Okay, I'm new here but I don't get how so many here support the Republican Brady "gun ban" people.

[chixydix]

Aren't we Democrats supposed to be in favor of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and freedom? Boy it sure does get confusing at times...

[Cooley Hurd]

1. You MUST be new...

This post belongs in the Guns forum.

[chixydix]

13. My bad, I didn't know there was a guns forum.. Sorry

...

[asthmaticeog]

63. ...

;)

Welcome to DU. Interesting handle. :hi:

[SteveM]

17. Hmm... I see a LOT of anti-gun postings in Gen Disc. almost daily.

[GoneOffShore]

30. Not only new, but there is something else going on.

There seem to be many "newbies" who give their hometown as Roswell NM.

It's an interesting little 'quirk' I've noticed since primary season started.

Which makes me think one or two things.



or

[Suich]

39. LOL!

Really? I'll have to start paying closer attention!

:hi:

[GoneOffShore]

60. In fact, I've started ignoring folks who put their hometown as Roswell

It's just too weird.

Perhaps something really did happen there. And now, after 2000 the aliens are coming out of their pods and posting on DU.
Spooky

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. LOL

[annabanana]

2. post less, read more. . . . . . n/t

[polichick]

3. imo the Second Amendment should be updated to reflect the intention of the founders...

...which is a far cry from what we have today.

[Zynx]

7. In all fairness, private gun ownership was quite pervasive back then.

They made no effort to curtail it.

[polichick]

10. Still, the situation we have today was not their intention.

[selador]

20. what situation

the internet, public access to large scale means of information dissemination (email, internet, blogs, etc.) didn't exist either

but guess what? the 1st amendment still applies too

[sergeiAK]

55. How so? -nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Funny thing happened on the way to actual history

but gun ownership wasn't that widespread

No, not laws that prevented it... don't be silly

But guns were extremely valuable and when you STUDY wills guns are NOT that common

NOr will you find them mentioned that often in wills in the so called wild west, where many towns HAD gun control laws that would make gun folks go nuts today. Those laws were in place for the out of town cowboys that came once a year.

That is why you actually have that little thing about well regulated militias, the actual intent...

Oh and here you go... sources

Gun Ownership in Early America: A Survey of Manuscript Militia Returns

Robert H. Churchill


IN 1996, Michael Bellesiles's Journal of American History article on gun ownership in early America startled many early American historians. Bellesiles found that probate inventories and militia records from the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries strongly indicated that guns were scarce in early America and that gun ownership was "exceptional." Controversy has since raged over Bellesiles's research, which he published in more elaborate form in Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. Critics have focused primarily on Bellesiles's use of probate inventories. Yet Bellesiles's research was innovative in its use of militia returns, documents seldom cited in the military histories of the period. Bellesiles argues that available returns provided additional evidence of guns' scarcity.1

http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/60.3/churchill.html

http://www.common-place.org/vol-01/no-01/arming/

I do take this research with the same scholarly respect as any other research, but it is becoming more clear that gun ownership was not that common, and that is a common mythology today

[LaurenG]

4. Guns are not a good topic here

Some people support the ban and some don't.

Hang on because this could be a rough ride. Here :popcorn: we can share.

[Nitrogenica]

5. What post talks about that?

[Zynx]

6. The 2nd Ammendment has always been open to debate due to the militia clause.

I generally believe in an individual right to bear arms, but that has limits such as no artillery or automatic weapons.

[chixydix]

16. I guess I always supposed "arms" meant something you could carry in your "arms"

maybe I got that wrong too...

[Zynx]

34. Arms can be short for armaments.

Such as Nuclear Arms Control legislation, for example.

[SteveM]

26. There are already limits on artillery and auto weapons.

[Zynx]

33. I know. I'm just saying I support those limits.

[crim son]

8. It does.

It isn't only the Democrats who are supposed to be in favor of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and Freedom, either. But if you look at the issue of "separation of Church and State" the republicans and no doubt some democrats do not agree on what was meant by our forefathers' words. The same is true for the question of gun rights: there is room for doubt and disagreement.

[brentspeak]

9. Ah, yes. The latest NRA internet viral campaigning strategy

Go on Democratic websites, claim to be "one of us" (the "we Democrats" kind of gives it away), and then slam the Bradys as "Republicans".

Uh, Mr. LaPierre, you seen either Jim or Sarah at GOP functions anytime within the past two decades?

[chixydix]

14. I was going to ignore that but I have been a (always voting) Democrat since

1968. I have never had any affiliation with the NRA in any way, shape or form...but I have owned guns since I was 8 years old, in 1950...as have virtually all my friends of any/either political party. I don't happen to think our rights under the first 10 Amendments are negotiable. Your mileage may vary.

By the way, I put in 6 years in military service, from 1963 to 1969.

[brentspeak]

18. From what I can tell, the Brady Campaign isn't against the 2nd Amend, either

Though its opponents claim it is.

[selador]

21. ok

now that was a pretty good attempt at comedy

good one

[chixydix]

23. Actually you are correct, it isn't...but the problem isn't with its opponents, it's

with its supporters who think it means what they want: nobody except cops and soldiers...(neither of which they actually trust all that much) should be allowed to have guns.


If there's a better example of cognitive dissonance, I'd like to hear about it. :eyes:

edit: removed superfluous apostrophes. Whew. ;-)

[brentspeak]

28. I support the Brady Campaign

but I don't think the 2nd Amend means "nobody but cops and soldiers...should be allowed to have guns."

Every other pro-Brady-type I know thinks pretty much the same way. How does that fit into your theory of cognitive dissonance?

[chixydix]

52. Well, I have seen hundreds of posts by DUers who hate or at least distrust cops and soldiers

and hundreds by some who think they're the only people who should be permitted to be armed...there's a significant overlap by folks who hold both positions. I don't pretend to explain it, I just observe it...:shrug:

[brentspeak]

58. I agree that there's some DUers who've posted bigoted claims about cops & soldiers as a whole group

Those posts disgust me. As for guns and Democrats (in general): I know a lot of Democrats who are also gun owners. With the exception of a few of them, they're more or less on the same page as I am regarding the need for sane gun legislation (i.e., they're opposed to laissez-faire, NRA-type gun policies).

[chixydix]

59. Well I confess I don't know the NRA's agenda really (but obviously I could find out), it just doesn'

interest me - from what little I do know, I can't identify with Heston or LaPerrie in any meaningful way but I also cannot deny their constitutional rights. I'm not very happy with the way some people express their First Amendment rights either but absent any clear indication of incitement to crime or mayhem it's not my place to restrict them...
Just sayin'...
;-)

[Junkdrawer]

15. LOL...My thoughts exactly..

:hi:

[SteveM]

25. "latest"? Most regular DU 2A supporters have been accused of that

Nothing new around here. Maybe you have not seen how gun-controllers describe the motives/affiliations of Democratic Second Amendment supporters.

[brentspeak]

35. That's not an accusation I normally make when discussing this issue

If I'm wrong about a poster, then I'm wrong. I get suspicious, though, whenever any poster, while arguing either conservative positions or laughably stereotypically "liberal" positions (here, it's the former), makes broad generalizations about DU or Democrats in general while also identifying themself, for whatever oddball reason, as a "fellow Democrat".

As for myself, and the issue of guns: I'm a prospective rifle-owner (whenever I get the chance to own my own house), so it's not like I'm against people owning guns.

[SteveM]

42. So noted. It's hard to glean "plants" from "regulars" when both get accused...

of the same thing: freeper, RW framers, Republicans, etc. A lot of animosity. You may have noted that a lot of "gun crimes" are now posted by gun-controllers in General Discussion; not sure why, but it seems they are trying to gain some kind of following in the larger community. I welcome the trend, even though it is not following the rules of engagement. Better to put the arguments for gun-control/bans up against those who strongly support the Second, where an even bigger audience can make a judgment.

What kind of rifle are you contemplating?

[brentspeak]

54. Well, it's going to be a couple of years before I'll be able to purchase a home

and, to be honest, I really haven't given much thought to the kind of rifle I would likely buy. For whatever reason, I equate "rifle" and "protecting one's home" as largely synonymous (in addition to keeping doors and windows locked, etc.) Probably because my dad always had a rifle in the house for the same reason (though he never had to use it.)

[mcctatas]

11. If a bill does good things "we Democrats" support it no matter

who was in charge when it was initiated...if you want lockstep kneejerk followers, you are definately in the wrong place...
:eyes:

[Jack Bone]

12. Amid all of the recent talk of "The Unitary Executive"..

I have recently changed my views on the privileges on The 2nd Amendment.

[SteveM]

31. I see your point. BTW, 2A is a protected right, not a privilege...

Neither is it a conferred or given right. It is a right (like those in 1A) which is seen as pre-dating the U.S.A. and the Constitution.

There may be confusion over the provision of the 14th Amendment which states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law..." The context of the 14th Amendment (adopted 1868) was an effort by abolitionist Republicans to protect newly-freed blacks from the rise of gangs, the KKK and state-sponsored militias bent on their re-subjugation. The history of gun-control is a sterling example of institutionalized racism which continues well into the 20th (and 21st?) century. See: <www.georgicacarry.org> (and scroll down to their Heller brief) for an excellent summation of gun-control as a means of disarming and weakening black gains in the South.

[cornermouse]

19. Well...

I don't suppose it would have anything to do with idiots who don't have a clue about gun safety and who don't know better than to fire one in a populated area?

[Junkdrawer]

22. "we Democrats" believe that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership...

saves lives.

Or do you want mentally disturbed people to get easy access to guns? :shrug:

[chixydix]

27. I want mentally disturbed people kept far away from guns.

There are laws to guard against it but they aren't enforced very well. Just as a short aside here...do we have any idea how many -heavily armed- soldiers (some of which are serving by virtue of having a pulse) are roaming around the planet?

[SteveM]

38. Any restriction due to "mental disturbance" must follow due process...

Interestingly, the rights of the mentally ill (especially those protecting them from arbitrary institutionalization) was a fairly big cause in the early 60s. Some folks point to the "increase" in the number of pan-handlers and urban camps as the result of stricter adherence to due process instead of fill-in-the-blank confinements.

I agree with your main goal. I just hope the panic to keep guns out of the hands of the Chos of the world will not be extended to the alphabet ailments (PTSD, etc.) which are attached to those suffering combat-related trauma. Defining mental stability for 2A reasons is like defining literacy for voting purposes: it becomes politically charged whenever sufficient fear of another group reaches critical mass.

[crim son]

24. Interesting screenname, chixydix.

How'd you come up with it?

[CJCRANE]

36. Spoonerism perhaps...?

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

A 'spoonerism' is a play on words in which corresponding consonants, vowels, or morphemes are switched (see metathesis). It is named after the Reverend William Archibald Spooner (1844–1930), Warden of New College, Oxford, who was notoriously prone to this tendency.

Quotations attributed to Spooner include:

"The Lord is a shoving leopard" ("loving shepherd")

[crim son]

37. Oh, I get it. Dixie Chicks.

I'm curious why it was chosen.

[chixydix]

49. Honestly, there wasn't any particular reason...I just thought it sounded cool.

I thought about using Mortimer_Snerd but figured not many people would get that, so I picked something a little more contemporaneous...

Best I could do on short notice. :D

[chixydix]

46. Serendipity, I guess...really - I've been a Spoonerist for decades and

it just anneared out of powhere! :D

[CJCRANE]

29. Here you go...

The Guns forum. You'll find some likeminded people there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

[OwnedByFerrets]

32. One of the things we are MOST in favor of

is THINKING FOR YOURSELF. I try to do it at least once a day.:silly:

[SteveM]

40. Last year a poll revealed more than half of DUers owned a firearm.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

45. By my take, Approximately 75% of us

support the second amendment, despite what the Repukes would have you believe. I, for instance, am a card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU.

[Thothmes]

56. you my be correct in you approximation, but sometimes

the only public voice of the Democratic Party, on gun or II Amendment issues heard by the public, tends to be Democrats like Feinstein or Schumer. They have in the past called for outright bans on some guns. Their agenda in some instances concides with of Bradys HCI. Ergo, all Democrates are for gun ban and confiscations. What is needed are notable Democratic Senators/Reps publically speaking up insupport of moderate gun control and disavowing any effort to ban or confiscate. JMO. It may be a moot point anyway. The Supreme Court now gets a shot at this one.

[chixydix]

47. Wow, that's very interesting! I obviously painted with too broad a brush!

:D

[Junkdrawer]

57. 73% of Democrats favored stricter laws...52% of Republicans...56% of Independents...

Those have been the numbers for at least 10 years...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/parsing_the_polls_gun_control.html

[OffWithTheirHeads]

44. Actually, if you hang around long enough

you will find that the vast majority here support your right to keep and bear arms. There are a handful here who are very anti gun and very vocal. A few of them chase every gun discussion posted and try their best to disrupt it. The ones who make reasonable, rational comments, I will listen to. The disruptor's get put on my ignore list.

It's unfortunate. When DU was small, most of the discussion was reasonable folks, disagreeing reasonably. At this point, it has grown enough to attract the little weasels who still live in their parents basement and have nothing else (like a job) to do but stir up shit on the internets tubes. Want proof? Venture into GD-P.

The ignore function is your friend. Learn to use it. It is better than pills at regulating your blood pressure and better than Paxil for keeping you sane.
Peace,
Bud

[chixydix]

50. Thanks, I am only an egg.

:D

[Warren Stupidity]

48. IBTL

[Ichingcarpenter]

51. IBTL-#2

I said it second.......LOL

[supernova]

53. We have an illegal war, our internat'l reputation is shit,

we have and CiC and VP who seriously need impeachment and hauling before The Hague on WAR CRIMES, and you're myopically trying to stir up a debate about The Brady Assault Weapons Ban?

Welcome to DU, and :wow: do you have a lot to learn.

:hi:


Oh, and IBTL. :D

[Irreverend IX]

61. Interestingly enough...

There would have been no 1994 Republican revolution, no Bush presidency, no war in Iraq, no Gitmo, no Abu Ghraib and quite possibly no 9/11 if not for the "assault weapons" ban. Gun control has been the biggest vote loser in history for Dems.

[supernova]

62. Nah, I'm not gonna lay all that

at the foot of the Brady Bill.

It's a result of 30 years of rebuilding the GOP in their demented image. We never realized what was really happening on the other side of the aisle, until they went after Bill Clinton in the 90s.