Where's the Debate Over Gun Control?

[marmar]

from AlterNet's PEEK:




Where's the Debate Over Gun Control?

Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet at 12:01 PM on February 22, 2008.

As the Democratic party becomes increasingly pro-gun, not even campus bloodshed grabs the candidates' attention.



The campus shooting at Northern Illinois University may be old news by now, but forgive me for thinking it might have presented an opportunity at last night's debate for someone to ask Hillary or Obama about gun control. Can you remember the last time either candidate talked about it? The last time any Democratic presidential contender did? Thinking "Dems" and "guns" leaves me with images of John Kerry in a hunting outfit. Embarrassing.

Gun control used to be one of those bread and butter issues for Democrats, but recent years have seen the party's rapid evolution towards staunch protectors of the 2nd Amendement. When the Clinton-era assault weapons ban passed expired three years back, few in Congress leaped to renew it. The results have been deadly: As the Brady Campaign's Paul Helmke points out: "One thing the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shooters had in common was that they both used high capacity ammunition magazines that would have been prohibited under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004."

Of course, easing up on gun control has been critical to the Dems courting voters in Western and Southwestern swing states; the more Democratic candidates have traded gun bans for wishy-washy pro-regulation positions, the more the NRA has rewarded them, upping their political contributions to the Dems. ''Certainly, we support more Republicans than Democrats," a public affairs director told the Boston Globe in 2005, "but we've seen in the last few years an increasing number of Democrats actively seeking the NRA endorsement and actually winning it."

As Salon reported following the Virginia Tech massacre last spring:

Today, a substantial portion of the party's new standard-bearers are pro-gun, or at least anti-gun control. Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who now heads the Democratic National Committee and is the favorite of the new party power base emerging from the Internet, has long been an opponent of gun control. So has Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., the man whose squeaker victory in November gave Democrats control of the Senate and who was selected to give the party's response to President Bush's State of the Union address this year. Last month, one of Webb's aides was arrested on his way in to a Senate building with one of Webb's guns in his possession. Webb responded with a spirited defense of his right and need to bear arms. Even Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the new Senate majority leader, is pro-gun.

So where do Clinton and Obama fall on gun control?

It's hard to say, they've said so little about it. As a Boston Globe editorial by Derrick K. Jackson pointed out this week:

Clinton has nothing about gun control on her website. The only reference to guns on Obama's is his plan for sportsmen, which includes "Protecting Gun Rights." That section says, "As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."

Not too promising. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/77533/

[wtmusic]

1. Salon is just plain wrong re: Dean's position on GC

Dean was neither for nor against, but for letting individual states decide. How practical.

[MaryCeleste]

16. Would you accept that position on abortion as well?

[slackmaster]

18. Abortions are in fact regulated by states now

Roe v. Wade effectively protects only early stage abortions.

I think there should be better protection of the right to keep and bear arms nationwide. The Heller v. DC case may provide a starting point.

[MaryCeleste]

20. Only somewhat

The State and Federal courts, citing Roe v Wade will not allow it to be totally eliminated. My point is that if it is a Constitutional right, then a patch work of conflicting state laws are inappropriate, whether its guns or abortion.

[slackmaster]

22. Yes, with open state borders some regulations are unenforcable

The situation before Roe v. Wade was a mess, that's for sure.

That's why I'd like to see some kind of clarification at the federal level, a line in the sand defining the minimum rights people have with regards to firearms, which states cannot infringe. As a Californian I feel my rights have been thoroughly infringed.

[MaryCeleste]

23. I feel the same way about abortion

We need clear national guidelines and policy. Row v Wade is tottering, and was a very poor opinion to begin with. However our liberal legislators have cowered behind it which has lead to this piece mealing erosion or our rights. We need Federal law that is preemptive over local attempts to deny a woman's right to choose. The downside is that unless Roe V Wade gets overturned the elected representative will do nothing and the slow loss will continue.

[wtmusic]

27. It's a little more complicated

In a sense gun owners still have the right to choose, as they aren't minors. If they really want their guns they could move to a state where they are legal.

Teenage girls do not have this freedom, yet they are fully capable of getting pregnant.

[MaryCeleste]

30. Not really, its about giving states power over rights acknowledged to be in the Federal Constitution

Yes their are different aspects to them, but fundamentally, its Federally guaranteed right or its not.

[wtmusic]

32. There is a lot of wiggle room in the "right to bear arms"

and IMO it's a good thing too.

Many get so set in their opinion they see their interpretation as absolute, even when their version is not spelled out in the Constitution but a product of their culture or their family.

[MaryCeleste]

52. And there is more in the Penumbra of the Constitution

We as a nation really do need to lay out national policy on a number of things, both of these included. Unfortunately our politicians hide behind vague words and count on the courts to do what they are afraid to. *sigh*

[Mojorabbit]

2. I am hoping none of our candidates

will open that can of worms. It would be stupidity itself. I want as many indies and republicans as possible to cross over in this election. So many that it can't be stolen. It is too important we win this time. Enforce the existing gun laws. Screw the Brady Campaign.

[villager]

3. I am hoping all of our candidates will address this lack...

...once they are in office.

Viva the Brady Campaign!

[jody]

6. The 2004 Dem Party platform says "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms"

[villager]

7. that would seem to buttress the article's point that there's no real debate anymore...

And I hope the lack can be made up, all these shootings later!

[jody]

8. Hillary and BO have anti-RKBA histories. If voters perceive them as anti-RKBA, it could cost our

candidate several states and the election just as it cost Gore and Kerry their elections.

[villager]

59. Well, I'm no Yellow Dog democrat, Jody.

But I think you're being one has perhaps blinded you to the realities of "guns on the streets" that those of us in urban areas deal with.

And once again, your point just proves how little debate there is on these issues, and how much boot-quaking there is in the face of NRA demagoguery.

[jody]

62. The Dem Party supports the 2nd Amendment and that means law-abiding citizens exercising their

natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

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

That means self-defense is a personal problem.

I assume you know that violent crime rates are higher in urban areas with large populations than less populated cities and rural areas.

About 80 million law-abiding citizens possess firearms and about 81 million people voted in the 2006 election.

I don't know what percent of those 81 million voters possess firearms but it's a reasonable assumption that it was the majority.

Thanks for your comment. :hi:

[benEzra]

73. Oops, double post. (n/t)

[benEzra]

74. ...which would ensure the gains of 2006 and 2008 would be soon undone.

I am hoping all of our candidates will address this lack...

...once they are in office.

...which would ensure the gains of 2006 and 2008 would be soon undone.

The trifecta was blue in September 1994. Here's hoping that mistake isn't repeated.

Don't forget it was pro-gun Dems who turned the Senate blue in '06.

Viva the Brady Campaign!

Which is a Republican organization...


----------------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

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

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[jody]

4. The discussion of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) is alive and ongoing here on DU.

e.g.
Have Obama and Clinton really shut up about gun control?

Obama supports "individual right" to keep and bear arms?

[wtmusic]

10. Why does the RKBA debate always devolve into black and white?

You favor any kind of gun control = you want to take away all my guns.

You want to hunt = you think kids should be able to buy guns at 7-11. :crazy:

[jody]

11. Perhaps because it is a polarizing issue, e.g. one group wishes to keep and bear arms for

self-defense and their opponents want to ban arms, e.g. handguns.

How do you compromise on that issue?

850,000 sworn law enforcement officers use handguns because they are the most effective, efficient tool for self defense.

Law-abiding citizens choose handguns for self-defense for the same reason as LEOs.

[wtmusic]

14. There are shades of gray that extend far beyond handguns.

Participants, on either side, are extremely prone to the "slippery slope" fallacy.

Registration, waiting periods, legal interpretations of self-defense, age, availability, and firepower are all topics which should be on the table.

[jody]

17. RKBA is like abortion, there is no compromise except pro-choice. Today in the majority of states,

we have pro-choice laws for carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), i.e. handgun.

If a law-abiding citizen does not want to possess a handgun, then they don't apply for a shall issue CCW.

Pro choice for abortion is the same way. The problem is the anti-abortion group won't accept pro choice and demand that abortions be banned.

Pro choice for RKBA would work except the anti-RKBA group won't accept pro choice and demand that handguns be banned.

Map of shall issue CCW states.

[wtmusic]

25. Of course there is compromise.

With abortion, the baby/fetus whatever you choose to call it is one of two things: alive, or dead.

There are many, many people who don't mind the concept of people carrying handguns, but would like to see restrictions enforced. Is that anti-RKBA?

Do you believe everyone should have the right to buy and carry guns whenever/wherever they want? If not, is that pro-gun control?

[jody]

26. I believe every law-abiding citizen has the inalienable right to keep and bear arms in every

situation that puts the citizen at risk. Whether to possess or not possess arms is a personal choice.

Of course you know SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody. That's why RKBA for self-defense is a personal responsibility.

You say there is a compromise between the pro-RKBA group and the anti-RKBA group, where the latter group says they want to ban handguns.

Apparently Barack Obama "supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel."

Please explain how your compromise will work between those like myself who want to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense and those who would ban carrying concealed weapons for self-defense.

[wtmusic]

28. Does every law-abiding citizen have the right to own automatic weapons?

Should they? You're ignoring the subtleties, and there are many. Obviously you disagree with Obama on that specific, but I would bet there is common ground on many other related topics.

Whether you acknowledge that or not is your choice.

[jody]

31. "Please explain how your compromise will work" n/t

[wtmusic]

33. You're being obtuse.

There is no compromise between yours and Obama's specific interpretation, is there? But then again, neither of your positions is specified in the phrase "right to bear arms", is it?

[jody]

34. You say "Of course there is compromise." What is it? n/t

[wtmusic]

36. There are many possibilites of allowing handgun ownership

with varying restrictions. Are any restrictions at all indicative of being anti-RKBA? Do you feel there should be any?

[jody]

37. What is your compromise? n/t

[wtmusic]

38. You mean what's my position?

I feel citizens should have the right to purchase and own weapons when:

*they have no felonies on their record
*they're over 18 years of age
*they have no history of mental illness
*their should be a significant (at least 1 month) waiting period

I don't have a position on carrying, because frankly I don't know enough about the issue and I don't own a gun.

Now your turn -- are any restrictions at all indicative of being anti-RKBA? Do you feel there should be any?

[jody]

39. No, what's your compromise for those who want to exercise RKBA for self-defense and those who would

ban all firearms.

If you don't have a clue, just retract your statement "Of course there is compromise" and admit defeat.

[wtmusic]

42. Let me get this straight

You're saying there's no position in between:

1) Banning all firearms;
2) Exercising the "right to keep and bear arms" for self-defense

The right to keep and bear arms does not mean, and has never meant, ALL firearms. And the words for "self-defense" do not appear in A2 at all. That is your construction. So already you have compromised the Constitution by assuming your interpretation is the only one.

There's your compromise.

[jody]

44. I'm still waiting for your compromise between those who would ban all guns and those who want RKBA

for self-defense.

You made an assertion " Of course there is compromise" and I'm asking you to explain what your compromise is.

Why do find that so difficult to do?

[wtmusic]

47. OMG. OK here's one:

Ban certain kinds of guns (automatic weapons) but don't ban handguns. Compromise. Let me know if I haven't fulfilled your expectations, because I really have no idea WTF you are expecting me to say.

Now it's your turn: is anyone who accepts restrictions on the purchase or carrying of weapons anti-RKBA? C'mon. Not THAT hard.

[jody]

49. You ignore those who would ban all guns. You said there is a compromise, so what is it? n/t

[wtmusic]

50. You're right.

I'm ignoring them because they don't compromise. This is my compromise, remember?

What about my question? Cat got your tongue?

[jody]

53. OK, you've admitted you were wrong in saying "Of course there is compromise." I'll let you off the

hook easily and say goodbye.

Have a good evening :hi:

P.S. Don't feel bad about not knowing how to compromise between those who would ban all guns and those who want to use guns for self-defense.

I don't know how to reach a compromise either nor have I ever read an article proposing such a compromise.

[wtmusic]

55. Wow.

You just make it up as you go along, don't you? And then you skate when you're put on the spot. How predictable. :eyes:

[derby378]

41. That one-month waiting period implies a presumption of guilt

When coupled with the ludicrous notion of allowing only one gun per law-abiding citizen per month, you can see where the infringements on Constitutional rights come into play.

If I'm a law-abiding citizen, I should be able to walk into a gun shop, pick out a nice .40 caliber S&W M&P pistol, and walk out with it the same day provided that I'm proven to be neither a felon nor mentally ill nor using illicit drugs. In fact, I am a law-abiding citizen, and I do have that right, and I have done nothing to have government bureaucrats and Brady Campaign stickybeaks come in and take away a right that is not granted to me by the Constitution, but merely affirmed with the provision that it shall not be infringed.

I'm not the same as Seung-hui Cho. I'm not cheating the system in order to obtain guns like he did.

[wtmusic]

43. That's nice. That's your interpretation.

Show me where it says in the Consitution "citizens shall be able to walk into a gun shop and pick out a nice .40 caliber S&W M&P pistol". :rofl:

So you're insisting you do have the right, that's fine, but that's your opinion. It's not spelled out that way in the Constitution and there are many other interpretations of A2.

[derby378]

46. Don't rewrite the Second Amendment - reread it

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

[wtmusic]

48. I know it by heart

and that doesn't change the fact that your interpretation is nothing more than your interpretation.

[Paladin]

63. And Rereading The Second Amendment.....

....will result in a perfect, undeniable interpretation of it? Yeah, right. If you believe that,you better get down to your local gun store, because Bill Wilson Signature .45's are going for $25.00 each, limited time only.

Let's get real, OK? Even down in the Gun Dungeon, where the Second Amendment substitutes for Jehovah for a lot of people, any time a thread on the 2nd opens up, an electronic fire fight erupts as to its exact meaning. The fact of the matter is, the 2nd is poorly written and virtually untouched by meaningful judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court may or may not deliver a definitive, wide-ranging decision in the near future, but the Court's statement in whatever form will be a lot more reliable than the wishful thinking of a bunch of gun radicals.....

[jmg257]

67. We DON'T need to wait for the Supreme Court's "interpretation"...The legislature already agreed on

what the 2nd says and means - and they have codified it (AGAIN) in federal law. The representatives of the people have decided what we already know - that it means just what it says - rather explicitly that the right of the people shall not be unfringed.

The USSC will decide if laws like DC's are in conflict with the intent of 2nd, and with WHAT IS the law of the land. It WILL be an important decision - especially for DC, but will have little if any real impact on "changing" what the 2nd means.

[beevul]

61. Right here...

Show me where it says in the Consitution "citizens shall be able to walk into a gun shop and pick out a nice .40 caliber S&W M&P pistol".


Heres the preamble to the bill of rights:

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

www.billofrights.org

Its pretty clear what that there says. It says that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the powers granted by we the people to government. It goes on to enumerate those further declaratory and restrictive clauses on governmental power, and the second amendment is one of them. The operative part of that restrictive clause on governmental power says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Preventing a citizen from walking into a gun shop and buying a nice .40 caliber S&W M&P pistol would sure be an infringement by any reasonable reading of the second amentment in the context of it being a declaratory and restrictive clause on governmental power. That is...the government would be exercising a power they have been explicitly forbidden to, by the previously mentioned enumerated declaratory and restrictive clauses on governmental power. Specifically amendment number 2.

Assuming were talking about a law abiding non-criminal, and not talking about "justified interference" of a right, which is another topic, of course.


Do you really dispute any of that?

[beevul]

60. A right delayed is a right denied. N/T.

[Irreverend IX]

82. "their should be a significant (at least 1 month) waiting period"

Bad grammar aside, this sounds great, especially if you're a single woman who's just broken up with a violent abuser. Just 29 more days until you can pick your gun up... hopefully he won't try to murder you in the meantime.

And what crimes do you think a waiting period will prevent, anyway? The vast majority of gun murders are performed by criminals who get their guns illegally. As for mass shooters, Cho bought his first gun more than a month before the VT shooting, in accordance with Virginia law, and the Columbine kids spent a long time collecting their weapons and planning their attack on the school.

[beevul]

72. Why does the RKBA debate always devolve into black and white, you ask...

Because the words like compromise get bandied about, but there are never any REAL compromises to be found.

Compromise has traditionally and more importantly historicly meant this:

Gun owners give up something, but not as much as brady wanted to take...THIS YEAR.

Brady took, but not as much as they wanted, THIS year.

Next year, gun owners start out with less, and brady shows up with a wish list just as long as they had last year.

Rinse and repeat.


And its also been twisted to mean that were gaining by keeping what wasn't taken in some cases. Blargh.


That is NOT compromise. That language has been cleverly used into duping both gun owners and the public into believing the word applies, but it really doesnt.


And as long as that word (compromise) gets used to describe the above scenario...as long as there isnt an equally offsetting GAIN attatched to every restriction, I believe black and white is all your going to get.

[benEzra]

77. OK, how much gun control do we have to support

Why does the RKBA debate always devolve into black and white?

You favor any kind of gun control = you want to take away all my guns.

You want to hunt = you think kids should be able to buy guns at 7-11.

OK, how much gun control do we have to support before you cease to apply the "pro-RKBA = opposes all gun control" label?

What gun rights people generally oppose are measures aimed at curtailing lawful and responsible ownership, or which are designed or structured in such a way as to make lawful and responsible ownership unnecessarily expensive or difficult for ordinary working-class adults with clean records.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I am OK with the existing NFA Title 2 restrictions on automatic weapons (including assault rifles, which contrary to popular belief are tightly restricted in this country), sound-suppressed weapons, rifles and pistols over .50 caliber, the 1986 restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition, requirement of a license in order to carry a concealed firearm, etc. I am OK with most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, including the ban on possession by criminals and those adjudicated mentally incompetent, and the traceability. I am OK with the NICS background check system, the 1986 restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition, the ban on X-ray-transparent firearms, am OK with requiring a license in order to carry a concealed firearm in public, strict requirements for the use of force in self-defense. I am OK with prosecuting illegal gun smugglers, including those who knowingly buy guns for prohibited persons ("straw purchasers").

The only thing most of us are opposing here is further restrictions on the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to lawfully and responsibly own non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under . 51 caliber that meet the barrel length and overall length requirements of the National Firearms Act, without additional petty harassment. I'm not arguing for no restrictions. I'm saying that further restrictions on lawful and responsible ownership of non-automatic civilian small arms are unreasonable, wrongheaded, and would do nothing to reduce illegal gun misuse.

Just because we don't support extreme restrictions (rifle handgrip bans, pre-1861 capacity restrictions, handgun bans, whatever) doesn't mean we oppose all restrictions, including those that are already law.

BTW, hunting is mostly irrelevant to the issue; only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts. It's mostly about the lawful and responsible ownership of handguns and target rifles/defensive carbines, not Mauser-style deer rifles or big-bore shotguns (though I did see some calls to ban 12-gauge pump-action shotguns after the NIU shooting).



----------------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

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

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[Redstone]

5. Stifled by the NRA, as usual.

Redstone

[spin]

9. CNN Election Center 2008 has positions

of all Presidential candidates on guns:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html

Another Link:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm

[jody]

12. Good link and the positions of Hillary and BO on RKBA could cost them the election.

Hillary Clinton
Voted for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Voted for requiring extensive background checks at gun shows. Supports licensing and registration of handguns, mandatory trigger locks for handguns, holding adults responsible for their children's use of guns, raising the youth handgun ban from age 18 to 21, limiting gun sales to one per month and allowing the Consumer Products Safety Commission regulate guns.

Barack Obama
Supports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel. Supports limiting gun sales to one per month.

[slackmaster]

15. Indeed - Both have positions that many people view as Draconian

A national law against carrying concealed weapons goes against a trend that's been going for more than 20 years. Nearly all states have gone to a system of objective criteria for issuing permits.

Supporting a national concealed carry reciprocity law would make more sense politically.

[derby378]

35. So a law-abiding citizen is punished by being "allowed" one gun a month...

...while criminals and law enforcement can buy as many guns as they want whenever they want.

Clinton, Obama, and the Republicans who run the Brady Campaign really need to smell what they're shovelling.

And don't even get me started on the ban on semi-automatics, folks. I can do this all night...

[wtmusic]

40. Law enforcement can do lots of things you can't.

You want to make traffic stops? Wear a uniform? Then tell me why you need to buy more than 12 guns/year. :eyes:

[derby378]

45. Not until you tell me why you "need" to get your news from blogs like DU and DailyKos...

...as opposed to, say, FOX News or the Washington Times.

The First Amendment says nothing about "need." Neither does the Second Amendment.

Framing is everything. Just ask George Lakoff.

[wtmusic]

51. Good point

I concede. My argument was a poor one.

Now tell me this: Do you believe that all Americans should be able to buy, own, and carry any weapons whenever and wherever they want?

[derby378]

54. Here's what I'd like to see...

Any American citizen who isn't a felon, mentally ill, dishonorably discharged, addicted to drugs, etc. must be 18 or older to carry a rifle or shotgun, 21 or older to carry a handgun. If you're younger than this, maybe you can own (depending on the state), but you cannot carry unless a parent, legal guardian, or certified instructor is supervising you every step of the way.

Full-auto, revolving-cylinder shotguns, 40mm launchers, etc. - minimum age of 25 unless you're military or qualified law enforcement. The original 1934 NFA would still apply. If an individual state like Kansas or Illinois wants to opt out of NFA, I'll grumble, but there's not much else I can do.

The big tradeoff that I'd want in exchange for all this? Education, education, for God's sake, education. The best way demystify guns in the eyes of America's youth is to drill them on gun safety and handling, show them examples of wound ballistics and effects on the human body, and watch them carefully in order to detect early signs of swagger and carelessness so that these undesirable behavior traits can be intercepted and dealt with before they get these poor kids in deep trouble further down the line.

That should do for starters.

[wtmusic]

56. I thought the 1934 NFA banned full-auto?

Your scenario comes off as reasonable; personally I would still want to see a waiting period. If even a handful of lives are saved because of impulse purchases to me it's worth it.

[derby378]

57. NFA doesn't exactly outlaw full-auto - but it heavily regulates it

Under the NFA, if I wish to purchase a full-auto Heckler & Koch MP5, I need to submit the appropriate form to the BATFE along with a $200 transfer fee. I will then subjected to something akin to a security clearance and will probably need a signature from a sheriff or judge. And there's a minimum 60-day waiting period so that the security check and paperwork can be reviewed properly. If everything checks out, I get a call from the dealer with the good news that I can pick up my MP5.

I'll be fine with the NFA staying in effect. I would like the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act modified to delete its own ban on full-autos, which prevents the sale of any full-auto weapon to civilians if it was manufactured after March 1986, IIRC. In other words, it's like the 1994 gun ban except that it covers full-autos instead of semi-autos.

And individual states can opt out of NFA today. Full-auto is legal in Texas, Montana, and Vermont under NFA provisions, but it's still a felony in Kansas, Illinois, and Washington state.

[Xenotime]

58. I can't believe the sell full auto weapons.

[Paladin]

64. They Sell Them, All Right

You have to go through a mountain of paperwork and background checks, pay a shitload of money for the full-auto weapon, and obviously get your name on every geek list that the government maintains, but you can get a fully automatic firearm.

And guess what?

The crime and murder rate where legally owned full-autos are involved is essentially zero. The gun radicals will crow about that nonexistant crime figure, until the obvious point is made: gun control works. Let me just repeat that for effect: gun control works.

[slackmaster]

68. The NFA as currently implemented is overkill

It could be less strict and still be 100% effective at preventing crime by lawfully owned guns.

I'd like to see just two changes:

1. An end to the 1986 moratorium on adding newly manufactured or imported MGs to the registry,

2. Federal law mandating that the states all adhere to a standard, objective set of policies and procedures for transfers. My state has laws on the books allowing collectors to buy curio and relic machineguns, but we are procedurally blocked by arbitrary decisions at the Department of Justice.

[Paladin]

79. End The Moratorium And You Make Them Cheaper.....

...which puts makes more of them available, which means more people get killed in crimes in which they're utilized. It ain't going to happen.

I'd be interested to know how you'd sell this notion of more machine guns to the public. I mean the public at large, not the camouflage-clad mouth breathers who stand around the AK-47 tables at gun shows.....

[Irreverend IX]

83. Before the 1986 ban, there was one crime with a legal machinegun...

And that was a cop moonlighting as a hitman who used a Mac-10 (I think) to murder an organized crime witness. Machine guns will never be attractive to criminals, because they are expensive and impossible to conceal. This would be true even if they were regulated the same as semiauto long guns, because criminals don't use semiauto long guns for the same reasons. Besides, if you know as much about guns as you claim, you know that fully-automatic fire is less effective for killing people than semiautomatic fire, unless you're using a vehicle-mounted heavy machine gun with a long belt of ammo.

[Llewlladdwr]

78. If it makes you feel any better...

a full-auto firearm is hideously expensive ($10,000+) in most cases. I saw a BAR at a gun show a few months ago going for $25,000.

[Pavulon]

13. Irrelevant..

the party has decided to stand by the right for citizens to lawfully own firearms. This issue is dead. It costs votes and is returns nothing.

[Lex1775]

19. Paul Helmke is full of shit.

"As the Brady Campaign's Paul Helmke points out: "One thing the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shooters had in common was that they both used high capacity ammunition magazines that would have been prohibited under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004."

That is a complete and utter lie. Millions of these so called "high capacity magazines" are in circulation in the United States. Not one of them manufactured before the ineffectual 1994 ban was "prohibted". They were specfically grandfathered in.

[texasleo]

21. I'm sure candidate Nader can pick up the mantle

:eyes:

[jmg257]

24. No debate - they are sworn to support the constitution. Now that we KNOW the 2nd means what it says,

it must be be upheld, especially by the executives sworn to do so. They also must support and execute the laws enacted under the constitution. One of those laws says this:



"(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."


and another, this:


"(1) In general.--Section 333 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and
Federal law

``(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies.--(1) The
President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in
Federal service, to--
...
``(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such
insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

``(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
``(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or
possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that
State or possession, that any part or class of its people is
deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution
and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable,
fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or"




The individual right to keep and bear arms must be secured.
Gun control is a...non-issue for the federal govt.

[B Calm]

29. No debate! The right to own guns is a LIBERAL idea! and LIBERAL

gun laws allow us to purchase them!

[Paladin]

66. Tell You What.....

As soon as you get Ted Nugent, Wayne LaPierre, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, George W. Bush, Ann Coulter and every other right-wing douchesack extremist in this country to reverse their position on gun rights, I'll start thinking about it as a "liberal" idea. Not before.

(This space reserved for standard gun radical's "Even A Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day" non-response.)

[B Calm]

71. Liberals believe in personal freedoms.

The right for me to own a gun is a personal freedom that I fought for during the Vietnam era. I'm not about to allow some anti freedom gun grabber take that freedom away!

[-..__...]

65. There doesn't need to be any debate.

Just the realization and acceptance by the anti-rkba stooges and mouth breathers that their antiquated and unacceptable idealism about gun control is coming to an end.

Got that?

Any more questions?

[depakid]

80. "Any more questions?"

I have one.

How do you like mass shooting every month or so- along with the highest homicide rates of any Western (and many third world nations) -along with the world's largest prison system with more citizens incarcerated than anywhere else (even China and Russia)?

[ileus]

69. If we want to win, we have to be pro-gun.

[Edweird]

70. I think *not* anti-gun will suffice.

I for one don't think being pro-gun is necessary.
Just respect our rights.

[The Straight Story]

75. What's to debate? enforce current laws and provide better mental health care

pretty simple.

[benEzra]

76. The conservative roots of U.S. gun control...

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

FWIW, the Brady Campaign is a repub organization. The DLC picked up the ban-nonhunting-guns thing in the late '80s/early '90s in an attempt to appeal to right-leaning "law and order" authoritarians, by looking "tough on crime." It backfired, setting back progressive policies for over a decade, and even the DLC is now backing away from it.

Here's hoping that the "Dems'll take yer guns" meme is finally allowed to die a well-deserved death.





-------------------------

Thoughts on Gun Ownership

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

[Mamacrat]

81. self delete