Best answer of the debate: Biden on guns.

[Hamlette]

if you didn't see it, the youtube question was from a young man who asked what the candidates would do to protect gun rights then he reached over and pulled up a huge machine gun (assault weapon?...what do I know, I'm old) and said "this is my baby, what are you going to do to protect my baby."

The candidates talked about background checks etc then Biden said "if that is your baby, you are one sick dude and probably shouldn't have a gun" (paraphrase...didn't say "sick dude" but strongly implied it.)

[karlrschneider]

1. I like Biden generally but that was about the stupidest fucking comment made in years

(his answer) :eyes:

[Raine]

19. I agree

I was totally disgusted with him, he came off as a pompous ass.

[ljm2002]

34. On the contrary...

...it was refreshing to hear a candidate not run away from his real position. The fact that he did it in such an in-your-face way actually was great from my point of view.

(Note, I do believe rather strongly in our right to bear arms. But anyone who thinks that it is an absolute right that cannot be limited in any way -- well, I have some yellowcake to sell you :->)

[karlrschneider]

82. I can't recall anybody ever saying the right "cannot be limited in any way".

Can you tell me who proposed that? On the other hand, I've seen a lot of people who want a TOTAL BAN...

[ljm2002]

88. Well, there seem to be a lot of people who did not like Biden's answer...

...which actually highlighted the main problems with the question as posed, namely: (a) that was a powerful firearm the dude had; and (b) the man himself seemed a bit deranged, which is relevant to his fitness to own a weapon.

So why else are people getting all over Biden's answer? Because they thought it was rude? Or because he wants to put limits on the firearms we can own? My interpretation is the latter. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I see it. :shrug:

[karlrschneider]

93. All firearms are "powerful"...to the extent that they can kill.

I'm fairly certain that was a legal AR15 -semiautomatic- which is actually -less- 'powerful' than many standard hunting rifles - but they don't look quite as 'scary'.

If the guy is deranged, he should not have a weapon; there are (unfortunately laxly enforced) laws that should have prevented it but we don't know his mental condition. He probably is a goofball but that doesn't automatically make him a threat. OR, he could be a "hired gun", as it were, specifically used to create the -impression- that gun owners are all nuts. We aren't.

[ljm2002]

99. Well it is hard to know where the guy in the video was coming from...

...he didn't do gun owners any favors, that's for sure.

FWIW, I am a strong believer in our right to bear arms, primarily because an unarmed populace is a sitting duck for a totalitarian government. Oddly, though, we have a massively-armed populace, yet we are still sitting ducks to an increasingly fascistic government. Go figure.

[karlrschneider]

105. An astute observation - the fascists are not stupid, even as we want to think so.

They are employing an end-run that avoids direct confrontation with individuals, mostly. It's all diversionary...economic and political. I have to admit a gun is little defense against, for example, an executive order that allows them to confiscate our property for some perceived (and bogus) charge of what amounts to sedition. So far, the targets are amorphous, how can anybody shoot a bureaucracy? I'm beginning to think Pogo was right.

[northzax]

164. guns are tools, right?

what would you say to someone who said "this bandsaw is my baby" while caressing it lovingly? i mean it is a bit entertaining, but still, it is a thing, not a living creature.

[goodgd_yall]

104. Yep, think they like their guns very intimately n/t

[cynatnite]

38. That nutjob called an assault rifle his 'baby'...Biden was right on n/t

[karlrschneider]

42. Biden let his asshole overload his mouth.

He tends to do that.

[Maribelle]

55. Before we ever saw the rifle, he asked what they were going to do to protect his baby

Then he pulls out the rifle, and hugging it affectionately said "This is my baby".

It was beyond wierd and sickening.

I was surprised CNN chose that video.

Biden nailed it.

[Squatch]

77. Yep...he just lost my vote.

[lse7581011]

141. But gained mine!

So I guess it didn't hurt too bad!

[Big Pappa]

2. And

that is why he is clueless.

[spanone]

duper

[spanone]

3. Thought it was great. That was one scary man.

[bdamomma]

138. me too, Biden answered the question well.

[butterfly77]

156. Agree..

[bunkerbuster1]

4. Classic Joe--started out great

but he didn't know to shut his yap.

A simple "That's his BABY?" would've sufficed.

[LittleClarkie]

37. Joe loves the camera

The camera, however, is going steady with someone else.

[blondeatlast]

5. It was a creepy question (legit, but the wording--eek!) and asked only of him.

His answer was as good as one could expect.

[dogman]

6. He showed a major weakness for many Democrats.

As do you, no understanding of weapons. It was not a huge machine gun nor a real assault weapon.

[karlrschneider]

8. But, but...it was so SCARY LOOKING!

:scared:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Showed a major weakness for the republicans.

Gun nuts are fucking nuts.

[Prophet 451]

12. Point stands though

Anyone who's that fanatical about firearms probably shouldn't have access to them.

(Note: I'm actually pro-gun rights, I'm just not a big fan of fanaticism).

[dogman]

23. I think it was meant as a joke.

I can understand that victims of gun violence would not be amused, however. I'm sure that is also why that video was chosen and given to Biden. I also remember the damage done to Gore in his home state with a lot less graphic video to be used by the opposition.

[tridim]

13. He said he bought it before the assualt weapon ban in 94

So why should I not assume it's an assault weapon?

[dogman]

26. Because the assault weapon ban was a sham.

It banned weapons that had the appearance of assault weapons. More deadly weapons are available.

[krispos42]

125. The "ban" wasn't a real ban, but a ban on cosmetic features

Sort of like politician claiming to ban street-racing cars, but actually banning combinations of oversizes rims, spoilers, driving lights, and tinted windows.

The term "assault weapon" is deliberately vague and perjorative. It generally denotes civilian-legal semi-automatic firearms that either are of modern military origin or have features associated with firearms of modern military origin. The term cropped up in the Democratic Party's 1992 political platform as part of the "hey, let's look tough on crime like the Republicans do" image-transformation. I mean, how can ANYONE possibly defend something like an ASSAULT WEAPON, right?????

The term comes from the military's definition of 'assault rifle', which is generally a magazine-fed rifle with selectable full- or semi-automatic fire capability. The rifle fires a cartridge powerful enough to be lethal out to about 500 yards, yet mild enough to be controllable during periods of rapid or automatic fire. The rifle also moved away the traditional one-piece wooden stocks to a separate buttstock and protruding pistol grip because it is more ergonomic when you don't have to manipulate a rifle bolt for every shot. These types of rifles appeared at the tail end of World War Two. Later, Armalite began experimenting with rifles made from lightweight, waterproof materials like aluminum and plastic instead of steel and walnut, and thus was born the AR-15 "black rifle", the gun that became known is the military as the the M-16.

You could still get a civilian-legal AR-15 or AK-47 clone during the 'ban', but they could only have I think 2 features of a detachable-magazine rifle that the Brady people determined make up an 'assault weapon'. You could have a pistol grip and a folding stock, but not with a flash suppressor or bayonet lug. But you could trade your folding stock for a bayonet lug or flash suppressor.


Anyway, the gun makers and importers removed the flash suppressor, ground off the bayonet-mounting lug, and sold the rifles anyway. At which point the Brady people complained about gun makers and importers circumnavigating the law. The fact that it was a stupid, badly-written law never crossed their minds, apparently.

And pre-ban guns that were already owned were unaffected. So it was a ban on combinations of features on new guns sold after September 14th, 1994 and before September 14th, 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[benEzra]

189. He said he bought it DURING the ban...

He said he bought it before the assualt weapon ban in 94

So why should I not assume it's an assault weapon?

He said he bought it during the ban, meaning it didn't meet the bill's definition of an "assault weapon." Watch the video again; he said "purchased under the 1994 gun ban."

An "assault weapon" under the 1994 Feinstein law was be a rifle that had a protruding handgrip AND an adjustable stock, bayonet lug, or muzzle threads. Any of those features were legal under the law, just you couldn't have two such features on the same rifle. If his little carbine had a smooth muzzle and a nonadjustable stock, it wasn't an "assault weapon" under the Feinstein law.

FWIW, two or three times as many AR-15's, civilian AK variants, and whatnot were sold during the Feinstein ban years (1994-2004) than in the previous several decades combined. It was the Feinstein law that made the AR-15 platform the most popular civilian target rifle in America, ironically.

I bought my "AK-47" (non-automatic civilian carbine, not a real Title 2/Class III restricted AK) during the "ban" as well (in 2003; it's a 2002 model). Smooth muzzle and no bayonet lug, as required by the law.


---------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[Alexander]

204. The assault weapons ban does NOT ban assault weapons.

It's like "No Child Left Behind" or the "USA PATRIOT Act".

The title is misleading.

No, the AWB bans such things as pistol grips, scopes and bayonets.

I didn't realize bayonet killings were such a problem.

[blondeatlast]

31. It was one scary looking--and mofo-ugly--baby, though.

Biden handled it with aplomb.

[karlrschneider]

36. If that's "aplomb", Bush is a compassionate genius.

:eyes:

[dogman]

40. It looked like it's Daddy.

Biden made the NRA commercial if he would be the candidate. It will be used to destroy him in many parts of this Country.

[mudesi]

7. I loved that. He had the guts to say what we were all thinking

Anyone who calls an assault rifle his "baby" needs help.

[karlrschneider]

11. My mom calls her dog her 'baby'...is she nuts?

:eyes:

[mudesi]

14. Probably

:evilgrin:

[tridim]

15. Dogs are living things with human-like qualities.

Assault rifles are precision killing machines.

Your Mom is not nuts, but your question is.

[karlrschneider]

21. The guy with the gun was a little creepy but none of us know if he's

any kind of threat, or a criminal (unlikely since he put himself on TV) or mentally unstable. And that was NOT an assault rifle.

And dogs are perfectly capable of killing people too, in case that little factoid has bypassed your notice.

[mudesi]

24. Come on

Dogs don't blast sharp projectiles at enormous velocities capable of instantly killing an innocent bystanders.

[karlrschneider]

29. Neither do guns unless somebody pulls the trigger.

But keep up with this silliness if you want the GOP to stay in power.

[billbuckhead]

32. Al Gore won with the gun nuts saying he should be lynched

It's counting the votes that will win for the Dems not being submissive to bullies with guns.

[karlrschneider]

41. Well, just so you know, your position alienates 99% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats.

Good luck winning the WH house with those numbers.

[mudesi]

46. Are gun owners really so selfish?

I know you are a gun enthusiast, and that's fine. But I must question your objectivity on this issue if you think that the person who asked that question (unless it was you!) was not mentally unbalanced. Referring to a gun as his "baby" is not exactly the most stable of mental states. But I digress.

Would you, personally, not vote for a Democrat or even vote for a Republican based on this one issue, simply because you are a gun enthusiast? Forget the war, forget health care, forget all the other important issues, would you be so selfish as to allow Joe Biden's distaste of a mentally unstable man with a gun affect your vote?

Because that is what you imply when you say that because the Democrats have a reasonable stance on guns, they can't possibly win the White House. How can gun lovers/owners be so utterly selfish?

[billbuckhead]

54. The gun lobby boasts the worst people in America

The gun lobby proudly boasts the worst people in America and that won't change no matter what Democrats do. I think it's better to keep Zell Miller types outside our large tent.

[karlrschneider]

66. The worst people in America?

Charming.

:eyes:

[billbuckhead]

89. NRA posterchild Duke Cunningham wanted to shoot all liberals and war protestors

Bluedog Zell Miller challenged Chris Matthews to a duel. Grover Norquist called for the government to be drown in a bathtub. NRA "leader" Charlton Heston called for Al Gore to be lynched and for white heterosexual men to stand up against the liberals. Then there is what NRA "leader" Jeff Cooper said about inner-city violence:
"…the consensus is that no more than five to ten people in a hundred who die by gunfire in Los Angeles are any loss to society. These people fight small wars amongst themselves. It would seem a valid social service to keep them well-supplied with ammunition."
<http://www.nraleaders.com/jeff-cooper.html>

Then there's this telling statement.
----------------snip----------------------
David Duke
I was astounded to read these courageous remarks by Charlton Heston. I am thankful to hear a man with such high esteem say essentially the same things for which I have been reviled by the liberal media. His words should be reproduced and put into the hands of every American."
--DAVID DUKE's response to Heston's speech
------------snip-----------------------
<http://www.nraleaders.com/charlton-heston.html>

NRA board member Ted Nugent on South Africans
On South Africans:
"Apartheid isn't that cut and dry. All men are not created equal. The
preponderance of South Africa is a different breed of man. I mean that with
no disrespect. I say that with great respect. I love them because I'm one of
them. They are still people of the earth, but they are different. They still
put bones in their noses, they still walk around naked, they wipe their
butts with their hands ? These are different people. You give 'em
toothpaste, they fuc#ing eat it ... I hope they don't become civilized.
They're way ahead of the game."
--Detroit Free Press Magazine

<http://www.nraleaders.com/ted-nugent.html>


Then check out the NRA enemies list
<http://www.nrablacklist.com/>

[karlrschneider]

95. Most gun owners are not NRA members.

I am not and they don't speak for me. And I would appreciate you not associating me with them with your snide implications.

[billbuckhead]

96. The Gun Owners of America are even worse than the NRA if that's possible

Can you deny that the vast majority of internet "gun enthusiast" websites would make freepers proud?

[Solo_in_MD]

113. But they are honest about their real goals, unlike the Brady Bunch

[billbuckhead]

217. The gun lobby crowd and it's minions are just so honest

:rofl:

"When a man is in trouble or in a good fight, you want to have your friends around, preferably armed. So I feel really good."

Tom DeLay, KeynoteSpeaker, Annual Convention of the National Rifle Association, Houston, April 16, 2005.

<http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/04/17/861/12140>

[beevul]

223. Pot, meet kettle.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center."

[Solo_in_MD]

112. More hyperbole...there are much worse groups that are more dangerous to our rights and freedoms

but acknowledging that does not fit with your agenda

[billbuckhead]

181. Like who!!!!!!!!!!!!! The American Enterprise Institute?

Oh, I forgot they have John Lott as one of their featured liars. Who is worse than the NRA? The GOA?

[Solo_in_MD]

196. Last I checked, the NRA et al do not take away the rights of women

or censor publications like CAIR or other sharia focused organization.

[billbuckhead]

206. The NRA fights campaign finance reform and most democratic measures

The NRA certainly has no problem supporting criminals, sexists and racists. The NRA 2nd amendment fascists brag about about working out of this White House and were the first place Tom DeLay visited after he started to have legal problems.

[Solo_in_MD]

210. So campaign finance reform is on par with islamic misogeny and abuse of women?

Note that they were far from the only group supporting the recent SCOTUS decision. Labor was there too

[billbuckhead]

211. Yes because valid elections are the most important thing in politics

BTW, women in the USA and Switzerland are against these weak gun laws by overwhelming majorities. Why not listen to them in this instance if you care about women so much? It's easy to pick on islam about women but what about the millions of women in the USA who live in fear of gun brandishing men. There are multiples more women killed by their significant others than there are justifiable homicides. It seems America's gun culture has turned wife killing your wife with a gun into a folk crime.

[beevul]

224. Unless...

"Yes because valid elections are the most important thing in politics"


Unless winning a valid election means laying off guns, is that about right?

[billbuckhead]

226. The gun lobby doesn't do well in fair elections or referendums

Not in Missouri, not in Ohio, not in freedom loving San Francisco, hardly anywhere.

[beevul]

228. You just keep telling yourself that.

And make sure to shift the blame to gun owners when the rest of the country continues to suffer under a republican "administration" due to the results of the efforts of you and your fellow gun banners.

[billbuckhead]

229. The NRA crowd bragged about putting Bush in and these people suffer the most

It's hard to feel sorry for the gun crowd when their kids come home in body bags, their wives leave them, they lose their homes to predatory banks and all for a tin god that can't even defend them. Hey the whole rest of the industrialized world has proven that less guns equal more freedom.

[derby378]

230. That's the funniest thing you've said in a long time

Let us ask the Germans under Hitler, the Chileans under Pinochet, and the Cambodians under Pol Pot how free they were under their respective gun control measures.

I don't find this sort of thing amusing anymore.

[billbuckhead]

236. If guns made men free Afghanistan and Iraq would be the freest places on earth

We have lost more Americans from guns in America than all the wars our nation has fought. You can't fight for peace even with a gun.

[beevul]

232. Likewise...

Its hard to feel sorry for Democrats of the gun banning persuasion when they repeatedly shoot themselves AND EVERY ONE ELSE in the foot over this issue. You and the few "ban them all" and "noone needs" types sure don't seem to give 2 shits about much of anything you claim to (besides guns), since you seem ever-eager to piss it all away for yourselves and everyone else because you just can't leave the issue alone.

You can rail on guns and gun owners to your hearts content, but the truth is, YOU and your little handful of "ideological purists" are more responsible for the mess EVERYONE has to live with right now than all gun owners and gun rights supporters combined. Voters at large have no duty to vote any particular way other than how their conscience allows, and you and your little authoritarian band have quite successfully moved voting Democratic outside the consciences of gun owners/rights supporters to an incalculable extent.

If I were a republican, this is where I'd tell you to pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

[billbuckhead]

237. The morality of the any gun for any nut crowd has poisoned America

This sicko neoCON thinking has corrupted the Republican party toward fascism and has turned guns in America into a human sacrifice as barbaric as anything in human history. 30,000 a year on the bloody alter.

[karlrschneider]

62. Reasonable controls on gun ownership are no problem to me.

The existing laws would be acceptable IF they were properly and uniformly enforced. And I actually would support more restrictions over the "gun show" venues. There are some loopholes that need to be addressed in those cases. And no, I am absolutely not a one-issue voter, I am committed to the Democratic party almost no matter what but I would
WITHHOLD my vote (abstain) if the nominee were to come out in favor of a virtual -ban-. I would do the same thing if the nominee were to campaign on a platform of a ban on same-sex marriage or the right to abortion. Or a 'stay-the-course' plan for Iraq. My complaint with Biden is that he essentially said on national TV the guy with the question is crazy. He doesn't know that and neither do 250 million other Americans. The gun guy might very well be a prick but diagnosing him as mentally defective from a youtube video is pretty damned stupid.

[billbuckhead]

68. Gun shows are despicable venues and should be banned

Anyone who equates a black rifle with a baby needs to have their sanity and values questioned. For once I applaud the senator from MBNA.

[karlrschneider]

74. Indeed. He should get rid of it and buy a white one.

:eyes:

[Solo_in_MD]

111. So you are against free association as well?

[billbuckhead]

218. The gun "enthusiasts" can sit around and circle jerk to gun porn for all I care

but it sucks big time they make selling weapons into a reichwing neoCON 2nd amendment fascist carnival and is made worse by the lax regulations that promiscuously sell any gun to any nut.

[beevul]

225. Jeebus Bill...

Are you channeling benchley?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

130. Maybe the questioner isn't "typical" ...

The same general question may have been on more than one YouTube segment. I'd guess the people running the "show" (it wasn't a "debate") picked the questions partly based on the entertainment value of the questioner. Nothing more entertaining than an unstable guy with a gun, right?

"Normal" questioners need not apply.

As far as Democrats having a "reasonable stance" on guns, I'd guess Democrats have many stances on guns, with no consensus on reasonability of current/future laws. The issue is a divider.

[Recursion]

139. A few points

because the Democrats have a reasonable stance on guns

Many Democrats have reasonable stances on guns (even Democrats who want more restrictions than I do -- I don't use "reasonable" as code for "less liberal than me on the issue"*) Reinstating the less-than-useless AWB is not "reasonable". HR 1022 is not "reasonable". They may sound reasonable to people who don't know anything about firearms except that they give them a general sense of discomfort. They are feel-good laws that restrict a class of weapons used to kill less often than bare hands based solely on suburbanites' perceptions that the guns "look scary".

And please spare me the "I want to let hunters keep their guns" nonsense. That's the same racism that has infested gun control since its creation in the Jim Crow days: it's fine for hunters (ie, affluent white people) to have guns -- it's those darn dark-skinned poor people we have to keep disarmed. God only knows what they would do with guns. For all we know they would make the government stop oppressing them!

Expanding NICS to allow its use in any private transfer is reasonable; for that matter, it's us "gun nuts" who have been pushing for it most (we just want a statutory fee so that gun dealers won't try to price out private sales). Licensing for concealed and/or open carry is reasonable provided it's on a shall-issue basis. Tracking the provenance of every single gun used in a crime is reasonable.

Would you, personally, not vote for a Democrat or even vote for a Republican based on this one issue, simply because you are a gun enthusiast?

There are issues I can't see myself reasonably compromising on:
1. Freedom of speech and religion
2. Reproductive freedom
3. Equality before the law for all people
4. The right to keep and bear arms

If you see that as selfish, I'm sorry.

* This confuses many people who think gun control is a liberal cause; it is and has always been a conservative cause that the right has in this case suckered some of the left into following.

[benEzra]

200. Would you, personally, oppose dropping gun bans from the agenda...

Would you, personally, not vote for a Democrat or even vote for a Republican based on this one issue, simply because you are a gun enthusiast? Forget the war, forget health care, forget all the other important issues, would you be so selfish as to allow Joe Biden's distaste of a mentally unstable man with a gun affect your vote?

I wouldn't necessarily vote for a repub, but if Biden or someone who shared his views were the candidate, I'd have a damn hard time voting for him if I thought he'd push for bans if he won. I'd probably leave that portion of the ballot blank, and give the party an earful to get them to drop it. There are some issues that for me are deal-breakers, and new bans aimed at ME are one of them.

Turn your question around for a minute:

Would you, personally, oppose dropping gun bans from the agenda simply because you don't like gun ownership? Forget the war, forget health care, forget all the other important issues, would you be so selfish as to risk the election over new gun bans?

What you appear to be saying is that the people directly affected by gun bans should view the issue as unimportant, but it's OK for people like you and Biden to put bans on the agenda because they're important to YOU.

I'm not saying let's make gun ownership mandatory. I'm saying that you KNOW gun bans are a deal-breaker for a fair number of Dems and indies (and scare gun-owning repubs to the polls), and yet you are OK with pushing for bans anyway.

FWIW, Biden was one of the architechs of the 1994 loss of the House and Senate, over a law restricting adjustable stocks and muzzle threads on civilian rifles, which weren't a crime problem to start with. Was 12 years of a repub Congress and 8 years of a repub administration worth that idiotic law?

[billbuckhead]

57. Where did you pull those numbers from? Even 40% of Repubs disagree with you

I swear the gun lobby will say anything. Here's a recent Gallup poll and a link.
----------------snip-------------------------
"Key Subgroup Differences

There is a major partisan difference in views on guns and gun control.

More than 6 in 10 Republicans say they are satisfied with the nation's laws or policies on guns. This percentage is much lower among Democrats, at 34%.
The strong majority of Democrats feel that gun laws in the United States should be more strict, while only about a third of Republicans feel this way. Slightly less than half of Republicans feel gun laws should remain as they are at the present time.
Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support banning the possession of handguns, though a majority of both groups tend to oppose this.
A majority of Republicans report having a gun in their homes, while only about a third of Democrats report this.
There are also considerable differences between men and women on this issue. Men are more satisfied with the nation's gun laws, more likely to report owning a gun, but are less likely to say that gun laws should be more strict and also to favor banning guns."
--------------snip--------------------
<http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1645>

[karlrschneider]

80. And Gallup has Bush at 37% favorable.

Do you give them props for accuracy on that one too?
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1729

[billbuckhead]

98. Gallup tends to slant things to the reichwing side

so the pro stronger gun regulation vote is surely larger.

BTW, any proof whatsoever that 99% of Repubs and 70% of Dem would vote against stronger gun laws? Why don't you admit you made it up?

[karlrschneider]

107. I made it up. Just like you make up statistics.

If Al Gore (who I respect enormously) hadn't fucked up on this issue in the 2000 election he would have won his OWN FUCKING STATE and the Florida debacle would never have happened.

[billbuckhead]

136. THE ELECTION WAS FIXED! Where have you been?

:spank:

[MLFerrell]

149. He'd have won West Virginia, too

Thus making any discussion of a stolen election quite moot.

[billbuckhead]

221. If Gore wouldn't have been against "mountain top" mining

and for gay marriage he could have as well. Gun lobby minions take credit for the sun rising.

[billbuckhead]

101. You have no proof of these numbers, YOU MADE THEM UP!

You'll say anything.

[karlrschneider]

108. No, you're wrong...I won't say "anything".

I would never say you're a fucking moron, for instance.

[derby378]

171. ...

:spray:

[billbuckhead]

208. And you definitely wouldn't say it from somewhere other than the safety

of the internet.

[beevul]

121. Another lie repeated by the ban'em'all crowd...how quaint. N/T

[derby378]

170. Hey, B? Gore lost TN...

...and he lost TN because of his policy on guns back then.

[billbuckhead]

182. I suppose voter suppression against blacks didn't count

:eyes: But Gore won the rest of the nation with the highest vote count a Dem ever got and second only to Reagan against Mondale. Corruption beat Gore not gun nuts. (Although the gun looby crowd loves to support corruption and antidemocracy).

[derby378]

183. Corruption (and bad strategy) beat Gore in Florida...

...but if you can point me towards evidence of suppressing the black vote in Tennessee during the 2000 election, I'm all ears.

[tridim]

27. "And dogs are perfectly capable of killing people too"

That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on DU. Is there an award for that or something because you got it.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[tridim]

33. Before I get myself in trouble, I'm just putting you on ignore

You're not worth it.

[karlrschneider]

39. Likewise.

...

[billbuckhead]

63. We can't ignore this problem. More American die every day from guns in USA

than from terrorists in Iraq and the rest of the world combined.

[Solo_in_MD]

71. How about some figures to backup your hyperbole?

The Brady Bunch numbers are not credible sources...

[billbuckhead]

140. It's well known 30,000 dead and over 100,000 wounded in America from guns

And over 100billion in costs per year.

"Compared with other developed nations, the United States is unique in its high rates of both gun ownership and murder. Although widespread gun ownership does not have much effect on the overall crime rate, gun use does make criminal violence more lethal and has a unique capacity to terrorize the public. Gun crime accounts for most of the costs of gun violence in the United States, which are on the order of $100 billion per year."

<http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/evaluatinggunpolicy.htm>

[benEzra]

198. Which has jack squat to do with CIVILIAN RIFLES...

since all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of murders, as you well know.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

[Pavulon]

92. Fix the problem

switzerland has thousands of legal machine guns in the general population. Their murder rate is less than japan where all types of firearms are banned.

Socio economic problem directly correlates with income and education, across racial lines.

Fix the problem.

[billbuckhead]

51. Calling people dumb again for being for reasonable gun regulations

like the rest of the civilized world enjoys.

[Pavulon]

79. I prefer the Swiss model of regulation!

Very safe place. Lots of people have real assault rifles (sig 55x) and not REPLICA "Assault Weapons" that make politicians say dumb stuff. Murder rate is less than that of JAPAN and CANADA where regulation is strict.

[billbuckhead]

94. Switzerland has a high gun rate death and 3/4's of women want laws changed

"The new public mood is largely in response to a series of shootings involving army weapons. In a 2001 incident which sparked nationwide debate, 15 people died when a man opened fire with an army assault rifle in a regional parliament building in the small town of Zug, shooting 14 people and killing himself.
In another much-publicized case, the private banker Gerold Stadler last year used his army-issue pistol to commit suicide after killing his pregnant wife, former world champion skiier Corinne Rey-Bellet, and her brother. In the latest incident of its kind, a 26-year-old bank employee opened fire with his army rifle in a hotel restaurant in Baden, killing one and wounding four on April 13 -- just three days before the Virginia Tech massacre.

Around 300 people are killed in Switzerland each year in incidents -- mostly suicides and family murders -- involving army guns. According to a 25-country survey by the British-based non-governmental organization International Action Network on Small Arms, Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in 2005 was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
------------snip-----------------------------------
<http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,480545,00.html>
------------snip-----------------------
"According to Swiss police, there were 204 homicides in Switzerland in 2005, including 48 that involved guns. That is about the same number of gun-related killings as took place last year in England and Wales, which have strict gun control and a population seven times the size of Switzerland's.

According to a 25-nation survey by the International Action Network on Small Arms, a British-based organization against gun violence, Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in 2005 was 6.2 per 100,000 citizens, which was second only to the U.S. rate of 9.42 per 100,000. Switzerland's rate of gun deaths was more than double that of 18 of the countries surveyed, including neighbors Germany and Italy.
-----------snip-------------------
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/29/AR2007042900133_2.html>

[Solo_in_MD]

115. "International Action Network on Small Arms" is not a credible organization for facts

Its right up there with the Brady Bunch when it comes to lies and spin

[billbuckhead]

137. Any proof? You just don't like reality but you can't cover up the dead bodies

Yes, reality has a well known liberal bias.

[Solo_in_MD]

145. And some liberals are well known to be biased against some progressive values, like gun ownership

[Pavulon]

172. 48 in a population of millions. Less than Canada and Japan BTW

I wonder how many were committed with sig rifles? The other killings were done with knives. You have to work pretty hard to kill someone with a knife. so gun killings are 1/4 of total in a population where many people have access to real "assault rifles".

Interesting.

[iverglas]

205. say WHAT?

48 in a population of millions. Less than Canada and Japan BTW

Indeed. And, BTW, the populations of Canada and Japan are multiples of the population of Switzerland -- about 7.5 million in 2005. In that year, the population of Canada was nearly 33 million, and the population of Japan about 127 million.

What was your point?

That there were fewer firearms homicides in a country with a fraction of the population of some countries that had more firearms homicides? Good point. Not.

According to Swiss police, there were 204 homicides in Switzerland in 2005, including 48 that involved guns. That is about the same number of gun-related killings as took place last year in England and Wales, which have strict gun control and a population seven times the size of Switzerland's.

Off the top of my head, England and Wales had something like 52 firearms homicides in a population of about 60 million. This makes Switzerland's firearms homicide RATE nearly FOUR TIMES the rate in England and Wales. I'll let you do the math for Japan yourself. The result will be ludicrously lopsided, I assure you.

In 2005, Canada had 222 firearms homicides. That might be very slightly higher than the same rate as Switzerland -- something like 0.67 vs. 0.64/100,000.

By the way, Canada's 2005 homicide rate had not been released when IANSA did the math, and as it happened it was a blip -- the highest rate in about a decade. Aha, I see Statistics Canada has calculated it: 0.62/100,000. As close to Switzerland's as not to matter, I'd say. There were 658 homicides in total in Canada in 2005 (then fell by 10% in 2006). That makes firearms homicides very slightly more than 1/3 of the total in 2005, vs. not quite 1/4 in Switzerland.

Do let's remember the very small numbers we are looking at in both cases. If the US had a firearms homicide rate equivalent to Switzerland's, there would be have been 2,000 or fewer firarms homicides in the US in 2005, at a rough figuring. There were more like 10,000.


48 in a population of millions. Less than Canada and Japan BTW

About all one can say is: duh. What would you expect, given that Switzerland had a fraction of the population of Canada or Japan?

You did know, that, right? You weren't just pretending that it wasn't really kind of relevant to the discussion?

[billbuckhead]

219. Switzerland has twice the murder rate of Japan and here a link! WHERES YOURS?

Why don't you tell the truth? It seems like a sickness when people defend this devils tin tool they will literally say anything.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>

[Solo_in_MD]

110. One size does not fit all, if you want to live in the rest of the world, do so

[Maribelle]

59. Not an assault rifle??? It sure looked like an M16 to me.

what do you think it was?

[billbuckhead]

61. No one can tell! So we are forced to assume the worst

The sad part is that some of the black rifle crowd like to scare their fellow Americans and like that it's very hard to tell. One must wonder about the psychology of these men.

[Pavulon]

85. I can tell, and you logic is poor

That weapon does not have a flash supressor (typical of cosmetic features banned), and the upper reciever is not from an m16a(x) or M4 rifle. The guy said it was purchased under the ban in 94, which I find pretty funny. Scope is wrong for a select fire rifle.

If he had 20 grand to drop on an m16 he may have had a little extra cash to fix his place up..

[Solo_in_MD]

109. Some of us can - its not an M16 or M4

which makes it an AR-15 or clone, perfectly legal and reasonable, but it is *dressed up*, which scares the The Brady Bunch and their sympathizers, but poses no real threat

[ProudDad]

231. "but poses no real threat"

Cool, you've just volunteered to be shot by this idiot???

No threat, can't hurt you. Right, superman?

[beevul]

233. I believe he meant...

I believe he meant that the gun poses no real threat beyond any other civilian firearm.

By the way, find anyone carrying concealed and kick their ass lately?

[Recursion]

124. Actually, those of us who know firearms can tell...

...and I find it troubling that people who think that's an M16 are, for the most part, the same crowd that's clamoring to ban what it actually is...

[billbuckhead]

222. You guys keep saying that they look same! WHICH IS IT?

Hell they make air rifles that look the same. How can police let alone civilians tell what they're up against when a perp wields one of these sturmgewehrs.

[Recursion]

240. They have many similar external features, but the actions are visible

Look, seriously, if you know so little about firearms that you would ask that question, why do you have such strong opinions about which technical features of firearms merit banning?

[DS1]

67. This is the funny part about gun nutter law interpretation

When it's about the specifics of what is and what isn't an assault rifle (it has to have a bayonet stub, and a few other minor features) the Government's law is exact and true and there's no possible expection - despite the fact that anyone with a decent pair of eyeballs can tell it's 96% identical in parts to standard military issue weaponry

When it's about the 2nd amendment, it's all about "what the framers intended" and accuracy "militia" is thrown out as being vague.


Get it?

[karlrschneider]

72. I would give big odds it's a legal AR15

The "assault weapons ban" (which expired 3 years ago) was an idiotic thing to begin with. Most of the banned weapons were (are) no more of a threat than a typical sporting/hunting gun, they just LOOK 'scary.' Few crimes are committed using them...it's a little difficult to hide one under your coat on the way into the bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

[Pavulon]

76. M16 is controlled under NFA of 1934

costs about 20,000 and requires a fbi background check. It is a REPLICA. A semi automatic rifle that gets people all wound up because it looks scary.

[billbuckhead]

83. So the machine gun law is magically the only gun law that works?

The gun lobby guys will say anything for their tin god.

[karlrschneider]

86. It's the one that is uniformly enforced.

What the hell is your problem anyway? Why are you so obsessed with this issue, you rarely comment on anything important.

[Pavulon]

87. Works great..

jackasses cant afford the weapons to use in crimes. Thugs generally dont get proper permits and junkies dont pass fbi background checks. The law is enforced, which really helps. Real machine guns are never used in crimes and the Replicas you are tweaking over are used in a tiny minority of crimes.

I was around hundreds of guy who had all kinds of scary looking weapons, expolsives, and bulldozers. (booze was short) Nobody shot anyone, plenty of ass kicking but no one ever got shot.

[Recursion]

143. It works for several reasons

1. It is universally enforced
2. It is universally enforced
3. There were never very many machineguns in America
4. It is universally enforced
5. Even before the law was enacted, machineguns were prohibitively expensive for most people.
6. It is universally enforced
7. There's not a very large market for machineguns in America
8. Wait for it...

...

It is universally enforced.

Note that reasons 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 are only possible because of reasons 3, 5, and 7.

If there were a significant number of the guns in the country, or they were cheap to make, or there was a large market for them, a ban on them would be as pointless as the ban we had on liquor or the bans we have on pot and coke.

[tridim]

117. What are you talking about? I'd be scared shitless if that gun was pointed at me

Are you really arguing that semi-auto bullets are somehow less deadly than a bullet from a full auto? It's still a killing machine.

I don't give a damn if it's not military issue. It's still a gun that no one should be using to shoot targets and game. It's pointless, except to frighten potential victims. Plus, if it's like other semi-autos it's upgradeable.

[Recursion]

142. If that were true...

It's pointless, except to frighten potential victims.

If that were true, we would see AR-15's being used in crimes. They aren't. You don't even need to use both hands to count the number of crimes they have been used in this year. They're very bad for criminal use. Distinctive and nearly impossible to conceal. Since they aren't capable of selective fire, they're pretty useless for providing cover, too.

It's still a gun that no one should be using to shoot targets and game.

Do you know what a .22 is? Guess what? That rifle is a .22. (Well, a .223, but close enough.) It's significantly less powerful than a more traditional-looking hunting rifle. They're actually excellent for target shooting (safer than a gun that fires a larger round), and the pistol-grip design that scares you so much actually allows for much safter control and handling (there's a reason militaries use that grip, after all). It's also good for hunting smaller game: squirrels, raccoons, coyotes, etc. It probably wouldn't take down a deer, though.

See, that's what's funny: you're right that it's not good for deer hunting, but you probably think so for the wrong reason. You think "that looks like the gun Marines have; it must be incredibly powerful"; well, it *looks like* the guns we have, but it's not capable of firing in burst-mode. Furthermore, the real assault rifle I had in the Marines isn't a terribly powerful weapon: it's light, fairly accurate, and (somewhat) sturdy. In terms of power it's a significant step down from the M14 my father used early in Vietnam, and a very significant step down from the deer hunting rifle in your grandfather's gun cabinet.

[tridim]

153. Yes, I know what a .22 is, I've fired a .22 rifles and .22 hand guns.

And yes a .22 is deadly, just like any gun.

Basically what you're saying is that because it's a small caliber gun that's not concealable, it's not deadly. That's a completely bogus argument.

You're making my point that a dressed up .223 is pointless. It's made to give freaks like that a hardon. If it's only about looks, just make a replica that doesn't fire, or do what responsible gun owners do and buy a regular .22 for shooting squirrels or whatever and be done with it. :eyes:

[Recursion]

159. What about my point about the pistol grip?

Do you agree that a rifle with a pistol grip allows for safer handling and better positive control? If we're talking about gun regulations, shouldn't we be pushing rifle manufacturers to give all new rifles pistol grips?

[tridim]

162. This isn't about a pistol grip..

It's about making guns that look like M-16's so gun nuts can whack off to them.

[Recursion]

163. So what you don't like about it is the fact that he likes it?

That's pretty damn puritanical and is a culture war that we won't win.

[tridim]

165. No, I don't like replicas because they're dangerous and pointless.

Do you think that guy should be able to display a "replica" RPG in the back window of his pickup truck? How about a tommy gun or Uzi replica?

[Pavulon]

174. You can get a replica tommy gun here...

http://www.a2armory.com/thompson-replica.html

or the real thing with a class3 license.

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=8071838

for 25 grand. You think a guy who passes a fbi background check and plunks down 25g is going to jack a 7-11 with it?

Here is a replica for an rpg7.
http://www.modelguns.co.uk/rpg7.htm

I would not drive around with any of those in my window, but I would happily take ownership of the original thompson smg.

[benEzra]

201. Dangerous, how?

No, I don't like replicas because they're dangerous and pointless.

Dangerous, how? All rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides in this country; they're not a crime problem and never have been.

As far as them being "replicas"--AR-15's have won over the U.S. shooting scene on their own merits, not because they "look like M16's." And the most popular variants aren't M16 lookalikes, but are civilian-only flattop midlengths with adjustable stocks. A lot of them have target-style freefloat forends; show me an M16 with one of those...

Civilian AR's are soft-recoiling, extremely accurate (much more accurate than M16's, on average), have much better ergonomics than more traditional looking guns, and are much more modular than the cowboy-style guns they are typically replacing. You can own an AR with a target barrel and a deer-hunting barrel, and swap them out with the push of two pins.

Do you think that guy should be able to display a "replica" RPG in the back window of his pickup truck? How about a tommy gun or Uzi replica?

Who's talking about displaying anything in the back of one's nonexistent pickup truck?

We're talking about things that people keep in their gun safes, and shoot competitively or recreationally with at the range. And who's talking about fake RPG's? We're talking about the most popular civilian target rifles in America. Stuff people actually take to the range and shoot with, compete with, on a weekly basis.

FWIW, I don't own a pickup truck and never will; give me one of these anyday:

[Pavulon]

173. You upgrade you computer..

You can convert some rifles to fire fully automatic. That is a big time felony. The federal time you WILL serve for doing that is more than you will serve for most cases of rape and murder.

It would take a person many hours (who knows what they are doing) to convert a rifle. More time than it would take make a truck bomb or other destructive device.

You can not take parts from an m16a(x) or M4 and put them into the vast majority of clones and make them full auto. Even current colts. If you DO figure out how to convert a rifle, you are now a felon.

That is a REPLICA. Most crime is committed with handguns. That rifle is no more dangerous than any other firearm.

If someone is going to kill you with a rifle you will probably not see them or hear the shot that kills you.

[benEzra]

197. Would you be less scared if the gun looked like this?

What are you talking about? I'd be scared shitless if that gun was pointed at me

Would you be less scared if the gun looked like this?



Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, all-purpose farm/utility rifle. Identical to an AR-15 in every way except looks. Same caliber, same rate of fire, same range of magazine capacities, same everything, except it looks like something out of the 19th century instead of something out of the 20th.

Are you really arguing that semi-auto bullets are somehow less deadly than a bullet from a full auto? It's still a killing machine.

No, but they ARE less deadly than bullets from hunting-caliber rifles, or projectiles from .729 caliber shotguns. The AR-15 is a centerfire .22, for pete's sake.

I don't give a damn if it's not military issue. It's still a gun that no one should be using to shoot targets and game.

Why not? Because it looks too modern? It doesn't WORK any differently than any other civilian rifle.

It's pointless, except to frighten potential victims.

Is that why it's THE MOST COMMON CENTERFIRE TARGET RIFLE IN AMERICA?

It's certainly not commonly used in violent crimes...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Plus, if it's like other semi-autos it's upgradeable.

Not easily upgradeable to full-auto, if that's what you mean. Like all civilian guns, AR's are prohibited from being easily converted to full auto; guns that ARE easily converted are restricted as machineguns under the National Firearms Act, even if not actually converted.

[benEzra]

190. A non-automatic civilian AR-15 derivative.

Not an assault rifle??? It sure looked like an M16 to me.

what do you think it was?

A non-automatic civilian AR-15 derivative, which happens to be the most popular civilian centerfire target rifle in the United States.

M16's are very tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act (possession outside of police/military duty, without Federal authorization, is a 10-year felony). This was a non-automatic civilian carbine. Going by what he said, I doubt it was even an "assault weapon" under the 1994 Feinstein ban.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Joe Fields]

20. I've never seen a baby go off and carelessly kill someone.

I reject the premise of your analogy.

[karlrschneider]

25. You can reject it but you obviously didn't GET it.

In my analogy the DOG is the 'baby'.

And of course occasionally the 'baby' (dog) does indeed "go off...and kill someone."

[BeyondGeography]

10. How the hell did that psycho get selected anyway?

That guy is a loon; so glad Biden called him on the "baby" talk.

[flvegan]

16. Nope, sorry. The best answer was Dennis on gay marriage.

Any one of us on DU could've said the same thing. Would've gotten a DUzy, and I love it. However, the BEST answer was a "Yes" to supporting gay marriage from Kucinich.

[TahitiNut]

47. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[SallyMander]

192. I haven't watched the debate yet --

Was Dennis the only one to give a flat-out "yes"?

I'm assuming so -- i heard part of Edwards' answer and was totally disappointed. :-(

[MichiganVote]

17. If that guy was supposed to represent responsible gun ownership, I'm the Pope.

I think Biden said what most of us in the US were thinking.

[blondeatlast]

28. ...

:thumbsup:

[The Gunslinger]

44. That guy sounds like he only represented

the Ted Nugent wing of the NRA.

[Solo_in_MD]

50. I think it was a setup...and CNN let it through

There is no way to answer that question without looking like a gun grabber...which we already have too many of in the party.


WIthout a clip to rerun at slow speed or stills, its not possible to determine if that was a real weapon and if it was covered by the AWB.

[MichiganVote]

81. 3/4ths of the video's were probably crazy or stupid.

[MrSlayer]

18. I don't want Biden as President but I do like him.

He's definitely the regular guy of the lot. He says what other people think but are afraid to say.

[Raine]

22. He handled the question poorly

missed an opportunity to give a serious answer and instead came off as an elitist smart-ass who never really answered.

[karlrschneider]

35. And he gave a "diagnosis" of the guy just like Frist did with Teri Schiavo

which virtually all DUers properly ridiculed.

[billbuckhead]

48. Biden just said what the majority of civilized people think of the black rifle crowd

:rofl: Pretty funny how thin skinned most of these gun "enthusiasts" are. I like what Wes Clark said about the assault rifle worshipers, "If you want to fire an assault weapon," he has said, "join the Army." The National Rifle Assn. can put that in its AK-47 and smoke it.."

[Solo_in_MD]

52. Clark's asinine statements are why he is marginalized and will stay that way

[billbuckhead]

58. That's why NPR doesn't cover Wes

:rofl:

[Solo_in_MD]

69. Some one has to be the butt of the jokes

and NPR is pretty marginal already

[pacalo]

114. I thought it was a very appropriate, responsible answer.

For what other legitimate purpose would an assault weapon be used?

[Solo_in_MD]

116. Well first of all, he does not seem to know what an assualt weapon is

a bad start for someone who wants to be seen as credible on military matters

[benEzra]

193. The most popular civilian target rifle in America...

For what other legitimate purpose would an assault weapon be used?

The fact that the guy was holding THE MOST POPULAR CENTERFIRE TARGET RIFLE IN AMERICA might be a clue...

Rifles are very rarely used in violent crimes in this country (per the FBI), but small-caliber carbines like the AR-15 are darn popular among civilian target shooters. Recoil is negligible due to the small caliber, they're very accurate, the ergonomics are excellent, and they are easily customizable with different optics, stocks, and what have you). They're also one of the few types of carbines that are really, really well suited to a civilian defensive role, because the little .223 round with lightweight JHP's is even less likely to penetrate an exterior wall than pistol rounds are. Most of them aren't powerful enough to hunt deer with (you can get them in deer calibers, but they're pricier), but only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter anyway.

---------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[Richard Steele]

103. You and your "majority" look awful lonely to me, Bill. Where are they all?

Even here at DU, you're way out in left field. Your desire to
ban all firearms isn't a "majority opinion" ANYWHERE.

And you know it, which is why you so feervently claim the opposite.

Methinks you doth yell "majority" too much. And no one's buying it.
All the "rofl" smilies you use can't hide that smell of desperation.

[billbuckhead]

215. You must be deaf

Didn't you here the crowd laughing at the black rifle dude? Even the RepuKKKes are scared to be on You Tube cause they might be seen with black rifle gun nuts.

[NeedleCast]

158. Your need for a comfort blanket

and desire not to see "scary things" are poor reasons for a ban.

[The Gunslinger]

43. Not a big fan of Biden,

But that was a great honest answer. He was answering with his heart not with poll results in mind.

[WTF cubed]

45. I agree. He was straightforward and direct.

And I agreed with him completely on this one although I have to say he's one of my least favorite candidates.

[dweller]

49. i guess i'll ask the obvious question ...

:wtf: was this guy doing witha gun at the debates???

nice job of screening :eyes:

dp

[Kingshakabobo]

60. It was a question submitted over the internets on YouTube. n/t

[dweller]

84. lol

color me :blush:

i didn't watch the debates, just reading about it here.

but the scenario is not that far-fetched i'm afraid...

thanks
dp

[Breeze54]

53. It was a good come back but I liked Gravel's

retort that he wouldn't mind (candidate at left) to serve as his VP! :rofl:

Then a few had to follow that lead and COPY the line. :eyes:

How unoriginal. Ho hum...

[brettdale]

56. Is thier a youtube clip

Of that clip

[Hissyspit]

64. HERE IS THE VIDEO QUESTION CLIP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=42988&mesg_id=42988

[Solo_in_MD]

70. Thanks for the post...the actual video does clear up some of the questions

[brettdale]

73. Boy what a wacko

I guess, he Loves his guns.

[Solo_in_MD]

75. or it was a setup to make Dems look bad

Its just a semi auto rifle, no big deal if you know guns. Most Dem pols are clueless about them, so they make dumb comments.

[tridim]

177. "Just a semi auto rifle" Just?

Why does that freak (or even any responsible gun owner for that matter) need a semi auto weapon? So he can shoot 10 soda cans in 10 seconds? :eyes:

[Pavulon]

178. Why do people need half the shit they buy?

It is a legal weapon. Purchased under one of the biggest political nightmares pushed by morons in washington. That shit bill cost the congress for us.

You want a hint. If you want a weapon that kills effectively, dont buy a scoped ar15. buy a pump shotgun..

It takes training to use a rifle semi or fully automatic. Not so with a sawed off shotgun.



Far more effective at what you are worried about. BTW most killings are from handguns. Illegal weapons.

That is the reality of stupid gun laws. There are MILLIONS of shotguns, it takes a few minutes with a hacksaw to make a very deadly weapon from your grandpas duck gun (or a pipe for that matter).

Going after guns just pisses normal people like me off. Because it is horrendously stupid.

Fix poverty and inner cities and crime will fall drastically. See switzerland, very little poverty, lots of real machine guns, not replicas. Low crime.

[benEzra]

202. Yes, "just."

Here are some more of those evil "semi auto weapons":


Marlin Model 60 squirrel hunting rifle, caliber .22LR


My Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, all-purpose farm/utility rifle, suitable for hunting small game up to coyote sized; caliber .223 Remington.


Benelli turkey hunting shotgun, 12-gauge


Springfield M1A National Match, target rifle, caliber .308 Winchester (also suitable for hunting)


M1 Garand, 1930's vintage .30-06, highly collectible and also sought after as a hunting and target rifle.


1940's vintage M1 carbine, also highly collectible


Hammerli international target competition pistol, caliber .22LR.


My Smith & Wesson Ladysmith 9mm pistol


My wife's antique Samozaryadniy Karabin Simonova, made in Tula, Russia in 1952 and highly collectible, shown with her Glock.

Yes, the AR-15 is JUST a semiauto, just like gazillions of other civilian guns, just like grandpa's squirrel rifle, and just like the pistol your local police officer carries on her hip. Self-loaders happen to be some of the most popular guns in America, going back 50 years. They've been on the civilian market for over a century.

[derby378]

209. Wrong question altogether...

The question is not: "Why does he need a semi-automatic weapon?"

The real question is: "Does he have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon?"

[Breeze54]

65. on CNN or You Tube - do a search on You Tube

;)

[defendandprotect]

78. Biden, unfortunately, is a Republican and has done much damage within the Democratic Party --

[jillan]

97. Let me guess, you are probably supporting Gravel.

[Pavulon]

90. Few points

That guy is a horrible representation of gun owners. I own several weapons ( no replica rifles), but have a concealed carry permit, as does my wife. She is a medical doctor, I am a materials engineer. I live in a decent neighborhood in a medium sized city.

If I was going on national tv to make a point I would wear pants and a shirt with a collar.

That rifle is not a "machine gun", it does not have a flash suppressor and was probably purchased legally under the "assault weapon ban". It is not an m16 or m4 rifle manufactured before 1984.

Although that guy looks like a moron, being a moron is not illegal. As long as he is a responsible gun owner I see no problem with him.

[goodgd_yall]

106. It's not how he looked; it's what he said.

I didn't take the guy in the video as being representative of gun owners. (I don't know if others in the thread may have insinuated such.) He was a jerk. Whatever the reason for CNN letting that video on, it was self-serving. With the time that particular video took up, we could have had a question on something more pressing.

[Oldenuff]

91. Biden lost a LOT of cred on that one

Not only from Repubs who might be getting tired of their own parties BS,but from Dems who wholeheartedly support the right to have and carry guns (of any size)including me.


That cost him BIG TIME.

[pacalo]

120. If your statement is correct

then this love-for-guns mentality is worse than I thought. If people want to own guns, fine, but there's no legitimate reason for owning an assault weapon. I give Biden a bravo for his answer, considering the circumstances of the question itself, the demeanor of the person who asked it, & how it was asked. What the hell does a person do with an assault weapon? Stand in his bedroom with it in front of the mirror, fantasizing he's Rambo? Does it compensate for his other shortcomings?

[Recursion]

122. Do you know what an "assault weapon" is?

The statement,

but there's no legitimate reason for owning an assault weapon.

suggests to me that, seemingly like Biden, you do not know what one is, because they are the most popular class of civilian rifles in America (some pistols also are defined as "assault weapons" but they tend to be either total pieces of crap or very very high-end target pistols).

Frankly I hope this gets sent to the gungeon because gun discussions in GD depress me and always have the same general arc:

1. People who don't know very much about guns talk about how bad they are
2. People who do know something about guns point out a lot of factual errors in what group #1 said
3. A different group of people who don't know very much about guns talk about how bad they are and nobody has a legitimate reason to own a certain class of them.

[pacalo]

175. Let's not quibble about my using the wrong term. You know what I meant.

Heavy-duty weapons, like machine guns, Uzis, etc., are certainly assault weapons. They are meant to assault, they are used to attack living beings violently.

Btw, the "right to bear arms" was provided during the days of muskets, & the focus of this provision was on military service.

[Pavulon]

176. Those weapons you listed are controlled

effectively under NFA of 1934. You can not buy machine guns, sub machine guns or Field Artillery at your local gun store.

There were shotguns during the days of the constitution. A shotgun is still the most effective weapon for defense or attack (cqb). It is carried in Iraq and is more effective in the hands of most people than a select fire rifle or SMG.

That presents a problem considering it is commonly available and can be made from a piece of pipe if one chooses to.

BTW assault weapon is a derivative of a ww2 german term. Scary name for a simple thing. Basically a rifle designed to fire a shorter shell. It has LESS power than a common hunting rifle. Making it controllable during automatic fire.

Take the ability to fire in 3 round bursts away from a rifle like the m16 and it is less valuable than a shotgun. Most people handed a 12ga pump shotgun and an m16 will be much more effective with the shotgun. Leading and placing rounds on target is more natural with a shotgun than grouping shots on a moving target with a rifle.

[benEzra]

195. Thoughts...

If your statement is correct then this love-for-guns mentality is worse than I thought. If people want to own guns, fine, but there's no legitimate reason for owning an assault weapon.

FWIW, the AR-15 platform is the most popular centerfire target rifle in America, due to their soft recoil (it's a centerfire .22), good ergonomics, and excellent accuracy. A lot of the top manufacturers guarantee 1 MOA accuracy or less, and an AR with a heavy target barrel and good optics will shoot 1/2 MOA or better (1" groups at 200 yards) with match ammunition. Unlike most rifles, the small caliber makes an AR usable in a defensive role as well, which is why AR's are slowly displacing shotguns in the "HD long gun" role.

If competitive and recreational target shooting and defensive purposes aren't legitimate reasons for owning guns, then nothing is.

I give Biden a bravo for his answer, considering the circumstances of the question itself, the demeanor of the person who asked it, & how it was asked.

Biden, IMHO, was set up by CNN. Do you think that was the ONLY video on guns submitted through Youtube? Why did CNN pick that one? Easy, because they wanted to make owners of "black rifles" look bad. CNN was a major driving force behind the original "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, and hates the concept of gun ownership by peons.

What the hell does a person do with an assault weapon? Stand in his bedroom with it in front of the mirror, fantasizing he's Rambo? Does it compensate for his other shortcomings?

Well, I shoot competitively with mine. I also punch paper (am sometimes the only person shooting at the 200 yard line at our local range, FWIW). When I'm home, one of the small-caliber carbines in the safe usually has a magazine in it as well. And if I ever have the privilege of taking up hunting, it will be with my SAR-1 (7.62x39mm, similar to .30-30 Winchester).

What kind of guns do you own, out of curiosity? They may BE "assault weapons" under H.R.1022...

[Emit]

100. The guy directed his question to all the candidates. Why was Biden the only one to answer?

Or, did I miss the others' responses. :shrug:

[billbuckhead]

102. That's why the black rifle crowd is whining. A conservative Dem dissed them

That's why the "gun enthusiasts" are whining. By a conservative male Dem dissing this "gun enthusiast" and his black rifle, Biden spoke for the whole Democratic party.

[kevinbgoode]

118. Oh come on. . .what would that guy possibly need that weapon for?

Hunting? Target practice? Defending the house from robbery? Didn't that firearm look a bit extreme? I'd like my own heat-seeking missiles too, especially when I get in traffic every day. Oh now...I'd never use them on anyone. . .I'd just like to have them around..because I can.

[Recursion]

123. The uses of small-caliber semi-automatic rifles

Well, there are several uses for small-caliber semi-automatic rifles

1. Target/competitive shooting (this is far and away the most popular use of all firearms)
2. Hunting (yes, hunting -- only like 20% of gun owners hunt but AR15's are a popular choice for squirrels and coyotes)*
3. Home defense -- I would prefer a shotgun or pistol, but in some situations a semi-automatic rifle is a good choice
4. Finally, for any purpose, a military-looking rifle is generally safer than a traditional "hunting" rifle because of its design**

* This surprises a lot of people who don't know much about guns. They look at how "scary" and "military" an AR15 looks and assume it's more powerful than their grandfather's hunting rifle; in fact, the opposite is true. The large-caliber bolt-action hunting rifle fires a much larger round at -- generally -- a slightly faster velocity.

** The pistol grip that for whatever reason sends urban and suburban progressives into hysterics is a Very Good Thing and IMO should if anything be mandated on rifles because it allows much greater positive control of the weapon and a much safer carrying stance.

Finally, to quote you,

Didn't that firearm look a bit extreme?

I suppose to someone who -- sorry to be frank about this -- doesn't know very much about firearms, it might "look extreme", but it's less powerful and safer than most of the traditional-looking rifles that you probably wouldn't even contemplate banning.

Again, I get depressed by gun discussions in GD -- why do people who don't really know anything about firearms feel the need to carry on their culture war against them so much? Infamously, Carolyn McCarthy (D,NY) went on a tear about how we have to ban barrel shrouds. Some RW jackass (Hannity?) asked her if she knew what a barrel shroud was and she couldn't answer.

Don't be that guy.

[JTFrog]

126. If you cuddle your fucking gun

and call it baby, it's my opinion you probably should be mentally examined before being let loose with it.

Biden made the right call on his comment.

[Recursion]

134. I have a SPARC Tadpole laptop

Running OpenBSD 4.1. 72 GB SCSI 7200 RPM hard drive, 2G system memory, a wicked fast bus, and 64-bits of pure SPARC computing awesomeness. I have been known, at times, to call it my "baby". I don't think it's that unusual for guys (yes, especially guys) to feel very attached to some gadget they spend a lot of time building/repairing/maintaining.

I guess I just want to stand up for the notion that this dude caring a lot about his rifle is not a bad thing, or at least no worse than caring for any other object is.

[Enthusiast]

127. Excellent post, dmesg.

Many of these NRA type guys hold their nose when they vote for Bush and his kind for they feel there is no alternative. Why alienate such a large part of the electorate over this issue? Most of you know nothing about firearms and sound ridiculous to those of us that do.

[Solo_in_MD]

146. Its a semi-auto in black plastic dress...no big deal really

If it is the packaging that freaks you out, you need to look at why

[bleedingheart]

147. rodent control..

granted it may leave your floor pock marked with bullet holes...but it will take out most rodents...

[Recursion]

161. Well, maybe not one of these guys...

[sandnsea]

128. That's what the NRA has bred

I never knew anybody like that 30 years ago. All this gun hoopla has only served to breed lunatics who love their guns more than life itself. It's very sad what some of you have contributed to.

[Bluebear]

129. You said it. nt

[benEzra]

203. If there had been a movement to ban the most popular rifles 30 years ago,

That's what the NRA has bred

I never knew anybody like that 30 years ago. All this gun hoopla has only served to breed lunatics who love their guns more than life itself. It's very sad what some of you have contributed to.

If there had been a movement to ban the most popular rifles 30 years ago, the opposition would have been there. The reason you didn't see it then was that NOBODY WAS TRYING TO BAN ANYBODY'S RIFLES THEN.

AR-15's have been on the civilian market since the early 1960's. John F. Kennedy owned one. Where was the controversy then? How about in 1970? 1980? 1987?

It became an issue in 1988, when Josh Sugarmann of the VPC launched a crusade to ban them. It hit the fan in 1994, when a ban was actually passed, cosmetic though it was. None of that wasn't the NRA's doing, although I'm sure they enjoyed the DOUBLING of their membership that Sugarmann/Feinstein/et al caused.

Drop the ban-more-guns crap, and the NRA either goes back to refereeing shooting matches and providing safety training, or becomes irrelevant.

[B Calm]

131. When you think about it, the right to own a gun is a very LIBERAL IDEA.

Looks like the cons want to force their wedge issue upon America by displaying their fruitcakes on youtube. I have a lot of guns and I don't call any of them my babies!

[ThomWV]

132. I Disagree - It is one of the most reasonably conservative rights we have

And I also consider it our second most important of our 10 bills of rights.

[B Calm]

133. where do you get it's conservative?

[Recursion]

135. I think there are some disagreeing definitions here

For that matter, it's only an accident of American political history that "liberal" and "conservative" are seen as opposites; the natural opposite of "conservative" would seem to be "progressive", while the natural opposite of "liberal" would seem to be "statist" or "authoritarian" (we progressives are quite statist on some issues, which I think is one of the reasons "progressive" is in many circles a more popular term than "liberal").

At any rate, I would say armed citizenries have certainly been a progressive force in history; in that sense it's anti-conservative.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

144. Yup. Best Interaction Of The Entire Debate. He Was Spot On.

Actually, I gotta admit: I used to have some trust issues with Biden and didn't care for him too much. But each debate I find myself liking him more and more. I thought he kicked ass last night.

[IronLionZion]

148. link to video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9aIb-IplqY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3ghj5HSkI

[MLFerrell]

150. After having read this entire thread, it is painfully obvious...

That the most vociferous proponents of gun control don't know the first thing about firearms.

If you want to ban certain types of firearms, you need to learn about the operation and design of those firearms. You need to understand caliber, the differences between various rifle cartridges and/or handgun rounds, and gain an understanding of ballistics.

Until you can learn these things, there isn't a gun owner in America who will even begin to take you seriously. Because quite frankly, why SHOULD any gun owner take you seriously when it's painfully obvious that you don't have any clue what you're talking about?

You want to ban guns, some guns, maybe all guns?

Then you first need to understand guns.

That is all.

[Swede]

157. The first thing to know about guns is that they kill 10,00 Americans every year.

No guns,no gun deaths.

[MLFerrell]

166. Yes, because NOBODY has EVER been murdered by any other means.

:eyes:

The first thing to know about guns is to always assume that they are loaded.

The second thing to know about guns is that there is no shortage of half-truths and outright lies about guns.

By the way, do you have a source for that number? Oh, and how many deaths are automobiles responsible for every year, while you're at it?

I'll be waiting...

[Swede]

184. No guns,no gun deaths,funny how that works.

Source is the CDC. Let's stick with guns for now.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

[beevul]

185. What do you propose?

Do you propose banning civilian semi-automatic rifles that are used less in homicide than shotguns or hands and feet?

[MLFerrell]

194. You could make guns entirely illegal, with a mandatory minimum for possession...

And there would STILL be gun deaths.

Do you really think that a criminal who uses guns to commit crimes is just going to say, "Dammit! Now that guns are illegal, I guess I won't use them for holdups or murders anymore..."?

:eyes:

[benEzra]

199. And all rifles combined account for less than 3% of that total.

The first thing to know about guns is that they kill 10,00 Americans every year.

And all rifles combined account for less than 3% of that total.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Rifles (even modern-looking ones) are not a crime problem in this country and never have been.

[MetaTrope]

151. Doesn't licking the barrel of your gun cause it to rust?

What kind of love is that? :shrug:

[Recursion]

160. Mostly it just gets CLP on your tongue n/t

[krispos42]

152. Here's a link to the actual question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqrpjLZJVu4&NR=1

You can see the guy pretty clearly in the picture, unlike on CNN.


I am wondering if he is ex-military. I believe they are trained to have that kind of attachment to their rifle. Dont' the Marines make you memorize your rifle's serial number?


The rifle in the picture looks like a short-barreled AR-15, a civilian equivilent of an M-4 carbine. It has a detachable magazine, in this case either a pre-ban or post-ban normal-capacity, a pistol grip, and I think it has one of those telescoping stocks.

I think it with those features it would have been illegal to sell during the ban, so I'm guessing he got himself an nice telescoping stock after the ban was over.

[Eurobabe]

154. Wes Clark said for those of you who like assault weapons we have a place for you

it's called the armed forces. Kudos to Biden. What the FUCK does a citizen need an assault rifle for??

[Bluebear]

155. See also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1415025&mesg_id=1415025
:crazy:

[MLFerrell]

167. Tell me, citizen, what IS an assault rifle?

Let's start there...

[Solo_in_MD]

168. Don't ask Wes Clark that one, he clearly has no clue

[billbuckhead]

212. First in his class at West Point and you?

:rofl:

[billbuckhead]

213. An assault rife is what ever they want it be but Hitler really named it

It's just an easier to use rifle that can be fired quicker.

[benEzra]

187. Actual assault rifles have been tightly controlled by Federal law for 74 years.

Wes Clark said for those of you who like assault weapons we have a place for you

it's called the armed forces. Kudos to Biden. What the FUCK does a citizen need an assault rifle for??

Actual assault rifles, like M16's, military AK-47's and -74's, etc., have been tightly controlled by Federal law for 74 years. Possession by a civilian outside of government/law enforcement duty is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

What the guy in the video was holding was the most popular civilian target rifle in America, a NON-automatic civilian AR-15 derivative. The military doesn't use non-automatic .223 caliber civilian carbines and never has; those are exclusively civilian guns.

What do you need one for? Well, they're the bees' knees for recreational target shooting (recoil is negligible due to the small caliber, they're very accurate, the ergonomics are excellent, and they are easily customizable with different optics, stocks, and what have you). They're also one of the few types of carbines that are really, really well suited to a civilian defensive role, because the little .223 round with lightweight JHP's is even less likely to penetrate an exterior wall than pistol rounds are. No, it's not powerful enough to hunt deer with, but only 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter anyway.

FWIW, I shoot competitively (IDPA/IPSC style). I shot a carbine match a few weeks ago; the vast majority of the carbines used were AR-15 derivatives.

[derby378]

169. Biden's comments were disappointing

He's certainly not going to get that guy's vote by insulting him. Bill Richardson gave a most sensible and dignified answer to Jered's question.

[Madspirit]

179. I support gun ownership

Unlike some of those as far left I am, I support the right to own guns. That said, anyone who hugs their gun and calls it their baby needs some help in an institution. Don't yell at me Karl...<g> You know I always support you on the gun threads but please....don't ever tell me you have an intimate relationship with your firearms... : >

Lee

[Pavulon]

180. That dude was a bit strange

but there are lots of gun owners who are a bit better spoken (to say the least)

[billbuckhead]

214. But the majority of gun owners are even creepier than the You Tube guy

Why not make your own You Tube Video? See if you can do better. :rofl:

[benEzra]

188. He probably phrased it that way so his video would get picked...

Unlike some of those as far left I am, I support the right to own guns. That said, anyone who hugs their gun and calls it their baby needs some help in an institution. Don't yell at me Karl...<g> You know I always support you on the gun threads but please....don't ever tell me you have an intimate relationship with your firearms... : >

He probably phrased it that way so his video would get picked, instead of all the boring videos. In retrospect, probably not the best choice, but I know why he did it.

Still, I wonder if CNN picked that one because they wanted to spin the issue a bit. The MSM are on the whole a lot pretty hostile to gun ownership by peons.

[benEzra]

186. No, it wasn't a machinegun, it was THE MOST POPULAR CIVILIAN TARGET RIFLE IN AMERICA.

It was a NON-automatic, civilian, small-caliber, AR-15 platform rifle. One that wasn't even classed as an "assault weapon" under the 1994 Feinstein ban.

Which makes Biden's trashing of the guy absolutely idiotic. Of course, Biden was one of the "triangulators" who helped orchestrate the 1994 loss of the House AND Senate to the repubs, so this wouldn't be the first time he stepped in it on the gun issue.

Yes, the guy's way of asking the question was quirky (that's why HE got selected to have his question asked, instead of all the boring people's videos). I personally wouldn't have phrased it that way. But political tip 101--when somebody shows you that he owns THE MOST POPULAR TARGET RIFLE IN AMERICA and asks you would it be safe from you as President, you don't answer by accusing him (and other owners) of being mentally ill. At least, you don't say that if you don't want that clip used over and over and over in the future to bash Dems.

The "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme died in 2006. Biden and a few others seem absolutely determined to revive it.


---------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[billbuckhead]

220. That just happens to be the civilian rifle version of America's war rifle

Such breathtaking dishonesty.

Target shooting is to masturbation what killing is to actual sex.

[beevul]

234. Nice going...

So target shooters are just people that practice for and fantasize about murder...is that about right?

Once again, if I were a republican, this is where I would tell you to pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

And so the fuck what if its a civilian version of americas war anything ?

So are a shitload of hunting and sporting firearms. So what? You want to ban them too?

[Prophet 451]

239. I thought Biden was right

Don't misunderstand me, I'm pro-gun rights (a few sensible precautions aside) but anyone who describes their rifle as their "baby" is a worrying guy.

[Odin2005]

191. Biden is clueless.

The last thing we need is to give the morons in the MSM the opportunity to use the gun issue scare rural voters into voting Puke.

I'm fucking sick of the gun issue, both from the NRA nuts AND the urban nuts that use the gun issue as a way to trash Americans that live in rural areas.

[billbuckhead]

207. When middle America sees who owns these black rifles, they aren't impressed

I challenge anyone sitting on the fence on gun issues to go to a gun show. You'll see dozens of the same black rifle people as the you tube video.

[beevul]

235. Hahahah. Hahahahahahaha. Snort Hahahahahah

"When middle America sees who owns these black rifles, they aren't impressed"

I got to hand it to you, you gave me a good laugh there. It is Middle America thats buying them all. I hope you don't believe that its people in NJ CA NY ILL that are buying them all. Well, maybe you could. I would characterize anyone that believed that as ... out of touch with reality...to put it nicely.

When Benezra said they were THE most popular rifles in America, he was telling the truth. You can believe it or deny it, but truth it is, and you can not change that.

[billbuckhead]

238. Any proof of this dubious assertion? More popular than .22's?

:rofl:

[wisteria]

216. I enjoyed his answer too. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

227. I agree with Biden. If you have a need for a tool, that's one thing

(I never will).

But our American love affair with instruments of killing is just plain sick. If that's his baby, he's a sick (*&(.