up solely because we are in the middle of an election. My point is that if we've been discussing it for years, why stop now just because of an election campaign?

(a) Assertion oft made, never demonstrated to be true or even reasonable.

I do not think it is unreasonable that some of the 80 million firearm owners in this country are single-issue voters and/or will not vote for someone who is anti-firearm. Firearm owners have demonstrated themselves to be highly motivated voters and even Bill Clinton has cited them as the reason for the Democratic loss of congress after the assault weapons ban.

It is thus also reasonable that by adopting a pro-firearm stance some portion of those 80 million voters would vote for Obama whereas otherwise they would not. Perhaps not enough to win by a landslide, but in a tight race, why throw away votes especially over an immoral cause?

(b) So would publicly disavowing women's reproductive rights.

The difference is, of course, that the right to keep and bear arms is a moral, just cause empowering personal freedom and responsibility, whereas violating women's reproductive rights is not.

How many times ...

I don't know how many times you will continue to throw out the red herring of abortion in gun control discussions.

[krispos42]

79. The party platform was just adopted three weeks ago

"in the middle of a campaign".

Just FYI

[iverglas]

100. don't think so

The platform was adopted on 25 August.

Obama was nominated on 27 August.

Have I got that right? It certainly makes sense to me that way.

Until a candidate is nominated (and does something along the lines of filing nomination papers, I assume), there is no campaign by that candidate, since s/he is not a candidate.

So no, I can't agree that it is in any way accurate to say that the Democratic Party's national platform was adopted "in the middle of a campaign" in reference to the presidential campaign, which is what we are speaking in reference to.

There actually is a point when the party has a nominated candidate, and to continue to berate the party and its candidate for their platform after that point is simply not something that people who ardently hope to see the candidate elected would be expected, by reasonable people, to do.

[pipoman]

120. Many of us are tired of close wins and losses over this issue

It is not too late to bring in those traditional Dem voters who have become swing voters/indies over this issue and other issues like free trade and immigration which have alienated the blue collar and rural traditional Democrats. Currently Obama's stated position on this issue leaves room for doubt in the minds of many, which will cost him many votes, hopefully not enough to cost him the election, but it may at best make this race much closer than it needs to be. Failure to acknowledge the '94 AWB as having accomplished nothing more than loosing elections and realizing that supporting re-instating it may needlessly cost him this election is a huge mistake in the belief of many here. Our failure to warn the candidate and the party of this danger is not the way to win the Presidency. We want Obama to win...simple!

[iverglas]

123. maybe one of you could try ADDRESSING THE ISSUE

The Democratic Party adopted a platform on 25 August, following its duly adopted process for that purpose.

The Democratic Party nominated a candidate for President on 27 August, both the party and the candidate being fully cognizant of the party's platform.

As of 27 August, the Democratic Party had a candidate who had accepted the nomination of that party, and whose candidacy for President was then endorsed by that party.

In what universe is it then appropriate for that candidate to turn around, after receiving the endorsement of a party whose platform he was aware of and beyond any dispute had agreed to adhere to by accepting the nomination, and repudiate that platform or any part of it?

Perhaps the same universe in which all the weepers and wailers in this thread would agree that it would be perfectly correct for Obama to announce tomorrow that he will seek a national handgun ban if elected??

[TPaine7]

145. Answered in post 83

But for those who need it simpler still, compare the following:

"The Democratic Party adopted a platform on 25 August <2008>, following its duly adopted process for that purpose."

vs.

The United States ratified the Second Amendment on On 15 December 1791, following its duly adopted process for that purpose.


Ask yourself, which entity is more important--the Democratic Party or the United States of America? Which date is earlier, 25 August 2008 or 15 December 1791?


"...receiving the endorsement of a party whose platform he was aware of"

vs.

...seeking the Presidency of a country whose Constitution he was aware of


Ask yourself, which is more important--the party platform or the Constitution of United States of America?


"platform he was aware of and beyond any dispute had agreed to adhere to by accepting the nomination"

vs.

Constitution that is the foundation of our government and which he will swear to uphold with the help of God and on behalf of the entire country



Ask yourself, which is more binding, the solemn and explicit oath of office or an implied commitment to a platform Obama himself helped to produce?


Ask yourself in what what way is an unprincipled exaltation of party over principle, over nation, over a solemn oath, and over the supreme law of the land--to which all branches of government swear allegiance--in the best interest of America? Does concern for party over Constitution come out of love of America and respect for her legal traditions and sovereignty?

[iverglas]

147. ask your own self

Ask yourself, which entity is more important--the Democratic Party or the United States of America? Which date is earlier, 25 August 2008 or 15 December 1791?

Ask yourself, which is more important--the party platform or the Constitution of United States of America?

... blah blah blah



Ask yourself why you don't go find a party that agrees with you.

[TPaine7]

151. Ah, the temerity

What I will ask myself is why I should consider changing parties based on the comments of an online character—a character like iverglas, no less. Now I have long since answered this question for myself; the very idea is beneath my contempt. Ordinarily I would ignore this, as I almost did.

On second thought, however, I think some may find my reasoning interesting or even informative. So I will lay out some of my thinking about iverglas’ qualifications to give me (or any other person voting in this presidential race) political direction.

iverglas’ self-image:

iverglas Wed May-28-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #30

31. I figure DC should have hired me

Hell, I would have done it for free.

I just see this second-amendment thing as a box that the entire US can't get itself out of. All anybody seems to see is the view inside the box, not what's on the outside of it. Of course, that's political thought in the US in a nutshell ...

And of course I also think that individuals keeping and bearing arms being essential to the security of a free state kinda went out with hoop skirts -- and somebody might actually figure that out some day, so it might be wise to look outside that box for a source of the rights one might like to assert, and the sort of restrictions on the exercise of them that are permissible.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173531&mesg_id=173625

In her own mind, at least, iverglas is a world-class legal scholar. The District of Columbia should have hired her for her skills. She would have, as an act of charity, helped the United States of America with "this second-amendment thing", this "box that the entire US can't get itself out of."

American stupidity is laughable, but iverglas would save us--if we were only bright enough to accept her help.

There are so many things wrong with this. Among many others, the "security of a free state" has a radically different meaning than most people think it does. This has been ably demonstrated by an actual constitutional scholar, Eugene Volokh, who was quoted by the Supreme Court in Heller on that very point. I also quoted him in my open letter to Obama before the Heller ruling came down. (Link below.)


Reality:

The most obvious problem is the contrast between iverglas' self image and reality.

iverglas Wed May-28-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. pretending



That's a good one.

Trying to pretend that "bear arms" does not refer to carrying weapons as part of a collective enterprise -- its meaning at its origins, its meaning at the time of your second amendment, and its meaning today, in fact -- is one of the best tricks of the gunhead brigade.

"Bear arms" really just did not mean "wander the streets festooned in firearms all by one's lonesome" 250 years ago, and still doesn't.

You know it, I know it, we know it, they know it.

Some people really do seem to think they invented the wheel ...

http://www.constitution.org/eng/assizarm.htm

Assize of Arms
1181

1. Let every holder of a knight's fee have a hauberk, a helmet, a shield and a lance. And let every knight have as many hauberks, helmets, shields and lances, as he has knight's fees in his demise.

2. Also, let every free layman, who holds chattals or rent to the value of 16 marks, have hauberk, a helmet, a shield, and a lance. Also, let every free layman who holds chattals or rent worth 10 marks have an aubergel and a headpiece of iron and a lance....

4. Moreover, let each and every one of them swear before the feast of St. Hilary he will possess these arms and will bear allegiance to the lord king, Henry, namely the son of empress Maud, and that he will bear these arms in his service according to his order and in allegiance to the lord king and his realm..."



It's your history, you know.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173531&mesg_id=173597

This is just astonishingly ignorant. No one who actually understands the history and law of gun control in the U.S. would ever say that (with possible exceptions on the payroll of the Brady Campaign or the VPC). Never mind a world-class, international Second Amendment legal scholar who offers charity to the United States of America. And note the condescension. Cluelessness and condescension. Blended.

This was refuted in short order (see posts 32, 40, and 38). More importantly, the Supreme Court refuted it in Heller as I pointed out here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=173531&mesg_id=177296. Yes, the majority justices were "right wing" but they quoted Justice Ginsburg to refute the idea that "bearing arms" did not apply to a person acting alone. You see, Justice Ginsburg actually is a world-class legal scholar. Additionally, the legal sources they cited on this point--ancient references--clearly prove the falsity of iverglas' claim.

Is there any other evidence of iverglas' Second Amendment legal knowledge? I'm glad you asked. There's plenty, but I can only share a few quotes.

The Framers of the 14th Amendment were racists, an "overtyping," was allowed to stay on the board until challenged. Then she spun it. This is rougly equivalent to a history professor writing on the chalkboard that Benedict Arnold was America's first President, then getting mad when corrected and refusing to simply admit the error until shamed into it. (Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x176226 See the subthread starting with post 21)

Even if this was an accidental statement, she compounded it with another claim:

Now, how 'bout you take a kick at the old "2A" element of it?

The authors of the second amendment were vile racists who had no intention of people of colour ever having the care and control of their own children, let alone possessing firearms.

Where's your bleeding original intent now, hm?

The history of "2A" is part and parcel of the whole racist origins of the USofA.
Source: post 29

The authors of your foundational documents were racists. The second amendment to your constitution was never intended to give people of colour the right to do anything, any more than any other bits of it were until that changed many decades later.
Source: post 35

Well this is precisely the position taken by the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott case, the case that held, before the 13th Amendment, that even free blacks had no rights.

I, and most Americans side against Chief Justice Roger Taney on this. Dred Scot was a legal abomination, based solidly in lies. The KKK, skinheads, neo nazis, and the like were the only people who I would have expected to agree with this reasoning. Dr. Martin Luther King definitely didn't. But iverglas, the world class international legal scholar who would have done charity work for the United States of America, she agrees. Quelle surprise.

Want more?

What about another application of the 14th Amendment, that iverglas claimed in that other thread that she understood? I had my bum try to explain it to her:

TPaine7's Bum:

iverglas keeps hounding TPaine7 to take a constitutional law class. But one of the first things in the constitutional law book (written by an eminent professor) was that the primary and most basic way to understand the Constitution is to let it explain itself.

For example, if the Constitution itself says that a person can be deprived of an "unalienable right," then neither a 1790's dictionary nor iverglas' opinion on the meaning of the word "unalienable" can trump that.

Let's look at the disagreement squarely.


iverglas:

No government can DEPRIVE an individual of a RIGHT.


The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 14:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As you can see, iverglas is wrong by definition. She is in direct conflict with the Constitution itself. By placing herself above the Constitution, she makes herself unable to understand it.

If we accept that the Constitution itself--and not iverglas--is the ultimate authority on its own meaning, we can begin to approach a working constitutional definition of "unalienable right":

Unalienable right: a right one cannot be deprived of without due process of law.

This definition may not be perfect, in fact it is always subject to further refinement. But at least it has the advantage of not being based in arrogant defiance of the Constitution.

......

I can't believe that she said I'm not qualified. I know stuff. I'm only TPaine7's bum, I know, but I think everyone can see what I've written and know that I'm more qualified than that self-important, condescending, <edited for civility>.

Well folks, there's my bum's take on things. How do you think it did against iverglas?
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x184743#185153

I never expected thanks for teaching the international legal scholar and would-be benefactor of America about our Constitution, though an acknowledgment would be nice. But my bum is sensitive. It resented her insult, and expected an apology and retraction. My bum clearly knows more about the 14th Amendment than iverglas, but she hasn't owned up to that fact. Shameful, isn't it?

There's a lot more where that came from, but I have a life so I won't spell it out. Suffice it to say that iverglas' alleged experience running for office doesn't sway me. Remember, she's a world class Second Amendment legal scholar who is clueless about the Second Amendment, related history and legal theory--and she doesn't even claim to be a world class politician.

She has less chance of influencing my political decisions than a five year old who will live under the new President's leadership and will vote herself one day for US president. I hope this helped someone else understand how to value iverglas' advice or suggestions.

[iverglas]

152. sometimes it even seems as though you know how to read

Others ... not so much.

I suggested that you ask yourself why you don't go find a party that agrees with you.

Feel free to take my suggestion or not.

Or feel free to pretend to think that all that blah blah that I have not bothered to read beyond the first sentence of was worth the time you spent putting it together.

[TPaine7]

153. LOL

She thinks it was written for her!

Funny that.

I couldn't care less whether she reads it. She probably didn't understand it the first time; what would be the point of her reading it again?

[iverglas]

155. are those voices

soothing and pleasant, or are they telling you to do bad scary things?

So far, just dumb things. Watch out if they turn nasty.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

159. I think he wrote it for those who believed you were intelligent.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

158. You should have read it, you really come across very badly.

Granted it's your own words but you should have read it anyway.

David

[iverglas]

154. but hell, I'm gonna try one more time to help your bum out

me: No government can DEPRIVE an individual of a RIGHT.

your Constitution:

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...

you: Unalienable right: a right one cannot be deprived of without due process of law.

me: Buy yourself a fucking dictionary and look up "unalienable" / "inalienable".

Then look up "right".

Is "life" or "liberty" or "property" an accepted meaning of "right"?

I'll give you a hint: NO.

No government may deprive a person of AN INALIENABLE RIGHT.

The fact that the INALIENABLE RIGHT EXISTS is the reason why the government may not deprive a person of the thing to which s/he HAS an inalienable right.

Your Constitution DOES NOT SAY that the government may deprive someone of the RIGHT to life, liberty, etc.

It says that it may deprive someone of LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.

But BECAUSE s/he has an INALIENABLE RIGHT to life, liberty, etc., the government may only do that WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

If the person did not have that INALIENABLE RIGHT, then the government could deprive him/her of the thing to which s/he has an inalienable right on a mere whim.

Thomas Fucking Jefferson on a fucking pogo stick.

If I deprive you of your stuffed teddy, I have NOT deprived you of your RIGHT to your stuffed teddy -- I HAVE DEPRIVED YOU OF YOUR STUFFED TEDDY.

The reason you can sue me to get it back is that YOU STILL HAVE YOUR RIGHT TO IT.

Jeeeeezus I get sick of reading the rantings of a kindergarten graduate.



typo fixed

[TPaine7]

156. I'm glad she didn't read it.

Is "life" or "liberty" or "property" an accepted meaning of "right"?

I'll give you a hint: NO.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Ah, the torturous word games. The scent of excrement is too strong here. Or to put it in other words, I won't parse this poop. I can readily see that it's self-refuting, but it's not worth the effort to take it apart.

The bottom line is that children and felons can legitimately be kept from possessing arms, and by strange coincidence that is what I said in that other thread.

I find it fascinating that the dictionary outranks America's founding documents when it suits her purposes, yet D.C.'s gun control law gets to define "machine gun," thus outranking the dictionary. That means--what a shock--that D.C.'s gun control laws outranks the founding documents. Of course--that's only consistent. Can't fault her for consistency.

Jeeeeezus I get sick of reading the rantings of a kindergarten graduate.

And yet she reads and comments on my OP's (having nothing to do with her whatsoever), all the while complaining about "having" to do so.

I imagine she will continue "not reading" my posts.

My kindergarten degree has served me well. Someone needs a refund on her law degree, however.

<whispering> Oh, and all those other things I mentioned? They don't matter at all. Really. </whispering>

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

157. I may have to withdraw my proposal after reading this.

[friendly_iconoclast]

160. Now, let us be charitable here

It must be said that iverglas has a grasp of the 2nd Amendment second only to that
of Jack Thompsons' grasp of the First.

Constitutional scholar, expert on the psyche of gun owners, and wise advisor to Democrats.
A one-woman fireball trying to restore the good name of liberal interventionism.

A veritable polymath who gives of us her too-valuable time, and all she gets is heckling
from Know-nothings, Yahoos, good-ole-boys, unrepentant Kluxers, and misogynists. Just ask her.

For shame, DU, for shame!

[iverglas]

161. step outside this place for a moment

and realize your error.

On second thought, no, don't.

[pipoman]

113. Um,

I thought "women's reproductive rights" was completely off limits in gun rights threads?? I guess it is only if they are uttered by anyone on the other side of the gun rights issue, huh?

[iverglas]

118. poor you

Discrimination isn't always a bad thing. You could try discriminating between the two totally different situations you are trying to conflate. Or at the least you could try discriminating between things worth saying and things that make the speaker look less than candid/smart.

[gorfle]

68. On regulation.

...but too often the pro-gun side of the debate resorts to a total anti-regulation point of view.

All attempts at firearm regulation must be weighed against the reason why the right to bear arms was enumerated in our Constitution.

The reason why the founders wanted an armed citizenry was to be able to counter federal military power as a final defense against tyranny.

Any regulation which hinders that intent is a non-starter. For example, any regulation that provides the government with a list of all firearm owners is a non-starter.

I am not anti-regulation. But I am against any regulation that destroys anonymous firearm ownership.

[SteveM]

95. Do you equate "anti-regulatory mindset" with "shall not be infringed?" (nt)

[Overseas]

26. So hunters need machine guns? /nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. The ignorance is just overwhelming sometimes.

[ContinentalOp]

43. There is plenty of ignorance on both sides though.

Just upthread, gun owners are saying that you can't sell existing "assault weapons" when the law clearly provides a way that you can. As a non-gun-owner, I admit that there's a lot of ignorance on my side. Unfortunately it doesn't help that the other side is overflowing with deliberate misinformation fueled by groups like the NRA.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. I think they were talking about specific cases in the past.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[ContinentalOp]

61. Where did I say I supported the AWB? Where did I say that an "assault weapon" was a machine gun?

I'm aware of the controversy around this issue, I just don't see why it's a big enough deal for a small niche group of Democrats to attack the nominee over it during each election cycle.

Work to change the law. Work to educate people why it's absurd. But don't expect to win people over if you say things like "There are a bunch of knee-jerk types here who would love nothing more than to strike down the Second Amendment simply because guns make them feel all oogy."

[tburnsten]

66. Currently there is no such thing as an "assault weapon"

So there is no such thing as legislation preventing the sale of weapons which at one point (Spetember 1994-September 2004) may have been considered "assault weapons", and that is the way most people who fully understand the debate want to keep it. That is because an "assault weapon" is a term used to demonize certain rifles and shotguns based on appearance, but H.R. 1022 actually transcends the appearance issue and just outright bans some of the most popular hunting, target, and sporting rifles and shotguns, ones that have been in widespread, common use for up to one hundred years. They are completely ordinary firearms, nothing special about them whatsoever, which is why the term "assault weapon" is such a sore spot for the people who own "them".

[tburnsten]

30. Assault weapons bans are not about machine guns

And hunting is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Citizens may own firearms for any legitimate purpose they want, including and especially for enjoyment of shooting. It is a fantastic hobby and very few people who own guns hunt.

[codjh9]

44. Perhaps, but my brother had many guns, and was an NRA member, but quit due

to assault weapons. He said emphatically, and I agree with him: 'NO ONE needs them'.

[msallied]

46. Does he know what constitutes an "Assault Weapon?"

Do you?

[gorfle]

71. Then you disagree with the founders.

Perhaps, but my brother had many guns, and was an NRA member, but quit due to assault weapons. He said emphatically, and I agree with him: 'NO ONE needs them'.

Then you are at direct odds with our founders. Our founders intended that the citizenry be armed so as to eliminate, or at least counter federal military power. In order to fulfill this intent they would need to be armed with weaponry similar to the infantry of the federal military.

The founders believed that the people need such arms.

[NorthwestNut]

80. It may have been true in the late 18th century, but let's get real..

"Our founders intended that the citizenry be armed so as to eliminate, or at least counter federal military power. In order to fulfill this intent they would need to be armed with weaponry similar to the infantry of the federal military."

Are you arguing that all military hardware should be available to civilians? I don't think that's what you meant, but seriously, the line has to be drawn somewhere. The entire civilian population wouldn't have a chance in hell of countering "federal military power" today.

[one-eyed fat man]

105. a bunch of water buffalo farmers............

wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against the mightiest military of the 20th century. Yep, keep believing it!

[gorfle]

107. I am quite real.

Are you arguing that all military hardware should be available to civilians? I don't think that's what you meant, but seriously, the line has to be drawn somewhere. The entire civilian population wouldn't have a chance in hell of countering "federal military power" today.

The citizenry should possess small arms that enable them to successfully engage in armed revolt against their government's forces. I am satisfied that the weaponry currently legal for citizens to own without paperwork is sufficient to this task.

Your assertion that "the entire civilian population wouldn't have a chance in hell of countering "federal military power" today." I have addressed many times before. There are many examples in recent history where technologically inferior forces have countered vastly superior forces. The Vietnamese successfully countered U.S. military power during the Vietnam conflict, the Afghans successfully countered Soviet power during the Soviet-Afghan war, and the Iraqi insurgents have done quite well countering U.S. military power. Also Mogadishu comes to mind.

Additionally, civil war would decimate the economy and the tax base which is essential for supporting the federal troops.

So it is not hard to envision the U.S. civilian population countering federal military power. The principle of the 2nd Amendment is as valid today as it was when it was created - just like the rest of our government they created.

[tburnsten]

135. Not to mention taxes would probably not even be paid

and the majority of the US military, I don't know exactly how much, would be likely to defect with all the equipment they could get rather than fire on members of their own community.

[one-eyed fat man]

146. moral dilemna and question 46.

The last time US soldiers were forced to make those kinds of moral decisions Abraham Lincoln invited Robert E Lee to take command of the entire Federal Army.

Back in 1994 a Navy War College student circulated a survey as part of a research paper he was writing.

http://www.29palmssurvey.com/survey.html

The speed with which reports and rumors of this survey percolated through the military community was amazing. That it was being discussed at Fort Knox, Kentucky by Army tank crewmen within a week of being administered to Marine infantrymen at Twenty-nine Palms, California is testimony to the stir it caused. Just freshly retired from active duty then, many of my fellow soldiers and I were troubled not only by the questions but also who wanted to know the answers and why. That the questions were framed in the context of confiscation of firearms from American citizens was especially alarming. And too chillingly believable.

Even as an academic exercise, to soberly consider the modern equivalent of joining the Army of Northern Virginia was uncomfortable. To realize that just ten years later, National Guard troops from other states, under orders, went house to house and seized guns from Louisiana residents after Katrina is equally frightening.

There are some decisions that our fellow citizens should not wish to force upon us.

[tburnsten]

150. I remeber that survey

As I recall, the last time I was in a dicussion about it, an NCO stated that his response to an order to fire on U.S. citizens in that context would be to execute the son of a bitch who gave the order. I think that is fairly representative of the reactions most troops would have to an order like that. We are not stalin's army, our soldiers and marines have an extreme aversion to causing harm to fellow citizens and would be far more likely to act on those aversions than to follow an order like that. Things like Kent State are anomalies, and exceedingly rare ones at that.

[benEzra]

31. Who said anything about machine guns?

Machine guns have been tightly controlled since 1934 and have nothing to do with the gun debate. Possession outside of police/military duty without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) has been a 10-year Federal felony for 74 years now.

"Assault weapons" aren't machineguns; they are the most popular NON-automatic, CIVILIAN (NFA Title 1) target rifles and defensive carbines in the United States (plus quite a few civilian shotguns), and more people lawfully own them than hunt.

"Assault weapons":


Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, .223 Remington caliber



Benelli Steadygrip turkey hunting shotgun, 12-gauge



AR-15 platform, .223 Remington caliber, most popular centerfire target rifle in the USA



Olympics-style .22 caliber target pistol



pre-ban Marlin Model 60 squirrel hunting/plinking rifle, .22LR caliber

[ieoeja]

35. Answer this honestly.

Do you really believe the Assault Weapons Ban banned the sale of machine guns to the general public?

[slackmaster]

40. It gets really tiring dealing with this kind of bullshit EVERY DAY

:argh:

[tburnsten]

41. Mind if I join you?

:argh:

[iverglas]

47. couldn't agree with you more

Exactly how many threads consisting of the same poster's fixation on this issue must we endure? Particularly when said poster has never in history evinced any intention of engaging in good faith, respectful discussion of the issue in the first place ...

[gorfle]

70. Sigh...

First of all, the second amendment is not about hunting, it is about countering federal military power as insurance against tyranny.

Second of all, the assault weapons ban has nothing to do with machine guns.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[appal_jack]

62. my post #54 already addresses your concerns

iverglas,

I think that you and I were posting at the same time, so please don't take my subject line here as a criticism of you/your post. However, I will reiterate here that were Obama to promise to veto all new gun control legislation during his time in office, he would take the AWB off the table, WITHOUT specifically repudiating (one of the most foolish tenets of) his party, and WHILE upholding a robust interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution (our Supreme Law of the Land down here in the US). In the process, he will potentially gain thousands of independent voters, while losing nary a one.

-app

edit to note that iverglas had actually posted her thought (#52) already as I was still composing my post #54, so unless she is gifted with ESP, she could not have seen my points prior to posting.

[iverglas]

72. sorry, it does nothing of the sort

You, too, are demanding that your candidate repudiate part of his party's platform.

You, like so many, are making the bald assertion that this will attract significant numbers of votes.


I do not see any basis for accepting that assertion, and I do not see how making that demand as often and as loudly and as publicly as some here are doing can reasonably be expected to improve the party's or candidate's chances of success.


In any event, a promise to "veto all new gun control legislation" would simply be moronic, amounting to tying the candidate's hands when there could well be unforeseen situations arise, and very likely next to impossible to honour in practice without doing serious damage to the then-President, the party and possibly the society.

[appal_jack]

149. No hand-tying necessary.

I am demanding that our candidate lead our party back toward honoring the Constitution. Yes, that will take a little further adjustment to the party platform, but I am confident that President Obama will be able to do so with the input of pro-2A Democrats and his Constitutional mentors such as Laurence Tribe.

I guess you COULD say that the 2nd Amendment already ties the hands of government (and thus, party), but I prefer to think of it as insuring the inalienable rights of the citizenry.

-app

[gorfle]

74. Repudiating the platform.

This is a demand that the Democratic Party's presidential candidate REPUDIATE THE PARTY'S PLATFORM.

This demand is bizarre and inappropriate.

Considering that the party's platform is extremely damaging to the party and to Obama's election chances, it is not bizarre nor inappropriate to request that he repudiate that portion of the platform.

Candidates running on behalf of a political party DO NOT repudiate the party's platform in mid-campaign.

Even if part of the platform is immoral and may cost him the election?

Individuals who genuinely seek to have a candidate elected DO NOT repeatedly draw attention to a portion of the party's platform with which they disagree and demand that the party and candidate repudiate it in mid-campaign.

Unless, of course, you genuinely want Obama to win the election and see 80 million energized voters at stake in a close election over an issue that could be instantly deflated by repudiating the party's anti-firearm stance.

Someone who does this could simply be a misguided sore loser.

Or they could be someone who grasps what is at stake in a close race.

Someone who does this could be something else altogether.

Why don't you just say what's on your mind and drop the insinuations that he's a freeper?

[TPaine7]

82. Self Delete

[TPaine7]

83. Why Obama Should Reverse Course

The AWB as proposed in the party's platform is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States of America as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

"Assault weapons" are protected as they are not especially dangerous weapons and they are in common use for lawful purposes.

Before Obama can become President, he must take an oath of office in which he must swear (or affirm) that he will defend the Constitution. Whether or not someone who promises to violate the Constitution can also uphold it is a question better answered now--by a frank reversal--than later in debates with McCain and Palin.

Obama can plead ignorance--he, or his campaign at least, appears not to even know what "assault weapon" means in the AWB, apparently confusing it with a fully automatic machine gun. Obama should also get on board with "bearing arms" and either support concealed carry or open carry.

The Constitution and our nation's integrity mean nothing to foreign and domestic enemies, but it should mean something to all patriotic Americans--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians,...

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[gorfle]

108. Well said, Tpaine

This is precisely why it is not bizarre nor inappropriate to take a candidate to task over this issue during a campaign.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[LN3]

92. +1

[ieoeja]

98. The platform committee should be asked....

... was Lady Rothschild a major reason the SAWB (Stupid Assault Weapons Ban) was included in this year's platform?

Because there is no way in fucking hell Lady Rothschild sat on that committee all the way through the National Convention without already knowing she would be endorsing McCain in the general election.

[iverglas]

101. This post/thread is NOT about FIREARMS POLICY

I don't mind repeating myself.

This is a demand that the Democratic Party's presidential candidate REPUDIATE THE PARTY'S PLATFORM.

This demand is, in my own very humble and yet very experienced opinion, bizarre and appropriate.

Candidates running on behalf of a political party DO NOT repudiate the party's platform in mid-campaign.

Individuals who genuinely seek to have a candidate elected DO NOT repeatedly draw attention to a portion of the party's platform with which they disagree and demand that the party and candidate repudiate it in mid-campaign.

I am completely unable to fathom why anyone who genuinely seeks to have a candidate elected would devote post after post after post -- and that's in the cyberworld; I know nothing about in the real world -- to berating that candidate and denouncing that candidate's electoral platform, the platform adopted by the party according to its own duly formulated and followed processes, and demanding that that candidate repudiate the platform.

And I will of course never speculate.


But, of course, what's truly entertaining is that my post pointing this all out was deleted, while the opening post and thread remain intact ... even if shunted off to the outer darkness ...

[iverglas]

103. the platform was in place when Obama was nominated

Platform adopted 25 August, Obama nominated 27 August.

Obama was nominated to represent a party that had a platform in place when he accepted its nomination.

He was not chosen by his party to run on a platform other than the one it had adopted.

His party's platform was adopted in accordance with the rules that the party has made and followed for that purpose.

Why anyone would suggest, or consider it appropriate, that a candidate who has accepted the nomination of a party, with full knowledge of the party's platform, then repudiate the platform in mid-campaign ... well, I'm still wondering.

Had I repudiated a plank in my party's platform when I was a candidate, I would have expected to have my party withdraw its endorsement of my candidacy. I know things like policy are not taken quite as seriously south of that border, but really. A presidential candidate repudiating his party's platform. Just bizarre, that one.

[jody]

106. It's 4:18 CST 17 Sep. 2008 and I see my OP has been moved from GDP to Guns. Every time the phrase

"assault weapon" comes up in threads permitted in GDP I read dozens of posts revealing the author believes incorrectly that the term means automatic firearms or does not know that it includes some of the most popular firearms used by 54 million gun-owners in the U.S.

Obama has promised gun-owners that he supports the Second Amendment so I assumed those who support his campaign would as an absolute minimum want to know the meaning of critical terms, e.g. assault weapon, machine gun.

Apparently I was wrong. :shrug:

[gorfle]

109. Yes, and...

this is why it is unfortunate that such threads are moved to the Gungeon never to be seen by most DUers.

Clearly most people don't have a clue what the AWB does or what an assault weapon is. These posts belong out in general discussion so people can get educated about what is damaging the party, our country, and our Constitutional freedom.

[slackmaster]

110. You're right Jody, that has been happening almost every day on DU for years now

The awesome power of a big lie, repeated over and over.

[iverglas]

111. maybe

it happens when somebody uses the "alert" function to question the appropriateness of a thread denouncing the Democratic Party's electoral platform and the Democratic Party's presidential candidate for adhering to it, and demanding that the Democratic Party's candidate repudiate the Democratic Party's platform, in the GDP forum.

Who knows, eh?

[one-eyed fat man]

115. Didn't the

"career snitch" in the witless protection program get tombstoned?

[one-eyed fat man]

112. lies and liars.......

Face it, when Josh Sugarmman, coined the term 'assault weapon' he knew it wasn't a machinegun, but his insight was prescient. You keep saying how it's not possible to explain the difference to the strident proponents of the AWB. They don't care, they don't know and they don't want to know. Sugarmann intended to exploit their ignorance and has succeeded mightily.

"Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons –anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun– can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarmann

He knew it was a lie when he told it, and he also said the reason to ban assault weapons was to inure people to further bans. He managed to fool a lot of folks.

[iverglas]

117. jeez, aren't there just a lot of them about?

And then there's truth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x54097#54535

as provided by me in April 2004.

Thought you could slip a copy & paste from one o' them gunhead sites past, did you?

Allow me to quote myself.

quotations, sources, contexts ...

That was shore enlightening -- a quotation with a link offered as the source ... to a site which offers no source for its quotation. Cute.


So, in essence, the VPC acknowledges that public confusion with regard to "assault weapons" is a big advantage. Don't honest activists generally want the public to make well-informed decisions about public policy?

Well now. Let's just look at where the quotation in question actually did come from.

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

That's the conclusion portion of a study by the VPC called "Assault Weapons and Accesories <sic> in America". (I'll assume for the sake of argument that Josh Sugarmann actually wrote it. I sure wish they'd use a spellchecker, though.) It starts here:

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

and it contains the following sections:

Introduction
Assault Weapons Violence
Drug Trafickers <sic>, Paramilitary Groups... And Just Plain Folk
Assault Weapons Marketing
Assault Weapon Look-Alikes: Airguns and Toy Guns
Publications
Accessories
Paramilitary Training Camps and Combat Schools
The Assault Weapons Debate
Conclusion
Appendix I
Appendix II

Here's the bit of the conclusion that the quotation in question (emphasis added) came from:

Assault weapons are increasingly being perceived by legislators, police organizations, handgun restriction advocates, and the press as a public health threat. As these weapons come to be associated with drug traffickers, paramilitary extremists, and survivalists, their television and movie glamour is losing its lustre to a violent reality.

Because of this fact, assault weapons are quickly becoming the leading topic of America's gun control debate and will most likely remain the leading gun control issue for the near future. Such a shift will not only damage America's gun lobby, but strengthen the handgun restriction lobby for the following reasons:

It will be a new topic in what has become to the press and public an "old" debate.

- Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons — just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms — are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

Efforts to stop restrictions on assault weapons will only further alienate the police from the gun lobby.

- Until recently, police organizations viewed the gun lobby in general, and the NRA in particular, as a reliable friend. This stemmed in part from the role the NRA played in training officers and its reputation regarding gun safety and hunter training. Yet, throughout the 1980s, the NRA has found itself increasingly on the opposite side of police on the gun control issue. Its opposition to legislation banning armor-piercing ammunition, plastic handguns, and machine guns, and its drafting of and support for the McClure/Volkmer handgun decontrol bill, burned many of the bridges the NRA had built throughout the past hundred years. As the result of this, the Law Enforcement Steering Committee was formed. The Committee now favors such restriction measures as waiting periods with background check for handgun purchase and a ban on machine guns and plastic firearms. If police continue to call for assault weapons restrictions, and the NRA continues to fight such measures, the result can only be a further tarnishing of the NRA's image in the eyes of the public, the police, and NRA members. The organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the sportsman, but as the defender of the drug dealer.

Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.

Although the majority of Americans favor stricter handgun controls, and a consistent 40 percent of Americans favor banning the private sale and possession of handguns,<129> many Americans do believe that handguns are effective weapons for home self-defense and the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms.<130> Yet, many who support the individual's right to own a handgun have second thoughts when the issue comes down to assault weapons. Assault weapons are often viewed the same way as machine guns and "plastic" firearms — a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right. ...

Now ... what are we seeing here?

Are we seeing someone with "something to hide"?

Or are we seeing a FACTUAL assessment of a situation?

Are we seeing someone who wants to ban assault weapons BECAUSE OF their "menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons"?

Or are we seeing someone who has REASONS for supporting the ban on assault weapons, REASONS which have been set out in considerable detail in the study, in the conclusion of which that statement was made, REASONS which have nothing to do with the "menacing looks" of assault weapons, or the public's "confusion" with respect thereto?

Is there evidence that Sugarmann, or the VPC, has ever "concealed" its reasons for advocating the assault weapons ban, or the basis on which it advocates the ban? Evidence that it has attempted to create or exacerbate the public confusion in question? Not that I know of.

So the statement in question is no more nor less than a statement of fact. Is the fact in question "a big advantage" to advocates of the ban? Perhaps. And in an assessment of the likelihood of success of the assault weapons ban campaign, which is the context in which it appeared, it would be a relevant fact.

Are those advocates responsible for that advantage? S/he who says so had better do something to substantiate the allegation.

Enjoy.

[one-eyed fat man]

122. Seems like he was pretty clear

That strikes me as the point. Pretty much outlines how to take advantange of confusion to achieve his goals.

Assault weapons are not machinguns but if people think they are, who cares, besides, then:

A. Anyone who opposes the ban "wants" crooks and drug dealers to have machineguns.

B We drive a wedge between the cops and the NRA if the NRA opposes an assault weapons ban. Anything we do to make the NRA look bad is good for us. We even have a committee to look into that.

C. Folks still mistakenly think they have a right to defend themselves with a handgun, but most will allow that they don't need a "machinegun" for self-defense.

Seems to me that he was arguing that most folks had gotten bored with his handgun control message and by framing 'assault weapon' "a weapon that poses such a grave risk that it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right."; something "few people can envision a practical use for..." that he would revitalize progress towards more gun control laws.

Looks like he understands "divide and conquer", "bait and switch" and "deceptive assumptions" to good effect. Your post confirms he knows how to peddle snake oil. And if folks come to his position mistakenly, doubtless, he'll take it.

[TPaine7]

133. I see a catalog of misinformation, false innuendo, and implicit advice to use it against

a credulous public.

The organization will no longer be viewed as the defender of the sportsman,

The NRA does in fact defend sportsmen, as they know.


but as the defender of the drug dealer.

They know that the NRA doesn't defend drug dealers.


few people can envision a practical use for <"assault weapons">.

They know there are practical uses for these weapons, including self-defense.


"plastic" firearms

The plastic firearms fraud is demonstrated by the popularity of "plastic" guns like the Glock. The dishonest gun control lobby whipped the public and government officials into a frenzy about this terrifying weapon that posed such a grave risk that it's worth compromising a perceived constitutional right.


the majority of Americans mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms.

He knew better, or at least he should have. The sophistry that the Second Amendment protected the right of states to have militias (and the BS-lite fallback positions) appeared in (or after) the 20th Century. They were part of a cynical, dishonest attempt to achieve by subterfuge what the perpetrators could not hope to achieve legitimately--getting rid of the Second Amendment. Anyone who presumes to limit the rights of others should take pains to ensure that he is standing on solid legal, ethical, moral, and logical grounds. If he did the research, he knew; if he didn't, he is just as guilty.


Why would a rabidly anti-gun propagandist be interested in misconceptions and ignorance that favor his position? To ensure that the public makes fully informed decisions? LOL.

Only someone profoundly ignorant of the history of gun control in America would assume that. Or, of course, a dishonest hack.

[jody]

139. An MD friend prescribed facts for a patient with Ostrich Syndrome – didn’t work.

[iverglas]

142. oh, no; not again

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm

[davepc]

116. Jody, I appreciate your passion on this issue

But fuck man, its little over a month and a half to the election. We've got bigger fish to fry.

I'm worried about my bank failing...we're in a dogfight race...and you keep throwing out the AWB.

The platform is what it is. The candidate is who he is.

It's not going to change now. We have to work with what we've got. Overall, I think its pretty damn good too.

Get off it. Take up the fight November 5th after Obama is elected president.

All this time and energy directed at the one part of the platform you (and I) don't like at the expense of the rest of the platform which any good Democrat can get behind.

Get behind it.

[iverglas]

119. 21-one inanimate object salute

edit ... er, 21-what?

[jody]

121. davepc I've worked in Dem candidate campaigns for U.S. senator, congressperson, and governor in the

candidates office and in frequent contact with the candidate.

I know from experience in one state that during the last couple of weeks, a single issue can be used to swing an election.

I see we differ because IMO the AWB is one such issue that could hurt my candidate in swing states and you don't agree.

I hope you are right but IMO Obama's campaign should be prepared for close, hand-to-hand combat in the last weeks before 4 November.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. :hi:

[gorfle]

130. Fine, fine...

Fine, we'll shut up and vote for Obama.

But when he loses, I don't want to hear about how it was all the gun lobby's fault. We tried to get the platform changed before the election. You don't want to hear about it any more? Fine. If we lose because of guns, I don't want to hear a peep out of anyone about it.

[jody]

140. What gorfle said in #130, NOT ONE DAMMED PEEP !!!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

148. He's only preaching to people who dare step foot in the gungeon.

[WWFZD]

127. That's precisely what I've concluded

"Absent that specific promise, Obama should not be surprised if 54 million gun-owners conclude he supports reinstating the assault weapons ban with its onerous and useless bans of semiautomatic firearms.

One should not forget additional evidence showing our Democratic Party supports reinstating the assault weapons ban contained in H.R. 1022 cosponsored by 67 Democratic congresspersons."

and I'm a registered voter in OH.

[jody]

128. It's possible AWB can win or lose FL (27) PA (21) OH (20) MI (17) total 85.

[Rancid Crabtree]

162. Maybe not AWB in particular, but gun rights in general

Gore won Michigan by maybe 8% and although Kerry won Michigan, he did so by a smaller margin, maybe 5% or less. There's some other gun related threads here on the site, a thread or two about the NRA. Being new, I dunno how much I can speak my mind. I live in Michigan. But in the rural provinces, the vote was red, and guns mattered. My mom and my old man both held local elected office, were Democrats, Dad thought Rush was a hoot--they're both deceased now--and so like many families, all their kids are Democrats. But my brother thought the AWB was wrong, purchased some guns that would have been banned, prior to its passage.

Course, someone could mention that the NRA, among the California Democratic Party and the RNC, and others, opposed the McCain BCFR. Seems they all thought we should be able to pool our resources to have a say in matters political. That funny man with the big ears, Perot I guess they called him, may have been one catalyst for that legislation, as one of the USSC justices wrote that had Perot ran the campaign in...was it 96?...after BCFR, he'd be subject to five years in the federal pen...I guess cause of how he used money to run ads or something.

Obama's record on guns is a problem for him. His saving grace, if there is one, is that McCain's record on related rights isn't much better. I don't see a lot of Obama yard signs...saw the first couple this past week...I'd been seeing McCain yard signs for a while now.