Unbelievable!

[ProSense]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2455153&mesg_id=2455191

[Mass]

1. How long before Cheney resigns and get replaced by who the WH

wants to run in 08?

[sandnsea]

3. You just get cheerier and cheerier!!

I'd say after the midterms. That'll tell them alot about where the country is headed and who they need to put in there to get the vote. Freaks the shit out of me too.

[ProSense]

4. There is a hierarchy, but

it seems that everyone in line is corrupt until it reaches into the Democratic ranks.

Section 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act

(a)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office,
inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor
Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of
President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall,
upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress,
act as President.
(2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death,
resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual
acting as President under this subsection.
(b) If, at the time when under subsection (a) of this section a
Speaker is to begin the discharge of the powers and duties of the
office of President, there is no Speaker, or the Speaker fails to
qualify as Acting President, then the President pro tempore of the
Senate shall, upon his resignation as President pro tempore and as
Senator, act as President.
(c) An individual acting as President under subsection (a) or
subsection (b) of this section shall continue to act until the
expiration of the then current Presidential term, except that -
(1) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is
founded in whole or in part on the failure of both the
President-elect and the Vice-President-elect to qualify, then he
shall act only until a President or Vice President qualifies; and
(2) if his discharge of the powers and duties of the office is
founded in whole or in part on the inability of the President or
Vice President, then he shall act only until the removal of the
disability of one of such individuals.
(d)(1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office,
inability, or failure to qualify, there is no President pro tempore
to act as President under subsection (b) of this section, then the
officer of the United States who is highest on the following list,
and who is not under disability to discharge the powers and duties
of the office of President shall act as President: Secretary of
State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney
General, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Agriculture,
Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Health and
Human Services, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,
Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of
Education, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(2) An individual acting as President under this subsection shall
continue so to do until the expiration of the then current
Presidential term, but not after a qualified and prior-entitled
individual is able to act, except that the removal of the
disability of an individual higher on the list contained in
paragraph (1) of this subsection or the ability to qualify on the
part of an individual higher on such list shall not terminate his
service.
(3) The taking of the oath of office by an individual specified
in the list in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be held to
constitute his resignation from the office by virtue of the holding
of which he qualifies to act as President.
(e) Subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this section shall apply
only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President
under the Constitution. Subsection (d) of this section shall apply
only to officers appointed, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, prior to the time of the death, resignation, removal
from office, inability, or failure to qualify, of the President pro
tempore, and only to officers not under impeachment by the House of
Representatives at the time the powers and duties of the office of
President devolve upon them.
(f) During the period that any individual acts as President under
this section, his compensation shall be at the rate then provided
by law in the case of the President.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=3&sec=19

[sandnsea]

2. Got out of the vehicle????

Uhm, road hunting for quail?? I admit, nobody in my family ever did much bird hunting, so maybe that's common practice, :shrug:

I've really never heard of bird hunting accidents though.

[JI7]

5. it seems to me

that the whore media spent more time making fun of Kerry for hunting than on reporting on this.

[Island Blue]

7. Why did they wait a day to report on this?

(This happened yesterday according to CNN.) You can't tell me that no one in the media knew about it until this afternoon. And you're right JI7. I seem to remember that on his hunting trip, JK hit his intended target and not a member of his hunting party. Heaven help us all if they ever allow Junior to play with guns.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. When Kerry is a hunter

I remember they all said "oh he's just doing this for the 'red state' voters!" Whatever. Than last Thanksgiving I believe it was reported that he hunted his own dinner. :eyes:

[ProSense]

6. Bush caught in Abramoff lies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2455208&mesg_id=2455208

[JI7]

8. and Lynne Cheney, who did you say was not a good man ?

you disgusting puke.

[ProSense]

9. The Bradys comment

James and Sarah Brady Comment on the Vice President's Hunting Mishap

To: National Desk

Contact: Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 202-289-5792

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- James and Sarah Brady made comments today related to Vice President Cheney's reportedly accidental shooting yesterday in Texas.

"Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him," said Jim Brady. "I had a friend once who accidentally shot pellets into his dog - and I thought he was an idiot."

"I've thought Cheney was scary for a long time," Sarah Brady said. "Now I know I was right to be nervous."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060212/pl_usnw/james_and_sarah_brady_comment_on_the_vice_president_s_hunting_mishap103_xml

[sandrakae]

10. Michelle Kwan pulls out of the Olympics and we find out immediately.

The Vice President of the United States of America shoots a man and we find out the next day. Something is wrong with this picture.

[_dynamicdems]

23. Imagine how fast we would have found out about it had the er, shooter

been a Democrat? Imagine if it had been Kerry.

Liberal media bias. Yup.

[TayTay]

11. Holy Mother a Gawd! And we let this man out without his keepers?

What a friggin dickhead. Is he going to face charges for this? He put a 78 year old man in the hospital, ferchrissakes. OMFG! If this had been John Kerry, he have already been tried, judged, sentenced, and it being Texas and all, scheduled for execution for attempted murder. (He's a Democrat. They kill Dems for attempted murder in Texas, right?)

I cannot believe this. Let me see, the NRA should come out and condemn the man for his exceedingly poor marksmanship.

Dick: This is what a real hunter does:

Article on the polymath abilities of my taller Senator who can friggin use a gun to friggin shoot quail. You, Mr. Cheney, are no John Kerry.

A skilled marksman and enthusiastic hunter, Kerry relishes his time in the wild. "I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach," he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal. "I track and move and decoy and play games and try to outsmart them. You know, you kind of play the wind. That's hunting."

Not mistaking a 78 year old man for a quail. Cheesus, I bet Dick has already called Gonzo Gonzales and had him issue a ruling that the VP can shoot anyone he wants because he has a Jr. unitary executive privilege that allows him to shoot civilians. (But not more than 2 or 3 in any given year.) OMFG!

*****

Rant over. Btw, this was my favorite part of the article about all the wondrous qualities of my --jr- ah, taller Senator:

A modern-day Renaissance man, Kerry glides between these realms with great facility while somehow maintaining an air of modesty. Or, at least, without exuding contrived mine-are-bigger-than-yoursness. After all, it's not like he's landing fighter jets on on aircraft carriers. He's simply doing what comes naturally. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040728/ai_n12556618

[rox63]

12. It;'s simple

JK doesn't have to contrive any "mine-are-bigger-than-yoursness", cause they ARE bigger. :evilgrin:

[TayTay]

14. Go read that article.

It read like one of us wrote it. Total fawning. I loved that quote, cuz, ahm, I'm evil. :evilgrin: No one here could ever write a sentence with "mine-are-bigger-than-yoursness" in it without a :evilgrin: though.

[rox63]

17. Wow!

Kerry is compared to Leonardo da Vinci, Ben Franklin, and P. Diddy in the same article. :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[TayTay]

18. Yeah and they called him a polymath

My first thought was, 'but he didn't go to MIT.' (ba dum dum.)

He is wicked smah you know. Does us proud up here doesn't he. (And he would make my week if he woud show up and really question Condi this week in the SFRC. In the, oh 5 minutes of questioning the Rethugs will give him. Sigh again.)

[ProSense]

13. Not mistaking a 78 year old man for a quail.

:rofl:

[karynnj]

15. That is a cool article

I also liked the line connecting to the list that warned it might cause severe feelings of inadequacy. I love the little Bush put down in the line you quoted.

What's funny is that even with this list that would cause feelings of inadequacy, they left out other talents:
-excellent cook (even had a cookie store with Chocolate chip cookies)
- write poems
-author
- all his Senate work
-is a magnet to all the kids in the room
-speaks multiple languages

[ProSense]

16. Good stuff in that article. Here is one of my favorite Kerry

interviews:

October 1, 2004

John Kerry: The Field & Stream Interview

Field & Stream

by Bob Marshall

On Wednesday, April 21, Senator John Kerry, already assured of the Democratic presidential nomination, was barnstorming through battleground states on a mission to introduce himself to voters. I caught up with him by phone as he was about to board a plane bound for Louisiana, where he would stop at Shell Beach for an informal lunch with anglers to discuss environmental issues. During our 30-minute conversation, Kerry answered questions about his views on conservation, guns, and other issues that concern sportsmen.

Marshall: Why should sportsmen vote for you?

Kerry: I think sportsmen should vote for me because I understand the ethic of sportsmen. I hunt and fish and climb mountains—I’ve been an outdoors person all my life and have an enormous respect for our relationship to the balance that’s necessary to preserve that enjoyment. It takes conservation, it takes effort. There are a lot of things that aren’t being funded that threaten the long-term enjoyment of sportsmen—whether it’s hunting or fishing.

I’ve long been a champion of dealing with conservation measures. I’ll give you an example. As chairman of the Oceans subcommittee in the Senate, I’ve helped protect sportsmen’s rights with respect to tuna. Keeping a balance between commercial fishermen and sportsmen is something I’ve been working on for years. And I’ve rewritten our fishery laws on several occasions, trying to preserve the stocks intelligently, to be able to maintain the passion we all have to go out and enjoy these kinds of things. They’re threatened. The oceans are threatened, the wetlands are threatened. We’ve got huge mercury levels in our fish. Forty-four percent of America’s rivers, lakes, and streams are unfishable and unswimmable. I think that’s unacceptable. But my opponent in this race doesn’t seem to care about it.

Marshall: What kind of hunting and fishing do you like to do the most?

Kerry: Well, I’ve mostly done saltwater fishing. I’ve done a little fly fishing in Idaho, but mostly I’ve fished for bluefish and stripers, and I did a lot of freshwater fishing as a kid—catfish, pickerel, things like that. But in the latter years it’s been bluefish or stripers, mostly in Massachusetts. When I was a kid I used to hunt woodchuck, predators on the farm. I started with a BB gun, moved up to a .22, then a .30/30, and a shotgun. And I’ve shot birds off and on through my life, some game, rabbits, deer—I’ve been on Massachusetts deer hunts.

Marshall: How did you get started hunting? Who took you on your first trip?

Kerry: My cousin, on a farm up in Massachusetts. His name is Fred Winthrop. He was a great hunter. My uncle was a great hunter, too. And the first time I went hunting, I went out on the farm. We used to go out woodchuck hunting in the afternoon and the evening. It was just kids enjoying going out. And then I did some bird hunting down in South Carolina.

Marshall: What’s the biggest deer you ever killed?

Kerry: Oh, I don’t know. Probably an 8-pointer, something like that. Nothing terribly big. But I once had an incredible encounter with the most enormous buck—I don’t know, 16 points or something. It was just huge. And I failed to pull the trigger at the right moment. I was hunting down in Massachusetts, on the Cape.

Marshall: The NRA has given you an "F" rating throughout your Senate career…

Kerry: Yeah, because the NRA has a silly kind of methodology that doesn’t make any sense. I’m a gun owner. I’m a hunter—I’ve been a hunter all my life. But I vote for reasonable things. I mean, I just think the Brady Bill is reasonable. They score that a zero. Having assault weapons reasonably regulated is intelligent. I mean, I’ve never thought about going hunting with an assault weapon of war. If you want to wield one of those, then go join the military.

I think you can protect the rights of sportsmen, protect the rights of people to bear arms. I believe in the Second Amendment. You know, we’ve had these laws on the books for 10 years or more: Nobody has ever tried to take anyone’s guns away. It’s just phoniness, an absolute phoniness to the arguments they make.

I have the complete intention of protecting the rights of sportsmen. In fact, I think I’m better for the rights of sportsmen than George Bush.

Marshall: Why is that?

Kerry: Because if you don’t protect the environment, if you don’t fight for access to hunting land, if you don’t fund things like the Open Fields Bill that I’m a sponsor of—to get more land online and provide access to hunters—if you don’t encourage the farmers to preserve certain areas for pheasant or quail, you lose the ability of people to enjoy these sports. And I think I do a better job of fighting for those protections and, in fact, enhancing the rights of sportsmen than George Bush does.

And I’m never going to vote to take away guns. I never have. I never sponsored anything to suggest that. But at the same time, with the right to own a gun comes responsibility. Everybody who owns a gun knows that. You don’t want them falling into the hands of kids; you don’t want them falling into the hands of criminals.

Every law enforcement agency in the country supported restraints on assault weapons. The NRA, in fact, stands against the law enforcement entities of our country. And I think there is something completely out of whack when that becomes the measurement and you, quote, "get an F" from people fighting law enforcement and who called the ATF jack-booted thugs. I just can’t understand that. George Herbert Walker Bush resigned from the NRA because of that comment about jack-booted thugs.

So I think there is a level of reasonableness here that we have to assert. I am better for sportsmen because I will preserve the environment, I will preserve the roadless rule, I’ll have more thoughtful preservation of wildlife and fishing than George Bush would ever have. He’s busy destroying wetlands critical to spawning grounds. When you start running through the list of things, I’ll tell you, I think my record is much stronger.

Marshall: You refer to "common sense gun laws" on your website. By that do you mean what you just referred to, such as the Brady Bill, the gun show loophole...

Kerry: Yeah, just close the gun show (loophole). I don’t have any broad-based agenda to move beyond the preservation of what we have today.

Marshall: When you hire a Secretary of the Interior, what will your instructions be to that person?

Kerry: To be balanced. To be thoughtful. I would not want to find someone with an ideological agenda. What I want is somebody who is thoughtful about the balance of development. I’m pro-development, but I’m for thoughtful and intelligent and sensitive development. I think we need to be smart in how we approach land use and preservation. I’d like to fund the Conservation Trust Fund, for instance. We need to develop natural gas and oil reserves—I think that’s important. But you’ve got to do it in a way that doesn’t put fish and wildlife unnecessarily in harm’s way. And I think we have to be thoughtful about how we balance that.

I want land management agencies to take the multiple-use mandate seriously. And I want to assure that fish and wildlife are not sacrificed to irresponsible processes. I’ve watched and seen how you can balance that. Lands are better used for hunting and fishing and camping and other things if you have that balance.

Likewise, forest management is too often driven by politics rather than common sense. I think you need to have legitimate thinning projects to reduce the risk of fire around communities and create a habitat itself in the forest. I think that’s a balance that’s very important.

We need to protect wild places and provide hunters and anglers and hikers with the ability to still find the solitary experience of the wilderness. I think it’s important to do that. I would expand the Farm Bill conservation program. That’s important; very, very important.

Marshall: How would you do that?

Kerry: Well, the conservation security fund that’s in there now has not been funded. I remember when I was out in Iowa in the primaries, I found $104 million in backed-up requests by farmers to engage in conservation practices, so they couldn’t do it. And you’ve got a lot of farmlands that are being threatened by the current distribution of the subsidies, which I think are unfair.

For instance, there is a lot of farmland you could encourage people to open up to public hunting on a commercial basis if you would provide incentives to help do that. And I think that would be important.

So I want to find somebody who is thoughtful and balanced. I don’t want an extreme to either side. I want somebody who is really going to bring people together at the table and work thoughtfully through how we balance the interests that we have.

Marshall: Do you think President Bush went far enough with his recent promise to maintain "no net loss" of wetlands?

Kerry: Absolutely not. I think wetlands loss has been going on daily, and losing tens of thousands of wetlands habitat in this country every year. We’re threatening the future of waterfowl as well as water quality. Despite that, they’ve rolled back the protections of wetlands, and they’ve made the problem worse.

Marshall: Many sportsmen are alarmed at the increase of mercury pollution in our rivers, lakes, and streams. President Bush and the EPA have just unveiled a plan to reduce mercury emissions by 70 percent by the year 2018. What, if anything, would you do differently?

Kerry: Bush’s plan is a phony one because he pushes the date backward and he lowers the percentage of reduction. And the message to the people is "We’re not serious." And the result is that by pushing the date back, nothing happens now. Everybody feels the pressure is off.

I was just talking with Carol Browner (EPA Administrator during the Clinton administration) yesterday about exactly that. And it has had a very negative impact on any efforts to have mercury reduction. The mercury levels are truly alarming today. Fish consumption advisories are in effect in 45 states, and in 28 states in America—more than half of the states in our country—parents can’t take their kids fishing and eat the fish. That’s disgraceful. And the level of mercury is increasing even offshore. You find it in swordfish and tuna. I think it is unbelievably disturbing.

Marshall: What would you do differently?

Kerry: Well you’ve got to enforce the emission standards. And you’ve got to fight with other countries to hold them accountable, too. That was the flaw with the Kyoto Treaty—the less developed countries were left out. And what goes up into the atmosphere in Asia can have an impact on a Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, or Washington lake just as much as anything else.

So we have to have global leadership on this issue. I was in Rio at the Rio Earth Summit. I was in Buenos Aires. I was in Kyoto, and I was in the Hague and have been part of all these discussions. And I’ve met with less developed nations’ delegations. I’m convinced there is a way to bring them into the fold.

But you can’t do it if you’re not even going to the table. George Bush has refused to go to the table. And obviously I want to do this in a way that is sensible for our businesses in the country, but you cannot continue to have this level of mercury pollution and particulate pollution that is taking place.

And Bush promised—this is another broken promise from George Bush—when he ran for the office of president, he promised a four-pollutant bill (nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide). Not only has he not pushed the four-pollutant bill, but he has eliminated carbon dioxide (from the list of pollutants). So he’s moved backward just as he has on the mercury levels.

I’m going to issue a rule that will achieve the maximum levels of mercury reduction as rapidly as we can to try to eliminate this contamination problem.

Marshall: What does "the maximum levels of reduction" mean?

Kerry: To get the maximum we could achieve as rapidly as possible. That means balancing the requests of business, balancing the costs with what we achieve. And if we have to provide federal assistance in order to mitigate then we ought to do that.

Marshall: Many Western sportsmen have expressed concern about oil and gas development on public lands in the Rockies. How do you plan to protect those public lands and maintain energy development?

Kerry: Again, it’s a balance. We’re going to be drilling, obviously, for a long time in this country, and I acknowledge that. But we have to do it in the right places. We have to drill smart. And again, that’s just making common-sense decisions of what the impact on the land is where you choose to drill. You’ve got to have an ethic that says you’re not going to drill everywhere, you’re not going to drill in preserves, national monuments. You’re going to preserve national parks, you’re going to preserve forests and so forth. I think it’s critical to have that balance.

But you know, we still have 95 percent of the Alaska oil shelf open to drilling. The Clinton administration issued the largest lease in history, which has yet to be exploited. We also have offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which is lease-permitted, all environmental impact studied. It’s ready to go—the only thing holding it back is that the price is not high enough to make it worthwhile for people to do it. But it’s the largest unexploited offshore field in the world. So we’ve got places to drill. We’ve just got to be smart about how we do it.

Marshall: President Bush reportedly keeps copies of Field & Stream on Air Force One. Will you?

Kerry: (laughs) Well, he ought to read them and listen to them. The copies must be in the back of the plane with the press.

[benEzra]

21. Unfortunately, that interview hurt Senator Kerry badly...

because it reinforced the fact that he thought the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch covered military weapons, when it did nothing of the sort. The AWB affected only CIVILIAN guns having certain features that the anti-gun lobby doesn't like, such as a civilian rifle with a protruding handgrip, and its main effect was to raise the price of full-capacity replacement magazines for some of the most popular civilian handguns (Smith & Wessons, Glocks, Sigs, Rugers) by 500%. The "weapons of war" rhetoric represented VERY bad staff work on the part of the Senator's campaign, and IMHO contributed to his loss in several very close races in pro-gun states.

(Military automatic weapons, including actual AK-47's and Uzi's, have been very tightly controlled since 1934 under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, and were not affected in any way by the "assault weapons ban.")

Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What? (DU thread)


As far as the Cheney screw-up...that's gross carelessness at best. The fundamental rules of gun safety are

1. Always treat a firearm as if it is loaded.
2. Never point any firearm at anything you would not want to shoot.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Always be sure of your target and know what is behind it.

I see gross violations of Rules 2 and 4, along with bad situational awareness in general.

[ProSense]

22. Sorry, it's still one of my favorites

Any reaction was pro-gun advocate fear and more BS right-wing spin. I read it, understood it and thought it a very clear article.

Talk about reading stuff into a statement. I doubt seriously that an October 1 2004 interview impacted the campaign all that much.

[benEzra]

24. Thoughts...

To clarify, I thought the interview was very good; I was objecting to his erroneous statements on the "assault weapon" issue, not the interview at large.

The interview itself wasn't the problem (and other than the AWB issue, he did a very good job); the ill-advised strategy of demonizing nonhunting guns and those who own them was the problem. I don't fault Kerry for this so much as his staffers; it is inexcusable that everyone on the whole campaign staff fell for the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch like that. The fact that the party leadership called him and Edwards back to Washington on Super Tuesday to vote for a ban on over-10-round handguns and civilian rifles with protruding handgrips didn't help, either; it made the party look like pawns of the anti-gun lobby. I actually corresponded with Senator Edwards some on this issue during the primaries (he was my senator, I'm from NC), and he was also under some major misconceptions about what the ban covered, and about what we gun owners do and don't own.

Kerry did a very good job at making his support for hunting, and the ownership of hunting guns, loud and clear (and I applaud him and his campaign for that). The problem was, and is, that only a tiny minority of gun owners are hunters (currently 1 in 5, and falling). The campaign strategists fell for AGS's line that most gunnies are hunters and only care about hunting guns, and it came back to haunt the campaign in a big way.

I was a regular on the John Kerry forums prior to and after the election (now Common Ground Common Sense), and wrote at length about this problem after the election, in hopes that future candidates won't fall for the same bait-and-switch tactics by the prohibitionist lobby:

Dems and the Gun Issue--Now What?

[TayTay]

28. Thanks for checking in

I grew up with hunters in my family and one cousin who owned a gun shop in rural Massachusetts. (Well, it was rural once, now it's suburban Mass, sigh!) I had no problem with gun owners who wanted to keep guns either to hunt or for protection or as collectors. (I knew a fair number of people who were just collectors and were recreational shooters, for fun.) In all honesty, Sen. Kerry just reminded me of attitudes toward guns that a lot of people in suburban/rural Massachusetts had on guns. There was no problem with most people, the problem was the access and availability of guns in an illegal fashion to people who should not legally have them.

I went to a seminar last year at the Mass Dem Convention in which Vickie Kennedy, Teddy's wife, talked about the problem she had with the current Administration and the availability of guns in urban settings and among 'kids' who shouldn't have them. She said that Kennedy's problem with this was with the argument that 'the present laws are already sufficient to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them' and that this is an enforcement issue. Perhaps, but the present Admin was underfunding the ATF and decreasing the number of inspectors who police the various shops and trade shows that are lax in following present law. Vickie said that Sen. Kennedy was worried about the rhetoric of the current Admin which said that Dems are going after all guns, which is not true and that they are undercutting their own enforcement programs by underfunding and understaffing them.

Has this come up as an issue? (I am uninformed on this. What is the thinking on this as you understand it. Is it really a 'pro-gun' and 'anti-gun' thing with absolutes or is there common ground that the two sides can agree on?)

Thanks! It's nice to have someone come in and offer to share this point of view. I appreciate it.

[benEzra]

30. Enforcing current laws is something that everyone can agree on

and I think that should be the first priority. There are peripheral issues that could be done also--encouraging the purchase of gun safes (maybe with a tax credit or something), figuring out some way to do background checks on private sales that could not be turned into gun-owner harassment, and so on.

I think the approach the anti-gun lobby is currently pushing--that of trying to ban various civilian guns that are rarely used in crimes, but which are quite popular among law-abiding shooters--is wrongheaded. The .38/.357 revolver accounts for more homicides (including homicides of police officers) than any other firearm, taking BATFE trace data as proxy for that variable, and the only long gun in the Top Ten is the 12-gauge hunting shotgun. So fighting to ban things like protruding handgrips on rifles is ludicrously counterproductive.

The threat to public safety doesn't come from the civvie AK-47 lookalike and the Glock 9mm sitting in our family's gun safe; the problem is the .25/.32/.380/9mm/.40/.45/whatever that your local criminal is carrying in his waistband, the one he robbed the 7-11 with yesterday and the one he might use tomorrow to murder someone.

I think the gun-control lobby has lost sight of the fact that its goal should be to address criminal gun violence, not to ban the law-abiding from owning rifles with protruding handgrips or outlaw self-defense by the law-abiding. Placing arbitrary restrictions on what guns the good guys can own (no protruding handgrips, no 11-round handguns, etc.) does absolutely nothing to address criminal gun misuse, yet it is criminal misuse that gets people murdered.

The situation reminds me of the proverbial drunk looking for his lost car keys under the streetlight in the parking lot, rather than in the ditch where he dropped them, because the light is better under the streetlight. We law-abiding gun owners are easy to go after with the New Law du jour, because we do our best to obey laws; we purchase and use our guns legally; and so on. Rummaging around in our gun safe and telling us which guns we are "allowed" to keep may give the appearance of fighting gun crime, but it doesn't do anything at all about the real problem.

I would suggest ditching bait-and-switch shenanigans like the "assault weapon" issue, the .50 caliber hysteria, the 5.7x28mm scare du jour, and other such anti-gun-lobby fundraising ploys, and go straight for criminal misuse--by fully funding enforcement of current gun laws. If a criminal tries to buy a gun and fails the background check, arrest them and prosecute them. Trace guns used in crimes back to the point of sale to see whether the gun was knowingly purchased for a criminal, and prosecute any gunrunners and straw purchasers that are found. And so on.

As an aside, I think if more people understood what laws are already on the books, I think there would be more clamor to enforce them and less call for new laws. For example, a lot of people who push the "assault weapon" issue think that you can buy military AK-47's and Uzi's at your local gun store, when in fact such guns have been very tightly controlled since 1934. I think a big problem for Dems on this issue has been that politicians from urban areas simply do not have much contact with the responsible ownership and use of firearms, nor do they understand Federal firearms law, making them more susceptible to emotion-laden misunderstandings on the issue.

In a broader sense, I think most of our crime problem in the USA is the result of misguided policies in areas other than gun law. For instance, until very recently Canadians had access to pretty much the same spectrum of firearms that Americans do, and Canada's crime rate has always been lower than ours. Canada's rate of knife violence is way, way lower than ours, despite Canada's lack of bans on kitchen knives. Why? Perhaps better socialization of young males into adult roles; perhaps better education; a culture of civility; lack of urban blight; better mental-health care; our "war" approach to the drug problem; I don't know. Maybe it's largely an urban problem, since places like Maine and Vermont have crime rates similar to Canada's despite free and widespread gun ownership, and Chicago has terrible gun crime despite very little ownership at all by the law-abiding.

Just some thoughts.

[TayTay]

31. Again, thank you for checking in and writing this.

My background (yeah, in Massachusetts of all places, LOL!) is that this is an urban problem and a perception problem. I heard Sen. Kennedy's wife (speaking explicitly for him, by the way) last year talk about the lack of personnel in ATF who can do the necessary work of tracking down improper sales and improper transfer issues. ATF is not viewed favorably by a lot of people in deeply conservative circles. (This is pro and con on this. There are legitimate gripes about ATF and their enforcement policies, as far as I can tell.)

Anyway, Vickie Kennedy, back last May, said that current law dictates that a gun shop should be inspected to see that they are following the law once every 2 years. (I think this is the right number, can you verify offhand?) But the funding cuts and lack of trained personnel mean that an inspection is more likely to occur every 8-10 years. This should be, as I heard it, a higher priority than advancing a lot of new bills. (Gun shops, btw, is the term used locally meaning an establishment that sells firearms almost exlusively. The Wal-Marts and K-Marts don't sell firearms in my area of the country, as they do elsewhere.) I have heard that a tiny, tiny percentage of sellers are responsible for upwards of 80% of guns that are traded and obtained illegally. Yet, the government isn't doing the one thing it should do to actually take guns out of the hands of urban youth and criminals, find out where they are getting them and shut those places down. Sigh!

[benEzra]

32. Sounds reasonable to me...

and it's encouraging to see people taking a step back and looking at the real problems instead of the manufactured ones.

BTW, my wife is originally from Cambridge, MA. We still get up there fairly regularly; our 6 y.o. son is a cardiac kid, so we visit Children's Hospital Boston once every year or two.

[TayTay]

33. I am glad to hear you are getting good treatment

for your son and so very sorry to hear that you need it. (God bless and Godspeed on your son. I can't imagine anything worse than having a child with a chronic illness.) My husband is on school committee locally and one of the school principles is dealing with a son who has leukemia and is being treated at Children's. They are very good. (Disclosure: My sister-in-law is a nurse at Children's and has worked their for over 15 years. I love the place. I find the staff to be very caring and warm and I like the atmosphere there. It's a great hospital. But I am always sorry to hear about anyone who has to use it because no one wants to hear about sick kids. It breaks my heart.)

Best wishes for your son.

[WildEyedLiberal]

34. Hi benEzra

Just wanted to chip in - thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I've read your gun issue posts in GD and GD-P and I think you're insanely well-educated and articulate on the issue. You certainly made me rethink my attitude about the assault weapons ban, as I didn't know that automatic weapons were already banned and that this did not affect them.

If you don't mind my asking, what's your son's condition? I have a congenital heart defect, too, and have had a regular cardiologist since I was born. (I've had three surgeries). I went to St. Louis Children's for my care. It just piqued my interest. I hope he is well and that he is in good care. It's not a fun thing to live with but it certainly doesn't keep me from having an enjoyable life.

[benEzra]

36. Tetralogy of Fallot with complete pulmonary atresia was the initial

diagnosis, secondary to a 22q11.2 genetic deletion (DiGeorge syndrome/VCFS). He had no right outflow tract, just a total right-to-left shunt via a huge VSD, and the pulmonary circulation was entirely supplied by a dozen or so aortic collaterals. When he was 10 days old and just under 5 pounds, he had a partial repair at Boston Children's in which they took the two largest collaterals off the aorta, connected them to an artificial conduit with integral valve, and sewed that into his right ventricle to give him a pulmonary artery system. He's had seven angioplasties since then, to stretch the ex-collaterals into honest-to-God pulmonary arteries, a few stent placements, coiled the unused collaterals, and a second open-heart just before his 4th birthday to give him a bigger conduit, close the VSD, and reconstruct the branch arteries a bit more. He now has a functionally normal circulatory system (except for a small ASD), which is an absolutely stunning achievement given what they had to work with initially. He'll need at least one more open-heart to give him an adult-sized conduit, but hopefully we can put that off until he's 10 or 12 (he's almost 7 now). His hemodynamics look very good and his O2 sats are generally above 95%.

He also has some other issues related to DiGeorge--he had a classic malrotation of the bowel requiring a Ladd procedure (done at age 2), major speech and feeding issues (VPI, delayed gastric emptying, hypersensitive gag reflex), immune deficiency (secondary to thymic aplasia/hypoplasia), and is pretty much a walking anatomy/physiology textbook. But believe it or not, his prognosis for actually living a normal adult life is very good. DiGeorge is a highly variable syndrome, and he seems to be at the very severe end of the cardiovascular spectrum but at the very minor end of most of the other disorders that can go along with it.

One of these days I'm going to have to write a book...

Here's the man himself:

[TayTay]

37. What a cutie!

All the best to you and your wife on him. This little man looks like a real trooper!

And thanks for dropping by, please come back again and post. It has been quite enjoyable getting info from you.

[karynnj]

39. He's adorable

What gorgeous eyes! Best wishes to him and your family.

[WildEyedLiberal]

45. What an adorable little guy!

It really sucks having cardiovascular problems, but it sounds like he's in good care. All the best to you and your little guy.

[benEzra]

46. Thank you (n/t)

[ProSense]

35. Thanks for the clarification, but

I found nothing erroneous about in kerry's statement. I read a lot of the pro and con arguments (including the posts here), and my opinion has not changed: Kerry is not against legal gun ownership. Assault weapons are banned, except they can be easily gotten on NYC streets. The more I read the more I'm convinced of my the statement I made earlier.

[benEzra]

38. Specifics...

I found nothing erroneous about in kerry's statement. I read a lot of the pro and con arguments (including the posts here), and my opinion has not changed: Kerry is not against legal gun ownership. Assault weapons are banned, except they can be easily gotten on NYC streets. The more I read the more I'm convinced of my the statement I made earlier.

Here's what the Senator said that was completely incorrect:

I’m a gun owner. I’m a hunter—I’ve been a hunter all my life. But I vote for reasonable things...Having assault weapons reasonably regulated is intelligent. I mean, I’ve never thought about going hunting with an assault weapon of war. If you want to wield one of those, then go join the military.

The problem is, the military uses automatic weapons--M16's, M4's, AK-47's, AK-74's, submachineguns, etc. Those are VERY tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act, as are ALL automatic weapons. These were not affected in any way by the "assault weapon" ban.

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch only affected CIVILIAN non-automatic (NFA Title 1) firearms. Period.

If you don't believe me, show me an actual military firearm not banned by the National Firearms Act that was banned by the AWB. You can't, because there weren't any.

AFAIK, the only gun used by the military that the AWB would have affected in any way was the Beretta 9mm pistol, which is an ordinary civilian handgun (Beretta 92F) that was adopted as the military's primary sidearm in the '80's. The AWB raised prices on replacement magazines for this pistol by 500% or so.




More detail on the campaign's position, from Senator Kerry's web site during the campaign:

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/sportsmen/gun_safety.html (link no longer valid--bE)

John Kerry strongly supports the current ban on assault weapons and voted to restrict the manufacturing, transfer or possession of these weapons in the United States—including AK-47’s and similar weapons used by terrorists in Afghanistan.

Note again the error--the guns being used by terrorists in Afghanistan are NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapons, NOT guns affected in any way by the "assault weapons ban."

BTW, you tell me what a ban on "possession" is.

Senator Kerry was also manipulated into cosponsoring S.1431 in 2004, which not only banned protruding handgrips on civilian self-loading rifles (!), and banned all civilian firearms holding more than 10 rounds, but also banned my mini-14 Ranch Rifle by name:


http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=5802&return=Y

I am very glad to see that Mr. Kerry did NOT cosponsor the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch this year (S.645). I think the truth about what such bans do and do not cover is getting around.

[ProSense]

41. That's incorrect

Kerry:

But I vote for reasonable things...Having assault weapons reasonably regulated is intelligent. I mean, I’ve never thought about going hunting with an assault weapon of war. If you want to wield one of those, then go join the military.

Your statement:

Automatic weapons, like those used by militaries (M16's, M4's, AK-47's, AK-74's, various submachineguns), are VERY tightly controlled under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and were not affected in any way whatsoever by the "assault weapon" ban.

Kerry:

John Kerry strongly supports the current ban on assault weapons and voted to restrict the manufacturing, transfer or possession of these weapons in the United States—including AK-47’s and similar weapons used by terrorists in Afghanistan.

Your statement:

Note again the error--the guns being used by terrorists in Afghanistan are NFA Title 2/Class III restricted automatic weapons, NOT guns affected in any way by the "assault weapons ban."

Kerry's first statement goes to the heart of what this issue is about: assualt weapons are not needed to hunt. The point being made is that opposing the legislation with hunting as the excuse is ridiculous, and that assault weapons are akin to those used by the military. This simple statement is taken out of context to demonstrate that Kerry doesn't know the difference between weapons.

There are two issues in second statement: supports the current ban on assault weapons AND voted to restrict the manufacturing, transfer or possession of these weapons---the ban and the enforcement.

Kerry wasn't manipulated into anything. Just because he isn't listed as a cosponsor on reintroduction of the legislation, doesn't mean he doesn't support it. It happens all the time.


Current sponsors:

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 16, 2005
Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. REED, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. DODD, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after paragraph (29) the following:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) RIFLES- The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof--

`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;

`(ii) AR-10;

`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;

`(iv) AR70;

`(v) Calico Liberty;

`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;

`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;

`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;

`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;

`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

`(xi) M1 Carbine;

`(xii) Saiga;

`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;

`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;

`(xv) SLG 95;

`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;

`(xvii) Steyr AUG;

`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

`(xix) Tavor;

`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or

`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

`(B) PISTOLS- The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof--

`(i) Calico M-110;

`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;

`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;

`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or

`(v) Uzi.

`(C) SHOTGUNS- The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof--

`(i) Armscor 30 BG;

`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;

`(iii) Striker 12; or

`(iv) Streetsweeper.

Q: What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?

A: Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns. Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading. So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb

From 2004:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127

[benEzra]

42. Sigh...

Kerry's first statement goes to the heart of what this issue is about: assualt weapons are not needed to hunt. The point being made is that opposing the legislation with hunting as the excuse is ridiculous

Hunting is pretty irrelevant as a justification for gun ownership. Not only do few gun owners hunt, but you don't need handguns and rifles to hunt, either--just shotguns. And not repeating shotguns, just single-shots. Don't need optics, either.

But you CAN hunt with rifles, and optics...AND guns with protruding handgrips.

This is an "assault weapon" according to S.1431 and S.645. It's also designed specifically for hunting (turkey hunting, as a matter of fact):



This is also an "assault weapon" according to S.1431 and S.645:



But this isn't:



The first Ruger above is functionally identical to a civilian AR-15, and is marketed as an all-around farm/utility rifle suitable for hunting small game up to coyote-sized. The second is functionally identical to a civilian AK-47 lookalike and is marketed as a short-range deer rifle. The first is an "assault weapon," the second one isn't. Make sense to you? It surely doesn't to me.

There are two issues in second statement: supports the current ban on assault weapons AND voted to restrict the manufacturing, transfer or possession of these weapons---the ban and the enforcement.

The 1994-2004 AWB (there is no current ban, BTW) didn't restrict possession. It prohibited the new manufacture of any civilian firearm with two or more listed features (protruding handgrip and a screw-on muzzle brake, for example), froze the supply of over-10-round pistol magazines, and prohibited new civilian firearms from being marketed under any of 19 Scary Names.

Banning the possession of the guns in question would have been a dramatic new step, not enforcement of the old ban.

Kerry wasn't manipulated into anything. Just because he isn't listed as a cosponsor on reintroduction of the legislation, doesn't mean he doesn't support it. It happens all the time.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. It certainly represents a shift in priorities, since he was a cosponsor of S.1431 and an outspoken advocate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 16, 2005
Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. REED, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. DODD, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

(list of Scary Names omitted)

You cite the bait-and-switch list of gun names, which is pretty much irrelevant except for the mini-14 and M1 carbine (many of the names don't even apply to any civilian-legal guns--there's no such thing as an NFA Title 1 AKM, for example).

Interestingly, you don't cite most of what the proposed law actually would do, so I will. Here you go. I took this from S.645, but it's identical to S.1431 AFAIK:

(D) DETACHABLE MAGAZINE RIFLES- A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.

`(E) FIXED MAGAZINE RIFLES- A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

`(F) DETACHABLE MAGAZINE PISTOLS- A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--

`(i) a second pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a barrel shroud; or
`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) FIXED MAGAZINE PISTOLS- A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

`(H) SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUNS- A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

Paragraph (D) bans all civilian detachable-magazine self-loading rifles having a protruding handgrip. All of them. As well as all self-loading hunting rifles with screw-on muzzle brakes or vibration dampers.

Paragraph (F) bans competition-style European .22LR target pistols, since the magazine attaches forward of the trigger guard.

Paragraph (H) bans all self-loading hunting shotguns or defensive shotguns that have a protruding handgrip. All of them. As well as all shotguns with detachable magazines, regardless of appearance.

In summary--a bunch of very popular cosmetic features that the gun prohibitionists don't like, because they make guns look too "modern" for their taste.

Also, notice that paragraph (G) bans all over-10-round defensive handguns, like the one your local police officer carries on her hip.

So in summary, you are advocating a ban on civilian rifles and shotguns with protruding handgrips, and all civilian firearms holding more than 10 rounds. I say that's not only irrational, but political suicide anywhere but in a handful of gun-phobic states. Such a ban hasn't even passed in Massachusetts; you really think it would fly nationwide?

Q: What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?

A: Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns. Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading. So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.

I don't think citing the Brady Campaign helps you any, for the same reason I don't generally cite the NRA. Both are partisan lobbying organizations trying to spin as many people as possible into supporting their agendas. But let's look at the Bradyite claims a little more closely.

"While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile...assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip"

That's total crap. All civilian rifles, including AR-15's and civvie AK lookalikes, are designed to be fired from the shoulder, and AR-15's are among the most accurate of out-of-the-box civilian rifles.

I happen to own a civilian "AK-47" lookalike (not a real NFA Title 2 restricted AK, but looks like one). Last time I went to the range, I was the only one shooting a rifle at the 200-yard line. My "AK" has a built-in scope mount...

AR-15's dominate many disciplines of target shooting competition...and a good AR is as accurate as any bolt-action hunting or target rifle.

because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns.

BS. Civilian AR-15's and AK lookalikes are made exclusively for the civilian market, and AFAIK are not used by any military in the world. The key feature of the military AK-47 was/is the ability to fire like a machinegun--which civilian AK lookalikes cannot do. And show me a military that uses Ruger mini-14's and Benelli turkey-hunting shotguns...

"Silencers" (sound suppressors) have been tightly controlled by Federal law for 71+ years, since they are Title 2/Class III under the NFA, and you have to pass what amounts to a Secret-level government security clearance to own one. They have nothing to do with the AWB.

Stocks that fold for storage aren't found on most military guns (M16's don't have them, most AK-47's and -74's don't, etc. etc.). They are fairly popular for civilian guns, and my mini-14 wears one. The rifle is pretty useless with the stock folded, but it's more easily secured that way if you don't own a full-size safe.

Bayonets--which do you consider more dangerous, a spear or a rifle? And how many criminal bayonet charges have you ever heard of?

But a lot of that is still red herring. They want to ban civilian guns without folding stocks, bayonets, and threaded muzzles.

Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading. So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.

My SAR-1 came with a 10 round magazine. Standard aftermarket magazine capacity is 30, not 50 (just like most police patrol rifles). But that's just posturing, since the Bradyites aren't trying to ban 50-round magazines. They're trying to ban 11 round magazines.

"High-powered weapons"--rather than comment, I'll just post some kinetic energy figures:

Civilian Uzi lookalike (9mm pistol cartridge).............450 ft-lb
AR-15 (.223 Remington)..................................1,290 ft-lb
Civilian AK-47 lookalike (7.62x39mm)....................1,527 ft-lb
Deer rifle (.30-30 Winchester)..........................1,902 ft-lb
Deer rifle (.30-06 Springfield)*........................2,913 ft-lb
12-gauge shotgun (.729 caliber slug, 2 3/4" shell)......2,935 ft-lb
Big-game hunting rifle (.375 Remington Ultra Mag).......5,041 ft-lb
Big-game hunting rifle (.416 Lazzeroni).................7,000 ft-lb

*Most popular deer hunting caliber in the U.S.


AR-15's are the least powerful of all common centerfire rifles. Civvie AK lookalike are among the least powerful .30 caliber rifles on the market. And the AWB even covered .22's...

(msnbc.com story)

BOISE, Idaho - The expiration Monday of a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons means firearms like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s can now be legally bought — a development that has critics upset and gun owners pleased.

That's quite incorrect. Civilian AK-47 lookalikes were no less legal to manufacture, buy, and sell in 2003 than in 2004 (I bought one in 2003; it's a 2002 model). Actual AK-47's and Uzi's are still banned, because they are controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the AWB had nothing to do with them.

[ProSense]

43. The Brady Campaign is valid. No need to continue. n/t

[benEzra]

44. Agreeing to disagree...

:hi:

You and I will have to agree to disagree on the desirability of banning guns the Brady Campaign doesn't like, but one thing that is NOT debateable is that gun owners consider the "assault weapon" issue to be a Big Deal. A big enough deal to be a vote-breaker for many gun owners.

You may not understand that. I do. Not only am I a gun owner and married to a gun owner, but most of my friends and coworkers (of all political stripes) are gun owners, my parents and my sister are gun owners, and so are half the people in my state. The gun issue is a Big Deal here.

I OWN rifles with protruding handgrips, my wife owns a 15-round pistol and a historical rifle with a bayonet, and we intend to keep them. If any candidate wants our vote, they need to respect that.

[karynnj]

26. I liked the article as well

I went to the linked DU thread - they really seem very extreme. His statement that 80% of gun owners don't shoot and his description of what sounds like high powered weapons that can fire multiple bullets is troubling. As a bullets that can go through protective gear.

They ignore that the states with tough gun laws have far fewer people killed by guns. That they are mostly the urban states makes this more impressive - as the same laws could lead to more killing here. It's amazing that the US is an extreme outier on the high end in gun deaths when compared to other industrialized countries, yet they think they are unduly constrained.

Much as Dean's position that the laws should be set in the states to meet state needs seemed logical and interesting, if guns are sold in say, Ohio, they will soon be in NJ.

The other thing is that it seems, as one poster said, that based on small differences they gave Bush high marks and Kerry low marks. I suspect that even if Kerry would have said everthing on guns they wanted, they would have taken things out of context and lied and given him the same "F" because as a group they are culturally conservative.

I assume the media's mocking of a short shooting photo opt was done for the same reason they mocked his windsurfing - by repeatedly having people signal that they were stupid, they countered the messge that the RW really feared - though it was of no importance to me - Kerry was far more athletic and "manly" than Bush - from his sports, to his hunting, to his naval career. I do think though putting out more of the ice hockey pictures might have helped.

[benEzra]

40. Sources and clarifications...

I went to the linked DU thread - they really seem very extreme. His statement that 80% of gun owners don't shoot

It is a fact that only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts. Current numbers are ~13 to 16 million hunters out of 65 to 80 million gun owners. So 80% of gun owners are not hunters. That is a fact.

If you're interested, the main source for the ~16 million licensed hunters figure is the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/FHW01.pdf. It shows 13.0 million licensed hunters over the age of 16 as having hunted in 2000. If you add in hunters under 16, you get ~14.7 million active hunters in 2000.

The following page argues that there are actually more than this number who consider themselves hunters, but didn't actually hunt in 2001 (actually speaking of people who did not obtain a hunting license in 2001, if I read it correctly): http://www.conservationforce.org/news_template.cfm?id=40. However, they also fail to account for the fact that not everyone who obtains a hunting license actually gets around to hunting (e.g., I am a nonhunter but once obtained a hunting license in case I needed to shoot a couple of coyotes who were frequenting our yard in Florida some years ago, but the coyotes never presented a threat so I left them alone). So I think 13 to 16 million is a ballpark number of active hunters.

As far as the number of gun owners, there are not really any good hard numbers since many people (including me) would be reticent to volunteer that information on a government survey or one conducted by a private organization that I was not personally familiar with. Lowball estimates run in the 65 million range, with some estimates going much higher, with some guesstimates running as high as 100 million, IIRC. I think 80 million is probably close to the actual number.

Divide those numbers out, and you find that approximately 4 out of 5 gun owners do not hunt, and 1 in 5 do.

Finally, the #1 reason we own guns in the United States is for defensive purposes, followed by recreational target shooting in #2. Hunting is a distant third. And since some of the most popular guns owned by law-abiding Americans for defensive purposes and recreational target shooting are over-10-round 9mm and .40 caliber pistols, and modern-looking civilian rifles, then any attempt to ban nonhunting guns like these will automatically motivate many/most gun owners to vote against you. There's your demographic problem in a nutshell.

his description of what sounds like high powered weapons that can fire multiple bullets is troubling.

All civilian firearms are limited to firing once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and may not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. This has been Federal law for 72 years.

ALL guns that can fire more than once when the trigger is pulled are very tightly restricted under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

If you are talking about guns that fire more than once without reloading, then we have a big problem, because nearly ALL civilian guns will fire multiple times without reloading. But the trigger must be pulled separately for each shot.

Not sure what you mean by "high powered," but I should point out that a typical deer rifle is seven to nine times as powerful as my wife's 9mm pistol, and more than twice as powerful as an AR-15.

As a bullets that can go through protective gear.

My point was that practically >>ALL<< rifles, including ALL hunting rifles will shoot through Kevlar body armor like it's made of Saran wrap. Such armor is designed to stop handgun rounds, not rifle rounds. Even the weakest centerfire rifle will penetrate a vest.

My point being that if someone comes to you asking you to support a ban on all ammunition that can penetrate a Kevlar vest, they are trying to hoodwink you into allowing the government to ban any rifle ammunition they want, because all rifle calibers will do so.

FWIW, Kevlar-piercing handgun ammunition, which would allow a handgun to penetrate a vest that would otherwise protect against that caliber of weapon, was banned twenty years ago by a law supported by the NRA.

They ignore that the states with tough gun laws have far fewer people killed by guns. That they are mostly the urban states makes this more impressive - as the same laws could lead to more killing here. It's amazing that the US is an extreme outier on the high end in gun deaths when compared to other industrialized countries, yet they think they are unduly constrained.

Methinks you are very selectively citing your statistics. The safest state in the nation is Maine, with some of the most pro-gun-owner laws in the nation. Vermont, which allows any law-abiding citizen to carry a gun on their person for any lawful purpose without a permit, is also among the lowest. Their crime rates are comparable to that of Canada and European nations. High-income, highly educated Massachusetts also has a low rate, but New Jersey (with some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation) does not.

Crime rates in the U.S. are correlated with poverty, legacies of racism, urban blight and lack of inner-city opportunity, and drug trafficking. The highest rates are found in urban areas among groups that have the lowest rates of lawful gun ownership, often in places where civilian gun ownership is mostly prohibited by law (D.C. and Chicago come to mind).

Criminal violence and lawful gun ownership by NON-criminals are two different things. Attacking the latter is not the same as addressing the former.

Much as Dean's position that the laws should be set in the states to meet state needs seemed logical and interesting, if guns are sold in say, Ohio, they will soon be in NJ.

And the people of Ohio and NC and Maine and New Hampshire have considered and rejected attacking law-abiding gun ownership. If New Jersey wants to make an honest citizen a criminal because she/he owns a rifle with a black plastic stock, fine. But don't force such asinine laws on Maine or Vermont or North Carolina.

We ALREADY own guns. Including modern-looking small-caliber self-loading rifles, and handguns holding more than 10 rounds. We intend to keep them, and will vote against any candidate who promises to take them.

If you want to address criminal gun use, then there is indeed common ground to be found. We gunnies don't want criminals to have guns any more than you want them to. But stay out of our gun safe, please. :)

[_dynamicdems]

25. Great article on JK!

I've never read that before.


Love this part addressing the "aloofness"

"His apparent aloofness is actually an antique form of New England propriety," writes Joe Klein in this week's Time magazine cover story. "... A strong sense of honor comes with the territory, a discomfort with swagger and braggadocio."

[karynnj]

20. Look at this DU-P post

When things look dangerous and related to the middle east, look who people turn to. (This poster rarely has a nice word for the taller Senator from his state.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2454971&mesg_id=2455037

[TayTay]

27. They should. He knows his stuff.

But the Rethugs control all the levers of power. The Rethugs refuse to allow any oversight hearings at all. If this type of attitude had prevailed in the 1980's, the Iran-Contra and BCCI investigations never would have happened. Lugar would have obeyed orders from the White House and never allowed Kerry near the Iran-Contra business and never,never, never would have given him staff and money to pursue this. Likewise with BCCI.

There simply isn't much any Democrat can do in the current atmosphere and with the current craven and cowardly media that can get a decent investigation going. This is why we have to take back a branch of Congress this fall. We have to have some subpoena ability. These things are being hidden and no one is getting the necessary money to go after it.

[ProSense]

29. Great stuff !

The Cheney shooting is bringing a lot to the surface (for the moment):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2449493&mesg_id=2456834