Where do you stand?

[rDigital]

I believe that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms. I believe that the original intent of the 2nd is just as valid today as it was all of those years ago. The right of the individual to keep and bear arms for personal protection, and as a last resort to rebel against a tyrannical .gov.

What do you believe?

Cross Posted @ http://icarriedaguntodayandnoonewashurtbyit.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/where-do-you-stand/

47 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Time expired
	I believe in the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.
	40 (85%)
	I believe in strict gun control.
	6 (13%)
	I believe in complete civilian disarmament.
	1 (2%)
	3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Walk away]

1. I believe that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is to arm a militia...

that is well trained. Other than that, no one has the right to own a gun. It should be a privilege that potential gun owners should have to apply to the government for. There should be strict regulations on anyone who does not belong to the Militia (Armed Forces) or the police.

Since you have asked your poll questions in a completely skewed manner, I cannot vote. It reminds me of the new republican polls that have Romney winning.

[rDigital]

3. For the purposes of this poll we'll be using the definition as given in the OP. nt

[Walk away]

8. And later will you crow that the majority of DU's members are pro your...

interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? That's how you always do these polls. 1."Do you believe dogs should eat babies?"
Even a Fox news poll is better than this.

[rDigital]

11. Stare Decisis.

[Eleanors38]

22. Gallup has 74% "pro" result. Since 1959.nt

[Clames]

4. There is the "Pass" option.

Unfortunately you don't know what is defined as the "militia" in the US. ProTip: has nothing to do with the Armed Forces or LE agencies.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. That horse is dead. You can quite beating it. N/T

[pipoman]

6. LOL

Exactly not the intent..sort of unbelievable that anyone would believe such..certainly not anyone who has studied the adoption of the 2nd amendment.

[trouble.smith]

17. you believe wrong but don't take my word for it, listen to the folks who wrote the bill off rights

(as well as a few others whose opinions carry more weight than yours or mine).


And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Tenche Cox

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
Alexander Hamilton

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the_real_object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
Patrick Henry

The great object is, that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.
Patrick Henry

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
James Madison


The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose.
Thomas Cooley

[Atypical Liberal]

36. Those militias no longer exist.

I believe that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is to arm a militia that is well trained. Other than that, no one has the right to own a gun. It should be a privilege that potential gun owners should have to apply to the government for. There should be strict regulations on anyone who does not belong to the Militia (Armed Forces) or the police.

A couple of points to consider:

The militias at the time of the founders were set up on a decentralized manner under control of the states, and not the federal government, so that they could resist a federal tyranny.

Those militias were federalized in 1903.

Requiring permission from the government, and thus creating a list of firearm owners, directly goes against what the second amendment was intended to do.

The second amendment does not reserve the right to keep and bear arms to the militias, nor the states, but to the people.

[yellerpup]

78. And...the reason we needed a well-armed militia

was because Congress did not fund a standing army, so we needed citizen volunteers to help protect against foreign invasion. The Founders did not support a well-armed militia so that citizens could turn the arms against the government.

[gejohnston]

83. nor did they support a empire or MIC

so perhaps the Swiss have the right idea?

[Francis Marion]

175. The Founder's militia

...consisted of every able bodied male of sound mind from 16 to around 60 years old. Everybody in town, excluding conscientious objectors.

Their intent was to have nearly the entire male community trained and equipped for service.

The means by which they accomplished this goal was through popular, private arms keeping and community training. Some New England towns set aside money to buy muskets for people too poor to own one.

Yes, it's true that today we have institutionalized and professionalized military service. But none of that changes the fact that the supreme law of the land acknowledges the right of THE PEOPLE- not the right of the militia- to keep and bear arms. The New England militia arose from among the people; you would have recognized just about every male in your town there.

The day we have to stand, hat in hand, and ask the government if we might please be allowed the privilege of keeping a gun- we're through as a nation. The People are, at that point, no longer in charge.

Do we really expect such a government to be liberal and magnanimous in other fields, when they may violate the plain meaning of Amendment 2?

It's fatal precedent for our highest legal code to say "x", and for lawmakers to interpret it as "-x". No part of the code will remain sacred or inviolable after we give up our freedom, or tolerate negation of any amendment therein.

The reason we own guns isn't to make government and lawmakers feel nice.

Private gun ownership is, rather, a concrete affirmation that we are free and in charge of our country. After the gun freedoms disappear, so will the most governmentally inconvenient of the Bill of Rights protections- for self incrimination, privacy, due process of law, cruel and unusual punishment. After guns, the deluge.

The state you propose resembles an authoritarian police and military state. That's just something I hope we never learn to tolerate in America. Slavery makes a poor trade for any condition, freedom most of all.

Remember the historic definition of slavery in America? Among many other prohibitions, slaves were disarmed. It was disarmament which made every moral outrage perpetrated upon black people both possible and indisputable. Frederick Douglass knew this, and he pointed to gun ownership in Union army service as the means to alter the mentality of slaves into that of a free person. Moreover, armed veterans were harder to push around after the war, in contrast to easily brutalized slaves.

So in sum, it's a hard sell to convince Americans to disarm and cease being free. Having read about slavery times, I want no part of it for myself or any American. Never again.

Our system is a People's system in the true sense of that term, not the Communist doublespeak sense. We really do run things- if armed. Is there a higher level of trust and mutual respect between the government and the governed than when the governed have weapons?

[darkangel218]

2. Nobody will ever take the guns away from American ppl.

Its our Constitutional right. and it shall remain. UNTOUCHED!

Cheers!

[bowens43]

28. so youre part of a well regulated militia?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. If you own a gun...

...and live in the US, you are.

[Glaug-Eldare]

32. I don't need to be, but yes

As per Md. Code. Ann Pub. Safety Sec. 13-202

and

Md. Code. Ann Pub. Safety Sec. 13-203

[Glaug-Eldare]

7. Eh, the options could be worded much better.

First one really ought to refer to agreement with "the above" meaning of the Amendment instead of "the original," since there is a good bit of disagreement on what the original meaning actually was.

[Walk away]

9. It just shows what a sad joke this forum is!

[Glaug-Eldare]

10. It could use a good dose of liberal comity.

Sometimes it reminds me of panel shows where people shout insults and drown each other out. If you don't hear your opponents out, at least one of you is always going to be wrong.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. The only thing with only one side...

...is an open mind.

Hope to see you around more.

[Clames]

15. And here you are posting in it. n/t

[rl6214]

149. No, the sad joke was your first response

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. Feel free to make your own poll and word it any way you wish

really, it isn't hard to do.

[Glaug-Eldare]

14. Seems like that'd just kinda clutter the board, eh? n/t

[Eleanors38]

23. Laurence tribe, promoted militia clause. He has since...

Changed his mind to the above standard model. Most 2a scholars go by the standard model as well.

[ZombieHorde]

16. I don't know.

I believe that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms.

I agree, but we have always infringed upon other's RKBA. Examples include prisoners and visitors to the White House. The 2A is worded in an absolute way, but even they did not expect an absolute interpration.

I believe that the original intent of the 2nd is just as valid today as it was all of those years ago.

I am not sure. I don't know if the authors of the 2A imagined modern-day firearms. One person could not really do a mass shooting in those days.

[Trunk Monkey]

18. For this poll to be valid

We have to first agree on what the original intent was.

I believe in the individual right interpretation so , I answer I believe the original intent is still valid.

Someone else believes in the collective right of the militia interpretation and they answer I believe the original intent is still valid.

Same answer totally different meaning. The poll needs to be worded better.

Pass

[Reasonable_Argument]

19. Only if they ignore the Heller decision nt

[Trunk Monkey]

20. Which a whole Hell of a lot of them do.

I'm not saying I disagree with the OP's opinion I'm saying the poll is worded in such a way as to be easily skewed and needs to be more clearly written.

I.E. I believe the Second Amendment protects an individual's to own a firearm for any lawful purpose subject to very limited oversight and regulation. ( Fifth Amendment)

Do you (the poll respondent)

1. Agree

2. Disagree

IMO very clearly worded

[rDigital]

25. There is only one interpretation after Heller: Individual Right. Stare Decisis. nt

[SecularMotion]

21. I stand with the Democrats

For Democrats, the Second Amendment is acknowledged as an "important part of the American tradition" that includes the "right to own and use firearms." However, unlike Republicans, the Democrats perceive the Second Amendment as being "subject to reasonable regulation." It is the Democratic Party's hope that there can be "an honest, open national conversation about firearms" and the "terrible consequences of gun violence."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117271971

[Reasonable_Argument]

49. The Democrats are on the wrong side of history when it comes to gun rights nt

[SecularMotion]

52. So you'll be voting for Republicans?

[Francis Marion]

176. Hmmm.

The qualifying, clarifying language '...shall not be infringed' allows for exactly how much 'subject to reasonable regulation'?

Slim to none that I can textually justify.

The amendment says, as plainly as it possibly can to marauding lawmakers, 'HANDS OFF.'

It's not the Bill of Privileges or the Bill of Reluctantly Acceded Indulgences.

It's OUR BILL OF RIGHTS. Not lawmaker's toilet paper.

How much restriction does the language allow?

[jeepnstein]

24. Nobody calling for complete Citizen disarmament yet?

We're making progress. I have no doubt the usual suspects will be along shortly to explain to the unwashed masses why Citizens are not to be trusted with a firearm of any kind.

[rDigital]

26. The cowards who support that option

are too cowardly to pull the lever even on this little poll. I wonder why?

[bowens43]

27. what a ridiculous misleading poll

the original intent of the 2nds amendment REQUIRES strict control. Of course the death merchants and their toadies always ignore the part about a well regulated militia.

[rDigital]

31. Stare decisis. Just like Roe v. Wade. Get used to it, bro. nt

[Trunk Monkey]

40. Like I said, until every one is on the same page WRT "Original Intent" the poll is poorly worded NT

[rDigital]

41. Understood, but I did include my definition in the OP which is the law of the land right now. nt

[oneshooter]

178. Do you activly support the Brady Campaign or the VPC?

[ileus]

30. I stand with real progressive democrats that believe in the 2A

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Your interpretation of original intent

Is aligned with the most regressive rightwing court in the last 75 years.

[rDigital]

34. Just like the vote acknowledging the constitutionality of the ACA. Soooooo regressive.

Stare decisis. It's time to move on now.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. you might as well have only one option in your "poll".

[rDigital]

39. Welcome to the internet, Sweetie. BTW: Do you support complete civilian disarmament?

Inquiring minds want to know, but we all know you won't answer.

[upaloopa]

35. Every one of the first 10 Amendments have had limitations imposed by the Supreme Court.

To argue that the 2nd Amendment should not have interpretations or limitations is to live in denial.

Depending on the political makeup of the Supreme Court any one of the Amendments could be subject to a different interpretation than the last one delivered by the court.

I believe the 2nd Amendment was written for the time period when it was written which was before there was a federal standing army. I believe it's original interpretation was just as it is stated. The right to bear arms was for the purpose of making up a well regulated militia.

A less right wing Supreme Court may interpret the 2nd Amendment in a way that provides for limitations on the right to bear arms.

Personally, I believe it is not good for our society for people to go anywhere they please with loaded weapons on their person. I feel that the more people have guns the more people will be killed by guns.

I don't want to go to a movie or restaurant and find a gun toting person sitting next to me. I feel that paranoia and fear are the driving forces that compel people to want to carry loaded weapons around. I don't think that is a healthy motivation.

I think that in the future there will be limitations to carrying loaded weapons. Just as smoking is not permitted in certain establishments, I think that guns will also not be permitted in certain establishments.

[rDigital]

37. Stare decisis. Just like Roe v. Wade. Get used to it, bro. nt

[upaloopa]

43. No like Citizen's United disregarded all previous

settled law. Get use to it.
You are living in denial.

[Jenoch]

42. The only time militias composed of citizens and not soldiers

were ever really used was during the American Revolution. Those militias were FIGHTING the federal army. Federal, in this case, referring to the government's army. The militias were fighting the government. You seem to have missed that part of the historical context.

[Trunk Monkey]

44. Yeah, that's actually not true

The Oregon Militia was called up to do cost watching duty in 1942.

The Alaska Territorial guard saw action in the Aleutians in WWII as well

I believe Maryland called up the militia as well

[Glaug-Eldare]

45. There was certainly a pretty speech

Maryland expanded the State Guard during the war, and apparently called up the "Maryland Minute Men," according to a speech by Gov. O'Conor: Preparing Maryland for Invasion

I haven't found much else out about the role of the MD unorganized militia during WW2, but that's a pretty good speech.

[Trunk Monkey]

46. I'm hesitant to post my source since it's an NRA publication

But I'll dig it out of the pile and post the relevant stats after work if you wish

[Jenoch]

47. All three of your points

are examples of the 'National Guard' in the respective states, not true citizen militias. All of the examples provided were examples of men already in uniform, not a true militia.

[Glaug-Eldare]

48. Oregon and Maryland both involved non-military volunteers

Their roles were distinct from those of the National Guard and uniformed State Guards.

[Trunk Monkey]

57. And you are wrong again

There is a difference between a State guard and a National guard.

[Jenoch]

62. Actually, even the state

guards, at least these days in Minnesota, are called 'national' guards. The Minnesota National Guard is the state guard, not to be confused with the Army National Guard.

[Glaug-Eldare]

67. Minnesota has declined to establish a uniformed "state guard."

Many other states (Oregon and Maryland included) do it differently, and maintain a military organization that is not a component of the U.S. Army, and cannot be federalized. Look up "state defense force."

A state guard is still distinct from the militia as a whole, or the unorganized militia in particular.

[Trunk Monkey]

69. IMO a non federalized State Guard is EXACTLY the militia NT

[Glaug-Eldare]

70. It's a significant part of the militia,

but the term "militia" in federal and (most? all?) state law is mostly comprised of private citizens who have never and will never wear a uniform.

[Trunk Monkey]

68. My Source was the March 2009 Edition of the NRA magazine "America'S First Freedom"

The article was written by Clayton Cramer and states specifically that the Alaska Territorial guard (which exists today as the Alaska State Guard) as well as the Oregon and Maryland Militias were unorganized state militias that were not under Federal control . The article also makes it quite clear that the Alaska National Guard had already been deployed out of state when the territorial guard was formed.

[Reasonable_Argument]

50. The war of 1812

Says hello.

[bongbong]

53. Understand where the DU Gun Lobby comes from

They need their guns, since they're too scared to walk out of the house without one.

Have pity. They'd STARVE without their guns since it is so risky going to the supermarket.

[Simo 1939_1940]

58. Understand where bongbong comes from......

He needs his ROTFLMAO emoticon, as he has no coherent fact/reason based arguments to rely on.

[bongbong]

172. Prove it!

Another Delicate Flower in the DU Gun Lobby. I wonder where they all come from?

[graham4anything]

51. In Mayor Mike I trust

arm the majority of America that is not asskissers for the nra with funds to defeat the mighty NRA

all it takes is Mayor Mike to strongly back, and have the back of all candidates no matter who they are, who will go against the NRA and stop the NRA from their blackmailing candidates to either side with them or get a challenger and be defeated

all it takes is one dollar more than the nra has

and guess what-
Mayor Mike got more petty cash than the IRA ever has

and with a strong leader like Mayor Mike, they will get millions of others contributing more and more

and like the totalitarian realms of the past, the NRA will be defeated.

I thought DU'ers don't like the big lobby groups. The NRA is (to use a music term) #1 with a bullet.

Mayor Mike we trust and hope in the coming decade we can win this fight.

and you know, the NRA gun fanatics here are scared of him. Because he has the money that no one in the past has to use against them.
Candidates need to be free from blackmail.

and the majority (silent majority) of America is NOT part of the NRA.

[glacierbay]

54. Your posts are getting more and more unhinged

your hero, Blooming Idiot, has not, will not use his money to defeat the NRA, I don't know what fantasy land you live in, but I hope you're enjoying it.
I'm certainly not afraid of Bloomy and neither is anyone else I know.
You're right about one thing, the majority of Americans don't belong to the NRA, but the majority of Americans do support the 2A, by a wide margin at that.
You can come here and have your fantasy of a complete ban, but that's all it is, a fantasy.
Meanwhile, back in reality, gun rights keep marching on.
Have a good day, I'm going to enjoy my 3 days off. My wife and I are going to the range tomorrow and hone our shooting skills.

[graham4anything]

55. if in doubt, call your opponent names...must have touched a sore spot

most people that spew the constitution about the 2nd amendment, never read it or do so at the first grade level. Sounds like you are one of those.

which is why some day it will happen.

but keep the insults coming. Hell, glad I am not standing next to an NRA person exercising my freedom of speech first amendment rights. With an NRA folk, the only thing that counts is the 2nd false reading of it,and
you never know what they might do with their hidden piece.

In mayor mike I trust. You prove we need a so called nanny to take care of us. The NRA certainly don't.
Most people never thought he would bother with the obese problem.
And most people never thought the vast majority of America would stop smoking.
But they did.

cue in Sondheim's "Somewhere"

[glacierbay]

56. I very obviously know the BoR

much better than you do including the 2A, the more you talk, the more I'm convinced you have no clue what the Constitution or the BoR mean.
Our conversation last night just proves my point, your nonsense of by any and all means whether or not it's constitutional shows that you believe what dictators, past and present believed. Your authoritarian views, like your hero, Mike, scares the hell out of me and I'm glad that you're in no position to implement what you seem to believe in.
You do know that Freeperville is down the hall and to the right, your views are more in tune with theirs it would seem.

BTW, just how the hell did you come up with me proving that we need a so called nanny to take care of us?
You may want that, but the huge majority of Americans don't, most Americans don't like govt. telling them what they can or can't do, what they can or can't eat, drink.
Like I said, you're views are no better that the dictators of the world.

[graham4anything]

59. sorry friend, more and more the gunnies are proving they are NOT liberal democrats

but libertarians or tea party thinkers who might have been happier with freak Rand or Ron Paul or some other anti-American freak who wants to stockpile guns and ammo for some conspiracy theory reason or another.While spewing unknowingly what the founding fathers did or did not mean.

You know, years ago I was very confused about Janet Reno and WACO.
Misguided people messing with my mind about right and wrong.

Now I can't wait for Hillary45 and possibly Janet Reno back in power. Because I know, it wasn't Koresh who was the problem as he could have been arrested at any time.
It was the wackos Koresh housed in WACO that had stockpiled guns and who thought nothing of wasting FBI agents and who knows who else they might have killed.
What were they stockpiling guns for? Planning on overthrowing the government?

Thank God Janet Reno did what she did. The single best til Eric Holder came along.
Then of course, fellow gunnie and nutjob Timid Tim M. killed babies at Oklahoma City because of protecting the right to stockpile guns and ammo.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Something is fishy when people stockpile guns and ammo
Those people are not collectors
Those people are not hunters
Those people are not skeet shooters

No, those people have devious plans in their minds to overthrow our great country like the assholes in the south attempted to do that Lincoln stopped.
Same mindset in 2012 with a black President and black attorney general and 2 females on the supreme court picked by the black President and Hillary coming in as president in 2016.

People who spew states rights want the laws to go back before the great LBJ signed them
(LBJ being one of my three favorite all time Presidents).
Same people want no minority to vote, and women back in the kitchen and not the voting booth(let alone President Hillary 45).

No, more and more these conspiracy theory gunnies are proving they are not liberal democrats whatsoever. They are willing to live and die for the gun to do who knows what.
That crap needs to stop.

And just like 90% of America no longer smokes, something thought impossible, and most sane people wear seatbelts, don't drive 125 and live another day (unless some asshole driving 125 on the wrong side of the highway crashes into them), things change when people get smart.
Guns are manufactured to kill. Bullets kill. Crazy deadly bullets kill and killed John Lennon, who possibly could have been saved had he not been shot by a bullet that destroyed basically each and every organ in his battered shot body. John might be here today if that bullet and gun were not sold to feed the ego of the nutjob who wanted to be as famous as he was(and made his wish come true sadly).

Judging from these gun threads on DU, there is a small minority here that is for guns.
Most people against guns don't bother to argue knowing the treatment (and I can attest to that) one who goes against them brings in.

But I have never met more conspiracy theory thought minded people than these, thinking before he got into office Obama was going to take their guns away and alligning themselves with the teaparty gun strokers in 2010 parading outside town halls. And audacious even more, backing Zimmerman's cold blooded stalking and asssassination a black kid, who they hate even more because he was not some kid of a ghetto family, but someone who's family had a little money to be able to hire a good lawyer and let the public know just what happened.
(And thank God for the Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's of the world who bring to light all the abuses blacks face with regard to being shot 40 or 50 times by cops.
(my single favorite show to watch on tv each day is Al Sharpton's on MSNBC btw.)

and one day, may take some years, there will be new gun control, or guns themselves will be made obsolete(or bullets will).

The ironic thing will be when a kid who does not want to use a gun is the one who walks away from a situation, goes home and grows up to become the inventor who found a way to neutralize all bullets for any and all guns by some scientific means heretofore not even thought of in 2012. (Maybe they can harness a Superman like x-ray vision to melt bullets).
We can hope.
(after all, who thought when Dick Tracy used to talk on his wristwatch tv, that one day people would have cell phones and mini-computers and tvs.)

Without a gun, anything is possible
the day is coming when civilized man will not have usable guns and bullets.

Hillary45. And may she bring Janet Reno back to public life.

[gejohnston]

60. One thing

Janet Reno was not in charge of the ATF, since it was under Treasury back then. The ATF could have picked up Koresh off the street but chose not to. They fucked up, and the Secretary of Treasury should have had heads roll, and the public should have unloaded on him. Reno got involved only after her FBI etc got involved.

[glacierbay]

63. Did you understand a thing he wrote?

[gejohnston]

64. kind of,

I think. Did you?

[glacierbay]

66. I could make out a couple of things

but for the most part, it was a lot of rambling nonsense.

[graham4anything]

71. except he (DK) was not the problem, the mass group of terrorists were the problem

and they were stockpiling guns and ammo to use for what? (overthrowing a government or an OKL City event like what happened later).

they were a group of terrorists, but back then, no one called them that.

they were American rightwing extremist terrorists.(back then who even heard of gun stockpiling and survivalists to overthrow the federal government).

and the leader it seems was felt was the only one who could control them to not do what ever they planned, therefore taking him out off property made no sense, as they could not predict what would happen if that happened.

The strawman was the spin on this, and it confused me and alot of people for a number of years after in the right/wrong area.

But these people were doing illegal things and in effect terrorists plotting against the nation.
Something now easily seen.

In retrospect it is easy to see and answers the questions, and in retrospect we see what a hero Janet Reno was.

(unless of course one is saying that after they killed the FBI agent, they should not have done anything about it...is that what you are saying? I don't think so, but there are only 2 answers here. Either what Janet and the team did was good, or it was not good.

And Janet and the team was more than patient, giving them every opportunity.
And they wasted a good family man federal agent.
And it wasn't Janet that started the fire in any instance.

She is a hero in my book.
(one is surprised though at the hypocricy being shown by those who feel a gun is needed to avenge any in advance attack on a person, yet if a federal agent is shot dead in cold blood by a band of terrorists, that shouldn't happen??? WTF is wrong with that hypocricy.???)

And I for one welcome her back in a President Hillary Clinton45 term 2017-2024 in any position she would be offered by President Hillary Clinton.

[gejohnston]

72. your knowledge of the Waco is zero

the ATF had a warrant for machine gun parts, and the warrant was for him. The entire thing was a Treasury fuck up.
BTW, out of the Beatles, Lennon was over rated. Paul is a better writer and musician.

[graham4anything]

73. what a joke you are a John Lennon hater.What a cheap shot.

a John Lennon hater. amazing.

without the John Lennon songs, the beatles would have been forgotten like the Dave Clark 5 or Herman's Hermits were

John made them immortal before and after

and just look at the solo work
Paul wrote about "silly love songs" and put paint in his hair to dye it and marry an idiot.
Paul never had one song anywhere near what the Beatles had (especially with Wings)
John had Imagine plus the others, but Imagine alone.
Paul wrote about "scrambled eggs" in original set of lyrics.

John made them the Beatles.(compare Strawberry fields with Penny Lane for one).

Paul was the 1% to John's 99%. (paul got rich and complacent, John had the balls)

but, Paul Simon was a better writer than either, and better than Dylan too, long term the lyrics proved so. (and both Paul and Bob had songs from other sources).

and wow,are you really defending the death of an agent it appears. Unfreakin' belieable.
But the wackos were all equally guilty

and just like the NRA people I gotta ask again, WHAT DO YOU NEED SO MANY GUNS AND BULLETS FOR?
Why are they stockpiling them. What is the ulterior motive?
You can't hunt for more than one deer at any time, what the real reason?

[gejohnston]

74. given the number of people

that wasn't much of a stock pile. 26 guns for over 70 people? None of them were machine guns. There might have been a couple of unregistered silencers. Was that worth killing 76 people, including children who committed no crimes, for? I find it odd that antis condemn people who defend themselves against violent criminals, yet are OK with the Treasury Dept killing over 70 people because they don't know how to execute a search warrant properly.

[graham4anything]

76. the federal agent was the first to die, unprovoked

after weeks of a standoff

these wackos were all violent criminals-they were plotting to overthrow something or someone
just like Timid Tim did in Oklahoma and Osama did in NYC

The wacko's could have walked away but they killed someone in cold blood.
Very very odd

and they started the fire, not the feds. And Timid Tim in Oklahoma killed all those babies
(and gunnies kill a kind meek doctor in a sanctuary and kill in the name of life???

warped.

[glacierbay]

80. Learn your history

there was no weeks of standoffs, do you make this up as you go along? The ATF wanted to do a "dynamic entry" so that they could prove that they needed a budget increase.

They could have arrested Koresh at any time while he was in town w/o incident. The ATF knew that the Dividians knew a raid was coming and the Davidians had a pretty good idea when it was coming and yet, the ATF still went ahead with it.
I'm not saying what the Davidians did was correct, but the blame for the 4 ATF agents deaths lies with the ATF.

[glacierbay]

77. That's because it was the Govt. doing the killing

this poster is ok with the govt. doing just about anything. I equate his views with those of dictators, past and present. His views are more in tune with the R's.

[graham4anything]

82. Wow, you hate the government

Why are you on a democrat party site?

Democrats are part of the government.

unbelievable, it really is.

and you don't seem to believe in the first amendment, due to your prior action when someone said something that you didn't agree with, poof, it was gone.

Yes, I trust President Obama 100%. Blind faith trust, he has MY back and I have HIS back.
Anything he wants, I want. Anything they want that he doesn't, I don't want.
Matters little who THEY are.

President Obama and Michelle Obama forever and a day. The line in the sand, is either one is for him, or one is not. No middle ground, no partials.
100%.Bill and Hillary and Janet Reno back Barack Obama, therefore their loyalty is my loyalty to them.

And as congress gives the president all funding, anything a president does was authorized by Congress(including the Patriot act).

and your 2nd amendment interpretation was by the furthest rightwing courts and someday the courts will no longer be rightwing but left wing
at which time, we can reexamine the options and hopefully will.

[gejohnston]

86. who said anything about hating the government?

If Waco happened while Poppy was still POTUS, you would have a different opinion?

[glacierbay]

88. You need to stop lying about what I say

I never said I hate the Govt.. Post a link to where I said that. You can't because I never said it, I work for a city govt.

As I said earlier, I had nothing to do with you vile POS post getting hidden, the blame lies with you and you only.
You have no 1st Amendment right on this board, it's a privately owned site and the Admins. decide what is or isn't accepted speech.

I'm wondering what YOU are doing here at DU? Your views are more in tune with the other side, especially with your apparent support of the Patriot Act, which BTW, was a Bush Admim. abomination.

[graham4anything]

91. I am in support of the democrat president, and his administration not your gun lovers NRA superpac1

YOU are missaying what I said-again, ad nauseum

CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE PATRIOT ACT
not the president

therefore although it was Bush, you mistate the constitution by saying he did it
THE ENTIRE CONGRESS OKAYED IT

CONGRESS AUTHORIZED IT. END OF STORY IT IS LEGAL.

Don't like it? Congress not the president would change it

the republicans own the congress not the democrats, therefore vote democrat

and why do you fear a good president? Did you fear LBJ? FDR? JFK? Jimmy Carter(nobody died on Jimmy Carter's watch, btw). Did you vote for JImmy Carter in 1980 for reelection?

We are in a war and terrorists are traitors and as Congress said, terrorists have NO rights and I agree with that.

And we should free political prisoners like Joanne C. She never did anything but sit in a car.
Yet she is still hounded.

And Nixon said "anything a president does is legal"
AND A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT PARDONED MR. NIXON therefore, what he said appears to be true. Because unless someone says otherwise, what a president says and does is legal as no one disagrees with it, and congress authorizes all funding for everything, not the president.

BTW-the same people that didn't like Gitmo, didn't want any terrorist tried in Manhattan.

Where would you have tried them???

and yours and Rand and Ron Paul (aka Jorg Haider) view of the constitution well-it's like sex, people that yada yada yada on it, never get it

[glacierbay]

93. I didn't say that Bush authorized it.

try re-reading my post, I said the it was a Bush Admin. abomination.

I can't even make sense of what your saying now. Are you saying that terrorists have no rights? Really? That is a RW stance, are you for real?
I'm sitting here shaking my head going, WTF is this guy rambling about? He's making no sense at all.

[graham4anything]

97. don't read my posts, I thought you said you were through reading them days ago

Someone looking to overthrow the government is by our own laws, a traitor.

And there are penalties for traitors (first degree penalties at any/all times in our history).

Look it up.

Benedict Arnold for instance.
Spies

etc.

your trying to ad hominem me, or call me names, or all, are all red herrings, distractions

You don't like my viewpoint, it's obvious.
I assume on the gun control & RKBA forum, probably the pro-gun posters would wish no anti-gun person would even respond (and most anti-gun stay far far far away, as if a skunk raised its tail in the threads).

I happen to have a little extra fun time this week at the computer, so I am debating the subject in a few threads.
I know full well I won't change your minds
I also know full well that in the future it will be different in America and someday this topic, like the abortion topic will be obsolete.
Just like new drugs will make the physical going into a clinic not necessary, something similiar will change the gun problem.
Like the demographics, a big change is coming, not this minute, but sometime soon.

[glacierbay]

98. I said I was done reading them in that thread

especially after you got shit canned for your Vile remark of LEO.

Ya know, I've been hearing this shit about how in the future guns will be obsolete for more than 20 years now, and yet, gun rights keep marching on. But you just keep on clinging on to your hope of a gun free America if that's what keeps you going in life.

The more you talk here, the more you out yourself as an authoritarian whose views match those of the RW.
Why are you even here on a progressive board? Trying to sow discord? I don't know, maybe, maybe not.

[Jenoch]

134. "Jimmy Carter(nobody died on Jimmy Carter's watch, btw)."

Actually, in April of 1980 8 American Special Forces personnel died in the attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran.

[Glaug-Eldare]

133. Abandoning your right to think is a sad thing to do.

A lot of people suffered and died so that you'd have a right to express your own beliefs, a lot of people struggled to design and implement a government that would protect it, and now you want to throw it away to join a cult of personality? If you agree with somebody 100%, let it be because they believe 100% of the things you do. Don't surrender your brain to a politician.

[glacierbay]

75. I'll answer

1. Most of us here don't belong to the NRA so stop with the NRA crap.

2. You ask what do we need with so many guns and bullets? Answer: none of your damned business, and until there's a Dept. of Needs in this country, none of anybody's damned business.

[graham4anything]

79. you don't want my answer, being that you got my answered censored

talk about the constitution

if you don't like an answer you got it to disappear

tsk tsk tsk (so much for the 1st amendment freedom of speech)

and again, til told a logical explanation, I shall assume that stockpiling of guns and bullets is for not a good use.

or to satisfy some oddball conspiracy theory, and I am plumb out of the conspiracy theory business.

Vigilantes and Rambo rightwing extremists and neanderthals need lots of guns and bullets

civilized man needs zero guns and zero bullets

[glacierbay]

84. Got your answer censored?

What the hell are you talking about? If your talking about the thread about the Border Patrol agent, I had nothing to do with your post being hidden, although, judging by what I read, it deserved to be hidden, the only one that got that post hidden was you because of the vile shit you wrote.

Just to be clear here, you don't have a 1st Amendment right on this website, this is a privately owned site where the owners can say what is proper and not proper.
Now I'm 100% convinced that you have no idea what our Constitution or the BoR are all about.

As far as stockpiling firearms and bullets, assume all you want, it's none of your business what we have in our homes.

It's people like you that cost us the congress back in 1994 and it's people like you that keep pushing the gun control mantra that paint the Democratic Party as anti gun.

[graham4anything]

85. But I can say whatever I want and ask why you want to stockpile guns and bullets

you don't have to answer

but I can ask a zillion times why anyone needs to stockpile guns and bullets

and last I heard, Mayor Mike has backed ANY CANDIDATE left,right,center, republican, democrat who sides with his gun control proposals
so stop the bullsheet that talking about guns will lose democratic votes (and that is the exact blackmail I talk about the NRA and their groupies use to shut up disent)
BTW Bloomberg is backing Scottie Brown the republican

therefore, does that mean the NRA will fund Elizabeth Warren

hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
the NRA backs Elizabeth Warren

chick-a-boom
chick-a-boom
dontcha just love it
as the song went

btw, you directly asked me to retract(edit my post) and I stood by my words
poof, it disappeared
like magic

and your phony 2nd amendment interpretation, well, on a gun thread, in the gun section of course your side will win

but of course, why are militant guns and ammo even talked about on a liberal democrat peace site?
Last I heard guns and ammo do NOT equal peace.
Guns and ammo were manufactured to kill something or someone
and to bully a situation (like those that idol Zimmerman and back his right to carry and chase an unarmed man and shoot him cowardly in cold blood after stalking him).

[gejohnston]

89. therefore, does that mean the NRA will fund Elizabeth Warren

no that means Mike is more concerned with his questionable money making schemes than he is about my guns. I don't picture the NRA backing either one of them.

[holdencaufield]

90. "why anyone needs to stockpile guns and bullets(?)..."

What, in your mind, constitutes a "stockpile" -- more than 100? More than 1,000?

What is the difference between a stockpile and a sound investment hedge against inflation (ammunition prices continue to rise)? Remember, properly stored ammunition has a very long shelf-life. If for example, I shoot 100 rounds of any particular caliber in a week at practice -- a two year supply of that ammunition is more than 5,000 rounds. I keep different types of ammunition available for different purposes -- a two-year supply for each would be close to 26,000 rounds. Is that a stockpile or a wise investment?

I buy many things at Costco in quantity -- am I stockpiling sugar and Crystal Light?

[glacierbay]

92. One more time

Your post was hidden because it was a vile POS thing to say and a jury agreed, I didn't alert on it and I don't know who did, but I do agree that it needed to be hidden.

I don't give two shits what Bloomy is doing, he's irrelevent to this conversation.

And one more time, you can ask all you want about why so many of us own so many firearms and ammo, and the answer will always be the same, none of your damned business and until there's a Dept. of Needs, it will always be, none of your damned business.

Why is it that gun control zealots like you always bring up Zimmerman? I'ts like he's your obsession. (scratches head)

[holdencaufield]

87. "...civilized man needs zero guns and zero bullets"

You might not have noticed -- as ensconced as you are in your ivory tower -- but not everyone out there is civilised.

There remains a segment of society -- larger in some places than other but always there -- from whom a civilised man must be able to defend himself and his own.

[graham4anything]

95. A civilized man walks away and John Lennon could be here today if the Dakota had proper surveillance

(whomever "they" are.

You don't turn the 6 million Jews and 10 million others killed in WW2 into Nazi's, nor would the result have been any different had they all turned into cold blooded killers who would have shot first then asked later.

All it would have taken back then was a drone to hone in on Hitler and get him before the shit started there.

That's right. A drone.
Drones save life. Guns kill life.
(and don't give me the collateral damage because guns kill more collateral than a drone ever did.)(especially when the terrorist/murderer is hiding in public areas.)

BTW-off topic-and its ashame that it is connected, but your board name here, is the character in the book that the awipe that did John Lennon in was idolizing. It again is why no details of a murderer(terrorist) or whatever he was just wanting fame, should be released to the public.
Better we don't know his name, nor any reason. And the world would have been better off somehow if the Dakota had a machine that knew that gun was there, and a drone appeared out of the sky that afternoon (same afternoon where 30 blocks south they lit the Christmas Tree in Rockerfeller Center, bringing joy and happiness to kids of all ages) and took care of that single solitary problem that day.
The entire world would have been better off

Yet the NRA probably would defend that awipe saying he was protecting himself and allowed to carry a gun were it in 2012 and NYC had concealed gun allowances.

I sure wish back then we the people of the United States had known or had a way in advance to know that awipe was carrying, and he was taken care of.
Because there was no reason except why he did it, for him to having a gun.

It could have been avoided with proper survaillance in advance, and without John Lennon needing to have shot in advance without knowing the awipe was going to shoot him in the back and becoming a monster.

Get it?
(I would assume that in 2012, the same situation at the Dakota could not possibly have happened behind that gate at least, and it happened not on the street, but past the gate.

[holdencaufield]

99. Do you REALLY want to go there?

You might have surmised from my avatar that I am in fact Jewish (Happy Sukkot).

I'm having a bit of trouble following your point "You don't turn the 6 million Jews and 10 million others killed in WW2 into Nazi's"

Are you saying that Jews and other people who fought back against Hitler with arms were the moral equivalent of Nazis? Do you consider that a morally defencible position?

One of Hitler's first acts after consolidating domestic power was to pass laws SPECIFICALLY calling for all Jews to be disarmed. It became a felony for a Jew to possess a firearm or ammunition. Hitler believed that an armed Jewish population would be less easily led to the slaughter. I have to agree that he was correct. In the situations where Jews did make armed stands against the Nazis, they made a pretty good account of themselves (Sobibor, Warsaw Ghetto, Vilna Ghetto, Lithuania and the Belarus to name a few).

For this, and other reasons, it is my fervant belief that Jews, in any country where it is legal, should, if willing, be not only armed, but should train with their weapons. "Never Again" isn't just a slogan.

[glacierbay]

100. I can't even figure why this guy is here

his views are more in tune with the RW. Maybe he's trying to sow discord, who knows. .

[holdencaufield]

101. I'm not even sure he knows.

I'm sure he knows he hates guns and he thinks that makes him morally superior -- but, to suggest that Jews using guns against the Nazis was immoral or that armed drones over American cities would have saved the life of John Lennon is so far over the top that he's basically become the village clown.

[graham4anything]

117. I am Jewish myself just to make sure you know that.

I do believe that Jews are not monsters and they are not Nazi's, and even if they had guns, it would not have stopped what happened, because if we consider ourself civilized, we would shoot ourselves before we would in cold blood BEFORE they knocked gotten rid of them.

There were more of them. Less of us. (And the ones that survived, some were by chance, and most used their brains to avoid being killed. IMHO). The real smart ones left in the weeks, months before, and the really really smart ones knew their material items had to be given up and they were smart enough to take a little bribe material, and smart enough to know they could make it again a few years later in America, or whereever they settled.

Never again to me means breathing a sigh of relief that Jorg Haider in Austria, after he won power, killed himself going something like 125 miles an hour on the Autobahn
(or was it something else, but it matters little, he is gone, and Jews worldwide should breathe a sigh of relief...however- why did he get any votes?

And why does his lookalike, and soundalike Rand Paul get any votes???

Look up Jorg if you never heard of him, and look at his photo but the clone of the two is not the important part, the important part is that Jorg was ascending power and this was just a few years ago.

But no, IMHO guns would not have saved anyone, maybe given 10 more minutes, but a drone ontop of Hitler would have solved the problem.
(Without Hitler, they were nothing.)

And btw, my grandfather's brother killed himself with his gun, rather than give up everything and leave, like my grandparents, my mother, and assorted many other relatives.
Had they had guns, I am sure they all would have been dead instead of some being here today in 2012 and all that are, are voting for Obama. I would have preferred he lived and gave up everything and make it again in NYC like the other did who came to NY(some went to other countries where members of each family are still alive today).

How possibly could it have done anything more than delay a few days or weeks to fight an impossible fight at that time?(after all America was not in the war at that point, and the outcome did not change til a bunch of years later).(this is not a Quentin Tarentino movie
even if I enjoyed his version of what the past could have been like).

and it isn't guns that keep Israel 2012 safe. It is far bigger and better weapons. But I am for peace and not for war and don't wish to argue Israel 2012 much.
I find both Bibi and the current talking yapper of Iran to be way to hyperbolic and both should shut up and stop the bravado game and find some solution that is who knows what.Because blowing each other up, or having a ground war that kills tens of thousands doesn't help anything and no amount of guns would save someone from the big bombs.
(but a drone on the bad guys would).

again, some of my thinking has evolved since my protest 60s and 70s days, but I never had a gun and I never will.

[glacierbay]

119. Fine, don't ever have a gun, that's your right and choice.

But don't pretend to tell us what is good for us, and don't question us as to the need for how many guns and ammo we have, that's none of yours or anyone else's business.

[graham4anything]

123. but I have a right to keep asking and you have a right to keep not answering.

I am giving you my opinion

And I know I am noone and my voice on a gun thread is not going to be welcome.

I do know that the money available by the NRA is more than any common person and no one before Mayor Mike has the money to compete, should he put all his money in, he would so overpower the NRA, and should he put some, many more rich people would join, and then the little guy would join his side

More important, a politician of any type will have the ability to know they will be backed fully if they (like the NRA does) agree to that position against Guns/Ammo.

That is how our system works.

I can understand being afraid of Mayor mike, who like Columbo, pesky like gets things done.

And i consider him a liberal democrat as he was most of his life, til he got elected like winners do- any way they know how by saying he was not a liberal democrat.
I don't change my opinions very quick, and overall, he is on liberal democrats side(especially on woman's and Gay issues and his amounts given charity is second to none.)
You have a right to disagree.

and I can understand that you agree without saying so, that the NRA never had an opponent worthy to fight it til now, should that happen.

[glacierbay]

125. You really think anyone here is afraid of Mike?

Really? Then you know nothing of gun owners. Mike isn't going to spend his money on a lost cause, you may wish for that, but in reality, not going to happen.
The NRA has a worthy opponent in Mike? Well, I'll give you this, you do have a sense of humor.

[Jenoch]

137. Mark David Chapman

There, I helped you to recall the name you seemed to forget. What he did was a vile thing but he was apparently mentally ill. I remember hearing the news of that tragedy from Howard Cosell while watching Monday Night Football.

I read somewhere that Mark David Chapman is getting furloughs from wherever he is incarcerated. I hope they do not release. You seem to have a more-than-average keen interest in John Lennon.

New York City had/has strict gun buying laws but this guy brought the gun with him from Georgia.

[glacierbay]

111. I think he's refering to this post in another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014250008#post3

Pretty fucking vile.

[graham4anything]

121. poster mixed up post and deleted it, therefore his apology accepted, and I will edit this

Last edited Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Thank you for setting the record straight.

[graham4anything]

118. that was NOT my post nor my words, and other poster admited mixing posts up, therefore will edit

Last edited Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

but I am Jewish, and had relatives die in WW2
and your answer is 100% wrong.I would never in a million years say I was a Nazi or use anti-Jewish words

what I had said in the removed thread was an opinion, and maybe not worded straight forward but those words were about policemen, and good/bad cops- something to the effect that

My words were that were censored were "all cops are guilty until proven innocence"

and it was said in the sense because good cops never seem to get rid of the bad cops, and like steriod induced home run hitters, one tainted taints the whole group. And there is the blue wall of silence that hides bad cops.
And it was an opinion, mine.Not said as a statement of fact, just an opinion based on NY/NJ police and the many questionable incidents there (innocents being shot 41/50 times) (and in Los Angeles like Rodney King.)
To add and clarify- it is also Not based on other places I do not know, but mainly NY/NJ/Calfornia.(and what happened in the aftermath of Katrina in N.O.)

g4a

[glacierbay]

120. No it wasn't

and I've already posted a link to your post that was hidden, which, IMO, was just as bad, if not worse. It was probably hidden because you called the BP agent a racist and also suggested that cops are racist.
And for the record, I had nothing to do with it being hidden, I wanted others to see what a vile POS post you wrote.

[graham4anything]

122. Glad you admit those vile words were not mine however-

once the jury voted it banished, it cannot be seen here. The words are not seen (at least by me, it says this post hidden.)

And I stand by my words, much as you don't like them, it is MY opinion and the way to change my opinion is to have the good cops get rid of the bad ones.

It is like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemons and Barry Bonds and everyone else are suspected of steroids because some of them have admited and used them.
It makes A-Rod and Jeter and anyone else in baseball suspect, until all the bad ones are outed and gone.

same situation.

So tell me, what is wrong with MY opinion that to me, cops(as they are the authority and they are the ones with a gun in their hand and the power) when they shoot an unarmed person are considered by me to be GUILTY unless proven innocent.

So you don't agree. But vile??? and then censored by whomever(though you did bark orders at me to self-delete it).

[glacierbay]

124. You have the right to your opinion

however in this country, you have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, which you did not do and then you claimed he was a racist, w/o any proof at all.
I call your attention to the very first post in that thread, which, BTW, is yours:

graham4anything (534 posts)
1. the criminals are the border patrol racists

amnesty and instant path to citizenship for all in 2013.
and get rid of the corrupt border patrol.

Rest in peace Miss Alvarado.Sympathies to your family and friends.

as usual guns kill. a corrupt agent kills someone who accidentally ran into him.
again, punishment does not fit the allegation. Judge/Jury/Guns.

and 5 kids have no mother.

my heart weeps.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014250008#post1

[oneshooter]

126. You are correct, and I apologise profusly.

It was late, I was tired and relying on memory.

Again, I apologise .

[graham4anything]

128. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate you setting the record straight.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

61. I stand at the bar.

[rDigital]

65. Sounds good to me : ) . nt

[darkangel218]

81. Glock gen 4

Look how beautiful this gun is x

How can anyone not like guns, I don't get it :/,

[IMG][/IMG]

[holdencaufield]

94. Admittedly -- a well crafted piece of hardware.

But, my favourite firearm in my collection is, and will likely continue to be



My Winchester 1892 Large Loop in .357 calibre. Light, accurate, fun to shoot, and always gets a compliment on the range.

[glacierbay]

96. I really like my dept. issue side arm

the Glock 21 .45 cal., very reliable weapon.

[oneshooter]

104. One of my personal favorites.

[glacierbay]

107. Very nice

what is it? A Henry?

[holdencaufield]

109. 1863 Sharps Sporting Rifle ...

... I believe...

[oneshooter]

127. 1873 Long Range Sporting Rifle.

45-100-530 caliber. Great rifle for 500-1000yds.

Set triggers, Vernier tang sight, bubble level front sight.

[Warren Stupidity]

129. Sing sing electric chair

Look how beautiful this electric chair is.
How can anyone not like electric chairs? I don't get it :/,

[darkangel218]

131. Hahahahahaha!!!

You compare a gun ( used for self defence and entertainment ) to an electric chair!!

Wow, briliant! Not.

If you didn't know until now, almost any object can be used by a criminal to inflict harm, not just firearms.
Your logic is so flawed, its outstanding.

[Warren Stupidity]

132. I know, right?

Gun, electric chair, what the fuck?

[The River]

102. Is there Any Way

a user can preemptively delete/block the entire gun group before posts
even show up? Or maybe just rename it the Fear & Inadequacy Group?

[gejohnston]

108. don't subscribe

so are you saying target shooters are fearful and feel inadequate?

[rrneck]

135. The Trash Group link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=myaccount&sub=trash&trashforum=1172

[Savannahmann]

105. At the time it was written

The trained individual could fire three, or four aimed shots per minute. The range of those shots were usually well under a hundred yards. No one could have imagined that those same three shots could be fired in a second or two. There is simply no way that anyone could have imagined the weapons available today.

Rogers Rangers, the original Rangers, carried an excessive amount of ammunition at that time. Each individual carried enough powder, ball, and flint to fire 40 shots. Yes, the capacity of one magazine, was considered excessive by most military forces. That was enough ammunition for several engagements. Today, the standard is measured in hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Police regularly carry that much on their person, and so do many citizens.

So when did Gun Control start? It started right as the Revolutionary war ended. Look at the hero's of Law Enforcement. Wyatt Earp for example. The first thing he did to clean up a town was ban weapons. Yet he is a hero to many. Why wasn't he challenged on the Second Amendment? The shootout at the OK Corral was supposedly initiated, the cause given was that the Earp's were there to see that the Clantons and McLaurey's surrendered their weapons. Truth was, it was a grudge that was going to be settled.

Yet we celebrate the Earp's, and the other lawmen who brought civilization to the towns, and then the frontier. They didn't do it by arming the citizens. They did it by disarming the citizens. There was some rational argument that people needed guns outside of town, fine. But not in town. In town, you checked your guns before you did anything else. No guns, and there is a lot less trouble.

So we debate the issue today, ignoring those simple facts, those simple truths. We demand the right to carry guns everywhere. While at the same time we point to the Wild West and say, it wasn't that wild. It wasn't, because you checked your guns at the edge of town, or you got shot by the law for carrying guns in town.

What is wrong with that? Why was it OK to do it then, and not now?

[glacierbay]

106. It wasn't Wyatt Earp that banned the carrying of guns in Tombstone, AZ.

It was the newly appointed Town Marshal, Virgil Earp, and guns weren't banned in town per se, they were still allowed to be carried in the red light district of Tombstone.
Where do you get the idea that LEO carries hundreds of rounds of ammo? My agency issues it's officer's a Glock 21 .45 cal. with 2 xtra 13 round mags, I myself went out and bought an xtra 13 round mag to carry so now I carry 4 mags, 1 in the weapon, and 3 on my duty belt which totals 52 rounds, hardly hundreds of rounds.

[Savannahmann]

110. Yet you prove my point.

Rogers Rangers carried the excessive amount of 40 rounds for the time. That was enough ammo for four engagements, or more. Four battles fired with 40 rounds of ammunition. They needed to carry it, because there was no resupply between the time they left, and the time the returned. You scoff at the misunderstood statement of hundreds of rounds, and then declare that the excessive ammunition of the Rogers Rangers is not enough for you. You need an additional twelve rounds of ammunition, as a LEO.

I said that people can carry hundreds of rounds. The Batman shooter carried a hundred round drum, which thankfully for the victims, malfunctioned. He also had a shotgun, and a Glock, and I have no idea how much total ammunition he carried. The facts as I laid them out stand. The first thing done to clean up a town, ban the guns in the old west. Be it Wyatt, Virgil, or the Great Pumpkin, they banned the guns.

So banning the guns must be considered as a rational, historical, and constitutional means of curbing violence. Perhaps if we did, you would feel safe carrying three magazines instead of four. Considering that in the early 1980's, before the switch to the Wondernines started, most cops carried eighteen rounds of ammunition, or less.

[glacierbay]

113. I didn't scoff at anything

I asked where you got the idea that LEO carried hundreds of rounds. That's all, don't read more into it than there is.

Very few frontier towns banned guns, there were a few but for the most part, most western towns allowed for the carrying of guns in town, the eastern towns were much more violent than the western towns.

I don't know where you get this banning of guns can be considered as a rational, historical, and constitutional means of curbing violence. A gun ban is blatantly unconstitutional and will never fly in the US. And just what makes you think a gun ban will curb violence, do you think that the criminals won't be able to get their hands on guns? Any competent machinist can crank out guns with just a lathe and drill press, the Sten machine gun is very easy to make. And how about smuggling guns across our borders? You think the black market won't fulfill the need? We can't even stop or reduce the flow of drugs or immigrants coming across the borders, how would you stop the flow of guns?

We have a 2A right in this country and that right is not connected to mititia service as enumerated by the SCOTUS, it is an individual right to keep and bear arms and it ain't going away despite the wishes of some.

[gejohnston]

114. Virgil didn't ban guns

only carrying in public by non residents.

[glacierbay]

116. You are correct

I was mis-informed. Thanks.

[holdencaufield]

112. Some LEO's only carry one ...

?w=640

[glacierbay]

115. LOL nt.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

130. Hogwash

I believe your post demonstrates that not all gay rights supporters think alike.
I believe that a Constitutional right is not absolute and that you cannot claim a First Amendment Right to yell Fire in a Theater or claim a Second Amendment Right to own thousands of guns.
I believe guns harm more than they protect.
I believe that anyone who wants to overthrow our Government has no claim to the same Constitution they want to overthrow.

[Riftaxe]

138. The goverment has gone out of it's way to ensure

that your beliefs are not against the law; that is always a good thing to remember.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

140. Right

....and you need a gun so you can over throw that tyrannical government (you know...the one with that 2nd Amendment) if YOU need to all in the name of the Constitutional government you want to over throw. What a crock...as if you need the Second Amendment for that.

[Riftaxe]

136. Since the majority of Democrats own firearms

The poll can really only turn out only one way.

Sure, this board has those people who for whatever reasons are afraid of firearms, but this site also has people who vocally call for the flagrant violations of the 1st amendment, so the 2nd is hardly alone in being persecuted by those with personal problems.

A few people on the fringe are hardly capable of changing our constitution. Just treat the prohibitionists the same as the ranting and frothing at the mouth screaming lunatics you meet on the street, don't make eye contact, and wish them well; after all, they are mostly harmless (at worse, the Google dumps are just a manifestation of OCD ).

[fightthegoodfightnow]

139. FEAR?

I can assure you I don't need a gun. Those who fear do.

So live with your fear that someone with a gun is going to harm you.
Live with you false sense of security that a gun is going to keep you safe.
And live with your ridiculous interpretation of the Constitution that there can be no laws governing the Bill of Rights. Go yell fire in a theater, wrap yourself in the Constitution and let me know what jail you are in so I can visit.

[glacierbay]

141. Ya know

people like you keep saying that citizens who carry guns are fearful and yet, y'all never provide proof of what you say. Why don't you provide the proof of what you claim.

[rrneck]

142. Fear...

of reality.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

148. Right...

...because you need a gun to protect yourself from the boogeyman!

[glacierbay]

155. No, I carry a gun to protect myself from the criminal element.

Not the boogeyman, and it's Dept. policy, you know, that whole police thing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

156. Of course

...and what else do they teach you.....oh never mind......most cops don't need to pound their chests..... I certainly don't. Night.

[glacierbay]

157. No chest pounding here

you asked and I answered. You have a good night also.

[Riftaxe]

144. What fear? I am hardly in fear

apparently you are, the question is would a reasonable or rational person be in fear of firearms...if anything they should be afraid of people.

I am afraid of neither as a general rule, don't see any point in it. From any pragmatic aspect, my firearms are no different then my chain saws, they are tools and i use them when i need to, the only exception is that target shooting is more fun to me the cutting wood.


I suspect what you really fear are people who are different then yourself which is not by itself condemning, but when you desire to force everyone else to be scared with you, you are not likely to find many takers; most folks have more important things to worry about.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

147. Fire Arms No Different than Chain Saws?

I could do without either. You seem to think you cannot. Those who fear live with guns.

I have no problem with those who think differently than me. In fact, as someone who has participated in the Jury of protested posts, I find myself defending posts I vehemently disagree with.

But heh, I take you at your word that most folks have more important things to do than argue the merits of gun control laws.

[Warren Stupidity]

143. No they don't. Not even close.

Republican 49 %
Democrat 35 %
Independant 35 %
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/
Source: Gallup Inc, Gun Owners of America

Most people do not own a gun. Note that not even a majority of republicans own a gun.

[darkangel218]

145. "not even close"? its only 6 percent difference!

[Warren Stupidity]

146. This must be gunz math.

The post I responded to:

Since the majority of Democrats own firearms

The facts: gun ownership by democrats: 35%.
Gunz math:

its only 6 percent difference

[darkangel218]

150. So i missunderstood your post, big deal!

Point is, its only 6% diferrence between the percentage of dem gun owner and repukes gun owner. Which shows there is no corelation between GOP and gun ownership, since its, again, only 6 % difference!!

Mwah!

[Warren Stupidity]

151. When deep in a hole the gunz peeples dig deeper.

Gunz math: 49 - 35 = 6.

[darkangel218]

152. i thought was 41. still , no big difference!

[Warren Stupidity]

153. Keep digging, you haven't reached rock bottom yet.

[darkangel218]

154. Shhh! have a beer! :)

[ruffburr]

158. However

As a life long gun owner, taught respect for that power, I do not feel that one needs too own an armory and should not

[holdencaufield]

160. How many weapons ...

... does it take to make an armory?

Weapons, like all tools, have specific uses and situations -- you CAN drive a nail with a screwdriver, but why would you?

Would you like to check my shed to make sure I don't have "an arsenal" of screwdrivers?

[tech3149]

159. I'd respond to the poll if you offered serious choices

There are parts of the country where having a gun of some sort is not just reasonable but sane and needed. There are others where it is not only unneeded but dangerous to anyone within miles.
I couldn't give two squats about the second amendment.
Original Intent? Does that really matter? The world today is nothing like world where the constitution was written. I don't think I'll ever have the armament needed to counter the force of the government.
As for personal protection, I've not needed a gun for that purpose in 59 years, I don't I'll need one after I'm six feet under.

[holdencaufield]

161. "The world today is nothing like world where the constitution was written..."

Has the concept of rights and freedom changed significantly since the 18th century? I don't believe so.

[graham4anything]

162. well, yes, the main difference is "All men are created equal" has changed

Thomas (the biggest hypocrite in the world if you ask me), raped and abused his SLAVES and got at least one pregnant without her consent,
who were not equal as HE himself wrote "all created equal" (except those that are not).

That is the biggest irony in the constitution and with the fabled founding fathers, some actually very awful people in 2012 times.

However, Jefferson was smart enough to make the constitution live and adaptable to the times so that any antiquidated laws can be modernized and updated.(something the tea party and libertarians always seem to forget, that the latest amendment is as or even more important than the 2nd amendment).

(which to me will allow #2 to someday have a totally different meaning than in the rightwing times we live in today where that will not quickly change.

But someday.


BTW-someone (and I am almost positive it was not you holdencaufield) said they stockpile guns and weapons as "an investment because over the years they will use say 100 a week or 1000 a week and need tens of thousands
However, I don't buy that excuse.
Because collectors and zealots (OF ANY HOBBY), always upgrade to whatever is the most modern thing one can buy, therefore they wouldn't want in 2020 the 2000 model of ammo, if there is something better
(Would Tiger Woods want to reach into his collection of 10,000 golf balls from Jack Nicklaus' time and use those, when more modern ones do the job better? Of course not.
And in Baseball, would someone use a ball from the deadball era now that we are in the homerun era?(or opposite)? NO they wouldn't.

So to whomever wrote in whatever post or gun thread that, may I say, that the answer was bullsheet, and I wish I had thought of this then(and I am not going through hundreds of posts trying to find that specific one which had it as one paragraph in the entire thing).

[holdencaufield]

163. I do believe ...

... you're confusing bullets with iPods

"Because collectors ... always upgrade to whatever is the most modern thing one can buy"

.223 was created in 1964
.556x45 was created in 1963
.308 was created in 1952
.357 Magnum in 1934
.45 ACP in 1904
9mm in 1901
.22lr in 1887

Almost every calibre and cartridge design of modern ammunition is 50 to 100 years old or more -- they don't "upgrade" every year. Even the last innovation in gunpowder propellents dates from 1908.

I don't mind if you hate guns -- everyone has to have at least one irrational fear. But, if you're going to try and spread your fears, at least learn as much about what you fear as the people you're trying to convince. Otherwise, you just look foolish.

[graham4anything]

164. okay, point taken, however

those extra deadly bullets weren't around back then were they?
(and no, I don't know the names/models etc.)
but the actual bullet like the one in John Lennon was that around and so deadly?
Aren't advance made so they are more and more deadly(or more and more accurate?

And aren't there new models of guns themselves?
(and I could swear there is a thread of some brand new models started in the last day or so).

[hack89]

165. Expanding bullets were invented in the 1870s to hunt African big game

they were outlawed from military use in 1899 by the Hague convention.

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

[graham4anything]

167. ok, so why are they even allowed to be sold then?

Why don't they get rid of all of them from this day forward, then backwards.

[hack89]

168. Public safety, funny enough

police and civilians use expanding bullets in hand guns because they don't penetrate very far. Military style bullets have a lot penetrating power because a non-expanding bullet retain a a lot of energy that expanding bullets transfer to whatever they hit. Non-expanding bullets have a nasty tendency to hit things like people and walls, go right through them, and continue for long distances. You see what a problem this could be - innocent bystanders endangered by bullets flying through apartment walls for example. Expanding bullets don't do that - they don't go through what they hit. That is why they are perfect for self defense use.

Secondly, it is not an issue with rifles. People are not being killed by large caliber big game rifles.

Thirdly - the point of shooting someone in self defense is to remove the threat to yourself. Pistols in general are not particularly deadly - nearly 80% of gun shoot wounds are non-fatal. If I am defending myself in a life or death situation, I want a bullet that can incapacitate a man with a single shot.

[glacierbay]

171. In my duty sidearm

I load Federal 230 Grain Hi-Shok .45 cal. ammo. Great stopping power w/o over penetration, expands nicely, will definitely put the bad guy down fast.

My own ammo, had to get permission from the chief to carry it.

[oneshooter]

174. Would you wish to ban this rifle?

Medium bore, slow bullet, slow rate of fire, ammunition last produced commercially in 1910.

[holdencaufield]

169. They are commonly called Dum-Dum Bullets...

...because expanding bullets for the British .303 were originally designed by Captain Neville Berty-Clay and produced at Dum-Dum British Army Arsenal outside Calcutta, India in the 1880's. The concept of an expanding bullet had been around for at least 20 years before that.

Ironically, the site of the original Dum-Dum Arsenel (between Calcutta city and the Airport) is today an amusement park. Pretty gardens, lame rides.

[gejohnston]

166. basically, yeah

the type of bullet, jacketed hollow point, was developed by British army in 1890.

[holdencaufield]

170. New weapons are produced every year ...

... using the designs from decades past.

Today's weapons aren't more accurate than their predecessors like the Lebel 1886 or the 1903 Springfield, in fact, most fall far short from their ancestors.

Every high-quality bolt action rifle built today has an action based on the Mauser of 1888.
The shape of the modern rifle stock hasn't changed since the 1860's.
Nearly every semi-automatic handgun sold today is a slight variation on the Colt 1911.
Even the US Army's go-to weapon of choice, the M4, is lightened and shortened version of the M16 (first produced in 1965) and based on even earlier designs such as the Kalashnikov 1947 or AK-47 (both weapons utilise the gas-recoil, rotating bolt that allows them to handle more powerful, high-pressure rifle rounds than the previous gas-recoil weapons such as the MP40 and Thompson 1921.

One of the fastest growing markets in firearms today is reproduction weapons from era's past in calibres that are cheaper and easier to find. Weapons that went out of vogue are making comebacks as being vastly superior to the newer weapons that replaced them.

The only major advantage of newer weapons is the durability and weight advantage of lighter materials over wood and stainless steel barrels over chrome-moly steel.

[tech3149]

173. The definition of rights and freedom have changed drastically n/t

[veganlush]

177. i don't know anyone

Who believes in the second amendment as written. anyone who claims to believe does so by altering its meaning. "Shall not be infringed" no one goes for that, as seperated from "well regulated militia" everyone believes in many infringements , which is not what the second amendment says. its useless.