Here is why the anti-gun battle is a lost cause and the Democrats should give it up......

[Logical]

See chart below..... (source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/copy_of_TotalNICSBackgroundChecks.pdf)

4.2 Million NICS gun purchase background checks already performed this year. (Jan - Mar)

14 Million in 2009 and 2010.

This year it is on track for 17 Million!

And it has increased EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 1998!

So guns are not going to be banned in this country. There are too many now to have any impact if we stopped selling them tomorrow. People want guns, right or wrong, and it is pointless to lose votes fighting this battle. Let's worry about stuff that matter and that we can fix.

[Starboard Tack]

1. So you think we should just bend over and take it?

All the more reason to stand up and exercise our 1st Amendment rights and raise our collective voice against this insanity.

[cleanhippie]

2. Funny, you want to use one Right to take away another Right.

The only insanity is the willful ignorance and purposeful misinformation put out by prohibitionists.

[Starboard Tack]

25. That's why it's First and not Second

The Second Amendment is way, way, way outdated. Has no relevance in today's society and needs to be seriously AMENDED

The only insanity is the willful ignorance and purposeful misinformation put out by the NRA and whiny toters.

[rrneck]

26. What makes it irrelevant

and how would you amend it?

[Starboard Tack]

36. Outdated and obsolete

Amend it by repealing it. Replace with a new one which specifies what kinds of arms and where they may be carried.

[rrneck]

38. Firearms have been basically the same

since the invention of gunpowder. Any changes have occurred in response to the cultural changes that surround them. You would almend the most progressive social contract in human history to forbid technological advance. Regressive laws for everyone! (Except the rich and well connected of course.)

It's called the BILL OF RIGHTS for a reason.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

42. You would amend a living document

designed to protect people's rights to regulate the development of a particular piece of technology.

What are you shooting up?

[Starboard Tack]

48. Yes I would kill that living document and write a new one to reflect

the world we live in.

[rrneck]

49. By the time you get it written

the world will have changed.

[Starboard Tack]

53. Undoubtedly, but not as much as it has in the last 230 years

So we just keep updating it. Like updating your virus protection.

[rrneck]

56. Fine.

But you're not updating. You're not even reinstalling the OS. You're throwing a desktop in front of a train.

[Starboard Tack]

67. Actually, I'm running Linux

So I don't have these issues.

[rrneck]

71. Nor do you get to unilaterally determine what OS everybody else uses. nt

[Starboard Tack]

81. God forbid!

[cleanhippie]

60. It makes me very happy that you are not running the show and that your ideas

will NEVER come to fruition. Ever.

[Starboard Tack]

80. And I'm happy for you

[cleanhippie]

85. Thanks.

[cleanhippie]

59. Even if that was a good idea (which it is not) it would NEVER pass. Ever!

So why are you clinging to unrealistic ideas?

[cleanhippie]

28. Well, that is your opinion, however misguided it may be.

The 2nd has been strongly re-affirmed several times on the past few years and gun ownership as well as owners rights to carry have been strengthened in all but a few(8 I think) states. Its NEVER going be repealed, ever, at least not in yours and my lifetimes. Like it or not, that is the REALITY of the situation.
The only thing to do now, is to embrace the fact that legal gun owners, especially those with concealed permits, are many times safer than the general public when it comes to gun, and that the gun problem is a CRIMINAL problem, not a Constitutional one. Embrace it, accept it, live with it, and deal with it realistically, and move away from the prohibitionist attitude that has been LOSING elections for Dems and Liberals.
That is the thing that really makes me shake my head in disbelief, when prohibitionists such as yourself, who find themselves in a position to be elected or retain an elected position, will sabotage their seat simply by proclaiming a gun control stance, KNOWING that it will turn away voters. THAT is insanity, my friend.

[Logical]

4. I understand your worry.....

Believe me. I am have not been a fan either. But it is beyond fixing. It really is. Not worth giving the NRA more reason to beat up Dems.

[lawodevolution]

13. Fix what? Gun ownership? Like in a ban?

[Logical]

14. I mean it is beyond fixing by any method they try. So no use trying! n-t

[Starboard Tack]

27. Sorry, but politics is the last reason to cave in to bullies

Since coming to this forum my views have changed considerably. I had no idea how out of hand this whole thing was and when I talk to friends outside of DU, I realize that most people are still unaware of the gun madness that is spreading across this country. So, we can't stick our heads in the sand. We should not allow our 1st Amendment rights be trampled on by a bunch of NRA freaks.

[rl6214]

33. So you are basing your opinions on what you read here

in spite of the fact that as you say "most people are unaware of the gun madness that is spreading across this country"

Maybe that's because your opinion is now tainted by what you have read here and there is NO spreading gun madness?

[Starboard Tack]

37. My opinions have changed since being here, not based solely on

what the pro-gunners post here, but also on my research. Tragedies like Giffords and Virginia Tech are exploited by fear mongering profiteers. Gun sales and CCW permits sky rocket. This is madness. And selling fear is sick. Preying on the weak is sick. The promoters of this madness are the real criminals and that's who we need to defend ourselves against, by exercising our 1st Amendment rights.

[gejohnston]

41. for example?

Are you saying that the antis don't exploit tragedies for their own gain and are the model of honest and reasoned debate?

:rofl: :wtf:

[Starboard Tack]

45. The antis do exploit the tragedies to score points in the debate

The NRA and it's supporters exploit the weak and vulnerable by selling fear and profiting from it. They are amoral and are the lowest of the low.

[gejohnston]

47. the antis

Lie and use the "ends justify the means" tactic. If have to be dishonest and hysterical to support your cause, the cause is not worth fighting. Sorry right wingers like Helmke and Brady are not going to make a better world. By the way, how would the world be better? How was it better before they were invented?

[Starboard Tack]

51. Methinks thou findest thyself in the wrong place. Bye bye

[cleanhippie]

64. Bwahahahahahaha!

A newbie comes in and hands you your ass on a platter and you run away.



Bwahahahahahaha!

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

63. Wait. Hold the phone.

Tragedies like Giffords and Virginia Tech are exploited by fear mongering profiteers. Gun sales and CCW permits sky rocket. This is madness. And selling fear is sick. Preying on the weak is sick.


YES. We agree! But its the Brady Campaign and the VPC that are doing those things, making huge issues out of rare occurrences.

[cleanhippie]

62. Where are you getting your information? Its totally wrong. 100% wrong.

I realize that most people are still unaware of the gun madness that is spreading across this country.


100% demonstrably false. Incorrect. Wrong.


You have been here long enough to know the FACTS, so why do you insist on ignoring them?

[Union Scribe]

76. If you don't like bullies, stop siding with them.

[PavePusher]

87. "gun madness spreading across this country"....

Like the falling crime rates, falling murder rates, falling gun death rates...

Madness, I tell you, madness...

[krispos42]

7. And so is the other side. And their collective voice is bigger.

Maybe you can change that, but I doubt it.

[Starboard Tack]

29. I'm not so sure their collective voice is bigger

Louder maybe, right now, because they're scared. Many have been bullied into arming themselves by the scare tactics of the NRA. We need to make our voice louder. Reason ultimately prevails. People aren't inherently bad. They just act irrationally when they are afraid. T-baggers seem to thrive on fear. Because a handful of Dems have bought into this is no reason to give up our 1A rights.
Let them vote for someone else, Obama will still be re-elected.

[gejohnston]

43. facts depend on

facts and logic without emotionalism and making value judgments. Sorry, your side is not cutting it. Kind of reminds me of the religious right who claim that not being able to stuff fundamentalism down everyone's throat violates their freedom of religion.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Nice try to turn it around

No emotionalism in running out and buying a gun out of fear. No emotionalism in grown men whining about needing to carry a gun around to fend off young guys with clubs and big muscles. No emotionalism in brandishing a gun at some youths who look at your tools the wrong way. All "logical" reasons I've seen here.
Fear is the most fundamental emotion and the easiest to peddle. I fear for those who lap that shit up, not for myself.
This is an issue of common sense and morality and has been hijacked by right wing fear mongers peddling their instruments of death and destruction to the bleaters.

[S_B_Jackson]

70. Nice strawmen.....

Who is it who purchased firearms out of fear? Specifics please.

Who has whined about "needing to carry a gun around to fend of young guys with clubs"?

Who has "brandished a gun at some youths for looking at tools the wrong way"?

I would argue that it is common sense for a home owner to have firearm(s) in their home for self-defense should the need ever arise; just the same as I would argue the common sense nature of having smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. Having the ability and means to defend oneself, one's loved ones, and other innocents would seem to be a have a higher moral value than surrendering one's responsibility and trusting that others will do for you what you're unwilling to do for yourself.

[Starboard Tack]

77. "Who is it who purchased firearms out of fear?"

Who has whined about "needing to carry a gun around to fend of young guys with clubs"?

Who has "brandished a gun at some youths for looking at tools the wrong way"?

Members of this forum. Stick around. You'll see them. I don't make shit up. And I don't name people.

I agree with you about having a firearm in the house. My issue is with toting in public.
I don't surrender my responsibility to defend myself and family. I don't live in such fear that I need to carry a gun around. I don't think that makes me any better or braver than the next person. I feel safe

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Starboard Tack]

78. I trusted you would be reading it so I wouldn't have to name you

Your tools are definitely worth killing for. Good luck with that.
You gotta love Texas. Do they still hang horse thieves? Don't think so.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Starboard Tack]

95. What are you talking about? Lied when and where?

[rrneck]

94. I wouldn't shoot somebody over stuff myself

but I can understand the motivation. This gun issue isn't just about life or death you know. Most bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical debt. These are lean times and if a man loses the tools he needs to pay the rent he could wind up on the street. We have become so wealthy in this country we forget that some people need certain things just to survive and it is worth fighting for them for that reason.

[applegrove]

8. Good for you for saying this.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

34. Stop complaining and offer a remedy

for your policy proposals.

Self defense is a personal life or death issue people take very seriously.There are over eighty million gun owners in this country. That's the "we" in my post. Eighty million. The people have spoken on a divisive wedge issue. CCW laws have been spreading for over fifty years.

The irony is that your tone deaf arrogance and evasive sophistry do more to spread firearms carraige in our culture than the NRA ever could. RKBA proponents thank you.

[Starboard Tack]

39. Touché

But I am one of your WE and you do not speak for me. I'm more than prepared to give up my guns if a law passed banning them. I don't think that will happen and I'd prefer not to. But in pursuit of a better society, it would be a small sacrifice.
We've gone around in circles enough on the self defense issue in terms of carrying. You support carrying in public. I do not. I think the self defense argument is completely bogus and my opinion there is continually reinforced by the comments I read here. That is the real irony. The anti RKBA would like to thank.

[rrneck]

44. What makes you think

I like public carry?

[Starboard Tack]

46. I know you don't but you support it

I could support it on a demonstrated need basis.

[rrneck]

50. That need is

some people are larger, stronger, and less scrupulous about abusing others to get what they want.

And cops can't jump through a rip in the fabric of time.

[Starboard Tack]

52. There are less drastic tools to use when dealing with bullies

the most effective being one's brain, which I think is your tool of choice.

[rrneck]

55. It is

until someone knocks it out of my head with a club.

Civilized behavior doesn't negate physics.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Hey let's ban clubs.

Though I can't recall seeing people carrying clubs except riot cops. What's with the anti clubs and muscle brigade?

[rrneck]

68. Surprise

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/agassaulttable.html

[Starboard Tack]

79. I'd rather use or be threatened or hit by a baseball bat than a gun

Wouldn't you? Proportional response?

[rrneck]

86. Your personal preference does not a ststute make.

A person whose job description is "brutalizing people " can use any weapon to kill you or wreck your life. On the other hand, regular people would need a gun to equalize the disparity of force.

[Starboard Tack]

88. Right, I don't make statutes, just conversation.

[rrneck]

89. Wrong. You are advocating the creation of regressive

statutes that would do more harm than good.

[Starboard Tack]

90. You say regressive I say progressive

Some say devolution, some say evolution. I don't think you are any more clairvoyant than moi.
And personally I would much rather have no statutes. Common Law and common sense should be enough, though it obviously is not. So, we'll see.

[rrneck]

93. common sense should be enough

Now yer talkin'.

Progressing toward what? And how do you plan to get there?

[Straw Man]

96. You underestimate baseball bats.

A direct blow to the head with a baseball bat, inflicted by a physically fit young person, is almost certain to be fatal.

When we have gotten rid of all the guns, will we have gladiator academies where the law-abiding can learn to defend themselves?

[Straw Man]

97. So you believe that disarmament will create a "better society"...

I'm more than prepared to give up my guns if a law passed banning them. I don't think that will happen and I'd prefer not to. But in pursuit of a better society, it would be a small sacrifice.

...but you will not personally disarm until the law compels you to do so.

Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?

[slackmaster]

22. I think you should graciously accept that people have the right to own guns

And deal with it.

[Starboard Tack]

31. I think you should graciously accept that many of us want to live in a

better world. A world without guns. A world where the 2A is just another quaint note in the history books.

[spin]

57. When there is enough of you to vote for the changes you want ...

you may be able to ban and even confiscate firearms.

Be careful of what you wish for, you may just get it.

It's a nice dream but if you were successful at taking all the firearms away from honest citizens, criminals would still have guns. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.

And you may find that taking firearms from honest responsible gun owners would be a lot harder than putting words on paper and getting a law passed. Are you personally willing to go house to house and confiscate firearms. Would you feel any responsibility for the bloodshed that would result from encounters with those who would not willingly turn over their firearms but would chose to fight?

[Starboard Tack]

65. Nice spin

"Be careful of what you wish for, you may just get it."
That's what the good old boys said about voting rights for women and blacks. A line straight from the politics of fear.

In the UK criminals rarely use guns because the consequences are too costly. 5 year minimum even if the gun is a replica. That's an excellent deterrent. There was no need to go round confiscating guns. People either keep them locked up where they belong or turned them in voluntarily.

"Would you feel any responsibility for the bloodshed that would result from encounters with those who would not willingly turn over their firearms but would chose to fight?"
Another page from the politics of fear and intimidation.

[spin]

72. That's not intimidation, it's fact ...

Notice that I am not saying that the only way you could take firearms from me is to take them from my cold dead hands. However I have been a member of the shooting community for many years. I know a lot of shooters and I know how they feel about gun confiscation. Now I am not talking about militia members which, if anything, would oppose confiscation far more than the regular shooters that I know. I don't hang with Tea Baggers or Militia members. I may be a gun owner, but I am also a Democrat.

Now admittedly a lot of shooters are heroes in their own minds and love to act like they are Rambos who would fight to the end against a swat team invading their house. They suffer from a Walter Mitty syndrome and are fun to listen to but pose no real danger. In all fairness, the militia members that I have met are a bunch of guys who love to run around in the woods in camo outfits and play soldier. I have only met a couple and they strike me as all hat and no cattle. Still, I'm positive there are some very capable and possibly dangerous members who could pose a real problem to disarm.

Among the regular shooters that I am familiar with, I have met a number who with their background in our military struck me as dangerous individuals who had the training and the experience to be very dangerous. They struck me as people who viewed themselves as patriots who viewed the oath they took in the military to defend our Constitution as serious and would be willing to resist a "tyrannical" government who wished to disarm them and all citizens and turn our country into what the founding fathers feared might exist after the citizens lacked the ability to resist. Their efforts to resist a ban and confiscation of all firearms might not be successful but they could wreck havoc on a government that they felt would subject American citizens to absolute rule and turn them into slaves.

Such people are best left alone and not provoked. They are productive members of our society and are good citizens. I don't count myself among their number as I am far too old and lack the training and am not in the physical condition to effectively resist as they would. Some of these people have already stored arms and ammunition in preparation for any eventuality.

I have often discussed confiscation with police officers, many of whom have their own personal firearm collections and let me assure you they would also oppose firearm confiscation and not cooperate with such an effort. They have no problem facing criminals and even criminal drug gangs but they have no desire to disarm fellow shooters who they feel are honest and responsible citizens.

You might feel that the army might do the job, but many in the army would also refuse to follow orders especially if they were required to kill fellow citizens who merely wished to preserve their Second Amendment rights. Many members of the military might join or support a resistance movement opposed to firearm confiscation. You might even see an overthrow of the government led by the military.

The chaos that would result from an attempt to confiscate firearms would be something no rational American would wish to see. Successful or not, it would result in unnecessary bloodshed and would do little to reduce violence in our nation.

Also, even if successful, as I mentioned a confiscation of firearms would in no way reduce the violence in our nation. Criminals would now enjoy the opportunity to prey on citizens who they once feared. Criminals would still be armed and would laugh at the new gun laws. They currently are able to smuggle tons and tons of marijuana into our nation. Instead of worrying about semi-auto weapons bought in gun stores or stolen from honest citizens, our law enforcement agencies and our citizens would be faced with fully automatic weapons smuggled into our nation from Mexico and South American as well as China and Pakistan. Mexico has extremely strict gun laws and yet they have major problems with drug gangs armed with fully automatic weapons as well as much more powerful armament.

You mention the UK as an example of how well gun confiscation works. Let me remind you that they do not have our historical background nor were their citizens ever as well armed as ours are. Their citizens are far more trusting of their government and do not value their freedom as much as Americans do. Gun bans and confiscations may work in other countries but would result in a possible revolution here.

Our violent crime rate has been falling for years. Honest and responsible gun owners present little or no problem and there are forty million of us in our nation. Why can't we work together to improve our laws to make purchasing and possessing firearms more difficult for the members of our society that are so irresponsible that they can't be trusted not to misuse them. For example, I favor passing a law that all firearm sales including private sales require a background check. The NRA disagrees with me on this issue but I look for solutions that are effective and not merely "feel good" laws. I favor gun control measure that target the problem users and not those who use and enjoy firearms in a responsible manner.

For example, I personally will not sell a firearm to an individual that I do not know and that person has to have a concealed weapons permit. I would welcome the opportunity to use the NICS background check to verify that any sales I make are to responsible people with a clean background. I also favor improving the program and funding and requiring the states to turn in the names of those who should not own firearms (including those who have been legally adjudged as having serious mental issues) on a more timely basis. I also favor improving and funding law enforcement to better curtail the practice of straw purchasing firearms to fuel the illegal trade in firearms. I believe that anyone who buys a firearm in order to sell it to a street dealer be considered an accomplice to any crime committed by that weapon.

I, in no way, am advocating a revolution but I am warning that any attempt to confiscate all firearms might result in far more harm to our nation than any benefits that might result if such an effort were successful.

[Starboard Tack]

74. I am not suggesting confiscation

and I applaud your responsible attitude. If only all were as responsible. As usual the minority of fools screw things up for the rest of us. I hope that those like you are successful in tightening existing laws and making them work, but from what I read here in this forum, I very much doubt it.

[spin]

82. In our country today, it's rare for groups with opposing views to work together ...

Any constructive changes that will improve the effectiveness of current gun laws does appear impossible at this time.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Unfortunately, I think you are correct

I hope the voices of reason will ultimately prevail, though probably not in my lifetime.

[oneshooter]

92. You support UK style laws. That is confiscation. n/t

[Straw Man]

99. Have you given up your guns yet?

I believe you own some, right? When are your actions going to match up with your rhetoric?

[ileus]

23. What are you bending over and taking?

[Starboard Tack]

32. Nothing!

[rl6214]

3. A gun ban isn't the problem

We just can't go back wards when it comes to concealed carry and the attempts at limiting magazine size, accessories etc.

[Logical]

5. I have no problem with some limits on stuff. CCW should be expanded though. n-t

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharesunited]

10. Let me amen that before your post is deleted.

[spin]

58. Damn, I would have loved to read that post ...

I imagine that it was insult from a person who opposes gun ownership. I love those as it shows that the poster has no good arguments to present and that the pro-RKBA group is winning.

Insulting posts like that make my day. Still, I enjoy the hell out of having a good debate with a knowledgeable person who dislikes firearms and firearm ownership. I guess the mods are correct to remove posts that add only insults to the discussion.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Historic NY]

12. Liberals should arm themselves & scare the crap out of the right wingers....

:think:

[gejohnston]

16. what makes you think we have not been

http://www.americangunculturereport.com/

http://www.liberalswithguns.com/

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. Not a good reason to own firearms.

Anything you would do with firearms to actively scare other people is probably one of the following:
a) Illegal
b) Dangerous
c) Irresponsible

[lawodevolution]

15. I hope the gun manufacturers are ready because as we knock down oppression of gun ownership

In big cities like NYC and Chicago, the rate will go over 20 million per year and this doesn't include double purchases. I bought two mosins on one NICS this year. The NICS count is also suppressed by the fact that CCW permit holders don't have to go through the background check and there are more Ccw permits than ever.

[Logical]

17. CCW holders do not need to get checked? I just bought a new handgun at Bass Pro....

and they did not ask if I had a CCW license and still ran me through the check.

[benEzra]

18. It depends on the state you live in, probably.

As far as Federal law is concerned, a CHL usually satisfies the background check requirement because the background check for a CHL is equal or superior to the regular point-of-sale check. However, your state's CHL may not qualify on some technicality, or your state's law may require a check anyway. (Or the salesperson at that store may have just been uninformed.)

Here in NC, having a CHL waives the usual requirement to obtain a written permission slip from your sheriff in order to buy a handgun.

[Logical]

20. OK, makes sense. Thanks for the data! n-t

[spin]

61. They run a check in Florida even if you have a concealed weapons permit ...

just in case it has been revoked.

If you have one, you can bypass the waiting period. I was talking to a local cop at the hardware store (which sells guns in my town), and he mentioned that was the reason he has a concealed weapons permit.

[oneshooter]

75. Texas CHL holders do not have to be checked . Just put the CHL number on the 4473, pay and GO. n/t

[spin]

83. I can see advantages to that system. (n/t)

[Straw Man]

98. It used to be done in New York

...until the Feds decided that New York's CCW record-keeping was not up to snuff.

[Glassunion]

19. My bad...

March of this year can be blamed on my wife and I.

[ileus]

24. I have a plan to add three more to my collection (one already)

I bought a nice single shot 308 in Jan...

I'm currently looking for a nice 4" 357 686 or 586 maybe a GP100

I plan on buying a 6.8 upper to hunt with this summer.


and maybe depending another "classic" model 12 if funds hold out this fall.



Of course the 6.8 doesn't count as a firearm....but I may buy a lower for Christmas if I like the upper enough.

[rl6214]

35. From what I have seen

That 6.8 is a little difficult to find and kinda pricey when you do.

[NewMoonTherian]

69. Democrats shouldn't give it up.

The gun-control lobby should give it up, and Democrats should look at the facts and get on board with gun rights. A small distinction, but a very important one in my book.