Assault weapon ban: Stay or go?

[derby378]

Cue appropriate Clash music while we hash this debate out on DU at long last:

What do you, as a DUer, think we should do with the 1994 assault weapon ban?

[FeebMaster]

1. Might as well head off the inevitable.

The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.

[derby378]

3. Machine guns

If by "machine gun" you mean strictly full-auto weapons, gotcha. (I have seen a few dictionaries, including Webster's, that define many semi-autos as submachine guns.)

One argument I anticipate from gun-control advocates is that an actuator like Hellfire can legally be attached behind the trigger, turning the semi-auto into darned-close-to-full-auto.

[FeebMaster]

5. A machine gun by definition is

full-auto or select fire. Any dictionary defining a semi-auto as a machine gun or submachine gun is simply wrong.


"One argument I anticipate from gun-control advocates is that an actuator like Hellfire can legally be attached behind the trigger, turning the semi-auto into darned-close-to-full-auto."

I doubt it. Gun control advocates are pretty much universally ignorant when it comes to guns and gun laws. Even if they were to make that claim, it still has nothing to do with the AWB.

[trof]

15. I think I understand part.

A "machine" gun will fire as long as you hold the trigger down, or back, or whatever. "Engaged"

I think my .22 was semi-automatic, in that you didn't have to re-cock it each time.

Would automatic be the same as "machine"?
Damn this is getting confusing.

[FeebMaster]

20. Well the definition of just "automatic"

depends on who you ask, I guess. If you ask someone who knows about guns, when they say automatic they mean a machine gun or full-auto.

If you ask some random gun grabber, chances are they have no idea since they probably use automatic to cover anything from a machine gun to a lever action rifle. You can identify them by their talk about spray firing from the hip when they talk about the AWB.


A machine gun will fire as long as you hold the trigger down. Your .22 was definitely semi-automatic.

[trof]

24. That's what I thought. Thanks again. eom

[iverglas]

36. funny

"Gun control advocates are pretty much universally ignorant when it comes to guns and gun laws."

I've found firearms control opponents to be pretty much universally ignorant when it comes to contemporary thought in the realm of human rights and social justice.

(Mind you, I wouldn't necessarily volunteer that statement, blanket characterizations of other people being generally rather unproductive contributions to discussion of much of anything. But hey, you pretty much asked.)

And I know which I consider to be more important to know about, and certainly to care about.

[FeebMaster]

39. Thanks for sharing. (nt)

[iverglas]

41. like I said

You asked. Did you really get to think that you could just spew out your unpleasant opinions about / unsubstantiated characterizations of other people and not get one or two back?

You're welcome, I'm sure.

[FeebMaster]

43. Remember that time

you posted a picture of some gun and explained how the magazine was a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the action of the weapon? Ah. Good times.

[iverglas]

69. funny -- no, I don't

Remember that time
you posted a picture of some gun and explained
how the magazine was a pistol grip protruding
conspicuously below the action of the weapon?

Damn, I'm afraid I just can't remember that at all.

Here's what I actually do remember. (I'm amazed at what different memories we have; aren't you? Funny how the facts support mine.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=14758

85. I don't know nuttin 'bout shootin' guns, but they sure don't look quite like this one of yours -- it seems to be missing that big piece down below:
<numerous photographs, accompanied by several questions, none of which was answered by any "firearms enthusiast" in response>

93. I guess I just can't tell from looking at pretty pics what all these gizmos have or don't have.

But maybe you could explain what that great big thing that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon might be, if it isn't "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon". <photograph>

... Or heck, tell me what silly old me is seeing wrong.

This whole discussion actually kinda bores me, but might I assume that the reason for disallowing that pistol-grip thing is that people can shoot one of these babies from the hip, as it were, a whole lot easier? An ability that might come in a lot handier when trying to hit a bunch of people, or even just one, by firing a whole lot of bullets, without having to sit still and aim carefully, than it would when stalking deer?

Just a guess, mind.

98. (response) That great big thing that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon is called a 'magazine', which is totally different than a 'pistol grip'.

It would take someone either:
1- being intentionally dishonest
or,
2- woefully ignorant of firearms
to mistake a magazine for pistol grip in that particular picture.

Well, I guess it would have. Of course, I'd already stated that I was ignorant of firearms ("woefully" being in the eye of the beholder), so #1 was just a scarlet fishy ... or some kinda demagoguish insinuation ...

102. I don't have a clue what any of this shit is, and you know what?

I'm quite proud of that fact.

I'm proud that I spend my time and energy and brain cells knowing a whole lot of stuff that is a whole lot more worthwhile. I only wish that some other people would do the same.

So you see, my recollection is that I ASKED for an explanation of something, I received NO EXPLANATION, so I TOOK A GUESS and asked to be corrected if I was wrong, and I was corrected, and that was that.

And I remain everlastingly proud that I know pretty much fuck all about this useless shit, because that means I haven't wasted my time learning it.

When I elect a government and I pay taxes for a public service, I am entitled to rely on those representatives and experts to know a whole lot of things that I don't, and to use that knowledge to implement the kinds of policies I elect and pay them to provide. I also don't know what the best way of purifying municipal water to avoid E. Coli outbreaks is, or which helicopter is most suitable for search and rescue missions, or the best way to teach mathematics to grade fours. Those aren't my job.

And the taxpayers who pay for my own particular expertise at my actual job don't know the things I know, either. Any more than you do.

I really don't pretend to be an expert in respect of quite a number of things. Firearms specifications are but one of them.

You may recall me also saying that your USAmerican assault weapons ban is of the most supreme irrelevance to me. Small wonder the details bore me. If I were there, I'm quite sure I'd want a much better ban than now exists. But I'd be far more likely to be focusing my attention on handguns, since deaths and injuries by handguns, and crimes facilitated by handguns, far outstrip the numbers for assault weapons.

And as a Canadian, I wish that more USAmericans would do just that, since handguns smuggled into Canada (after being purchased via the gun show loophole in states near the border, or purchased "legally" by straw purchasers, etc.) are implicated in a large proportion of firearms deaths, injuries and crimes in Canadian cities, and I think it would be simple good-neighbour practice to do something about that, particularly since it would be so much in USAmericans' own interests as well to do it.

So anyhow, no, I just don't remember what you remember. And I really have to wonder how and/or why you would say that you did. I don't actually spend too much time wondering, of course.

[FeebMaster]

75. Thanks for sharing.

[iverglas]

76. like I said

and I paraphrase:

You asked. Did you really get to think that you could just spew out your unpleasant opinions about / unsubstantiated characterizations of other people and not get some truth back?

You're welcome, I'm sure.

[FeebMaster]

80. So have they caught any

Garand smugglers up there lately?

[bigbillhaywood]

77. Really, I'll go toe to toe with you anytime on issues involving human

rights and social justice. I don't just have the principles, I've got a long record of action to back it up. I'm sure many other gun advocates do too. Ever hear of the Black Panthers?

[iverglas]

111. gee

I don't just have the principles, I've got a long record of action to back it up. I'm sure many other gun advocates do too. Ever hear of the Black Panthers?

If you hadn't started out by being boorishly patronizing, I might have taken you up. I'm not sure why this would involve going "toe to toe", of course. Wouldn't we be on the same side of the line?

I find that understanding of the concept of collective rights is virtually absent at all points on the political spectrum in the US, and the Black Panthers are an interesting case in point when considering (i.e., usually, attempting to explain) that concept.

Remember, I did say "I've found firearms control opponents to be pretty much universally ignorant when it comes to contemporary thought in the realm of human rights and social justice". Having been active in social/political causes, and having principles that involve social justice, e.g., does not imply famiarity with contemporary thought in the realm of human rights and social justice.

You're familiar with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I assume? -- http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm
The US was a little late to the party on that one, but did ratify it eventually. I refer specifically to Article 1(1).

Perhaps, if you know what I'm talking about, you'll tell me your thoughts.

[bigbillhaywood]

122. Okay, please explain your argument for gun control on the basis of

collective rights. I think I can anitcipate the general lines, but I'll have you explain it.

[iverglas]

132. you will, will you?

Okay, please explain your argument for gun control
on the basis of collective rights. I think I can
anitcipate the general lines, but I'll have you
explain it.

Of course, I asked first:

You're familiar with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I assume? ... Perhaps, if you know what I'm talking about, you'll tell me your thoughts.

Now, here's what I had actually said in that post:

I find that understanding of the concept of collective rights is virtually absent at all points on the political spectrum in the US, and the Black Panthers are an interesting case in point when considering (i.e., usually, attempting to explain) that concept.

And yet here you are saying "Okay, please explain your argument for gun control on the basis of collective rights".

Pretty evidently, you *don't* know what I'm talking about. Or you wouldn't have asked such a bizarre question. And I really wasn't offering to explain it.

[bigbillhaywood]

146. Fine, then. I just wanted to understand your point of view on the

subject, but I guess we can just be jerks and keep arguing and talking past each other.

You think I don't understand collective rights. I think I do-- I do have a fairly well developed political philosophy based partly on deontological individual rights, as well as a materialist understanding of collective rights, responsiblities and actions. You could label it a form of "libertarian socialism" with an anarchosyndicalist edge. For working-class kid, I'm not stupid, you know.

I just wanted to know what your views on collective rights were in relation to gun control. You don't want to tell me, fine. But I believe this whole debate started when you said that most pro-gun people have little understanding of concepts like social justice. Not only do I have an understanding of them, I have been in the trenches organizing for years around such issues. I've been harrassed by Feds, beaten by cops, and gone to jail on several occassions standing up for these issues. So I take more than a little offense when someone makes a blanket statement like the one you did.

[iverglas]

156. how it went down

starting with what I actually said, in response to the statement "Gun control advocates are pretty much universally ignorant when it comes to guns and gun laws":

I've found firearms control opponents to be pretty much universally ignorant when it comes to contemporary thought in the realm of human rights and social justice.

(Mind you, I wouldn't necessarily volunteer that statement, blanket characterizations of other people being generally rather unproductive contributions to discussion of much of anything. But hey, you pretty much asked.)

So hey, you can say

So I take more than a little offense when someone makes a blanket statement like the one you did.

but I said it first.

And y'see, I was speaking to a person who truly is very ignorant of the things whereof I spoke. Not to you. I don't believe I knew you existed, at the time.

But when you came at me with:

Really, I'll go toe to toe with you anytime on issues involving human rights and social justice. <blah blah blah> Ever hear of the Black Panthers?

you were directing your attempt at contemptuous patronizing squarely at my head.

You then levelled that totally unqualified "If you support gun control, you are anti-union" straight at me, too, since I do support gun control. And then you made a lot of beyond unfounded to flatly false and extraordinarily boorish and utterly ignorant allegations about Canadian labour leaders. Whatever offence you may have volunteered to take from my initial remark, you gave back tenfold and directly.

So all in all, I would bet that you can imagine how interested I am in an exchange of thoughts here. Or, perhaps more accurately, how likely I believe it would be to happen.

I just wanted to know what your views on collective rights were in relation to gun control.

I believe quite firmly in the right of peoples to autonomy and self-government. Just as the individual "right" of self-defence is not an independent right, but an exercise of the right to life, ditto the collective right of self-defence: an exercise of the right of autonomy and self-government.

Random thoughts, which you could apply to firearms control? Collective rights are, indisputably, exercised by individual action. But individuals themselves do not have the authority to determine how the collective rights of the group to which they belong will be exercised (nor can they always be compelled to participate in actions collectively decided). Individuals suffer harms and individual rights violations, qua individuals, as a result of violations of collective rights. But not every individual action in response to such harms is an exercise of collective rights.

It's a concept and field of thought still in relative infancy. And at this time of day, it's not one I'm about to attempt to present a coherent theory of.

[bigbillhaywood]

162. So here is where I think we diverge...

"I believe quite firmly in the right of peoples to autonomy and self-government. Just as the individual "right" of self-defence is not an independent right, but an exercise of the right to life, ditto the collective right of self-defence: an exercise of the right of autonomy and self-government."

I don't believe the nation-state is a legitmate form of self-government. I think it is an inherently oppressive institution-- oppressive to its own "citizens" and, if it is an imperial power (like the US), oppressive to the residents of other nation-states. I think it is made even more oppressive when existing in the superstructure of capitalism, where the wealthy control the nation-state at the expense of the working class.

I believe a restructuring of society, the economy and the polity is in order, both in the US and on a global scale. Economic institutions (corporations, banks) must be restructured to be democratic and accountable to both the people who operate them (workers), as well as "The People" as a whole. Societal values must change-- greed and racism must end as pillars of our popular culture (though it is unlikely they will ever be eliminated entirely). And a more democratic system of self-government, not based on national identity, must be created. When all this is done, disarmament can be done on a mass scale.

How do we get there? I'm not sure, although I have some ideas. Hell, it may just be a utopian pipe-dream. All I know is, until we get there, I am not in favor of giving a corrupt nation-state, based on corporate tyranny, racism, jingoism and coercion (and drifting steadily towards fascism) a monopoly on small arms. And any gun control measure falls upon the working-class's access to firearms the most, since it raises the cost of weapons. Believe me, no corporation will ever have problems getting access to small arms if they want them bad enough (although they really don't need them, because the government is armed and pretty much in their pocket anyways).

Thoughts?

[trof]

8. Maybe you can 'splain me...

What IS the difference between "machine gun" and "submachine gun"
Automatic and semi-automatic?
I had a 22 that was???semi-automatic?
Had about a 20 cartridge (shorts?) or so tubular 'magazine'.
Didn't have to cock it to fire.
Pull trigger-bang.
pull trigger-bang.

Thanks in advance.

[FeebMaster]

12. Sure.

A submachine gun is just a machine gun that fires pistol ammo.

A semi-automatic gun fires one round per trigger pull, just like your .22. It uses the force of the round being fired to cycle the action.

An automatic or full-auto fires more than once per trigger pull. Either a burst of some set length or continuous fire for as long as the trigger is held down and there is ammo in it.

[trof]

18. Hey, thanks!

So a submachine gun fires pistol rounds.
Never knew that.
I had .50 cal machine guns on my F-84.
What's a Thompson use? .45?
And where's the cutoff between pistol rounds and ??? non-pistol rounds?

[FeebMaster]

23. No problem.

A Thompson fires .45 ACP.

There's no real cutoff between pistol rounds and non-pistol rounds, I don't think. If it's used in pistols it's a pistol round if it's used in rifles it's a rifle round. There's some crossover since you get get rifles chambered in pistol rounds and some pistols chambered in some rifle rounds.

[MrSandman]

199. A submachine gun...

Is a fully automatic weapon firing pistol ammunition:

M3
MP5
UZI
Thompson(can't leave out Roland)

[Endangered Specie]

92. Machine Guns and Assult weapons...

are two different types of guns.

An assault rifle is a bread between sub-machine guns and rifles

A machine gun, unless it is a light one (aka automatic rifle), is either fixed or a multi man weapon.

Calling an assault gun a machine gun is not entirely accurate.

assault weapons have select fire. Im not aware of any MG's that have that option

[FeebMaster]

93. Assault weapons as covered by the AWB are not select fire.

On edit: As far as the law is concerned a machine gun is any fully automatic or select fire weapon whether it's an assault rifle, submachine gun, or a belt-fed light or heavy machine gun.

[Endangered Specie]

94. ?

isnt that an essential element to an assault weapon?

[FeebMaster]

95. No.

It's a common misunderstanding. You're thinking of assault rifles which are generally select fire rifles chambered in an intermediate cartridge. They are regulated just like machine guns and have been since 1934.

The AWB only affects semi-automatic weapons. Here is the definition of assault weapons from the AWB:


Semi-automatic rifles with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and more than one of the following:

- collapsible or folding stock
- pistol grip
- flash suppressor or threaded barrel
- bayonet lug
- grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and more than one of the following:

- a magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
- a threaded barrel
- barrel shroud
- a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more, unloaded
- a semi-automatic version of a machine gun

Semi-automatic shotguns with more than one of the following:

- folding or telescopic stock
- pistol grip
- fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
- ability to accept a detachable magazine


On edit: changed caliber to cartridge. oops.

[Endangered Specie]

98. So your saying the damn thing has nothing to do with

automatic firing weapons? that seems pointless, i knew this bill had FLAWS, but this seems to have been written by incompetents.

[FeebMaster]

101. That's right.

All the weapons covered by the AWB are semi-automatic only. All of the anti-gun propaganda out there likes to play up the assault weapon/rifle theme though and make it sound like machine guns are going to flood the streets when the AWB expires, but that simply isn't the case. It's basically pointless.

[Endangered Specie]

105. Even further amazed that the AWB doesnt

mention anything about SCOPES.

[FeebMaster]

108. Scopes are completely unregulated.

Besides if you listen to some of the pro-awb propaganda out there the only thing AWs are good for is spray firing from the hip. Don't need a scope for that. ;-)

[Endangered Specie]

100. further...

So a gun that has a grenade launcher is legal, but one that has a folding stock and a pistol grip isnt???

Same thing, a fixed stock semi auto shotgun with a 10,15 or whatever magazine is legal, but a 5 round folding stock with a pistol grip isnt?

[FeebMaster]

103. The grenade launcher part of the AWB

basically is referring to muzzle mounted grenade launchers for launching rifle grenades. You stick a rifle grenade on the end of the barrel and use a blank type round to launch it.

I suppose 40mm launchers like the military has would count, but those are regulated as strictly as machine guns. Plus, grenades themselves are regulated as strictly as machine guns and you'd have to pay a $200 tax on every single grenade you bought.

[Endangered Specie]

106. I didnt even think (live) Grenades were legal for civilian use...

$200 tax, so only the rich people will have them

Legal grenades, thats going a too far.

[FeebMaster]

109. I don't know if anyone actually buys them

or if they're even available in any large supply. It would be a hell of an expensive hobby to set grenades off at $200 a pop.

[FeebMaster]

110. Oops I forgot to answer the shotgun part of your question.

"So a gun that has a grenade launcher is legal, but one that has a folding stock and a pistol grip isnt???"

If the grenade launcher were the only feature on the list, it would be legal, while the one with a folding stock and pistol grip would be an assault weapon.

"Same thing, a fixed stock semi auto shotgun with a 10,15 or whatever magazine is legal, but a 5 round folding stock with a pistol grip isnt?"

That's right. Although technically assault weapons aren't illegal under the AWB. Civilians can still buy and sell weapons made before the ban, just not ones made after the ban.

What generally happened is that manufacturers removed enough of the listed features so a weapon wouldn't qualify as an assault weapon. So if you had an AR-15 clone or an AK-47 clone, semi-automatic of course, with folding stocks, flash suppressors, pistol grips, and bayonet lugs before they ban you'd manufacture them without the bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and folding stocks after the ban and they're not called assault weapons under the law anymore since the only listed feature they have is the pistol grips.

[Worst Username Ever]

2. It is such a BS law anyway

Like you can't still buy assault weapons or something. I can get extended mags at any gun show. I say get rid of them altogether, if someone is going to come into my house I have my trusty HK USP.

Unless the Bushevik supporters come knocking. They probably have bazookas.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Aren't handguns more dangerous?

Because they can be concealed. I wouldn't mind dropping the assault weapons ban if we regulate gun shows a bit better.

[bluestateguy]

6. I am pro-gun

I don't think it makes much of a difference anyway. Criminals will be criminals and it's plenty easy for them to get the "assault weapons" anyway. Even if there are background checks, they will still be driven underground to get them.

There is nothing "liberal" in my view about gun control. It is a statist, totalitarian policy that weakens civilian populations, strengthens the hands of criminals and makes the Left look like a bunch of sissies.

[Peak_Oil]

9. Another pro-gun liberal here

It's so funny. I'm completely against the war in Iraq, but I'm 100% behind the idea of every American citizen being armed and trained in the use of arms. Remember, the Japanese were not particularly happy about invading mainland US territory. Rifle behind every blade of grass, you know?

Semiautomatic rifles are not the weapon of choice for robbery. Very few crimes are committed with those kinds of weapons. I have a rifle that's THIS CLOSE to being an official Assault Rifle. If I changed one thing about the stock it would magically become banned.

[Djinn]

64. mmmm

this might be logical if every AMerican had the same views on politics/freedom/tyranny etc but there seem to be plenty of Americans who beleive that all libruhl "traitors" should be imprisoned right now - what happens when they clash with other armed folk who believe just as strongly that fascists like the aforementioned twats in favour of internment should be punished.

[iverglas]

70. yeaahhh

... there seem to be plenty of Americans who beleive that all libruhl "traitors" should be imprisoned right now ...

And amazingly, they got guns too.

But of course, when the elections are cancelled, or whatever other loony fantasy the firearms enthusiasts harbour comes to pass, all those armed patriots you speak of are going to rise up and join those libruhl traitors in their armed struggle against the tyranny of it all.

Yeaahhh ...

[bigbillhaywood]

90. Then we'll battle it out. But allowing the state to have a monopoly on

arms is just not an option, especially now that our government is moving towards fascism. Disarm the police and the military first, and then we can talk about gun control for the rest of us.

[Sandpiper]

11. Yeah, gun owners protect us from tyranny

Oh no, wait a second. Bush has been running roughshod over the country and the Bill of Rights for the past three and half years and gun owners haven't done shit.

Actually, the biggest gun enthusiasts generally support his policies.

*YAWN*

So much for the armed citizenry leading us in the glorious revolution.

[formernaderite]

60. It's nice to know there are more of us here....

.....when I read the spew of some of the anti-gunners, I think back to how they blamed the Nader voters on losing the election in 2000. Forget the pro-gun backlash.

Sissies is right but I disagree with your statement "there is nothing "liberal" in my view about gun control"....I think "control" is what the republicans stand for, and the left and liberal position advocates the freedom to choose. Gun control has mistakenly become a democratic issue. We should abandon it with full gusto, along with the idiotic war on drugs.

[bigbillhaywood]

79. Bravo. Encore.

"There is nothing "liberal" in my view about gun control. It is a statist, totalitarian policy that weakens civilian populations, strengthens the hands of criminals and makes the Left look like a bunch of sissies."

Well put.

[rinsd]

7. A law based on cosmetics rather than reality....

Other than the large clip ban, the law doesn't make sense.

[DaveSZ]

10. The law didn't stop the DC or Ohio snipers

It's practically useless to be honest.

I think regulating gun shows would be much better, and that would close that avenue felons and terrorists use to get guns.

[rinsd]

13. Agreed...

What makes me laugh is I just watched Cradle 2 Grave, the latest Jet Li/Rapper buddy film. In true Hollywood fashion a .50 cal rifle is used to blow open a vault.

Only in Hollywood!(literally)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. Well how did they come by their guns?

Were laws enforced?

[RoeBear]

152. Has it ever prevented ...

...any crime?

[ThomWV]

14. Has It Ever Occured To Anyone

For the Department of Justice, under a Democratic President, to sit down at a bunch of town-hall type meetings with full representation by the NRA and to simply work out a rational set of gun laws? Even the NRA would not say it was reasonable for the sportsman to have his own tank and no public official could make a case that no guns would be a desirable end either. Six months of meetings and then negotiations leading to agreement and the laws. Put an end to the guns or no guns crap once and for all.

[trof]

19. Well, I just think that's waaay too rational.

I mean...hell..it might work.
THEN where would we be?
;-)

[IronLionZion]

21. There's shitload of stupidity on both sides

We have the gun nuts who think "gun control" means federal agents coming to your house and the liberal douche-bags who perpetuate that message.

If it weren't for moderates this country would go to hell in a hand-basket faster than you can say "sieg heil" or "proletariat"

I'm also firmly pro-gun and would think sensible gun laws could be accepted by everybody if they took a moment to think about it.

[sandnsea]

27. They are

Almost every single NRA type I've talked to personally supports gun laws of one sort or other. But when you try to pin them down and ask them to fix whatever they think is wrong the AWB, every last one of them spins off into gun grabber mode. It's more of that right wing thinking that I just don't get. They have their little issue that excuses them to vote Republican and they're obviously voting Republican because of something else entirely. Do not understand them.

[FeebMaster]

29. The AWB simply isn't fixable.

It tries to "ban" guns that sort of look like machine guns based on things like flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. Anyone with a lick of sense is going to tell you that about five seconds after that law passes the same guns are going to be available sans bayonet lugs and flash suppressors. I say "ban" because in my mind to ban something you've got to at least make buying and selling it illegal. The AWB only bans the manufacture of new "assault weapons" for civilian use. All of the old ones are still around and perfectly legal to own, buy, and sell.

Also, if people are voting for Republicans on the gun issue, they're just fooling themselves. The Republicans have passed gun laws far worse than the AWB.

[iverglas]

38. there you have it

They have their little issue that excuses them to vote Republican and they're obviously voting Republican because of something else entirely.

They gotta have something a little nicer-sounding to say than "I hate women, people of colour, immigrants, poor people and the un-fundie", if'n a political pollster turns up on their doorstep.

The two easiest outs, it strikes me, are "I believe that human life begins at conception" and "I have a right to defend my self/family/froot loops from criminals".

And only a pack of idiots would imagine that promising to outlaw abortion or eliminate the assault weapons ban would actually persuade those folks to vote for a party that doesn't hate women, people of colour, immigrants, poor people and the un-fundie.

[Sandpiper]

31. Liberal douche bags?

What's next? A rant on Feminazis?

[IronLionZion]

49. yup

that's next on my diabolical agenda :eyes: hehe

remember I bashed the gun nuts too. just trying to be fair and balanced :P

[MrBenchley]

118. Amazing what our "pro gun democrats" let slip, isn't it?

Just today there was a long rant about what raw deal David Koresh got from our trigger happy brethren down in the gungeon...replete with nearly every half-witted right wing talking point ever.

[JayS]

32. This actually already happens quite often, though not that often...

...in this administration. I've seen some here praising the success of a program or two that they obviously don't know the background of; if they did they would either say nothing or would find something to pick apart.

There are few Democrats in a prominent position that work with the NRA; most loudly deride them. Kerry himself sounds like he has some sort of anti-NRA Tourette's syndrome. When he wins in November he will likely do the same as Clinton in the gun control area. When that happens, things will go the same way and we will get nothing passed without having to pander to the far right.

[AngryAmish]

44. Handguns are the breaking point

However, Federalism might work in this case.

[truthspeaker]

17. I support two parts of it:

* Limit on magazine capacities

* Limits on how short a firearm (stock + barrel) can be before the gun is classified as a handgun.

[FeebMaster]

25. There are no restrictions on length in the AWB.

The length of rifles and shotguns is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. There is a minimum barrel length of 16" for rifles and 18" for shotguns. Also there is an overall minimum length of 26". Guns under those limits are still legal, but you have to register them and pay a tax.

[trof]

22. I like guns.

There is just something about precision milled, oiled, steel parts that fit together so perfectly <snick>, and work (almost) every time that appeals to my sense of order, or the respect for the inventiveness of man, or something.

I'm not a "gun nut", but I own one. Just a little snub-nosed .38 I've had for years. Given to me when my grandpa died.
I'd like to get another .22 rifle. Used to have a lot of fun plinking and target shooting.

[Don_G]

26. It Always Have Been And Will Be A "Bullshit" Issue

True hunters know the equipment they have, study the area and harvest their catch.

There is no hunter that I know of that will take an AK-47 out in the woods, spray bullets indiscrimately on the "hope" of stuffing a Deer in the trunk of his BMW...and expect to get it out after Rigor Mortis has set in without a chain-saw.

Don't laugh...I've seen it happen.

Better to keep the assholes out, but how do you do that without a fool calling for his lawyer?

[trof]

28. Gun "operator" license. I floated this balloon before.

How would you feel about an operator's/user's license?
You're not registering your gun, if you have one.
You don't even have to necessarily own one.
You just have to pass a basic test on gun safety.
Like getting a driver's license.

You must present it if you want to buy a gun.
Of course it would include a 'background' check.

[slackmaster]

55. As long as its optional and good in all 50 states I'm for it

You don't need a license to keep a car in your garage, so you shouldn't need one to keep a gun in your home.

[IronLionZion]

30. Here's a good site that explains the AWB

The biggest reason liberals support the ban is because they have no idea what it bans. And like a previous poster said, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with machine guns.

http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/

[Sandpiper]

35. It's not a liberal douche-bag site, is it?

Wouldn't want to visit one of those.

[library_max]

37. No, it's a "gun enthusiast" site.

They're the ones who are objective on this subject, after all.

/sarcasm off/

[IronLionZion]

52. only liberal douche-bags are objective!

/sarcasm off/ :eyes:

a simple google search will turn up lots of info, but not much from liberal or non-gun-related sites because they don't give a shit. It's not a big issue for them.

[IronLionZion]

50. are you a liberal douche-bag?

cause if you're an intelligent and sensible liberal then what's the problem? People can be liberal without being douche-bags.

[Sandpiper]

74. Maybe one day I can aspire to be one of those virtuous moderates

Of whom you speak so highly.

Yes, all of the positive steps we've made through the years are the result of moderate positions, like: Independence, Abolition, Voting Rights, Social Welfare, Civil Rights.

Oh no, wait a second, those were liberal douche bag positions.

[library_max]

33. Anyhow, the AWB is perfectly Consitutional.

It has been challenged in court and has held up just fine. In fact, no gun control measure has ever been overturned in court on Second Amendment grounds. The Second Amendment doesn't mean what the NRA wants it to mean.

[Sandpiper]

34. Those who voted for it being unconsitutional

Are appallingly ignorant of the case law regarding the second amendment.

Too much NRA propaganda rots the brain.

[IronLionZion]

54. but liberal propaganda is like spinach to Popeye! eom

[Sandpiper]

73. Acquaint yourself with the cases concerning the Second Amendment

And you'll find to your dismay that they interpret the right to keep and bear arms to be collective, not individual.

Why do you think the NRA doesn't try to get gun laws overturned on Second Amendment grounds?

Could it be perhaps because they know they'd get their ass kicked in court if they tried? Hmmm.

But, easier to spout hyperbole than actually get informed, isn't it?

Better to be an informed liberal douchebag, than an ignoramous by choice.

[OpSomBlood]

40. The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.

The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.
The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.
The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.
The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.
The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.

I know this is annoying and repetitive, but way too many people are misinformed on this issue.

[iverglas]

42. if only

The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns.

You (and anyone else who said it before you) get this week's award:



If you can point to a real person saying such a thing in this thread, I'll revoke your prize.

[OpSomBlood]

45. It is informative, not a reference to anyone here.

There are way too many people who think the AWB applies to machine guns. I'm doing those people a favor and informing them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Just buy all the gun nuts larger, pre-stuffed, jock straps..

Then confiscate their beloved weapons and issue you them an "I am a man" certificate.

On a more serious note: I have a friend who is an avid hunter (a species of being that baffles me) but who would have no problem with storing his gun in an armory and check it out for hunting season.

Why not?

[OpSomBlood]

48. That's an easy and amusing little assesment, isn't it?

Compensating for a small penis. Wow, that's freaking hilarious.

If you don't want a semi-automatic rifle, don't buy one. If you are tired of gun crime, work toward overhauling our criminal justice system so that violent people are taken out of society.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. How do you find the "violent" people?

My father was shot dead by a 15 year old boy wielding a legal weapon who had no criminal record.

Noticed that didn't address the second part of my post. What would be your objection to having your gun stored in an armory until needed?

But, glad you caught the allusion to why a helluva lot of insecure types love their toys. Sorry you seem to have identified with it.

[JayS]

61. Sorry about your father. The boy is part of the group that will...

...always be a problem. The weapon was technically illegal as it was in the hands of a minor, but that is beside the point; some kids are pretty savvy when it comes to acquiring weapons and all too often don't have much of a record before they do something violent. This is part of a deep sociological problem that few are really interested in.

As to the rest, it is relatively rare for someone to go from being Joe Citizen to murderer without some serious steps in between. If we were more serious about these people at an earlier stage, we would have less of a problem. If we were serious about keeping the violent in jail longer, we would really have less of a problem as so many offenders are repeat offenders. The majority of states are now participating in a program that does this and so far the results have been impressive.

As to keeping our weapons stored in an armory...it isn't going to happen. I keep my property where I choose to keep it, within reason. When I really need a weapon, there is not going to be time, except in limited circumstances, to go get one. Criminals will not store their weapons and the police can't always be there for me right away.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Come in contact with a lot of dangerous people, do you?

"When I really need a weapon, there is not going to be time, except in limited circumstances, to go get one."

How often do you need a gun? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Why do you feel that you're goint to "really need a weapon"?

I'm 60 years old. Raised poor. Lived in the ghetto, as a white person. I spent 10 years as a counselor, met very violent people in that capacity. I have never felt the need for a gun. I have never run across a situation that there wasn't an alternative to using a gun.

The boy that killed my father was my brother. Long story, that I don't care to repeat.

I think that you're wrong about the "serious steps" in between. Most of the murders, assaults with guns, that I know of, are usually spontaneous actions deriving out of conflicts and the availability of guns. Usually between "good citizens" with a grudge, or a belly full of booze.

IMO guns are a bane on our society. Other people in other countries seem to get along pretty well without feeling the need to be armed.

[JayS]

72. Unless someone is outwardly hostile, you never know just...

...who you are coming in contact with. Most of the people that I run into that fit this description are drunks, even though I go nowhere near bars. As to when I would actually need a gun, there is no answer to that other than I will need it when I need it. If I knew the exact moment when I would need it, I would not get into the situation to being with.

It wasn't until the mid-80s that I ever considered owning a gun for anything other than hunting and target shooting. We had a different breed of criminal show up that lacked most of the qualities that make us human. Fortunately, we were proactive enough and small enough that this group did not take hold the way they did in other cities.

I do often have a pistol in my truck but mostly just because I sometimes like to stop at the range on my way home. It is nice to have when traveling or carrying cash, but other than that I don't feel much need to have it with me as the places I go are generally safe. I also carry rope, a crowbar, two flashlights, a fire extinguisher, and a first aid kit but rarely have need for them; it doesn't hurt to be prepared.

The violent situations you mention are ones where all parties have at least some degree of control over how violent things get. Sadly, alcohol will be involved in almost every case but since we spend most of our resources fighting the least dangerous drugs and little on our most dangerous ones, this will not change.

Our most serious gun violence here stems from the want of money and/or the drug trade. The people in this category usually have a lengthy criminal record before they become a deadly problem. This group does not respond well to civil laws and must be dealt with in a harsh legal manner. Until this is done, we will keep seeing the same characters over and over again unless by some miracle they reform or they fall victim to their own violent peer group.

Because of the people it contains, my neighborhood is safe. Kids can play outside and walk the streets with little worry. Crime is extremely rare and because of this people can live decent lives. Other areas are not so fortunate and when politicians attempt to "help" by passing laws that target citizens that are not the problem they are not looked upon favorably.

[OpSomBlood]

86. Couldn't have said it better myself.

:toast:

[Character Assassin]

121. I come into contact with a lot of dangerous people

Your assessment is hollow.

Your question about "really needing a weapon" tells me all I need to know.

The boy that killed my father was my brother. Long story, that I don't care to repeat.

So you are coming from a particularly biased position that, in my opinion, renders your opinion suspect, to say the least.

Most of the murders, assaults with guns, that I know of, are usually spontaneous actions deriving out of conflicts and the availability of guns. Usually between "good citizens" with a grudge, or a belly full of booze.

Not in my city.

[iverglas]

128. "biased"?

So you are coming from a particularly biased position that, in my opinion, renders your opinion suspect, to say the least.

I must say how curious I am to know when and how basing one's opinion on FACTS became "bias" that renders one's opinion "suspect". (Suspect of what? I'd have to ask.)

And I must also say that I've seldom seen such a disrespectful and contemptuous thing said to by one person to another hereabouts. But hey, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure it's both biased and suspect.


Most of the murders, assaults with guns, that I know of, are usually spontaneous actions deriving out of conflicts and the availability of guns. Usually between "good citizens" with a grudge, or a belly full of booze.
Not in my city.

Well hey, that plainly makes *your* opinion biased and suspect.

[Character Assassin]

147. Facts? What facts?

You are extrapolating unwarranted assertions based on one personal incident.

Sorry, it doesn't hold up.

[library_max]

149. A personal incident IS a fact.

Unless, of course, you're calling bandera a liar.

It's only one fact, singular, not facts, plural. But it is on the basis of that one fact that you called bandera "biased."

[iverglas]

154. I don't know what you're imagining I'm doing

An individual reported a FACT:

My father was shot dead by a 15 year old boy wielding a legal weapon who had no criminal record.

followed by another FACT:

The boy that killed my father was my brother.

to which you responded:

The boy that killed my father was my brother. Long story, that I don't care to repeat.
So you are coming from a particularly biased position that, in my opinion, renders your opinion suspect, to say the least.

And I'm still at a loss to know WHAT BIAS you are alleging.

People are not "biased" simply because they draw conclusions from observations, fer fuck's sake.

And you haven't even established that the person in question drew a conclusion from the observation you cited as proof of some sort of "bias".

And now you say to ME:

You are extrapolating unwarranted assertions based on one personal incident.
Sorry, it doesn't hold up.

and I can only scratch my head. Did you think that *I* was the person whose father had been killed, to whom you had already been quite sufficiently dismissive and disrespectful?

I don't have a bleeding clue what you're on about. I'm "extrapolating unwarranted assertions based on one personal incident"?? What *I* said was:

I must say how curious I am to know when and how basing one's opinion on FACTS became "bias" that renders one's opinion "suspect". (Suspect of what? I'd have to ask.)

And I must also say that I've seldom seen such a disrespectful and contemptuous thing said to by one person to another hereabouts. But hey, that's just my opinion, and I'm sure it's both biased and suspect.

So I guess that what you need to do is identify what assertion I have "extrapolated" (hey, don't ask me), and establish somehow that it was "unwarranted".

And if in fact you have mistaken me for the person whose father was killed, and your allegation should have been addressed to that person, just feel free to demonstrate what assertion that person has "extrapolated" from what incident, and what's "unwarranted" about it, 'k?

[Massacure]

47. All the firearms laws should be scrapped

Then they should start from scratch and make ones that actually make sense. Then they need to follow through and actually enforce them.

A lot of things need to overhaul in this country, and I don't know why the hell politicians don't like changing things.

[Trajan]

51. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmm

Comin out, so you better get this party started ! ....

HEY ! ... My friends are ALLL here ! ....

THR Gungeon Contingient ready and armed, SIR ! ....

BTW Derby ? .... I had a similar poll about a month ago, as others have off and on over the months as they go by ....

In my poll: which Feeb kept insisting was defective, 75 % agreed that 2 or more of the primary gun regulations, in place or proposed, were appropriate ... This after numerous gungeonites INSISTED that the Democratic Party and DUers were COMEPLETELY AGAINST ANY gun regulations by WIDE margins ....

Some even insisted that IF you dont include Machine Gun, Bazookas and RPG's, Tanks, Destroyers and Aircraft Carriers and MIRV types of weapons into your poll, then you somehow want to LIFT the ban on such weapons ...

This is a silly silly place sometimes ...

[FeebMaster]

53. Yes your poll where most of DU wanted to remove

restrictions on machine guns and all kinds of other stuff. What else would you say "no other restrictions" means?

I believe we covered tanks and various boats in that other thread. Tanks and boats aren't regulated by firearms laws and are, of course, perfectly legal to own.

[Trajan]

57. There you are ....

See Derby ? .. they come out of the woodwork and do my bidding .....

Like Big Ben's squeaky gears ....

[Massacure]

63. You can't drive tanks

Last time I checked they don't have blinkers. :P

[FeebMaster]

65. Not on public roads.

But you can still own them.

[slackmaster]

56. The Assault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns

Or bazookas or RPGs or tanks or any of the other things you mentioned.

[Trajan]

58. No kiddin ? ...

Aw shucks ....

(Pssst: that was my 'Aw shucks' moment for this thread ... )

[derby378]

71. OK, Trajan

For all I know, I may have seen your poll and voted in it. I'm just not sure upfront.

[LiberalTechie1337]

62. Strenghten the ban

[FeebMaster]

66. What about it would you like to strengthen?

What changes would you like made?

[JayS]

67. Lose the election or lose every chance you have of passing...

...any law on anything without having to pander to the extreme right. Shoot yourself in the foot the same way President Clinton did in his first term. Lose more seats in 2006.

Ready? Set? Go?

[OpSomBlood]

82. So far, "strengthen the ban" means "move the magazine"

Look up the Senate and House bills for AWB renewal...the only "strengthening" is altering another cosmetic non-mechanical characteristic.

[taxidriver]

78. good to see all the gungeun folks showing up for support.

[library_max]

81. And yet, even with them, the vote has been 55% or better

in favor of the AWB or something stronger.

[bigbillhaywood]

83. I'd say that's still pretty good given this is a Democratic website.

Given the Party's position on this subject, I would say we pro-gunners have a very strong minority here at DU.

[library_max]

88. Ohhhhh, haven't you heard?

RKBA is a Democratic issue. Only Republicans favor gun controls!

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[bigbillhaywood]

89. Huh?

[FeebMaster]

91. No one has ever said that only Republicans favor

gun control. Just that they've passed most of it in the last few decades. There are plenty of Democratic gun grabbers too.

[FeebMaster]

84. I wonder how many people who voted

think the AWB bans machine guns. I wonder how many have even read the law for that matter.

[OpSomBlood]

85. If you don't want a semi-auto rifle, don't own one.

I'm all for compulsory safety training and even state licensure.

But banning the manufacture of a type of weapon based on non-mechanical cosmetic characteristics (when such weapons are used in about 2% of gun crimes) isn't going to do a damn thing to reduce gun crime.

It didn't stop Columbine and it didn't stop the Beltway Snipers. It is impotent legislation designed to prey on fears rather than rational analysis of reality.

[slackmaster]

87. As with all AWB polls, this one lacks a validity check

The results should be taken with a healthy dose of salt.

[library_max]

136. Yes, non-RKBA opinions were also permitted.

I guess that does damage the validity, for some.

[slackmaster]

139. Are you clear on the concept of validity checks?

A validity check ensures that people responding to your survey actually understand the subject.

I know from experience that a lot of people really don't have a clue about the AWB.

[library_max]

142. And by an amazing coincidence,

those people who "don't have a clue about the AWB" are all people who disagree with you. Right?

Man oh man. I guess if your opinions are all facts, then people who don't agree with you must not understand the subject - QED. Must be nice to be an RKBAer and have all your opinions be facts.

[slackmaster]

144. I made no such assertion

I'm sure there are people who presently oppose the AWB but have no clue what it means. Perhaps some of them would support it if they understood the issues. What I've actually said was that the surveys I've seen are poorly designed, so the results are of questionable value. Surveys that are intended for hard scientific scrutiny always include validity checks to ensure that the results actually mean something.

Man oh man. I guess if your opinions are all facts, then people who don't agree with you must not understand the subject - QED. Must be nice to be an RKBAer and have all your opinions be facts.

Keep slinging straw if it makes you happy.

[library_max]

148. So, tell me -

is there a poll anywhere on DU that would meet your criteria for "validity checks"? And if not, how many of those other polls have you posted to complain about?

I'm prepared to be proved wrong in my assumption that you're just condemning a poll because you don't like the results. But I'm not prepared to just take your word for it.

[slackmaster]

160. Validity checks aren't always needed

If a survey is about a subject that respondents can be safely assumed to understand, such as their own personal favorite color or what kind of car they drive or how old they are or their marital status, a validity check is not important.

I focus on the AWB polls because I am well aware that a lot of people don't understand the subject. Calling for a validity check is a very common academic critique of information-gathering processes, by no means limited to surveys.

I'm prepared to be proved wrong in my assumption that you're just condemning a poll because you don't like the results. But I'm not prepared to just take your word for it.

I don't give a rat's behind about the results. I don't dislike the results any more than I care about what kind of breakfast cereal people eat. It's the underlying ignorance that bothers me. I feel obligated to inform people that the results are of limited value because I happen to care about the subject and I enjoy bringing knowledge into the mix here.

[library_max]

163. So only polls about the AWB require validity checks.

And you only felt called upon to point this out after I pointed out that your side is behind in the poll.

Well. Thanks for clearing that up. Don't know where I could have got the idea that you were biased.

[slackmaster]

166. Must you ALWAYS respond with another Straw Man argument?

"So only polls about the AWB require validity checks."

Obviously that is not what I said.

Don't know where I could have got the idea that you were biased.

I have NEVER claimed to be unbiased. I'm strongly biased toward logical, rational analysis of issues that interest me. As I've pointed out many times, gun laws could affect my gun collection and therefore my personal finances.

And you only felt called upon to point this out after I pointed out that your side is behind in the poll.

max, would you be even slightly interested at all in seeing what level of understanding of the actual issues underlies those results?

I encourage you to go to http://www.kqed.org/ and click on the first item under "Interactive Features". It's pretty interesting IMO.

[library_max]

168. Post after post of vehement denials - the stuff of credibility.

Gee, guess I must have been wrong. Because if I'd been right, you probably would have got upset, or something.

[slackmaster]

172. Did you look at the survey on the KQED site?

n/t

[library_max]

175. No, because it's irrelevant.

Gun propaganda doesn't interest me.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

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

[library_max]

177. "You'll just have to take our word for it."

Why in the world would I do that?

I did go and look at it, by the way. I just didn't take the quiz. It's just another "Is this an assault weapon?" tripe site.

[slackmaster]

179. LMAO!!!

It's just another "Is this an assault weapon?" tripe site.

KQED is an assault weapon tripe site?

None of the animated smilies are laughing hard enough to express how ridiculous your statement sounds, max.

[library_max]

182. So now you're using MrBenchley's tactic

of laughing instead of replying?

[slackmaster]

184. Here's another Benchleyism for you

I gave your post exactly the reply it deserved.

:evilgrin:

I'm not the one claiming that the NPR radio station in San Francisco is pro-gun.

[slackmaster]

178. How do you know it's "gun propaganda" when you haven't read it?

FYI, KQED is an NPR radio station in San Francisco. It's hardly a pro-RKBA site.

[RoeBear]

186. Don't confuse LibraryMax...

...with the facts. It's too confusing.

I'm wondering if you'll get an apology from him/her after s/he reads the site you linked to.

[slackmaster]

187. About as likely as I'll get one out of Merlin

For calling me insane when I tried to correct HIS glaring misunderstandings about the AWB.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1894330&mesg_id=1899720

[RoeBear]

188. Wow!

"One more thing, please stop with this crap about how an assault weapon is "just a semiautomatic gun." That is pure balderdash and you know it. An assault weapon, like an AK or an M16 is NOT just a semi-automatic. It is capable of firing in BURSTS. And that is the difference between an assault weapon and a typical semi-automatic. You gun nuts always try to play games with this. Please don't even bother. Most of us on this board are wise to that little ruse."

Does anyone on the anti side want to correct this person? Or do you believe what he says to be true?

[library_max]

190. Desperation. Des - per - ay' - shun. Noun.

Digging up a post from almost a month ago to deflect attention from being busted over whining about a poll because your side is losing.

[slackmaster]

193. Almost a full month and no apology from Merlin yet

Do you agree with Merlin or not? There's really no in-between.

Whether or not my "side" "wins" or "loses" will become abundantly clear to everyone on September 13.

[slackmaster]

192. I know what some of them might say

"Given the choice of taking Merlin's word or yours..."

:dunce:

Here's another highly informed individual speaking in favor of renewing the ban. East Pikeland, PA Police Chief James Franciscus, who serves as Chester County Police Chiefs Association financial secretary:

"If the ban is lifted, people will be able to purchase fully automatic weapons, and they will be able to use those automatic weapons," he said. "It could jeopardize the lives of the public or police officers or others."

:argh:

[library_max]

189. When you guys stumble across an actual fact, please let us know.

The site you're making such a fuss about asks if you favor the AWB. If you say you do, it trots out propaganda explaining why the AWB is bad. It continues to do so even after you've responded in favor of the AWB for the third time. Amazingly, the end responses (the poll refuses to record your response until you've read all the propaganda) are 5% in favor and 95% against the AWB - proof that propaganda and bully-tactics work, surprise surprise. This is very much like the "pro-life" tactic of providing "information" to pregnant mothers (and forcing them to listen to it) with the end in view of arguing or bullying them out of having abortions.

[slackmaster]

195. Have you tried telling it you oppose the AWB?

In case you're scared to try it, here's what it does: If you say you oppose the AWB, it trots out propaganda explaining why the AWB is good. It continues to do so even after you've responded in opposition to the AWB for the third time.

Amazingly, the end responses (the poll refuses to record your response until you've read all the propaganda) are 5% in favor and 95% against the AWB - proof that logic and reason sometimes prevail, surprise surprise. :D

In all seriousness my opinion is the poll is pretty much useless as are all Internet polls, or any other poll where respondents select themselves rather than being chosen at random from the general population. Only people who feel strongly about the issue are likely to take the time to respond.

[library_max]

196. Great. Now all we need to know

is exactly how this site changes the fact that you called the poll in this thread "meaningless" and "useless" because it allowed people to vote who are "unschooled" enough to disagree with you and support the AWB.

[slackmaster]

197. Once again you have mischaracterized what I said

I said I believe that part of the reason a majority of people respond to polls in support the AWB is that so many people don't understand it. We see clear evidence of that misunderstanding every day.

I thought the KQED site's effort to present a balanced view was commendable. Survey results notwithstanding, they presented two different viewpoints in a creative and original manner. They could have simply posted bulleted lists of pro and con points, but they went the extra mile and at least tried to come up with something a little more engaging for the reader. I believe KQED's editorial staff is heavily biased in favor of the AWB based on their track record on gun control issues. At least they made an honest effort to present an alternative POV.

[slackmaster]

198. FOLLOWUP on the KQED assault weapons poll...

There's another copy of the exact same poll at http://www.kqed.org/topics/news/# - an area of the KQED Web site that may be more likely to be of interest to San Francisco Bay Area locals.

Presently the results are about 55% in favor of the ban, with about 800 total votes recorded.

[bigbillhaywood]

96. Question for the anti-gunners here:

Which figure do you think would be higher?:

1. The number of unjustifiable killings by privately armed US citizens?

2. The number of unjustifiable killings by adjuncts of the State (the military and police)?

Now, as a follow-up, who do you think it makes most sense to disarm first?

[library_max]

114. I think it makes the most sense

to disarm people who seem hell-bent on shooting cops first. That way at least we'll have a society of laws instead of a caricature of the Old West.

[Jack_DeLeon]

130. If stopping people from shooting cops is what you want to do...

then maybe you should start with banning handguns instead of rifles.

[MrBenchley]

115. Gee, Bill....

I think that's the silliest question yet...there's an average of 30,000 Americans killed with guns per year, and all but a tiny handful are done by ordinary schmoes who just HAD to have a gun....

[bigbillhaywood]

151. And how many people does the US government kill every year

either through police or military actions, or through CIA-funded, trained and equipped proxy wars? We also happen to have the highest incarceration rate in the world. An alarmingly high rate of Black Americans are locked up in our racist gulag system. The Drug War is oppressing and killing people from Dorchester, MA to Colombia. Our government is run by corporations and they are actively engaging in a war against the poor and working-class in this country, from busting unions to cutting social programs. Our system is rotten to the core.

And you are essentially arguing that the people of America should organize and advocate that this corporate tyranny, that has increasing been moving towards a out-and-out fascist state in the last few years, should have a monopoly on firearms. Okay.

Well let me ask you this, MrBenchley-- if we had a democratic economy, where people got what they needed and there was no need for an underground criminal economy, and if we had a society based on the principles of equality and democracy rather than greed, then do you really think we'd have as many incidents of gun violence?

These issues are what I would prefer to organize around. When we get those fixed, I will be pleased to talk of disarming the populace, but not before.

[Gord]

201. 30,000

That includes 15,000 suicides, and another thousand that are ok.

So 13,000 murders. More are stabbed than that.

Frankly, the anti-gun hysteria crowd needs to get a clue on the real numbers! And put it in perspective above all!

[Endangered Specie]

97. Im not entirely sure what the AWB does, but my Idea of a gun law...

would be to outlaw automatic fire mode, on Sub-MG, MG and, Assault Rifles, with some exceptions for collectors pieces. 2,3 burst modes could be allowed though.

[FeebMaster]

99. All automatic weapons have been regulated and registered

since 1934 both full-auto and select fire. Further, in 1986, Reagan signed a law stating that all full-auto and select fire weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986 could not be transfered to civilians effectively freezing the legal civilian supply somewhere around a quarter million.

They are very expensive to legally own now, since the supply is frozen. Plus the hassle involved in buying them which involves getting permission from local law enforcement, some paperwork, finger prints, passport photos, a $200 tax for each transfer, and waiting.

[Endangered Specie]

102. OK, thanks for the info.

[FeebMaster]

104. Glad to help. (nt)

[bigbillhaywood]

107. If you support gun control, you are anti-union.

A short, short list of labor disputes in which adjuncts of the State (police, military or gov't/company supported paramilitaries or private police forces) used armed force against strikers/labor activists:

Great Strike of 1877*
Eight-hour general strikes 1886
Pullman strike/boycott 1896
Homestead Steel Strike of 1897**
Steel Strikes of 1912 and 1921
Seattle General Strike 1919*
Lawrence Mill Strike 1912
West Virginia Coal Wars 1920-1921**
Toldeo Rubber Strike 1934
San Franscico General Strike 1934**
Minneapolis General Strike 1934**
Little Steel Strike 1936
Detroit and Akron UAW/URW sitdowns 1936-7
Great Strike Wave of 1946-7
Harlan County Coal Strike 1973**
Pittston Coal Strike 1987**
Charleston Port Strike 2000

* Indicates strikers used armed self-defense. ** Indicates strikers used armed self defense and secured victory in strike.

[MrBenchley]

112. Who the HELL do you think you're kidding?

By the way, the AFL-CIO, the ILGWU and the NEA all ended up on the NRA's enemies list.

[bigbillhaywood]

119. That's because the NRA is infested with reactionary

assholes. That's why I quit them several years back. But you can't discredit all gun-rights advocates on the basis of what the NRA says. Pat Buchanan was the main politico (or at least the most high-profile one) a while back attacking "free trade" agreements. Now Buchanan is a right-wing reactionary bigot-- but he just happened to be right on this issue (even if it was for all the wrong reasons). That doesn't discredit progressives who were fighting against the same thing.

[iverglas]

113. yeah, yeah, yeah

"* Indicates strikers used armed self-defense.
** Indicates strikers used armed self defense and
secured victory in strike."

And BS indicates when someone is wanting someone else to believe that "A" is a cause of "B" without bothering to prove the claim. Were not some of those unarmed strikers successful too? I do believe they were. So hmm, am I seeing even a correlation?

If I weren't so bored, I might go find a list of the names of trade union members, trade union members' spouses, trade union members' children, trade union members' parents ... who have been killed or maimed by bullets, and then tag them:

* indicates trade union members (or family/friends) who have been killed or maimed by bullets
** indicates trade union members (or family/friends) who think that their collective right to self-defence somehow means that there should be no restriction on access to firearms and private possession of firearms

Heck, I might even ask an actual trade union for an opinion. Here we go:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Supporters.html

Supporters of the <Canadian> Coalition for Gun Control
Currently the position of the Coalition for Gun Control is endorsed by over 350 organizations including: ...

Canadian Auto Workers <counterpart of UAW>
Canadian Labour Congress <counterpart of AFL-CIO>
Canadian Teacher's Federation
Canadian Union of Public Employees <non-govt public sector>
National Union of Public and General Employees <govt/non-govt public sector>

Hmm. And what do the opponents of firearms control in Canada think of trade union members?
http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/Archives/Digests/v04n001-099/v04-n067.txt

In Canada, the New Democratic Party is the party originally formed by a merger between the Cooperative Commonwealth Party and the Canadian Labour Congress. I belong to it. It has broad trade union support at the national level. Here's some info from a survey of its members.

http://www.mta.ca/faculty/socsci/polisci/scppm/ndp_frequency_report11.pdf

4a) Do you currently belong to any interest groups or political action groups
Yes - 34.8%
No - 65.2%

<I can't tell why from that document, but the same question seems to have been asked several times with different results; these are the relevant responses>

14b) If yes, which one(s)?
- Hand Gun Associations/National Firearms Association - 0.5%
- Coalition for Gun Control - 2.4%

14e) If yes, which one(s)?
- Coalition for Gun Control - 5.0%

Some trade unionists/social democrats just aren't getting the message, it seems.

What's the trade union movement in Canada saying about gun control?

http://action.web.ca/home/clcadmin/en_alerts.shtml?x=56756
(news release)

14 April 04
In the Voting Booth... a Better Choice
OTTAWA -

Today, the Canadian Labour Congress launches the unprecedented pre-election Campaign for a Better Choice: a series of radio ads and a web site: www.betterchoice.ca. The campaign will provide all workers with the information they need to make their voices heard, set the agenda and to get out to vote for the issues that matter to them, their families and their communities.

"When it comes to politics and government, across the country, over and over again, workers are asking: what about our issues? or when will we see decisions that are relevant to us, our families or our communities?" explains Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

... Says Georgetti: "We hear so much about gun control, military spending or high level friendships with the president of the United States. These are important issues, but what about accessible health care, pension protection, job security, job creation, training, fair trade and many others? Workers' issues are also vote-determining issues."

Gun control = not a workers' issue, y'see. A RIGHT-WING ISSUE, harped on by the far right wing party.

Here's an interesting one:
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/grassroots_global/events/03eng.pdf

New Brunswick Solidarity Assembly 2003
building a strong and diverse social justice movement

... HOW TO DESIGN A CAMPAIGN: MYTH, REALITY, VALUE

The late Bill Moyer said that successful campaigns use widely-held values in society as a lever to unmask the reality that the social myths try to hide. We can use the myths, secret realities, and values of issues to design campaigns.

- "What is the myth operating in our society regarding this issue?"
-- For instance, on the issue of gun control, the prevalent myth is "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"

- "What is the secret reality which is disguised by this myth?"
-- The reality is that the more widely available guns are, the more people get killed

- "What widely-held value in our society is relevant to the myth and secret reality?"
-- Life is the main value we can work with: "Living is better than being killed"

So, all in all, it looks like the trade union movement, where I'm at, is pretty solidly in line behind firearms control. I have little doubt that you'd find the same to be true in the UK and Australia, just f'r instance.

And you might want to ponder the fact that, where I'm at, and in Australia and the UK, there actually is a trade union movement. And there have been some mighty successful strikes.

And then you could ponder the importance I place on the opinion of someone who says -- to ME, because I SUPPORT GUN CONTROL ... and I've also run for office several times as a representative of the party of trade unionism in Canada -- "If you support gun control, you are anti-union". And what I might suggest s/he fruitfully do with that opinion.

[bigbillhaywood]

116. I have no interest in what the bureaucrats and autocrats of

buisness unionism think. We've got more conservative labor misleaders nowadays than we have true union fighters. The IAM leadership endorsed the Iraq War-- does this mean that supporting the War is a pro-labor position? The AFL-CIO was silent on the war, as they were when US troops raided the HQ of the Iraqi Frederation of Trade Unions, wrecked their office and arrested leaders of the Union of Unemployed. Unions often allow their members to cross other unions' picket lines-- does this make scabbing okay? Unions bungle strikes, sell out their members, endorse conservatives, engage in racist practices-- they are no more immune to making mistakes than anyone else.

Union leaders do fucked up things all the time-- sometimes for selfish reasons, sometimes out of cowardice, sometimes out of having their heads up their asses. So your presentation of unions' "official" positions is no evidence at all in my book. These policy decisions are misguided. The people making these decisions in an effort to be in coalition with other "liberals" and "progressives" are ignoring the history of armed self-defense in labor struggle.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[bigbillhaywood]

120. Just can't help yourself, Benchley...

from immediately jumping into personal attacks on the person you disagree with, I guess? Let me guess, you'll retort with some sort of arrogant and incendiary post.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

126. Woo. Git yr USAmerican ethnocentrism here, folks!

I have no interest in what the bureaucrats and autocrats of
buisness unionism think. We've got more conservative labor
misleaders nowadays than we have true union fighters.

Bully for you. Or whatever. You may have noticed that I wasn't talking about YOUR labour leaders.

The AFL-CIO was silent on the war, as they were when US
troops raided the HQ of the Iraqi Frederation of Trade Unions,
wrecked their office and arrested leaders of the Union of Unemployed.

Yeah, I just knew that when I said that the CLC was the "counterpart" of the AFL-CIO, somebody was gonna interpret that as meaning that the CLC was a big bad corrupt right-wing thingy. Oh well, I guess my hope that the gentle reader would realize that I plainly meant that simply it was the national union central was just silly. Over 8% of the Cdn population as a whole (2.5 out of 30 million -- i.e., a much larger percentage of the labour force) belongs to CLC-affiliate unions.

Gee, I wonder what we have here.

http://www.workrights.ca/News/News+11703.htm?page=1%2F20%2F2003+6%3A39%3A59+PM&Prev10=

Friday.January 17.2003
Canadian Labour Congress

OTTAWA (CNW) - Canadian labour voices will join the activities scheduled in Halifax, Fredericton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and many other communities on Saturday, January 18th, the Cross-Canada Day of Action Against the War on Iraq. In preparation for that day, Marie Clarke Walker, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress released the following statement:

On August 20, 2002, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, Ken Georgetti stated, in a news release, that "Canadian workers are watching with growing disbelief the U.S. government's preparations for a full-scale attack against Iraq and they want nothing to do with it." Five months later it is with dismay and disapproval that we receive the words of the Canadian Minister of Defence, John McCallum, who, at a meeting with his American counterpart, half-promises that Canada might participate in their war with or without the endorsement or involvement of the United Nations.

On behalf of the 2.5 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress and on behalf of the large majority of Canadians, the labour movement says a clear: No to the war against Iraq. Working families do NOT want to go to war in Iraq just to give George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their corporate friends even more control of the world's oil supply! ...

Gosh, just look at those "bureaucrats and autocrats of business unionism" go. Eh?

I marched in several demonstrations during the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, in the winter of 2003, alongside Canadian Union of Public Employees members and their banner, and numerous groups like them. CUPE is the largest union in Canada, I believe.

http://www.cupe.ca/index.php/whycupepeace

Labour Against the War

Chomsky Speaks to 25,000 in Vancouver ...

The members of Local 273 of the International Longshoremen's Association voted to refuse to move, load or help ship any cargo bound for war in the Middle East. ...

Canadian Union of Postal Workers - Resolution Against War on Iraq

Canadian Labour Congress - The Canadian Labour Congress statement opposing war with Iraq. CLC statement

FTQ - A report from Quebec's largest labour federation (FTQ) on Quebec union mobilization against the war in Iraq (in french).
La FTQ salue le succès des manifestations contre la guerre en Irak

CUPE BC - On February 15 2003, CUPE's pink flags fluttered overhead as national president Judy Darcy, CUPE BC secretary-treasurer Colleen Jordan and Hospital Employee's Union president Fred Muzin led members through the city. CUPE BC Rallies against war

(and more)

Unions bungle strikes, sell out their members, endorse conservatives, engage in racist practices-- they are no more immune to making mistakes than anyone else.

Maybe yours do, sweetie. Out here in the civilized world, things are different. And I was not talking about yours, you may have noticed.

So your presentation of unions' "official" positions is no evidence at all in my book. These policy decisions are misguided. The people making these decisions in an effort to be in coalition with other "liberals" and "progressives" are ignoring the history of armed self-defense in labor struggle.

Too bad you don't have a fucking clue what yer talking about, isn't it just?

The same unions (and union "officials") that LOUDLY OPPOSED both the USAmerican invasion of Iraq and any Canadian participation in it, and also loudly and firmly stand up for women's rights, decent and affordable childcare for working families, Canadians' right to universal health care, and all that good stuff, ALSO FIRMLY SUPPORT Canada's firearms control measures.

So it's pretty obvious that your opinions about the whole matter are, well, let's just say somewhere considerably below "misguided".

You called ME "anti-union", and that's a big fat old untrue statement. You called the leadership of the Canadian unions I cited, as being members of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control, "bureaucrats and autocrats" and their policy decisions "misguided", and that's the sort of statement that really just kinda makes its maker look like a ninny with little regard for facts, let alone truth or civility, and devoid of even a modicum of respect or humility.

These union "officials" are elected by their membership, and they oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq, oppose right-wing govt. fiscal and social policies, support the national social democratic party, and support firearms control. I hope that this does not cause your brain to explode as it tries to assimilate and integrate such an obvious impossibility. But I assume that you will just continue to assert the superiority of your own opinions. And in that case: like I wuz saying; no respect or humility.

This "history of armed self-defense in labor struggle" is quite simply of the most supreme irrelevance to the present situation in Canada and every other place where decent people accept and assume responsibility for the state of their societies rather than abdicating it in favour of joining the armed loon brigade.

And what a bizarre coincidence it is that we out here in those places are also the ones with universal healthcare, humane social programs, solid guarantees of minority rights, and an overall level of decency and tolerance and mutual respect that has simply never been seen, and is growing even dimmer on the horizon, in the USofA.

Perhaps you really do care about those things. Colour me not very convinced.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[bigbillhaywood]

159. It's called criticism of union leadership, Mr Benchley, not "bashing

unions" Maybe if you had spent years as a union member and organizer as I have and seen all the divisiveness, conservatism, selfishness and bone-headed stunts I have you could appreciate the difference. I've seen some truly tragic things occur due to the errors of union leadership, and I would be a fool to remain silent about it. I think the Canadian unions iverglas speaks of are wrong on gun control, too, so I'm saying so.

And I see you still can't refrain from unwarranted personal attacks. How many people do you think you will convince with this attitude?

[iverglas]

153. peekaboo, i c u, bigbillhaywood

There you are, posting elsewhere in the dungeon. I've been waiting anxiously. I do hope you're not going to spend all night engaging in that diversionary grooming and dancing with everybody but me.

You said some stuff. It was, um, not all that accurate. And in its inaccuracy, it falsely represented both me and the leaders of Canadian trade unions. Wanna deal with it?

[bigbillhaywood]

155. I posted a reply to your 132 a little while ago. Respond to that one

first, then we can talk about union stuff if you like.

[iverglas]

157. Oh dear. No.

We won't be setting terms here, thank you very much.

Your allegations about the anti-union-ness of firearms control supporters in general, and of Canadian trade unions in particular (how does this sentence even make sense??), were made spontaneously and not in response to anything I said. They're all yours. Your obligation to substantiate or retract them has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have said about collective rights, or anything else.

Perhaps your post wasn't meant to carry quite the peremptory overtones that came across on this side of the monitor. I hope not.

Me, in any event, I'm off for dinner.

[bigbillhaywood]

161. My point was unions, like any human institution/organization, make

mistakes. Perhaps Candadian unions make fewer mistakes on some of the issues I mentioned. But on gun control, I do believe this is a fundamental mistake. As far as your specific point of...

" Me--Unions bungle strikes, sell out their members, endorse conservatives, engage in racist practices-- they are no more immune to making mistakes than anyone else.

You--Maybe yours do, sweetie. Out here in the civilized world, things are different. And I was not talking about yours, you may have noticed."

Please don't try to tell me Canadian unions don't bungle strikes or negotiate sell-out or sweetheart deals. You can find unions anywhere on the globe that do that shit.

Finally, and most importantly, as to my original post: "If you support gun control, you are anti-union". I admit using hyperbole in the title to attract some attention on this rather long thread. I will readily admit that just because you support gun control does not make you anti-union. The point is that history shows the State will use armed force to break strikes, and that workers have often engaged in armed self-defense of their picket lines and in instances, though certainly not always, this allowed the workers to keep production shut down long enough to leverage a strike victory. Legislating and enforcing stricter gun control will make these weapons less readily available to the working-class, thus eliminating the option of armed self-defense for strikers.

Strike, picket line, and picket captains are all military terms. A strike is basically class war on a small scale. Strikers should be prepared to shut down production and defend their picket lines by any means necessary, because the employers and their State agents will try to break the strike by any means necessary.

Now one could argue that most of the labor violence was in the past and unlikely to return. I would argue against that. The current state of labor relations is rapidly regressing to an earlier time, both in the US, as well as in the industrialized nations under US economic hegemony. And developing nations-- shit they're already there. Try telling Colombian unionists, scores murdered regularly, that they should be unarmed. As for North America, the lack of labor violence is due in large part to the lack of strikes and less vigorous defense of picket lines by strikers (I've been on plenty of picket lines where scabs were let through, because the union chiefs didn't want confrontation with the police-- 90% of those strikes ended in failure). Should a strike wave occur in the US like the 1930s, you can bet the labor violence will return. Can anyone doubt that if UPS struck now like they did in 1997, that Bush would invoke Taft-Hartley, and use US troops to break the strike? (an academic question, since the contract is not up until 2008, and since that bum Hoffa doesn't have the brains or stones to pull it off)

Hopefully this explains my position better than the incendiary "If you support gun control, you are anti-union". Care to respond?

[GoneOffShore]

123. Time to go to the British system

Make it as difficult, or moreso, to get a firearm, as it is to get a drivers license. The corollary, of course, is to disarm the police as well.

[bigbillhaywood]

124. Well, it's actually a lot more difficult to get a firearm legally than

to get a driver's license, depending on the state and type of firearm. Some states/municipalities make it next to impossible to own a handgun legally.

But your point about disarming the police in any gun-control scenario is well taken and maybe if more gun-control advocates seemed to care about such procedural safeguards, I might be more sympathetic to their cause.

Unfortunately, most gun-control advocates don't get that what they are proposing amounts to giving the State a monopoly on firearms-- and it is a State that has shown time and time again that it is willing to use its arms against its own citizens when State or corporate interests are threatened in the least.

[GoneOffShore]

125. Thanks for that

as I expected to be flamed for my post.
I'm a firm believer in disarmament (sp?), but it is a case of horses for courses. I wouldn't expect someone who lives in rural situation NOT to have a gun, or some means to defend themselves from the wilderness, or the errant bad guy who shows up. Urban situations are different. Too many chances of innocent bystanders getting shot - another reason why I don't think cops should have guns.

[8-Ball]

127. Why does a person need an assault weapon?

I like the law, but I think it can be a little stricter.

[FeebMaster]

129. What changes would you like made? (nt)

[T Town Jake]

134. So this finally got moved down here, huh?...

...since I already voted, and others have already stated more eloquently than I could the truth about this silly law, I'll say nothing. Other than...Gawd I can't wait to buy my first very-own honest-to-Goodness Israeli-manufactured Uzi...

[library_max]

137. And it's still running 57% in favor of the ban or something stronger! /nt

[slackmaster]

138. Once again, the poll lacks a validity check and is therefore meaningless

Or at best useless.

[library_max]

143. Yeah, they keep letting just anybody vote,

whether they agree with slackmaster or not. How utterly invalid.

[slackmaster]

145. Straw Man fallacy

Definitely NOT what I said.

[library_max]

150. Answered in #148, plus the following.

A reasonable assumption based on the evidence at hand is not a straw man. You condemn this poll for a characteristic it shares with every other poll on DU (in fact, pretty much every other poll on any political issue anywhere), and you expect me not to assume that it's because you don't agree with the outcome? It's straw man unless you actually said in so many words, "A poll isn't valid unless I agree with the results"? Come on!

[slackmaster]

158. I have special knowledge about the issue

A reasonable assumption based on the evidence at hand is not a straw man.

No, your post was a straw man because you have made a mistaken assumption about what's going on inside of my head and presented it as a factual representation of my position. I'm TELLING you why I don't take the survey results seriously, yet you keep insisting that you know better than I do what I'm thinking. It's almost as if you are accusing me of being dishonest. FWIW I do oppose the AWB. I've said so openly many, many times; but I know the difference between criticizing a survey because it's poorly designed and criticizing it because I don't like the results. Actually the results don't bother me at all because I know the survey deals with a subject that is not well understood by a significant portion of the population.

I know for a fact that lots of people are clueless about what an AW is and what the AWB does and what it does not do. Therefore a validity check is much more important in a survey about attitudes about the AWB than it would be in a survey about brands of beer. People don't know a whole lot about beer but they do know what they buy and drink. Regarding AWs, major misunderstandings are very common.

[library_max]

164. So all the other polls on DU are about brands of beer?

Survey says - NO, they aren't.

There's no significant difference between the AWB poll on this thread and dozens of other polls on other threads currently active on DU. The standard "Do you support or oppose X" format is standard.

It speaks, at the very least, to an extraordinary narrowness of view that you would think that an AWB poll, and only an AWB poll, should be restricted to those who can quote chapter and verse of gun and gun law arcana. Except that you have to factor that in with the fact that you withheld your critique of the poll (notwithstanding having posted previously on the thread) until it was pointed out that your side has been losing from the start. That evokes the unmistakable odor of sour grapes.

Me? Accuse RKBAers of being disingenuous? Naw, most of you guys are as honest as the day is long - Dec. 21 on the North Pole, to be exact.

[slackmaster]

167. I've already explained why AWB polls are unusual

Here it is one more time:

Because ignorance about what the AWB actually does and does not cover is widespread. We see it EVERY TIME the subject comes up.

Here's an example - Merlin just doesn't get it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1894330&mesg_id=1894330&page=

And another - A well-known Gungeonite who often has a lot to say proves that HE doesn't know the difference between an AW and a machinegun:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=55681&mesg_id=55811&page=

Now, if either Merlin or the other contributor says he supports the AWB, why should either be taken seriously?

[library_max]

169. I stand by my earlier conclusions.

I think I've supported them pretty persuasively.

You guys have to get over the idea that anyone who can't quote as much gun arcana as you is "ignorant" and has no right to an opinion on gun controls. Gun arcana just isn't all that important to people who are not in love with guns. And yet we still vote and are still allowed to post on DU, even in the Gungeon.

[slackmaster]

170. You are misconstruing everything I've written

You guys have to get over the idea that anyone who can't quote as much gun arcana as you is "ignorant" and has no right to an opinion on gun controls.

I've never written any such thing. I challenge you to find any post where I have used the word "ignorant" to describe anyone on DU or said that anyone has no right to an opinion about gun controls or anything else, ever.

At least you are consistent.

[library_max]

174. You didn't say "ignorant" and Bush didn't say "imminent."

But you DID say that the poll at the top of this thread is invalid because people can vote without proving to your satisfaction that they know the details of the AWB. Anybody who reads this subthread can see that. And there's no significant distinction. You're just trying to cover up by quibbling about semantics.

But again, thank goodness you didn't take this little bit of criticism seriously, or anything. That might have been taken as proof that you know it's true.

[slackmaster]

180. I did NOT say the poll was invalid!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said it lacks a VALIDITY CHECK.

I am making a very standard academic challenge to the QUALITY of the results.

You're just trying to cover up by quibbling about semantics.

Maybe you've never been properly schooled in experimental design and analysis. I'm just presenting a challenge. I personally believe many of the people who respond in support of the AWB might not know what they're talking about. I COULD BE WRONG. But from the survey presented we can't tell.

I know for sure that the chief of the East Pikeland, PA police doesn't understand it.

http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12390404&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17782&rfi=6

[library_max]

181. More semantic quibbles.

You said the poll was "meaningless," and "useless" because it didn't have a validity check. Wow, that's really different from saying that the poll is invalid - NOT. And, of course, nobody could possibly take your statements that people who disagree with you have "never been properly schooled" and "might not know what they're talking about" to mean that you think we're ignorant. All the difference in the world, I'm sure - NOT.

No poll on DU has the kind of check you're talking about, but why let that deter your rant? Oh, and hey, we're up to twelve consecutive exclamation points now! Just think how upset you'd be if you actually thought I had a valid point.

[slackmaster]

183. If you'd just take what I say at face value without adding your own spin

You might start to understand me better.

And, of course, nobody could possibly take your statements that people who disagree with you have "never been properly schooled" and "might not know what they're talking about" to mean that you think we're ignorant.

You either don't understand the concept of validity checks or you are being deliberately obtuse IMO.

[library_max]

185. I understand what "meaningless" and "useless" mean.

And I know a lame attempt to CYA when I see one.

[iverglas]

165. Does no one know what a straw person argument is???

No, your post was a straw man because you have made a mistaken assumption about what's going on inside of my head and presented it as a factual representation of my position.

That's not a straw person argument!!!

A straw person argument consists of making something up, putting it in someone else's mouth, and then demolishing it (as if it were made of straw, y'see).

All that was done here was to offer a hypothetical reason WHY you said what you said. Or perhaps to "translate" what you said in order to find its "real" meaning.

That is NOT a straw person argument.

Is it a straw person argument every time el_gato "translates" what MrBenchley says and says that the "real" meaning is "I'm a fascist"? No!!

It's just a flat out misrepresentation. It isn't a pretence at demolishing someone else's argument by inventing a different argument, pretending it belonged to that person, and smiting it down.

Call the allegation that your opinion of the poll is based on its results and not its methodology a misrepresentation of your position if you like, or an unsubstantiated allegation for which no proof can possibly be offered, but don't dress it up as a scarecrow. There isn't even any benefit to be gained by doing that in this case!

iverglas, whose eyes bleed from misuse of words and phrases, regardless of perpetrator or target

and who has a tendency to leave words out when she writes ...

[library_max]

191. Except that it's not a misrepresentation, and proof has been offered.

But thanks for clarifying what straw man does and does not mean.

[iverglas]

194. righty-o!

"Except that it's not a misrepresentation, and proof has been offered."

Yeah, but he can still call it one if he likes. ;)

Of course, he can still call it a straw person if he likes, too ...

[FeebMaster]

141. It's a shame none of those 57% who want

a stronger ban were willing to explain what they'd like to change about the ban.

[FeebMaster]

140. It's a shame really.

It was a pretty good thread for the most part. Even explained to a few people willing to listen that the AWB has nothing to do with machine guns. Threads like this make posting on DU worthwhile.

[FatSlob]

135. I, standing for Civil Liberties, said scrap the ban and repeal others.

We have way too many gun laws.

[bigbillhaywood]

171. HEY IVERGLAS!!!

What gives? I responded to your posts in a reasoned and genteel manner. I'd appreciate it if you would return the favor.

[iverglas]

173. it's Friday

I'm often braindead on Friday. I found myself in a giddy mood, and preferred awarding those fallacious reasoning prizes while laughing myself silly. Kept meaning to acknowledge receipt and postpone reply.

I have just been reading the Black Panthers thread, and am postponing thinking about it. You will keep in mind that while I was around (i.e. functioning as a politically aware and active, if green, individual) in the latter part of the 60s, I was not in the US, and of course even the media weren't what they are now then. I have never had any particular reason to make a thorough study of internal Panther politics. (Just, perhaps, as you had never had any reason to know much about Canadian trade unionism.) Although an (African-American) old friend of mine was apparently the guy they couldn't indict in Chicago because he was an Illinois native. ;)

I prefer to refrain from making pronouncements about things I don't have reasonably extensive knowledge of and have not spent some time forming coherent analyses of, and I'm not sure that this is going to happen in the near future in this particular area, i.e. the collective rights of a particular group and the best way of exercising them within a particular mid-20th century liberal democracy. This would be why I offered random and inconclusive thoughts on the subject in this thread in the first place.

I could of course regale you at length with an analysis of the collective rights of the people of Quebec and my views on the legitimacy of various potential exercises of them past and present, and that might actually amount to a kind of dialogue. (You might want to look up Pierre Vallières' book Les Nègres blancs de l'Amérique, translated as White Niggers of America, although no translation of "nègres" in that context is ever quite right; a search for the original French title is best to find information about it.) You may be aware that the Front de libération du Québec engaged in acts of considerable violence during the 1960s and early 1970s, claiming them to be part of a liberation movement, and that the War Measures Act, which went well beyond your Patriot Act, was invoked as a result. The parallels between the FLQ and the Panthers, and the situations to which they were responding, are in fact quite striking in most respects, with the differences lying largely in the response by the dominant culture to the demands by the minority culture in the subsequent period, and of course in the different nature of the fundamental societal pact in the two countries, which was to a considerable extent determinative of that response.

And now, once again, I need dinner. And to watch my favourite BBC series, Inside the Line. It's just getting to the season when our heroes go hunting Euro-terrorists. ;)

[MrSandman]

200. Don't know about unconstitutional...

It does not infringe keeping or bearing, only manufacturing, but it is rather useless.

[Wickerman]

202. Magic 200

night, night

not to mention that there are 17 other active AWB threads.