If you are a true Democrat, should you own "Assault Weapons"

[oneshooter]

Several posters have asked why should a true Democrat want to own weapons, especially those that the Party wants to ban.

So here is a Poll to test the waters on a Democratic ban on Democrats owning these "Fearsome weapons of War, capable of killing and maiming thousands with a touch of a trigger"


A simple yes, no, answer.
Comments welcome.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[nimvg]

1. After What's Gonna Happen Tomorrow...

...we should probably all own some firearms and learn how to use them.

The scores from the sixties were never settled. That will now happen, and what we saw today on the Mall in Washington is only a preview.

[TheWraith]

22. Some of us do.

The teabaggers and Glenn Beck inspired me to buy a rifle last year.

[SteveM]

39. I've harped on this for years; finally, some are coming to recognize...

that the major foundation for the unlimited animosity of the far-right, and their tireless 24-7 efforts to enforce their extremist ideology on this country, stems from the modern GOP's hatred for the counter-culture of the 60s. That is a major reason why the GOPers use PermaWar (to rid us of the "Vietnam Syndrome"), pumped up the War on Drugs, LLC (to have the tools to come after the "counter culture"), and why they openly mainstream violent, threatening rhetoric: they want something to explode.

For years, I have heard some of my "lefty" friends complain about the authoritarian bent of the modern GOP; its proclivity to usurp the Constitution, its efforts to institutionalize top-down power from the executive (the Unitary Presidency), its efforts to pump up the most violent extremists -- but then inexplicably these same hand-wringing "lefties" end the discussion by calling for gun control!
Where do their fantasies end and where does their reality begin? With a tap of the channel changer?

Kinda takes the sheen off a good coffee house rant.

[X_Digger]

2. I think your question doesn't match the answers. I suggest an edit. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

3. Someone already pointed out the mismatch. nt

[baldguy]

4. True Democrats are not idiots.

[katandmoon]

5. Unrec for biased poll

[oneshooter]

6. In what way is the poll biased? n/t

[jody]

8. See #7 for one way. Ignorance is a bias all its own and that's like kudzu on DU. n/t

[jody]

7. Your poll is meaningless since most people and even more DUers have no idea what an assault weapon

is particularly since it's no longer defined in federal law.

[oneshooter]

9. But it IS defined in the Democratic Platform.

If you are to support the Party, then it behooves you to know WHAT you are supporting.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[jody]

10. Please quote that portion of the Democratic Party platform that defines AW. Last time I quoted it,

it said:

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 cons

[oneshooter]

12. reinstating the assault weapons ban n/t

[jody]

15. Now you know that doesn't define "assault weapon" -- don't you? n/t

[Euromutt]

19. True, but the word "reinstating" implies using the 1994 AWB definition

If you were to adopt a prohibition on "assault weapons" that used a different definition from the 1994 one, you wouldn't be reinstating that ban, would you?

[jody]

24. How many DUers will take the time to look up the definition of the expired AWB & vote intelligently?

That's my point, nothing more nor less.

Too many DUers believe that Assault Weapons are fully automatic firearms that you and I know are legal to own under 26 USC Chapter 53.

Moreover as you and I know but they don't the expired AWB outlawed many of the most popular firearms because of cosmetic features.

[oneshooter]

28. And that is also MY point

If they blindly cast a vote for a party plank that they know nothing about is ignorance at its worst.

I also noticed a couple of votes for the Party Line. Will anybody step up and defend these views?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[jody]

29. How do you know whether the vote was to ban the old AW or full auto firearms covered by Title 26? nt

[oneshooter]

31. The wording refers to "reinstating the assault weapon ban"

this refers to the 1994 Federal legislation. The definitions are there.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[jody]

34. See #24. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

38. actually, they were meant to confuse people

Part of the rationale for the original AWB was based on the assumption that people would confuse them with machine guns.

From the Platform of Democratic Party 2008

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

From then Candidate Obama's website last fall

http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_f...

As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic
weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal
Assault Weapon Ban.

Note closely how that statement purports to limit the carnage caused by Chicago gangs using MACHINE GUNS by banning guns that are not. Since taking office, the President has publicly avoided from making any statements about renewing the ban, but that sentence survived the transition the whitehouse.gov. Even if the President himself truly is so woefully ignorant of the mechanics of firearms that he he doesn't see that he is trying to cure the "apple" problem by banning "oranges" you would think at least someone on his staff got past the second week of Army basic training and knows the difference.

[crumb77]

11. 2nd amendment is kinda vague

I'm all for upholding the integrity of the constitution but what exactly is "the right to bare arms." Where is the line drawn between what guns are ok and not. Now that we have far-ranged stun guns that can be used to immobilize any intruders that put your family in danger, do we even need guns? or why stop there, Why can't I own an uzi, or plutonium. No one will ever find common ground on this issue. Lets just make bullets $10,000, that way, they probably deserved to get shot.

[PavePusher]

13. Please try not to be willfully stupid.

Try real hard.

[crumb77]

17. oh relax

I'm just pointing out the issue in its simplicity to show its stupidity. There's no need to get rude.

[Katya Mullethov]

44. Forgive him , he has likely been twisting jesus nuts for 48 hours straight

That can understandably leave one a bit cranky . What propeller head is saying is that a "10 thousand dollar a whatever" ammo tax will just buy you more piles of dead dudes . This is a small one , there have been much larger and sometimes much more orderly actual stacks . IIRC the one I saw stacked like cordwood was comprised chiefly of ex law enforcement officials of differing capacities .

So, distilled it to its bare essence ,"Prohibition is fucking retarded ."

[oneshooter]

14. You can own an Uzi, as long as you can

pass the anal federal background check, and have a LOT of money.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=161116649

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[jody]

16. You can own an uzi if you pass the background check and pay the fees. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. You can own an Uzi. Plutonium isn't an "arm". It's "bear" not "bare".

Feel free to defend your family with whatever you want.

[Euromutt]

23. Fifteen feet is "far-ranged"?

Because that's the maximum range of cartridges that Taser will sell to private citizens; that's well within Tueller Drill range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill).

The Taser C2 model, moreover, discharges in 30-second cycles, and the battery is good for 50 cycles. So if you've managed to score a hit on an assailant with a C2, you have two options:
1) You can run. You have 30 seconds to get away before the cycle ends and your assailant is no longer immobilized. You'll have to leave the Taser behind, which means you'll be out $350.
2) You can keep zapping the guy at 30-second intervals until the cops arrive. If they take more than 25 minutes to arrive, the battery will run out. If the assailant manages to get a probe loose between cycles, you're screwed.

By contrast, the M26c and X26c models only give off 5-10 second cycles, so running isn't even an option. Which is a good thing in a way, since they cost $500 and $1,000, respectively.

And the bottom line is that, even though Tasers are almost standard equipment for cops these days, and cops can acquire more powerful models than those sold to private citizens, there isn't a law enforcement agency that has stopped issuing handguns.

[benEzra]

27. The line is drawn at automatic weapons, sound suppressed weapons, .51 caliber, and explosives...

and has been settled by longstanding compromise for many decades. Most of the relevant law (the National Firearms Act) has been on the books since 1934, and those restrictions were explicitly upheld in D.C. v. Heller.

"Assault weapon", of course, is scare-speak for ordinary non-automatic civilian rifles and carbines with modern styling, or civilian firearms with arbitrary post-1860's magazine capacities, so automatic weapons and ordnance are irrelevant red herrings.

[SteveM]

40. Not really....

The context of the debate over the Second made it clear that "arms" meant those projectile-firing weapons which could be carried and operated in one or both arms/hands. The Second did NOT protect someone who wants "plutonium," or howitzers, or bazookas, or iron bombs, or destroyers, or fighter planes. Can one own these things at all? In many cases, they CAN OWN them (save for plutonium), but they are highly regulated, and don't fall under the protection of the Second Amendment.

Please try to understand this and you won't have as much trouble "finding common ground."

BTW, raising the cost of "bullets $10,000" is little more than a variation on the "melting point" laws used by Jim Crow governments in the South, before these laws collapsed during the Civil Rights era. Why were these laws around? To prevent "armed Negroes." Of course, Jim Crow moved north, didn't he?

[Francis Marion]

45. Apply principles of grammar and sentence structure for clarity.

Vague? I don't think so, not if you can diagram a sentence.
...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Where is the line drawn as to type of arms?
I believe that the founders, and the Constitution, intend for a person to 'keep and bear' an individual weapon corresponding to US military standards. The context of the 2A concerns weapons suitable for military service. Today, that is an M16 or M4.

Where is the line drawn as to the type of speech which is protected; we're far more clear, generous, and charitable on rights of personal and mutual expression than we are of gun rights.

In actual practice, by long, bad precedent, the American people have well earned the contempt of their rulers; the people 'have no rights a legislature is bound to respect,' and so unelected governmental agencies (BATF) as well as state and Federal legilatures allow and disallow, ban and indulge, any type of firearm, any time they like, at whim. Because they can, and because we are sufficiently conditioned to tolerate it. We sit in the back of the bus when ordered, and even get the hell off every time we're told to do so. Thank God Rosa Parks and James Meredith were far more courageous than your Average American Gunowner. If only ...

Rights-trampling wouldn't bother a person at all if the Second Amendment read, '...the privilege of the people to keep and bear arms...'

I'll support a $10,000 per bullet cost as soon as you pay $100 per typed word, $100 to avoid an unreasonable search, $100 to avoid getting waterboarded.

People don't have to respect the second amendment, but bear in mind that any outrage we allow to stand against the Second weakens the entire set.

[spin]

20. Just because the party has a statement in its platform ...

that talks about reinstating the "assault weapons" ban doesn't mean that ALL Democrats have to support it.

It's a foolish outdated idea that totally failed when it was in effect and in fact made "assault weapons" very popular and increased their sales dramatically. It was and, if reinstated, still would be a "feel good" law.

The quote ""Fearsome weapons of War, capable of killing and maiming thousands with a touch of a trigger" is the best example of hyperbole I've read all week. That's saying something considering all the crap about heathcare that has permeated the 24/7 news media and the press.

[oneshooter]

21. Thank you, I thought it added a nice touch. n/t

[spin]

37. It sure did ...

It was one of the few good laughs I've had all week. It reminded me of Glen Beck and his comments on Obama or the Republicans and their cries of healthcare being socialism.

[shadowrider]

25. Can you provide a legal definition of "Assault Weapon"

So we know what we're voting on?

[oneshooter]

32. Use the wording of the 1994 Federal Ban. n/t

Is there something about the word "reinstate" that people don't understand?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[shadowrider]

35. No problem

Just that the definition of an assault weapon varies here dependent upon the person doing the defining.

[benEzra]

41. It is an extremely murky question...

because although the original Feinstein law banned exactly zero guns, a straight-up reinstatement would outlaw the possession of protruding-handgripped, threaded-muzzle rifles manufactured or assembled after the Feinstein features ban expired in September 2004, as well as all over-10-round magazines manufactured after September 2004 and over-5-round autoloading shotguns (IIRC). Obviously, that is impossible, so any sort of new AWB would be something other than a straight-up reinstatement. It could be rewritten to grandfather anything already in private hands as of a new effective date, but much of the language (originally a throwback to late 1980's prohibitionist paranoia) is now so dated as to be flat out anachronistic. The so-called "protected guns" smokescreen is also obsolete, as much as if it were "protecting" the new manufacture of DeLoreans and Oldsmobiles.

It's a moot point, however, as the whole AWB fraud is now dead beyond resurrection.

[benEzra]

26. Not sure whether to vote "Yes" or "No"...

since I think it's perfectly fine for Dems to own rifles with handgrips that stick out. The question in the OP's title would make the pro-individual-choice answer a "yes" but the wording of the poll itself suggests the pro-choice answer would be "no".

FWIW, as most of those here already know, I do own a rifle with a protruding handgrip, so I'm firmly in the "owning" category.

[hex29a]

30. disregard

Just wondering...
shrug

[oneshooter]

33. No I am not . n/t

[hex29a]

36. heh sorry I was having trouble understanding the question.

:hangover:

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Uh, I think your title doesn't match your description, and the poll options are confusing.

So. Shitbarn this, and try again?

[Ready4Change]

43. Poll needs an 'Other' option.

I'd say political party affiliation should have nothing to do with your decision to own any firearm (or other type of weapon.)

[krispos42]

46. Since I don't look to the party platform when I make any other decisions...

...I don't feel compelled to do so for this this issue, either. If I feel that I have a need for a gun that fits the current description of "assault weapon", then I'll get it. If I feel that I have a need for an F-350 quad-cab 4x4 that gets 12mpg, then I'll get one of those, too.

[Callisto32]

47. Personal decision.

The party platform is a general statement, and there is no way to draft one that reflects all views of all members.

Do what you want, just don't hurt anybody.