Gun control in this current climate.

[MNDemNY]

First off, let me say that personally, I would like to see a U.S. that is not so gun-centric. That being said, I must make this observation. I believe that our founding fathers made the right to bare arms so absolute, not for the benefit of hunters and plinkers, but too make sure that the people could defend themselves FROM the government. An idea that I used to think quaint and outdated, however, with this administration's actions I am beginning to think the founders had it right. How could the populous protect themselves from the actions of this illegal administration? We no longer have"a well regulated militia" as the individual states Guard Units have been Nationalized. Have gun control advocates (of which I am one) done a disservice to our nation that may now be coming to fruition? I would like to Know what other DUers think. This IMO is a discussion that must be had.

[havocmom]

1. The issue has lost a lot of votes for DEM candidates over and over again

Howard Dean, with his insistence that it should be a state issue, would have taken a good chunk of the voted where I live (a very GOP area) had he been the nominee last time around. Between the gun issue, his populist style, and LISTENING to people to find - then point out - the common ground, he was actually pretty popular in my area.

And, yes, the People need to be able to mount a defense. One might notice there is a LOT of gun control in totalitarian states.

[MNDemNY]

4. As you say, we "must be able to mount a defense"

Are even assault rifles and machine guns enough to do that? Or do we need tanks and the like? With the National guard under the control of DOD, where is our "line of defense?"

[Sanctified]

7. It only takes 1 bullet to change the course of political history.

Ask Abe Lincoln, James Garfield, William Mckinley and John F. Kennedy.

[MNDemNY]

12. But could "one bullet" defend against a runaway evil President/King?

[havocmom]

14. How many Americans?

Even at one round per, it would have an impact.

[MNDemNY]

15. Do you think, enough of an impact?

[havocmom]

27. Yep, I do. Done well.

The problem is NOT fire power, but the issue of supplies. The supplies are in the hands of the multi-national corporations who are bringing tyranny. People need guns AND gardens! People need to have skills and knowledge of how to live a bit more within their REAL means, which is to say - learn and prepare to take care of your food and water needs as well as you can. Build communities which are really sustainable.

But, it's more fun at the mall... so the cultural mindset is the real problem with impact. Too many minds are set up too many asses. There are too few who address reality.

[Sanctified]

25. Life becomes pretty shitty the second people start taking pop shots at you

and your cabinet members every time you step out in public.

[MNDemNY]

30. And if they simply hold up in "undisclosed locations"?

[Sanctified]

32. How much power do you have if you have to live in hiding.

[MNDemNY]

34. I'm not sure...Let's ask Cheney.

[havocmom]

57. One bullet at a time seems to be giving that evil man's military serious trouble

Iraq.

Fact is, big ol military actions do not work well against smaller, determined groups defending their homes.

There is a lesson in there somewhere. It is a lesson General Washington and his officers understood. Perhaps part of the reason the Founders made certain inclusions in the instruments of American governance is they understood it too.

[Captain Hilts]

2. In the Soviet Union everyone had a firearm.

And look at the government they had.

People don't need handguns. Those are involved in the vast majority of gun crimes.

A rifle? Fine.

[MNDemNY]

3. How about anti aircraft missiles?

I'm serious, if the intent was to protect ourselves from a runaway government, then should we not have the resources to do just that?

[Old Codger]

13. Why not

Why should it be illegal or forbidden for "LAW ABIDING" citizens of this country to have the right to keep and bear arms??? Keep the guns out of criminals hands, ok that is fine, but to ban "LAW ABIDING" citizens from excersizing their legal, constitutionally guaranteed rights is wrong. These rights are given for good and just reasons. If you read the history of the revolutionary war you will see that the confrontation at the beginning was perpetuated by the english forces attempting to confiscate the arms of the local militia.

[havocmom]

16. Where I live there are LOTs of close encounters of the snake kind

A rifle is NOT a good choice when someone in your group accidentally steps on a rattler. There are times when a handgun IS the defensive weapon which is safest.

[MNDemNY]

21. Not arguing about shooting snakes, I want to know how the American

people could/would defend our liberties from a runaway government, which seems closer then I ever would have dreamed.

[havocmom]

28. I wasn't responding to you, but to a poster who wants no handguns

on the assumption that there is no reason for them, but rifles are fine. That poster may be somewhat limited in personal experience and I wanted to suggest other people have different circumstances to deal with.

[MNDemNY]

31. Gotchya.

[Captain Hilts]

33. Oh, I've got a lot of personal experience.

So, no, my comments aren't based on ignorance.

In fact, I encountered at rattler in Clifton Forge, VA just last weekend in a walk through the woods. We didn't feel compelled to shoot it, actually.

And, yes, we had firearms with us.

[havocmom]

40. Where I live, it can easily happen nearly daily

Rural area, kids, ranchers, people working outdoors daily. It happens a lot in the course of a day's chores, not just when folks get a chance for a walk in the woods ;) A sidearm is often a damn good tool to have around. Hard to work with a rifle to hold.

Big bails of hay = heaven for small rodents = SNAKES hunting small rodents = AW SHIT! way too often.

[Captain Hilts]

74. This was someone's farm that, too, had bails of hay, etc.

They don't feel compelled to shoot them.

I understand there are circumstances where people want to carry handguns, I have friends that do so for good reasons. But gun owners need to acknowledge that handguns are the primary firearm with which to commit crimes, especially in the cities. City dwellers are more likely to be on the business end of one. The rate at which people in the US are killed in crimes with handguns is a national embarassment.

I feel better on the farm and on a sailboat knowing we've got firearms. But gun owners need to be part of the solution.

It's like expecting the AMA to police bad doctors. It's just not happening.

[Richard Steele]

18. I'm sorry, that's simply not true. Firearms were rare, and possession at home was even rarer.

The majority of common Soviet citizens who owned firearms
had to keep them locked up at whatever "sporting club" they
belonged to. Ammunition as well. And there were never very
many who belonged to such clubs.

Having firearms or ammo at home was a CRIME that only a handful
of the most powerful and well-connected Soviets could get away with.

[Captain Hilts]

35. I lived in Moscow and a lot of people had firearms. nt

[Richard Steele]

38. Really? I'll admit I've never visited, myself.

What were you there for, if you don't mind me being nosy?
(Since you say "lived", I assume you weren't just a tourist)

[Captain Hilts]

43. Research for a graduate degree on unemployment policy.

The Soviets/Russians have a strong tradition in hunting, even those in Moscow.

Between that, and folks copping firearms from their time in the military, there were a lot of weapons around. I've no doubt the ratio of rifle to handgun favors rifles more than it does here.

[Richard Steele]

46. Unemployment policy? That's one I never would have guessed!

When were you there?

[Captain Hilts]

49. First time 1980, 1993, 1997. nt

[frazzled]

5. Thank you for the NRA argument

You asked to know what we think: I think bullshit.
We can win advocating gun control, and win big. Gun nuts who would vote on their right to own an assault weapon would not vote for a Democratic candidate anyway, just as zealous right-to-lifers won't vote for a Democrat anyway. So it's not an issue. Assault weapons and illegal guns are.

Get over it.

[MNDemNY]

8. I am not framing this as a elect-ability issue.

I am asking if this current climate continues into the realm of canceled elections and further erosion of civil liberties, how would we be positioned to take action, or do we only retain the option of beating our heads against the wall of oppression??

[Sanctified]

9. I think you are wrong.

There are many on these boards including myself who would vote on their right to own an assault weapon and would never ever vote for a Republican.

[MNDemNY]

11. Really, where would you, personally draw the line with personal weapons?

[Sanctified]

23. I would draw the lines with our current laws.

I think they are fine as they are and no need to make any changes.

[MNDemNY]

26. Do you think our current laws..

give the people enough protection from an illegal government?

[Sanctified]

29. More than enough.

[havocmom]

19. Das a fact

[-..__...]

42. Really now?!?

"We can win advocating gun control, and win big"...

Tell that to the voters in Montana and Virginia.

Are you naive enough to believe that Jon Testor and Jim Webb would have had any chance of winning their Senate races had they advocated stricter gun control laws?

What's the party balance in the Senate again?

"Gun nuts who would vote on their right to own an assault weapon would not vote for a Democratic candidate anyway"...

You have poll numbers to back this up?

Personally... I wouldn't vote for any candidate that would deny me my 2nd amendment rights... including the right to own an "assault weapon".

So keep right on believing that gun control is a winning issue...

I'll keep right on sending more $$$ to the NRA and we "gun nuts" will beat you dollars to dimes every time... count on it.

[MNDemNY]

51. I would like to Read your thoughts on my post.

[aikoaiko]

73. You are wrong, There are many in the middle who can be pushed away by some key issues.

If the republican candidate were close to the center and the Democratic candidate were anti-gun, there are people who would flip or NOT vote at all. This is especially true for House Representatives.

[wuushew]

6. this is a pointlessly inflammatory topic

nothing new has happened to warrant a yet another post. Have we solved Iraq debacle yet?


At least with Virginia Tech, we had chance to talk about the interaction between mental illness and firearms. That was valuable regardless of where you stood on the issue.

[MNDemNY]

10. So, one should avoid "inflammatory "topics?

[havocmom]

20. No, only Good Germans should avoid them

;)

[wuushew]

36. Nobody is avoiding them

I just lament the waste of effort caused by repetition. The original poster is a relatively new member so I it is not unreasonable to assume he or she has not seen the myriad posts on the subject that pop up periodically. Certainly the responses so far are the generic and prototypical comments I would have expected.

[MNDemNY]

39. I would like to read your your response

to the issue raised in my post. Not just your reaction to it's topic.

[havocmom]

47. One is foolish to assume that repeating discussions has no value

Just because you and I may have had a session on a particular topic, there are many, many others who may be new to exploring a topic.

What, only people with your or my experience here are allowed to open topics? Only topics you and I haven't already explored here at some point? How the FRIGGIN HELL do we get any new allies and activists with that attitude?

If the topic bores you, there are other threads with other topics. Simple- don't participate if you don't want to. Thank goodness we have choices on what we get to discuss, and not have some topic police decide for us, huh?

[wuushew]

64. Ok then, see you on the next flat tax discussion

The current group of criminals is the same group of people hanging around in Washington since the Ford administration. By merely using bribery and corruption they have furthered their goals more than any coup could hope to accomplish. The stability created by the facade of democracy has been very useful to the power elite. Having a hunch that the government will shoot you and crush your house with a tank does not make it so. Is there any specific evidence that points to when or how this will happen? If not then we are just speculating on pointless hypotheticals.

The dreams of Bush/Cheney will simply live on in the form of people less personally disliked.

In terms of gun control, I don't know why Congress would want to discuss it since it carries high risk and Democrats are better served at this point by discussing Iraq and health care. My goals are the Whitehouse and 2/3 majorities in Congress in 2008.

[MNDemNY]

67. Do we wait until it IS so? Why are discussions..

of hypotheticals not relevant?

[dorkulon]

17. Gun Control: Use both hands

I don't see Europeans subjected to tyranny because of their lack of guns.

[havocmom]

22. The Swiss seem to do better than most of Europe

And they all keep guns, don't they?

Also, the people I know who have lived any length of time in Europe have said, to a one, that there is a LOT LESS freedom there.

[dorkulon]

52. The swiss are allowed to keep rifles.

A far cry from a glock semi-auto. I haven't heard anything about less freedom in Europe, but I'd love to hear an example. I spent 2 years in the UK and it seemed fine to me. One thing they do have a lot less of is gun deaths.

[MNDemNY]

24. I don't see Western european governments on the verge of tyranny, as

we seem to be.

[dorkulon]

53. Which only goes to show that our guns don't seem to be helping. (nt)

[The2ndWheel]

37. Defend ourselves against what, an air assault?

You might go down shooting, but if the government really wanted to kill you, they could. Our government has bombs, the people don't.

America could win the war in Iraq, depending on what the actual goal was, and how ruthless we were. Look how America was created. If that same process happened today, it would be illegal.

Not that any stable, established government today has to kill anyone. To get to a stable and established government someone has to die, but once it's in place, nobody has to die. Well, at least as long as economic production always grows. Same with the actual government, it too must grow. Which is why we'll all be watched at some point(just look at the UK), to keep economic production going, and so that there is no threat to the state. Which if there were that type of threat, it would require force to kill it.

[MNDemNY]

41. So, are you saying there is no way to

defend ourselves if this current government continues down the path they seem to be on?

[The2ndWheel]

68. There is a way

Stop going to work. Stop paying taxes. Starve the beast, if you will.

True, you'll probably starve yourself since corporations and governments increasingly own more food and land, but, that's the price we pay for continuing to feed the machine and expecting something different to happen.

If we're worried about this administration(and wouldn't it be easy if it were only this single administration, and not the whole shabang), then we actually have to shut the country/state/nation down.

We're little more than cogs in the machine these days. However, the one thing we do have(for now at least), is the ability to say no, and then act on it. We can't just stand in the street with signs, then go back to work after the weekend.

Other than that though, I don't see much we can do. The biggest problem would be, who's going to take that first step, and voluntarily risk their child going hungry? I have no idea. It's one thing to be forced into that situation because corporation A, or government B no longer requires your services because they've become more efficient. It's something completely different to stop all on your own.

[slackmaster]

44. I respect your right to exercise complete control over firearms...

...in your home, your car, your place of work, among your family, and anywhere else where you have dominion.

Please respect my right to do the same.

[MNDemNY]

45. I don't follow, how is this a response to my post?

[slackmaster]

71. I think gun control advocates have an overly large view of their personal space

Why would you concern yourself with what I keep in my home? I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't adversely affect me.

[NeedleCast]

48. I've always found it interesting

that, in general, the people that are furthest left and spend a lot of time calling for revolution are the ones who are also pro-gun control. Never really made sense to me.

[MNDemNY]

54. That is my dilemma. I am now leaning to your point.

[Madspirit]

59. Well, except that their point is WRONG

The ones on the far left DO NOT WANT TO TAKE GUNS. It's the liberals, not the leftists, who want to take them. It's the feel good, do good, Pollyannas...NOT FAR LEFTISTS.

Lee

[MNDemNY]

60. Fair enough.

[NeedleCast]

61. Guns are a good boogey-man.

It's always been my thinking that the extreme ends of both spectrums want the same thing...control. The only difference is in how that control is gained.

Unfortunately these days guns evoke an image of violence in the minds of many people. Guns have become a boogey-man just like Dungeons and Dragons or Harry Potter or in any other case where people have attributed human characteristics to an inanimate object. Guns are not evil. They are not good. They do not get happy, the do not get sad.

As far as addressing the subject of your OP, I think we're armed well enough to defend ourselves. There are a LOT of us ex-military types out here who not only own firearms but are also pretty darn good at using them. The vast majority of my (large) extended family has been shooting since an early age. If it ever came to an armed conflict vs our government, they'd lose badly (this assumes the military came in on the side of the government, which is by no means a sure thing). The US is vast, and trying to subdue insurgent groups would be impossible (see: Iraq).

[MNDemNY]

63. Thank you for your response. I hope you are correct.

[Madspirit]

55. Wrong....

The ones furthest to the left do NOT support taking the guns away from people. It's the liberals not the leftists taking guns. It's the Pollyanna feel-good types who think it would even be possible. Not those of us on the far left.
Lee

[NeedleCast]

65. Agreed, I should have been more clear

There's a far-left authoritarian and a far left libertarian. Generally it's the authoritarian leaning folk that tend to be pro-gun control.

[damntexdem]

50. And those guns would do little good against the military.

So unless the National IED Assocation becomes politically powerful, I figure that that argument is a wash. ;-)

What I will note is that whether or not the FF's intended to provide a right to individuals in the name of a militia, they did motivate the Second Amendment with the concern to enhance a WELL-REGULATED militia. So if individual gun owners in fact DO constitute that militia, the Constitution seems to expect that their gun ownership will be well-regulated.

[MNDemNY]

56. If a militia is "well regulated" how effective can it be ..

against an illegal government that regulates it?

[Irreverend IX]

72. A note about "well-regulated..."

In the parlance of the 18th century, "well-regulated" meant well-trained and capable. The U.S. code defines the militia as all males between the ages of 17 and 45, and if it were up to me I would update it to include women as well. So the well-regulated militia does not refer to an armed force under the control of the government, but to a body of citizens with the skills and equipment to effectively defend themselves.

As for the effectiveness of civilian guns against a rogue government, it's true that rifles and pistols are no match for tanks and guided missiles, but rebels in a domestic insurgency situation wouldn't be going up against tanks and guided missiles if they had any intelligence. Snipers with powerful and accurate rifles would be one of the most effective elements of a domestic insurgency. They would hide themselves, shoot a member of the occupying force, then run the hell away before anyone could respond to them. If there were snipers around with the skill to target the leaders of the occupying regime, so much the better.

After enough deaths via sniper, the occupying force would be afraid to venture outside without the protection of armored vehicles and morale would be at near-suicidal levels. Throw some IEDs into the mix, and creating martial law in the US becomes a very unappealing proposition.

[NeedleCast]

69. You should tell that to the insurgents in Iraq

They seem to be doing pretty well with cobbled together explosive devices, bunch of old AK-s, and easily transported mortars.

[Madspirit]

58. Not Possible

I think the guns laws are pretty OK as is and I am one of the ones on this group at the farthest left. I just know this country is swimming in guns and if you tried to take them, there would be a bloodbath. I know what my dad would have done. I know what my brother would do and I won't support anyone who would shoot my brother just so they could pry the gun out of his cold dead fingers.

That said, as far as defending ourselves against our own government, we wouldn't really stand a chance against an army. Sadly, that is silly talk. We aren't organized etc.

I don't own a gun. I HATE them. ...but they will never go away until the sociological issues that make people want to own them, go away...crime. ...and with our unfeeling lack of compassion and the number of poor and homeless on the rise, the fear that makes people want to own guns, isn't going anywhere. No one EVER wants to deal with the sociological issues that make people feel the need to own guns.

The ones totally against guns have moronic and condescending arguments, accusing EVERYONE who has a gun of being a freeper troll, which is just CRAP. ...and the gun owners/lovers accuse anyone who wants to make reasonable restrictions, of being a gun grabber. There really isn't the possibility of conversation on this between the two sides because NEITHER side will listen to the fears of the other side. They just demonize each other.

I just duck and cover and tend toward agoraphobia so I don't have to deal with people any more than absolutely necessary.

Lee

[MNDemNY]

62. Lee,it sounds like we may have similar views,

how do you interpret the Constitution on this issue?

[Madspirit]

66. You Probably Won't Like My Answer

First, I am not a Constitutional scholar nor am I an attorney. People far more educated than I, in that area, are still debating the intent. Personally, it SEEMS to me, the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms.

That said, I am not a Constitutionalist. I hold no document as sacrosanct. Our Constitution was written HUNDREDS of years ago, by a very few straight white men and couldn't possibly foresee all the future would hold. In other words, if it's broke, change it or tear it up, burn it and write a new one. I am not saying it is broken but I am saying it could probably use an overhaul, a modernizing.

Lee

[MNDemNY]

70. I am right there with you...

I do feel that the Constitution gives us that right, even more than assault rifles and hand guns... I have in the past wanted to change the second amendment, but now , given this administration and what I fear they may try, I am questioning that.