CNN Poll Shows Growing Opposition to Extension of Clinton Ban on (guns)

[weedthesmoke]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=155-06042004

WASHINGTON, June 4 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "A CNN internet poll ongoing for about a month shows there is growing opposition to proposals to extend the 1994 Clinton era ban on the manufacture and importation of certain semiautomatic firearms," John Michael Snyder, public affairs director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), stated here today.

"There never really has been such support for the ban. When the Democratic Party in elections following the 1994 enactment of the ban lost complete control of Congress for the first time in 60 years, President Clinton admitted publicly that enactment of the ban was one of the major reasons for the astounding defeat."

Snyder said, "it is important for politicians to keep these facts in mind as they contemplate the prospect of voting again soon in the Senate on a proposal by gun-grabbing Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California to extend the ban.

"It's about time that Feinstein and other anti-gun extremists wake up to the fact that, as a study released last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stipulated, there is 'no evidence to prove gun control laws are effective in preventing violence.'"

-more-

[stepnw1f]

1. Who Cares?

[JayS]

20. It's driving the Fab Four nuts. n/t

n/t

[slackmaster]

101. I care on libertarian and personal grounds

A significant portion of my retirement savings is in the form of a gun collection. Banning my guns fucks with my finances.

From a civil libertarian perspective, I oppose all restrictive laws that don't "pay for themselves" by returning increased quality of life, public safety, etc. for everyone.

[aquart]

2. No big shoot-em-ups at home in a while.

And nasty-minded nervous nellies are thinking a nice Uzi would be handy on the next 9/11, although it certainly would have been out of place at the first one.

And one or two of us are wondering if it might not be useful if the Patriot Act stays in force.

[lastknowngood]

3. Let's get this right a right wing nut is spreading the idea around

the internet right wing sitest that the brady bill is a bad idea and he is changing peoples minds. Look if you ask a cat if it likes the taste of fish the odds are you'll get the answer your looking for.

[JayS]

17. This is about the AWB, not the Brady Bill. n/t

n/t

[DoNotRefill]

77. Tell it to Ted Rall....

read my sig.

It's not just the Rightwing that thinks the AWB was beyond stupid.

How much more political capital are we going to spend on an idea that doesn't work, and pisses off a huge chunk of the population, including a LOT of pro-gun Democrats?

[moondust]

4. We want our murder weapons.

I can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't. Are they nuts?

[sally343434]

5. HAHA What a joke

> A CNN internet poll...

Translation: Unscientific, freeped, and utterly worthless.

> there is 'no evidence to prove gun control laws are effective in preventing violence.'"

Translation: Take my agenda-biased word for it and ignore the scores of authentic scientific studies that clearly show that such laws are very effective.

[weedthesmoke]

7. Can you cite any of the scores of authentic scientific studies?

I do not have any faith that banning guns from law abiding Americans reduces crime. In fact, I believe it stops innocents from halting some crimes in progress.

[Twillig]

22. Damn straight. If I had a RPG that the gun grabbers

took out my hands and I had implauzibly lived in that their town in Colorader, I could have pertected my town hall from that Bulldozing bastid.

'Course he coulda had RPG's if they was legal too, I figger.

Nemind.

[Lindacooks]

53. Here:

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/qtr1_2003/0325-137.html

"conclusions that citizens carrying loaded handguns in public helps to reduce crime -- is "deeply flawed" and "misguided." Donahue states in the Brookings Institution Press book that data suggests that, in fact, crime may increase when CCW laws are implemented."

http://www.worldandi.com/public/1997/february/ar4.cfm

"The use of a gun for protection is an incredibly rare event--a fact that simply won't change if more people are "armed and dangerous." But bringing more guns into homes--where married couples occasionally fight, in which teens sometimes contemplate suicide, and in which the curiosity of young children often leads them to look through their parents' dresser drawers--will lead to more death. "

and that's just two. I can post about 50,000 more if you want. But you won't be affected by actual studies since you cling to the gun nut myths.

[BullDozer]

60. From mere scores to 50,000?

Yeah there's no lack of hyberbole on the gun banneing side of the aisle is there?

You're going to quote Ayres and Donohue? Actually you are quoting a press release from the publisher pimping the study, yeah that's a good source.

Not to mention that the Ayres/Donohue study was shown to be wrong by Plassmann and Whitley.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

"http://www.worldandi.com/public/1997/february/ar4.cfm "

Bahahahahahaha you quote from Douglas Weil, SCD, who is the director of research at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, in Washington, D.C and you want that to be taken seriously?

I'll throw your own words back at you.

"Translation: Take my agenda-biased word for it ..."

BTW the Weil article is NOT an authentic scientific study.

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/pdf/lottreview.pdf

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/pdf/lottreview.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328

http://netec.mcc.ac.uk/BibEc/data/Articles/oupecinquv:36:y:1998:i:2:p:258-65.html

http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~cozden/dezhbakhsh_99_03_paper.pdf

http://dmsweb.badm.sc.edu/chappell/brownbag/CrimeAndConcealedGunLaws.PDF

[BullDozer]

12. Too funny

"Translation: Take my agenda-biased word for it and ignore the scores of authentic scientific studies that clearly show that such laws are very effective."

Why aren't you citing these claimed scores of "authentic scientific studies" that you are claiming clearly show that such laws are effective?


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

You do know that VPC says that "Senate action renewing the current federal assault weapons ban will do little to protect America's police and public from assault weapons, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) warned today."
http://www.vpc.org/press/0403awpass.htm

Funny how even the gun banning nuts don't think the laws are effective.

[wyldwolf]

6. internet poll?

Enough said.

[weedthesmoke]

9. I looked for a more respected link like banguns.org or HCI

but they only have anti-gun polls that have been knee-jerked into submission. I'll keep looking...

[wyldwolf]

10. Try Free Republic

.. you might find a post telling their members where and how to vote in the poll.

[weedthesmoke]

13. Thanks but I'll pass

Why follow extremes when common sense works so much better?

[wyldwolf]

38. I'm not clear on what you are referring to as "common sense"

... believing the results of an internet poll? That is what your post is about and that is hardly common sense.

[billbuckhead]

11. NutsRuiningAmerica Guns kill more than 9-11 every month after month afte

r...month after month..................till we do something about it. More dead Americans than Osama Bin Laden ever thought about. America has the highest murder rate of of all advanced nations even with the highest percent of it's population in prison and the death penalty.

[BullDozer]

14. Wrong Bill

Are you going to get your facts right sometime?

Firearm Homicides

1981 15,089
1982 13,830
1983 12,040
1984 11,815
1985 11,836
1986 13,029
1987 12,657
1988 13,645
1989 14,464
1990 16,218
1991 17,746
1992 17,488
1993 18,253
1994 17,527
1995 15,551
1996 14,037
1997 13,252
1998 11,798
1999 10,828
2000 10,801



None of these years even come close to being 36,000 which is about what you need to make your silly claim be true Bill.

[billbuckhead]

19. Counting accidents and suicides, gun deaths are over 30,000 per year

And America still leads the advanced nations in murder year after year. More murders occur in a few southern gun loving states than the whole Eurpean Union.

[BullDozer]

27. Wrong again Bill

It doesn't matter how much you spin you will not be able to make your initial ridiculous claim stick.


1981 34,050
1982 32,957
1983 31,099
1984 31,331
1985 31,566
1986 33,373
1987 32,895
1988 33,989
1989 34,776
1990 37,155
1991 38,317
1992 37,776
1993 39,595
1994 38,505
1995 35,957
1996 34,040
1997 32,436
1998 30,708
1999 28,874
2000 28,663


Remember Bill the number you need is about 36,000.

[Lindacooks]

54. You're wrong

The claim is accurate - your claims are the ones that are ridiculous.

[TankLV]

40. Umm - try about 3,000 dead in WTC attacks.

YOU need to get your "facts" checked, not the other poster!

Looks like they're right by a mile!

[BullDozer]

47. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrong

Apparantly you are the one who needs checking.

"YOU need to get your "facts" checked, not the other poster!

Looks like they're right by a mile!"




"kill more than 9-11 every month after month after...month after month" Was Bills claim.

12x3,000=36,000 but hey thanks for playing anyway.

[Lindacooks]

55. Do you not understand math?

Month after month, guns kill more people than 9/11 means each month guns in this country kill more people than bin Laden did on 9/11. Can't you add? Or read?

[BullDozer]

58. I do but clearly you do not.

"Month after month, guns kill more people than 9/11 means each month guns in this country kill more people than bin Laden did on 9/11. Can't you add? Or read?"


Than that would mean that 36,000 people would have to die each year.

What part of 12x3,000= 36,000 wasn't clear enough for you?


Firearm Homicides

1981 15,089
1982 13,830
1983 12,040
1984 11,815
1985 11,836
1986 13,029
1987 12,657
1988 13,645
1989 14,464
1990 16,218
1991 17,746
1992 17,488
1993 18,253
1994 17,527
1995 15,551
1996 14,037
1997 13,252
1998 11,798
1999 10,828
2000 10,801


Firearm Deaths, inclouding suicides, and legal intervention.

1981 34,050
1982 32,957
1983 31,099
1984 31,331
1985 31,566
1986 33,373
1987 32,895
1988 33,989
1989 34,776
1990 37,155
1991 38,317
1992 37,776
1993 39,595
1994 38,505
1995 35,957
1996 34,040
1997 32,436
1998 30,708
1999 28,874
2000 28,663

Do YOU get it now?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[DoNotRefill]

78. So, wait....are you saying you are opposed to people...

having a right to take their own lives?

It'd be nice if the terminally ill who want to die to save themselves the agony of a long, protracted death were able to go to their doctors and get a lethal prescription. That's not the case. If people want to commit suicide, fine. If they want to do so with a gun, that's fine too, since it's BY FAR the quickest, most certain, and least painful method of killing yourself if done properly. I've had several terminally ill friends commit suicide with a gun. For them, it was a blessing, and not a bad thing at all.

Why is suicide an issue at all?

[billbuckhead]

70. Heres a link that says 35,000 Americans per year dead by guns

Guns in America


For my discursive essay I have chosen "Guns in America" and will look at the licensing laws and some reasons behind all the gun-related deaths.


America is in a deadly love affair with firearms which kill nearly 35 000 people every year. Many blame the "blood soaked statistics" on the world's weakest gun laws, while others blame it on the guns, the culture or even just bad parenting.


America is one of the world's richest countries but it has the world's weakest gun laws. Some people blame this for all the gun-related deaths. Gun related deaths in Great Britain and Australia have decreased dramatically as a result of stricter gun laws following the Dunblane and Port Arthur massacres. This shows that countries not as rich and powerful as America have done something to prevent it from happening again where as one of the richest and most powerful countries has done nothing to prevent massacres happening again.


It took 12 years after President Regan narrowly escaped an assassination attempt for Congress to pass the Brady Bill (A 5-day waiting period and background checks of prospective pistol purchasers). As a result of the "Brady Bill" it has prevented some 250 000 people from purchasing handguns and probably prevented a lot of fatalities. If it took this long after the president narrowly escaped an assassination attempt to devise this law how long will it take to sort out simple everyday shootings across the nation?


Most Americans want stricter gun laws as a recent Harris poll found out that 69% of all Americans and 57% of the nations gun owners WANT stricter gun laws. With around 200 - 250 million guns in America and 10 times as many licensed gun dealers as Mc Donald's restaurants, it is no wonder, they want stricter gun laws and want to reduce the number of gun fatalities.

<http://www.courseworkbank.co.uk/coursework/guns_america_2593/>

[BullDozer]

71. Why didn't I think of that?

Using an obscure undocumented webpage to base my claim on, I just knew that I shouldn't have used the National Center for Injury Prevention and Controls WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports as my source.

:: sarcasm ::

Just admit that your claim is BS and move along Bill.

[billbuckhead]

73. Gun Owners of America say there's approximately 34,999 gun deaths per year

"According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 35,000 deaths per year. This means that fewer Americans die by guns than by other common items such as cars (40,000 plus yearly) or doctors (about 98,000 per year). See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois. For statistics on deaths due to medical mistakes, see the Institute of Medicine, which is a division of the National Academy of Sciences."


http://www.gunowners.com/psatext.htm

[BullDozer]

75. No they don't say that

They say "According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 35,000 deaths per year

LESS THAN that doesn't mean approximately 34,999 but you just go right ahead and keep on spinning.


You cited a footnote which is citing the National Safety Council, however the year(s) is not specified.

Are you going to claim that the numbers from CDC are wrong?

BTW Bill if you are going to use that GOA page for facts you also get to eat all of these others.

* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Locking up firearms can cost lives during a life-threatening situation. In California last year, two children died -- they were pitchforked to death by a crazed drug addict -- because a resident in the home could not access the household firearms in time. The guns were locked up in deference to California state law.3

* Guns are the Great Equalizer for women. As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Law-abiding gun owners are a good form of crime control. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).5

1 Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. The 2.5 million figure is consistent with a mountain of other independent surveys showing similar figures. The sponsors of these studies -- nearly a dozen -- are quite varied, and include anti-gun organizations, news media organizations, governments and commercial polling firms. For example, even anti-gun researchers who were commissioned by the Clinton Justice Department found there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year.

2 According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 35,000 deaths per year. This means that fewer Americans die by guns than by other common items such as cars (40,000 plus yearly) or doctors (about 98,000 per year). See Injury Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois. For statistics on deaths due to medical mistakes, see the Institute of Medicine, which is a division of the National Academy of Sciences.

3 Kimi Yoshino, "Gun advocates say fear of liability keeps parents from teaching survival skills," The Fresno Bee (August 26, 2000). Removing a trigger lock can be somewhat tricky -- even in a non-emergency. Maryland Governor Parris Glendening struggled for at least two whole minutes to remove a trigger lock at a training session in March 2000.

4 Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 185

5 Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.

[weedthesmoke]

15. A link would be nice

What percentage of murders in America are committed by NRA members? Your straw man sounds cool but is there any truth to back it up?

[JayS]

18. "advanced nations"

Please don't use this "advanced nations" quote; it is so racist. Just because other countries have people with darker skin, on average, that what you see in the USA, on average, does not mean they are living in mud huts.

[billbuckhead]

21. JAPAN is the world leader in lack of gun homocide. Malaysia and Hawaii

also do well. New Jersey is one of the most diverse states in the union as is New York. The NRA focus group tested racism meme doesn't hold water under even minor investigation.

It's pathetic when the gun lovers crowd plays the race card both in morality as well as actual practice.

[JayS]

24. I notice that you left out everything from...

...Mexico on down. Africa seems to have vanished entirely. Why is that?

[billbuckhead]

30. In the last 10 years, 300,000 people have been killed in Brazil,

Women in Brazil take a stand against guns



10,000 guns are destroyed in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on International Day of Firearms Destruction, 9 July 2002. © Sandra Delgado

In the last 10 years, 300,000 people have been killed in Brazil, largely as a result of urban violence and the proliferation of guns in the country. While 24 men are killed for every one woman, every death leaves a grieving mother, wife, sister, girlfriend or friend. Now the women of Brazil are uniting to try to put an end to the terrifying escalation of violence and gun crime.

On Mother's Day, 13 May 2001, the Brazilian non-governmental organization (NGO) Viva Rio launched a campaign under the slogan "Arma Não! Ela Ou Eu." ("Choose gun-free! It's your weapon or me."). Their aim was to bring together women from all sections of Brazilian society to force the men of Brazil to give up their guns. At the launch, attended by actresses, journalists, artists, mothers who had lost their children and wives who had lost their husbands, white flowers were distributed together with pamphlets explaining that owning a gun does not guarantee the protection of your family, but rather puts them at greater risk.

-----------------snip--------------------------

<http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/February2003/brazil>

Why is it always the women who are the voice of reason?

[JayS]

35. Darn good thing that Brazil is not advanced.

It would have messed up your previous statement.

[FeebMaster]

36. Reason?

So it's sort of like the Brazilian version of the million mom march. I'm sure they'll be as successful in Brazil as they are here.

[BullDozer]

29. And Japan

Map & Graph: Crime: Murders with firearms
1. South Africa 31,918 (2000)
2. Colombia 21,898 (2000)
3. Thailand 20,032 (2000)
4. United States 8,259 (1999)
5. Mexico 3,589 (2000)
6. Zimbabwe 598 (2000)
7. Germany 384 (2000)
8. Belarus 331 (2000)
9. Czech Republic 213 (2000)
10. Ukraine 173 (2000)
11. Poland 166 (2000)
12. Canada 165 (1999)
13. Costa Rica 126 (1999)
14. Slovakia 117 (2000)
15. Spain 97 (2000)
16. Uruguay 84 (2000)
17. Portugal 84 (2000)
18. Lithuania 83 (2000)
19. Bulgaria 63 (2000)
20. United Kingdom 62 (1999)
21. Australia 59 (2000)
22. Hungary 44 (2000)
23. Switzerland 40 (2000)
24. Latvia 30 (2000)
25. Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of 26




Map & Graph: Health: Suicide rate - males

Country Description Amount
1. Lithuania 81.9 (1994)
2. Russia 74.1 (1994)
3. Latvia 71.4 (1994)
4. Estonia 64.6 (1996)
5. Belarus 55.7 (1995)
6. Hungary 55.5 (1994)
7. Sri Lanka 46.9 (1986)
8. Slovenia 45.1 (1995)
9. Finland 43.4 (1995)
10. Kazakhstan 39.7 (1994)
11. Ukraine 38.2 (1992)
12. Belgium 37.3 (1993)
13. Croatia 34.6 (1994)
14. Austria 34.2 (1996)
15. Luxembourg 30.8 (1994)
16. France 30.4 (1995)
17. Switzerland 29.5 (1995)
18. Moldova 29.5 (1994)
19. Czech Republic 28.1 (1993)
20. Bulgaria 25.3 (1994)
21. Japan 25 (1996)
22. Poland 24.7 (1994)
23. Denmark 24.1 (1995)
24. Kyrgyzstan 22.6 (1994)
25. Germany 21.8 (1996


30. United States 19.8 (1995)

Stats are from http://www.nationmaster.com/

Still going to try and correlate firearms to homicide and suicide? Hmmmmmmmm?

[billbuckhead]

33. Suicide is frowned on the USA and is undereported

Noticed you didn't show those Japanese murder rates.

[FeebMaster]

34. If suicide is under reported in the USA

where do you think the numbers go? In the murder category? They get stuck in the accidental deaths category.

[BullDozer]

37. Get a grip Bill

Suicide is frowned on the USA and is undereported"

Bullshit, complete and total bullshit Bill.


United States
Suicide Injury Deaths


1981 27,596
1982 28,242
1983 28,295
1984 29,286
1985 29,453
1986 30,904
1987 30,796
1988 30,407
1989 30,232
1990 30,906
1991 30,810
1992 30,484
1993 31,102
1994 31,142
1995 31,284
1996 30,903
1997 30,535
1998 30,575
1999 29,199
2000 29,350

Those are underreported numbers?


"Murder is frowned on in Japan and is undereported. ::rolleyes::
Sarcasm!


The totals in my post #27 are ALL firearms deaths including"
Unintentional, Violence-related, Homicide and Legal intervention, Suicide, and Undetermined intent.

You'll see that you can't blame firearms for murder rates bill, compare the total murders here to the previous post of firearms murders and you'll not find a correlation. You lose again.
Map & Graph: Crime: Murders (Top 100 Countries)


Country Description Amount
1. India 37,170 (1999)
2. Russia 28,904 (2000)
3. Colombia 26,539 (2000)
4. South Africa 21,995 (2000)
5. Mexico 13,829 (2000)
6. United States 12,658 (1999)
7. Venezuela 8,022 (2000)
8. Thailand 5,140 (2000)
9. Ukraine 4,418 (2000)
10. Indonesia 2,204 (2000)
11. Poland 2,170 (2000)
12. France 1051 (2000)
13. Belarus 1013 (2000)
14. Germany 960 (2000)
15. Korea, South 955 (2000)
16. Zimbabwe 912 (2000)
17. Jamaica 887 (2000)
18. United Kingdom 850 (2000)
19. Zambia 797 (2000)
20. Italy 746 (2000)
21. Yemen 697 (2000)
22. Japan 637 (2000)
23. Romania 560 (2000)
24. Malaysia 551 (2000)
25. Spain 494 (2000)

[TexasMexican]

67. Who cares about the suicide rates.

people have the right to take thier own lives if they choose.

What do you want to make it a felony punishible by life in prison if someone attempts to commit suicide or something?

[FeebMaster]

68. Maybe they should get the death penalty.

[sendero]

48. God not this drivel again...

... GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK, IT NEVER HAS WORKED and IT NEVER WILL WORK IN A COUNTRY where there are already millions and millions of guns out there.

Look how well the prohibition of pot has worked.

Passing useless, unenforcable laws is a waste of time. You might as well legislate the weather. All it does it give Reps a wedge issue to run on.

Get a freaking clue. Not every societal problem can be solved by legislation and history shows quite clearly that this is one of them.

[leesa]

8. I think this is propaganda to keep the gun sellers raking in the dough.

If anyone would take away guns, it will be under the auspices of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

[Democat]

16. This is a right wing press release, not a news story, right?

This part gives it away:

Contact: John Snyder of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 202-326-5259 or 703-212-9863

[billbuckhead]

23. This what the "gun enthusiast" crowd is going to do until election day

The NRA had their hand picked guy in the White House and now the gun loving crowd is desperately trying to switch sides as they see the white hypermacho "christian" gun guy George Bush Jr flagship sinking and threatening to pull them and their high performance assault rifles down into the void.

[JayS]

26. high performance assault rifles?

Sorry, these "assault rifles" are not all that powerful. That is why you would not hunt deer with one, unless you could get pretty close.

Of course if I wanted an "assault rifle" now I could just get one at a gun store since these firearms are still sold, but without the cosmetic features that the ban removed.

BTW, you do know that the ban is a big red herring tossed out for really gullible politicians to eat.

[JCMach1]

25. wait until the next gun massacre

:(

[TexasMexican]

32. to do what?

Blame the guns some more?

[AP]

28. Poll's disclaimer: "This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects...

...the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein."

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/10738.content.html

[TexasMexican]

31. Good.

The Assault Rifle Ban is pointless.

[Trajan]

39. MORE pro NRA tripe forcefed to our DU liberals ....

Isnt the Highroad.org forums ENOUGH for you gunloving FREEKS ?

WHY do you come here and sully our wonderful forum with THIS useless trash ?

ISNT FreeRepublic.com your REAL home ? ...

I swear: why does Skinner permit these NRA extremists access to our world ? ...

CMON ! ...

This thread should at LEAST be banished to J/PS ....

You are free to have extreme opinions that parallel those of every right wing nutcase that roams the earth ... YOu arent necessarily free to expound those RW views here in this liberal sanctuary FROM RW extremism ....

This poll is nonsense: the assertion that this poll means anything of value is nonsense, and permitting NRA extremists access to 'our' forum is nonsense ...

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

41. Two things

The news release is canned and not from a reputable source, and the "poll" in an online, Freeped poll that 0% accuracy. Responsible polling show overwhelming (like 70-80%) support for the Assault Weapons Ban.

This is crap and should be locked or sent to the "Guns 'n Ammo" Forum.

[weedthesmoke]

46. Nothing right wing about the 2nd amendment at all

The NRA is not even mentioned in this thread except by you and NO, FreeRepublic.com is not my home...is HCI.ORG your home?

[Trajan]

57. THIS is my home ....

Progressive, Liberal, Democratic Party oriented http://www.democraticunderground.com

Tell me: what is orange in color, has a thick pebbly/bumpy rind, sweet, orange-colored, medium-textured, edible flesh within, and has something that looks like a navel on one end ?? ...

Tell me: WHICH group of people wore swastikas, gathered huge mechanized armies, invaded many of it's neighbor contries, and was led by a megalomaniac named Adolph Hitler ? ...

NEED I say 'Orange' ? ...

NEED I say the word 'Nazi' ? ....

The essense of the philosophy promoted by THIS thread IS of an NRA extremist .....

THAT essense goes AGAINST the grain of most all progressive, liberal Democrats of most ALL stripes and types ...

THAT essense is ENTIRELY consistent with the well-known philosophies of american, right-wing, second amendment extremists who are WELL KNOWN to be directly associated with the NRA ....

Let's NOT try to hide the pig behind the lipstick ....

This is a LIBERAL forum ...

THAT is a Right Wing philosophy ....

Get it ? ...

We do ....

Go home ....

[TexasMexican]

61. Liberals own guns too

we arent all pacifists. :shrug:

[dbehsman]

76. Hitler invented gun registration and promoted gun bans.

From your earlier post:

"I swear: why does Skinner permit these NRA extremists access to our world ? ..."

You do not need to be a registered Republican to become a member of the NRA. I was not aware that NRA members are not allowed to be Democrats. Perhaps you can explain to us when this new rule came about?

"You are free to have extreme opinions that parallel those of every right wing nutcase that roams the earth ... YOu arent necessarily free to expound those RW views here in this liberal sanctuary FROM RW extremism ...."


Always the sign of a real liberal. Your too open minded to hear anybody elses point of veiw.

[Trajan]

87. Blah Blah Blah ....

The Nazi's used guns to overthrow a nation ...

It was WITH guns that they killed their enemies ...

Give us a BREAK with the "Hitler banned guns' nonsense ...

The Nazis LOVED guns ....

[OpSomBlood]

96. "Hitler banned guns" is nonsense?

What history books have you been reading?

[DoNotRefill]

97. If you were Aryan and in the Wehrmacht, SA, or SS....

the Nazis were fine with you having guns.

If you were ""untermenschen", being in possession of a firearm was a summarily capital offense. Get caught, they shoot you, period. No trial, no due process, just a 9mm to the back of the head.

[DoNotRefill]

79. You want pro-nra tripe? Here ya go.

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20040427

Here's yet another "pimp for Tom Delay"...

Being pro gun does NOT mean you're a Republican. JFK was a NRA member, as was Jimmy Carter. Michael Moore is a NRA member, and it's been reported (by Rall) that Kerry is also a NRA member.

[Trajan]

88. If your an HONEST TO GOODNESS Progressive ....

Then I havent much to complain about: EXCEPT of course: Most progressives believe strongly in gun control of some sort ....

My point is: when someone comes to DU an posts ONLY a RW point of view without otherwise ever expressing a liberal viewpoint here: we have a RIGHT to question the honesty of such a person ...

I think Skinner is WAY to lenient with the J/PS forum: It is chock full of HIGHROAD.ORGers .... We all know that ...

NOTE the reference to 'Clinton's ban' ....

No: it wasnt 'Clinton's ban' .... it was OUR ban: We did this through the power of representative democracy .... We COLLECTIVELY banned AW because it was in OUR interest to do so ...

By calling it 'Clinton's ban' one can infer the nature of the poster to be against 'Clinton' .... not just the ban ....

This is OUR forum .... WE are liberals, WE are progressives: WE possess those typical philosophies that represent liberals and progressives: WE WANT GUN CONTROL ....

You want to be a liberal supporter of the NRA ? ... fine: ... but do so AS a liberal .... NOT as a fraud ....

BTW ? ... Would Jesus lift the ban ? ... Mother Teresa ? ... WHY TF care about what Kennedy did ? ... Kennedy was KILLED by RWers using an 'assault weapon' .... HARDLY an argument against the ban ....

[FeebMaster]

89. You should check out my poll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x541677

Looks like most everyone that's voted would be perfectly happy if Kerry announced he was going to work to repeal half the federal gun laws.


We COLLECTIVELY banned AW because it was in OUR interest to do so ...

Actually, assault weapons weren't banned. They were banned from civilian manufacture, there's a big difference.

[Trajan]

92. Your using a DU poll to represent 'liberal thought' ...

is as laughable as using a CNN Internet poll, and a Right Wing media source to promote dumping 'Clinton's Ban' ....

Some act is if NO ONE wanted to bring some sane regulation into the marketplace by legal and legislative means .... This is obviously false ... There IS strong support for continuing the AWB amongst rank and file Democrats ...

[FeebMaster]

93. I'm not using my poll to represent liberal thought.

I'm using it to show that most everyone who voted in it wouldn't mind if Kerry worked to repeal most of the federal gun laws.

There IS strong support for continuing the AWB amongst rank and file Democrats ...

Probably from the same people constantly peddling that the AWB bans machine guns and bazookas.

[DoNotRefill]

94. In the Northeast, you're right.

"There IS strong support for continuing the AWB amongst rank and file Democrats ..."

in most of the rest of the country, the AW ban is a rotting, festering albatross hanging around our necks, and a hell of a lot of us would REALLY rather see it gone.

[DoNotRefill]

95. Kennedy wasn't killed with an AW....

Kennedy was killed with a WWII surplus Italian bolt-action Carcano carbine. That's not an AW, it's not a machinegun, and it's not even semi-automatic.

Your argument seems to be "If you're not for gun control, you can't be a TRUE progressive." That's crap. Howard Dean wasn't pro gun control as governor of Vermont, but he was very progressive. Ted Rall is undoubtedly a progressive. So is Lawrence Tribe.

I'm curious if you think I'm a RWer. After all, I'm pro-gun. Hell, I'm not even necessarily that "Anti-NRA". I view myself as a civil libertarian, that takes the ENTIRE Bill of Rights VERY seriously, and don't like it when ANYBODY on EITHER side decides that it's in "our best interest" to screw with the rights enumerated in it. That's why what Rall said in his article struck me so forcibly...Do we REALLY want to be a party that holds some of the BoR sacred, while gutting parts of it we don't like? Civil liberties are civil liberties, REGARDLESS of if you happen to not like some of them. Hell, a LOT of the speech I see is stuff I find personally offensive. That doesn't mean I think we need to gut the First Amendment because I'm offended. If the civil liberties in the BoR are NOT sometimes offending to you when they're exercised, it must mean you're not paying attention. That doesn't mean we should get rid of them.

[Liberal Classic]

90. Funny

why does Skinner permit these NRA extremists access to our world ? ...

I asked the same question the other day.

I tend to think of J/PS as a place to go, not a place to be banished to.

[mosin]

104. The poll is nonsense...

The press release is pure propaganda.

But your lack of respect for pro-gun-rights Democrats is appalling.

The NRA is a mainstream, moderate organization supported by most Americans. The sooner the anti-gun radicals in the Democrat party accept that and move on, the sooner we can get back to winning elections.

[OpSomBlood]

105. I think the gun issue pushes more people away from Dem than abortion.

It's as if the present-day Democrats are trying to discover new and exciting ways to lose elections.

If any of the Democratic nominees had come out and just said, "I support the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns 100%" this upcoming election wouldn't even be close.

There are plenty of gun-owning Republicans who wish they had an alternative to Bush to vote for.

[mosin]

106. an alternative

If any of the Democratic nominees had come out and just said, "I support the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns 100%" this upcoming election wouldn't even be close.

There are plenty of gun-owning Republicans who wish they had an alternative to Bush to vote for.

You are absolutely right. There is a lot of anti-Bush sentiment out there that even a moderately pro-gun-rights Democrat could tap into. I hope we don't waste a golden opportunity. I don't want 4 more years of the PATRIOT Act and American internment camps.

[Catfight]

42. I know with the Bush regime, I'm thinking of buying a gun.

If there was ever a need to upraise against this fascist government, I would hope some Americans have more than a hunting rifle. I think I'm on the side of NRA on this one. I just don't trust this government to disarm Americans and then take over. I like my Bill or Rights just the way it is.

[saigon68]

45. We must arm ourselves against guys like asscrack

He'd have all of us in the camps if he knew he could get away with it.

[depakid]

43. A CNN internet poll means nothing

- one wonders when common sense will prevail among these people.

(edited- for noy haing read the linked article- douk)

[Snellius]

44. "Watch out, Lefty. We're America and we're armed."

There's always been a kind of implicit threat of vigilante violence in the right-wing's defense of guns. It started during the civil rights movement when the NRA, a hunter and gun-safety organization, turned into a political bastion of racial self-defense. The threat was in the air in Florida. Assault weapons have only one purpose: to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time, that is, war.

What would happen if Moveon.org or George Soros offered to hand out AK47s to every Bush-hating lefty in the United States?

[sazdem]

49. You can't

....just hand out AK-47's to everyone, Bush haters or not...and you know that. First of all an AK-47 is a class III weapon and strictly controlled. Perhaps you were referring to the clones of the AK.
The term "assault weapon" is a misnomer. I can give you the history of the origin of the term if you want.
If memory serves the AWB was suppose to reduce crime and rid our streets of the evil military style weapons. It has done neither of these things. In fact there are more military style weapons and high capacity mags on the market now then ever. Guess the legislation isn't working.

[Merlin]

51. Watch out Righty. WE'RE America. And we are not afraid of you.

Shoot if you must
this old gray head.
Common sense lives on
long after I'm dead.

(apologies to Whittier)

[JayS]

82. "Assault weapons have only one purpose"

Assault weapons have only one purpose: to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time, that is, war.

You get this "knowledge" from what source?

[FeebMaster]

83. Not to mention, no military in the world

issues assault weapons to its soldiers.

[Merlin]

50. This article is a GROSS distortion of public sentiment. It's total BS!

An "internet poll" is nothing more than an online contest to see which pressure groups can get more of their supporters to click their way on it. It's not an accurate sensing of public opinion. Who the hell do they think they are kidding.

I guarantee you that if you took a poll of the American people about whether the importation of automatic weapons should continue to be banned, you'd get about 80% approval!

This article is utter nonsense.

[Nyati13]

52. AWB

The AWB has absolutely nothing to do with automatic weapons. So why are you throwing that little pointless nugget out into the discussion?

I'll say it again. The AWB has nothing to do with automatic weapons

The AWB is a purely political law, based on cosmetic features, that has not prevented one single violent crime from being committed. Its only function was to make a few politicians, and their direct supporters, feel good about themselves (purely selfishly), and its only result is the Republican dominance of the Senate and House that we have right now.

If gun control advocates would push for useful laws, that target the actual use of a firearm in the act of actually harming someone else, then there might be some effect on crime. Pointless feel-good laws only lose votes for Liberals.

Jeremy

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[FeebMaster]

59. It's the Assault Weapons Ban

not the Automatic Weapons Ban. The AWB didn't ban any weapons. It banned from civilian manufacture semi-automatic weapons that can accept a detachable magazine and have more than one other feature from this list(for rifles): Grenade launcher, pistol grip, threaded barrel or flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and folding stock.

Manufacturers simply removed the bayonet lugs, threaded barrels, folding stocks, and flash suppressors and continued to sell the same weapons that were available before the ban.

Also, since it's only a ban on manufacturing new assault weapons for civilians, all of the weapons that were available before the ban are, of course, still available.

Your rant on nuclear and chemical weapons is tired and old and has nothing to do with the assault weapons ban or any other federal firearms law. Hand grenades, TNT, plastic explosives, and bazookas are all destructive devices and perfectly legal for civilians to own. Tanks are just bulldozers with armor and have nothing to do with firearms. Their guns would be considered destructive devices like any other piece of artillery and are perfectly legal to own.

Maybe you should read the federal laws you're commenting on before calling other people obtuse.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[DoNotRefill]

80. Merlin...

then explain why the MMM 2004 drew a crowd of between "several hundred" (as reported by NPR) and a "couple of thousand" (as claimed by the MMM) people to their much-publicized NATIONAL march?

In that area, you'll find more people at a single suburban multiplex movie theater every weekend day than showed up for the march.

After 3+ years of Bush, a LOT of people are taking a second, long, hard look at the reasons behind the Second Amendment...

[JayS]

84. "automatic weapons"

Where do you get all this "information" from?

[KDLarsen]

62. Excuse my ignorance..

.. but who, besides body guards & military personnel, could possibly benefit from having a semiautomatic firearm in their possesion? And before you reply Blood & Krisps, I'm thinking legally.

I just can't see a purpose of having a semiautomatic weapon in your possesion, unless it's used for a legal purpose, ie. protecting someone or something.

[FeebMaster]

63. They're used quite extensively

by hunters, plinkers, and people who want to protect themselves.

[BullDozer]

64. Lots and lots

"but who, besides body guards & military personnel, could possibly benefit from having a semiautomatic firearm in their possesion? "

Competition shooters, hunters, target shooters, PizzaHut delivery drivers, people who can't afford or don't want body guards, etc..

[FeebMaster]

65. Besides,

the majority of firearms issued by the military are fully-automatic.

[TexasMexican]

66. I'll excuse your ignorance.

But you have to answer a question for me.

On one hand you say, "I just can't see a purpose of having a semiautomatic weapon in your possesion, unless it's used for a legal purpose, ie. protecting someone or something."

Yet on the other you say, ".. but who, besides body guards & military personnel, could possibly benefit from having a semiautomatic firearm in their possesion? And before you reply Blood & Krisps, I'm thinking legally."

Whats up with that? Are you somehow under the impression that normal citizens cant protect themselves, legally?

Yeah I suppose that in certain parts of this nation there have been laws passed that make it impossible for certain citizens to legally protect themselves with a semiautomatic firearm, however I will venture to say that is not the case in the majority of the nation.

[Nyati13]

74. No problem

There is no practical difference between a semi-auto versus manual operated firearm as far as acts of crime go. Most crimes are committed with 1 or 2 shots being fired (or to be more generic, less than the 10 rounds stipulated in the AWB), at short distance.

Semi-automatic rifles are a great deal of fun to target shoot. It is a very challenging, and entertaining sport. Just remember, there are 80 million + firearms in America, and 99.9% of them will never harm another human being. I have 16 firearms myself, and the only damage any of them have done is to square sheets of paper, with little target rings printed on them. All but two of them are semi-automatic. I have 2 rifles, one semi-auto, and one bolt-action (manual-operated), the bolt action rifle is far more powerful, far more accurate, and with far,far greater useful range, so what exactly makes the semi-auto so terrible, and the other rifle somehow less so?

The real point of gun laws should be to restrict the access of criminals and mentally unstable persons to firearms, and having a law that only bans a few cosmetic features is not going to achieve anything like that.

Jeremy

[DoNotRefill]

81. semi-auto firearms...

are used every day for many legitimate purposes, ranging from self-defense to target practice to hunting to whatever. Hell, most competitive shooting events now REQUIRE the use of a semi-automatic weapon.

If a bolt-action rifle works for a purpose, odds are excellent that a semi-auto weapon will work just as well.

BTW, "semi-automatic" is normally defined as "fires one shot for each pull of the trigger". Under that definition, a double action revolver is a semi-automatic weapon. It just has a smaller capacity.

[slackmaster]

102. I am right-handed but left-eyed

Long arms made for left-handed people are scarce and often costly. Semiautomatic firearms work best for me due to a physical limitation - I'm basically blind in my right eye.

[w4rma]

69. "A CNN internet poll"

I'm not in favor of the AWB, but "A CNN internet poll"?

This newsrelease is a con.

[Moderator]

85. This "CNN internet poll" story is now relocating

[Renew Deal]

86. This is a bullshit press release.

Based on an internet poll. Where is the link? You will see the trend change.

[Liberal Classic]

91. Internet polls are entertainment

Not science.

Kind of like most posts in J/PS

*ducks*

:P

[RoeBear]

98. Zing!!!

n/t

[UNIXcock]

99. It’s imperative to remember…

… that existing gun laws are more than adequate to regulate distribution of firearms. The problem lies in that the criminals do not obey any of them any way.

… There in lies the conundrum. Being you and I are law abiding citizens, just how do you and I go about protecting our families and loved ones in the event these bandits decide to make a victim out of us?

… Huge difference in laws regarding NFA (full-auto) weapons and all others that fire semi-auto. Semi-auto loading rifles and pistols are not the problem. Personal responsibility is. Just like pool ownership here in Arizona. Damned legislators want to pass laws to prevent the horrible high drowning rates in children, where the real and only effective answer is responsible parenting.

… We cannot let this topic divide us in 2004, we already know many fellow Democrats bailed on us in favor of gun-rights, look what it did to us then.

[OpSomBlood]

100. The AWB cost Dems Congress in 1994.

Period. Point blank.

Fence-sitting gun owners become single-issue voters. These people will be voting for Bush in November.

This is such an obvious loser issue for Democrats. I wonder how many national elections we'll have to lose before it sinks in.

[MrBenchley]

103. In other words....

Gun wankers are freeping the poll.

[TexasMexican]

107. I DUed that poll.

[mosin]

108. Poll?

What poll is that?