Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation that funds VPC to ban handguns.

[jody]

Joyce Foundation, “The largest single grantee has been the Violence Policy Center, which received $4,154,970 between 1996 and 2006, and calls for an outright ban on handguns, semi-automatic and other firearms, and substantial restrictions on gun owners.”

VPC Releases New Handgun Ban Study, Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns

Violence Policy Center, “It was recently revealed by a check on the BATFE's FFL eZCheck system that Executive Director Josh Sugarmann is the holder of a Type 01 FFL. This authorizes him to buy and sell guns in the District of Columbia. Many gun rights advocates have accused him of hypocrisy for his work to shut down other dealers.”

Obama as board member of the Joyce Foundation

Presumably as a member of the Joyce Foundation board, Obama approved funding for the Violence Policy Center whose primary purpose is to ban handguns used by law-abiding citizens for self-defense.

I wonder how Obama’s involvement in efforts to ban handguns will be received by 73% of voters who disagree with him?

“Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10.”

[LiberalFighter]

1. I thought the Joyce Foundation was a right wing tool

[zanne]

157. It is a right wing tool and the VPC is NOT trying to "ban" guns.

http://www.vpc.org/aboutvpc.htm
If you'll take the time to read something other than Wikipedia and rightwing websites, you'll understand what the Violence Policy Center is all about. Educate yourself.

[Tejas]

264. yeah, they just love the 50cal (satellites, SR71's, holes in the moon, blahblahblah) n/t

[GodlessBiker]

2. Perhaps your right. Perhaps we should nominate Charlton Heston.

[appal_jack]

99. no thanks, i like to vote for pro-RKBA Democrats...

... but I would consider the woman on the right as a 'running mate.'



:hide:



-app

[sellitman]

3. This makes him even more attractive in my book.

I am for banning handguns.

[virginia mountainman]

6. Why??

My wife and I both own, and legally carry handguns??? Why would you want to take them from us, we have never hurt no one, and we follow the laws.

And how do you propose to get them if you do??

Do you propose to go DOOR TO DOOR yourself??? Or will you SEND people door to door, to do you dirty work for you???


What about my grandfathers pistol, that he carried in WWII?? That thing has more sentimental value than the home I live in...If a fire was to break out here, god forbid, once I get the wife an kids out, that .45 is next on the list of "things to save".

NO WAY will some "government functionary" ever lay a hand on it.

[sellitman]

18. Because

This countries love of guns is sick. Especially hand guns.

That's my opinion.

Every time there is another mass murder....it always guns as the weapon of choice. They are made for one purpose only (handguns that is) to Kill people.

Not my favorite thing.

As to how to round them all up.....making them illegal is a good start.

[jody]

19. "making them illegal is a good start"! Don't you know that voters thought Gore and Kerry were

gun-grabbers and that was a significant factor in their losing the election for president?

I believe like many that Gore's election was stolen but he would have won outright if voters had not thought he wanted to ban some types of firearms in common use by law-abiding citizens.

Bill Clinton and Gore admit that. :shrug:

[zanne]

159. Most Americans are pro-gun control.

I know the NRA won't tell you that, but it's true.

[Turbo Teg]

166. Wrong

The news Media will have you believe that most Americans are for gun control, the truth by independent surveys and such say otherwise.

[zanne]

174. Sigh. No, YOU are wrong, brand-new gun guy from who-knows -where...

According to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago:

Support for the stricter regulation of firearms is widespread both in terms of the range of measures endorsed by the public and in terms of the high level of public approval for such measures.

Majorities in 2006 favor all proposals to expand regulations: 91% support making it illegal to use guns while under the influence of alcohol, 85% want the sale of 50 caliber rifles limited, 82% want the sale of semiautomatic, assault weapons limited, 80% favor criminal background checks for all sales of guns, including private sales between individuals, 79% back requiring a police permit before a gun could be purchased, 76% believe that terrorist attacks have increased the need for stricter gun control, and 54% want illegal gun sales to be punished more severely than illegal drug sales with another 37% saying that punishments for illegal gun sales should be as tough as penalties for selling illegal drugs.

[jody]

176. I knew someone would quote the flawed NORC report. The Joyce Foundation funds the prestigious

General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago specifically "To add a selection of gun-related questions to its 2006 General Social Survey."

Most of us have answered surveys and we know how questions can be asked so answers are biased in a particular direction.

IMO NORCs questions are biased so answers can be interpreted as supporting a ban handgun policy.

For example, NORC in Public Attitudes towards the Regulation of Firearms asks “As a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, do you think that gun control laws should be stricter, making it harder for people to purchase firearms or that gun control laws should be less strict, making it easier for people to purchase firearms? “

NORC reported “% for Stricter Gun Control after Terrorist Attacks 76”.

Conspicuous by its absence was a simple question “As a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, do you think that existing gun control laws should be more aggressively enforced, making it harder for people to purchase firearms or that existing gun control laws should be less aggressively enforced, making it easier for people to purchase firearms? “

In my experience, some/many/most respondents would view the NORC question I cited as suggesting the violent crime problem involving handguns means that we need more gun-control laws when IMO we need to aggressively enforce existing laws.

Because of NORCS deserved prestige, the Joyce Foundation has been able to cite irrefutable facts that 76% of the public wants more gun-control laws but it’s more likely that NORC’s stats were biased by the question asked and question unasked.

When an organization like Joyce, the deep pockets behind VPC's ban-handguns efforts, funds a survey, they can expect to get what they pay for and they did with the NORC questions about "Public Attitudes towards the Regulation of Firearms".

See "VPC Releases New Handgun Ban Study, Unsafe in Any Hands: Why America Needs to Ban Handguns"

[zanne]

179. So the reports you refer to would have to be flawed also...

If that is your argument, what's to stop anyone from stating that their opponents' report is flawed?

[jody]

189. Which report that I quoted depends upon surveys of people? n/t

[Firethorn]

257. Not much, unfortuantly...

Because, when it comes down to it, we'd argue about what color the sky is. 'Blue!' 'Gray!', 'Clouds!', 'Chickenbutt!'. ;)

You ask 10 people about their thoughts on as broad of a topic as gun control and you'll get about 20 opinions.

Still, referencing 9/11 and terrorists in the question would count as leading to me. How about a five position spread?

Sample question:

Do you think that Federal Gun Control laws are:
A: Too lax
B: Too restrictive
C: Existing laws are not enforced enough
D: About right
E: Other/Prefer not to answer

Personally, I'd stick this in there as well:

How knowledgable would you rate yourself on federal gun control laws?
A: Highly Knowledgable
B: Knowledgable
C: Slightly knowledgable
D: Know a little
E: Totally unknowledgable(Ignorant)*

Repeat for State instead of federal.

Tricky one:

I believe that the 1994 Federal Assault weapon ban applied to:
A: Fully Automatic Weapons
B: Semi Automatic Weapons
C: Both
D: Neither

*I don't like the word Ignorant, but it fits, and at the moment I can't think of better.

[Turbo Teg]

177. We can pull polls

Out of anywhere we want. The method used for polling, and questions asked while polling and location can slant anything either way. The reason I know that the statistics you point out are flawed are the extemely high percentage of people in favor of gun control. Most other polls that have been presented have the numbers bieng way closer together, going either way, than that you just showed. Guaranteed if 82% of people wanted to get rid of "Assualt Weapons" then they would be gone, and so many democrats wouldn't have lost thier seats back in the early 90s. There's one thing you can't overlook, gun sales are up, and more states then ever have concealed carry laws. Companies like Smith and Wesson and Remington wouldn't have gotton into the AR-15 game in an already flooded market if they thought people wouldn't want them. Do you think these companines are going to invest in a product that 82% of people don't want? I think that shows what people really want. BTW, the week after 9/11 set record numbers for gun sales. And your right, I am new, and I'm Democrat, and extremely Pro-gun.

[zanne]

178. You have your polls and statistics, I have mine.

So you admit that your claim of Americans supporting looser gun laws is pure speculation on your part.
The gun manufacturers and the NRA lie through their teeth because, surprise, they want more guns to be sold. Always ask yourself: "Who benefits"? In this case, more guns in the hands of more people benefits the gun manufacturers and their biggest lobby, the American Gun Association.

If you don't want me to "pull" any more polls, provide the source(s) of your information in the future.

[Turbo Teg]

180. please

explain to me how the NRA and gun manufactures are lying through there teeth?

[zanne]

181. Use your head.

Like I said, follow the money. By the way, I have an important question for you. Are you a Democrat? If you are, do you plan to vote for a Democrat in November even if that Democrat supports gun control?

[Turbo Teg]

182. I will not vote for

Anyone in the election Democrat or Republican. Mccain is no better on Guns than Hillary or Obama. Also According to this poll, 74% of Americans are for assualt weapons having no restrictions except for felons. http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/ASSAULT_WEAPONS.HTM?survey

Also, use your head, if gun sales are good then people are buying guns. The manfucturer nor the NRA have anything to do with that.

[zanne]

185. Gun Ownership Declining in U.S.

Gun ownership declining in US
Posted by Bryan Miller January 22, 2008 6:30AM
Categories: Hot Topics, Law & Order
Thanks to a Reuters piece of last week, America's gun culture - fading slowly? I belatedly reviewed a report published in April '07 by the University of Chicago's respected National Opinion Research Center (NORC), entitled Public Attitudes towards the Regulation of Firearms

NORC has been keeping track of gun ownership and various measures of attitudes toward firearms and their regulation since 1972. The news is interesting, and from my point of view, encouraging. Namely, per the Reuters article: "Gun ownership in the United States has been declining steadily over more than three decades, relegating gun owners to minority status."

According to NORC, the percentage of American households containing guns peaked in 1977 at 54% and has fallen with regularity since, to a low of 34.5% in 2006, the most recent year in the survey. Even more encouraging, the percentage of Americans reporting personal ownership of a gun has declined to less than 22%.

Consistent with NORC's reporting, a November '07 article in the Economist states that the number of Americans hunting has declined from 14 million a decade ago to about 12.5 million today, a 10% drop.

I have long believed that changing American demographics have impacted and will continue to impact hunting and gun ownership negatively. As the country daily grows more suburban and information-based, young people increasingly turn to pursuits other than a day in the field with Dad and a gun or an evening at the shooting range. Organized sports, computer games and 'hanging at the mall' have taken the place, and will continue to, of tramping through woods seeking live game.

Why do I care? Not because of any disdain or dislike for hunting or sport shooting. Although I do neither, I don't oppose either. Hunting is a traditional American pursuit dating back to the first settlers, and I see no reason to seek its demise, as long as it is pursued lawfully and meets the demands of the community in which it occurs. I feel similarly about sport shooting.

Furthermore, hunters and sportsmen are generally not responsible for the unacceptably high rate of gun violence we face in this country, so I have little interest, frankly, in their guns. My concern, and that of Ceasefire NJ, is in keeping guns out of the hands of people everyone agrees should not have them - thugs, drug gangs, felons, violent teens and the emotionally disturbed.

So, again, why do I care that the level of American gun ownership is declining? Two reasons...First, it's pretty clear to anyone with even the most meager open mind that the US suffers a uniquely and outrageously high rate of gun violence due to the prevalence of guns. Other industrialized countries have guns in relatively far fewer hands and have, accordingly, far lower rates of gun violence. Too many guns in the US has resulted in far too much gun violence.

I also find the decline in American gun ownership encouraging because it signals a potential diminishment of the noise and power of the gun lobby. Although the gun lobby's main role is to act as the bulwark of the gun industry, to keep sales up by blocking regulation, gun owners often provide the on the ground 'soldiers' whose noise convinces legislators and pols of the fiction that gun regulation is unpopular among their constituents.

I believe that, as the decline in gun ownership over the last three decades continues, and even accelerates, the gun lobby will find the size and political power of its 'army' declining as well. Then the views of the vast majority of Americans, as measured repeatedly in surveys like NORC's and others, will come to the fore and we can make this country safer from the gun violence that plagues us.

[Turbo Teg]

187. Well...

U.S. gun sales on the rise.


SPRINGFIELD, Mass., June 29 (UPI) -- Gun sales in the United States are shooting up, according to current and projected firearms sale figures from gunmaker Smith & Wesson Corp.

The 153-year-old Massachusetts company Wednesday said firearms sales for fiscal 2005 are expected to increase by approximately 11 percent over...http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9415759_ITM

i didn't read the entire article because I'm not a member there and I don't feel like registering.



NEWTOWN, Conn. -- New statistics show that firearm and ammunition sales are on the rise, coinciding with steady downward trends in gun crime, suicide and accident rates, in the U.S.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the shooting, hunting and outdoor industry, has released U.S. Dept. of the Treasury figures indicating that 2005 retail sales of firearms and ammunition rose 2.6 percent for a total volume of $2.1 billion.

For the year, approximately 4.7 million new guns were sold, bringing the estimated number of citizen-owned firearms in the U.S. to more than 290 million. The number of American households with at least one firearm ...

[zanne]

194. So you don't like the idea of a decline in gun ownership?

That's sick.

[Turbo Teg]

195. Not at all.

I would like to see everyone who wants to be and is legally & mentally capabable of bieng armed, armed. I also promote guns and CCW wherever and whenever I can. What is truly sick is the fact that you, or anyone else would want to take anyones god given right to own a firearm, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

[zanne]

196. You have your interpretation of the 2nd, I have mine...

It's all about interpretation. Let me ask you a question: Are you in favor of any gun control? Are you in favor of CCW in our national parks? How many gun laws would you like to see abolished?

[Turbo Teg]

197. Soon,

We'll all have the legal deffinition handed down by the supreme court. I am in favor of some gun control such as the NICS check and having firearms bought commercially sent to an FFL holder. I am in favor CCW in national parks. Off the top of my head some gun control I'd like to get rid of is the '89 import ban, and the '86 machine gun ban, aswell as modifications to the NFA of '34. There are other laws also pertaining to concealed carry that I would like to see gone aswell.

[zanne]

198. So I take it you're happy with the Right Wing conservative bias in the SCOTUS.

Since Bush's nominees got in, I have no doubt that they will rule they way you want them to. But, remember. Justices change and so do restrictions on amendments. There is a chance that more liberal or moderate justices will be appointed in the upcoming years.

[Turbo Teg]

200. I want them

To rule in the way the constitution was written and shouldn't be hard as it's spelled out on the paper it was written on. I think it's pretty clear, for either a dem or a repub to see. Also, they are not "ruling the way I want them to" they are ruling on what's there. Let me ask you this, what do you think the second amendment means? What gun control measures would you like to see gone?

[zanne]

201. As I assumed, you did not answer my question.

You conveniently decided not to answer my question about gun control and if you would likes LESS of it. I have no option but to assume you want less gun control.

[Turbo Teg]

202. Then I assume you didn't read posts 237 or 234.

But you'd be pretty accurate assuming I would like less gun control.

[Turbo Teg]

210. I meant to say 237 and 244

[L1A1Rocker]

218. Um, he DID answer you questions. Now it's your turn to answer his.

[L1A1Rocker]

217. Why do you equate

a constitutionist with right wing?

[zanne]

226. Right wingers interpret the consitution to according to their own beliefs.

And every American is a "Consitutionalist". That's just a manufactured word for "My interpretation of the constitution is right and yours is wrong".

[L1A1Rocker]

227. I think you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that. LOL

[Turbo Teg]

228. My interpretation

Of the second amendment is what most people believe in and is pretty clearly stated. If you don't like guns, fine, I have no problem with that, but don't try to tell us that the constitution was written to give any power to the federal government.

[L1A1Rocker]

216. Sounds reasonable to me.

[L1A1Rocker]

215. It's not about interpretation

The Second recognizes a god given right, as do the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights. If the text of the 2A is beyond you level of understanding just read the Federalist Papers.

[zanne]

230. You're saying GOD gives you the right to CCW?

Then it's official: You're related to George Bush, who receives personal messages from God. FYI, God doesn't interpret the Second Amendment. People do. The idea that some of you hold about God giving you the right to guns is so loony it could only have come from the extreme Right Wing.

[Turbo Teg]

231. What's it to you

If I carry a gun or not? As we consider the bill of rights "inalieable god given rights", then yes, because it says "keep and BEAR arms". In that respect, yes I have a god given right to carry a gun. What's truly loony is that you think that the people don't have a right to defend themselves. The idea that if you don't carry a gun, or if all guns are gone killings will go down and you won't be a victum of violence is what's really loony.

[zanne]

235. FYI, I have been a victim of violence...

From a break-in in my home. But I didn't retaliate by killing the guy; he got his prison sentence. Guess I'm just not as bloodthirsty as you are.

By the way, it matters to me whether or not you "carry" a gun. I never said that you shouldn't have one in your home to use IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY and you can't retreat from physical danger. IT IS MY BUSINESS IF YOU CARRY A GUN, because THAT MAKES ME LESS SAFE. Why can't you people get that through your thick skulls? You say YOU have rights, but you don't think about MY RIGHTS. Got it?

[Turbo Teg]

245. Well, I'm glad

the dude who broke into your house decided not to kill you, I guess I'm just not as trusting nor forgiving as you are. I'm not going to put myself into the position of having to trust the criminal to not kill me. It must SUCK for you considering most states have concealed carry, I guess it's kinda going to limit the places you want to live, and also, It's NONE of your buisness weather I carry or not. Your only in danger if your a criminal, are you a criminal? Why can't you people get it through your thick skulls that YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN'T CARRY? But you don't think about other peoples CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS do you? You only care about how it make YOU feel! You want to limit MY RIGHTS because of YOUR FEELINGS.

[Firethorn]

258. Heh...

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. About 40% of them.

Expanded:
1. I favor laws against the use of firearms in unsafe mannors, in the commision of other crimes, in areas where the noise will be disruptive(except in the case of self defense, but that counts as an emergency). Brandishing, as long as it requires more than a openly carried weapon to trigger(IE pointing it at somebody or threatening with it)
2. Why should our national parks be exempted? People get attacked there, by both human and animal predators.
3. I also think that people should be able to carry in hospitals, banks, normal government buildings(like the DMV), post offices, etc... If a business or place wishes to only have disarmed people in it, that's their right. In exchange they should provide secure lockers for storage and protection for the people inside. If they fail to protect those they have disarmed, they can be held partially liable in civil court for the injuries. The NFA registry needs to be opened again.

NICS could use an overhaul. Procedures for inserting, updating, and correcting records need to be streamlined and more properly funded. NJ needs to stop being so uptight about hollowpoints. Police officers carry them for a reason. National recognition of CCW permits would be nice; much like drivers licenses. Training, testing, and background check for those. Given what I've heard about the air marshal program, let regular police and CCW permit holders to carry in the cabin.

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L1A1Rocker]

214. What makes gun ownership sick?

There are a variety of guns for a variety of purposes.

[zanne]

232. Guns are made to wound and kill.

That's why. That's their sole purpose, no matter how much you want to deny that or claim you need multiple guns for self-defense.

[Turbo Teg]

246. That's right

Guns are made to KILL, among other things. Nobody is denying that guns kill. That's the sole purpose that I have my guns for. I have fun shooting targets and cans and such with them, but at the end of the day, I'm not a hunter and I don't own hunting guns. I own AR-15s, AK-47s, handguns and shotguns because if shit ever goes bad that's what I want to protect me. My second amendment right isn't about duck hunting.

[Name removed]

248. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bossy22]

191. yes

ceasefire NJ is a non-biased source

:sarcasm:

[jody]

192. In #210 I showed the NORC report was biased because the gun-ban Joyce Foundation paid for it. Are

you able to rebut my arguments in #210?

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

213. The Joyce Foundation paid for the NORC section on firearms and Joyce wants to ban handguns,

why do you think the question asked is not biased toward more gun-control responses?

[jody]

229. zanne, please answer my question in #213. n/t

[zanne]

236. I'm not going to search for your question.

Just ask me your question and I'll answer it, jody.

[jody]

238. The sequence of post numbers has been changed because someone had several posts deleted.

The following is based on current post numbers on 5 Mar. 08.

jody #176. I knew someone would quote the flawed NORC report. The Joyce Foundation funds the prestigious

Read the post for the entire content

jody #192. In #210 {now # 176} I showed the NORC report was biased because the gun-ban Joyce Foundation paid for it. Are
you able to rebut my arguments in #210{now # 176}?

zanne #199. Jody says the NORC report is biased!
Then it must be true! Please; I've seen your "polls and statistics", Jody. You're the most biased poster I've ever read.

jody #213 The Joyce Foundation paid for the NORC section on firearms and Joyce wants to ban handguns,
why do you think the question asked is not biased toward more gun-control responses?

Please answer my question posed in #213.

[zanne]

241. And I'll say AGAIN....

You haven't been able to provide an objective poll or survey about gun control. We can both go back and forth with our facts and articles and surveys and polls, but when you come right down to it, it's all subjective. WE have a basic personality and philosophical difference. You won't believe my polls and surveys are true and I won't believe yours. It's like arguing pro-choice and pro-life, or pro-death sentence and anti-death sentence. We'll never change each others minds.

I think you're wrong and that's the way it is.

[jody]

242. I supported my position with facts and you rely upon your opinion. Readers know who won and lost. nt

[zanne]

243. I had facts. The fact that you reject them means nothing to me.

As if you don't know by now, your opinion doesn't matter to me, because I have no respect for you.

[jody]

244. Have a good day and good bye. n/t

[Turbo Teg]

184. Here you go.

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/ASSAULT_WEAPONS.HTM?survey

76% of the people say that Plastic guns should not be banned.

66.5% of the people say guns shouldn't be registered.

82.2% of the people say that if we enforced current laws there would be no need of more laws.

79.8 percent of the people say that right to carry laws deter crime.

74.2 percent of the people say there should be no resrictions on assualt weapons except for felons.

Only 8.2 percent of the people say that the reason for school violence is that guns are to easy for kids to get.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turbo Teg]

188. Sure,

it's ok for you to quote anti gun websites because it's democratic, but I can't quote a pro gun website because it's republican? Makes a ton of sense. By the way, I can be a democrat and vote outside party lines if I so choose. I vote for the candidate that has the same views as I do. Since when do you have to be anti gun to be a democrat anyway?

[zanne]

193. I was referring to the "Democratic" in "Democratic" Underground...

Unless you're planning on voting for one of the Democratic nominees, it is now against the rules to post on DU.

[L1A1Rocker]

219. Please annotate that rule Zane.

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[radioburning]

267. Whoa.

You believe gun control will stop terrorists from obtaining guns? Seriously? All it took them was box-cutters to get jumbo jets. The guys that did the North Hollywood shootout had fully automatic machine guns. Those haven't been allowed in this country since 1934. Criminals can get whatever they want, and they always will. Why should semiautomatic assault weapons be banned? They account for less than 5% of all gun crime. 50 caliber rifles? Is there one case of murder committed with a .50 caliber rifle in the history of the United States? I don't think so. I bet you there's a case of somebody being murdered with a dinner plate in the United States, though. I'm in favor of background checks. That's something that makes sense, and I don't think most gun enthusiasts would disagree. I just don't know why it has to cost $25 to do it in California. I don't mind the waiting period, either. I'll wait an extra 10 days to pick up my assault rifle, if it means getting people to stop trying to take my guns away. "91% support making it illegal to use guns while under the influence of alcohol". I'm sorry, but have you ever thought that using guns while under the influence is really a non-issue? How many people die from that? 4-6 thousand a year, max? Meanwhile 840,000 people die every year from smoking, or lack of exercise and and poor diet. 4-6 thousand versus 840,000. But you want to have the government spend millions of taxpayer dollars to write laws to throw some good 'ol boys in prison because they drank a couple beers while they were out in the forest hunting deer? Don't get me wrong, I don't condone mixing alcohol and guns, but legislating that? See, if we took guns out of this equation and replaced them with something else that kills 4-6 thousand people a year, you wouldn't care. You probably wouldn't even notice. You just don't like guns. Period. And here's the rub-as much as you don't like them, I do like them. So I guess we'll just keep going in circles forever on this...

[radioburning]

272. So, being new to this forum and being from "who-knows-where" automatically makes you wrong?

What is that? Seriously, that's the grounds for your argument? That's a valid point?

[EricTeri]

27. You're welcome to your opinion.

You're also welcome to feel free to leave this nation and find one more to your liking.

In this country, my right to be armed is protected by our Constitution. Accept that or get out. Seriously.

[sellitman]

31. No thanks, but thanks for the offer.

I would much rather all you gun nuts were put on an Island with all your toys and plenty of ammo and let you shoot away. Much easier than moving.

The Constitution's 2nd amendment has a few interpretations of it. Yours is one, mine is a bit different. I could go through the arguments but I have a feeling that isn't necessary.

[jody]

33. SCOTUS may settle the issue in D.C. v. Heller next month. n/t

[EricTeri]

38. You going to come enforce the law?

No of course not, you're too evolved to do that. You'll just expect others to do it for you.

Sorry, but the 2nd has only one legitimate interpretation that makes logical, grammatical and legal sense, and regardless, the government has never been granted the authority to restrict ownership - hence it doesn't have it.

If you want to live in a "gun-free" country, by all means, MOVE. I'll even personally pay your airfare.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hangingon]

47. "Gun Nuts" are not shooting each other. Criminals are shooting

other people. The huge majority of gun owners never violate the law and are responsible in keeping their property. Given this, I wonder why gun grabbers are so quick to demand that we give up our rights and our property.

[sergeiAK]

69. So you plan to move 80 million armed people against their will?

Exactly how do you plan on doing this?

I assume you'll be unarmed, as only a "gun nut" would feel the need to carry a weapon.

[Turbo Teg]

167. Wrong again

It's spelled out pretty plainly in the second amendment. Further more, it would just be easier for you to move instead of the 80,000,000 plus gun owners MMMMKAY.

[sellitman]

156. Sure thing Eric

You sound just like the Reigh wing.

Like it or move out huh?

That doesn't sound too American Mr Constitution defender.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EricTeri]

225. It sounds quite American

If you do not wish to live by the laws in American society, and wish to subvert the US Constitution, you're free to leave.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

143. "Banning handguns?" Like marijuana? ...

That explains why all of mine disappeared last night!

[virginia mountainman]

4. Good god..

Their goes a pile of potential Democratic votes from my area....

You would figure that we would learn, that when we run a gun control advocate in a national election, we LOOSE.

He will be easy pickings for the NRA. But they hate John McCain as well.

Looks like when I go out working the voters for this Novembers election, I won't be talking about our Presidential candidate, just our local and state candidates (the ones that share our values)...AGAIN..

[jody]

8. Apparently, Obama was in solid with Joyce Foundation because he considered becoming its president.

Obama tried to imagine himself in different roles. He considered becoming president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago organization that gives out roughly $50 million a year to initiatives on the environment, poverty, violence, and schools. The position was high-profile, well paying, close to home, and appealed to his sense of public mission. Obama knew the foundation's work because he was on its board at the time.

[ac2007]

21. As soon as he gets the nomination

Expect the Republicans to play up Obama's connections to gun control to the hilt to middle-class America. I expect most of the media will stay silent about it since they support gun control as a liberal position.

But the NRA will be happy and I fully expect them to mail out notices to its 4 million members about Obama's connection to the Joyce Foundation. For those of us who follow gun control and rights pretty closely, we know the name "Joyce Foundation" very well.

Obama might as well be kryptonite for gun owners.

NRA might not like McCain but he has a better record than Obama. And as the Heller decision approaches and Obama is the nominee, there will probably be a few editorials exploring his position on gun control and those will not be good for him. They may praise Obama for his position but the word will get out to voters. They will be quite able to read between the lines. Obama = gun bans.

Given a choice between Obama and McCain, I choose McCain. I do not trust Obama one iota on this issue.

Any politician can claim an "individual rights" view. Many gun control supporters do. The devil is in the details on how they perceive what that right means. For Obama, he'll let you have some guns. Just not semi-automatics, no handguns and you can choose from the remaining shotguns and manual action rifles he will be gracious to let you keep. Sure, you'll have an individual right to keep a gun but it will be his definition, not yours.

Every independent I know will be voting for McCain in this election including several liberals who traditional support Democrats solely because of this issue.

[zanne]

162. Most Americans APPROVE of gun guntrol...

And, considering the recent massacres that have taken place across the country because of lax gun control laws, most Americans are leaning toward more regulations on gun ownership--not less.

Sorry, but you can't use that "Democrats losing elections because of pro-gun control stance" anymore. It just isn't true.

[Turbo Teg]

168. Actually, that's not true

More Americans are leaning toward less restrictive concealed carry laws that would let a person carry on school grounds and into bars and such. Sorry, gun control was a thing of the 90's that had no real effect on crime, and in some cases made it worse. People are getting smarter now, so gun control is starting to go down the shitter. More guns= Less Crime.

[zanne]

175. No....The American people have stated that they want MORE gun control.

In the wake of all the tragedies that have happened recently by loons with guns, the American people are calling for stricter gun laws. I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, we want to be safe FROM people with guns.

[Turbo Teg]

211. No.

People want to be safe from thugs. Don't know what planet you live on, but here on earth we have all sorts of crime. If you don't like it here, Australia and Britain don't have guns, maybe you'd like it better there?

[L1A1Rocker]

222. Please source your claim. I have not seen that anywhere.

[L1A1Rocker]

221. Please source that assertion. I'd like to see that one.

[radioburning]

273. Actually, most Americans APPROVE of you not talking out of your ass...

YOU approve of gun control. That does not automatically mean most Americans are for gun control. Fact: 40% of all households in America have at least one gun. How does that translate to "most Americans are for gun control"?

[sandnsea]

5. Are you voting for McCain?

Obama supports the individual right to own a firearm. Why are you bringing this crap here?

[virginia mountainman]

7. Name ONE TIME..

His voting record show that??

I can name several of his proposals that showed otherwise.

[sandnsea]

12. Are you supporting McCain? n/t

[jody]

9. No.

[sandnsea]

13. How does the OP support our Democrats? n/t

[jody]

15. Would you rather discuss the facts now or later, say the last few weeks of the GE? Sooner or later

BO must explain his involvement with efforts to ban handguns.

[sepulveda]

17. bingo

apparently discussing facts (vs. rhetoric ) for either candidate is off limits now?

i can guarantee it will be an issue in the future.

[sandnsea]

22. 66% support stricter handgun laws

In 1993, 90% of the country supported the Brady Bill. You guys are the ones that have hurt Democrats by supporting the NRA. You're the ones hurting Democrats and you're doing it again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/23/opinion/polls/main2718866.shtml

[jody]

28. I don't support the NRA, I support the Democratic Party on RKBA, you do not. The Dem Party says "We

will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

I suggest you become more familiar with the Democratic Party.

ON EDIT ADD:
BO was considering taking the position of president of the Joyce Foundation after he had been on the board for several years. There is no way he would have been offered that position if he had not agreed to lead its efforts to ban handguns.

I'm waiting for him explain his way out of that trap.

[sepulveda]

30. it needs to be changed

"we will protect americans second amendment right to own and BEAR firearms"

the 2nd amendment does not recognize the right merely to own. to recognizes the right to own and to CARRY (see: "bear")

choosing, cafe style, HALF of the amendment to support is wrong.

many dems DO support the right to keep AND bear arms.

obama, as far as his history goes is very weak on the former, and terrible on the latter

[jody]

35. As I said in another post, SCOTUS may settle that issue next month in D.C. v. Heller. n/t

[sepulveda]

43. well yes

but that's a de jure issue. i'm talking de facto

regardless of what they say in heller, i can read the amendment

it says KEEP AND BEAR.

and the quote you gave respects the former, but not the latter

it SHOULD respect both.

we should not need prodding from the SCOTUS to respect the constitution

if anything, it is the other way around, huh?

[jody]

53. In any case, we will be bound by the SCOTUS decision. n/t

[sepulveda]

84. i agree

but i don't need the supreme court to tell me when people's civil rights are violated nor do i, or will i, ever feel the need to wait for them to tell me what's right and what's wrong, whether in a moral sense, or in a constitutional sense.

but we can both agree that heller could be a great precedent for people's civil rights.

and i would hope that obama, when elected, will appoint judges who respect the constitution - including its second amendment

[sandnsea]

32. The Party also supports reasonable regulation

and reasonable restriction of handguns in cities with the support of the voters. If you don't support that, maybe you're in the wrong party.

[jody]

37. If by "reasonable restriction of handguns in cities" you mean ban, please provide a source for your

assertion. n/t

[EricTeri]

45. I don't give a fuck what the voters want

Using your logic, the voters could decide to limit the access of blacks to the city, for example. After all, it would be the majority of the voters and its only a civil right, right?

[sandnsea]

62. Some people believe individual rights

allows the individual to decide who they rent to or hire. We tell them no, they have to abide by the restrictions we put on individual rights in order to protect the rights of others.

[EricTeri]

65. I agree with you

Now, tell me how my ownership of a gun infringes upon your rights in any way.

[sepulveda]

85. because

it makes them FEEEL unsafe. and this is all about "feelings".

and we all know that when it comes to a prohibitionist's feelings, those take precedence over the civil rights of law abiding americans

[sandnsea]

87. Tell me how protesting a war infringes

Or any other protest. Tell me how a parade infringes. Tell me how a homeless person infringes. Yet there are regulations about all of them.

[EricTeri]

148. I've already explained how a parade can impact others.

I've explained how a protest can. I've also explained that in neither of those cases is the right infringed. Views are not forbidden to be expressed. The protest is not prevented from occurring.

Now, rather than attempting to once again dodge a direct question because you know you have no logical answer, would you care to dig deep into the bullshit pile and try to come up with something coherent?

[Turbo Teg]

169. Well, first off

The only real thing that you have a right to is the protest and maybe the parade, as it is in your first amendment right to free speach, which is guaranteed by the constitution, but there are restrictions, but considering there are already 20,000 gun laws already on the books, I think it's a moot point. Guns are already way more restrictive than anything you just listed, and is in fact the most regulated industry, and this is something you have a right to have. It is so strange to me that people would be so quick to ban things, especially Democrats. If we started talking about banning abortion and such, people would get so up in arms about civil liberties violations and such, but you have no legal right to an abortion, but banning guns, something you have a constitutional right to have and carry, and then it's a different story.

[L1A1Rocker]

224. So you preferr to restrict the rights of gun owners rather

than support their individual right to firearms?

[zanne]

163. I'm sure you don't care about anybody's rights but your own.

You seem like that kind of guy.

[zanne]

233. So you're a Fascist?

Not caring "what the voters want" is a Fascist position, not a democratic one. You sound like a real fanatic.

[EricTeri]

240. Facist?

Hardly.

I do not care what the voters what when what they want is to take away my rights.

Once upon a time the voters wanted blacks to remain, if not slaves, then at least second-class citizens.

Once upon a time the voters decided women couldn't vote

Once upon a time, the voters decided women didn't have the right to an abortion.

[virginia mountainman]

82. What the voters want???

On issues like Abortion, do you wish to put that too a nation wide vote??

How about gay marriage?? Do you wish to put it to a nationwide vote???

Just imagine if in the 1950's and 60's, the Civil Rights movement was put to a nationwide vote.

Your logic is very flawed.

[L1A1Rocker]

223. I do not believe that banning handguns is reasonable.

And apparently not too many other people do either. Just look at how widespread recent CCL laws are.

[ManiacJoe]

115. 90% do not know that what they want already is the law.

The last time a poll was honestly analyzed and that analysis published, it found that the people who wanted tougher laws did not know that the laws they wanted were the laws they already had. What they needed at that point was more enforcement. Of course, the option of more enforcement was not an option in the poll. Nor did the poll attempt to educate the public on what the existing laws were before the poll questions were asked.

[zanne]

165. They know about the gun show and newspaper ad loopholes. nt

[krispos42]

136. And in 1993, a majority of americans wanted universal health care

How did that turn out? Hillary has been whacked pretty damn good with what the majority wanted back then. The measure got ripped apart.


The Democrats are hurting themselves by being this way. Lord knows that people like me don't want them to be this way.

The Republicans are huring themselves by being pro-Iraq-invasion. They know they are on the wrong side of the issue, yet being pro-Iraq-invasion has become an article of faith and a plank in the party platform. So then should anti-occupation Republicans just shut up because they're hurting the Republican party?


We think that the position of the Democratic party, and more specifically many of the elected members of the Democratic Party, are on the wrong side of this issue.

[zanne]

164. Thank you, thank you for that!

the gunners have been trying to tell us that Dems will lose because of gun control. The fact is, neither Obama or Hillary want to ban guns and most Americans approve of gun control. It's a winning issue for Dems. I think they're getting their facts from the NRA or gunsite.com.

[Turbo Teg]

170. I'll call you out

everytime when you say Americans are for gun control. It's not true. Most people believe in the second amendment.

[zanne]

173. I'll call YOU out every time you say that Americans AREN'T for gun control.

According to the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago:

Support for the stricter regulation of firearms is widespread both in terms of the range of measures endorsed by the public and in terms of the high level of public approval for such measures.

Majorities in 2006 favor all proposals to expand regulations: 91% support making it illegal to use guns while under the influence of alcohol, 85% want the sale of 50 caliber rifles limited, 82% want the sale of semiautomatic, assault weapons limited, 80% favor criminal background checks for all sales of guns, including private sales between individuals, 79% back requiring a police permit before a gun could be purchased, 76% believe that terrorist attacks have increased the need for stricter gun control, and 54% want illegal gun sales to be punished more severely than illegal drug sales with another 37% saying that punishments for illegal gun sales should be as tough as penalties for selling illegal drugs.


I'll "call you out" every time you spew your NRA-fabricated "statistics".

[Turbo Teg]

183. Well then here you go.

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/ASSAULT_WEAPONS.HTM?survey

76% of the people say that Plastic guns should not be banned.

66.5% of the people say guns shouldn't be registered.

82.2% of the people say that if we enforced current laws there would be no need of more laws.

79.8 percent of the people say that right to carry laws deter crime.

74.2 percent of the people say there should be no resrictions on assualt weapons except for felons.

Only 8.2 percent of the people say that the reason for school violence is that guns are to easy for kids to get.

[Turbo Teg]

250. And I can show you polls that show otherwise. Polls are BS.

And even if it's true, it doesn't make it right.

[facepalm]

266. exactly

Would you rather discuss the facts now or later, say the last few weeks of the GE? Sooner or later
Posted by jody


BO must explain his involvement with efforts to ban handguns.

Because if he doesn't, the republicans are going to do the explaining for him, at a time and in a manner of their choosing.

[DonP]

20. Not another "Lockstep" Democrat!

You're about the 35th person that has come down to the Gungeon and tried the; "You must support candidate "fill in the blank" even if they are for complete gun confiscation or you aren't a REAL Democrat so therefore support them you must get off this board".

It doesn't work that way.

First, you don't get to define or decide who is and isn't a real Democrat or what issues define our loyalty to the party.

I know it's hard to get your mind wrapped around this, but it is possible to be a good Democrat, support candidates that agree with your stand on gun control and not support candidates from the party that oppose what you feel is a civil right and what we read in the party;s official platform.

Or have we adopted the Rethuglican "You must march in absolute lockstep with everything we say" mentality now and somehow I missed the memo?

[sandnsea]

23. Are you supporting McCain? n/t

[DonP]

24. When did you stop beating your dog?

[SteveM]

144. Will I do? I voted for Obama, despite his "stinky and snorey" 2A stand...

Last night I was hanging out at a coffee house in Austin, discussing Obama. No one at the table was interested in curtailing the Second Amendment's individual right to keep and bear arms; in fact, one young woman declared "I want the right to go up there and shoot those bastards!"

I believe the younger (and I am told better educated) "lefty" supporters of Obama are either neutral on 2A or very supportive of 2A. Two years ago, I wouldn't have said this. But perhaps that DU poll last year was an indicator that the more leftist the Democrat, the more strong the support is for the Second Amendment. The crowd supporting gun control/bans seem to be older, more centrist, and more establishment-Democrat in orientation. Hillary comes from that milieu and will feel the anti-gun pressure later.

Obama, for better or worse, will face the judgment of millions of juiced-up young voters.

[sepulveda]

11. he SAYS he does

but his history of association, voting, and statements, as noted by the OP don't support that.

you can say you support the individual right to own a firearm, but that's sufficiently nebulous to mean about nothing.

does that apply to handguns?

and what about the right to CARRY?

the right to own one is a small part of the issue.

the right to carry is where the battle is being fought.

has been for years.

and guess what? right to carry is thankfully winning

and just wait until heller!

[sandnsea]

14. Are you supporting McCain? n/t

[sepulveda]

16. no

but that's a typical response from people in both camps - obama and hillary.

criticize obama and yer a rightwing shill, a racist, a concern troll, whatever.

i can support somebody YET criticize him. in the same way i can NOT support somebody yet praise him (like i did and will do for mccain's military service).

obama frankly SUCKS big time on 2nd amendment. his alleged commitment to civil rights clearly takes a detour around the 2nd amendment.

and i'm not going to apologize for pointing out that his record is factual. that's not rhetoric. he has a worse record on this than hillary (not that she's particularly good on it).

heck, neither mccain nor bush is good on it either.

the last candidate we had who was GOOD on gun rights was dean.

at least that i recall. somebody told me richardson was good on gun rights, but i have not looked into it.

this is a serious problem imo with obama's candidacy. i'd like to hear him address it beyond nebulous political comments like he has recently.

does he or doesn't he support concealed carry?

i was heartened when i heard he supported decrim of mj and that turned out to be one he came out quick to deny.

[sandnsea]

25. Does he support CCW registration of gun owners?

I don't know. I think if he opposes it he'll reconsider when he understands it's the best way to get fingerprints and other ID on the most nutbally of gun owners out there. Dean supported the assault weapons ban, he supported the Brady Bill, he supported states making additional laws as they see fit. That's Obama's basic position. Trying to concoct gun grabber nonsense to beat him up over is a right wing game.

[ac2007]

26. You are aware that is illegal?

You do realize that establishing a registry of firearms owners is technically illegal right? It would require 18 USC 926(a) to be repealed.

And what precisely makes CCW holders "nutbally"? Thanks for painting gun owners, Dem, Repub and independent alike with that brush. I'm sure it will win tons of support.

[sandnsea]

34. CCW is a registry

The CCW holders are just too stupid to realize it. I have zero respect for NRA nutballs. Too many children have died because they refuse to take responsibility for their guns.

[jody]

40. CCW is not a registry. A CCW is a permit recognizing a law-abiding citizen is exercising her/his

right to keep and bear firearms.

It does not register individual firearms.

[sandnsea]

51. It registers individual people n/t

[jody]

54. And people with a CCW may or not possess handguns. n/t

[Name removed]

59. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turbo Teg]

171. Children have died

Because Nutball parents never tought them gun safety or morals. I have zero respect for people who choose to step on the U.S constitution. CCW saves lives, it's just that anti-gunners are to stupid to realize it.

[sepulveda]

29. no, it's not

a REGISTRATION of gun owners?????

i clearly oppose that.

but that wasn;t my point

"I don't know. I think if he opposes it he'll reconsider when he understands it's the best way to get fingerprints and other ID on the most nutbally of gun owners out there. Dean supported the assault weapons ban, he supported the Brady Bill, he supported states making additional laws as they see fit. That's Obama's basic position. Trying to concoct gun grabber nonsense to beat him up over is a right wing game. "

that is 100% rubbish.

first of all, dean supported the right to carry in his state when he was governor. second of all, obama's record is support of handgun bans, and my favorite, no gun store within 5 miles of a park or school - which effectively means - no gun stores.

i get REALLY tired of people who are against civil rights of gun owners claiming "it's a right wing game" like you just did.

i don't CARE what the breakdown is between left and right wing on the gun issue. it's irrelevant. this is a civil rights issue.

and i'm not going to accept baseless charges of playing a 'right wing game' or other such rubbish when i stand up for people's rights.

period.

this is an issue of understanding. it's the 2nd amendment. it's a civil right. if you refuse to see it that way, even though it's written out plain as day, then you will never see eye to eye with me. i view the 2nd just like i view the 1st, 4th, 5th etc.

i don't, buffet style, choose which amendments and which civil rights to support, and which not to. i do invest bufetT style, but thats another issue, entirely :)

i stand with legal scholars on BOTH sides of the political aisle, from larry tribe on the left (with exceptional credibility) and others on the right who recognize that the 2nd clearly protects an individual right ot keep and bear arms

obama has a terrible history in regards to gun rights and i would like to discuss that (and have) with people who are willing to discuss facts without name calling / calling stuff right wing this and right wing that.

right is right. and standing up for the constitution and civil rights is ALWAYS right, and i don't give two snorts whether that seems right wing to you.

[sandnsea]

36. Every civil right has limits, every single one

It doesn't matter how you argue the 2nd Amendment, it can still be regulated just like speech, the press, and every other right is regulated. Your choices are Clinton or Obama. If you campaign against them, you don't belong on this board.

[EricTeri]

39. Speech, and the other rights are not regulated or restricted

unless you violate another's rights by the exercise of yours.

The old "fire in a crowded theater" canard does not apply, as one certainly has the ability, and in some cases the duty, to yell "fire".

Gun control restricts peaceful exercise of a right without due process on the false premise that someone, somewhere MIGHT irresponsibly abuse their rights and violate another's.

[sandnsea]

46. You have to get a permit to have a parade

You have to get a permit to sponsor a protest. You can't slander people in print. There are restrictions on every right there is.

[EricTeri]

48. And you have to do those things because the exercise of your right

DIRECTLY infringes upon others rights.

Your desire to have a parade or a protest could limit the right to others of free travel, for example. The permit process does not prevent one from having a protest either and they aren't denied if you're expressing the "wrong" views.

Slander directly violates another's rights.

Your examples are not restrictions on a right. In the first case (parades/protests) they are a real-world compromise to allow free exercise of a right without limiting other's rights. In the second case, it is a punishment for violating someone's rights.

Owning and carrying firearms does not harm anyone. It does not infringe anyone's rights.

A direct free speech comparison would be gagging everyone who enters a theater unless and until they can prove they will not irresponsible yell "fire". Would you permit this? Of course not.

[sandnsea]

52. And having a gun "could" limit someone's life

I'd call that a pretty big infringement.

[EricTeri]

56. I could limit someone's life in a variety of ways

I do not need a gun to do that.

If i were to do that, murder is already illegal.

That i MIGHT infringe upon someone's rights is not a valid reason to restrict mine. Would you accept having to pass a background check before being permitted to have the capacity for speech because you MIGHT slander someone?

[sandnsea]

58. So don't infringe any other right either

Why require a permit for a protest when the only thing that could possibly be infringed is somebody's right to cross the street. That seems pretty miniscule compared to somebody's life.

[EricTeri]

67. Not quite

That protest or parade could also restrict someone's right to conduct business, or to travel through the city, or directly endanger lives if emergency services were unaware of that street being blocked.

Now, tell me how my owning and carrying of a gun infringes upon your right.

[sandnsea]

73. Like the protest or parade,

it depends on what you do with it. If we don't think people are responsibile enough to let an ambulance through, why do we think people ought to have 100% free rein to do what they will with any gun or armament out there.

[EricTeri]

80. Thats right - it DOES depend upon what you do with it.

If someone refuses to let an ambulance through during a parade, they will face additional charges, i promise you. The primary point of the permits is not to prevent the protest, but to be certain the city is aware of it and has taken appropriate measures. Additionally, the plain act of exercising that right DOES put others at direct risk as it does limit access to travel. While you may not think that is a big deal in the grand scheme of things, they guy in the back of the ambulance most certainly does.

I still await your explanation as to how my ownership and/or carriage of a firearm causes any direct infringement upon your rights. Not misuse mind you - just simple ownership or carriage.

[sandnsea]

88. So the city has to be aware of people gathering to talk

but not gangs with guns. Yep, that makes sense.

[EricTeri]

152. If a city is not aware there is crime

then the city leaders should be executed for being criminally irresponsible and too stupid to live.

A CCW holder is NOT a gang member. Your characterization of them as such, besides being nothing more than a blatant lie, is also quite an insult to those of us who have them, and yet another dodge of a direct question.

Last chance sandnsea. Answer the question.

[ManiacJoe]

117. Not quite right.

You get a permit to have a parade/protest because you are looking to use public resources and/or are looking to temporarily deny others the use of those resources (streets, parks, etc). If you confine your activities to private property, no permits are needed.

[jody]

42. Regulated yes but not banning handguns and that is what BO supported when he was considered for the

position of president of the Joyce Foundation.

[sandnsea]

49. He supports cities making their own laws

which is consistent with the Democratic Party platform and the belief of most Americans. If you want to distort his view to campaign against the Party and our candidate, you don't belong on this board.

[jody]

57. You misrepresent VPC's position which is to ban handguns. BO could have headed Joyce and he

supported that ban handgun policy.

If he didn't, then he better explain what happened because it will come up if he is the Dem candidate.

[sandnsea]

61. He believes in letting cities decide

In the same way they can decide restrictions on strip clubs and incindiary speech and our other rights.

[jody]

63. That's his latest statement made for political purposes. Who knows what BO believes with his changes

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

68. I'm simply pointing out that BO has changed his position as many have pointed out. n/t

[sandnsea]

71. And I'm pointing out your intent is to smear him and Democrats n/t

[jody]

75. How can reporting facts that will come up in the GE be a smear? You are letting your emotions

get the better of you.

By now in this thread, it's clear that BO was involved in some way with a major effort to ban handguns and increase the restrictions on the defunct AWB.

BO and Hillary have belatedly tried to reposition themselves on the RKBA issue but they have a long way to go before they convince most voters they are not anti-RKBA.

I would like both BO and Hillary to pledge to protect the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear firearms for self-defense.

That would wipe the slate clean of their previous flirtations with gun-grabbers and IMO be accepted by most voters.

Just like the phrase "no new taxes" caught the attention of many voters, "no gun bans" would also convince many voters to listen to Democrat proposals on other issues.

If that were to happen, IMO it could easily add several percent of votes to the Democratic candidate for president.

[sandnsea]

77. Because it doesn't matter what his position is or ever was

You're bound and determined to use whatever concocted set of talking points that are out there, which is all this forum really is anyway.

[jody]

81. This forum is to discuss a very divisive issue that has cost we Dems the last two elections for

president.

The fact that you and I disagree on RKBA when my position is that of the Dem Party and yours is not is IMO proof that we need to find a way to settle this matter.

If we don't, voters will continue to believe all Dems are gun-grabbers determined to take away guns and we will have trouble winning national elections.

[sandnsea]

86. No, an issue completely concocted and fueled by the NRA n/t

[sepulveda]

89. sure. just like choice and abortion rights were an issued completely concoted and fueled by NARAL

same specious logic.

the fact that NRA is an advocacy group that fights for RKBA does not mean the issue was created and concocted by them

that's like saying threats to abortion rights (which i can name several) are just completely concocted and fueled by NARAL

that's not logic. it's just trying to damn a legitimate issue by association

it's a weak logical fallacy, and it's transparent.

[sandnsea]

91. No, that was completely concocted by right wing groups

that put money into churches and other pro-life organizations. The 'pro-life' debate is as phony as the 'gun grabber' debate. While some individuals oppose abortion no matter what, the vast majority support varying degrees of abortion regulation. Exactly the same with gun owners, the vast majority support varying degrees of gun regulation.

[krispos42]

138. And the debate is....

Which regulations on abortion are constitutional, right?

I mean, we both agree that even though abortion is a right, it can be regulated. Then the difference between the reich-wing Tali-born-again and us is where the line should be drawn, and whether some of the lines are unconstitutional.

[jody]

92. I see we disagree on the importance of RKBA to Dem candidates in many areas. Since you ignore the

facts I've presented, why not study Winning The Gun Vote which specifically deals with issue we have been discussing.

Please tell me which of the study recommendations do you disagree.

[sandnsea]

94. Until people like you stop distorting

there will be no progress in the so-called gun vote. That's all there is to it. There is no amount of reports that you can present to me. I know that rural gun owners generally support responsible gun laws. 10% of the population, who are generally going to vote Republican anyway, have convinced 90% of the Democratic Party that there's a gun issue. There ISN'T. It's made up by the NRA. If the NRA supports some gun law or other, invariably 99% of the gun loons do too. If the NRA opposes, the gun loons walk lockstep. It's completely concocted. The way for Dems to break the bullshit is to call it bullshit. No more stupid duck hunting pictures, no more placating. It's simple, we need rural America's help to stop kids from dying in the cities. Put your NRA bullshit aside and let's get it done.

[jody]

95. Please tell me one thing I've distorted? n/t

[sandnsea]

97. Obama wants to ban handguns

100%, all over the country.

[jody]

98. Read the OP again. I said BO was on the board of the Joyce Foundation, that it funded VPC, and VPC

wanted to ban all handguns.

I then said "I wonder how Obama’s involvement in efforts to ban handguns will be received by 73% of voters who disagree with him?"

Please tell me how you distort that into "Obama wants to ban handguns 100%, all over the country"?

[sandnsea]

101. #57 and #66

You just jump all over the place, because your real goal is to attack Democrats and has nothing to do with Obama OR Clinton.

[jody]

109. sandnsea you really are reading to casually before you jump to false conclusions. I said:

57. You misrepresent VPC's position which is to ban handguns. BO could have headed Joyce and he supported that ban handgun policy.

If he didn't, then he better explain what happened because it will come up if he is the Dem candidate.

66. That's his latest statement made for political purposes. Who knows what BO believes with his changes

In #57, I posed a hypothetical situation but gave BO an opportunity to explain how he did not support banning handguns when the organization for which he was a board member has banning handguns as a top priority.

Would you think it strange for a ban-abortion group to ask a pro-abortion person to sit on its board?

In like fashion I think it would be strange for a ban-handgun group to ask a pro-handgun person to sit on its board.

[sandnsea]

113. And then said he's "changed his position"

when you admit you don't know his position to begin with, concocted it yourself in order to post this smear thread, and when called on it, just dismiss the whole thing with he's "changed his position", making it impossible to get to any truthfulness because you're just saying any damn thing to continue your smearing.

[jody]

114. As I proved, you distorted my two posts. Either just stop already or apologize for your error. n/t

[sandnsea]

It's the only logical conclusion

You jump from one position to another, running around in circles because you aren't serious about gaining knowledge on Obama's views, you just want to bash.

[jody]

141. Why not go back to the OP and deal with the facts about BO & Joyce & VPC. You can't explain those

away by claiming BO supports RKBA and neither can BO.

[beevul]

118. You are clearly in denial.

Until people like you stop distorting there will be no progress in the so-called gun vote. That's all there is to it. There is no amount of reports that you can present to me. I know that rural gun owners generally support responsible gun laws. 10% of the population, who are generally going to vote Republican anyway, have convinced 90% of the Democratic Party that there's a gun issue. There ISN'T. It's made up by the NRA. If the NRA supports some gun law or other, invariably 99% of the gun loons do too. If the NRA opposes, the gun loons walk lockstep. It's completely concocted. The way for Dems to break the bullshit is to call it bullshit. No more stupid duck hunting pictures, no more placating. It's simple, we need rural America's help to stop kids from dying in the cities. Put your NRA bullshit aside and let's get it done.

You distorted what Jody said, then have the balls to point the finger elsewhere and claim "distortion". When noteworthy Democrats go on record, suggesting that guns, be it all guns, hand guns, or so called "assault weapons" be BANNED, theres going to be an issue. Thats a fact, and its not going to change. And Obama has mentioned in the past the banning of semi-automatic weapons, and Kucinich has mentioned banning handguns. Thats also a fact.You say the gun issue is made up by the NRA...did they make up the fact that Kuc mentioned banning handguns? Did they make up the fact that Obama mentioned banning semi-automatics? What you don't get, is that what YOU call "placating...the "stupid duck hunting pictures"...weren't helping. Only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts. If you want rural Americas help, quite simply, you are going to have to convince them that your not interested in going after the guns they own. And remember, "they" includes 64 million + non-hunting gun owners.

[Firethorn]

259. More like an issue created by Brady...

You know, Brady the (former) republican? The one that, with the pushing and passing of the AWB got the NRA mobilized to fight gun control on all fronts?

Previously, the NRA supported some gun control, like the NFA.

[Turbo Teg]

172. That's fine

As long as no one bitches if my city decides to let me have an MP5 that was made this year and the only background check I passed was NICS.

[sepulveda]

44. nobody

is campaigning against either, so grow the heck up

i am criticizing and questioning obama's commitment to the constitution, specifically the 2nd

and i will continue to do so

you can play your shift game all you want, but it is not a violation of the rules

and it is a matter of conscience. i will support the constitution

[sandnsea]

55. If you twist his views

and use right wing bullshit to do it, then you are campaigning against the party and the candidate. Only 10% of Americans support the views expressed by the gun owners in this forum. I am sick of you intimidating those who don't know how rural people really feel about guns.

[sepulveda]

83. i haven't twisted anything

and the proof that you have no evidence is that you keep saying "right wing" every post with anybody who brings up obama's anti civil rights history in regards to guns. better to just go "right wing right wing" and wail then discuss guns

this isn't about how people feel. that's an appeal to emotion

it's about constitutional rights, and honesty.

obama now claims he supports the individual rights of gun owners.

but his history says otherwise, as clearly shown by EVIDENCE. you, otoh, prefer rhetoric and emotion "right wing rignt wing"

and who the heck mentioned "rural people".

the issue is civil rights, not how many people/sq mile there are in somebody's hometown

[beevul]

120. Which views would those be?

"Only 10% of Americans support the views expressed by the gun owners in this forum. "

Which views would those be?


Meanwhile...

"Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10."



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x160413

[krispos42]

137. And regarding Constitutional rights, the limits are very strict.

Strict scrutiny is the penultimate standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law (the most exacting standard, "super strict scrutiny," is used to review prior restraints outside of the Near v. Minnesota exception). Along with the lower standards of rational basis review and intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny is part of a hierarchy of standards courts employ to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or policy that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued. Strict scrutiny is applied based on the constitutional conflict at issue, regardless of whether a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality is at issue. It arises in two basic contexts: when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights; or when the government action involves the use of a "suspect classification" such as race or national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. These are the two applications that were anticipated in footnote 4 to United States v. Carolene Products.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

<more>

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

Like I've said before, the question is not "can it be regulated", it is "which regulations constitutional"?

Oh, and it would be nice if the regulations are both constitutional and effective.

[benEzra]

41. Dean supported the AWB *in 2004*, but dropped it in '06 as part of the 50 State Strategy.

The message in '06 was, LEAVE IT TO THE STATES, PERIOD. Not sweeping new bans at the Federal level. That message helped win back Congress in '06.

That is the position that IMHO Sen. Obama should take. No new Federal bans.

If party strategists could see past the "assault weapon" buzzword to what "assault weapon" bans actually cover (e.g., the most popular civilian rifles in America, rarely misused), I don't think that particular bait-and-switch would rear its head anymore.

[jody]

50. VPC wants a draconian AWB. BO was a bd mbr and almost pres. of the Joyce Foundation that funds VPC.

VPC’s “An Agenda For Genuine Gun Control+

Plug the loopholes in the assault weapons ban. The gun industry has systematically exploited loopholes in federal bans on the importation, manufacture, and sale of assault weapons and the high-capacity ammunition magazines used in such weapons. Companies continue to manufacture and sell assault weapons with minor cosmetic alterations that allow them to evade the law. In addition, a new wave of imported modified assault weapons is flooding the domestic market. Likewise, ammunition manufacturers stockpiled hundreds of thousands of high-capacity ammunition magazines and such "killer clips" continue to be imported. These loopholes in the bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines must be closed.

[Hangingon]

60. Just what is "nutbally"?

I assume it is derogatory. As a CHL holder, I take umbrage. I think my views are sane and balanced and my actions are responsible. The CHL legislation is a registry of owners, but not of firearms. The citation of Dean's position does not impress me. And before you bump your chin with your knee asking, no I am not for McCain.

[sandnsea]

66. Then don't distort the Dem Party gun position

and make it harder for our candidates to win. The majority of people support reasonable gun laws. In 1993, 90% supported the Brady Bill. Stop feeding this NRA "nutbally" gun grabber bullshit to people who don't know better, and we'd stop losing elections.

[jody]

70. sandnsea I believe you've said that you want to ban handguns, have you changed? n/t

[sandnsea]

72. I have never ever said that, not ever

More of you being willing to say anything to smear Democrats and push the gun grabber bullshit line.

[jody]

76. Then you oppose bans on handguns? n/t

[sandnsea]

78. I oppose 100% ban on all handguns, yes n/t

[jody]

79. Which law-abiding citizens would you allow to possess handguns for self-defense? n/t

[sandnsea]

90. I would place limits on sales

and other kinds of possession, such as anyone who had gotten drunk and waved a gun around, and things along those lines. I wouldn't object to a temporary tightening of sales to try to get a handle on getting the illegal guns off the streets, that sort of thing. I think an honest conversation could be had to deal with the problems in cities. I don't think we can have that conversation until we call the NRA argument the extremist line of bullshit that it is.

[jody]

93. OK, what additional people would you add to 18 USC 922 I quote below?

18 USC 922

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(C)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

(x)
(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess—
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.

(3) This subsection does not apply to—
(A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile—
(i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related to activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun;
(ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile’s parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm, except—
(I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded handgun in a locked container directly from the place of transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause (i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly from the place at which such an activity took place to the transferor; or
(II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a handgun or ammunition with the prior written approval of the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian and at the direction of an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State or local law from possessing a firearm;
(iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in the juvenile’s possession at all times when a handgun is in the possession of the juvenile; and
(iv) in accordance with State and local law;
(B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed with a handgun in the line of duty;
(C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not possession) of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile; or
(D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile taken in defense of the juvenile or other persons against an intruder into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in which the juvenile is an invited guest.

(4) A handgun or ammunition, the possession of which is transferred to a juvenile in circumstances
in which the transferor is not in violation of this subsection shall not be subject to permanent confiscation by the Government if its possession by the juvenile subsequently becomes unlawful because of the conduct of the juvenile, but shall be returned to the lawful owner when such handgun or ammunition is no longer required by the Government for the purposes of investigation or prosecution.

(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term “juvenile” means a person who is less than 18 years of age.

(6)
(A) In a prosecution of a violation of this subsection, the court shall require the presence of a juvenile defendant’s parent or legal guardian at all proceedings.
(B) The court may use the contempt power to enforce subparagraph (A).
(C) The court may excuse attendance of a parent or legal guardian of a juvenile defendant at a proceeding in a prosecution of a violation of this subsection for good cause shown.

[sandnsea]

96. We don't have any enforcement

because when we try to enforce these laws, the NRA screams 2nd Amendment! When was the last time you heard of someone being kept from gun ownership due to addiction alone? Or dishonorably discharged? We aren't allowed to enforce the laws we have to keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them. And we aren't allowed to create laws to reduce the guns that nobody truly needs anyway.

[jody]

102. Please provide credible source that any pro-RKBA group opposes aggressive enforcement of existing

local, state, and federal laws involving firearms.

As far as I know, some of those groups may lobby aggressively for changing a law but I don't know of one that advocates lax law enforcement.

[sandnsea]

103. Please show me funding proposals

to enforce those laws.

[sergeiAK]

105. The entire BATF budget? -nt

[sandnsea]

107. To monitor who has guns?

I don't think we even have a system to identify some of these people, let alone monitor them.

[sergeiAK]

112. They enforce the laws. You asked for an example of funding to do so.

Part of the BATF's job is to solve gun-trafficking cases. Part is to regulate dealers, making sure they're not selling to prohibited classes of people.

We have a system to identify these people, it's called NICS. It was recently improved (IMO, not enough, but a step in the right direction), via the NICS Improvement Act (which was NRA backed).

[sandnsea]

119. I was talking about specific proposals

to increase the identification of individuals who shouldn't have guns, and improve local law enforcement's willingness to prosecute as well.

[ac2007]

123. Law enforcement doesn't prosecutor, they investigate

The decision to prosecute rests with local prosecutors. And if the police don't bother to enforce existing laws, how can a case be brought? And even then, prosecutors often don't bother due to the difficulties involved. Straw purchases, for example, are almost never prosecuted. Neither are attempted purchases by prohibited persons despite the fact in those cases they have very good evidence and documentation to prove their case (the criminal's own affidavit on ATF 4473 attesting to their eligibility to purchase a gun on penalty of prosecution for perjury). Yet, nothing is done. The NICS system keeps records of denials. There are thousands every year and almost none are acted upon.

And the identification of individuals who shouldn't have guns is already done by NICS so you can get off that high horse.

[sandnsea]

126. You're proving my point

Nothing is done. On so many different points. Nothing.

And no, there is no system to report addicts or systematically adjudicate the mentally ill, so it is not already being done.

[sergeiAK]

124. Last I checked, you asked for funding proposals.

I provided that, so you move the goalposts.

But nonetheless, I'll oblige you. The NICS Improvement Act requiring state reporting of DV convictions and restraining orders, as well as reversal of such. The NRA supported it. There you go. An NRA supported bill for the enforcement of the law.

[sandnsea]

127. NRA screwed that bill up

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/trojan-horse-gun-control_b_77754.html

[sergeiAK]

128. With insisting on an appeals process?

I fail to see the issue with allowing those denied a right an appeal under due process of law. That's the basis of this nation, that we allow people the chance to contest a government decision. Why is allowing an appeal such a big deal?

Josh Sugarmann is a hypocrite, the likes of which we have not seen many. He holds an 01 FFL, claiming to be a gun dealer.

[sandnsea]

129. That's all the bill is now

A method to allow more people to get guns instead of increasing the procedures to keep guns away from the mentally ill, which is what was intended.

[sergeiAK]

130. The rest of the bill is still there

Or did I miss something?

The bill still requires states to submit more records, in electronic format. It still funds such efforts. It also adds an appeal process.

BTW, care to address Sugarmann's credibility here?

[sandnsea]

131. The bill to restore gun rights

That's all it is now. It removed some of the increased judicial oversight, diagnosis, etc. It only added the elements to restore rights, that's why the NRA is claiming victory with it. Sugarmann isn't the issue, the quoted content is. This is just another example of the NRA putting people's lives at risk and bamboozling their membership into believing they're passing something beneficial to the country.

[sergeiAK]

132. You're quoting Sugarmann. Try quoting the legislation

The bill still requires states to submit convictions. It still improves the mental health portions of NICS. If you can prove otherwise, quote the bill and do so.

Sugarmann, and the entire VPC are extremely biased. Sugarmann's hypocrisy (and law-breaking, in the matter of his FFL) is evidence of this. If you can't defend the legitimacy of your sources, don't post them.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sergeiAK]

142. So the NRA is also extremely biased?

You quote your biased sources, and trash mine. Either pick an objective one, or quit whining about the eeevvill NRA. The VPC, as you accuse the NRA, will not be happy until everyone (except them) is disarmed. That goes against the US Constitution directly.

The law gives money to states to help implement an appeals program. It also:

"The bill would also direct the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments to<2>:

* Establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations
* Improve the automation and transmittal to federal and state record repositories of criminal history dispositions, records relevant to determining whether a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments.<3>"

From this site: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NICS_Improvement_Act_of_2007">congressopedia

"The bill would require the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to study and evaluate NICS operations and to report annually to Congress "

Here's the full text of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:5:./temp/~c110d1a1WY::">now use this as a source

I have cited non-biased sources. Please do the same.

You still haven't answered why you think it's ok for Sugarmann to violate the gun laws of this nation. Or why you allow others to as well.

[Firethorn]

268. What's wrong with an appeal process?

I've heard of a number of horror stories about somebody being denied the right to purchase a firearm because their identity had been stolen.

Another because somebody fat fingered a SSN# into the database.

If somebody was mentally ill, but is now cured or controlled, with a good history of the same, should they still be barred from owning a firearm?

Tell me, do you think that somebody who's had their driver's license revoked should have a method to potentially get it back, or should they be barred from driving for the rest of their life?

[zanne]

239. It certainly did. That good ole' gun lobby...

When you join the NRA, you give even more money to gun manufacturers. So much for "the little guy".

[Turbo Teg]

247. I love that picture.

I just donated another 200.00 to the NRA. It's not much, but I guess every little bit helps.

[sergeiAK]

249. Quick question: How much does S&W make from the NRA, and from sales? -nt

[jody]

110. You said "we try to enforce these laws, the NRA screams 2nd Amendment" Prove it. n/t

[sandnsea]

121. Here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/trojan-horse-gun-control_b_77754.html

[jody]

140. Sorry, your cite is about a bill not passed. You said "we try to enforce these laws". Try again? n/

[sergeiAK]

104. Um, for dishonorably discharged, last gunshow I was at

Guy was trying to buy a pistol, NICS check was denied. The clerk asked him why he might be denied, ran through the list, guy had a dishonorable discharge from the army many years ago. No sale. Clerk reported it to the police at the show (as attempting to buy a firearm while knowingly ineligible is a felony). They did nothing. Don't see how the evil bogeyman NRA stopped them, but I'm sure it did. :sarcasm:

As for addiction, it has to be proven in a court of law to be reported to NICS, so most people aren't added to "the system". That and most true addicts are so non-functional they get tossed from any legit gun shop.

Stop blaming the NRA for police not doing their job and the BATF not doing its job.

"And we aren't allowed to create laws to reduce the guns that nobody truly needs anyway."

And which ones might those be? The ones that scare you? When in hell did rights become subject to what one "needs" anyway?

[sandnsea]

106. There you go, the laws aren't enforced

And why aren't they enforced? Backlash from the NRA. Jesus. It's your own damn fault people feel the need to do something different and no matter how many ways you're shown, you still won't take responsibility. The Declaration of Independence also calls on us to pledge "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." That indicates that we are responsible to each other and means when you've got cops that don't enforce the law, you need to do something about it.

When did our rights become subject to what we need? Well, hell, I guess the first time someone needed a permit to express their opinion in the town square.

[sergeiAK]

108. Show an example where

The NRA provided "backlash" when a prohibited person was arrested for attempting/purchasing a firearm. But of course, it's all my fault. Because it's not like I didn't ask the cop why the felon wasn't arrested, nor write to the chief of police, but it must be all my fault. The responses were roughly along the lines of "eh, he didn't get a gun, did he?" Dealers (90+% of whom are NRA members) report straw purchases all the time. Do the police do anything? Not often.

You just don't get it do you? Most of us would like it if the police would enforce the law, but we won't work with you if all you do is propose more bans. You've seen my proposal (if you haven't, I'll dig up a link), what else do we need? Why should certain categories of weapon be banned?

You also didn't answer the question as to what guns I "need"?

[krispos42]

139. Supporters of the NICS background check system...

Like to mention how many rejections they've had

Here's some info from the FBI:

Executive Summary

In 2005, the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section, witnessed many significant improvements and achievements in the furtherance of its mission by identifying, developing, and implementing system improvements to consistently provide its users with a highly effective and efficient level of quality service. Highlights of the 2005 NICS accomplishments include the following:

• From the inception of the NICS on November 30, 1998, through December 31, 2005, a total of 62,060,717 background checks were conducted through the NICS. Of these, 31,946,121 were processed by the NICS Section at the FBI and 30,114,596 were processed by the NICS Point-of-Contact (POC) states.
  
  
• From November 30, 1998, through December 31, 2005, the NICS Section has denied a total of 473,433 firearm transfers. The NICS Section denial rate for 2005 (1.35 percent) remained approximately the same as that for 2004 (1.36 percent).
  
  
• In 2005, the NICS Index was increased by an additional 295,835 record entries. From program inception in November 1998 through December 31, 2005, the NICS Index has witnessed an increase in the number of readily available federally prohibiting records by approximately 325 percent. As of December 31, 2005, approximately 3,960,682 prohibiting records were maintained in the NICS Index.
  
  
• The NICS Section achieved a 91.47 percent Immediate Determination Rate (IDR) for 2005, thus meeting its goal of maintaining a 90 percent or better IDR.
  
  
• In the spirit of protecting national security and public safety, the NICS Section, as of December 31, 2005, has obtained over 547,000 dispositions for posting/updating to criminal history records; forwarded over 15,270 documents to state authorities for record maintenance at the state level; and scanned over 100,000 criminal history documents for supplemental use with future background check transactions.

<more>

<boldface mine>

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/ops_report2005/html/ops_report2005.htm

[Turbo Teg]

203. Actually

Tighting gun sales at the dealer level would do close to nothing about any "illegal" gun on the street as most "illegal" guns are stolen and then resold.

[Hangingon]

74. I don't think 90% ever supported the Brady Bill. Prove it.

"Stop feeding this NRA "nutbally" gun grabber bullshit to people who don't know better, and we'd stop losing elections." You seriously under estimate the American electorate if you think they don't see thru your propaganda very quickly. Notice how much difficulty you are3 having here?

[sandnsea]

100. Yes, it's true

http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/Nov%2098/113098a.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=VywKTc1c7GMC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=1993+90+percent+support+brady&source=web&ots=fJyIfZ_shN&sig=gydUqowLvMLaaza3prq4q_SG3rI&hl=en

Christ, Ronald Reagan supported Brady.

[ac2007]

111. Those are 10 years or older

And I might note your first cite is from Handgun Control (aka Brady Campaign) so the bias of the source must be taken into account.

Polls are not an accurate measure of support without knowing the question that was asked.

10 and 14 year old poll data does not reflect current views with 10+ years of the Brady law under us.

[sandnsea]

116. *sigh* "ever supported"

ever. Yes 90% of the country supported the Brady Bill when it was passed. The majority have always supported toughening the gun laws, and the more they know about specific proposals, the more likely they are to support them.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[ac2007]

122. Thanks for citing a poll that contradicts you

The vast majority of the respondent in your citation oppose more gun control or bans on handguns. That's telling. Certainly doesn't support your position that 90% of Americans favor strict gun control.

By the way, several of those poll questions are distortions. Such as the ones discussing whether a ban on "assault weapons" should expire and allow them to be sold. Most people did not know that ban banned nothing. So-called "assault weapons" were sold freely throughout the entire period. Additionally, most people don't even know what current gun laws are. I bet if they were told what the process was as a prelude to a question about making gun laws stricter, those numbers would skew heavily in favor of "leave them alone".

Do you even know or care what current law is? If you don't know and are unwilling to learn what the law did (like the AWB), then you should be coming here and painting gun owners in broad strokes, insulting us and dictating what you think should be the state of affair and ignore the educated and supported positions of others.

I am one of the CCW "gun loons" you refer to, by the way.

[sandnsea]

125. That's why I posted the whole thing

To show the shift over the last ten years, from a period of time when the vast majority supported gun laws including the Brady Bill, until now with ten years of NRA propaganda. The link also shows that the more specific the question on gun laws, the more likely there is to be support for it. It also shows that there is very little support for reducing gun laws. The more people know about passing sensible gun laws, like trigger locks or increasing identification techniques, the more likely people are to support them.

[sepulveda]

134. the bias

you show is amazing. everything brady says is the god honest truth (tm), but with the NRA saying stuff it's "propaganda"

[Hangingon]

146. I call BULLSHIT on this one.

Bogus cites and gun grabber dreams.

[johnbraun]

10. Well, there goes the Presidency.

We had a chance to put forth a good pro-gun or gun-neutral Dem, and we blew it again. Why would we waste the votes of 35 million gun owning Dems? I know three lifelong Dems that are gun owners, and they are sitting this election out.

Get ready to go to war with Iran...

:(

[Malidictus Maximus]

133. I wonder how many of the gun grabbers*

are actually Republicans making sure this election losing albatross hangs around our neck? Why else would anyone want to support a position that restricts liberties, diverts resources from areas where they would actually benefit minorities and the poor AND loses Democrats elections that they should win. The viewpoints of a few gun grabbing extremists, as represented and parroted on this board, have done, and are doing, far more damage to our prospects of retaking the WH and congress than all the vitriol between our two candidates and the bloviating of Hate Radio put together. Qui Bono?

The more strident the anti-gun position the more I smell Rove. Some are too ignorant to know that most anti RKBA legislation was advanced by the likes of Reagan and the Bradys. And the denser elements of our party fucking GRABBED this big stinking election losing issue with all of the sense and effectiveness of a purse snatcher running off with a bag of dog poop instead of the handbag.

Only a crypto-fascist has any reason to care what happens in my body, bedroom OR what means I have about my person to defend myself and my liberty.

[SteveM]

145. The GOP will try to use the "gun issue," but Obama is smart...

I can't say he will come to grips with 2A in a manner which will satisfy me or others. But he got out front of Hillary on 2A, and his base (and here I speculate) may not be nearly so "grabby" as Hillary's older more established base.

WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS is a good political behavior study of Obama's base! I studied and taught political science and it was axiomatic that the most inactive group in terms of voting was folks under 25 years of age. Even during the Vietnam War protest era, the voting behavior of this demographic was the lousiest. Now we are told that they are turning out in records numbers!

Why are they voting? Why are they voting for Obama? On this instant issue, what are their attitudes toward the Second Amendment? I'm tired of all the "rock star" mysticism that floats as explanation for the "Obama phenomenon." We heard that about Bill Clinton (who looks kind of rummy, now).

[Hangingon]

147. I just left a google search of Obama and the second amendment.

I found nothing that is of comfort to legitimate gun owners. There is much to be alarmed about. His own web page had zero. Buried in the "Issues" was a section on sportsmen - "hunters and anglers". I saw nothing that truely supports the second amendment. In fact he is for the option of local political juridictions to control gun ownership. I believe this is agaisnt the Constitution.

[SteveM]

153. I've read his background on guns. We have a bad choice...

The few things that give me hope are his "individual right" stance (it's a start) and hopefully his lack of indebtedness to the Democratic Party establishment which is rife with gun-control sentiment. He may not be able to play dodge ball with the "local jurisdiction" argument because any measure passed at the state/local level must pass scrutiny of the 14th Amendment, as you imply. As a lecturer on constitutional law he must know the history of why the 14th came about and what it means for localities, like Chicago, which try to pass gun bans.

Isn't it ironic that the workhorse of civil rights legislation, the 14th Amendment, can be brought to bear on gun rights? Ironic for them but not for the rest of us familiar with the racist history of gun control.

[jody]

154. I hope you are right but Ted Kennedy's endorsement with Teddy's gun-grabber image bothers me. n/t

[slackmaster]

149. It's certainly has the potential to cost him some votes

Not mine, but there may be a few hundred thousand, maybe a million potential Obama voters who will hold their noses and vote for McCain because of this. That might make the difference between victory and defeat.

We cannot afford to alienate anyone on this. Suppose Obama pledged to not sign any kind of gun ban that came to his desk. What would the gun control people do, vote Republican?

[johnbraun]

150. Indeed. Gun control is not a "voting issue" for most voters.

Even among anti-gunners, they still will vote on other issues before gun control. Pro-gun people will ditch a candidate solely on their support for gun control. There is a lot to lose by not respecting the latter group and not a lot to lose by ignoring the former, because even though they may be stridently anti-gun, they won't vote on it first.

[zanne]

204. Most of the pro-gun people are Republicans, anyway. nt

[Turbo Teg]

205. Again

That's not true. I know many pro-gun dems. Look at this whole thread!

[johnbraun]

206. ***RIGHT HERE. THIS IS WHAT'S COSTING US ELECTIONS!

Saying that "well, most pro-gun people are Rethug anyway" is EXACTLY why we lose elections! Giving the issue to them means that the Thug leadership has a stick to beat their base with. And as HALF of the DU membership owns guns and as 39% of the gun owners in this country are Dems (source: Gallup), we CANNOT afford to give in to the toxic thinking that "well, guns are a Thug issue." Anyone who promotes this view is at best incompetent and at worst a deliberate plant.

[zanne]

207. Your statistics are not factual.

When you take a "poll" on DU, the outcome depends on who is viewing it at the time, the time of day, the day, and the advocating of the poll to people with the same opinion. In other words, if I conducted a DU poll about religion, I'd round up people in the Religion forum who agreed with me to vote in the poll. DU polls are NOT accurate, and to cite them to prove your point is ludicrous.

As far as being a "plant", I have over 10,000 posts in ALL the big forums. Plants don't last that long.

As both Dem candidates advocate for gun control, will you be voting for one of them? Please answer this question.

[Turbo Teg]

209. You don't have to

Answer, it's personal anyhow. Zane is just trying to bait you, since you supposedly HAVE to back a candidate and agree with everything they say, or your not a Democrat. He also demands that you answer questions while not answering questions asked.

[johnbraun]

212. Updated. 39% of gun owners are Dem.

No matter how much you don't like it, you just can't gloss over that fact.

[Turbo Teg]

208. well said john.

[krispos42]

234. Most pro-gun people are Democrats and independents

Remember, about 30% of the country is not registered with either the Democrats or the Republicans. Perhaps a plurarity of gun owners are Republicans, but not close to a majority.

[jody]

151. I like the pledge idea for BO and Hillary. No attempt to explain (BS) their past, just say I pledge.

They have a perfect out, say "I'm the Democratic Party candidate for president of the United States and I support our party platform that says 'We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms'"

The Dem Party can provide this avenue by omitting the useless verbiage I highlight in the 2004 platform "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

[SteveM]

251. I agree. And now is the time to do it. (nt)

[facepalm]

252. this is the cancer that is killing our party

There really is no excuse for losing two elections in a row against George W Bush. If you're looking for signs that our approach is flawed, there it is.

You can post all the push polls you want, but I have here this little book by Bill Clinton talking about how we lost both houses of congress due to passing the AWB. This same Bill Clinton character goes on to explain how Al Gore lost the 2000 election by talking about registering handguns just before the election. Is Bill Clinton a conservative mole for suggesting this?

Here is a fact. Learn it:
People who own guns and love guns vote on the gun issue; people who hate guns vote on other issues

This is the engine that is driving our defeat election after election. It doesn't matter if 90 percent of the populace "supports" gun control if they don't care enough to vote on the issue. A pro gun candidate doesn't lose the "anti gun vote" because there isn't one. If there is, point to an election where you saw this "anti-gun vote" in action. An anti-gun candidate loses millions of votes because there are millions of gun owners in each party who vote on the gun issue before considering other issues.

Here is a myth. Unlearn it:
Only republicans own guns. Yes, Democrats own them too and we vote on the gun issue, just like gun owning Republicans.

Have you heard of something called a union? It was a thing that was full people who owned guns and voted for democrats every single election. Thanks to the hard work of people like Sarah Brady, these noble individuals have now been broken of that habit.

Here is another myth. Unlearn this one too:
The NRA is a tool of the republicans.

The NRA is a tool of gun owners. There are gun owning bible thumpers, gun owning marxists, gun owning liberals, gun owning libertarians. The only thing the NRA membership has in common is that they all own guns and want them to stay legal.

And finally...
There are no pro-gun democrats. What a silly idea.
There are tons of them outside the big cities. Wake up and realize that the big cities have a lot of votes in them, but as John Kerry discovered, not enough to win a national election.

[iverglas]

254. just visiting the cemetery?

Threads long since gone to their maker ... taking some of their contributors with them.

EricTeri, L1A1Rocker, we hardly knew ye. RIP, eh?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

155. OBAMA ........................... ROCKS !!!

:)














































.

[iverglas]

253. really, jody?

Presumably as a member of the Joyce Foundation board, Obama approved funding for the Violence Policy Center whose primary purpose is to ban handguns used by law-abiding citizens for self-defense.

Only those handguns? That should only be a couple of dozen, so you probably haven't got anything to worry about.

jody, who never seems to be able to represent a fact without representing it falsely ...

[Carl in Chicago]

255. Guns kill Democrats (figuratively speaking)

If there is one main issue where modern Democrats go wildly astray, it's the gun control issue. This issue is going to carry more weight in this coming general election than any other in history. Why? This is the year of Heller...the unbelievable popular appeal the case has is causing people to turn their interest to the 2A like never before. And the closer you look at it, the more you see how principally important it is for "the people" to remain armed, and of course you see that the amendment both re-affirms the importance of the militia, and that it guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. And the "shall not be infringed" part is about to get a lot more attention, now than the "militia" part or the "right of the people" part.

I am very pleased to see these issues and dynamics surrounding the Joyce Foundation and Barack Obama coming to light. I trust given everyone's interest in everything Obama, that this might hit the mainstream media and TV talk.

The truth is that Joyce Foundation has long and generously supported efforts to undermine the second amendment and the protections it affords. Just look at most of the 2A research cited by DC and her amici...most of it was directly funded by the Joyce Foundation. Their strategy was to establish a bogus intellectual base for the sophisticated collective rights view - knowing full well that such a view would render the 2A meaningless and powerless. Despite disingenuous claims that they are "not promoting a particular solution" , they absolutely are. The solution they are promoting is gun control - the criminalization of firearm ownership in the United States. The truth also is that Barack Obama has consistently supported gun control. His backpedaling on this issue, now, is not indicative of a change in position, but indicative of a change in the political game he's playing. Regarding 2A rights, it is crystal clear that Barack is simply "telling them what they want to hear." In effect, Barack Obama is lying to us regarding his position on the second amendment.

This is the year of Heller...the year when the "gun vote" will matter in a US general election like it's never mattered before. I am pleased to see this discussion. Whenever the second amendment and gun control is debated openly and objectively, I am very, very pleased.

And, sadly, both Hillary and Barack have proven track records of very strong support for very onerous gun control. This must make John McCain very, very happy.

Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/19133/5152/392/496931

[radioburning]

256. Every day, gun owners in America have the insatiable urge to ...

...go to Wal-Mart, walk out the door without a background check with fully-automatic machine guns, and head to the nearest school and start spraying because we're all racist republican rednecks that hate anybody who isn't a completely macho badass, or has an I.Q. above 50! Millions and millions of innocent victims are getting slaughtered every day in 7-11s across the country with .50 cal BMG rifles! Gun nuts are using their antique world war II era SKS rifles to mug people on the streets of New York because the grenade launcher on the end works best in close proximity and the grenades are available in any liquor store! Legal gun owners are causing a veritable crime wave across the nation! Oh, I have to go now. I have to take some prescription medicine and smoke a cigarette while I get in my car so I can go buy some alcohol because I'm depressed that I'm overweight.

[jody]

260. What is the purpose of your post? n/t

[radioburning]

261. To point out irrationalities, fear mongering tactics, and ignorance.

That's all. Maybe it was a little heavy handed, but that seems to be par for the course with a lot of anti-gunners here on DU. Sometimes anti-gunners here sound as narrow minded as Republicans sound when they talk about gays and lesbians. It just gets old after a while...

Gun laws only work on people who obey laws.

[Tejas]

265. And done extremely well (applauding!) n/t

[radioburning]

270. Hey! You're a gun owner! Stop being rational and friendly! ; ) n/t

[radioburning]

262. I really wanted to be an Obama supporter.

I really don't like the Republicans, but I refuse to put in power somebody who is going to work toward taking away one of my favorite things to do-shoot guns. I really wanted to support Obama...

[iverglas]

263. I may already have asked this ...

So you're supporting Clinton?

Or ...

somebody who is going to work toward taking away one of my favorite things to do-shoot guns.

... are you just going to content yourself with making misleading statements about Obama?

[radioburning]

269. If he's for banning guns that I own, how is that misleading?

I really like Obama. If he wasn't admittedly for banning "assault weapons" he would be the perfect candidate IMHO. Assault weapons account for less than 5% of all gun crime. Why would you need ban something that is so dis-proportionally small in the big picture? From a purely logical point of view, you have to admit-it makes no sense. 30 thousand people die every year from bad reactions to prescription drugs. Maybe, and it's a pretty big maybe, 500 people die each year from getting shot from an AR-15. I bet you 500 left handed people die each year using products designed for right handed people.
Ok, you can start calling me names now, and not making any real point...

[facepalm]

271. well since Richardson didn't make the cut, what else are our choices?

"So you're supporting Clinton?"

That's what I'm doing. It makes me want to puke because I find her repugnant on a personal level, but how else am I going to stay with the party? IMO picking these candidates was the first mistake, especially against a moderate like McCain. A lot more people on the right are going to be terrified of Clinton/Obama than liberals are going to be terrified of McCain.