My problem with anti's

[Wcross]

The anti-gun faction has cost us one election,now they are shooting for two. It is sooooo painfully obvious that our parties embrace of the million mom marchers was a huge mistake. Why did Gore lose West Virgina and Tennessee- his HOME state? I could not vote for a canidate that is for more schemes to reduce crime by restricting lawful gun ownership.
This country, believe it or not, has a large rural populace that would rather suffer financially than give any more ground in the lost cause you call "sensible gun laws". There is life outside of the city.

Am I the problem, the law abiding gun owner who has never been in any kind of trouble? It would seem as if I am because you want to make me obey laws that will result in me giving up my right to keep and bear arms.

I will not vote at all if it means giving any more ground-Period.

[lcordero]

1. "sensible gun laws"?????

A person on these boards made a really good case on how the implementation of "sensible gun laws" were racist in nature. I'll stick by what the guy said.

[Axman]

28. Can you link me to that?

I'd really like to read that point of view.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Wcross]

4. Quite eloquent sir.

Ok, Ok! Enough already! I give up!
Your creative use of "Bullshit" and "Flying F#ck" convinced me of the errors of my thought process. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I live in Tennessee, I work at a Union Plant. I heard the guys talking.

[Paladin]

3. It's Increasingly Obvious.......

....that you RKBA "Democrats" are going to abandon the party unless you get exactly what you're after---a shift in the party's position on guns to something so NRA-friendly that it gives Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, John Ashcroft and Ann Coulter simultaneous hard-ons. Ain't going to happen.

[Wcross]

5. No

We just want you to STOP. No more new laws, no giving back any laws on the books.

[acerbic]

8. A-ha...

No more new laws

So no requirement of background checks with private sales. It's sort of rational from a very narrow viewpoint: if disqualified persons weren't able to buy freely from "law abiding gun owners", it would somewhat reduce demand and therefore lower the resale market prices.

It's a whole another question though whether people with that kind of self-interest should be coddled and pandered to. My answer is no.

[Wcross]

9. Ok

We have laws on the books that prohibit gun ownership for convicted felons. Why force somebody to pay a tax (The fee for the background check) in order to buy or sell an item that the bill of rights states "shall not be infringed"? Don't give me the reasonable fee arguement- it could be raised at will.

[acerbic]

11. Why do you need straw man excuses?

Why can't you just say straight that you think you should be free to sell guns to anyone without caring about whether they are legally allowed to buy guns or not? Do you have doubts about if it's a morally right position and that's why you need to have an explanation why it just has to be so...?

[Wcross]

13. Cars

Do you check the driving record of people when you sell a used car? Would you even look past the check he gave you? Cars kill 40,000+ a year, where is the outrage?

"Why can't you just say straight that you think you should be free to sell guns to anyone without caring about whether they are legally allowed to buy guns or not?"

So a law is going to make somebody "care about it"?
So the gun-runner buys 100 handguns in one state, and sells them without "care" to people in another state. Are you advocating house to house searches to verify the gun-runner still has the guns he purchased? That he obeyed the new law?
I guess you would advocate the same thing for collectors, collectors that may have only bought 3 or 4 guns.

I have no moral hesitations about the lack of checks for private sales. Illegal sales are happening right now, how about going after the lawbreakers with whats on the books now?

[acerbic]

16. More straw men...

Do you check the driving record of people when you sell a used car?

I would like a background check to be mandatory if some people were legally disqualified from buying and owning cars. Are some people legally disqualified from buying and owning cars? Yes or no?

So the gun-runner buys 100 handguns in one state, and sells them without "care" to people in another state. Are you advocating house to house searches to verify the gun-runner still has the guns he purchased?

What an imagination you have. I'm advocating that when it's found out that the gun runner has sold guns illegally he's imprisoned and disqualified from buying guns any more. Somehow I'm not very surprised that that wasn't the scenario you'd think of... :eyes:

[Wcross]

17. Well now,

"I would like a background check to be mandatory if some people were legally disqualified from buying and owning cars. Are some people legally disqualified from buying and owning cars? Yes or no?"

Someone without a license would be legally prohibited from driving away in a car, it would also be illegal to drive without insurance coverage in some states. There is no law that requires a check on those items before you sell a car.


"What an imagination you have. I'm advocating that when it's found out that the gun runner has sold guns illegally he's imprisoned and disqualified from buying guns any more. Somehow I'm not very surprised that that wasn't the scenario you'd think of... :eyes:"

Well that law is already on the books, perhaps two laws for the same crime would help, but it is dubious to say the least.

[acerbic]

18. You seem to have misunderstood the question

...although I think it was quite simple and clear: are some people legally disqualified from buying and owning cars (like some people are legally disqualified from buying and owning guns)? Yes or no?

Someone without a license would be legally prohibited from driving away in a car, it would also be illegal to drive without insurance coverage in some states.

...but you seem to have a special talent for that. :shrug:

[Wcross]

23. I understood

But driving is the key isn't it? I wouldn't have any problem with a criminal who buys a replica gun or a gun that doesn't operate. Wouldn't have a problem with a drunk-driver having a car with no tags up on blocks with a blown engine in it either.

[acerbic]

25. Aha. So you're just trying to spin and obfuscate your way out of it.

But driving is the key isn't it?

You tried to equate the need of background checks when buying guns with buying cars. The simple difference is that unlike in the case of cars, some people are legally disqualified from buying or owning guns, not only from using them.

One could treat it as a separate question whether anyone should ever be disqualified from buying or owning guns or not, but as long as that's the law, it's amazingly stupid and illogical that selling guns to the disqualified is in some cases legal.

[Wcross]

32. Ok-maybe a stretch

"One could treat it as a separate question whether anyone should ever be disqualified from buying or owning guns or not, but as long as that's the law, it's amazingly stupid and illogical that selling guns to the disqualified is in some cases legal."

I will give you that one- I was reaching a bit.

Hows this, enforce the law as it is now. Go after the people breaking the law as it is now. Make gun ownership by prohibited people punishable to the extent that even the hardest of hardcore criminal would think twice about it. Why do we need to put another law on the books that criminals, by nature, will not have to obey?

[acerbic]

34. Does not compute.

Make gun ownership by prohibited people punishable to the extent that even the hardest of hardcore criminal would think twice about it.

What might that punishment be when the death penalty doesn't seem to make the hardest of hardcore criminal think twice about anything? Death by lengthy torture...?

Why do we need to put another law on the books that criminals, by nature, will not have to obey?

Umm... maybe exactly because it would be a law that the law abiding would have to obey and not sell guns to criminals? :eyes:

[Wcross]

35. I agree, it doesn't

How would you implement your scheme? Would registration of all guns be required? Of course it would, no other way it would work is there?

I would love to hear you plan on how you would enforce this law without registration.

[Axman]

29. One question....

I'd love to see all private sales go through a background check. Here is my question. How would it be enforced?

[jody]

42. Don't you know that criminals will obey the law? eom

[iverglas]

46. uh

"I'd love to see all private sales go through a background check.
Here is my question. How would it be enforced?"

Uh ... how about a firearms registry?

Easy one.

.

[-..__...]

10. Don't be to sure of yourself.

There's no denying that there has been avoidance or at least some rethinking of
the gun control issue by party members. A number of Dems have cosponsored S 659
(the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act). Feinsteins S 1034 (Assault Weapons Ban
Reauthorization Act of 2003), doesn't seem to be getting very much if any support... 9 cosponsors,
one of them a RINO. Those party members that have cosponsored it are the predictable party
stalwarts that represent strong liberal urban areas and are politically safe.
Feinsteins bill has so little support that she had too challenge Auh-nuld to use his influence.

Ditto for Lautenburgs S 1431; one cosponsor?!?

Maybe we won't get everything we want (a sub-gun in every pot :) ), and I don't realistically
expect that, but we are making progress and changing minds. I write, call or email my representatives
at least once a month on this issue. When was the last time any of you anti-gun people did the same?

[lcordero]

20. NRA??????

I'm definitely not NRA-friendly. I have the same regard for the NRA that I do for the KKK.

[Pert_UK]

6. It's not so black and white..........

The attempt to reduce gun crime by implementing stricter controls over weapons DOES NOT necessarily entail that someone's going to come round and take away your guns.

It seems obvious to me that America is stuck with guns, and that's the free choice of your country (oh sorry, I forgot that you actually HAVE NO CHOICE about this, because it's in the Constitution and it would be undemocratic to change the Constitution?!?!?). However, it seems to me that there are certain problems associated with wide-spread gun ownership that need to be addressed, whether by new laws or enforcement of existing ones.

To be honest, the gun owners who worry me most are the ones who adopt the paranoid attitude of assuming that everyone wants to take their guns away, and who kick out against any further implementation of gun control...

[Wcross]

7. Really?

"The attempt to reduce gun crime by implementing stricter controls over weapons DOES NOT necessarily entail that someone's going to come round and take away your guns."

Then why do you people propose laws that would make it easier to do so?
"It seems obvious to me that America is stuck with guns, and that's the free choice of your country (oh sorry, I forgot that you actually HAVE NO CHOICE about this, because it's in the Constitution and it would be undemocratic to change the Constitution?!?!?). "

Anybody who wishes to forgo firearm ownership is free to do so, nobody is being "forced".

"To be honest, the gun owners who worry me most are the ones who adopt the paranoid attitude of assuming that everyone wants to take their guns away, and who kick out against any further implementation of gun control..."

Gee, I worry about the local crack-head with a gun more so than anyone else!

[Pert_UK]

12. Righty-o then.........

Point by point...

"You people" - don't lump me in as an "anti", and don't lump everyone who wants to do something about gun crime into the same category. For the record, I'm not really anti-gun but do believe that something needs to be done to reduce the number of gun deaths/injuries in the US.

"Then why do you people propose laws that would make it easier to do so?" - Perhaps I need to clarify my English. "DOES NOT necessarily entail that someone is going to come around and take away your guns" means exactly what it says. Introducing a law that would make it easier for the Police to confiscate weapons from people who they believe will misuse them or store them irresponsibly DOES NOT MEAN that the Police will go around and collect all the weapons from all gun owners.

I find it alarming that you are constantly perceiving the strengthening of gun laws intended to prevent illegal and irresponsible use of firearms to be a direct threat to visit you and take away your guns. A vaguely similar situation would be if you objected to the introduction of Police speed checks because it would make it easier for the Police to give you a speeding ticket. It only applies if you're breaking the law, in which case you can't really object.

"Anybody who wishes to forgo firearm ownership is free to do so, nobody is being "forced"." - this is undeniably true...however, it does also mean that nobody in the US is free to choose to live in a gun-free zone. The RKBA entails that, for example, you have no way of knowing how many of your neighbours own guns.

"Gee, I worry about the local crack-head with a gun more so than anyone else!" - OK, so I was being facetious here and you've called me out on it. Fair enough. Yes, I worry more about the armed crackhead too......However, I would like to assume that the crackhead would probably have an illegally obtained weapon, and we're talking about the RKBA laws, so that case doesn't apply. If the crackhead has got a legally held weapon, then I want to know why, and I want to know if you would object to a strengthening of the law that would allow the Police to rescind their permit and confiscate their gun.

I don't have a massive problem with people who own guns or who shoot responsibly for sport and fun. I do seriously worry about a gun owner who objects to the introduction of laws that are intended only to remove guns from people who present a significant risk to society. The US has, undeniably, got a problem with legally held weapons involved in accidents and deliberate crimes, at least partially due to irresponsible ownership. It seems equally clear that the gun lobby are never going to allow the wholesale confiscation of weapons, even if it was a stealth operation with the confiscation done gradually through misuse of the law. Therefore when gun owners start perceiving a tightening of the law as a direct threat against themselves, I worry, because this seems like unhealthy paranoia to me.

[Wcross]

14. You make this fun Pert_uk

Quote "Anybody who wishes to forgo firearm ownership is free to do so, nobody is being "forced"." - this is undeniably true...however, it does also mean that nobody in the US is free to choose to live in a gun-free zone. The RKBA entails that, for example, you have no way of knowing how many of your neighbours own guns." end quote

D.C. is, by law, gun free. So is Chicago and NYC. The only true "Gun-free zone" is the moon. Are you in a "Gun free zone" where you live? Or do you like to think you are?

Q --"I find it alarming that you are constantly perceiving the strengthening of gun laws intended to prevent illegal and irresponsible use of firearms to be a direct threat to visit you and take away your guns. A vaguely similar situation would be if you objected to the introduction of Police speed checks because it would make it easier for the Police to give you a speeding ticket. It only applies if you're breaking the law, in which case you can't really object." End Q

Unless new and improved gun laws happen to throw me into the lawbreaker catagory.


Quote -"However, I would like to assume that the crackhead would probably have an illegally obtained weapon, and we're talking about the RKBA laws, so that case doesn't apply. If the crackhead has got a legally held weapon, then I want to know why, and I want to know if you would object to a strengthening of the law that would allow the Police to rescind their permit and confiscate their gun." End Quote

Thankyou:)---- It is the illegal weapons trade the anti-gun crowd should look at. The laws on the books now give police ample means to go after the majority of criminals with guns. They just have to be pushed to do it.

[Pert_UK]

19. Well, I like a good argument.....

Re: first quote...I happen to be in Australia at the moment, but let's assume that I was in the UK where I know the laws and situation better....

Would I be in a truly "gun free" zone? Probably not...I lived near Camden (London), where there were a number of shootings only last year. However, they were all gangster-on-gangster using illegally held weapons. We're talking about legally held weapons. Did I live in a city where I knew that all my neighbours were legally prohibited from owning guns? Yes, I did. I suspect that within a few miles there would have been a few guns held by criminals and which would have been used in crimes, but there weren't any held by "normal" people, so I didn't have to rely on the skills and responsibility of my neighbours when they were handling their own guns. I didn't have to worry about my psycho upstairs neighbour having access to a gun when she flipped out (again). In the US, if you want to live in a zone where guns are banned you have a very limited range of choices. In the UK last year, how many people were killed or injured by the deliberate or accidental use of a legally held handgun? None, because there weren't any.

"Unless new and improved gun laws happen to throw me into the lawbreaker catagory." - Look, again you are making the assumption that the US government is determined to create and implement a law that makes it illegal for you to do something that you believe is safe and your "right". I don't believe that the US gov will ever be able to implement a law that is genuinely unjust in this way, because they'd be too much backlash from gun owners. If they implemented a law that said, for example, all guns must be locked away securely in an approved storage cabinet then you might not like it but you'd have to go along with it. Hard luck. It's the same with any other aspect of life - sometimes the gov prevents us from doing stuff that we think's OK (e.g. driving faster than the limit, smoking weed, shooting crocs). Just because you do something now and think it's OK, it doesn't mean that the gov will always agree. Things change, people change, hairstyles change, interest rates fluctuate.....etc.

Re: final point........You start off ranting about people wanting new laws that mean the police will come and take you guns away and end up talking about tackling criminals with illegal weapons. IMHO these are two distinct things and you've got them confused.

Of course the Police should confiscate weapons from criminals and arrest them. That goes without saying. Taking weapons from criminals is, probably, more likely to stop crime then making life harder for legal gun owners.

However, that doesn't entail that the situation with legally held weapons is OK. It patently isn't. There are so many instances of legally held weapons causing injury and death, and many owners who seem unable to handle a gun without blowing their own ass off. There is no clear picture of who even has a gun in the US.

Simply stating that armed criminals are more dangerous than legal gun owners does not entail that the US doesn't need to address the overly lax way in which gun ownership is treated.

[Wcross]

22. Ok

Pert_UK- I thought UK meant United Kingdom, and that you was pert.


Re: final point........You start off ranting about people wanting new laws that mean the police will come and take you guns away and end up talking about tackling criminals with illegal weapons. IMHO these are two distinct things and you've got them confused.

Ranting? Please.
You seem to have it confused. Criminals with guns=Crime.



Gun laws effect only those that obey the law. Criminal's with illegal guns are the problem. What makes you think further regulating the legal gun owners is going to reduce gun homocides?

[Pert_UK]

26. Few things....

I am Pert and I'm from the UK, sorry for the confusion, I'm on vacation in Oz at the moment.

OK, "ranting" was a little harsh and I apologise. I just found the way that you started the topic a little odd, i.e. seeming to make the assumption that anyone who suggested more control of guns automatically wanted your guns confiscated, and also lumping all "anti's" into the same group, when in fact that are many different degrees of "anti".

Yes, criminals with guns=crime. Tautologically true. My point is that you need different ways of coping with different crimes. People often criticise UK handgun laws by saying that gun crime is on the increase in the UK, but the two things are entirely separate, IMHO.

The legislation and control of responsible citizens legally aquiring, storing and using firearms is an entirely different topic to criminals who have chosed to obtain and use firearms illegally in the course of their crimes. It only creates confusion when the two topics are freely mixed in conversation - making legislation around waiting periods and background checks is only vaguely connected to how to address the problem of armed criminals who have chosen to ignore the law anyway.

"Criminal's with illegal guns are the problem. What makes you think further regulating the legal gun owners is going to reduce gun homocides?". Nope. Criminals with illegal guns are A problem. Perhaps they are the most significant problem. That doesn't mean that there aren't problems associated with legal gun owners.

What makes me think that further legislation will reduce gun homicides? I'm not NECESSARILY saying that more legislation is the answer, it might be that better enforcement is needed. However, as an example if it were legislated that ammunition must be stored securely and separately from the gun, or trigger locks must be used, and if guns were indeed confiscated if an owner repeatedly showed wanton disregard for these rules and the health and safety of their family, then I can imagine that accidents would be reduced, which would be a start.

It just seems to me that too many people are able to reach for a legally held gun when they shouldn't. I don't know how to stop it, but it is an issue and to pretend otherwise is odd.

[-..__...]

15. Confiscation

"The attempt to reduce gun crime by implementing stricter controls over weapons DOES NOT
necessarily entail that someone's going to come round and take away your guns".

That's an awful big assumption. One that I'd rather err in my favor than against. And yes, there are
politicians and special interest groups that if they had their way would confiscate all privately
owned firearms. Far fetched, perhaps, but I'm not willing to chance it.

"It seems obvious to me that America is stuck with guns, and that's the free choice of your country (oh sorry, I
forgot that you actually HAVE NO CHOICE about this, because it's in the Constitution and it would be undemocratic
to change the Constitution?!?!?).

200+ years and still going. Yes, we make a lot of mistakes and are in a lot of places we shouldn't be, but
how many other nations look up to England as a role model?

"To be honest, the gun owners who worry me most are the ones who adopt the paranoid attitude
of assuming that everyone wants to take their guns away, and who kick out against any
further implementation of gun control..."

No, we just kick out against any further implemantation of government control. Then again,
you don't have BushCroft and Co. jerking the strings, do you?

[Pert_UK]

21. Look...

This thread started with someone suggesting that everyone who said that maybe there should be better control of access to guns wanted to come round and take this guy's guns from him. This is simply utterly false.

It's not a big assumption to make at all - saying "Let's control access to guns better" can in no way logically entail that someone will come and take his guns away. It's a possible consequence and you can fight it if you like, but it's not a logical conclusion of the statement.

"200+ years and still going. Yes, we make a lot of mistakes and are in a lot of places we shouldn't be, but
how many other nations look up to England as a role model?" - I don't know what you're getting at with this point. However, if you want my opinion I would state that significantly more countries look to the English model of gun control than look at the US model. Globally the trend is towards tighter gun control rather than the US model which gives all citizens the right to own lethal weapons, rather than treating it as a privilege to be earned.

Re: final point....There clearly are gun owners on DU who start arguments by assuming that all gun control suggestions = total gun confiscation, who then attack this farcical idea which they've created themselves. It scares me when people bring this up solely so they can rant about people trying to take their guns away.

[Wcross]

24. I don't

I just don't have as much trust in our government as you do- wait a minute, your not a citizen. Tell us what has happened in Australia when "sensible gun control laws" started taking hold? Seems to me guns were confiscated, even saw a few classic collectors items being run over by a bull-dozer on the tube. Same thing with England.

Ya know, they always tell ya not to worry about it before they stick that knife in your back.

[Pert_UK]

27. Not sure about Australia.....

In the UK, all handguns were either confiscated or permanently disabled, with owners compensated for their value (approx).

It seems to me that this argument for gun ownership is bizarre, paranoid and fallacious.

Do you really believe that the US has only remained a democracy because the government is scared of an armed populace? If guns disappeared would you become a dictatorship overnight? Do you believe that the weapons in public hands would be even vaguely sufficient to prevent government suppression if that's what it wanted to do?

I'm rather happier living in a country (the UK) where people don't feel that they have to keep weapons to defend themselves from the possibilities of sudden fascist takeover.

[Wcross]

33. I started the thread

I started the thread- my point was Gore lost his home state in the last election because of his embrace of the Million Mom March. It was then transformed by other posters to a debate about the fine points of what needs to be done.

The history of gun control in our country is a slippery slope towards total confiscation. Do you really think that if gun owners give in to the background check plan, the violence policy center or the Brady bunch will pack up shop and not push for more?

England is a great example of the end result.

I have nothing against you Pert, we just have a wide difference of opinion on this issue.

I hope you have a great time in Australia, where did you visit? If I could ever force myself to sit still in an airplane that long, it would be a great place to visit.

Take care, enjoy your trip!

[Pert_UK]

36. Thanks, and I take your original point but....

It almost seems to me that you're wanting Gore to either lie about or ignore something that's important to him, solely to win an election...I know what you mean and what you're getting at, but it seems to me that what he did was honest, if politically naive.

"The history of gun control in our country is a slippery slope towards total confiscation." - think about this...The gun industry is HUGELY influential. If it were prepared to make a few small concessions then IMHO it would undermine the position of "violence policy center or the Brady bunch" and show that it was interested in preventing violence. There is NO WAY, I believe, that guns will ever be totally confiscated in the US, but one way of making this more likely is if the gun industry refuses to budge at all. Consider the UK:

"The shooting organisations could not agree on a common strategy and they resisted all suggestion of legislative reform. They were fearful of the ‘thin end of the wedge’ argument whereby a ban on handguns would be followed by a ban on all other types of guns. They sought to emphasise that the problem was mainly with illegally held weapons, but this was a hard argument for them because both our recent tragedies were committed using legally owned guns."

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GRIP.htm

It just seems to me that if you refuse to budge at all and won't acknowledge a problem, you're more likely to have a totally unacceptable proposal imposed upon you.

England ISN'T a great example of the end result. The situation in the UK was extremely different from the US. Gun massacres were mercifully rare and casual handgun ownership had never been established (in modern days). It only took 2 key events for almost 100% of the media and the VAST majority of the public to back a total ban on handguns. That's not going to happen in the US.

Re: Australia - I haven't visited many places yet, as I'm working and saving cash. I'll be going around the whole country in my van though in the next couple of months - and only just spotted that Australia is the same size as ALL the US mainland states.........fairly big then.

Thanks for having a good, well-reasoned and intelligent debate on this. For the record, I have nothing against guns per se and am currently looking to visit the local gun range here (given that I can't shoot back in the UK). My objection is to bad, illogical argument, misuse of evidence and the rejection that there isn't a "gun problem" in the US, and I'll happily argue on all those points whilst acknowledging that personally, I enjoy shooting.

[Wcross]

37. Wow!

Re: Australia - I haven't visited many places yet, as I'm working and saving cash. I'll be going around the whole country in my van though in the next couple of months - and only just spotted that Australia is the same size as ALL the US mainland states.........fairly big then.

Thats great! your going to REALLY get to know Australia! I envy the experience that you are having! All I can tell ya is HAVE FUN!

[demsrule4life]

96. Strange reply from someone that lives in

England. :)

[MrBenchley]

30. Let's see....

"This country, believe it or not, has a large rural populace"
We have 281 million people, and 222.3 million live in urbannareas. Just 59 million are rural.

"a large rural populace that would rather suffer financially than give any more ground in the lost cause you call "sensible gun laws""
In other words, they're morons who can be expected to vote against their own self interest....and thus are immunne to rational persuasion.

[Wcross]

31. Ther you go Benchley

"In other words, they're morons who can be expected to vote against their own self interest....and thus are immunne to rational persuasion."

Those aren't "other words"- That statement is yours, your typical response to a debate about gun control. So we are "Morons" and "immune to rational persuasion" Yup, we have to be "Morons" to not agree with the all wise and seeing Mr. Benchley. My goodness Benchley, don't we have a high opinion of ourselves? BWAAAAAAAAAA
(By the way, you forgot to mention my lack of penis size- isn't that a required tactic for the anti-crowd?)

So you are willing to throw away 59 million potential voters persuing what you call "sensible gun laws". Where do you live Benchley? Do you ever get out of the city? Do you ever talk to people in the rural areas? We don't think inner city violence can be solved by restricting our rights further. Thats my report from rural america.
We don't see where the sensible part of your scheme is.

[MrBenchley]

38. YOU were the one who claimed that rural voters

cared more for their neurotic gun fetish than their own self-interest. That's the living breathing definition of a moron.

"So you are willing to throw away 59 million potential voters persuing what you call "sensible gun laws"."
No, that's also YOUR claim....I just pointed out that there is neither a sizable rural population, NOR is it established that they all put their childish castration anxiety ahead of pocketbook issues.

[Wcross]

39. OK then Mr. Benchley

Quote-"YOU were the one who claimed that rural voters


cared more for their neurotic gun fetish than their own self-interest. That's the living breathing definition of a moron."End Quote

You are a funny man Mr. Benchley. Do you expect me to debate with someone that has managed to call me a neurotic and moron?

Refer to the original post. You are the type I was talking about.

I don't agree with you, yet I have not labled you with mental health issues. I have not insulted your intelligence.

Oh, I guess Gore did win Tennessee then huh? I guess I was just hearing things from the Union guys at my plant when they said they couldn't vote for Gore.

I hate to insult you but you really have to get a grip on your emotions in order to have a debate. I don't do mud-slinging.

[MrBenchley]

40. I am referring to the original

From the very first post: "This country, believe it or not, has a large rural populace that would rather suffer financially than give any more ground in the lost cause you call "sensible gun laws". "

If that isn't the seat and soul of moronic behavior, I don't know what is...

AND while your description of the rural behavior has yet to be established, I HAVE established that this country does not have a "very large" rural population.

"I don't agree with you, yet I have not labled you with mental health issues. I have not insulted your intelligence. "
Guess again, bunky.

[Wcross]

41. 59 million is small?

59 Million, to me is a substantial number. That would be similar to discounting the African-american vote.
You have only established the number of rural residents, not that it is small.
I have offered the evidence in that Mr. Gore lost his home state. Mr.Gore also lost West Virginia. That hasn't happened in a LONG time to a democrat. I contend gun control was a factor in this loss.
I may be wrong, but from talking to traditional democrats I got a clear indication that gun control wasn't real popular.

Why did Gore lose these two States?

[MrBenchley]

43. 80% is bigger than 20%

"I have offered the evidence in that Mr. Gore lost his home state. Mr.Gore also lost West Virginia. That hasn't happened in a LONG time to a democrat. I contend gun control was a factor in this loss."
Gee, so was bigotry...imagine if Al had gone to Bob Jones U and sucked up to the bigots there.

[Wcross]

44. So thats it?

Bush going to Bob Jones U?
OK, if you say so.

I guess it doesn't matter much anyways. I really don't have much worry about any crazy new gun laws being passed anytime soon. The future couldn't be brighter for gun owners. More and more states are going with "shall issue" permiting. That insane "Assualt" weapons ban is going to expire next year, the frivolous lawsuits filed against gun makers have been thrown out left and right. The crime rate is dropping rapidly despite increased gun ownership.

It must be real frustrating to be fighting for a lost cause.
Best of luck to you.

[MrBenchley]

45. What else did you need?

"I really don't have much worry about any crazy new gun laws being passed anytime soon. The future couldn't be brighter for gun owners."
Yeah,, we can tell by the wailing and moaning....

[demsrule4life]

47. Seems to me most of the wailing on this board comes

from you,CO and Iverglas present thought out arguements, I don't agree with them but I respect them for it.

[MrBenchley]

48. Got any more neoConfederate crap to peddle?

[demsrule4life]

49. My neighbors have called me a damn yankee

and I have other idiots calling me a neoconfederate. I just dont seem to belong anywhere.

[MrBenchley]

50. Tell them about the slave ship

I'm sure they'll love that neoConfederate piece of crap.

[demsrule4life]

51. One more time

slave ships flew the American flag. It might of happened but I doubt many slave ships flying the stars and bars ever set sail.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[jody]

68. demsrule4life, I hope your wife will get her choice when reassigned.

In the meantime, enjoy your last few months in Alabama and spend one more weekend on the "Redneck Riviera" before the snowbirds migrate in from Canada.

[Spoonman]

55. Gee MrB

You think they would let my mexican ass join??

Didn't think so.

Put your broad brush down, your whole neoConfederate crap argument is a load of shit, and is beginning to stink up the board.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Spoonman]

60. Right wing crap like

right wing Republican Sara Brady?

Ouch!

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

66. You said it....

"You pimp for a registered repuke!
That's something no REAL Democrat would EVER do."

And yet you're always on here posting crap from the Cato Institute, WorldNutDaily, the Washington Times, etc. etc. etc...and railing about the "evil Kennedys" and every other Democrat anyone's ever heard of....

[Spoonman]

70. etc. etc. etc

Yea it's a real easy out for anyone to scream their opinion about a source, without proving it.

YOU PREACH SARA BRADY SHIT ALL THE TIME.
SARA BRADY IS A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Kennedy's, big fucking deal. They have been bootleggers, murderers and rapist, all crimes if I'm not mistaken.
They're not immune because of political party affiliation.
What do you condone those crimes? If so, It’s not I that has the problem.

What other “democrats” are you referring to?

The Cato institute - The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane. It is a non-profit public policy research foundation headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Institute is named for Cato's Letters, a series of libertarian pamphlets that helped lay the philosophical foundation for the American Revolution.

Hmmm, I don’t see their affiliation with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that you imply and you would like everyone to believe.

[MrBenchley]

71. Gee, spoon,, I've proved what I had to say

"Cato leads the right-wing's push for privatization of government services. In 2001, the Washington Post, noting Cato’s influence, said it “has spent about $3 million in the past six years to run a virtual war room to promote Social Security privatization."
* Cato supports the wholesale elimination of eight cabinet agencies – Commerce, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Interior, Transportation and Veterans Affairs – and the privatization of many government services.
* Right-wing foundations that fund Cato include: Castle Rock, Sarah Scaife, Koch Charitable, Olin, Earhart, and Bradley Foundations."

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9261


"Whether it's the Cato Institute's "epidemic of union-related violence" ... or the Heritage Foundation's "not all forms of child labor are exploitive or cruel" ... or the American Enterprise Institute's "Was the New Deal Constitutional?" ... or the Employment Policy Foundation's goal of "helping companies deal with external influences" ... there's one thing right wing think tanks have in common: the goal of demolishing anything that gets in the way of big business and bigger profits. Unions, of course, are a primary target of these right-wing think-tanks and their big-bankroll supporters ..."

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_rwtanks.html

"Three right-wing institutions--the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and Cato Institute--maintained their respective positions as the second, third and fourth most cited. The top four think tanks were each cited more than a thousand times, and provided 46 percent of all think tank citations."

http://www.fair.org/extra/9805/think-tanks.html

http://www.mapcruzin.com/greenwash/

http://www.prospect.org/print/V9/40/paget-k.html

[CO Liberal]

72. Just Read Some of the Crap the Cato Institute Puts Out

You'll see their affiliation with the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. They claim to be libertarian, but then again Jerry Falwell claims to be a Christian.............

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[CO Liberal]

74. All Right, Spoonman. I'm Calling You On This.

Show me where I personally posted any "Right Wing registered republican shit" on this board. Unless you're referring to Sarah Brady, which is totally inaccurate (since that's hardly "right-wing").

[MrBenchley]

75. Spoon,, that's horsecrap

and what's more, you know it's horsecrap.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[solinvictus]

91. And extreme statists

who call themselves "liberals" campaign to limit individual freedoms. Its all newspeak semantics.

[BullDozer]

94. Not quite right

who pointed out that motre than 90% of HCI's support goes to Democrats.

That's not an accurate cite.


The information cited in another thread showed that gun control groups distribited their money 94% to Democrats and 6% to Republicans yet dollar wise Democrats took in 72% more money from Pro-Gun organizations ($2,579,187) than they did from the antigun ones ($1,497,245).

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[CO Liberal]

54. Once Again, A Bogus Argument

The slave trade was ended before the Confederacy was born. But I'm sure many slave ships flying American flags wwere based in Southern ports.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[demsrule4life]

59. At least we make an arguement

if it is bogus or not it is still more then you have ever contributed here.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[demsrule4life]

63. Still not a contribution

[MrBenchley]

65. Sez you....now peddle the slave ship horseshit again,

why doncha?

[demsrule4life]

67. All you are is a spectator that sits on the sidelines

and heckles the opposing team.

[MrBenchley]

69. Cry me a frigging river and sail on it with your slave ship

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[acerbic]

80. Question:

"criminal protection and job saftey laws"

Who exactly is preaching against making it more difficult for criminals to buy weapons for protection and job safety? (Look in the mirror...)

[MrBenchley]

82. Koresh knows

that the RKBA crowd are doing everything they can to ensure criminals can get their hands on guns as easily as possible.

Anybody want to tell me why somebody who claims to be a union worker is opposed to job safety laws? (Or is he trying to pretend that not letting thugs get their hands on assault weapons amounts to a criminal job safety law? And if so, how?)

[Wcross]

85. Criminal saftey laws

I am very much opposed to job saftey protections for criminals. They don't pay dues!
Seriously- take away law abiding citizens right to own weapons and the criminals are much less likley to be shot on the job.

You just don't get it.

We will have to agree to disagree. I guess it won't hurt too much to throw away the gun owners votes in 2004, with any kind of luck they will just abstain from voting.

[Wcross]

83. I will type slow for you

It is already against the law for criminals to own firearms. How will new laws prevent what is already against the law?

You never responded above to my question on how you will work background checks for private sales without registration.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Wcross]

86. Ok 34

I checked it.
So you will ignore the question- HOW private sales can be regulated without registration?

[CO Liberal]

87. Simple - Mandatory Background Checks for ALL Gun Sales

Even private sales.

If Person A wants to sell a gun to Person B, they both go to a gun dealer. They fill out the paperwork and (for a nominal fee) the dealer runs the background check. If everything checks out, Person A and Person B can conclude the sale. If Person B turns out to be one of the people who is not eligible to purchase a gun, the dealer calls the cops, who arrest Person B.

No registration required, no gun going into the wrong hands.

[Wcross]

88. Proof?

Unless some record of this transaction is retained, how do you know the gun in question was transfered properly? How could you enforce the law? You would have to retain a record for the chain of ownership. That is registration.

If no records are required to be retained, why would someone who doesn't mind bending or breaking the law comply?

[CO Liberal]

89. Then How Does the Current System Work?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?????

[Wcross]

90. Whats your question?

Current private sale? It is legal to transfer firearms you own to others without a background check.
Gun store purchase? Background check required.

You knew that. What is your question?

[AZTOY]

93. Wcross

I agree with you!!

As a gun owner feel my party "DEM party" is trying to screw me!!


I also know that, you will not get a straight answer on this forum!!
Well maybe from a few!!

[jody]

92. CO, the FBI reports

ON EDIT ADD LINK TO California laws.

The FBI reported that for 1997, see "Firearm Use by Offenders", that prison inmates obtained 39.2% of their firearms from "Street/illegal sources" and 39.6% from "Friends or family".

No citizen of the State of California may sell a firearm to another citizen of the state without both the seller and the purchaser going to a federally licensed gun dealer and undergoing a Brady Instant Background Check.

In 2001, California was third in the top ten sources for guns used by criminals.

Virginia - 2,489;
Georgia - 2,428;
California - 2,228;
Florida - 2,048;
Texas - 1,851;
Mississippi - 1,772;
Ohio - 1,697;
Indiana - 1,684;
North Carolina - 1,454; and
Alabama - 1,301.

It is a fact that DoJ does not enforce existing federal firearms laws and when a criminal is convicted of violating one of those laws, they receive token sentences.

Even given California's population of 33 million vs much smaller populations in VA and GA, what makes you think criminals will obey a state or federal law requiring a background check for private sales?

[MrBenchley]

81. Which was largely pointless

"the RABID anti gunners (look in the mirror) will cost us votes in 2004."
So will the RABID pro-choice Democrats, so will the RABID pro-workers' rights Democrats, so will the RABID pro-environment Democrats, so will the RABID pro-diversity Democrats, yadda yadda yadda....

"You happen to be fighting to remove rights, I will fight you at every step."
Bring your lunch, bunky. And the only "right" I'm trying to remove is the "right" of the corrupt gun industry to arm criminals and lunatics.

"Benchley, you are hopeless."
Funny, I feel pretty damn hopeful. But then I'm not sticking up for the RKBA crowd's lies and the scum of the earth.

[shatoga]

95. best pro-Bush argument i've ever read- thanks for nothing

the RNC should pay for such pro Bush rhetoric!

[MrBenchley]

98. Should they use the millions they got from the corrupt gun industry?

The plain fact is, Americans support gun control....it's a winning issue.

[Terran]

99. I'm locking this

I think you all have hurled enough insults at one another.

Dirk - DU Moderator