A possible reason why "gun nuts" are freaking out over Obama Presidency:

[JonQ]

By now most people have probably heard that Obama has selected Eric Holder to be his Attorney General.

Here's some fun facts about Mr. Holder:

He supported the DC handgun ban, contrary to the courts decision in the Heller case
Has claimed that the 2nd amendment confers a collective, rather than individual right
Supports universal gun registration
Proposed a bill to strengthen and broaden the scope of the assualt weapon ban.

---------------------

http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/dag/testimony/dagcrime052799.htm

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=282

Is it perhaps logical for gun-owners to view the Obama presidency with a bit of skepticism if this is the kind of people he surrounds himself with?

[monmouth]

1. The whacko gun nuts were buying up their guns and ammo long

before Eric Holder was named, but thanks for your concern anyway...

[babylonsister]

3. Yup. This has nothing to do with Holder. nt

[babylonsister]

8. The media has created a large part of the 'freak out'. Here's an

interesting article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2204592/

[slackmaster]

10. Good article, babylonsister

Firearms are usually discretionary purchases. People who buy guns have usually been contemplating doing so for some time, figuring out how and when they can afford it.

No harm will come from the uptick in gun sales.

[JonQ]

13. I never said they were buying guns retroactively

because of this weeks AG announcement.

I was commenting on the mentality of the Obama presidency, he is coming off, at best, wishy washy on the second amendment and at worst outright opposed to it. He supported the AWB and has said some very concerning things in the past. So what does he do to calm the nerves of the over 100 million gun owners of the country? He appoints Holder.

I think at some point you have to concede that the "gun nuts" may have a valid concern.

[liberal N proud]

2. It is helped along with a LOT of media hype as well

They are freaking these poor bastards out telling them that with a Democratic government they will lose their guns.

[lostnotforgotten]

4. What's Wrong With Universal Gun Registration?

We have universal Pilot registration, Doctor registration, Dentist registration, Lawyer registration.

Nothing new in the state wanting know who owns firearms that can be a menace to society.

[slackmaster]

6. What's right with it?

What good would you expect it to accomplish? We've had handgun registration in California for 40 years, and the crime rates are not any different from other places as a result.

I view a state that wants to pry into my personal possessions as a menace to society.

[lostnotforgotten]

28. So, It Has Not Hurt Or Helped In California - Seems Inconsequential For The Country

eom

[slackmaster]

51. Hold your horses, you aren't looking at the whole picture

It hasn't helped or hurt CRIME RATES in any measurable way; that is supposedly the intent.

It HAS hurt people by inconveniencing us, compromising our privacy, and obliging us to pay FEES. The last part is tangible harm. A NATIONAL registration program could only be less efficient and more burdensome.

I will always oppose any proposal for a restrictive law that lacks either of these features:

- A concrete, measurable objective, and

- A mechanism for automatic repeal should the objective not be met.

[Glorfindel]

7. Makes sense to me..."a well-regulated militia" NEEDS to register guns

after all, we register automobiles, barbers, veterinarians, and insurance agents. Why not guns?

[slackmaster]

9. Oh noez, not cars vs. guns again

Automobiles have to be registered to be driven on public roads, not just owned.

Barbers, veterinarians, and insurance agents have to be registered in order to offer their services to the public, not to exist.

The militia is the people. Why should the people have to register personal possessions that they keep in their homes, or use in private?

[maxsolomon]

12. the Courts have defined "well-regulated"

as any able bodied male over 18. so, much to my chagrin, that line of argument has been closed off.

but, to paraphrase martin sheen in apocalypse now: "i don't see any... REGULATION".

[JonQ]

16. And perhaps to better regulate it

the government should take possession of all privately held guns and keep them in a safe place, where they can be watched over and doled out at need.

That's why it's called a slippery "slope". You don't start out with the worst of it. You start out seemingly reasonable, then make things more and more intrusive. Notice they started with an assault weapon ban (meaningless for numerous reasons, but that's been stated often enough), they don't outright state they want a complete gun ban. You have to move forward incrementally, so not too many people are outraged at each step.

[lostnotforgotten]

30. So, What You are Really Saying Is That With Democrats Running Washington, You Still Don't Trust

Government!

[JonQ]

40. Correct

You shouldn't ever trust the government. You should always remain skeptical and alert.

[SteveM]

54. Though not addressed to me, I answer "correct" as well (nt)

[jeepnstein]

73. "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you."

Famous last words.

Trust politicians with my Rights? That's a good one. Do you really believe they have your interests at heart?

[slackmaster]

76. That's about the size of it

Well said.

[iverglas]

64. "You have to move forward incrementally"

Yeah. They gave those damned women and black people the vote, and next thing you know they were wanting to get elected President.

Progress. It's a hideous thing, isn't it?

[Testament]

71. That doesn't have a damn thing to do with what we're talking about, iverglas.

[jmg257]

33. OK so "a well regulted militia" also needs the most effective arms - they want to register

each one of us a self-supplied M16, an M9, &/or maybe a nice Benelli M4 for service, then they can have the #s (via the local militia officer?).

Also makes sense that they then don't need to know about other legally owned personal arms not needed for militia duty.

[jeepnstein]

35. I want mine on Govt. pricing!

[gorfle]

55. On Militias and Cars.

Makes sense to me..."a well-regulated militia" NEEDS to register guns after all, we register automobiles, barbers, veterinarians, and insurance agents. Why not guns?

First of all, Heller has held that the right to keep and bear arms exists irrespective of membership in any organization, like a militia.

Secondly, the Dick Act of 1903 not only created the National Guard (by federalizing the state militias), but also provided for the unorganized militia, all able-bodied men aged 17-45.

Thirdly, you do not have to register, insure, or license an automobile used exclusively on private property. This is similar to the way firearms are treated in most places today.

[JonQ]

14. It's typically a precursor to confiscation

Would you favor mandatory DNA typing, fingerprinting and other data on innocent people who aren't even suspected of a crime? I don't.

[lostnotforgotten]

29. Yes Actually As Part Of Universal Health Care I Would

eom

[JonQ]

41. Well that's a major

civil rights violation that I can't get on board with.

[krispos42]

How about registering your home computer?

Your modem? Your printer (after all, you might be counterfeiting money).

How about registering your CD-Rs and DVD-Rs?

How about registering all the money you take out of an ATM?

How about registering everybody's fingerprints and DNA?



What goal are you trying to accomplish? And how will compulsory gun registration achieve that goal in the real world?

Because I feel it is very likely that a much stronger case could be made for DNA registration than gun registration.

[krispos42]

23. How about registering your home computer?

Your modem? Your printer (after all, you might be counterfeiting money).

How about registering your CD-Rs and DVD-Rs?

How about registering all the money you take out of an ATM?

How about registering everybody's fingerprints and DNA?



What goal are you trying to accomplish? And how will compulsory gun registration achieve that goal in the real world?

Because I feel it is very likely that a much stronger case could be made for DNA registration than gun registration.

[happyslug]

72. We have that,, pistols can be traced with 15 minutes or less.

And that has been the law since the Gun Control Law of 1968. This registration of pistols have long been computerized thus my comment a pistol can be traced within 15 minutes. In fact in most states when a pistol is resold it must be done through a dealer or the local Sheriff's Office so the data base can be kept up to date as to ownership of any pistol/

As to Rifles and shotguns (and pistols sold before 1968) these are also registered but still kept in a pre-computer database system. The system works this way, the Police first must go to the maker or importer of the firearm and from them obtain to which wholesaler they sold the gun to. Then to that wholesaler to get the record of the local dealer. Then the local dealer to whom he sold it to. Now if the weapon was re-sold, the only way to find out is to go to the person the dealer sold it to and ask him or her where is the weapon. Given the low level of use of non-pistols in crime many observers question the need to keep these records but the system exists and has existed since 1938.

As to who owns a weapon, except for automatic Weapons, no such list exists, but then almost every state requires any one carrying a pistol or other firearm to carry it openly or have a permit (And if carried openly the weapon must be unloaded or in the act of hunting or other lawful use).

As to Pilot, Doctor and Dentist registration, that has to do with the right to practice that profession. If you do NOT have a license for any of those professions, you can NOT perform that profession, but that does NOT mean it is illegal for you to treat yourself if you have a cold, or a toothache or even fly on your own property (Ultra-lights do NOT need a license to fly IF you kept it over your own property). The same with the right to carry, you must have a license to carry one on the public streets, but you do NOT need a license if you keep it on your property.

Thus guns are registered, gun owners technically are not, but since the gun is so is the owner. furthermore no one is going to a list of gun owners to look for someone to help them in a criminal matter (They call the Police instead). Just like no one will call someone who owns a dental drill for dental work unless the owner of the dental drill was a licensed dentist, the same with guns ownership, just because someone owns a gun does NOT make him a person someone goes to to enforce the law.

Gun owners, who do nothing is like a dentist or doctor who do nothing, they do NOT have to be licensed to do nothing, they are license to do things, the license gives them the right to do certain things. Gun owners are NOT being asked to do anything except for what they want to do with the weapon. They are NOT asking to shoot up the street (Which is illegal in every state of the Union), they are NOT asking for the right to shoot every one on the street (Another illegal act, even to people with a license to carry).

The present system of registration is working, if the pistol is found, its last known owner can be known within minutes. But like a doctor who office was robbed of narcotics, should the owner be held liable if his or her gun is stolen? What if the person is a Police Officer who lost it during a confrontation with a Criminal (Rare but has been known to happen)? Cars are stolen and more people are killed by cars then pistols even in the US (I known most are car accidents but the death rate is higher). How should be handle such weapons as pistols, strict liability so that even of a Police Officer lost his pistol, he is held personally liable for its later misuse? Or just leave that liability be restricted to the person who used the weapon? In many way liability is the real issue when it comes to missing or lost weapons, but let me talk about another situation, the weapon was stolen, but by the time the weapon is misuse the original owner is long dead, should his heirs be liable? But it is their gun upon the owner's death (I know this is personal property not real property and must go through estate but minor concern in this debate).

These are some of the reason why gun owners are rarely held liable for misuse of their guns when it is stolen, lost or even sold off to a third person who misuses it. Licensing will NOT correct these problems and the Courts, the State Legislatures and Congress are all reluctant to make such gun owners liable (especially Police Officers AND Heirs). Licensing ha done what can be done with it, make it easy to trace most weapons (and almost all pistols).

[slackmaster]

5. Holder is a big fan of the Patriot Act too

He'd make a good poster child for Authoritarian Underground.

Check out this GD thread in which I stirred a turd (see sub-thread that starts with reply #9):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4498925

;-)

[JonQ]

17. Seems like a bi-partisan choice then

chosen to piss off the left and the right.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

11. Is it possible that a lot of "gun nuts" who live in Bumfuck

Don't have a clue about the issues that big cities have?

[slackmaster]

18. WADR to the people of Bumfuck, I live in a large city that has relatively low crime

It's not my fault places like Chicago can't control their criminals.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[jmg257]

31. Possible - but not likely. Many gun nuts are smart enought to know "issues" in big

cities will occur no matter what nonsense gun laws are enacted. They may also be aware that there are too many real direct causes that can be adjusted for the better in the "big city" - and where no one suffers loss of a secured right, even those simple country folk.

But just in case, here is some info from one such "big city"

"re: violent gun crime in the City of New Haven.

...extensive research into the specific nature and dimensions of incidents of murder, assault with a firearm, armed robbery, the unlawful firing of firearms and unlawful firearm possession. Data from this research, conducted by Spectrum Associates of Farmington, Connecticut, was presented to a wide array of law enforcement, government and community representatives in order to solicit ideas for strategies to reduce violent gun crimes and illegal gun possession. Some of the data presented included:

A large percentage of offenders and victims were 15-21 years of age.

Most offenders had serious criminal histories.

One fifth of offenders had been arrested for a prior gun offense, and three-fifths had a history of drug charges.

Over one third of the offenders were on probation at the time of the new gun-related offense.

Approximately one-third of offenders or victims associated with murders and armed assaults were members of neighborhood "groups" believed to be involved in other illegal activities.

[benEzra]

34. Whatever problems big cities have, widespread rifle crime is NOT one of them.

Case in point, Chicago. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, there were 463 reported murders in the entire state of Illinois in 2007, including Chicago. All rifles combined, including so-called "assault weapons," accounted for FOUR (4) of them...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

...even though more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt, and a lot of the "assault weapons" in U.S. homes are made in Illinois.

That doesn't stop the prohibitionists from wanting to ban them, though. And THAT is what the current run on "assault weapons" is all about---people who think they'd like to have one, realizing that there is a small but nonzero chance that if they don't buy one now, they will not be allowed to later.

[msongs]

15. fear of a black president nt

[slackmaster]

19. Do you have any actual evidence to back that up?

Or are you just acting on your own prejudices?

[JonQ]

20. Obama is black

people are buying guns, ergo: racism.

Also the stock market is racist for not immediately recovering on news of his victory. As is mother nature, for steadily making the northern hemisphere colder since November 4th.

Correlation always = causation.

[jody]

21. All statements are opinions! Mine is pro-RKBA Dems wanted to believe Obama would not support a

renewed AWB when he promised to support the Second Amendment.

Now that it's absolutely clear he does support the AWB, his statement of supporting the 2nd is at best misleading and some have called rank duplicity.

You might want to get a second opinion say from Ray Schoenke of AHSA who was quoted as follows, "Ray also told me that whenever the Obama administration entertains talk of gun control, he'll be at the table, working to prevent another semi-auto ban from being enacted."

SOURCE: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x188822

[iverglas]

22. you mean it is because they are

racist misogynist right-wing assholes?

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[DrCory]

26. It Does Seem The Brain Is Malfunctioning...

I detect a bit of inconsistency on her part. Previously, she labeled nearly all who possesses a firearm for the purpose of self-defense as racists, misogynists, or right-right tools, or combinations thereof. She is willing to make a few concessions, but so far has failed to elaborate under what conditions.

Now, she has applied the same characteristics to anyone with a concern for those chosen for offices in the new administration.

The OP:

"Is it perhaps logical for gun-owners to view the Obama presidency with a bit of skepticism if this is the kind of people he surrounds himself with?

Her Response:

"iverglas (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-22-08 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
22. you mean it is because they are

racist misogynist right-wing assholes?

Yeah, that's what I thought too."

Note the OP said gun-owners, not just those who own guns for self-defense.

[dairydog91]

37. Not to mention "misogynist"...

Does she know something about Holder that we don't?

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. It's a reflexive meme, to be trotted out in lieu of considered argument

The Freepers have "Obama is going to establish the Washington Caliphate" and/or
"Obama is the second coming of Vladimir Lenin", amongst others.

We've got "gun owners are mostly racist, misogynist right-wing assholes", amongst others.

[iverglas]

46. where did you get that??

We've got "gun owners are mostly racist, misogynist right-wing assholes", amongst others.

If I give you the wool, will you make one up for me too???

[DrCory]

50. From You...

If you re-read the OP carefully, you might just realize your "mistake".

Or do I, someone monumentally stupid in your opinion, need to explain it to you?

[iverglas]

45. note your own self

The post to which I was replying asked a question about -- and forgive the emphasis -- "GUN NUTS" "FREAKING OUT" over an Obama presidency.

You people and your imaginary conversations ...

[JonQ]

27. Is that 2nd amendment racist?

or misogynist?

Can I feel free to label anyone who supports the other 9 original amendments the same way?

[iverglas]

43. you seem to be participating in an imaginary conversation

The one I was participating in was about "gun nuts" freaking out over an Obama presidency.

You go back to yours, now.

[JonQ]

48. Yes

and I posted ample reasons for them to be concerned.

But since you responded in a nonsensical fashion bearing no semblance to reality I felt I could have a free hand in responding to you.

[JonQ]

42. John Kerry owns firearms

he hunts too. It came up in the 2004 election if you recall.

I suppose he's a racist misogynist right-wing asshole too.

And Giuliani is in favor of stricter gun control, and doesn't hunt. I guess that makes him a tolerant, feminist, left-wing saint, eh?

[iverglas]

44. hmm, I wonder

If I google "gun nuts", will John Kerry be at the top of the list?

[JonQ]

47. Doubtful

but I fail to see the relevance. You painted all gun owners the same, how others choose to label them seems unimportant.

Now if you'd like to amend your statement . . .

[iverglas]

49. take your false assertions and shove 'em

somewhere where they may be wanted, 'k?

You chose to head your post as you did:

A possible reason why "gun nuts" are freaking out over Obama Presidency:

and I responded to what you said.

Allow me to quote you:

Now if you'd like to amend your statement . . .

"Gun nuts" who choose to freak out over an Obama presidency can speak for themselves, if they wish.

[JonQ]

56. Oh please

you were obviously referring to all gun owners, judging by your vitriol here and on other related threads.

Which frankly I find baffling. I don't hate people who want nothing to do with guns, that's their choice. I get a little nervous when they start talking about universal confiscation, but not simply for being anti-gun. Why is it then that so many anti-gun folks seem to hate the opposition, feeling the need to make ridiculous, unsustainable assertions about them?

You don't like guns? Great, don't get one. But don't deny the right to everyone else because of your hangups. Just like being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to celebrate abortions, being pro-2nd amendment doesn't mean you have to be some sort of Yosemite sam caricature.

[iverglas]

57. blahdyblaydyblah

you were obviously referring to all gun owners

Those funny spectacles of yours just see all and know all, don't they?

Try taking them off. You might not be able to keep misrepresenting what's in front of your nose.


I get a little nervous when they start talking about universal confiscation, but not simply for being anti-gun.

You still seem to be looking for that conversation you're hearing in your head ...


You don't like guns?

I'm not the delusional one in this crowd. I don't have emotions about objects.


But don't deny the right to everyone else because of your hangups.

My goodness gracious. There I seem to be, doing something I have never done (not that I could if I wanted to, which I never have), because of things I don't have.

Which universe are you living in today?


Just like being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to celebrate abortions, being pro-2nd amendment doesn't mean you have to be some sort of Yosemite sam caricature.

I don't give a crap about amendments, second or otherwise. Haven't been paying attention, have you? And I said nothing about any amendments. Where do you spend your time? Obviously not in the world I live in, or in the forum I'm typing messages in.


A possible reason why "gun nuts" are freaking out over Obama Presidency:

you mean it is because they are racist misogynist right-wing assholes?

Quite a web you've woven from that. Of nothing but deceit.

[JonQ]

58. "I don't give a crap about amendments, second or otherwise"

Well that about says everything I needed to know about you. I really don't see any point in debating with someone who "doesn't give a crap" about our legally guaranteed rights, put in place by men far smarter and more dedicated to liberty than you or I, or most anyone for that matter.

I, on the other hand, do give a crap about all of our liberties. Including all the amendments guaranteeing equality and freedom. And I don't think we should start getting rid of them to avoid offending the sensibilities of a minority.

Disgusting.

[iverglas]

60. damn, you're ... uh ... smart ...

I don't give a crap about amendments, second or otherwise

Well that about says everything I needed to know about you.

Okay. If all you need to know about me is that I DO NOT LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, well, all you had to do was ask.

Damn, you're ... uh ... smart ...

And here I thought you knew all about me. Ha haha haha.

[JonQ]

62. So you don't care about our constitution

the foundation of our country and obviously the most important document in the US. And you are not in fact an american.


And yet you feel as if you were some expert that is qualified to lecture us on issues relating to the US and our constitution?

Perhaps you should bow out to those who actually know what they're talking about.

How about this, you do as you please with your country, and we'll do as we please with ours.

[iverglas]

63. I really do give up

What planet do you call home?

The one where it is acceptable conduct to just make up ignorant shit about people you don't know and publish it, evidently.

[JonQ]

65. You give up?

That may be the smartest hting you've done on this thread.

And what, pray tell, did I make up? That you don't care for our constitution? You said as much yourself. That you aren't american? Again, you made that claim.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Most of us know you from Canada, we are just surprised that you'd meddle in our business

while you criticize us for meddling in other countries.

David

[gorfle]

67. Hahahah, good on Jon!

you were obviously referring to all gun owners, judging by your vitriol here and on other related threads.

Of course she was.

Don't wast too much time trying to pin her down, though. It's like trying to nail jell-o to a wall.

[jody]

68. "nail jell-o to a wall" or Blue Sky ! n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Congrats John Q its rare to see anyone get under her skin that fast.

[JonQ]

74. Judging by her views

I'll consider pissing her off with my stance as the sincerest form of compliment.

[aikoaiko]

32. Obviously Holder has some extreme anti-rtba views

and it only adds fuel to the fire that Obama and his adminstration will be bad for the RTBA.

Of course there those who smear the vast majority of gun owners who are hedging their bets and buying guns and ammo now as racists who fear a Black president. These people are equivalent of the NRA -- willing to exaggerate kernals of truth for their legislative/political stances.

[benEzra]

36. Interesting graph from Google Trends:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22ar-15%22&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

The AR-15 platform was already the top selling centerfire rifle in America BEFORE the recent surge in sales. Now, most manufacturers are backordered for months.

[jody]

39. But Obama supports the 2nd & will not renew the AWB, at least he had Ray Schoenke of AHSA believing

that.

What will Schoenke say publicly about Obama's support of the AWB?

[slackmaster]

52. Very interesting indeed - I doubt that the present spike will be a short-lived as the one in 2004

It would be interesting to see data from 1994, but that was the year the WWW came into existence.

[SteveM]

53. If gun buyers viewed this thread, they would buy even more (nt)

[jody]

59. It amazes me that hatred spewed by anti-gun types is permitted but if anti-GLBT hatred was

posted it would be deleted and the poster would face the infamous tombstone.

The good news is we pro-RKBA Democrats on DU continue to defend all rights with special emphasis on RKBA protected by the Second Amendment.

[iverglas]

61. gunz is people?

If not, I cannot help but wonder what you're on about this time, jody.

What parallel are you seeing between "anti-gun" (whatever the fuck that is) and "anti-GLBT"?

Are guns trying to get the legal right to marry each other or sumthin?

[JonQ]

66. Or

if someone were to repeatedly come on here and rail against the 1st amendment, saying it confers a collective rather than individual right and so the government ought to step in, limit it severely and determine what speech is acceptable and legal (oh and you have to get a license before you can get even that limited freedom). I doubt that person would last very long.

[slackmaster]

75. I'd like to buy more firearms, but I have two problems

1. My safe storage facilities are almost as full as they could be, and

2. I want to buy a lathe.