Link to new Obama approved radio ad telling 54 million gun-owners he is no threat.

[jody]

http://obama.3cdn.net/7e507fa12a37964e5b_ffm6va8pw.MP3

Two things remain for Obama:

1 – Promise law-abiding citizens his pledge includes gun-owners in Chicago and D.C. as well as Cheyenne.

2 – Promise gun-owners his pledge means he will not ban any semiautomatic firearms.

[anonymous171]

1. He won't do #1.

But #2 sounds like a good idea. Lets hope Obama goes in that direction.

[musicblind]

2. I would personally like to ban guns

period.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. I'd personally like to ban banning guns

period.

[cliffordu]

7. Yep.

[Cha]

9. Can't ban guns ..the fucking bushites

would take over in a hurry.

[nxylas]

16. I'd personally like to ban banning banning guns

Whee, this is fun!

[EstimatedProphet]

26. Oh yeah? Well, let's ban banning banning banning guns!

Top that!

[nxylas]

27. Well, maybe I'm a heel who hates guys who hate heels

Brownie points to anyone who gets that reference. (edit: sorry, I messed up the quote before).

[EstimatedProphet]

29. Not me. I'm lost.

[nxylas]

31. Maybe this will help

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0088967/quotes

[EstimatedProphet]

34. Thanks! I have got to check that out!

[nxylas]

37. I'll warn you, it's a "love it or hate it" movie

I personally liked it much better than the Coen Brothers and Sam Raimi's other attempt at a screwball comedy, The Hudsucker Proxy, but looking at the comments on IMDb, there seems to be a very polarized reaction to it.

[EstimatedProphet]

39. That sums up Coen Bors. movies

And I love their movies!

[demwing]

120. Where can I get a banning gun?

If they're about to be banned, I'll take 5.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. That would be a good start.

[ComplimentarySwine]

4. That sounds like it might work just as well as the ban on marijuana n/t

[old mark]

126. You mean this shit's ILLEGAL? nt

[msallied]

11. Wow. Just wow.

[musicblind]

12. The facts

8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)

You should check out Bowling For Columbine sometime.

[msallied]

17. Again. Wow. Just wow. Your stunning lack of perspective is...well...

stunning.

[musicblind]

18. Funny how all you say is "wow" but don't post any facts to back it up.

The value of human life and the success of other countries that have placed strict gun control into their society says otherwise.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

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

[msallied]

41. self delete

[jody]

20. Those who refuse to join Obama and acknowledge RKBA is an important issue in this election are not

unlike this animal.

[EstimatedProphet]

28. If you'd watched Bowling for Columbine

Then you'd know that the issue is far more complex than that. Why does Canada have dramatically less of a crime rate than the US, with a higher gun ownership rate that is per higher per capita at the same time?

[iiibbb]

65. Because Canda has fewer people and less division of classes

and Canadians are just kind of polite.

[RichardRay]

30. If that's the best you can do, then we should also ban cars, bicycles,

prescription medicines, crossing the street and getting up quickly from a chair. Guns are a fact of life in a sizable portion of this country. I don't own one and don't care to, but I don't have a scuba rig, either.

[ITsec]

32. The guns didn't kill those people...

The person pulling the trigger did.

If we didn't have guns, we'd have knives.
If we didn't have knives, we'd have clubs.
If we didn't have clubs, we'd have rocks.
If we didn't have rocks, we'd use our bare fists.

Regardless of the weapon of choice, it boils down to this: People kill people. And the people that pull that trigger are criminals.

[PermanentRevolution]

33. I've seen Bowling for Columbine.

I own Bowling for Columbine on DVD.

And, no offense, but it seems like maybe YOU should go re-watch it, because you seem to have completely missed a large portion of the film.

Bowling for Columbine makes a very clear point that it's the underlying socioeconomic and cultural conditions in America that heavily contribute to gun violence.

That was the whole point of the trip to Canada in the film - to show that a gun-owning society is not necessarily a violent one, and that the cause of America's violent nature has more depth and complexity than just the availability of guns.

That was the point of the story about the single welfare mom who was forced to go work at a mall in another town, leaving her daughter to accidentally shoot herself.

That was the point of Marylin Manson talking about parental responsibility in regards to the Columbine shootings.

That was the point of noting the hypocrisy of condemning gun violence while simultaneously being the largest weapons dealer in the world, of being shocked and outraged at the Columbine massacre while we bomb Afghanistan.

The entire point of the film was that it's not as simple as just saying "Guns are bad - let's ban them."

[old mark]

127. The US has been and continues to be

a crazy society. We are a nation of extremes - in religion, culture, economic class, and of low quality education and idiotic media where most people see their opinion as THE opinion, and everyone else's as wrong (or evil.)

Add a huge drug using(addicted) population - I include alcohol here -
and there is no reason to be surprised at our crime rate.

Despite all this, "gun violence" is decreasing in the US for the last 12 years or so, even though there has been a huge increase in the gun ownership and the number of people legally carrying guns for self protection over that same time period.

The film does make a lot of good points and is is certainly not the anti-gun polemic many think it is.

mark

[Ikonoklast]

47. Ban cars and swimming first, then.

#1 and #2 killer of children aged 1-14 in this country.

For years.

And neither of those activities mentioned are a right, and spelled out as so, by the Constitution.

[TheWraith]

64. You mention Bowling for Columbine. Have you actually watched it?

One of the points Moore makes in the movie is that Canada has nearly as many guns per capita as the United States does, but their gun death rate is a tiny fraction of ours. For instance, Toronto has a murder rate of 1.9 per 100,000, compared to 34 per 100k for Atlanta.

The point he drove home was that the big problem lies in the widespread poverty in US cities--guns are simply an enabler to this.

[musicblind]

67. I have watched it several times and own it on DVD.

However, that does not change the fact of how deadly and unnecessary guns are. It also does not change the fact that the constitution does NOT specifically give people the right to have "guns".

[beevul]

93. Strictly speaking...

" It also does not change the fact that the constitution does NOT specifically give people the right to have "guns"."


Strictly speaking, you are correct.


The constitution does not 'give' anything.

It affirms rights through restrictions on governmental power.


Amendment 1 - "congress shall make no law..."

Amendment 2 "...shall not be infringed" (infringed by whom? the government of course)

And last but not least heres the first paragraph of the preamble to the bill of rights - it is pretty clear in saying the purpose and intent of the bill of rights:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..."

It says explicitly that in order to keep the government from misconstruing its powers, that "further declaratory and restrictive clauses".

The second amendment is one such clause.

And there was the heller decision too, of course anyone that bothered to read the preamble and then reads the second amendment in that context, and takes into account some of the writings in the federalist papers, would not disagree - short of having an axe to grind.

[Enthusiast]

118. This is a losing issue

for the Democratic Party. I live in S.E. Ohio where deer hunting is a way of life. You can't just alienate a huge portion of the electorate and expect to be elected. Voters in WVA, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Arkansas and every interior state have great enthusiasm for hunting and fishing. This is a fact. It wouldn't be safe to drive if we didn't harvest a significant part of the deer population every year. Venison is good and healthy food.

I was an avid deer hunter until physical disabilities prevented me from hunting. Human beings are predators. It is part of our evolutionary heritage. Get over it!

[musicblind]

148. I have stated in other posts in this thread that I do not want the Dem party to take this up as an

issue. Because I think it will cost us the election if we did. I support Obama's choice to take a different position because it is the position that is most likely for us to win.

However I was stating my PERSONAL belief of what I would PERSONALLY like to see happen.

And apparently not all humans are preadators. I for one am a vegetarian.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. Regarding your statistics.

Please define children by age and a cite would be nice.

David

[beevul]

86. More facts.

280+ million privately owned firearms

in the hands of

80+ million gun owners.

30-ish thousand firearm related deaths a year, many of which are suicide.



While the level of deaths related to the misuse/unlawful use is unacceptable, it remains clear that the vast majority - on the order of 95+ % of the whole 80+ million gun owners and the 280+ million guns, are not responsible for it, involved in it.


On edit: And a large percentage of that 80+ million are quick to vote against any real or percieved threat to their rights where guns are concerned. More-so now than ever before.

I would have thought that after the losses after the first AWB, that the lesson would be learned.

Sadly I was wrong.

[slackmaster]

129. The "8 kids a day" figure is true only if you include 19- and 19-year-olds as "kids"

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. William S. Burroughs said it better than I could:

'After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.'

[katandmoon]

19. Ditto! I hate that Obama has to suck up to the tiny dick crowd.

[jody]

21. Sigmund Freud said "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" n/t

[musicblind]

69. As someone with a degree in psychology, I can assure that Freud's theories are no longer respected

as holding true by the vast majority of the psychological community.

[jody]

79. I agree but Freud has more respect from those "with a degree in psychology" than do gun-grabbers

have from 54 million gun-owners in our 200 million electorate.

122 million voted in 2004 and Obama needs perhaps 60 million to 65 million votes to win in November.

IMO Obama's campaign is not helped in swing states like MI, PA, OH, FL by gun-grabbers who have their heads in the sand so far a la the Ostrich Syndrome they see themselves.

[musicblind]

88. I did not say Obama should support banning guns.

I said that is what I MYSELF support.

I completely understand why Obama does not support such a controversial decision.

Obama does not openly support gay marriage, and he shouldn't if he wants to win, but it is an idea that I support.

I think you may have confused my post as a slam on Obama. Obama is a politician and he will do the smart things needed to get elected. I support him in that.

I also think it is funny that you use the argument "well, your idea is unpopular and therefore must be wrong." A lot of things are unpopular but are still the right thing to do.

You should listen to "To The Teeth" by ani difranco. Great artist she is.

[jody]

92. "Obama does not openly support gay marriage"! You do know don't you he said "As your President, I

I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.

Obama said he favored civil unions over same-sex marriage laws, but said, "I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples..."

END QUOTE

Source http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11946

[musicblind]

136. I am aware of that. Yes. Not of that exact quote but I do know he supports civil unions

I'm the person who started that epic civil unions thread a while back. I think you missed the point of my post.

You seem to be attacking me as though I do not support Obama 100%?

[jody]

146. Your posts do show you don't support Obama 100%. n/t

[musicblind]

147. How? Because I want want guns banned? So in order to support Obama's run 100% I have to agree with

every single policy position he has ever made? I feel guns should be banned. I also feel Obama has the right stance no the choice in order to get elected. Which is what is most important for us right now.

You agree with every policy he has ever made? Wouldn't that mean that you do not think for yourself? What does agreeing with every policy position that a candidate has have to do with how much you support them for that office? He is the best choice so I support him 100%.

I agree with him on at least 70-75 percent of all issues.

He is by far the best choice we have for president, I have been donating my time and money to him and support him 100%.

If you are going to lie and claim that I do not... please show me where I have said that I do not support Obama 100%?

Am I not the person who has made threads supporting Obama in his NC race?

Geesh. Talk about a witch hunt.

[musicblind]

68. *hug* Finally someone who gets it n/t

[DangerDave921]

35. You are free to do so in your house

But that is as far as your power extends.

You can't honor the Constituion on some fronts, then turn around and want to ban guns.

[musicblind]

71. dupe. sry.

oops

[musicblind]

72. The constitution does not promise that we shall all have guns

"well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Not to mention that people who think the constitution is infallible are often the ones who bash others for thinking the Bible is infallible.

[jody]

74. Have you read SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller? "The Second Amendment protects an individual right

a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[musicblind]

90. And if the supreme court said it then it must be the morally correct thing?

Right? You would completely agree with that statement?

[jody]

97. We can discuss "morally correct" but the "legally correct" fact is D.C. v. Heller . If you believe

it's immoral for a law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms for self-defense when government is not obligated to protect an individual, then you and I have a different view of morality.

Couple that with SCOTUS decisions that uphold government's authority to force (draft) a citizen to fight and possible die to protect government and the generic, amorphous society and IMO you've reached a point where the individual is worthless -- long live the omnipotent government.

[beevul]

96. See post 93...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7085645#7091152

[New Dawn]

108. No thanks. If guns were banned...

Only the super-rich and their government would be armed. We need an armed populace.

[tburnsten]

137. right on

too bad many don't understand that.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

5. As long as he doesn't fuck with my RPGs or bazookas I'm willing to listen. nt

[Breeze54]

87. LOL! I hope you're kidding....

:rofl:

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

124. What? What's wrong with having my own personal arsenal for no reason

whatsoever............ :evilgrin:

[Major Hogwash]

6. 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

And now you're done, Jody.

Get a fuckin' clue - guns are NOT an issue now.

[Mojorabbit]

8. They are an issue

to a lot of people I know.

[iiibbb]

22. Are an issue to a lot of voters in the wings...

... like me.


Still voting for Obama because Bush has made a mess of things, but I wouldn't count on my vote next time if Obama leaves his mandate of the war, the economy, and health care.

[Paladin]

84. Trust Us, We're Not Counting On Your Vote This Time, Either

"Voters in the wings" has an easily-interpreted meaning; you've revealed more about yourself than you intended.....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. As have you

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. With people like you around they'll always be an issue.

[Major Hogwash]

115. With trolls like you, DU will always be infested.

RAID!!!

Get out a can of RAID!!!

The fucking cockroaches are on the board!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

131. Pot meet kettle.

[Major Hogwash]

132. The toilet backed up in the gungeon again, huh?

And now all the turds are floating around on the board.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. You're here so I guess so.

[iverglas]

134. hee hee

and nobody seemed to know what I meant a while back, when I asked why I felt like I was sitting at the wrong end of a toilet.

You're sitting in the gun dungeon quietly minding your own business, and all of a sudden Whump, a 300-post loadful of it lands on your head ...

3...2..1...?

[Breeze54]

89. It IS an issue in a lot of gun owners minds still.

Sorry to say but it is.... my 2nd oldest son is one of them and
THAT is the tipping point for him and he lives in the midwest.

[Major Hogwash]

116. No, it can't be - because McCain gets an F- rating from the GOA.

And McCain is a gun grabber, the co-author of the 1994 AWB.

So, I guess I feel safer now, having educated YOU about gun politics!!

So, go tell sonny now.

[Barack_America]

10. Jody, I'd like you to take a look at this...

http://inquirer.philly.com/graphics/homicide_map_2007/

And then tell me why Obama should promise #1.

(FYI, the vast majority of these crimes were committed with illegally obtained guns. Also, these statistics represent a single year in my city. One year.)

[jody]

14. The right to keep and bear arms is protected by our Constitution. If Obama supports gun-bans in

Chicago and D.C. while opposing gun-bans in Cheyenne that is no different than supporting freedom of speech bans in Chicago and D.C. while opposing freedom of speech bans in Cheyenne.

That might be acceptable to some people but that's not what I believe is the meaning of natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights.

[DangerDave921]

36. F'ing A Right! well said

[Barack_America]

43. Who said anything about "bans". It's called "restrictions".

And do we need greater restrictions in cities than we do rural areas? Absolutely. There are already restrictions in place regarding firing of guns based on the population of the area you're in. I think there should be stiffer penalties for owning unregistered guns in the cities versus the country and stiffer penalties for possessing an unregistered handgun versus and unregistered rifle. It's all about the probability of that gun being stolen and what that gun will eventually be used for.

So there is no way Obama could possibly make the same promises to rural gun owners as he could urban gun owners. To do so would be dismissing many gun control laws already in place and, I believe, insulting urban citizens and lawmakers who have often fought uphill battles against their state governments to put those restrictions in place.

[jody]

45. Do you support D.C.'s former law that effectively banned all functional firearms? n/t

[Barack_America]

48. No. That's just about the worst way to go about it.

Then you're guaranteeing yourself that 100% of gun ownership will be of illegally obtained guns.

That's not the way.

In Philly (as in New York) we've adapted a "stop and frisk" policy where people deemed to behaving abnormally by police can be stopped an patted down in order to find unregistered/unlicensed guns. I hate the idea about it, but I begrudgingly agree with it. The fact of the matter is that cops here know who they're looking for. There are so many people running around that the cops KNOW committed this or that crime, but they can't get a witness to come forward publicly. If nothing else, the stop and frisk policy gives cops some leverage to deal with them.

Get the illegally obtained guns and the people who will bypass laws in gun ownership off the streets. That's what I say. There's no need to punish everyone who wishes to own a firearm and is willing to comply with licensing and registration laws in order to do so.

[jody]

50. Do you have stats on how many people have been convicted of illegally possessing a firearm with the

"stop and frisk" policy you cite?

[Barack_America]

54. It just started this year.

So, no.

[jody]

53. Fed court says NYPD must release stop and frisk data for past 10 years, 11 Sep. 08

Court Compels NYPD to Release 10 Years of Stop and Frisk Data to CCR for Racial Profiling Class Action

[Barack_America]

55. Good. They should release that data.

There must be suspicion before they stop someone. I know that officers in Philly have been trained about which behaviors warrant a stop and which behaviors don't.

[tburnsten]

138. RE: licensing/registration

Very few places in the US require gun licensing or registration, when someone gets in trouble for having a gun it is almost without fail because of their status as a prohibited person, not because the gun itself is illegal. As the poster further down wrote, there are places, like Philadelphia, that absolutely refuse to prosecute criminals found to be in possession of a weapon. So if we have rules and regulations already, that would result in repeat criminals found illegally carrying (because of them, not the gun) a gun or arrested for other crimes such as robbery and carrying a gun illegally, why don't we try enforcing our gun laws a little better first, and change legislation later on as needed?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. By all means increase the penalties for crimes committed with firearms.

Add 10 years on each sentence to be served consecutively and make them serve all of it. Restrictions haven't served cities like Chicago and DC very well. Criminals seem to ignore them.

David

[one-eyed fat man]

113. Philly and gun laws

The clarion call has been sounded, both by the politicians in Philadelphia, and by the Philadelphia media, that the only way to prevent cop killings is to pass more gun laws. You seem to agree. Lets look at the three pieces of human debris that were responsible for the shooting death of Sergeant Liczbinski.

Howard Cain was the trigger man in the Liczbinski murder. You can see his fifteen page criminal record here.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/cain-howard-court-summary.pdf
Look at all the violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act that Cain has been arrested for. Keep in mind, these are only gun charges. Over Cain’s criminal career he had thirteen arrests for unlawfully carrying a firearm, that were listed “Nolle Prossed,” meaning the prosecutor chose not to bring charges. In a further eleven arrests for violations of Pennsylvania’s firearms laws, the charges were either withdrawn or dismissed. In only three cases was he prosecuted and either plead guilty or was found guilty. On weapons charges alone, he could have done 12 years in prison, in which case he would not have been on the streets to kill a police officer.

You can find Levon Warner’s criminal record here. http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/warner-levon-court-summary.pdf
His is only six pages. Warner is facing three charges for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for unlawfully carrying firearms, in his latest arrest for conspiring to murder a police officer. Do you think Ms. Abraham’s office will make them stick this time? Previously, the Philadelphia DA’s office thrice declined to prosecute Warner for gun law violations. The Philadelphia judicial system chose not to try him for six other violations of Pennsylvania’s gun laws.

And last, but certainly not least, Eric Floyd.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/floyd-eric-court-summary.pdf
Again, hopefully this time, he’ll actually face weapons charges, in addition to the murder charges. But again, in 1994, he was arrested for robbery, and the prosecutors declined to prosecute him for carrying firearms illegally in two counts. Also in 1994, the courts declined to try him for two counts of carrying firearms illegally.

Now keep in mind, this is only weapons charges. The rap sheets of these scumbags total twenty six pages, and contains all manner of things that should have kept them off the streets for good. Maybe you should look at about how absolutely and utterly broken the City of Philadelphia’s criminal justice system is.

Gun control obviously is not a solution, since the system is currently not using the laws already in the books in prosecutions. Don't you think you deserve better from your political leaders? You going to fight hard to pass more gun "restrictions" the crooks won't obey and your prosecutors won't prosecute?? Maybe that's why your "urban" solutions aren't quite working.

[jody]

117. Excellent post with supporting articles. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

125. Catch and Release

I am just tired of the high and mighty attitude from city-dwellers on how enlightened they are and how much they need extra laws hicks can't possibly understand.

What this hick can't understand why city folks tolerate catch and release prosecutors. It's not not like they have a shortage of shitheads and they need to let them out so the cops have someone to catch. They get some predator who has been robbing and carrying illegal weapons for years; arrest him, bail him and are surprised he is still robbing and shooting people.

Their civic leaders are screaming for new gun laws when they let the scumbags walk on the carloads of gun violations. Think about it, what could be easier? All you have to prove is the thug is a crook and was carrying a gun. The asshole has a 23 page rap sheet, the cops took a Glock from his pants pocket. Send the bastard away for 20 years, "NEXT!"

What's worse is they have a chorus of witless supporters that don't realize the crooks appreciate the citizens being disarmed since it provides them with a "target rich environment." While in this particular case it was Philly, the same song and dance happens in Detroit, DC, Chicago, and New York. Pathetic!

[XemaSab]

23. Here's Oakland:

http://www.sfgate.com/maps/oaklandhomicides/

[iiibbb]

24. So if I threw up a map of AIDs deaths...

... you would consider banning gays?

...if I put up drunk driving deaths...
... would you reinstate prohibition?

/*sarcasm off


Gun bans don't prevent homicides... and certainly don't prevent suicides. The purely cosmetic and worthless 94 AWB is one of the main reasons Democrats lost congress to Newt... Gore lost TN... Kerry lost everything... and has a lot to do with how close this election is...

... if you don't believe me, you don't spend enough time listening to point of views outside of DU.


Hands-down The best gun control are policies that address education and poverty.

[Barack_America]

44. Lol. You don't spend much time in urban areas, do you?

Come take a walk with me in my neighborhood. Then maybe you'll understand why education and poverty cannot be successfully addressed without doing something regarding gun violence FIRST.

And why the hell is everyone using the word "ban"? Please show me where I mentioned a "ban".

Gun control and better enforcement of gun control laws does not equal a "ban".

And, FYI, I come from a family of avid hunters and true sportsmen (not your beer guzzling "weekender" variety) so I have plenty of exposure to other viewpoints, thank you very much.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. Care to elaborate.

I have worked in the poorest most violent sections of my city and I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

David

[tburnsten]

139. I think prosecuting criminals

found in possession of guns would be far more effective than adding any new legislation. In your neighborhood it seems the DA has an extreme aversion to weapons charges, even if the defendant has twenty or more weapons violations plus armed robberies and more in his record.

[jody]

25. Obama said “what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne” but Chicago which bans guns has a

homicide rate of over 15/100k but Cheyenne where guns are not banned has a much lower homicide rate about 3.5/100k.

Add to that D.C. which banned guns in 2006 but has a homicide rate of 29.1.

54 million gun-owners disagree with Obama and we believe what works in Cheyenne may also work in Chicago and D.C..

As a minimum we believe allowing law-abiding citizens to keep and bear handguns would give us a fighting chance against violent criminals.

NOTE: national homicide rate was about 6/100k in 2006.

[iiibbb]

109. So why don't the cops just protect everyone?

[jody]

114. SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody.

Self-defense is a personal problem.

But don't forget SCOTUS says government has the authority to force (draft) you to fight and possibly die to protect government.

Given those two SCOTUS decisions, it doesn't make sense to me to turn in my firearms I use for self-defense.

[ManiacJoe]

122. Even if that was part of their job,

the police are not physically capable of doing that. There is no way to get enough manpower to realistically protect 300 million people in a country this size. It has never been the job of the police to protect individuals regardless of what country you are in.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. Arrest the people who commit the crimes.

Seems simple enough.

[one-eyed fat man]

112. here's a few points on the DC ban

If the DC ban worked as claimed and reduced crime then you would expect the crime rate to be lower than neighboring cities without a gun ban. As seen by the following comparison on the 25-year anniversary of the DC gun ban (in 2001) that the murder rate in DC was 2300% higher than Arlington, VA :
(FBI, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports (October 28, 2002): 77.)

Murder rates: 25 years after DC's ban went into effect
Washington, DC 46.4 per 100,000
Arlington, VA 2.1 per 100,000
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)
Total for all VA metropolitan area 6.1 per 100,000

More current info show the trend is pretty much the same. Urban areas in Virginia are significantly times safer than DC still!

Washington, DC crime rates according to CNN:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/sna...
Personal crime risk: 346
Property crime risk: 171
Personal crime incidents (per 100,000) 1,325
Property crime incidents (per 100,000) 4,667

Alexandria, VA crime rates according to CNN
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/sna...
Personal crime risk: 73
Property crime risk: 128
Personal crime incidents (per 100,000): 296
Property crime incidents (per 100,000): 3,859

Now the anti-gun folks have said the DC ban was undermined by the fact crooks could get guns so easily in Virginia.

If the reason that DC is so dangerous is because they don't ban guns in Virginia, then Virginia must be so much safer because they banned guns in DC.

[riverwalker]

15. a BIG issue in Minnesota

To many voters in Minnesota, it is the ONLY issue. This is very smart of Obama's campaign.
The Democratic opponent (Tinklenberg) running against Michelle Bachmann (a Palin wanna-be) in Minnesota has an "A" NRA rating.

[tburnsten]

140. If Tinklenberg has an A rating

He will probably win. Voters have been showing repeatedly that what they want is a Democrat with both a strong history of supporting second amendment rights and commitment to continue supporting those rights, not someone who pretends they do by spouting off about "common sense" gun regulation and other code words for illogical cosmetic bans and total restriction. People who use the phrase "common sense gun regulation" usually have never seen a gun control measure they didn't think was "common sense", or know anything at all about firearms.

[Ganja Ninja]

38. He's wasting his breath and his money.

He should be concentrating on the economy. The gun freaks are gun freaks because they fear and loath blacks. They will never vote for him.

[EstimatedProphet]

46. Oversimplification

There's a number of people that the 2nd amendment is a make or break issue for them. It's simply inaccurate to claim that anyone interested in the 2nd amendment is a racist.

[RoadRage]

52. I respectfully disagree..

There are a lot of blue collar, union working, avid hunters who are scared of the economy, scared of losing their jobs - but even MORE scared of losing their guns.

This ad reassures them that Obama doesn't plan on taking away anyones guns, but will be there to help with the economy and shipping away of jobs.

I think it's a good idea... McCain has made these people think Obama is going to take everything away from them.

[tburnsten]

142. Eliminate "hunters" from that

and you would be far more accurate. Only one fifth of gun owners in the US are hunters. Most of us own them for personal protection and recreational shooting, plus competition shooting is growing rapidly in popularity.

[Undercurrent]

57. Not true.

Neither is the previous comment that gun owners are the "tiny dick crowd" (unless that comment includes women).

I own guns. I'm not a racist. I'm a woman who worked actively on the front lines during the Civil Rights movement, and whose second husband is black.

Stereotyping people who exercise their Constitutional rights as racists, or having small dicks is shallow thinking.

[jody]

58. Agree and that post was "Undercurrent Donating Member (666 posts)". n/t

[Undercurrent]

60. haha

I noticed that. I don't buy into the whole religious paradigm, so it didn't bother me one little bit.

I posted in another thread, so the count has increased, so all is cool for those who care. ;-)

[jody]

66. I also don't believe in the supernatural, golly I know very little about the natural world.

Just wanted to make you smile. :hi:

[Undercurrent]

61. glitch - double post

[iiibbb]

63. I'm a gun freak and I'm voting Obama...

maybe not a freak... but I am enthusiastic.

However, Bush has been a disaster... hands down.

[jody]

73. " hands down" -- really iiibbb!! I agree with you on most things but -- NO WAY IS SHRUB THAT GOOD.

:pals: :hi:

[New Dawn]

111. False. There are many progressive people who support gun ownership rights.

Here is one example: http://www.progunprogressive.com/

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

135. There is a racist statement for you.

[tburnsten]

141. How sublimely rational

:spray: :tinfoilhat: :dunce: :crazy: :wtf:

[barack the house]

42. I think they are perfectly fine to have guns as long as we have better education on their use and ->

dangers.

[DangerDave921]

49. Like what the NRA does?

[tburnsten]

144. Mandatory safety course in school would be good

At least cover the basics, not everyone will own a gun in their lifetime but it benefits everyone if people at least know enough about them to safely handle one, should they find one or for some reason be compelled suddenly to handle one. At the very least I think going over how to safely unload the most common types of firearms and constant reiteration that no matter what the situation is, it is never acceptable or safe to allow the muzzle of a gun to cover another person. Unless that person is actively endangering you and you are justified in shooting them, then it is reccomended that you draw a bead on them and allow them to make their own choice, let them decide how they would like the situation to proceed.




Every adult should know how to safely clear a gun, it isn't difficult or dangerous, and could potentially be an important thing to know.

[Democat]

51. Good. Obama should support the entire Constitution, unlike McCain

McCain supports just the parts he thinks will help get him elected or will help get more donations.

[theophilus]

56. Guns are a big issue. Banning them is not the answer and

will hurt our cause. If you remember back at the end of the Clinton administration crime was way down and economic benefits were spreading to low-income groups. The unemployment rate was really low.

Big Corps were wringing their hands about having to pay more for employees because of the small labor pool.

The NRA was wringing it's hands because membership was dropping.

The way to get rid of guns, especially handguns, is to make them unnecessary. If you don't fear for your life you won't have a gun in the house in many cases. Prosperity and security will get rid of the surplus firepower----almost as if by "magic". My humble opinion......

[tburnsten]

145. Unless you just enjoy shooting...

You don't have to be paranoid to own a gun, and rather than them disappearing because situations requiring people to mount a defense don't happen, they will be more of a recreational item than anything else. Not a bad gig.

[jody]

59. Given the reasoned statements in posts supporting Obama in this thread, why don't the anti-gun

contingent curb their hostility until Obama is elected?

[27inCali]

62. All-American, Pro-Gun ex-football heroes doing commercials for you

can't go wrong with that.

No wonder Obama's obliterated the GOP's usual lead among men.

[jody]

70. And the American Hunters and Shooters Association is a highly respected protector of RKBA alongside

the Scary Brady Bunch and Violence Policy Center. :sarcasm:

I wonder who vetted AHSA for Obama's campaign before he announced "I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message"?

[samuraiguppy]

77. I would ban all guns

and take away all the guns that people already have. If they want to hunt--let them learn archery. That would take a lot more skill anyway.

[jody]

81. Sorry you can't join Obama in supporting the Second Amendment. Does another candidate suit you? n/t

[samuraiguppy]

82. I support Obama all the way

but I don't agree with anyone on everything thank you. I have my own brain--and as a progressive person I am against guns thank you.

I understand the political necessity for Obama to support guns--but that does not mean that I have to change my long-held, deep, honest and passionately held convictions.

Sorry if that offends you.

[jody]

85. How can you say "I support Obama all the way" when you disagree with him on the Second Amendment?

Have you considered saying "I support Obama part of the way" which IMO is how you describe your position?

[samuraiguppy]

94. He is my man, he is my candidate--

I support him to the White House and to where ever he wants to go.

I do not however have an obligation to agree with his every point of view. On the subject of guns, I support gun control. Sorry my having my own opinion offends you--but I have the right to an opinion. Varying from Obama in a few minor points does not mean that I do not support him.

this is illogical.

[jody]

98. Your opinion doesn't offend me. You don't agree with Obama on the 2nd and that's OK with me but IMO

people who call themselves Obama supporters and oppose him on the 2nd Amendment should remain silent until he's elected.

The last thing Obama needs this close to the election is for 54 million gun-owners to begin to believe Obama is a closet gun-grabber masquerading as a Second Amendment supporter just to win votes on 4 November.

[samuraiguppy]

103. well technicallty you disagree

with his positions too--as you outlined in your OP. You would have him change to be even weaker on gun control.

I support him fully--but on this issue my personal views differ.

[jody]

107. As I clearly implied in the OP, Obama has not stated his position on RKBA for Chicago nor has he

taken a position on banning semiautomatics.

For that reason you are wrong in saying "well technicallty you disagree".

[iverglas]

99. uh ... because he has a fucking clue?

Have you considered saying "I support Obama part of the way" which IMO is how you describe your position?

No it isn't. Nice try, though.

The person to whom you are speaking supports Barack Obama in his candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

That was a clear, unequivocal statement of support you saw.

Just the kind of clear, unequivocal statement of support that anyone who genuinely does wish to see Barack Obama's candidacy for that office succeed would make, and the only kind of statement that anyone who genuinely does wish to see it succeed would make.

In an election campaign, either you support a party and a candidate or you do not. This is a pretty simple concept.

If you want the party/candidate to succeed, you do and say things that will increase its/her/his chances of succeeding.

If you do things that will completely obviously decrease its/her/his chances of succeeding, there is a pretty obvious inference to be drawn.

Anybody who doesn't support a party's/candidate's electoral platform is free to withdraw her/his support.

DURING an election campaign, continually doing NOTHING but drawing attention to portions of the platform that one disagrees with and denouncing it and demanding that it be changed, in mid-campaign ... well, again, inferences and all.

Are other less than completely satisfied elements in the party doing this? Is the gay and lesbian community denouncing the party/candidate for not promising them genuine equal treatment and demanding changes to the platform? Are advocates of firearms control, even, denouncing the party/candidate for being soft on firearms control? Is ANYBODY else running around here, or anywhere else, claiming to want to see the party and its presidential candidate succeed, all the while doing nothing but denouncing their platform?

I think not. And I think nobody who genuinely wants the party and its candidate to succeed would tolerate that for an instant.

[Statistical]

95. Right just make them illegal....

Lets look at the track record

It worked amazingly well with drugs. Drugs = illegal so there are no drugs in the country. No wait....

What about alchohol. We made that illegal at one time too. Wait that led to the emergence of organized crime.

Hmm what about some other illegal stuff:
Murder
Rape
Robbery
Assault

There must be done of those in US because if you MAKE SOMETHING ILLEGAL OF COURSE THE CRIMINALS WITH FOLLOW THE LAW.
I mean they are criminals right, well know for their high level of adherence to the law.

[Enthusiast]

119. Guns will never be banned

You are simply giving away millions of votes to the Republican Party. We will be very fortunate to get Obama in office even if he engages in zero anti-gun rhetoric. If his position is pro gun-control he is finished.

[slackmaster]

130. I'm going to go WAY out on a limb here and take a wild guess, samuraiguppy

When you say "all the guns that people already have", you didn't mean to include any of the guns in the hands of government employees.

Am I wrong?

[iverglas]

91. "Two things remain for Obama:"

1. Do what jody sez, and then jody and all his little friends will vote for him (so they say).

or

2. Don't do what jody sez, and then jody and all his little friends will keep on posting crap all over Democratic Underground badmouthing the Democratic party's presidential candidate and electoral platform during the presidential election campaign ... all for the Democratic Party's own good, but of course.


zzzzzzzzzzz.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. or Do what Iverglas says because she can't vote for you.

If I were Obama I would listen to people who can actually cast a vote.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. Wow Jody you got one dragged out of the gungeon.

Nice work.

David

[pipoman]

104. Agreed

However I believe that a simple statement would insure many votes he is treading on thin ice to win. Something like:

"As President I will not sign or support any new Federal gun legislation not related to improving the effectiveness of the National Instant Check System."

States and cities should be allowed to make their own decisions about gun issues and compliance with the Bill of Rights, if they make the wrong decisions they will be challenged. No need for Federal legislation beyond what is already in place, No need for Democrats to loose yet another election on this issue. Obama needs to make a definitive, strong statement to counter his voting record throughout his political career or he does stand to loose key states on this issue alone.

[jody]

106. I could live with that. n/t

[iiibbb]

110. Pretty much sums up the Keller decision.

Which actually left several avenues for gun control... it just prohibits prohibition.

[Democat]

123. Exactly - why lose elections over guns?

Even if you are against guns, how does losing an election over the issue help our side?

A loser in politics has no power at all.

[denem]

121. Fuck an Assault Weapons Ban. we need ALL Democrats this election.

I salute jody for tirelessly explaining how critical 'gun rights' are to sections of the electorate - Not just RW NRA types, but voters who would vote Democratic.

I favor Gun Control - but Obama gets it - not this time, not at this moment, WE HAVE TO WIN!!! (and this is one guy I am confident will keep his promises)

[HootieMcBoob]

128. Best ad I've heard the whole campaign

run it during all the during conservative radio shows throughout the country. When I drive through the middle of PA on my way to visit my family in the southwest corner, the only thing you can hear on the AM dial is conservative talk and church radio. Run this ad on all of those little stations and I think it would make a huge difference.

[Duppers]

143. thanks, jody

I own a handgun and dare anyone to give me any shit about it.