Military Weapons and Gun Control

[rebelskypirate]

Hello All,

This is an excellent forum, 1st off, and I have been surprised to find many good opinions here, some I do not agree with, but thats OK.

My point is that I have never seen in any of these boards I have read about the gun issues, either left or right, a discussion about what is a very REAL problem we face, and that is the sheer number of military weapons on the world market, so I want to touch on that and also how damaging this issue is to the Democratic Party

The USSR and its allies have made from the end of WW2 to the current day some 60,000,000(yes, 60 million) fully automatic AK-47s, AKMs, and AK-74s. Some estimates put this as high as 100 million! These were given to any group or nation that said they were Marxist with NO control or way to track them afterwards. As these movements had played out, many of these weapons have fallen into the hands of those who sell them to the highest bidder. These weapons are untraceable and very, very cheap(as low as $50!). RPG-7s are also widely available and very destructive. For that matter, M-16s and M-16A1s with Vietnam era serial numbers have turned up in the hands of gangs and criminals....its a world just AWASH in weapons, and no piece of paper will stem this flood of deadly, untraceable weapons onto our streets....and keeping Americans from owning legal, SEMI-auto weapons certainly will not effect the world arms trade in ANY way....no domestic law affects these weapons at all...

My point is, how is a new AWB gonna in any way slow the flow of these guns from outside the USA? Fact is, it will not, nor the NFA 1934, or GCA 1968, nor the FOPA of 1986....or any state laws such as CA tough laws....they are just paper, and do not work, yet have done HUGE damage to the Democratic Party(President Clinton said the 1994 AWB cost control of the House, for example)

Previous posters are dead on in stating this issue is a HUGE loser for the Democratic party, and IMO no doubt cost John Kerry the state of Ohio and thus the Presidency...and made other states a lot closer than should have been the case.


Gun Control is a powerful single VOTE issue. Those who are against it will vote(and do vote) against those for it 85% of the time, regardless of party or other issues....thats why the NRA is SO powerful...Its time for the party to drop this issue and move on to other, winning issues!

Thanks for the read, best wishes to all!

[elehhhhna]

1. I've changed my mind on gun control since they jacked the election.

We now have a big gun (for skeet shooting--this IS Texas, after all.) And hubby just won (!) a handgun at a vendor raffle (like I said, this is Texas, after all...).

Being a Northern Demo I felt differently for years, but when the wacko right goes all HEIL BUSH on us, I want a fighting chance.\

Re: the skeet-shooting thing--it's weird. Hubby wins trophies! Who knew?!! But he can't hit a duck if it was AFLAAC himself laying an egg on our driveway. If anybody DOES want to go commando around here, I'd appreciate it if they'd yell "PULL!" first, then fly up over the house. Thank you.

[goju]

2. LOL

If anybody DOES want to go commando around here, I'd appreciate it if they'd yell "PULL!" first, then fly up over the house. Thank you.

Sounds like my son. Can hit just about anything coming out of a mechanical trap, but cant find the trigger when he stumbles over a herd of ducks. :)

Edit, Im just about the opposite!

[elehhhhna]

3. I'm proud of the fact that hubs can't hit live stuff. Good on your boy!

[NEDem]

6. FUnny

I can't hit a damn thing coming out of the traps, but give me something tasty to eat and I can knockem down.

I went trap shooting on Saturday hit 2 of 30, Sunday went duck hunting came home with 3 ducks and a goose. Only 10 shots.

GO figure.

[alwynsw]

7. Gimme live game any day and I shoot better.

Don't ask me why. I usually hit 20+ calys out of 25, but my average is better with quail, duck, etc. I think my stomach gets involved.

[MrSandman]

11. Shooting from the gut..n/t

[alwynsw]

15. It takes great intestinal fortitude. n/t

[jtb33]

34. So you bought your first gun after the election?

Congrats! How do you like the shooting sports?

I bought my first one about two years ago and since then have loved going to the shooting range. I didn't realize how enjoyable and relaxing the sport can be. :)

[Union Thug]

48. Relaxing..

Funny you should say that. I often go to the range to wind down after an especially stressful week.

[Low Drag]

46. Take that handgun

to a steel shoot. You will have a ball!

A steel shoot is where you get a BUNCH of steel targets to hit, anywhere from 10 to 30 or so. The shooter that hits them/knocks them downt the fastest wins. It's a hoot/blast!

[LinuxUser]

4. You're right

All these bills to ban various things are based on magical thinking. Somehow banning flashhiders on AR-15s will prevent crime. That's just magical thinking. As you point out, there are hundreds of millions of assault rifles floating around in the world market, going for $100 @ or so. The guns exist and no piece of paper will make them go away. Guns are used in crime in every country in the world, including disarmed paradises like Jamaica.

It's simply a matter of technology. You can't ban bicycles or computers or radios. No piece of paper will achieve that and no amount of enforcement could ever make such a ban real. Well, the technology of a basic firearm is much simpler than the technology of a modern bicycle.

You could ban cars and airplanes because they're big and difficult to make, but simpler things like guns, bicycles and radios... they are here to stay.

But, the Dems can still throw away elections and political power based on this one pointless issue if they want to! Gun control is why we now say "President Bush" instead of "Former President Bush".

[Paladin]

5. Yeah, Right

Once and for all, it was not guns that decided this election. People in the Red States were too busy expressing their hatred for homosexuals to get into the gun thing to any degree.

The RKBA crowd's comments in DU during the last few months make one thing abundantly clear: there will never, ever be a Democratic candidate for president who is sufficient by your extreme, gun-centric standards. Come 2008, if the Democratic nominee goes goose hunting again, you'll join your right-wing gun radical soul mates in spewing hatred at him or her, just like you did this time. You'll direct your scorn at Democrats over Republicans at the same 5-to-1 ratio as you did this time, and still have the nerve to claim you're honest-to-God Good "Democrats," just looking out for the best interests of the party. It's bullshit now, and it will be bullshit four years from now.

Special thanks to the DU administrators for shuffling this forum into well-deserved obscurity.......

[aikoaiko]

8. Not true about the red state and gun issues

Gun issues are big in the south. I work at a university and even the gun owning professors were worried about their guns if JFK were elected.

Reasonable people can disagree, but I think the gun issue is worth reconsidering. Plus its secular. :-)

[NEDem]

9. LOL

"Plus its secular"

Excellent line!!

[Township75]

12. ?

"Once and for all, it was not guns that decided this election. People in the Red States were too busy expressing their hatred for homosexuals to get into the gun thing to any degree."

Do you think those states, in the absence of defining marriage in the last election, would have gone blue instead of red? Guns would still account for a hell of a lot there, and in other states that we won.

"have the nerve to claim you're honest-to-God Good "Democrats," just looking out for the best interests of the party. It's bullshit now, and it will be bullshit four years from now."

Careful there bub....you are the one becoming frantic over the issue, and maybe you should be. The Dems are learning gun control is a loser issue, and is only embraced by diminishing but still loud minority of the party. People don't vote for gun control, but they will vote for gun rights. That fact that you so strongly want the Dems to embrace gun control and cost us elections makes me wonder if you are "looking out for the best interests of the party."

"Special thanks to the DU administrators for shuffling this forum into well-deserved obscurity......."

Well, I guess they didn't make it obscure enough...you still found it and showed-up, right?

[MrSandman]

17. Is it obscurity, or...

A clearer focus?

[mosin]

13. Red States

Once and for all, it was not guns that decided this election. People in the Red States were too busy expressing their hatred for homosexuals to get into the gun thing to any degree.

There were a lot of issues that decided this election. Our nominating the most anti-gun rights presidential candidate in history was certainly one of them. Gun rights are a big issue in every swing state, from Ohio to Iowa to New Mexico to West Virginia to Wisconsin to Pennsylvania. A pro-gun rights Democrat could win the swing states Kerry lost and bring southern border states into play (Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri).

[Paladin]

18. You Guys Enjoy Yourselves These Next Four Years.......

....seeing as how the most pro-gun-rights president in history in now in office, thanks in part to overwhelmingly Republican gun radicals, brain-dead enough to believe that John Kerry was going to take their firearms away. I repeat: there will never be a "pro-gun rights Democrat" persuasive enough to satisfy you RKBA types. Never. When Bush's draft notices come in the mail for your kids, tell them the Second Amendment makes it all worthwhile, and payback time has arrived...

[Factoid]

22. Bush is not...

..terribly "pro gun rights", even the NRA had to wait untill they were certain he'd let the AWB before they backed him.

In truth, had Howard Dean (Democrat) run VS Bush, the NRA would have chosen Dean. They are not the Republican Lip Service that many people make them out to be, but that thread was elsewhere on these forums.


I'm still bitter than Dean lost the primaries. I sent money for the first time in my life to a political campaign to him.

[Paladin]

28. Yeah, Sure

As if everybody was on pins and needles, waiting to see if the NRA would back George W. "We're Gonna Have An Office In The White House" Bush.

[mosin]

32. "most pro-gun-rights president in history"

I think you're the first one here to call Shrub the "most pro-gun-rights president in history." As I've said before, I'd give Kerry an F on gun rights--he has sponsored and voted for legislation to take my guns and ammo away--but I supported him on balance because of other issues. I'd give Shrub a C- on gun rights. He's marginally better than Kerry on that one issue, but not by enough to sway my vote. The only genuinely pro-gun rights presidential candidates on the ballot in Ohio were the Libertarian moonbat Badnarik and the Constitution Party theocrat Peroutka, and I wasn't about the vote for them.

The NRA happily and enthusiastically supports pro-gun rights Democrats all over the country. Ignoring reality doesn't make you persuasive.

[cattleman22]

16. This post is why Dems lose and an urban/rural divide was formed

[alwynsw]

19. Get a clue.

The issue is rights. Free speech and assembly is voting is freedom of religion is unrestricted firearms ownership. Get the connection?

Didn't think so.

[Paladin]

21. "Unrestricted Firearms Ownership"

Care to present any substantiation for such a wildly open-ended concept, beyond your own feverish wishful thinking?

Didn't think so......

[Retired AF Dem]

23. "Didn't think so.."

Damn did'nt give him time to respond.

[alwynsw]

25. Feverish wishful thinking?

It's a simple concept. All rights are equal. RKBA is a right just as free speech and assembly are rights.

Sorry you don't see it that way. If RKBA is removed, perhaps the next to go will be voting, movement from state to state, or voting. RKBA has already been crippled beginning in 1934.

My personal belief is that abortion is a bad thing except in cases of rape, danger to the mother, etc. but I'll be damned if I'll support any legislation banning it. It is not the place of government to dictate reproductive rights. It is also not the place of government to dictate what personal property we may own.

If we're going to go down that slippery slope of legislating things that are best for society in the area of personal possessions and hobbies, we need to go after hang gliders, skateboards, bicycles, and a multitude of other things and activities that result in injury and death for the participants, spectators, and innocent observers/bystanders. Let's keep auto speeds under 20 mph.

Personal freedoms can't happen in a nanny state.

[Paladin]

27. Still Waiting For Some Substantiation

Tell you what: if the Supreme Court ever gets around to stating that there is a constitutional right for everybody to have guns, I'll be a believer. They haven't, so I'm not. You're still dealing in wishful thinking. And the "nanny state" reference is strictly Ditto-Head stuff, wildly out of place in a forum supposedly dedicated to Democratic sentiment. Got any wise cracks about Femi-Nazis to share with us?

[alwynsw]

29. You still don't get it.

You're obviously in favor of selective freedoms chosen for us by others. I done with this futile arugument.

Do you need an SC decision to validate everything? I don't. I can read.

on edit: Your scurrilous backhanded attempt to call me a repug did not go unnoticed. I had hoped for better than a childish emotional slam.

[MrSandman]

30. Is there a SC decision anyone can own a printing press?nt

[alwynsw]

31. I was thinking of getting a bullhorn, but

I can't find an SC decision that says it's O.K.

[MrSandman]

33. Damn...nt

[Ed C. Finley]

49. Actually if the democrats were smart they would support

gun laws as lax as switzerland. Then they could pass any piece of left wing legislation they wanted to. 99.9% of rabid gun owners (a group in which I include myself; the rabid part, not the 99.9% part) consider their gun collection as a security blanket. They would no sooner use them to "overthrow the government" than they would walk naked down the street. Even if the left mandated abortions for all, legalized forcible gay marriage, and raised the top tax rate to 100% on all income over $50,000, the gun owners would not rise up as many fear because they could tell themselves "I have my guns, I won't do anything until the govt messes with them.

Hell the country could be a marxist paradise if the left would get over their irrational fear of "boom sticks" (Army of Darkness reference)

[jody]

10. RKBA is a key issue in many areas and clearly makes the difference

in winning or losing an election. Senator Feinstein wins in California but she would be dead last in Alabama because her anti-gun position would destroy any chance she has of being elected for dog catcher. That's just the way things are!

[Romulus]

14. Feinstein would never win PA, MI, WI - or VA

and all of those states have Democratic governors . . .

[solinvictus]

20. Gun issues...

The problem, as I see it, is that many want to limit the Second Amendment's definition into a collective right as expressed through national or local military and police organizations. By that token, then your freedom of speech and other First Amendment rights should be covered by Fox News, Jerry Falwell, and the White House chief-of-staff. If those are interpreted as collective rights, then individual opinions are no longer necessary as we have the collective, and sanctioned, means of expressing them.

[enfield collector]

24. nice analogy, agree 100%

[aikoaiko]

26. How do I start a new thread?

I'm relatively new and haven't been able to figure that out.

I wanted to start a new thread on the proposed bill to establish a national CCW. I'll just post it here I guess.

(from http://thomas.loc.gov/ and typed in HR 915)
-------------
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt... (Introduced in House)

HR 915 IH

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 915

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 25, 2003
Mr. STEARNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued by a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a license or permit.

`(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent expressly permitted by State law.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

`926B. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.'.

Some stuff about law enforcement officer stuff deleted, but the above is the important stuff.

[Left in IL]

35. Back to the original question

The problem with banning guns is that they are very low tech. It is very easy to create a firearm from available materials in a machine shop. A ban on firearms would be as effective as trying to ban people from growing plants in their house, oh yeah, that dosen't work either.

[solinvictus]

37. Sten and other SMG's

A Sten can be made with simple hand machine tools and parts available at local stores.

[LinuxUser]

38. It's true

The Sten is a design called an "open-bolt blow-back slamfire", and yes, this is just about the simplest type of gun you can make. It has a barrel, and a big heavy bolt that slams back and forth, and a trigger to hold the bolt back when you want to stop it from slamming back and forth. Anyone can make one with simple tools and some work in the garage. They can't be "banned" any more than cannabis or amphetamines can be banned.

[Lefty48197]

36. Guns have done damage to the Democrats

witness John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy...

[a conservative]

39. "Guns have done damage to the Democrats"

" Guns have done damage to the Democrats
witness John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy..."


pretty amazing really, that those guns killed JFK, MLK, and Bobby without anyone pulling the trigger,,,

[robre]

40. You forgot something

Those men were murdered by the government who would have firearms even if they weren't legal.

/tinfoil

[slackmaster]

41. Of course Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, and William McKinley

Were all Republicans.

[MrSandman]

42. You're slipping ...

I didn't see you mention Reagan.
:puke:

[slackmaster]

43. Or Ford, but neither of them died from being shot

Ford was only abortively-attempted-to-be-shot at by the most incompentent wannabe assassinette in history..

[MrSandman]

44. wannabe assassinette (s)...nt

[DavidMS]

45. What about going elsewhere and back farther...

guns ended the dark middle ages because peasants with matchlocks and pikes killed knights and only kings were able to afford issuing the in large numbers, resulting in the end local tyrants. Because cheap massed musket fire broke expensive armored cavalry formations.

Guns spread the French Revolution to Central and parts of Eastern Europe.

Guns are simply tools that people have attached meaning to.

[Union Thug]

47. Wow! A russian made, select-fire AK47 for as low as 50 bucks!

Man, I'm going to the wrong gun shows! =)

But seriously, while I support sane gun legislation (I have no problem with waiting periods, etc... basically the system we have now. I thought the AWB was a complete waste of $ and time, btw), I also think the dems need to deep six gun control as a pet issue and start rediscovering the economically focused (read unionism, social justice as the most important issues) liberalism that my father raised us on in the 60's.