What Best Describes Your Attitude Toward Gun Ownership

[DemocratSinceBirth]

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Gun laws are the third rail of electoral politics in rural America.

I know a lot of non-fundie rural people who "vote their guns" even though they will agree with liberal positions on just about everything else. If we convince them we're not after their guns, we can get a lot of them to go with us.

[Captain Hilts]

5. I have a friend living in the country and I've advised her to get a rifle.

Learn to use it and store it properly.

She needs some feminine protection that only a rifle can give her.

[youthere]

7. with or without wings?

LOL

[flamin lib]

9. 12 gauge pump shortened to the legal limt with a pistol grip. Load it

with #6 shot. Even a child in the womb knows the sound of pump shotgun.

Just make sure she knows what the aftermath is going to look like . . .

[LanternWaste]

11. Had three different cops on three different occasions all tell me the same thing

Had three different cops on three different occasions all tell me the same thing, "If you purchase a firearm for protection, get a shotgun. Nothing else is necessary. Every male in the world knows the sound of a shotgun getting pumped and will wet himself just prior to running away."

Not that I'll ever buy a weapon as I consider them to be among the most useless of insurances, however if I did, I'm pretty sure it would be a shotgun.

[flamin lib]

16. Cheaper to invest the $500 in a good alarm system that makes

LOTS of noise and keep them out than buy the gun and hire a crime scene clean up crew afer shooting 'em. Guns make a hell of a mess.

[Xithras]

42. Alarm systems don't deter rural criminals.

I live in the country, and police response time here is 20 minutes MINIMUM. I won't even get into response time on summer weekends.

I know this, the police know this, and criminals know this. They can kick in your front door, spend 15 minutes doing anything they want in your house, and still have 5 minutes to get out and vanish before the first officers even arrive.

Alarms may be useful in the city where the police are only 4-6 minutes away, but when you live in the boonies you have to be a bit more proactive.

[karlrschneider]

46. Yep. Our nearest neighbor has a LOUD alarm setup, it goes off by mistake

several times a year. Makes a hell of a racket but only a few people can hear it and none are inclined to investigate.
The sheriff will come out but it usually takes about an hour.

[Jim Warren]

50. Like that family in Connecticutt had?

You know, the one that had the home invasion at 3am on a warm summer night when the windows were open. Their alarm worked really well to notify the fire dept just after they burned up.

[Kingshakabobo]

84. Did they have an alarm?? I thought the killers cam in through an unlocked door..

......with no alarm??

[Buns_of_Fire]

105. What you need is an alarm system, with a few speakers, that makes the SOUND

of a 12-gauge being racked. I think it's something in our DNA -- that sound makes the sphincter tighten, even when you're the one doing it!

[Oldenuff]

110. an alarm system?

What do you suggest I do with an alarm system?Hit the intruder over the head with it?A good gun won't cost me $500 either.A'course,I could just buy a gun from the black market and save myself $450.

[derby378]

22. If that were true, though...

...then why do most cops carry pistols? And why do their SWAT teams lug around tactical rifles along with their shotguns?

Shotguns have tremendous stopping power, don't get me wrong. A Mossberg 590 is probably the best you can get, and that would be my choice. But there are disadvantages - weight, noise, and inability to bullseye even with slugs.

[LanternWaste]

30. Because he was recommending it for home defense value only

Because he was recommending it for home defense value only-- not for me to go out and make traffic stops and chase down bad guys-- right tool for the right job and all that. Sheesh...

:eyes:

[TahitiNut]

25. 20-gauge tactical pump with #3 shot in 2 3/4" load

Won't kill the neighbors ... stops virtually anyone.

[Bake]

148. Plus, you don't have to be as accurate ...

:-)

Bake

[scrinmaster]

37. As long as it still has the buttstock, and you use 00 buck instead of birdshot,

A shotgun is a pretty decent home defense gun. Buckshot is much more effective than birdshot, and pistol gripped shotguns without buttstocks are very difficult to aim properly.

[flamin lib]

38. 00 buck is 38 cal and will penetrate interior walls with enough

energy to kill in another room. That's why I suggest medium heavy bird shot. Still better off spending the money on an alarm system. It's damn expensive to clean up after a gunshot. Carpet, walls, possibly furniture all has to go. Guns are a messy way to defend yourself.

[krispos42]

127. Use #1 buck

#1 buck is the minimum size that will penatrate through-and-through a human body, and the increased pellet count means more total wound area.

Winchester makes a 3" shell with 24 pellets moving at 1040 feet per second. That's 24 pellets of .30-caliber diameter moving at just under Mach One.

[aikoaiko]

47. Everybody draws their lines differently when considering penetration

By my way of thinking, if you have to use a shotgun to defend yourself or another, then the most important thing is when that shot hits the person it penetrates the body and stops the threat. Of course, the price for the convenience is that the shot will likely go through walls. I generally advise people not to go smaller than #4 BUCKshot. Thats my line.



But my thinking on the whole shotgun as best home defense has changed over the years. I'm more inclined now than ever to recommend an AR15 with 30 rounds of 5.56 and a proper light because of the critical nature of aimed shots. Of course the down side is that missed shots will travel far. Police, in general, are not using shotguns in close quarters (except for entry) and I think the above reason is why. A sound suppressed, short-barrel AR might be the best choice of all.

[beevul]

27. Indeed.

"If we convince them we're not after their guns, we can get a lot of them to go with us."


I quite agree. The problem is with doing that though. You have to stop things like assault weapons bans proposals, and 50 caliber rifle ban proposals, and handgun ban proposals...from being proposed...and co-sponsored by a long list of Democrats/and/or potential presidential candidates.

I believe too much damage has been done since the last presidential election for that to happen this cycle though.

[piedmont]

2. You forgot "Some gun restrictions should be relaxed or abolished."

just to make it less biased.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Which Ones

I am trying to learn ....

[ThomWV]

14. You're dam right. In some states guns are effectively outlawed as it is

Maryland for one.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Handguns and rifles need to be considered separately. nt

[PDJane]

6. I haven't had a gun for years.......

In fact, haven't had one since I left the farm many, many, many years ago.

Yeah, I admit that it was a necessity on the farm, and I have shot rabid wildlife once or twice. It's not something I enjoy, frankly, and we didn't need to shoot meat for the table. However, were I in a spot to need a rifle or shotgun again, I would register it and lock it up. There is no damn reason for a handgun but to shoot people, and keeping one in an apartment is just plain damn dumb.

However, I'm a resident of Canuckistan, and haven't got the attachment to firearms that seems to be rampant down there.

*shrug* It's like the gay thing......we don't have that here either, so much. In fact, Ontario's Minister of Health married his long-time male partner last Sunday, and there hasn't been anything but an announcement in the papers!

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Sane cultures are for wimps.

Life in Fundie-infested, wacko-libertarian Mrka is so much more interesting...

[PDJane]

15. Isn't there a chinese curse that says....

May you live in interesting times? I'd rather not live a more interesting life than the one I have, thank you.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. I betcha 2/3 of the people on this board could quote that curse to you.

Maybe it's a U.S. thing because we're always in interesting times.

[Captain Hilts]

12. It's weird when you compare crime patterns between Toronto and Buffalo. Sad, really. nt

[hootinholler]

8. My attitude is buy quality. n/t

[mvd]

13. I'm in favor of licensing,

keeping track of guns used in crimes, and limits on handgun purchases per month. In addition to what we have.

[Sapere aude]

18. I know this isn't a popular point of view but the gun laws won't prevent gun violence.

Those who will obey the gun laws are not the ones who commit gun violence. Sure there is the case were a normal law abiding person goes crazy and kills people but that is the exception.

I think we need sensible gun laws like registration and waiting periods and gun training and back ground checks.

But IMHO most gun laws are "feel good" laws. They make certain people feel good about doing something but the results are not what they expect to happen. I appose "feel good" laws and I am not in favor of non gun nuts making laws about things they don't have experience with. For instance, many anti gun people make no distinction between guns used for recreational shooting or hunting and guns designed for killing humans.

I would like to see the criminals having less fire power. I don't like it when the criminals can our shoot the police.

But like many things now, giving up freedoms for a sense of security is not the best route to take.

Also the anti gun people will howl just as loud as gun nuts do when their ox is the one getting gored!

[Apollo11]

34. How about non-junkies making drug laws?

You seem to be suggesting that "non gun nuts" are too stupid to understand the issues.

Speaking as a "non gun nut" myself - I don't appreciate your dismissive approach.

[iverglas]

65. "Those who will obey the gun laws are not the ones who commit gun violence."

The old, old refrain.

Thing is, if "the ones who commit gun violence" don't have the guns to do it with ... well, they don't commit gun violence.

At some point, every firearm was owned by someone who falls into that "will obey the gun laws" category. Even if it was the manufacturer. (Well, most manufacturers, in North America, anyhow ...)

If the person who has the gun is a law-abiding sort of person, and the law tells him/her that s/he may not transfer that gun to someone who is not licensed to possess it, and may not transfer it without the transfer being registered, and may not store the thing unsafely or insecurely -- well, there just might be fewer guns getting into the hands of the ones who commit gun violence.

Because a lot of people, people with a little more to use than the ones who commit the gun violence, might just think twice before doing something that is going to put guns in those ones' hands. If they know that their straw purchase (or sale) or negligent storage is going to be identified, if the gun they passed off to someone else or left lying around on the dashboard is used in a crime, and that they will be held accountable for their own action if that happens, they just might not do it in the first place.

[Fresh_Start]

19. I'm safe and competent and deserve to own guns....

but there a lots of gunowners who are neither safe nor competent and they shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

[slackmaster]

20. Choice 1 is a good start - I would add the following

A. Patch up the inadequacies in the National Instant Check System (NICS) database so that all relevant records of disqualifying events (certain criminal convictions, restraining orders, mental health adjudications and commitments, and dishonorable discharges from the military) are entered in a timely manner. This will reduce the ability of disqualified people to buy firearms from legitimate dealers.

B. Make NICS available to unlicensed individuals and licensed collectors, so people with used guns have a way of checking the background of prospective buyers. Include safeguards to prevent misuse, blah blah blah woof woof meow...

C. National concealed-carry license that must be issued to any qualified person - Qualifications would be strict but reasonable including proof of training and demonstrated knowledge of applicable laws.

D. Uniform national laws and regulations for machineguns, sound suppressors, short-barrelled shotguns, and other items regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

E. Re-open the NFA Registry for an amnesty period so people can register war trophies acquired since 1968, and reverse the closure of the Registry that took effect in 1986.

F. Affirmation by Congress that the Second Amendment refers to a civil right held by all qualified individuals.

G. Make gun safety training available in public schools. Every child should have the chance to learn how to safely unload the most common types of firearms.

[derby378]

26. Sounds good to me

:toast:

[scrinmaster]

35. Remove silencers, SBR's, SBS's, and AOW's from the NFA.

Re-opening the machine gun registry is good, along with lowering the price of the tax stamp for any NFA transfers or manufactures to $5.

[slackmaster]

40. I think use of sound suppressors should be encouraged

It could prevent a lot of hearing damage as well as reducing noise pollution.

Norway, Sweden, and Finland have it right on suppressors. They're even unregulated items in the UK.

[Fla_Democrat]

21. Hmmmm

No "none of the above". :shrug:

[B Calm]

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

[iverglas]

66. one more reason why I'm not a liberal

I'm not a self-centred short-sighted jerk.

[Kingshakabobo]

86. I think the jury is still out on that.

[iverglas]

94. no, no; I'm definitely not a liberal

[Mugu]

24. Too many laws already.

Too many ways to become a felon without any criminal intent. Here in Illinois, you can be perfectly legal one day and a felon the next if you forget to renew your FOID card.

Regards, Mugu

[benEzra]

28. My wife and I own guns, and would like to keep them...

and like most gun owners, we are both nonhunters.

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

[Oldenuff]

29. I don't mean to argue

the point,but I don't want anyone messing with my right to bare arms.It's interesting to me that a lot of folks get all hot about losing this or that right,but somehow try to justify that it's different with the gun issue....bulldab.

[Jim Warren]

53. Go ahead and mean to argue

We are going to need more liberals with guns.

[iverglas]

70. really??

We are going to need more liberals with guns.

Who's "we", and for what are you going to need more liberals with guns?

[Jim Warren]

75. Not Canadians

Eh?

[iverglas]

77. I hate to repeat myself

but perhaps you have a short attention span and I exceeded it, so: or what are you going to need more liberals with guns?

[piedmont]

111. He means we're not going to tell Canadians, not just that we won't need them.

We'll let you know later.

[iverglas]

120. some mighty bad cases of ADD around here

The statement made:

We are going to need more liberals with guns.

The question asked:

Who's "we", and for what are you going to need more liberals with guns?

The response received:

Not Canadians

Now, it makes sense if read this way:

Who's "we"? - Not Canadians

It does not make sense if read this way:

For what are you going to need more liberals with guns? -- Not Canadians

And it most definitely does not make sense if read this way:

We are going to need more liberals with guns.
Who's "we", and for what are you going to need more liberals with guns?
Not Canadians
He means we're not going to tell Canadians, not just that we won't need them.

Most definitely. No sense. At all.

So I guess I'll just keep waiting for an answer.

Hahahahahhaha.

[piedmont]

124. Whining about sense and its making will get you nowhere. We're still not telling. nt

[havocmom]

115. Not a liberal, but the jury is coming in on the jerk thing

[iverglas]

119. aw

Don't ya just hate it somebody makes ya explain the joke?

It just makes it all kinda fall so flat.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

31. Either everyone is issued a gun, or its really hard to get them

[havocmom]

116. Issued? Unless you have certain criminal history or mental infirmity,

you can get one yourself. Issued? ISSUED? Should everyone be issued things?

Rights are about freedom to make choices. ISSUED? :banghead:

[-..__...]

32. Repeal some of the laws/Executive Orders already on the books.

This is just on the federal end of things... don't even get me started about the gun control laws of certain states.

Reopen the NFA registry to allow civilian ownership of post 86 full-auto firearms (also have another amnesty for "bring backs" and other full-autos squirreled away in grand dads attic. etc).

Allow sale of armor piercing ammo handgun to civilians.

Do away with the "sporting purpose" clause in the 1968 GCA and the 1989 EO and 1998 EO importation bans (this would also include parts such as receivers and barrels).

Repeal the EO prohibiting sales of surplus military equipment (particularly ammunition), to civilians.

As for any new laws... a national reciprocation law for CCW permits should be passed.

[scrinmaster]

36. These are all good too.

[TransitJohn]

33. I travel internationally a lot for work

and when inevitably queried about why so many guns here, always reply, "Well it comes out of the founding ideals from the Revolutionary War. We (the citizenry) need our gun rights because it might be necessary to overthrow our government again." Never fails to get the people I'm talking with thinking. As to the poll, I think there needs to be more choices, neither leave them as they are, nor impose more restrictions.

[Jim Warren]

39. None of the above

The fire of totalitarians is cooking the frog and you're having tea over a gun law debate.

[bunkerbuster1]

44. Walking/chewing gum simultaneously...

does not present a real serious problem for many of us.

As it happens, I voted for "register all guns," but only because that's closer to my take, not necessarily my preferred compromise. I'm not sure we need to register air guns, f'rinstance.

[Jim Warren]

49. I'm happy for the progress you've made

on the motor skill thing. Remember, you're special.

[Oldenuff]

109. cooking the frog...

Exactly right!

Is it getting warm in here,or is it just me?

[IndianaJones]

41. Love my guns. nt.

[Blue-Jay]

43. Do they love you back?

[IndianaJones]

45. Certainly, when they perform flawlessly in taking down what I am aiming at. nt.

[aikoaiko]

48. I chose option 1, but there are a lot of stupid laws that should be repealed or ended.

Some of them have already been mentioned, but one of them includes the ban on rifles only because they were not made on US soil. if the company set up a shot here in the US, then they could sell the same weapon.

Some weapons or parts shouldn't be regulated at all (length of barrel, sound suppressor, etc).

[devilgrrl]

51. Other: Who gives a rat's ass?

:shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. You Cared Enough To Post

Thank you.

[devilgrrl]

67. Oh well!

:hi:

[Squatch]

55. I do!

Being a gun owner, I am very interested in how laws affect my possession of firearms.

[devilgrrl]

68. BFD.

:shrug:

[Squatch]

71. Then what are you doing here?

Apathetic much?

[devilgrrl]

72. I'm here annoying you.

:hi:

[piedmont]

112. I have to admit you're very good at that.

:D

[Squatch]

54. We need ONE STANDARD for gun laws

A law-abiding gun owner can find himself in deep kimchee because of the myriad gun laws that vary from state to state.

For instance:

Last fall, I went hunting on my brother's property in Maine. I first had to pick him up in New York.

As soon as I crossed the state line in New York, I broke the law. New York requires a permit for firearms and does not allow peacable journey (Just passing through, officer). In order to get a permit, I have be a resident of New York.

I kept my rifle and pistol buried deep in the back of my SUV and prayed that I wouldn't be stopped and searched.

Mass has similar laws, except in Mass, you can drive through as long as you do not stop (even for gas). Fucking ridiculous.

[Jim Warren]

57. OK

I've a great idea, let's use the laws of an east coast state, blue, liberal, OK?

Good, Vermont it is then as the Gold Standard.

[Sanctified]

78. Vermont has the most liberal gun laws in the entire United States.

No permits required for concealed carry its' probably the most friendly gun state in the US. I would support that idea.

[Jim Warren]

79. A-yut

[benEzra]

131. Sounds good to me...

I've a great idea, let's use the laws of an east coast state, blue, liberal, OK?

Good, Vermont it is then as the Gold Standard.

Let's see. No license required to carry a handgun for any lawful purpose if you have a clean record, no restrictions on rifle stock shape or post-1861 magazine capacities (aka "assault weapons"), keeping a gun at home for defensive purposes is legal, but if you commit a crime with a gun, you're in deep trouble. Strong culture of gun ownership and responsibility therewith.

Yes, sounds good to me. :)

[napi21]

58. For transport of guns, I agree with you. For ownership it should be

laws by locality. I certainly can understand why there should be different requirements for a resident of Brooklyn or Queens & someone from Chautauqua County.

[Squatch]

60. What differences do you see in these requirements?

Shouldn't residents of both Queens and Chautauqua (what is that...German? :)) be required to store their firearms safely, out of the reach of children, and behind lock and key?

[napi21]

104. German? I suspect it's an indian origin. Everyone who legally owns

guns should be required to store them safely and our of the reach of children. My point was there are many problems with people shooting each other in the very urban areas of our cities. It's too bad that the criminals have ruined it for the law abiding citizens, but it's an example of hanging out with the bad guys...you have to suffer too!

Unfortunately far too many people in urban areas of our country misuse guns of all kind.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. I voted for registration.

I think it follows the letter and the spirit of the second amendment, the "well-regulated" part.

I don't think it'd solve any of the school shootings or any of that dramatic shit. But I think it might help solve a few murders here and there, put away some of the irresponsible gun owners, etc.

[WA98072]

62. I used to be for registration but who would you trust with the list?

Not the Feds, not the State, not the Locals.

I'm for trigger locks and safes. My brother had a 45 stolen from his night stand while out of town. If that gun was locked-up when he was out of the house it would not be in the hands of a criminal.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Red Dawn, right?

Soviets and Cubans invade, look at the gun registration lists, and know exactly who to take prisoner, right?

Is that where you're getting that paranoid nonsense?

[Squatch]

69. California, 1999 and 2000

When the Roberti-Roos law was passed, it prohibited sales of many semi-autos but provided for registration of some prohibited semi-autos already in private possession. Among the semi-auto rifles which one could register, after a background check by the state, were SKS Sporter model rifles with fixed magazines.

According to some reports, California did not maintain records on all sales, but it did on the SKS Sporter. Then, the state ran ads that told owners of the registered guns that they must turn them in.

[WA98072]

74. How about criminals?

Insults are unnecessary. I am not paranoid nor is my opinion nonsense.

Answer this: Is there anyway to keep the list from anyone who wants to get it? Even if it's a gun salesman bribing a local underpaid office worker to know who to market to.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Do you register your car, WA?

[WA98072]

81. For the purpose of paying taxes, it would be against the second amendment

to tax my guns not my car.

You miss the point. Who owns a gun, or doesn't, would be valuable information to people wishing to do harm? If you plan to rob a house it would be helpful to know if they own guns or not. I'd rather they assume we all do.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. We're not talking about taxes.

We're talking about registration.

And I don't see how you can have "well regulation" without registration.

You were talking about the rather paranoid idea that people would be stealing guns because they're registered, or gun manufacturers would market to gun owners because of gun registration. Why doesn't that same thing apply to cars?

[benEzra]

132. Australia, UK, California, New York City...

passed registration with the understanding that it would not be used for confiscation, merely crime prevention. Then sweeping bans were passed on already-registered guns...

The lack of a centralized "who owns what" list is one of the single biggest protections we have in the U.S. against a UK- or Australia-style gun ban. In the current political climate, I would like to keep it that way.

[Bosso 63]

152. Wolverines!!!!

Its a great bad movie.

[bemildred]

59. Ought to be just like a car.

You have to take a test and get a license to drive a car. The same criteria should apply to owning a gun, or any other dangerous weapon.

[Squatch]

61. Including baseball bats and ball-peen hammers?

"...or any other dangerous weapon"

[bemildred]

64. No, you can still pick up a rock if you want, too.

While it is true that baseball bats and ball-peen hammers make excellent hand weapons, they don't seem to fall in the same category as guns and RPGs for example, which is why our troops have guns and not baseball bats. The opportunity to do something stupid and irreversible with a gun is much greater than with a bat, hence the need for education and licensing.

[Sanctified]

80. Driving a Car is a privilege not a right.

Should we require people to get a license to practice their religion or exercise their free speech?

[bemildred]

82. Licensing and registration are not an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

Anymore than licensing and registration are an infringement of the right to buy and own a car.

In the case of "arms", licensing and registration fall under the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment, but there are other perfectly good and legal arguments for it.

No rights are absolute. The right of anybody at all to have any gun they want conflicts with the right of everyone to be secure in their persons and property. Weapons may be used for both good and evil purposes, and the need to regulate them derives from that fact.

[Sanctified]

87. If a license is denied you are denying a right.

License and Registration is nothing but a method of control, would you support everyone having to get a license to practice or not practice religion, would you think it a good idea to make everyone register their religious beliefs.

Furthermore, you are only required to have a drivers license and your vehicle only needs to be registered if it will be on public property. You do not have to have a license or registration to drive on private property, why would we require gun owners to have a license or registration to have their guns on their private property?

And if you want to license a "well regulated militia" thats fine, but the second Amendment was pretty clear that congress shall not be able to infringe upon the rights of the people to bear arms. Their is a difference between a "well regulate militia" and "the people"

[bemildred]

90. "License and Registration is nothing but a method of control"

Exactly. All rights are subject to certain restrictions. You have a right to free speech, but not in your neighbors kitchen or the studios of ABC news. That is an entirely different thing from claiming that you do not as a citizen have a right to own weapons. There is NOTHING inappropriate about attempting to impose some controls on the ownership and use of weapons. You can't give them to kids, or felons for example, so you have already established that some sorts of controls are necessary and appropriate. The proper argument is about the nature and objective of the legal controls on ownership of weapons, and it deserves a better discussion than it gets in this country.

[Sanctified]

98. You have the right to free speech on your property

once you are on someone else's property that is completely different story. That is why a private business can post a sign that says no guns allowed and it must be adhered whether you have concealed carry permit or not. You as a private citizen you can tell one neighbor to get the fuck off your lawn and you can tell another neighbor that he has free access to your lawn, thats just how private ownership works.

No one requires you to have a permit for free speech on your property, why should one have to have a permit to have a gun on his property. If you want to require people to have a permit to carry on public property ok but not on private.

Kids are allowed ownership of guns to some extent in some states and Felons gave up their rights when they decided not to live by societies rules.

[bemildred]

99. Suppose "societies rules" say you have to register your guns?

Then if you refuse, are you giving up your right to own a gun? It is not in fact the case that you can do whatever you like just because you are on your own property. The issue with guns is not whether you are on your own property, but whether you know how to properly care for and handle such a dangerous thing.

[Sanctified]

100. Society can dictate whatever they want as long as it does not go against the Constitution.

The issue with guns is not whether you know how to handle them on your property but if you know how to handle them in public. Why would someone be afraid of his neighbors gun if they never leave his neighbors property. Why not just stick to requiring licenses on public property, just like you do for cars, that was your original argument right?

[bemildred]

102. So, where do you think the Constitution came from?

If not from "society" I mean. "We the people", acting in concert, can do whatever the hell we want to. The Constitution is not set in stone, nor was it intended to be.

The issue with guns is whether you can be trusted with one. Which is exactly the same issue as with cars or any other possession that presents a potential danger to the public. The primary purpose of guns is to kill things, and it is entirely appropriate to have rules about who is allowed to keep one around.

[Sanctified]

103. You completely misunderstand the Constitution.

It was written as a method of controlling Government not the people that is why it was written in a step by step format that states what the Government is allowed to do and not allowed to do. Since it specifically states that the Government cannot interfere with the ownership of arms there is nothing the people can do unless there is a Constitutional amendment and good luck with that.

[bemildred]

106. My point was that it comes from the people.

And specifies the rules of government, so I don't see that we disagree there. However the purpose of the government is to regulate the people, eh? To establish and protect property, to impose taxes (which are seizures of property) and provide for police and armies and so on, to make law and enforce it. And it already certainly can and does regulate and restrict the right to possess arms, so the only sensible argument is about what the proper restrictions are. There is no absolute right to keep and bear arms, it a regulated right like all the other rights we hold by constitutional authority.

[benEzra]

147. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people,

And specifies the rules of government, so I don't see that we disagree there. However the purpose of the government is to regulate the people, eh? To establish and protect property, to impose taxes (which are seizures of property) and provide for police and armies and so on, to make law and enforce it. And it already certainly can and does regulate and restrict the right to possess arms, so the only sensible argument is about what the proper restrictions are. There is no absolute right to keep and bear arms, it a regulated right like all the other rights we hold by constitutional authority.

The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people, not keep the people in line, as Jefferson pointed out very eloquently in the Declaration of Independence. Part of that does indeed involve reigning in people who infringe on the rights of others, whether by polluting the commons, by economic coercion, or by physical force. However, the purpose of the government is NOT "regulating the people"; Constitutional jurisprudence has long held that restrictions on Constitutional rights must pass a strict-scrutiny test, i.e. must be absolutely necessary and MUST affect people's rights to the least possible extent.

The Second Amendment, like the other amendments, pertains to something that the government is supposed to protect, i.e. the ability of the citizenry to ensure that the government does NOT have a monopoly of force. If you want to look more deeply into the Founders' view of the relationship between the government itself and its armed citizens, see the Federalist Papers, #46 (and that was coming from the founders most sympathetic to a strong central government; the anti-Federalists would have expressed it in even stronger terms).

The issue of what arms are, and are not, suitable for widespread civilian ownership has been settled for 73 years now, by the compromises emboded in the National Firearms Act--non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed firearms under .51 caliber. Automatic weapons, sound-suppressed weapons, guns over .50 caliber (except shotguns), grenade launchers, etc. are all very tightly controlled by the NFA.

The gun issue in 2007 isn't about whether the right is absolute or not; it's about whether or not mentally competent adults with clean records can continue to own non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed guns under .51 caliber.

[bemildred]

153. "regulation" is not the same thing as "keeping people in line"

Nor did I say or mean that. The purpose of regulation is to allow people to live together, and to adjudicate conflicts among their various rights, and Jefferson would have no problem with that notion. The purpose of the government is both "regulating the people" so that they can live together and prosper, and to protect their rights, which is just the opposing side of the same coin. Rights are not protected in a vacuum, they are protected against infringements by other people, either in the government or private citizens. Who else is going to infringe your rights if not some particular persons acting in a public or private capacity? All of the other stuff you say about the history of gun laws is just "regulation" in the sense I mean, and all I am saying is that we are free to adjust the parameters of that regulation as we think fit though our government, supposing we are able to make it obey, and none of that infringes our rights under the second amendment, as such. Otherwise I agree with what you say, except that neither you or I are in a postion to dictate what is or is not the "gun issue" in 2007, but we are free to have our own views on the subject and to discuss them.

[iverglas]

107. huh

Should we require people to get a license to practice their religion or exercise their free speech?

Ain't it amazing how people who want to perform marriages as part of their religious practice, and operate radio stations to broadcast their speech, need ... what are those things called again? ... oh yeah. Licences.

Driving a Car is a privilege not a right.

If only some of you people would expand your sources of information beyond Guns-R-Us.com. And think for just a moment about what you would be doing if the governor of your state showed up at your front door and confiscated your driver's licence and instructed the local police to arrest you if they found you behind the wheel on the public highways. When you had committed no traffic violations.

Hmm. Methinks you'd be in a court somewhere, asserting your ... what are those things called again? ... oh yeah. Your rights. Including your right to drive a car.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/dueprocesstudents.htm

The Due Process Clause is essentially a guarantee of basic fairness. Fairness can, in various cases, have many components: notice, an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful way, a decision supported by substantial evidence, etc. In general, the more important the individual right in question, the more process that must be afforded. No one can be deprived of their life, for example, without the rigorous protections of a criminal trial and special determinations about aggravating factors justifying death. On the other hand, suspension of a driver's license may occur without many of the same protections.

If you didn't have a RIGHT to drive a car, then you would be entitled to ANY due process before your licence was suspended. Duh.

[EstimatedProphet]

114. Not true

As is pointed out here, and before, your right to OWN a car is inviolate. Anyone can own a car. Driving it publicly is what is licensed. The governor can never show up at your door and take away your right to own a car, unless that right has been used to break a law. The reason the argument is different for guns is that you are talking about licensing the right to own a gun, not to use one in public.

[iverglas]

118. not real good at reading?

As is pointed out here, and before, your right to OWN a car is inviolate. Anyone can own a car. Driving it publicly is what is licensed.

Let me try again:

In general, the more important the individual right in question, the more process that must be afforded. No one can be deprived of their life, for example, without the rigorous protections of a criminal trial and special determinations about aggravating factors justifying death. On the other hand, suspension of a driver's license may occur without many of the same protections.

If DRIVING a car were not a right, then there would be no need for ANY DUE PROCESS to be followed in suspending a driver's licence.

Getting it yet? Got some authority for your persistent statement to the contrary?

I didn't say this. Some law professor in the US said it. And it's obvious to a garden slug. If there were no right to drive a car, then there would be no need for driver's licences. People's names could just be pulled out of a hat, or off a party membership list, and driving privileges offered to whoever was chosen by whatever method was used.

There's no right to win a contest, so that's the method used for determining contest winners. There IS a right to drive a car, so that is NOT the method used to determine who drives cars. The method that IS used is scrupulously objective, involving testing, demerit points, etc. etc.


The reason the argument is different for guns is that you are talking about licensing the right to own a gun, not to use one in public.

That's not the reason the argument is different, for the simple fact that the argument is not different.

In both cases, a licence is required in order to perform an action. Owning something (which, of course, is accomplished by receiving it through some sort of transfer) is an action. There simply is no NEED to licence car owners. If there actually were large numbers of people driving cars around that they owned but were not licensed to drive, a very good argument could then be made for requiring that people have licences in order to acquire cars. That is not the case where I am.

Cars are great big hunks of steel and fibreglass with bells and whistles on them. When one appears in the public spaces of a society, it's obvious to everyone that it is there and being driven. It is being "used in public". Use = being put and kept in motion.

What does "use" of a firearm mean? Shooting it? If YOU were to treat car users and firearms users equivalently, by your own definition of equivalent, what would firearms users need licences for? Releasing bullets in a public place?

This tiresome nonsense is, well, tiresome nonsense. Motor vehicles are not firearms, and firearms are not motor vehicles. And no one is saying they are.

A licence is required for motor vehicle use to ensure that:
- the user is competent
- the user is identified and identifiable
- the user can be disqualified and prohibited from using if s/he fails to meet certain conditions

And while we're here, I see no reason why a licence should not be required for using motor vehicles on private property. Incompetence and negligence and recklessness and drunkenness and illness on the part of a driver can cause harm on private property just as easily as in public. So never mind the "we don't" ripostes; sometimes "we" don't do things that we ought to do, and the fact that we don't do them is no answer to whether we should do something else.

For the simple reason that firearms are not great big hunks of steel and fibreglass with bells and whistles, and are therefore highly susceptible to being taken off private property unbeknownst to anyone -- whether by people in lawful possession of them or by people who have stolen them -- the rules that should apply to firearms possession are different from the rules that should apply to motor vehicle possession.

I think you'll find that there is a variety of toxins and other things that you may possess only if you are authorized for that purpose. Do you imagine that you may possess them in your kitchen without such authorization?

Are you going to say that I have said that firearms and poison are the same? I'm pretty sure you are, even though I've said no such thing. Funny, though, how both can be used to kill.

[EstimatedProphet]

134. Not true, once again

If DRIVING a car were not a right, then there would be no need for ANY DUE PROCESS to be followed in suspending a driver's licence.

Then why does there need to be due process for disbarring a lawyer? Due process is involved in most everything, rights and privileges included. You seem to be arguing that a privilege can be taken away by the government at any time for no reason, and I disagree with that assumption. Driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege. Practicing medicine, or selling real estate as a broker, or acting as a lawyer, or keeping a pet, or anything where the government can require a certain amount of compliance to a standard, is a privilege. Privileges require some form of permission from the government to perform. Owning a car is a right. Revoking someone's right to own a car would be very difficult indeed, and would involve a great deal of judicial oversight. Revoking a license to drive is in comparison, a snap. If driving a car were a right, it would not require passage of tests for licensure, just like voting doesn't (which is mandated by age, but becomes a right once that age is reached), or speech doesn't.

By the way, how do you come to the conclusion that driving a car is a right, when the passage you quote is about how revoking a driver's license does not require the same high level of due process? If it is just because the judge is talking about the range of individual rights, then I disagree. He is using driving as an example from the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a privilege.

In both cases, a licence is required in order to perform an action. Owning something (which, of course, is accomplished by receiving it through some sort of transfer) is an action. There simply is no NEED to licence car owners. If there actually were large numbers of people driving cars around that they owned but were not licensed to drive, a very good argument could then be made for requiring that people have licences in order to acquire cars. That is not the case where I am.

No, owning a gun is not an action which is licensed in the United States on the whole. That's the reason the argument is different.

What does "use" of a firearm mean? Shooting it? If YOU were to treat car users and firearms users equivalently, by your own definition of equivalent, what would firearms users need licences for? Releasing bullets in a public place?

My point is that they don't need licenses. Your point is that they should. I already treat car users and firearms users differently. Owning ad using publicly are not the same thing. By the way, the majority of gun use off personal property is licensed through the use of hunting licenses - which are also not needed when on your own private property. Again, the use is what is licensed, not the ownership.

This tiresome nonsense is, well, tiresome nonsense. Motor vehicles are not firearms, and firearms are not motor vehicles. And no one is saying they are.

You're saying that they can be treated the same way, by legal precedent. Which is the reason I disagreed.

A licence is required for motor vehicle use to ensure that:
- the user is competent
- the user is identified and identifiable
- the user can be disqualified and prohibited from using if s/he fails to meet certain conditions

This is why it is not a right.

And while we're here, I see no reason why a licence should not be required for using motor vehicles on private property. Incompetence and negligence and recklessness and drunkenness and illness on the part of a driver can cause harm on private property just as easily as in public. So never mind the "we don't" ripostes; sometimes "we" don't do things that we ought to do, and the fact that we don't do them is no answer to whether we should do something else.

That's fine, but that's a different argument. It would be tough to make a legal case that actions on private property should be monitored for the public good though, unless that action is shown to injure another party. For example, someone drives a car intoxicated on their own property and then injures themself - would the government have legal recourse to take their car away? what if someone is preparing dinner and cuts themself so badly that thier life is threatened - should the government take their knives away? Managing private property by public government has always been frowned upon because it opens up a whole can of worms, in the eyes of the judicial system.

For the simple reason that firearms are not great big hunks of steel and fibreglass with bells and whistles, and are therefore highly susceptible to being taken off private property unbeknownst to anyone -- whether by people in lawful possession of them or by people who have stolen them -- the rules that should apply to firearms possession are different from the rules that should apply to motor vehicle possession.

Granted, there is a security issue here. And there is also the cases of accidental injury and death to consider. Nevertheless, the RIGHT to own them is the same. The possession is not what is regulated.

I think you'll find that there is a variety of toxins and other things that you may possess only if you are authorized for that purpose. Do you imagine that you may possess them in your kitchen without such authorization?

I agree, there are. This is a better argument than the driving argument. Now, if you want to talk about whether we should be able to license guns, I'm willing to listen. My point is, and always was, that comparing it to licensing driving a car is not a valid argument.

Are you going to say that I have said that firearms and poison are the same? I'm pretty sure you are, even though I've said no such thing. Funny, though, how both can be used to kill.

No, I was not going to say that. There's no need to put words in my mouth. I was, and still am, trying to address your ARGUMENT. You come across like you think I am trying to criticize YOU.

[WA98072]

83. I"ll take a test and get a license but that doesn't mean I own a gun

I took a rifle safety class given by the NRA as a child. I have considered getting a consealed weapons permit.
Do I own a gun? Only God and I know..let's keep it that way.

BTW all my neighbors know I own a car but they don't know if I have a license...they just assume I do.

The government doesn't belong in my gun closet (if I have one) anymore than it belongs in my medical files.

[bemildred]

85. I think a well armed citizenry is a good idea.

I just think they ought to be required to know what they are doing first. It seems to me that a well trained and educated armed citizenry is a better brake on government tyranny than a bunch of belligerent fools, with or without automatic weapons.

[EstimatedProphet]

89. No, you don't

You have to test and have a license to drive a car on a public road only. You can drive anytime you want, however you want, on your own property.

[bemildred]

91. True, so I omitted the phrase "on public highways". Big deal.

You can have all the guns you want with no firing pin in them too, as long as they won't shoot, if that's your pleasure.

[EstimatedProphet]

113. It is a big deal though

It's because the laws of car licensure aren't about allowing someone to own a car. That's the heart of the discussion we're having. Anyone can own a car. Licensing doesn't restrict that. It would, as you intend it, restrict who can own guns. A "gun" without a firing pin technically isn't a gun, since it isn't functional. There's no law saying you can only have an unlicensed car if the engine is removed.

Now, I am not saying that we should have no laws about who can own guns. I am only pointing out that the registering guns=registering cars argument is not valid. They're not really even related all that closely.

[bemildred]

121. Split hairs all you want, the analogy is perfectly clear, even if it is not clearly perfect. nt

[EstimatedProphet]

128. The analogy does not apply. That was my point.

You are talking about the right to OWN vs. USING PUBLICLY. They are not the same at all. No splitting hairs involved - it's a whole head of hair.

[bemildred]

133. The analogy does apply, that was my point.

Blah blah blah blah. It's perfectly clear. Analogies are not all that tricky. You don't want to see it, I can't make you, so have a nice day.

[EstimatedProphet]

135. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one

IMO it doesn't apply. No need to be rude though.

[bemildred]

144. Indeed. Thanks for the conversation. nt

[slackmaster]

139. You don't need a license to own a car or to drive it on private property, race tracks, etc.

The license allows you to DRIVE the car on public roads.

Perhaps you are thinking of a national concealed carry license?

[bemildred]

143. And a gun is not a car, too, so it doesn't need roads ...

But so what? The issue is keeping dangerous instruments out of incompetent hands. With a car, keeping them off the public roads does the job. With a gun, or explosives, or various other things, it takes a bit more direct approach. I am not opposed to the 2nd Amendment, and I favor the notion of an armed citizenry, but you do nothing to support those ideas by claiming that anybody that wants one should be able to buy a gun in secret and without any training, and that is not what the 2nd Amendment says or implies either.

Edit: I know that the idea that current laws with respect to cars "do the job" in terms of protecting the public can be criticized, given the annual death rate from traffic accidents, but not because they are too strict.

[sutz12]

73. We need to properly enforce the laws already in place before we add any new ones.

JMO.

[Hawkowl]

88. I don't own a gun

But I think gun ownership is a necessary deterrent to fascism.

[stirlingsliver]

92. Only Law Enforcement and the Military Should Have Guns.

I see no real need ot anyone other than law enforcement and the military to have guns.

So many problems could be solved if guns were not in private hands.

[bemildred]

93. Oh good ...

:popcorn::popcorn:

[Yukari Yakumo]

96. Nothing like an easy transistion to a Police State with that scenario... {nt}

[Jim Warren]

97. I love a quiz.

You want us to answer who said that, right?

Um, Pol Pot? No? Wait I know, Papa Doc Duvalier!

[benEzra]

108. My wife and I are keeping ours, thanks.

[Jim Warren]

122. Bad

Boy

Hey, what is the rear sight, red dot optic?

[scrinmaster]

123. Kobra collimator sight.

http://www.kalinkaoptics.com/detail.aspx?ID=468

[benEzra]

129. A Kobra collimator sight, made in Russia by Axion.

It works on the same principles as a red dot, but you have selectible reticles (dot, chevron, dot-chevron, and T-bar).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=271x1177



I shoot competitively with this rifle, and it's a big help. Most of the AK platform's reputation for inaccuracy is due to the short sight radius and post-and-groove sights, which make it a difficult rifle to shoot well, but the Kobra makes the system much more user-friendly. With the sight, I typically shoot about 3 MOA with Wolf ammunition, and it would probably do better than that if I could find any more Lapua, but I don't think Finland imports it at the moment.

[Yukari Yakumo]

95. You forgot the "Gun Laws should be Relaxed/Reduced" option.

Especially if what the tin-foil hat wearers say actually does come true and Chimpy declares martial law and himself King. You'll need the best weaponry available to fight off Blackwater, what little remains of the military that remains loyal to Chimpy, and anything we don't know about.

The only thing I support are background checks, and that's it.

[Stinky The Clown]

117. I can't give a soundbite answer. I oppose them but side with Democratic gun owners and their views.

If I were king, they would be completely outlawed and simple possession would carry a heavy penalty.

I am not king and I live in a world where others' views matter at least as much as mine.

I favor laws that vary with locale. If, let's say, DC wishes to outlaw them, they should be able to do so. If Montana wishes to allow carry laws or whatever freedom for owners, so be it.

I pretty much oppose all but the most minimal federal laws or regulations. This seems to me to be a states' rights issue.

[lancer78]

126. So what you are saying

is that the constitutional right to own a gun is a states right issue? If you say that, then an argument can be made that any constitutional right can be changed by individual states. What would probably happen is some legislator in the south would try to re-institute slavery because of that precedent. That is a slippery slope that I am sure none of us want to traverse.

[Stinky The Clown]

130. I actually question the interpretation of the Constitution on this matter

But I have no wish to argue the point here, with you.

[EstimatedProphet]

137. Fair enough

And I can see the point to vary ownership with locale, provided the community decides to do so.

[Stinky The Clown]

141. Here's a knee-jerk response ......

..... that is NOT at all thought through, but 'feels' right to me:

Given the current popular interpretation of the reference to gun ownership in the Constitution, the Feds can simply say that gun ownership is a minimally acceptable on a federal level, but that each (pick one: state, county, or city) has the right to regulate them as seen fit by the majority of their citizens. In other words, the local people get to vote how guns are dealt with locally. **That** seems exceedingly democratic.

Now some unconsidered, un-worked-out 'fine print' .......

"Regulate" can include a ban on possessing them. I use the word "possess" instead of ownership since some jurisdictions may allow for ownership provided the gun is stored in some regulated location and its leaving that location is regulated. By way of example, some locale may decide that anyone can own a gun, but that all guns must be registered and housed at ..... I dunno ..... a police station or National Guard armory ..... or maybe even a gun club. The owner may remove the weapon at will simply by signing out for it. Once signed out, the owner must then check it back in our sign an extension to keep it out longer than some prescribed length of time.

The above was just a made-up example. The point is, I don't think we could outlaw them, but I see no reason why a locale cannot exert the will of the people and simply control them very, very strictly .... and even outlaw them locally if they so choose.

I see the Constitution unclear on what is meant by 'keep and bear arms'. It is in a broader context that speaks to a militia. I am no constitutional scholar but I know I've seen this argued on both sides of the issue. It seems to me we need to find that common ground in the middle.

Some say that such states' rights issues will lead to other things being so regulated ...... or not. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. What we're talking about here is a series fuzzy Constitutional interpretations regarding gun ownership. Making all but the most **basic** gun laws local matters seems to me the least restrictive interpretation of this fuzzy Constitutional point.

[Posteritatis]

125. Missing option: "Conflicted."

I'm a not-too-politically-atypical Canadian (against); don't have much of a problem with hunting (for); am put off by people who think carrying long arms around in public should be fine (against); have no real problem with ownership or collection (for); am fully aware of the extent of gun crimes and accidents (against); am equally aware that there are situations where it is necessary to be dangerous (for); and could probably easily wobble back (against) and (for) forth (against) a (for) few score more times if it wasn't stupid o'clock (for) and my brain was malfunctioning (against).

I dunno. I'm at the point where I could probably torpedo most of my arguments for gun controls with my own arguments against it, whether they're the reasoned ones or the emotive straw men or whatever else in between.

It's one of the few political issues I haven't really comfortably reconciled in my own head yet. I dunno if that's because I haven't thought enough about it, because I have started to think enough about it, because things have shifted me from the antigun stance I used to comfortably hold, or whatever else.

[goaman]

136. guns shoud be allowed but controlled, and all assault weapons should be totally banned

I do not have a problem with people having a gun, but I am for strict regulation to make sure that you cannot just walk in the store and buy one...it should be followed by mental evaluation etc.
As far as assault weapons...they ALL should be banned except for the military. I am sorry, but you do not need an AK47 to protect yourself, just a handgun or 2 is enough. AK47 is for killers, terrorists, republicans :) etc
if you want AK47, then what do you want grenade launcher next? jeez

[EstimatedProphet]

138. But what defines an assault weapon?

Is my M1 an assault weapon? It's military spec, but it doesn't have most of the characteristics of the AWB.

[Posteritatis]

145. Aren't half the definitions of "assault weapon" purely aesthetic anyway?

Silly stuff like "anything with a pistol group," "looking military," etc?

I know there's some others that actually might be practical, like the magazine capacity or presence of grenade launchers, but a lot of the definition strikes me as theatrics more than actually determining how dangerous a given weapon is.

[EstimatedProphet]

146. Yes, that was one of the AWB weaknesses

It included a lot of cosmetics, and little inherent design. The exterior clip issue is marginal, but I can see why it would be considered a 'deadlier' feature. But flash suppressors? People bought rifles with flash suppressors and cut them off! It made no difference to the rifle in any practical way.

[benEzra]

149. The "grenade launchers" in the ban were a red herring,

as grenades are tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act, as are M203-type grenade launchers.

Basically, the law listed a bunch of features that the gun-control lobby doesn't like (protruding rifle handgrips, muzzle threads, bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, adjustable stocks, folding stocks), and specified that civilian guns could have any one such feature, but not two or more. So, a civilian AK-47 lookalike made after September 1994 could have a protruding handgrip, OR a threaded muzzle, but not both. The law also had the effect of raising prices on full-capacity magazines for most 9mm pistols, but rifle magazine capacities and prices weren't significantly affected.

Here's my ban-era civilian AK (SAR-1), manufactured and imported in 2002 and purchased in 2003. Circled areas show how the gun differs from a pre-'94 or post-'04 civvie AK.



It should go without saying, but this is a non-automatic civilian rifle, not a military automatic weapon.

[slackmaster]

140. Real AK-47s and other selective-fire weapons are practically banned now

They've been strictly controlled since 1934.

[benEzra]

142. Nobody is talking about automatic weapons.

guns shoud be allowed but controlled, and all assault weapons should be totally banned
I do not have a problem with people having a gun, but I am for strict regulation to make sure that you cannot just walk in the store and buy one...it should be followed by mental evaluation etc.
As far as assault weapons...they ALL should be banned except for the military. I am sorry, but you do not need an AK47 to protect yourself, just a handgun or 2 is enough. AK47 is for killers, terrorists, republicans :) etc
if you want AK47, then what do you want grenade launcher next? jeez

"Assault weapons" are non-automatic civilian guns, not military automatic weapons. They happen to include the most popular civilian target rifles in America, and since rifles are not a crime problem and never have been, banning them is both unjustified and politically idiotic.

"Assault weapons":


preban 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.


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


Antique M1 carbine (World War 2 vintage), highly collectible.


Springfield M1A National Match, target rifle, caliber .308 Winchester.


My SAR-1 target/competition/utility rifle, shown in hunting configuration (no, this is not an AK-47).


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


Hammerli international target competition pistol, caliber .22LR.

Add to that list the AR-15, the most popular civilian target rifle in America; every civilian shotgun on the market that holds more than 5 shells; civilian rifles and pistols that hold more than 10 rounds; civilian rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out; and you're talking about affecting half of America's 80 million gun owners. And half of those are Dems and indies.

The "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme died out after the DLC dropped the ban-more-guns jihad after the '04 loss. The cessation of that meme was a significant factor in the '06 wins (the Senate would still be red had Jim Webb and Jon Tester not carried Virginia and Montana). Let it stay dead, please.

No, my wife and I like small-caliber autoloading carbines and 9mm pistols, and we're keeping them, thanks.

[happydreams]

150. Guns don't kill people....

people with guns kill people.

[Bosso 63]

151. Bullets kill people.

[happydreams]

157. People with guns with bullets kill people.

[rucky]

154. All cars need to be registered and nobody fusses.

what's the difference?

[Cobalt-60]

155. We have need of these weapons as a deterrent

Do you really think Dick and Junior wouldn't have declared Martial Law by now if they didn't face an armed populace?

[RushIsRot]

156. I own several and have NO plans to give them up. In fact, I may

purchase others!