Why are the gun defenders here?

[SCantiGOP]

Here on DU I mean. This is a serious question. If I post this is a thread I will be accused of attacking some other poster.

There are several posters here who post nothing except doctrinaire defenses of the NRA positions. I know that is their right as a citizen, but why would they spend so much of their time here when their position is diametrically opposed in the Democratic platform and in complete agreement with the GOP/Trump position?

Again, not attacking any one person or their right to hold that belief, but I seriously have questions about the motivation of "No Gun Restrictions" defenders on a Democratic forum.

[villager]

1. I ask this question repeatedly. Why is there even an area here dedicated to NRA talking points?

They already have Free Republic.

[Eleanors38]

175. If you want to ban progressive, pro-2A Democrats from "Democratic" Underground, see the Ads...

Otherwise, it is hard to get around to two (2) groups and one (1) forum set aside for Guns Discussion. But we can get around to the posts.

And do.

[Motley13]

2. I haven't seen ANY gun defenders

show the post

[SCantiGOP]

6. Look at any gun-related thread

Within a dozen posts people will show up to:
1- argue that 50-150,000 lives are saved by guns every year (seriously),
2- debate the nuances of what is and isn't an assault rifle,
3- etc etc

[Android3.14]

48. Money, meet mouth

Links please, from today, showing someone "argue that 50-150,000 lives are saved by guns every year" or "debate the nuances of what is and isn't an assault rifle"

I sense someone just poking a stick in an ant bed.

[Android3.14]

50. Mouth, met money

I just looked around, and the OP is accurate.

[SCantiGOP]

55. Spend 10 minutes browsing the RKBA forum

And you will see both of these statements dozens of times. I don't care to wade into that swamp.

[Duckhunter935]

64. Democrats own firearms

President Obama supports the second amendment and the RKBA. The Democratic platform supports the second amendment and the individual RKBA.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

97. I do not own a gun; but JG will defend the US Constitution.

I created the name - Jeffersons Ghost - because the USA Patriot Act destroyed the 4th Amendment; and I will defend the Second Amendment with equal zeal.

[Duckhunter935]

98. Good for you

There are a lot around that do not seem to like the 4th amendment either

[Eleanors38]

171. Some around here don't like the Fifth either.

[krispos42]

115. So we should simply agree without discussing?

What is an "assault weapon" shouldn't be discussed? We shouted just mindlessly support the concept and give our money and votes to whoever supports banning them?

What about when people are factually wrong?

My dad thinks an AR-15 is fully automatic, and that gun stores are full of them. He thinks he can just waltz into a gun store and buy one.

He's factually wrong. Should I pander to him and others like him?

How about the objective fact that the rifle used in the Sandy Hook massacre was not an "assault weapon"? That's not an opinion, it's an objective fact and needs to be taken into account when discussing legislation.

Ballistic fingerprinting, microstamping, "smart guns", etc., have objective facts about them than try to get dismissed as "NRA talking points".

There's a protected group in DU for gun control, if you want to participate in their discussions.

[Jim Beard]

276. A CBS national reporter waltzed into a gun shop and had an AR-15 in less than an hour.

Mark one up for your father.

[hack89]

277. But not a fully automatic AR-15

which is what the poster was saying his father thought all AR-15s were.

[Separation]

283. I believe she is also under investigation

For a straw purchase of a firearm.

[krispos42]

285. And....?

Availability was not the issue here. Care to actually dialogue, or just want to keep deflecting?

[Orrex]

7. The only way you can have missed those posts is by missing them on purpose

And obviously the OP isn't going to call out specific posts or posters, because that will result in a hidden post and/or locked thread.

I've seen several gun defenders posting today, as a matter of fact. Every time someone posts any paraphrase of "guns don't kill people," that's a gun defense.

[doc03]

9. All you have to do is go to the RKBA and 2nd Amendment group and you will see plenty of them. n/t

[KeepItReal]

12. Start here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8019832

[rjsquirrel]

13. Oh you're not looking

OP is absolutely right that we have some vehement pro-NRA posters here who loudly shout down gun control advocates in most gun-related threads. Many never post on any other subject.

[Hoyt]

33. Should have been here while they defended george zimmerman for stalking, intimidating, and killing

an unarmed kid.

[Bettie]

83. Give them a chance

they'll explain to you in nauseating detail why Zimmerman is a hero and why a kid walking home was such a danger to him, in his SUV.

[Joe the Revelator]

3. There are plenty of Democrats who are for gun control but not a complete ban

I own guns. I think that universal background checks and an assault rifle ban should be a thing. I vote democrat. When people try to guide any tragedy in the world into 'MELT THEM DOWN' then I speak to how stupid that position is.

[rjsquirrel]

16. Most of us don't favor any such "complete ban" language

That's such a red herring.

[Joe the Revelator]

53. Those were the only threads that got the reaction the the OP is discussing today.

'Melt them all down!" is a direct quote.

[Duckhunter935]

65. There are quite a few on DU

Funny thing is pretty much all of us here that support the RKBA support reasonable restrictions. However most of the time it just ends up being insults, sexual references and penis jokes directed towards us.

[Kingofalldems]

87. Correct. Anyone in favor of gun control is called a 'gun grabber'.

[Straw Man]

137. And anyone NOT in favor ...

Anyone in favor of gun control is called a 'gun grabber'.

... of any gun control measure to come down the pike, including "Melt them all down," is called a "gun humper" and an "ammosexual."

[Eleanors38]

172. Careful with that 'gun grabber' when 'gun humper' & 'ammosexual' are in the air....

Someone might think "you are just glad to see me."

[Kingofalldems]

174. Absolutely no idea what that means.

Some sort of insult?

[Eleanors38]

176. Good.

[Separation]

284. It was a joke

[Jim Beard]

282. It's what sells guns.

[840high]

80. .+1

[applegrove]

4. NRA has bots that monitor discussion forums and are alerted when

anybody wants to regulate guns. Then they log on a try and stop the productive discussion with all sorts of scams like "if you can't tell us the intricacies of a glock, you cannot talk about gun control" or "there is no point in arguing, give up you are losing" etc. Go to the gun control and reform group under justice and public safety if you want to be unmolested.

[TeddyR]

59. Really?

Didn't know that. Are you making this up?

[ileus]

122. I bet there's proof somewhere....

[Eleanors38]

178. Maybe it goes under heading: "First smelt it, Dealt it."

[aikoaiko]

5. In part because the right to keep and bear arms is a civil liberty and needs defending

This is not to say that the RKBA is absolute. No civil liberty or civil right is absolute.

We discuss the need to balance liberty with restrictions. Its really that simple.

There are no DU members who say there should be no restrictions on firearms. We sometimes differ on which restrictions, either in place or proposed, are meaningful or desirable given the RKBA.

[DrDan]

27. not true - I have had conversations with a DUer who believes there should be ablsolutely NO

restrictions on gun purchases

No - I am not going to look for it - it was a couple years back

[aikoaiko]

35. Sure, and there are a few people who say to ban and confiscate every gun.

Usually they are just trolls who get the pizza.

[Eleanors38]

179. "A DUer" "couple years back" "not going to look for it" = Milestones get no respect!

[DrDan]

181. it still happened . . . but feel free to disrespect all you like

[Eleanors38]

186. In a hurricane of controller denigration, you have found a puff of insult? Impressive.

[Exilednight]

190. I had one say that in a thread two days ago.

[friendly_iconoclast]

195. Link, or your claim is bullshit. n/t

[DrDan]

214. there was a DU-2 poll related to gun restrictions - that poll showed 5 DUers who favored

"no restrictions" relative to gun ownership.

DU-2 polls are no longer available - but here is a post where I provided a link to the poll - please note Nuclear Unicorn's acknowledgement of the 5 no-restriction responses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022612743#post104

[friendly_iconoclast]

231. And one person calling for a complete ban on guns, which proves...what, exactly?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x476795#476798

[DrDan]

240. there are multiple posts in this thread calling for evidence of DUers supporting no restrictions

related to gun ownership.

I am producing that evidence.

I have NEVER denied DUer(s) calling for a complete ban - I have read them myself and do not deny them.

[beevul]

246. I'm pretty sure that current examples are whats being asked for, not 5 year old threads. N/T

[DrDan]

256. I personally would not assume to know what a poster is asking for beyond

what they actually ask for.

I saw several posts asking for evidence of DUers supporting NO RESTRICTIONS relative to guns, and I provided that evidence.

I also have no reason to believe there are any less no-restriction supporters than when that poll was taken.

[beevul]

264. Sure you wouldn't.

I also have no reason to believe there are any less no-restriction supporters than when that poll was taken.

Other than the fact that you had to go 5ish years back to find an example, you're absolutely right.

Congratulations. You actually made me break out laughing here, sitting in my chair.

That's how thin your argument is, and how transparent you are in making it.

[DrDan]

267. yet it represents evidence of no-restriction DUers, doesn't it - as asked for

[beevul]

269. Not exactly, but you know that.

Say we were currently talking about smokers on DU.

A post from 5 years ago, of someone who smoked, but has since quit, wouldn't really apply, unless we were talking about "the history of smokers on DU". Nobody really asked you about "The history of DUers who want no gun regulations", but that IS in fact what you're providing as evidence in an attempt to answer a question that really wasn't asking about it.

When the query is presented about these folks who want "no gun laws", "where and when" is implied, and the current tense of the original claim is bleedingly obvious.

You're trying to pretend that isn't the case, by focusing on the 'where' and pretending the 'when' does not exist.

Like I said, transparent.

[DrDan]

271. wow - that's quite a stretch - but totally in character for gunners

[beevul]

273. Wow, that's quite a denial - but totally in character for anti-gunners.

And out in the open for everyone to see, too.

[DrDan]

274. yep - nothing concealed here

[Eleanors38]

259. Euromutt, Iverglas! God, it's a time warp. Hope they are all alive and kicking.

[Waldorf]

263. Iverglas is on Discussionist. n/t

[Eleanors38]

266. Really? Probably a better fit!

[Exilednight]

243. You know I can't link since it is against TOS to call out another member.

If you bothered doing research you could find it.

[Duckhunter935]

201. Then it should be easy for you to link to it then

Let's see it

[shadowrider]

213. I'm waiting to see that one too n/t

[Exilednight]

244. You know I can't link since it is against TOS to call out another member.

[Duckhunter935]

253. A link is not a callout

That's ok, don't think it really exists anyway.

[friendly_iconoclast]

268. I think it 'exists' in the same way the purported 'NRA posting bounty' program does-

as merely another conspiracy theory.

[Exilednight]

272. From the TOS

Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.

I believe that anyone thinks that all guns should be allowed is a moron and needs their head examined.

So, yes. A link is a violation of the TOS.

[Duckhunter935]

281. Well I tend to disagree

I did not think it was true anyway

[friendly_iconoclast]

262. More likely you can't link because your claim is false. $50 to the Brady Campaign says so...

...if you can come up with a link. I've done it before, and am not afraid of losing my
money this time.

[Eleanors38]

209. Heh. More hazy recollections than actual events.

[DrDan]

241. Heh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8024026

[SCantiGOP]

242. Good job, Dr Dan

[friendly_iconoclast]

265. Palming off a 5 year old thread as one from 'a couple of days ago' isn't a good job, it's...

...prevarication.

Feel free to think of it as "faith promoting rumor" if it makes you feel better.

[friendly_iconoclast]

260. 2011, not "I had one say that in a thread two days ago." Fail.

[Rex]

219. Awww you gave them a sadz!

[friendly_iconoclast]

232. As the saying went when I was a small iconoclast: Not hardly...

[liberal N proud]

8. Gun nuts are not exclusive to GOP

On the other hand, the GOP is married to the NRA.

[sarisataka]

10. Can you link to any post

That argues for "No gun restrictions"?

Or are you simply taking "not in favor of all gun restriction" means "no gun restrictions"?

[SCantiGOP]

18. OK, I'll alter my OP to say:

The 'no sensible gun restrictions' crowd.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Posts that will pick the nuance of one word and argue that while ignoring the clear intention of the discussion, which was:

Why are some posters on DU only interested in arguing against sensible gun restrictions?

[hack89]

21. A change without meaning

Because we all know that sensible = laws I support.

[SCantiGOP]

23. Thanks for proving my point

Avoid the larger issue, argue an esoteric point.

[hack89]

25. I disagree with your basic premise

Last edited Sun Jul 17, 2016, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Nearly every gun owner here supports gun control. But there are many proposals that are either ineffective or unconstitutional that we object to. Which always twisted to mean we oppose "sensible" gun control when it really means we disagree with some of your ideas.

[Feeling the Bern]

90. So, in your little part of the world, nearly every gun owner support gun control

so that makes it the norm everywhere.

I know a lot of gun owners in Arizona that think gun control is a communist plot to take over the country and leave the people defenseless. I guess, because in my part of the world, since that is the norm, I can completely dismiss your opinion.

[hack89]

95. The OP is about DU.

I am talking about gun owners on DU.

[Straw Man]

140. Esoteric?

Avoid the larger issue, argue an esoteric point.

The definition of "sensible" gun control is the point. It's precisely the point.

[sarisataka]

24. All that change does

Is completely change what you said.

So you are really saying your blankets absolute statement was supposed to be specific and limited to sensible restrictions and it is the reader's fault if they did not get that.

If you meant why do some posters argue against sensible regulation why didn't you say that instead of they argue for no gun restriction?

Words have meaning and if you do not properly articulate your position whose fault is it?

[Demonaut]

63. "Help Help I'm Being Repressed !" is that what you're expecting?

[Duckhunter935]

66. What's sensible?

Bans on cosmetic features?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. FWIW, I think the 2nd amendment should be interpreted that way.

I live in the UK, and I think we've got gun control about right here.

But I think that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow the formulation of civilian militias capable of defeating an invading national army; I think that the interpretation the FFs intended was probably that any citizen should be allowed to own any kind of weapon, without any form of state restriction whatsoever.

If you want to drive around in a tank or carry a bazooka, great, you're fulfilling your civic duty of discouraging us British from reinvading! And that's clearly more important that reducing the number of firearm fatalities.

[hunter]

107. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to keep the oppressed oppressed.

When slaves rebelled, when Indians held their ground, when workers went on strike, the masters of this nation could count on the white guys with guns to take care of things.

[pipoman]

124. I find it interesting how many in the UK pretend WW2

Didn't happen..don't remember the role civilian firearms played or where many of those arms came from....such short memories...it really is sad.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

149. I'm not sure where that came from.

Are you saying that the founding fathers knew about WWII? Because my argument is about their intent in writing the second amendment.

[beergood]

154. i think

hes refering to the time we Americans gave firearms to the UK and other EU allies during ww2. if im correct the NRA helped ditrubute firearms in europe.

[jmg257]

155. Surely not. But American citizens were in a position to help Britain, due to civilians

in the US lawfully owning guns.

Why were the British civilians so gun deficient?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Committee_for_the_Defense_of_British_Homes

The American Committee for the Defense of British Homes was an American organization during World War II that donated weapons to British citizens for defense from a possible German invasion.[1] after the 1937 Firearms Act.[2]

[oneshooter]

157. And after the war

They gathered them up and dumped them into the North sea.

[jmg257]

163. With all those early-build Lend-Lease M1s.

[Straw Man]

139. About right.

I live in the UK, and I think we've got gun control about right here.

And here's where differences in perspective become huge. I wouldn't call it "about right" when your Olympic target shooting competitors have to travel outside the country to practice. I would call it excessive.

The guns used in three Olympic shooting events, the ones involving cartridge pistols, were banned altogether in 1997.

Since then, anyone wanting to practice had to do so on the Continent or at least in Northern Ireland, where the laws are looser. There were no exceptions: an up-and-comer like Geikie and a veteran like Mick Gault, who was awarded the Order of the British Empire as one of the most successful British competitors of any sport, both kept their guns in Switzerland and traveled there on weekends to practice.

“It was the end of our sport for a while,” said Margaret Thomas, an orthodontist and former Olympian. She quit shooting pistols after the ban, considering it too much trouble. Now she is Geikie’s coach.

--http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/sports/olympics/handgun-ban-after-1996-mass-shooting-hampers-british-olympian-georgina-geikie.html?_r=0

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

150. I think that's a price worth paying for the difference in our rates of firearm deaths to you.

I have a friend who used to do target shooting, and I agree that it's a shame that she had to quit, but I don't think it's 1 person in 10,000's life per year's worth of a shame

[Straw Man]

191. False equivalence.

I think that's a price worth paying for the difference in our rates of firearm deaths to you.

I have a friend who used to do target shooting, and I agree that it's a shame that she had to quit, but I don't think it's 1 person in 10,000's life per year's worth of a shame

So is it your contention that allowing Olympic competitors to train with their target pistols in the UK would cost thousands of lives? That's absolutely absurd.

[jmg257]

153. "The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow the formulation of civilian militias"

Spot on.

The 2nd was meant to ensure the existence of the state militias, made from the body of the people, and require them to be well armed and well trained.

'Keep and bear arms' refers to personal arms, effective and uniform, that the people would supply themselves and keep in their homes at the ready for militia duty....repeal invasions, insurrections, enforce the laws.

Any less capable would provide a pretext for that bane of liberty - a large standing army.


The issue in doubt comes about because obviously we, the people no longer feel the constitutional well-regulated militias are the best security - we have the NG and a huge MIC.

So what to do when that primary intent is a bit obsolete, & the scope of the security it provides is so often questionable.

[Laurian]

11. Ties my stomach into knots every time we have a mass shooting.

[DrDan]

29. had a conversation here with a DUer who claims if relatives are involved in a shooting, they

cannot be classified as a "mass shooting" - this was just a couple weeks back

bizarro

[friendly_iconoclast]

162. Link, please...

[DrDan]

165. here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=196761

which was a response to post 33

which was a response to post 27

[friendly_iconoclast]

193. Which was a response to your 1 example from seven years previously...

[DrDan]

196. I was asked for an example of a mass murder by a CCW holder - which I provided (actually several)

I was told that the example I provided did not count because the victims were family members

[friendly_iconoclast]

198. You have left out the reponse to your post 33 in that subthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=196761

Not if you're using as your basis to fear CCW carriers in public

[DrDan]

200. those family members do not count as mass murder victims - per that DUer

[friendly_iconoclast]

202. Congratulations, you found one- BTW, I disagree with that poster

[DrDan]

205. my original post on this subtopic did say "a DUer" - never claimed it was a majorty-view,

thank goodness

[Nye Bevan]

14. Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill.

In his defense, there are a lot of hunters in Vermont. But opposition to gun control is not an exclusively Republican thing.

[ZombieHorde]

15. Many Democrats like guns.

I live in Montana, and a lot of people like to hunt and fish. Both of my chemistry lab partners were liberal hunters, so they would talk about their rifles sometimes. Pretty common in my mountain, college town.

[SCantiGOP]

22. Democrats aren't opposed to hunting

They are opposed to mass murder with weapons that should be restricted to military and very limited police uses.

[ZombieHorde]

34. Most people in the US hunt with rifles, as opposed to bows,

and in arguments, many people will say "guns" instead of "semi-automatic rifles," and I believe this causes a lot of miscommunication. I think the more specific a person is the less "ammo" they give to their opponents. (please excuse the pun)

In my opinion, those who are passionate about any kind of gun regulation would serve their arguments well if they learned more about the guns they want regulated, and figured out that there is no gun culture, but rather many gun cultures.

Additionally, clearly stating how a proposed regulation would decrease gun violence would also be a huge plus.

[Duckhunter935]

68. We stated

[shadowrider]

220. When people on this website

don't want to learn the difference between "clip" and "magazine". Both the same in their minds. Words do count.

or the difference between "assault weapon" and "assault rifle". Both the same in their minds. Words do count.

or define a barrel shroud as "a thing that goes up". Forget it, this one makes my head spin.

When one is unwilling to learn WHAT they want to regulate, it results in unenforceable regulations, which result in more regulations etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[beevul]

146. "weapons that should be restricted to military"

The military wouldn't use the rifles in question.

Why?


Because they aren't actually military rifles.

[Hoyt]

36. We are not talking about fishing and hunting (food anyway). Gunners support toting

on city streets, closets full of non-hunting rifles and pistols, stock piles of ammo, Membership in white wing NRA, etc.

[ZombieHorde]

44. The OP isn't very clear about that.

Even the NRA supports some regulation, such as prisoners not having guns, so what are people supposed to work with in the post?When talking to the masses, cloudy arguments work fairly well, but clear arguments work better on message boards, in my opinion.

[SCantiGOP]

46. That is your threshold?

I guess that proves the NRA is reasonable if they oppose gun ownership for people in prison.

Again, proving the point that there are some who will always deflect the discussion with some minor, meaningless point.

[ZombieHorde]

76. No, my threshold is scientific evidence.

What I was trying to say is the OP is cloudy. I think direct language is more persuasive on message boards than round about language.

[Hoyt]

167. Not allowing prisoners to have guns, is not anywhere near the restrictions we need on gun polluters

In fact, it's ludicrous to even include it in the "restriction" category.

[ZombieHorde]

173. We don't need restrictions, we desire restrictions.

Forbidding prisoners from having guns is a restriction, regardless of anyone's feelings about the restriction.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

156. Yeah, like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X

There's no more American and iconic picture of Malcom X than this...


I suggest you look over the role guns played in the civil rights movement.

"Although he was denied a concealed carry permit, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had what his adviser Glenn E. Smiley described as a veritable "arsenal" at home."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/do-black-people-have-equal-gun-rights.html?_r=1

[shadowrider]

223. And it looks like his finger is on the trigger.

Someone could get shot, accidentally (including him), that way.

[pipoman]

125. Most of the gun controllers on DU are urban Democrats who believe

Urbanites are the only true Dems....they fail to realize that Dems could never win a national election without rural Dems....a lot of rural dems have left the party because of this disregard for their issues...

[DashOneBravo]

133. +1

[Eleanors38]

184. I would add that many Southern metropolises are made up of formerly "rural" people...

Cities like Jacksonville, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix & Fort Worth -- to name a few -- are not crammed with hep cat ex-patriots from Greenwich, the Castro, or Harvard Square. They are largely filled with people a generation or two off the land, often within the parent states. A population somewhat abandoned by the Democratic Party.

[hack89]

17. Because of all the other important issues like choice,

marriage equality , unions, affirmative action?

There many other reasons to be a Democrat besides gun control. It is not a litmus test like some of the other issues because so many Dems own gun.


We also like to piss off people like you.

[Chakab]

20. If they want to defend guns, fine. The ones that I really can't stand are the people who tell you

Last edited Mon Jul 18, 2016, 06:52 PM - Edit history (1)

that you can't comment on a particular story if you can't identify the correct make and model of a particular weapon that was used, the proper name for the subtype of the firearm that said the weapon is commonly associated with and the caliber of ammunition that it takes.

They're just fucking trolls.

[Eleanors38]

189. You can discuss inaccurate info/reporting all you want. Just don't expect it to go unchallenged.

[pangaia]

26. This OP was alerted on!

You've got to be kidding me...

I voted leave..
Unfortunately, TPTB have no selection to check that says, "DUMB ALERT."

[Beartracks]

38. A "Dumb Alert" option would be cool. n/t

==============

[drray23]

58. there is an option to say you think the alert was divisive or in bad faith.

You get this choice if you say it was absolutely not a rule violation.

[egduj]

28. It's a big tent.

[randr]

30. Trolls are everywhere

There are many DUers who own guns and do not subscribe to the extremity of the NRA.
Most gun owners are in favor of reforms to make guns safer and harder to get by the obviously unqualified.
The way the NRA has manipulated laws across our Nation should be considered treasonous. They have allowed fanatical anti American groups to arm themselves to the teeth, putting all citizens and law enforcement at risk.

[NashuaDW]

31. From the 2012 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[Duckhunter935]

69. Say it isn't so

[yallerdawg]

148. More importantly...

Hillary's platform:

1. Fight for comprehensive background checks:

• She will advocate for comprehensive federal background check legislation.

• She will close the “Charleston loophole,” which allows any gun sale to proceed if a background check is not completed within three days.

2. Hold dealers and manufacturers fully accountable if they endanger Americans:

• She will repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection due to lobbying by the NRA.

• She will revoke the licenses of bad dealers, such as those that knowingly supply guns to straw purchasers and traffickers.

3. Keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals and the severely mentally ill.

• Clinton has said “If you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun, period.” She will insist on comprehensive background checks prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns.

• She will support legislation to prohibit all domestic abusers and individuals suffering from severe mental illnesses from buying and possessing guns.

•She will make straw purchasing a federal crime.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factchecks/2016/04/14/hillary-clinton-will-fight-for-common-sense-solutions-to-reduce-gun-violence/

[beevul]

32. "No Gun Restrictions" defenders AKA a big strawman.

"No Gun Restrictions" defenders

Big giant strawman.

There are no "No gun restrictions" defenders here.

[Hoyt]

37. There are those who support guns as vehemently as any right winger.

[beevul]

39. Yes, they're also Democrats, so whats your point? N/T

[Hoyt]

43. If you say so. Lots of Gungeoneers have been banned for their white wing ideology.

[beevul]

45. And some for being anti-gun trolls.

Mostly though, anti-gun trolls are blocked instead of banned, and its for things like accusing other DUers of being KKK and the like (seems they don't know how to behave).

[Nancyswidower]

101. Hey, Cta102..c'mon over

[Hoyt]

103. A Discussionist Gunner. LMAO. What was your previous User Name here?

[Nancyswidower]

104. I don't own guns...don't like them...don't hate those that do..

I won't suggest suspending Constitutional rights by edict either

[Duckhunter935]

70. What did he say that was incorrect

Nothing, so you change the subject

[Nevernose]

40. A lot of these posts are illustrating your point

And are so busy obsessing over their guns that they completely missed it.

[pipoman]

127. I think everyone got it..

The OP supports some kind of anti democratic litmus test...

[TeddyR]

41. Depending on the poll, something like 25-40% of Dems

Admit to owning firearms. The Dem party platform states that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, and that position is completely consistent with the positions of both President Obama and Hillary Clinton (and Bernie Sanders). And I haven't seen any Dem on here who advocates "no gun restrictions," and I've seen very few opposed to "sensible" gun control laws, whatever that might mean. For example, most support universal background checks, even though they won't really make any difference. Some support an "assault weapons" ban, even though Obama administration officials have admitted that such a ban would have no impact on firearm violence (The Guardian had an article a couple weeks ago that discussed this fact). I support an individual right to keep and bear arms and I don't think that "gunz" are the reason criminals or terrorists act the way they do, just like I don't think trucks or planes caused the Nice attack or 9/11.

I myself have voted Dem since I first voted, for Dukakis in 1988. I've never voted for a Republican at any level. When I was in the Air Force I had an officer ask me to move my car behind the building where we worked because the visiting general might not like my Clinton/Gore sticker. In other words, I feel like my Dem credentials are pretty good, and the idea that progressives on here who support the Second Amendment aren't "real" Democrats is not only offensive but flatly wrong. What other litmus tests are we going to impose on DU members?

[GulfCoast66]

42. Would not call myself a defender

But believe the 2nd amendment is as valid as the others.

With reasonable restrictions of course.

Universal background check

Limited magazine size

Severe, really, really severe penalties for felons having guns. This is the best route to limiting gun violence. Especially if we let drug offenders out of prison and stop jailing new ones.

But I am against an 'assault weapons' ban. Do not own one and would not mind a ban, but I think it hurts us politically and more important I do not think it would reduce gun violence at all. Basically you would have to ban any semi automatic with a detachable magazine.

But it is not a make or break issue for me like it is for the NRA crowd.

[Duckhunter935]

71. I agree

[1939]

94. I can agree

1. Any felony conviction or any conviction of a misdemeanor involving violence as an adult or as a minor and you permanently lose your individual civil right to keep and bear arms.

2. Sales with stiff background checks and limited to 21 and over (except 16 and over can purchase .22 caliber plinking rifles).

3. Draconian prison terms for possessing a weapon if forbidden by 1. above.

4. Inter-generational family transfers of firearms must be processed through a licensed gun dealer.

5. Any transfer of ownership of a firearm must take place through a licensed gun dealer (costs about $25)

6. I could go with a 20 round max magazine for a rifle and a 15 round max for a pistol.

7. Limitations on minimum barrel length for rifles and shotguns.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. There is some history here.

There was a time when Democrats were pretty broadly anti gun. Then something happened. The party wanted to be more inclusive, so they threw out a planks in their malleable platform. Anti gun was one of those planks. We had to accept hunters and other responsible gun owners. So the camel's nose was allowed inside the tent.

Now the tent smells like camel shit.

[MicaelS]

134. "Something happened?"

Yes it did. It was losing elections especially control of Congress in 1994.

[hack89]

142. Can you back that assertion up with some examples from past party platforms?

just how anti-gun was the Democratic party in the past?

[aikoaiko]

180. Let's look at the ebb and flow of Democratic Party interests in guns.

The Democratic platform didn't even mention guns or firearms from 1960, 1964, and 1968.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29602
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29603
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29604

Then came the evil Saturday Night Special. It occupied the boogieman role the way AR-15 rifles do now.

Then in 1972 we see the mentions of handguns -- Saturday Night Specials in particular. These were defined as cheap handguns with no "sporting purpose" --- whatever the fuck that means.

There must be laws to control the improper use of hand guns. Four years ago a candidate for the presidency was slain by a handgun. Two months ago, another candidate for that office was gravely wounded. Three out of four police officers killed in the line of duty are slain with hand guns. Effective legislation must include a ban on sale of hand guns known as Saturday night specials which are unsuitable for sporting purposes;
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29605

We see similar language in 1976

Handguns simplify and intensify violent crime. Ways must be found to curtail the availability of these weapons. The Democratic Party must provide the leadership for a coordinated federal and state effort to strengthen the presently inadequate controls over the manufacture, assembly, distribution and possession of handguns and to ban Saturday night specials.

Furthermore, since people and not guns commit crimes, we support mandatory sentencing for individuals convicted of committing a felony with a gun.

The Democratic Party, however, affirms the right of sportsmen to possess guns for purely hunting and target-shooting purposes.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29606

In 1980 the sporting purpose becomes front and center, but the issue is still handguns:

The Democratic Party affirms the right of sports-men to possess guns for purely hunting and target-shooting purposes. However, handguns simplify and intensify violent crime. Ways must be found to curtail the availability of these weapons. The Democratic Party supports enactment of federal legislation to strengthen the presently inadequate regulations over the manufacture, assembly, distribution, and possession of handguns and to ban "Saturday night specials."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29607

In 1984, the party realized singling out Saturday Night Specials was idiotic so that focused their energies on snub-nosed revolvers:

—We support tough restraints on the manufacture, transportation, and sale of snub-nosed handguns, which have no legitimate sporting use and are used in a high proportion of violent crimes.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29608

In 1988 - no mention of guns

In 1992, evil handguns and assault weapons" were back.

It is time to shut down the weapons bazaars in our cities. We support a reasonable waiting period to permit background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of the most deadly assault weapons. We do not support efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes. We will work for swift and certain punishment of all people who violate the country's gun laws and for stronger sentences for criminals who use guns. We will also seek to shut down the black market for guns and impose severe penalties on people who sell guns to children.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29610

In 1996, the platform heralded the 1994 AWB even as it acknowledged that we lost congress due, in part, to pro-AWB votes.

Protecting our children, our neighborhoods, and our police from criminals with guns. Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and George Bush were able to hold the Brady Bill hostage for the gun lobby until Bill Clinton became President. With his leadership, we made the Brady Bill the law of the land. And because we did, more than 60,000 felons, fugitives, and stalkers have been stopped from buying guns. President Clinton led the fight to ban 19 deadly assault weapons, designed for one purpose only -- to kill human beings. We oppose efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate sporting purposes, and we are proud that not one hunter or sportsman was forced to change guns because of the assault weapons ban. But we know that the military-style guns we banned have no place on America's streets, and we are proud of the courageous Democrats who defied the gun lobby and sacrificed their seats in Congress to make America safer.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29611

In 2000, the platform heralded the Brady Bill and took a lot of credit for the reduced crime of 2000:

They stood up to the gun lobby, to pass the Brady Bill and ban deadly assault weapons - and stopped nearly half a million felons, fugitives, and stalkers from buying guns. They fought for and won the biggest anti-drug budgets in history, every single year. They funded new prison cells, and expanded the death penalty for cop killers and terrorists.

Here are the results of that strategy: serious crime is down seven years in a row, to its lowest level in a quarter-century. Violent crime is down by 24 percent. The murder rate is down to levels unseen since the mid-1960's. The number of juveniles committing homicides with guns is down by nearly 60 percent.
.
.
.
A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners. The Columbine tragedy struck America's heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29612

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. The Beltway has become convinced the NRA is all powerful....

This has caused some Democrats to become convinced that it's political suicide to oppose them.

This leads to photo ops of Democrats in camo wielding hunting rifles as part of their losing campaign.

[Statistical]

51. Most RKBA supporters on DU don't believe in "no gun restrictions"

There are far more members on DU who believe in total bans (which is contradictory to Democratic Party planks).

[Duckhunter935]

72. I have never seen one that does

I have seen dozens of confiscate and melt then down posters.

[SwankyXomb]

52. Because gun threads mean lots of clicks

And Skinner likes money.

[CanonRay]

54. Basically, my whole Ignore list

are gun humpers

[AgadorSparticus]

56. Because not all democrats agree on every single issue.

And not everyone identifies themselves politically based SOLELY on the gun issue.

[baldguy]

57. To support fascists & spread RW propaganda.

[friendly_iconoclast]

233. Would that include those that suddenly embraced terrorist watch lists when guns were mentioned...

...after previously denouncing them?

Is that the sort of fascist supporters you mean?

[baldguy]

234. No, but it does include those who ignore the terrorists in our midst

And instead advocate for gunz, gunz & more gunz as the one and only solution to every problem.

Most rational people (the majority) think the terrorist watch list should be used to go after actual terrorists - such as the aforementioned - rather than the fascist RW fantasy of them, as it does now.

[friendly_iconoclast]

237. Should they be "harassed, investigated & arrested for their political beliefs"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3031131#3032492

baldguy Donating Member Sun Jan-30-05 10:31 PM

25. People are harassed, investigated & arrested for their political beliefs.

Held anonymously without charge, trial, or communication with the outside world.

The President's press secretary says that people should watch what they say, or else - and the press is too afraid to say anything.

People are prevented from traveling freely because they are on a gov't list.

During his most recent inauguration, Bush faced the largest number of protesters at such an event in 35 years. People were herded into cages, tear gassed en masse, and arrested for the crime of exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

What do you think?

What do I think? I think you've learned to love Big Brother.

[baldguy]

239. What I described is the fascist RW fantasy. Try to keep up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

261. You embraced the terror watch lists when people you don't like became targets...

...instead of people you agree with.

Situational ethics in its purest ray serene.

[Jopin Klobe]

60. Hey ...

... it's what they're paid to do ...

[Eleanors38]

194. Heh. How much you think this social security recipient is getting? New car? Condo on South Beach?

[recentevents]

61. FF intent

The founding fathers also did not intend for us to have a 'standing army'. That is why it has to be re-approved by congress every two years. Without a standing army, there was a need for citizen militias to deal with the original inhabitants and groups both inside and outside of our borders from taking over. And most of the country was wilderness without stores or civilization. Hence the need to allow citizens to 'bear arms'. The arms in use when the document was written were swords and muzzle loaders, not semi automatic weapons.
If a mass shooter had rushed in a tavern in the 1700's and started killing people, after the first shot, or two if they carried a pistol as well as a long rifle, the crowd would have taken care of him during the 45 seconds or so it took to reload his weapon.
I don't think they intended for the citizens to have weapons that could kill 50 people before reloading. There are those that believe differently.
I personally am disgusted by what is going on in this country. We have more violent deaths than anywhere other than a war zone. It isn't because we don't lock up the bad guys, we put more people in prison than any other country. It isn't because we aren't 'Christian'. We have more self identified 'Christians' than any other country. It isn't because we don't have a military to defend our country, we spend more than the next 10 countries combined on defense, more than 50% of our budget is spent on current military and related costs.
Is it because we just suck as a nation?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

81. And 30,000 + gun related deaths a year is enough of a reason

for Congress to study the problem.

You raise some good points.
Welcome to DU.

[Eleanors38]

275. You ready? 2/3 of those deaths are suicide. Just clearing it up. Thanx.

[jmg257]

164. Its because we refuse to REALLY effectively deal with the problem.

Most cities seem quite capable of listing the .5% of people responsible for 70-80% of the gun violence.

Chicago, Richmond CA, Newark, Albany, Cincinnati KNOW who those people are.
And they are aware of remedies and programs that work.

As Chicago says:

“We are targeting the correct individuals,” Mr. Johnson said. “We just need our judicial partners and our state legislators to hold these people accountable.”

The cities are catching on:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/14/forget-new-gun-laws-heres-what-could-really-keep-people-from-shooting-each-other/

[drray23]

62. thats something i have wondered about as well.

Being a democrat and a gun owner is one thing. Being on du solely to talk about guns and parrot the nra is altogether strange. Some if these posters only are concerned about gun discussions nothing else. I question their true beliefs.

[Eleanors38]

197. Wonder no more...

Many pro-2A AND anti 2A posters share the same characteristic: Most popular group GCRKBA. Otherwise, it's GD.

[Duckhunter935]

210. A certain pro control host

Has as his favorite group RKBA

[Eleanors38]

217. Shhh. Save that one for future posts.

[Doodley]

67. I will defend the right of the GOP to bring their own toys to their own convention

Let's see how well that would go!

[Waldorf]

73. This might come as a shock to you but many Democrats own firearms and believe in the 2nd

Amendment.

[SCantiGOP]

74. Not if you had read this thread

The question concerns those who hang out here but post almost exclusively in opposition to almost all restrictions on guns.

[beevul]

96. Thats essentially nobody on DU.

The question concerns those who hang out here but post almost exclusively in opposition to almost all restrictions on guns.

Thats essentially nobody on DU.

[Duckhunter935]

100. I know, I bet he could not link to a single post

for that bull**** statement

[Duckhunter935]

99. and who would those be

every RKBA poster that I know on DU is for reasonable restrictions. Most are against just a few like registration, cosmetic bans and unreasonable magazine size limits.

[Hoyt]

84. Yeah, they believe in lots of guns, public toting, stand your ground, no registration, etc.

[PersonNumber503602]

75. If someone supports all other democratic party and progressive positions, but also

has a less than hostile take on guns, where should they go? Should they simply declare themselves a conservative republican and vote that way over that one issue?

I'd also say that most liberal gun supporters support some gun control, and do not want the same wild west type situation the republicans push for.

[GulfCoast66]

88. If you support the Democratic party position, as outlined in the party platform

Then you support the right of Americans to own guns as spelled out in the recent supreme court interpretation of the 2nd amendment. With some relatively minor restrictions.

If you do not support the right of Americans to own guns, you are actually out of step with the Democratic Party.

Of course all opinions on the issue are welcome on this site and in the party. But we need to realize that the right to own guns is strongly supported by our party in it's guiding document.

[virginia mountainman]

77. Because a consistent position is..

To support ALL civil liberties, not just the ones you like.

[craigmatic]

78. nothing inherently wrong with owning guns and all of us can't be hippie leftists.

[JohnnyRingo]

79. Guns are not a partisan issue.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but nearly as many Democrats as Republicans own firearms. Sure, if a pol introduces legislation it'll be a Democrat, but widespread ownership on both sides of the political fence assures little will be done.

For the record, I don't bash anyone who petitions for common sense regulation. I think we need more restriction, not less. Having said that, those who call for outright bans reside in a very tight bubble.

Famed lefties from Rachel Maddow to Bill Maher and Joe Biden to Ted Strickland all have multiple firearms and don't plan to melt them into slag to satisfy a small minority.

[Skittles]

82. because gun humping cowards are EVERYWHERE

[Duckhunter935]

102. so you are calling fellow DU members

"gun humping cowards" that sounds like a group attack and should be hidden.

Or better yet, why don't you name a few and stand by your words

[HockeyMom]

85. Gun Control begin at Home

Married to a (Republican) Gun Owner for 42 years. He has 2nd Amendment Rights? Well, so DO I.

Going back to when we had children. His unloaded guns had to be locked up at all times in combination safe, which was MY choice to not know it. If the kids did not want to "know gun safety" or go shooting (they didn't) with him, then leave them ALONE. They can change their minds when they become adults. They didn't.

Children grown up and gone? Same house rules apply since I am still living in this household. No loaded guns, not locked up, or lying around. I do not wish to be around them. You have a CCW? Fine carry it all you want ALONE. I will not accompany you if you are carrying.

This compromise has worked for us. He has his 2nd Amendment Rights to own guns, yet I have MY 2nd Amendment Rights to NOT.

[Rex]

86. They like to rub it in our faces, they post with a smile on their face.

Thankfully it is all of 5 people, the rest of us not so much.

[Eleanors38]

199. In a sea of controller insult, you discover a smiley face??

[Rex]

206. LOL as if anyone is trying to take away your guns, please.

Why do you pretend that fantasy is reality?

[Eleanors38]

208. Another just-add-water narrative? Thought so.

[Rex]

211. So, no proof at all. Just what I thought.

Typical, you are all talk and no facts. Obama coming for your guns? The police? Pullleeeze go bother someone else with your made up fantasy.

[Eleanors38]

215. Sorry, but you asserted a position, you provide your proof.

In the meantime, I'll write the NRA, demanding my condo in Muskrat, Louisiana. This thread was hard work!

[Rex]

218. Boring, you again fail to claim who is coming for your guns.

Have fun living in your fantasy world, the rest of us are going to live in the real world. I could care less what you do, you cannot deal with reality so it is a waste of time.

[Eleanors38]

221. In the Old School, that would be a wife-beating question, and I ain't been married.

[Rex]

224. You made the claim of gun collectors yet you cannot produce any evidence of it.

Like I said, talking to a person that lives in a delusion is a waste of time so goodluck with your paranoia.

[Eleanors38]

257. Gun collector's "claim?" New to me.

[Eleanors38]

225. Got to get a brew since it's 100 goddam degrees here. Stay cool.

[Rex]

226. Better be careful! Obama might jump out of the fridge and take your gunnz!

[Eleanors38]

255. I've got an unrepairable .22 he can have in exchange for $30 worth of groceries!

[Festivito]

89. Silly question. Lots of other reasons. Lots and lots. Silly silly silly. eom

[Feeling the Bern]

91. because their 2nd amendment right to a murder machine is more important than your right to live

or a six year old's right to live in Newtown, or movie goers in Colorado, or gay club goers in Orlando, etc.

People are replaceable. . .guns are not.

[VOX]

92. ¡¡¡ WOLVERINES !!!1

Let's kick some serious ass! Blah, blah...

They haven't yet figured out that they'd be up against drones, robots and satellites. Their hardware is like popguns compared to what the evil "gummint" could bring to bear against them. Another wet dream evaporates into ether.

[Stinky The Clown]

93. Pavlovian

[whistler162]

105. Good question... why are YOU here?

[Botany]

106. i have hunted and owned guns for years but lately I have had to put some DU "gun humppers" ....

.... ignore. I think some are paid trolls too.

[Duckhunter935]

108. Who might those be?

[Eleanors38]

203. It was ME! I gotta a free cruise to Cedar Key, Florida!

[Duckhunter935]

207. I should have known

I never get paid

[Eleanors38]

212. Well, you always fall for that cruise to Port Atrocity, TX. It's a scam!

[Duckhunter935]

228. I know, signed up at least a dozen times

[Marengo]

110. Who is paid, paid by whom, and what is your evidence?

[Rex]

222. No doubt and they try way too hard.

Peeing all over themselves over Obama coming for their guuuunnnsss! How embarrassing for them!

[Duckhunter935]

229. And just what DU members say that?

As the OP was about DU members

[Calculating]

109. When did Democrat=Anti-Gun?

My whole family is filled with Democrats and we own guns. I even own some evil "assault weapons". Doesn't mean I support Trump though.

[virginia mountainman]

117. Their has always been some anti-gun Democrats..

They are typical outnumbered in all but a few coastal states, but here lately they have gotten emotional, very bold...And loud...

Not too worry, it is only an election year, what do we have too loose?!?

[needledriver]

111. Because we are rights defenders.

That's the trouble with those pesky rights. We have the right to do stuff you don't agree with. You have the right to speak about it. We have the right to speak back. We have the right to keep and bear arms. So do you. You don't have to if you don't want to BUT you do not have the right to prevent me from exercising my right to keep and bear arms, just like I don't have the right to prevent you from speaking out about it.

I may not agree with what you say but I will absolutely defend your right to say it.

Will you defend my rights as well?

[Calculating]

112. This....

ALL of the rights are important. Even the ones we don't personally agree with. I might not agree with extreme anti-gun views, but I would defend their right to share those views every time.

[TipTok]

113. A lot of it has to do with the controller crowd...

It's been made very clear that an inch offered will be reciprocated with an attempt to take a mile (or 12).

So no compromise and the pro 2nd crowd won't give an inch.

[virginia mountainman]

118. EXACTLY..

They always say after every minor victory..."Its a good first step"...

So screw it....Now I actively work to relax many restrictions.

[The Straight Story]

114. Do you blame all blacks, muslims, etc for what some in that group do?

If not, then continue being a liberal minded person and don't blame all gun owners for the idiots in their group.

It isn't about defending 'gun nuts' it is about defending rights some of us enjoy having (and no, I don't currently own a gun).

[Albertoo]

116. Because anti-gun bias is not rational, so it's not progressive either

As often pointed out, Swiss citizens are mandated by law to retain at home assaukt rifles as part of their Reserve duty. There is a very low gun crime rate in Switzerland.

So the gun crime rate in the US has to reflect other factors than gun ownership.

While the Second Amendement does provide the kind of security of a well armed reserve militia sought out by the Swiss legislator.

It would be interesting to trace the history of the meme that has taken hold over time that being anti-guns would be a progressive credential.

[TroyJackson]

119. i havnt seen many gun defenders either

not sure if we have been reading the same forum!

[Hoyt]

128. Guess you haven't spent any time in the Gungeon durring your one/two day membership.

[LAGC]

120. Because some of us believe in the Constitution. All of it.

All ten of those beautiful amendments that make up our Bill of Rights.

[ileus]

121. Many of us are progressive on all rights...

[Hoyt]

129. Gunz are not "progressive," but nice to see you peeking out of the Gungeon.

[beevul]

147. Civil rights are progressive.

And gun ownership happens to be a constitutionally protected civil right.

[Hoyt]

169. Gunz are not a civil right, and I detest gunners who try to elevate it to that level as if they were

MLK, James Meredith, John Lewis, Harvey Milk, etc.

[beevul]

235. Yes, gun ownership is a constitutionally protected civil right...

Yes, gun ownership is a constitutionally protected civil right, and I detest anti-gunners who try to falsely attribute to me sentiments I haven't expressed. From Cornell University Law School:

civil rights: an overview

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights

So yeah, they ARE a civil right.

[Hoyt]

236. Your quote does not mention frigging gunz, nor are guns or gun lovers anywhere near those

examples. Jeeez.

[beevul]

245. I know its difficult for you...

Your quote does not mention frigging gunz, nor are guns or gun lovers anywhere near those examples. Jeeez.

I know its difficult for you, but I'll walk you through it:

civil rights: an overview

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places.

See that first sentence? "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege." McDonald and Heller were examples of it being enforced.

Also, it mentions freedom of speech, press, and assembly - also known as the first amendment. If the first amendment protects a civil right, so then does amendment 2, 3,4,5, and so on.

So yes, hoyt, gun ownership is a constitutionally protected civil right.

[Hoyt]

247. Right wing interpretation, hopefully Court will change.

Gunners are not being discriminated against or persecuted. Although, people do ridicule them at times.

[beevul]

248. Accurate interpretation.

Completely consistent with the preamble to the bill of rights.

[Scuba]

123. Why are warmonger defenders here? Bankster defenders? Corporation defenders?

[G_j]

188. Yup..

[pipoman]

126. Why do urban Democrats pretend rural Democrats don't exist?

Without a lot of rural Democrats Hillary cannot win in November.

That is one response...the larger issue is the complete lack of understanding of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Protecting civil rights and civil liberties is among the most liberal/progressivedemocratic/Democratic of positions...liberal interpretation of all civil rights and liberties is liberal...conservative interpretation is conservative.

[Hoyt]

130. Why do rural democrats have 10+ guns, tote in a relatively safe area, promote guns even though

they kill people in urban areas, etc. Guns are not a "civil right," certainly not to the extent of civil rights for minorities. A gun to hunt and maybe a gun for self-defense AT HOME, is not a necessarily a bad thing. Anything more is pushing the envelope and taking advantage of the intent of the Constitution as misinterpreted by gun fanciers.

[pipoman]

132. None of your concern, that's why..

[Hoyt]

135. Gun Pollution is everyone's concern, should be yours too.

[pipoman]

136. No, what is in someone's closet is none of your or my concern

Most Democrats understand this very simple concept.

[Hoyt]

145. Unfortunately, you guys don't keep them in your closet. Tucking them in your pants and

going to town, is not keeping them in your closet. Practicing militia maneuvers is not either.

[beergood]

158. so your ok with it

as long as it remains hidden, you don't want to see it or hear about it. correct?

[Hoyt]

166. No, I'm fine with someone keeping one or two guns for hunting at home, (no semi-autos), and home

defense if they are that paranoid. Other than that, the person is abusing guns to the detriment of society.

Truthfully, I'd rather folks have to rent guns for hunting, but I think one or two bolt, lever, shotgun, or pistol guns would satisfy any interpretation of the overly worshipped 2nd Amendment. I'd support limitation on ammunition and other restrictions too.

I also think anyone who whines about such restrictions should be evaluated by a medical doctor.

[jmg257]

168. See - now that's sorta stating to get reasonable - guess my "bad hobby" isn't so bad!

(though I also have a couple nice collectable M1's, semis but certainly not assault weapons)

[Hoyt]

170. Sorry, semi-autos are assault weapons as the term is commonly used. Will kill a lot of people,

efficiently. Maybe not as quickly as full-autos, but fully automatic rifles are seldom used on that setting.

[jmg257]

182. No detachable mags, 8-rnd capacity, no funky stocks - very reasonable! nt

[EX500rider]

230. "Guns are not a "civil right,"" Everything in the Bill of Rights are civil rights.

[SheriffBob]

249. Coming next from the gun bunnies

Nuclear bullets

[oneshooter]

250. This is as close as you can get.

One shot, and have a death wish as the blast will kill you before you can run.

[Adrahil]

131. Where I love, most people own some kind of gun...

even the Democrats. MANY hunt. Many enjoy shooting shorts like skeet/trap or target shooting.

I realize a lot of urban democrats looks down on those activities, but there ya go.

FYI, I am not a hunter, but I do enjoy restoring and shooting antique guns and shooting the occasional modern gun. I have never fired (or even deliberately pointed) a gun at anything living, and hope to never have to.

[Hoyt]

252. Good, sounds like you could give them up -- semi-autos anyway -- for the good of society.

[Adrahil]

258. That's extremely unlikely to happen, of course...

For those concerned about such things, a semi-auto is the best weapon for self-defense, so without a Constitutional Amendment, that is unlikely to pass Constitutional muster.

But as we've argued before, I'l, take this more seriously when folks are concerned about sources of death and injury that are much more significant than guns.

[Hoyt]

270. Oh, so you are not just a hunter of meat to feed your family.

[lillypaddle]

138. Needed to be said

Thanks. Wonder why they are allowed?

[LAGC]

141. People who believe in the Bill of Rights shouldn't be allowed?

Are you going to purge the ACLU next?

[hack89]

143. Because the Democratic party supports the individual ownership of guns

and that there are many Dems that own guns?

[Matrosov]

144. Some are just straight up right wing trolls

I sometimes lurk on a very conservative forums. DU is their favorite place for sending trolls. This site has developed a reputation for being quick to find them and ban them, so some of the RW trolls make a few progressive sounding posts to blend in better but then regurgitate the RW and NRA talking points in every gun thread.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1135093_index.html

[maser]

204. WoW, That thread is 5 years old...

I don't think they are standing in line to troll here.

[HassleCat]

151. Some people see it that way

The NRA way, that is. I think they're seriously paranoid if they believe expanded background checks will result in confiscations, but I guess the 1st Amendment protects their right t paranoia.

[Doodley]

152. I'd like to see guns banned - it worked in Australia, but Democrats can be pro-gun

You can't expect all Democrats to share all the same opinions.

[hack89]

279. Australia did not ban all guns

they have plenty of guns.

[Marengo]

159. Aren't you the one who claimed the founders intended people to possess only hunting weapons?

[MyNameGoesHere]

161. They are here for this.

[bighart]

177. I support the constitution

and every right and responsibility enumerated within it.

[Walk away]

183. Trash their group.

[Exilednight]

185. I had a post removed by jury decision after pointing out the same thing

About a certain poster. This isn't to beat up n the jury, with every post you throw the dice and take your chances. Out of thousands of posts it was the first one I had go against me.

But I was wondering the same thing.

[G_j]

187. just a note: the NRA worked to DEFEAT Obama.

that should say a lot...

[SCantiGOP]

192. Says it all.

[Rex]

216. YEP.

[hack89]

280. And what percentage of gun owners are NRA members? nt

[LP2K12]

227. Because here is home?

[Albertoo]

238. Good thing there were people with guns in Nice and on the Wurzburg train

In both cases, it took people with guns to stop terrorists to kill people.

and the terrorists didn't need guns. A truck. An axe.

Guns can be a very useful defensive tool.

[anoNY42]

251. Probably for the same reason

I go to Townhall.com sometimes. A combination of masochism and a desire to see how the other side lives...

[GOLGO 13]

254. Neither you nor any govt. will take my firearms away from me.

There are more (D) that have guns than you realize. Deal with it.

[Eleanors38]

278. Controllers lose a lot of debates, here. No wonder they want us gone!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

286. I just had a Opening Post on this topic locked in General Discussion...

After I saw this O.P. remain in General Discussion for so long and obtain this many recommendations, I thought the rules of Democratic Underground had changed.