Helmke wants gun control issue ‘solved'

[beevul]

The lieing piece of shit repuke just can't talk without telling lies.

“It doesn’t make sense that it’s harder to buy Sudafed than it is to buy a gun,” Helmke said.

Helmke wants to implement more effective background checks for gun buyers; prohibit the sale of certain weapons to the general public; regulate the trafficking of illegal guns; and restrict the number of guns one person can buy at one time.

He encouraged those in the audience to talk with their legislators and elected officials and push them to move on these ideas.

“I don’t want to stay in this job forever,” Helmke said. “I want to get this problem solved.”

http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/LOCAL/803070333

Let me get this strait...Its harder to buy sudafed than to buy a gun? Last time I needed any, I walked into a store and grabbed them, no background check, cash and carry. Is there somewhere giving away free guns and I missed it?





And he wants to "prohibit the sale of certain weapons to the general public"? AWB regurgitated anyone?

What an authoritarian assclown repuke.

I don't know whos more disturbing, him or those...even Democrats...that support him because they hate guns.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. The desire for gun control...

Is not the exclusive domain of Democrats, in spite of the shuck and jive put out by the RNC and their buttboys, the NRA.

[beevul]

2. Would you not say the same thing applies to gun rights?

That it is not the exclusive domain of republicans/nra, in spite of the shuck and jive put out by...um...those that engage in that sort of thing?

[sharesunited]

3. I throw original intent back at 2A lovers.

Front loading single shot arms are all you have a right to.

[ELLADITSA]

4. you mean rifles. The govt allows us to be defenseless why?

I understand there are careless people, where children can get a hold of a gun but they can find means of helping , they could limit those with children but if we are defenseless we are all doomed. We have to fight, unfortunately. I sometimes don't think i have the guts to kill anyone, I'm too christian, but the will to live will make us do the unthinkable. there has to be a solution. tell me what you think

[sharesunited]

8. IMO you fall into the abyss when

you think easier guns is the way to level the field. That is madness. You follow the 2A loons back into the old west. Quite a common American mental illness. Look to the Brits and the Italians for the socially responsible standards on self defense.

[beevul]

14. Your opinion, versus FACT.

"IMO you fall into the abyss when you think easier guns is the way to level the field. That is madness. You follow the 2A loons back into the old west. Quite a common American mental illness. Look to the Brits and the Italians for the socially responsible standards on self defense." - Sharesunited






Problems with your post:

First, what exactly are easier guns?


Second, as the above concealed carry progressional map shows, concealed carry has grown leaps and bounds since 1987. Would you care to take a stab at why there aren't any "old west" reports in the news relating to it on a regular basis? Why is the logic you use in your post not causing that which you imply it will?

In fact, what you have in many instances, is one bad person illegally misusing a firearm on people that have been forbidden by law from possessing thier own.


The Brits and the Italians are welcome to thier own worldview where self defense is concerned and way of doing things, and they're also welcome to keep it.

[sharesunited]

15. Just who are you so eager to see dead or injured?

By having bullets pierce their flesh and shatter their bones?

[beevul]

22. Just whos dog are you so eager to beat?

And, how about maybe at least making some sort of attempt to adress what I actually wrote. I understand that those facts are hard to deal with, and they threaten your position, and anyone buying into it, but you could at least make some sort of weak attempt for the illusion that you actually want to discuss the issue before defaulting to the SOP of a gun grabber - that being venom. How many more posts can you manage before your unable to resist a phalic reference?

[SteveM]

31. You answer a question by asking one? Review the graphic again & rephrase.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. That's a common response from those afraid of inanimate objects.

You answer legitimate questions with ridiculous ones to evoke emotion because you have no substantive argument to make. I'm sorry you are so scared, just close your eyes and count to ten and all the bad people will disappear.

David

[Turbo Teg]

61. Anybody who threatens my safety through criminal act

.

[Turbo Teg]

60. If you don't like it,

then you should move to Italy or Britain. Here in AMERICA, we have a right to own guns. Anti gun Loons need to realize that. I know, it breaks there little bleeding hearts, but it's a fact.

[Boomer 50]

5. Then quill and parchment are all you have a right to as well

Sounds stupid doesn't it? But trust me, should the 2nd be ruled this way, there are those who will make sure that ALL the rights are relegated to their original premise of the time. Whatever rules are applied to one section of the Bill of Rights, it will apply to them all. So, think very carefully before wishing for this kind of rule.

[57_TomCat]

6. I guess that means that...

I need to park my desktop publishing setup and go back to moveable type when I wish to post political speech as a member of the "press"? I was just getting used to being in the "Media". :)

[beevul]

7. You will of course apply that to the first amendment as well, yes?

On edit:

Of course, original intent would including acknowledgement that the second amendment is a restriction on the government rather than the people, as it states within the bill of rights itself.


Iether way, that just doesn't work so well.

[selador]

9. riiiiiiiiight

so clearly the 1st amendment rights don't apply to the internet, computers, or any sort of electronically recorded communications

what ridiculous "logic"

[sharesunited]

10. None of those have the power to deprive you

of all your other rights. By killing your ass.

[selador]

11. clearly you missed

"the pen is mightier than the sword"

trust me speech has PLENTY of power.

govt. that respect, and work at the behest of citizens respect the rights of citizens to arm themselves.

govt's that don't respect their citizens don't

and last i checked, gun control doesn't prevent those who are willing to break the law by murdering you from carrying guns if they want.

[sharesunited]

12. Oh, is this a libertarian website now?

Is it ok if I start self medicating with prescription drugs?

Don't infringe on my freedoms man.

[selador]

13. actually

im against the drug war, so i have no PERSONAL problem with you self-medicating.

but speaking constitutionally, that is not a constitutionally protected act.

we have this pesky thing called constitutional rights, including the 2nd.

there is no constitutional right to self-medicate, although as far as i am personally concerned - do what you want.

[sharesunited]

16. Doesn't the 10th Amendment

protect my right to self medicate? Why do more people want to shoot guns than feel euphoric? Or is it holding other people's lives in your hands which is the source of some "greater" euphoria?

[selador]

17. no

not in any de jure sense, although it may be your opinion that it does.

as for the rest of your point, never established that "more people want to shoot guns than feel euphoric"

simply a discussion of what IS a constitutional right vs. what isn't.

this isn't about euphoria. it's about civil rights

although personally... im for BOTH :)

[sharesunited]

18. So you think that

this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution is consistent with this http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

Personally, I don't have any problem with the 2A being limited with the same level of concern for the public welfare.

[pipoman]

24. Are you really arguing two wrongs makes a right?

It may be difficult for you to keep your attention on the topic of this thread without drifting to your pet topic of drug legalization but try to focus.

It seems to me that the answer to the question you ask may be found in the over reaching application of federal enforcement of interstate commerce, which also effects gun purchases.

[selador]

28. yes

i am not going to hop down the bunny trail of legalization/decrim in a discussion of gun rights

there is a pesky little 2nd amendment . it deals with civil rights as to carrying and owning of guns

drugs don't have an amendment

laser beam. focus

[gorfle]

38. Answers...

Doesn't the 10th protect my right to self medicate?

I don't know if the 10th amendment protects your right to self-medicate or not, but in any case, I'm all for the right of adults to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

Why do more people want to shoot guns than feel euphoric?

I don't know that this is actually the case, but assuming it is, I would say that in general, responsible firearm ownership is a responsible civic duty while recreational drug use is usually a harmful activity. It would not be surprising to me that responsible, law-abiding folks would be more into responsible civic behavior than drug use. On the other hand, perhaps it would be less surprising to see most people get intoxicated and tune out rather than take their civic responsibilities seriously.

Or is it holding other people's lives in your hands which is the source of some "greater" euphoria?

You are making the assumption that people exercise their right to keep and bear arms because they derive some sense of euphoria from "holding other people's lives in their hands."

Believe it or not, most firearm owners do not sit around fondling their firearms waiting for the day they get to shoot somebody. I own firearms because I enjoy target shooting, I enjoy the precision, clockwork-like mechanisms combined with exquisite artwork found in firearms, and I appreciate the ties my firearms give me to long-dead generations of my family.

While I am ever-aware of the reasoning behind the founding fathers' motives in creating the 2nd amendment, and of the defensive possibilities of my firearms, I assure you, I derive no feelings of euphoria when I contemplate such dark thoughts.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. I like to shoot golf balls with my .22 rimfire pistol.

We have these little contests to see who can move the ball out of the other shooters range, it is kind of fun when I beat my buddy at the game, but euphoric is to strong a word. We've been friends for 20 years an that's one of the things we do on the rare occasion when we get together. I guess I like shooting for the same reason I like golf, it challenges my hand eye coordination. As far as you self medicating, what you do is your business? If you can get your doctor to prescribe the meds you desire.

David

[gorfle]

36. "By killing your ass."

None of those have the power to deprive you of all your other rights. By killing your ass.

Your logic is that because when the right to bear arms is abused it can result in death, we should only be allowed to bear muzzle-loading arms.

There is no doubt that the right to bear arms has serious consequences when that right is misused, and the results of misusing the right to bear arms has more serious consequences than the misuse of any of the other rights enumerated in our Constitution. I would argue, however, that the 2nd Amendment also has more power for good than any of the other enumerated rights, also. The 2nd Amendment is what gives the people the power to demand by force the honoring of all other rights. None of the other rights have that power.

I'm certain the founding fathers were aware of the trade-off between safety and freedom that the right to bear arms creates. Arms had been used and abused throughout all of recorded history.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the people to prevent, by force, a tyranny being enforced upon them, both from without, and within.

[Irreverend IX]

19. Original intent?

That must mean the only speech rights we have are to spoken words, writing done on parchment with quill pens and documents printed with manual printing presses using movable type. Because that was the extent of communications technology in 1776.

[L1A1Rocker]

20. That would correctly follow that logic path.

[pipoman]

23. .

[sergeiAK]

25. I throw original intent back at 1A lovers

Quill pens and unamplified voice are all you have a right to.

Really? Was this the best you could do?

[iiibbb]

27. That is silly

The framers meant us to be as well equipped as other foot soldiers... Technically this would mean an army infantryman. Personally, I can go along with the ban on automatic weapons. I think we should be as well-equipped as a beat cop (who I don't happen to think should have automatic weapons either).

[S_B_Jackson]

29. And I would argue

that the "original intent" of the Framers was that the general population have the right to the normal weaponry to be expected to be in military use. Nowadays, I'd suggest that the reasonable compromise between a protected weapon and those reserved strictly to the military would be the demarkation line which was established by the National Firearms Act. Protected weapons would be those which could reasonably be expected of an infantryman in our armed forces, but nothing larger than .50 caliber, no firearms designed for automatic fire, no crew-served weapons, and hand grenades and claymore mines are right out...unless you've submitted to an intense background check obtained consent from your local county sheriff, and have paid the appropriate federal taxes...

[SteveM]

30. And you a pen, paper and press. Why are you on your "computer?"

[gorfle]

35. Does that mean...

Front loading single shot arms are all you have a right to.

Does this mean that you are limited to hand-operated printing presses to use to exercise your right to free speech?

Of course not.

The founding fathers intended that the people be armed with "arms" sufficient to counter federal military force to prevent the enforcement of a tyranny by force of arms.

Thus those arms must be sufficient to the task. Muzzle loading arms would not be up to the task.

[EricTeri]

55. And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

Do bear in mind that muzzle loading muskets were hardly the ONLY arms in use at the time. Keep in mind as well it says "arms", not "guns". "Arms" is an all-encompassing term including all weapons.

The original intent was also very obviously to ensure the public was better armed, or at least on par with, the government. Do you REALLY want to open that can of worms?

Bluntly put, friend, you havent a clue what you're talking about and frankly, i haven't the patience to educate yet one more ignorant gun-hater.

[DonP]

62. So you want to strike down gun laws in Chicago and DC?

Muzzle loading flintlocks are also banned in both Washington DC and Chicago. Thanks for your support for lifting the gun bans.

[MaryCeleste]

21. He has been doing this dance for a while, and its not selling well

Eventually the gun grabbers are going to realize that his schtik is not getting them where they want to be.

[iiibbb]

26. Real Sudafed is behind the counter

You do need an ID, and they do check to see if you've been buying a lot.

It is not easier than buying a gun however... except perhaps it is probably illegal for me to buy sudafed and then sell it to you at any point... whereas I can sell a gun I bought privately. I'm not sure what situations technically qualify as a "straw" purchase. If I have a gun for 6 months, is it? What if I don't like it the first week I get it?

Dunno. I've liked every gun I've ever owned so I never sell them once I have them.

[benEzra]

32. "Certain weapons" = the most popular civilian guns in America. (n/t)

[SteveM]

33. Sounds like Helmke is pooping out...

"I don't want to stay in this job forever," sounds like a desire to abandon the gun-control ship as it lists deeper.

[russ1943]

34. Not Helmke who is lying.

"Let me get this strait...Its harder to buy sudafed than to buy a gun? Last time I needed any, I walked into a store and grabbed them, no background check, cash and carry."

Maybe the last time you “needed any” was prior to the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, or the store you “grabbed them, no background check, cash and carry,” was in violation of that act. It’s interesting that you would start a thread without having checked why he might be able to honestly make the statement you categorize as a lie.
Since a purchase of a firearm between individuals can legally be accomplished on a no questions asked, cash and carry basis, Mr. Helmke isn’t really lying when he stated “it’s harder to buy Sudafed than it is to buy a gun.”




Sudafed contains the active ingredient Pseudoephedrine.
The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 has been incorporated into the Patriot Act signed by President Bush on March 9, 2006. The act bans over-the-counter sales of cold medicines that contain the ingredient pseudoephedrine, which is commonly used to make methamphetamine. The sale of cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine is limited to behind the counter. The amount of pseudoephedrine that an individual can purchase each month is limited and individuals are required to present photo identification to purchase products containing pseudoephedrine. In addition, stores are required to keep personal information about purchasers for at least two years.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/methamphetamine.htm

[EricTeri]

37. Comparing apples to apples

Helmke certainly is lying.

Sudafed purchased from dealers require ID. Those "dealer" of course are you local drug store.
Firearms purchased from dealers require ID, background checks and federal approval.


Private sales of previously owned sudafed or firearms do not require ID.

[gorfle]

39. Harder to buy Sudafed.

The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 has been incorporated into the Patriot Act signed by President Bush on March 9, 2006. The act bans over-the-counter sales of cold medicines that contain the ingredient pseudoephedrine, which is commonly used to make methamphetamine. The sale of cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine is limited to behind the counter. The amount of pseudoephedrine that an individual can purchase each month is limited and individuals are required to present photo identification to purchase products containing pseudoephedrine. In addition, stores are required to keep personal information about purchasers for at least two years.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/methamphetamine.htm

OK, so to buy Sudafed from a store I have to provide a photo ID, and the store has to keep records for 2 years.

To buy a firearm from a store I have to do the same thing, plus pass a background check.

Sounds to me like buying a firearm is still harder than buying Sudafed.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[russ1943]

57. sudafed

>>Now, what were you saying?


I’m saying the OP is an example of irrational zealotry.

I quoted the OP’s statement; “Last time I needed any, I walked into a store and grabbed them, no background check, cash and carry."
That was a distortion, if not an outright lie.
It isn’t accurate because there is a Federal Act now in place that would prohibit your doing what you posted. I saw no need to call you a liar and responded with “Maybe the last time you “needed any” was prior to the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, or the store you “grabbed them, no background check, cash and carry,” was in violation of that act.”
The OP was dated March of 2008. The act (I provided a link) became effective September 30, 2006. There were numerous states with similar state laws in place for years prior to 9/06.
My point was “It’s interesting that you would start a thread without having checked why he might be able to honestly make the statement you categorize as a lie.”

Again; Why would you start a thread without having checked some facts?

>>You respond; “My common sense is all the check I need of the facts in this case. All things being >>equal there is no way in hell that a gun would be "easier" to buy than sudafed. no way, no how.”
>>You (and presumably Helmke)are comparing the sale of private property to that of retail sale to >>create the illusion that the comparison is honest truthful and reality based.

Since Helmke nor I, specifically designated any particular type of sale it is only your assumptions regarding that distinction that is the source of your un-called for derision.
Secondary purchases of guns are for all practical purposes relatively easy. No questions asked cash and carry and legal. That I believe is honest, truthful and reality based.

The all encompassing federal law, that you were either unaware of, or chose to ignore, amends various sections of the existing Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.,and places restrictions on FDA-approved, nonprescription “scheduled listed chemical products”.
Placing Sudafed onto the scheduled listed chemical products list makes their purchase considerably more difficult and in some instances illegal.
If the object is; to buy a gun the easiest way possible, then the easiest way to buy one, is on the secondary market, legally. If the object is to buy some Sudafed, the easiest way is,..... what? Where do you go to buy Sudafed besides a drugstore? Where is the secondary market? Do you know if it is legal to buy sudafed on the secondary market? To say it is more difficult or harder to buy a gun than a “scheduled listed chemical product”, legally, IMHO is not lying.


I've lurked here for years but this discussion reminds me why it is useless to post.
Yeah, people like you.

[beevul]

58. Sudafed Schmoodafed.

"I've lurked here for years but this discussion reminds me why it is useless to post. Yeah, people like you."

People like me? Who the hell are you to know what I might be like?


Irrational zealotry? I think maybe you need to see some examples of true irrational zealotry so you know what they really are.

Calling an outright ban on functional firearms "common sense gun measures...thats some there...helmke did that.

Sending a brief to the SCOTUS saying as much, thats some there, and helmkes org did that.

Swearing up and down that the amendment that has in it "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" isn't a right of the people at all...theres another example...both helmke and his little klavern do that.


The dogs breakfast known as microstamping, which everyone and thier hamster knows doesn't work...thats some there, and helmke and his little bunch of assclowns support it.

This is the same bunch of assclowns that swore up and down that rifles used in less that 3% of ALL homicides nationwide are the weapons of choice for criminals. Thats some more zealotry there, from Helmke and his bunch.

This same bunch thinks that 50 caliber rifles that are NEVER used in crime but want them banned anyway. Is it zealotry yet?


See...helmke and his bunch are zealotry personified. They can hardly speak a coherant sentence without a misleading half truth, an ommision, a misrepresentation, mischaracterization, or a flat out lie manifesting itself somewhere within. Not because I say so. But because thats what they do. They are not interested in stopping gun violence. They're interested in restricting and eliminating the tools of gun violence - guns. They do and say NOT ONE BLOODY THING about the root causes of gun violence. They aren't interested. They only care about going after guns.

"Since Helmke nor I, specifically designated any particular type of sale it is only your assumptions regarding that distinction that is the source of your un-called for derision."

Oh, its called for, yes indeed.

"Secondary purchases of guns are for all practical purposes relatively easy. No questions asked cash and carry and legal. That I believe is honest, truthful and reality based."

Yeah, and I could go buy some sudafed from my neighbor or *GASP* he might actually GIVE me some. Like I said, all things being equal, what helmke said was a lie.


"I've lurked here for years but this discussion reminds me why it is useless to post.
Yeah, people like you."


Thats neat. I have been here as a reader since just before 2001, and a poster since 2003. I remember how bad things were when the gun haters ruled justice/public safety. I remember how if you were pro-firearms-rights you could expect nothing but venom from your precious bradyites. People like you made it your mission in life to make sure that the Democratic Party, and Democraticunderground.com were places where gun owners were made to be and feel unbelonging and unwelcomed.

Those days are over, and they aren't coming back, and people like me will make sure of it.


Its only useless to post if your going to post brady bullshit, or support it, because people like me don't swallow the brady kool-aid without question. People have gotten wise to the bradyites, and as long as they keep with thier dishonest and misleading ways, they'll be treated accordingly, as will those that support them.

[iverglas]

41. is the spinning making you nauseous too??

From one of the tops:

If you (or presumably Helmke...I know folks, thats a stretch) were interested in being truthful or honest, you would be comparing retail sale to retail sale, or private sale to private sale, but strangely enough, neither you nor the former mayor - republican helmke chose that course of action...and thats telling, yes indeed.

Previously owned (and gently used?) Sudafed, the subject of unregulated private sales.

Strangely enough, rational people don't actually think there is such a market. And if there were, they'd want the same regulations to be applied, I think I can confidently say.

Strangely enough, rational people don't think that the market consisting of the unregulated private sale of previously owned firearms should exist, either.

Oh look. Apples, apples.

[beevul]

42. Apples, apples, road-ap-ples...yapple dapple...

"It doesn’t make sense that it’s harder to buy Sudafed than it is to buy a gun,” Helmke said."


That there is the statement in question. The debate here, is about whether that there statement is a lie or not. Most of us, we say its a lie. What say you? Do you actually have anything to contribute to that debate?

Attempt to defend poor 'widda republican helmkes statement if you must, but do try and stay on topic.


"Strangely enough, rational people don't think that the market consisting of the unregulated private sale of previously owned firearms should exist, either."

Yes, and stranger still, rational people dont describe a transaction that laws and regulations apply to as unregulated...unless they be practicing equivocation.

[iverglas]

43. well, you can make it really simple

"It doesn’t make sense that it’s harder to buy Sudafed than it is to buy a gun,” Helmke said."
That there is the statement in question. The debate here, is about whether that there statement is a lie or not. Most of us, we say its a lie.

What's your basis for saying it's a lie? You're making the assertion that it's a lie; back it up.

Is there a thriving market in second-hand Sudafed in your neighbourhood?

Or are you still as ignorant of the rules governing the real market in Sudafed as you apparently started out being?


What say you? Do you actually have anything to contribute to that debate?

I say it's true. I actually knew what the regulations governing the real market in Sudafed are before reading your thread. And I know there is pretty much no market in second-hand Sudafed.

And I know that if a market in second-hand Sudafed somehow emerges, then if it is not already governed by adequate legislation/regulations, people who support the regulation of the market in Sudafed will call for such regulation.


Attempt to defend poor 'widda republican helmkes statement if you must, but do try and stay on topic.

Actually, I neither knew nor cared who Helmke was. And I assume if you have some evidence that he is a Republican, you'll offer it. Along with some reason why I or anyone else would care.


Yes, and stranger still, rational people dont describe a transaction that laws and regulations apply to as unregulated...unless they be practicing equivocation.

Ah, equivocation: a demonstration! Yes, "laws and regulations" apply to the private sale of second-hand firearms ... and ergo it is "regulated". Not. Try a dictionary.

Something can be regulated, and still be unregulated, you see. You'll even acknowledge, if you decide to refrain from equivocating.

Glad to see you've learned the word. Now try learning what it means.

[beevul]

45. Nothing with you is simple...really or otherwise.

"What's your basis for saying it's a lie? You're making the assertion that it's a lie; back it up.

Is there a thriving market in second-hand Sudafed in your neighbourhood?

Or are you still as ignorant of the rules governing the real market in Sudafed as you apparently started out being?

The basis for saying its a lie? Thats easy. IF helmke is talking about at retail, one jumps through hoops and gets government aproval to buy a firearm. One does NOT do so to purchase sudafed at retail.

If helmkes scenario is the above, He is LIEING.


IF helmke is comparing the private sale of a firearm with the sale of sudafed at RETAIL, thats not an equivalent comparison for starters, and its a LIE BY OMISSION. Omission of the fact that hes comparing retail sale to a private sale.

IF the scenario above is helmkes, he is LIEING.

And whether you disagree or not, either way, hes being downright deceptive.

"I say it's true. I actually knew what the regulations governing the real market in Sudafed are before reading your thread. And I know there is pretty much no market in second-hand Sudafed.

And I know that if a market in second-hand Sudafed somehow emerges, then if it is not already governed by adequate legislation/regulations, people who support the regulation of the market in Sudafed will call for such regulation.

You also know that comparing private sale of one thing to retail sale of another thing is dishonest...but you defend it anyway. The rest has precisely fuckall to do with the topic at hand.

"Actually, I neither knew nor cared who Helmke was. And I assume if you have some evidence that he is a Republican, you'll offer it. Along with some reason why I or anyone else would care.

Sez you. I personally don't believe you. Its been discussed already, but I'll humor you...

Political career
Helmke defeated Democrat incumbent Mayor Winfield C. Moses, Jr. in 1987. Helmke won re-election in 1991 and 1995. He did not seek re-election in 1999.

In 1980, Helmke ran in the Republican primary for the then Fourth Congressional District open seat in Indiana to replace Dan Quayle who was running for U.S.Senate; he was defeated by Dan Coats, who later went on to serve as U.S. Senator from Indiana and as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany. In 1998, he won the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate to replace retiring incumbent Republican Dan Coats, but lost to Democrat Evan Bayh in the general election. In 2002, Helmke unsuccessfully challenged incumbent U.S. Representative Mark Souder in the Republican primary for the Third Congressional District in Indiana.


Family politics
His father, Walter P. Helmke, had been elected as an Indiana state senator and county prosecutor. The senior Helmke was the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress in Indiana's Fourth District in 1974. Mayor Helmke's grandfather, Walter E. Helmke, had also served as Allen County Prosecutor and had been the Allen County Republican County Chairman. Walter E. Helmke was also one of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for Governor of Indiana in 1948 but was defeated at his party's state convention. Walter E. Helmke also has the Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne main research facility building named after him.

Mayor Helmke's brother, Mark, has served as Press Secretary to U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, as a Washington lobbyist, and as a staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mark Helmke is a former reporter for the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel.


After political office
In 2001, after stepping aside from as mayor, Helmke wrote a book along with Andrew Jarosh entitled Son of a Son of a Politician, discussing not only his experiences with politics but also that of his father and grandfather. In May 2006 Helmke was named President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Before accepting a position with the Brady Campaign, Helmke worked at his father's law firm, Helmke Beams, LLP.

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

Ah, equivocation: a demonstration! Yes, "laws and regulations" apply to the private sale of second-hand firearms ... and ergo it is "regulated". Not. Try a dictionary.

Something can be regulated, and still be unregulated, you see. You'll even acknowledge, if you decide to refrain from equivocating.

Glad to see you've learned the word. Now try learning what it means.

Uhh no. That wsn't even a nice try. YOU made the claim that private sales were unregulated when you said "Strangely enough, rational people don't think that the market consisting of the unregulated private sale of previously owned firearms should exist, either.", knowing full well that regulations DO apply, and choosing the word "unregulated" nonetheless. You could have said "without government approval or supervision", but you chose "unregulated", and are now claiming that the definition YOU meant by the word when you used it, is something much closer to "without government approval or supervision".

The equivocation was YOURS dearie. The demonstration was also yours.


Own it and be done with it.

[iverglas]

46. if the moon were made of green cheese ...

then I'd be lying if I said it were made of fairydust.

IF helmke is talking about at retail, one jumps through hoops and gets government aproval to buy a firearm. One does NOT do so to purchase sudafed at retail.

IF Helmke had been talking about purchasing at retail, THEN I think he might have said so.

IF you had some basis for calling him a liar, THEN I think you could have produced it.

You haven't, so you don't. Ta.


IF helmke is comparing the private sale of a firearm with the sale of sudafed at RETAIL, thats not an equivalent comparison for starters, and its a LIE BY OMISSION. Omission of the fact that hes comparing retail sale to a private sale.

IF Helmke was talking about the ease with which an individual can acquire Sudafed in exchange for money vs. the ease with which an individal aquire a firearm in exchange for money, THEN he would have said what he did say, which was:

“It doesn’t make sense that it’s harder to buy Sudafed than it is to buy a gun”

IF someone reading those words was a total ignoramus, THEN s/he might have embarked on a raving rant about the character of the person who spoke them.

IF someone was desperate to pretend that it is not easier for an individual to acquire a firearm in exchange for cash in the US than it is for an individual to acquire Sudafed in exchange for cash, THEN s/he would have ... oh, behaved pretty much exactly as you are behaving.


You also know that comparing private sale of one thing to retail sale of another thing is dishonest...but you defend it anyway.

Nah. I happen to know what I know. I think you do too, but I don't really care. I know that comparing the ease with which an individual can acquire something in a society in exchange for cash with the ease with which an individual can acquire something else in the same society in exchange for cash is what Helmke was doing, and that this is the one and only HONEST comparison in the room.


Sez you. I personally don't believe you.

And I don't personally give a crap, but I'm pretty sure you know that. It's pretty obvious to anyone that to get at the truth, all one needs to do is read what you say while holding it up to a mirror. Reverse it, and it's roughly accurate.



Oh my, watch out for the big bad Republican. Funny how when pre-Bush Republican outliers do something consistent with Democratic Party policy and practice, they're the big bad bogeymen ... but when somebody here drags in the far right wing of the present-day far right-wing Republican Party ... Roberts, Alito, Thomas, et al. ... and sings its praises for supporting some hobbyhorse of his/her own, that's just a great big coincidence.


YOU made the claim that private sales were unregulated when you said "Strangely enough, rational people don't think that the market consisting of the unregulated private sale of previously owned firearms should exist, either.", knowing full well that regulations DO apply, and choosing the word "unregulated" nonetheless.

You've learned the concept of equivocation very well, and demonstrate it excellently. You don't really have to keep doing it over and over.

Regulations do apply, and the market is nonetheless unregulated. You've got it. I know you've got it, you know you've got it, and the big faerie in the sky knows you've got it, and everybody reading knows you've got it. And it's been pinned on you, no matter how fast you were spinning. The market consisting of private sales of firearms in the US is unregulated.

Jeez. Well-regulated militia and all that. I actually thought you might know what the word meant. Of course, I wasn't wrong.

[beevul]

50. Same old song and dance from Iverglas...poor attempts at deflection.

"You've learned the concept of equivocation very well, and demonstrate it excellently. You don't really have to keep doing it over and over.

Regulations do apply, and the market is nonetheless unregulated. You've got it. I know you've got it, you know you've got it, and the big faerie in the sky knows you've got it, and everybody reading knows you've got it. And it's been pinned on you, no matter how fast you were spinning. The market consisting of private sales of firearms in the US is unregulated.

Jeez. Well-regulated militia and all that. I actually thought you might know what the word meant. Of course, I wasn't wrong.

I HAVE learned to recognise it quite well, you are a good demonstrator. Regulations DO apply, and the market IS regulated. Something to which regulations apply IS regulated. Thats that my dear. No one except those with dishonest intent and/or a penchant for verbal trickery would claim that something to which regulations apply is "unregulated" except for when the aforementioned people were using the word in some a way not having to do with regulations at all...such as YOU did. Thats the textbook defin ition of equivocation. Equivocation: the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning. Most people would call the attempted describing of something to which regulations apply as unregulated to be dishonest, even if you don't. You've got it. I know you've got it, you know you've got it, and the big faerie in the sky knows you've got it, and everybody reading knows you've got it. And it's been pinned on you, no matter how fast you were spinning. The market consisting of private sales of firearms in the US is regulated.



Heres the definition of regulate:

"reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated

Regulations apply. The market IS regulated according to rule/law meeting definition number 1. The market IS controled or directed according to the rules principles and laws that apply to it. And unless you can say that NO regulations do, then you just don't have a leg to stand on, I'm afraid. Ta.


The meaning of the word as YOU have been misusing it, is not any of the above.

The way I use it on the other hand, is.


You therefore have been equivocating.



Checkmate

[L1A1Rocker]

56. Here is the simplicity of it. And the truth of it.

A quote from Everglas in another thread.

""Gun rights" is the biggest, smelliest, filthiest piece of racist, misogynist, imperialist right-wing shit to have landed on earth since, oh, well, it's hard to think of anything parallel. Fortunately. Maybe "manifest destiny"?"


So how do you have an honest debate with that? You cannot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. Then you are misinformed.

You wrote, "And I know there is pretty much no market in second-hand Sudafed." Have you ever heard of meth-amphetamine? If you have large amounts of Sudafed, I guarantee there is a market for it. Maybe not in Canada, but here in the States where people manufacture lots of illegal drugs their is a very big second hand market. That's why they make a copy of your license when you buy Sudafed in some southern and mid-western States. By the way, if you do know where large amounts of Sudafed are to be had let me know, I know someone with the DEA he will be very interested. I know you are rarely wrong but you are misinformed in this case.

David

[iverglas]

51. jeezus bleeding christ

Have you ever heard of meth-amphetamine? If you have large amounts of Sudafed, I guarantee there is a market for it.

Exactly WHY THE FUCK do you imagine that the rules now in effect were made???

Why ... could it be because of that secondary market??

And ... are you aware of any significant secondary market now that THE RULES ARE IN EFFECT??

And so ... can you think of a possible reason for Helmke saying it was harder to get Sudafed than to get guns?????

COULD IT BE because there are now rules in place -- that are APPLIED AND ENFORCED, unlike the rules that theoretically apply to sales of second-hand firearms -- that make it very difficult to obtain the Sudafed to supply the secondary market?


By the way, if you do know where large amounts of Sudafed are to be had let me know, I know someone with the DEA he will be very interested.

Lord love a fucking duck.

Whose point do you imagine you have just made here?????

THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT MARKET IN SECOND-HAND SUDAFED, because the primary market is ACTUALLY REGULATED. Not just the subject of regulations; REGULATED.

There are regulations that apply to the market in second-hand firearms, but THEY ARE NOT APPLIED AND ENFORCED, and so that market IS NOT REGULATED.

Thank you for the assistance. Feel free to lend a hand whenever you like.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. My gosh you are angry.

You wrote, "THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT MARKET IN SECOND-HAND SUDAFED, because the primary market is ACTUALLY REGULATED. Not just the subject of regulations; REGULATED."

Once again we'll go over this. The primary market regulation has created a huge market for second hand Sudafed. If you happened to stock up before the rules were put in place then you can sell your Sudafed to a meth manufacturer. If you happen to have a friend who works in a Pharmacy who can steal a case of Sudafed then you can sell it. That's a second hand market. An albeit illegal one but a secondary market nonetheless.

Most guns used in crimes are bought and sold on this same secondary illegal market. They are stolen guns or guns acquired illegally that are then sold to criminals by other criminals.

Most of the gun owners here would welcome public access to the National Database where background checks are performed. That way we could follow the same regulations that dealers follow. Guns bought from private sellers account for a very small amount of the guns that are used in crimes. Plain and simple, the primary market for guns is heavily regulated they are called dealers with federal firearms licenses. The secondary legal market for guns accounts for a fraction of overall gun sales and only a small fraction of those are by felons who illegally misrepresent themselves to purchase guns illegally. Most gun owners who sell guns privately would love to have the ability to use the same resources to make sure felons aren't buying our guns. This is something we could all agree on and get made into law. Everybody get on board and let's give everyone access to the database so we can sell our guns to each other with the confidence in knowing we aren't selling to a convicted felon. Join us in spirit, Iverglas.

David

[iverglas]

53. my gosh you are silly

Please -- I say in your own interests -- never attempt to make a living as a psychoanalyst. The inability to distinguish between flabbergasted exasperation and anger would not serve you well.


Once again we'll go over this. The primary market regulation has created a huge market for second hand Sudafed.

Actually, I'm sure it has created a huge DEMAND for second-hand Sudafed. Perhaps you have evidence that there is actually a huge MARKET in second-hand Sudafed.


Most guns used in crimes are bought and sold on this same secondary illegal market. They are stolen guns or guns acquired illegally that are then sold to criminals by other criminals.

"Guns acquired illegally" were AT ONE TIME legally possessed. How can you people keep pretending otherwise??

If it is a fact that the vast majority of firearms used in crime were STOLEN from lawful possessors, then how 'bout you start advocating laws requiring safe/secure storage of firearms with penalties for violation regardless of whether the firearm is subsequently known to have been used in crime?

The ease with which firearms can be stolen and then illegally trafficked does nothing to refute Helmke's statement, "it’s harder to buy Sudafed than it is to buy a gun".


This is something we could all agree on and get made into law. Everybody get on board and let's give everyone access to the database so we can sell our guns to each other with the confidence in knowing we aren't selling to a convicted felon. Join us in spirit, Iverglas.

Join the conversation, Dave. That is, figure out that the conversation was going on long before you got here, and make the effort to find out what has been said over and over and over long before you said it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. No need for insults.

You wrote, "Actually, I'm sure it has created a huge DEMAND for second-hand Sudafed."

When in history has there been a huge demand for an item and not been a market for that item? The last meth-amphetamine briefing that I had from the DEA, informed us of people selling large amounts of Sudafed to meth manufacturers. They usually acquired the Sudafed by theft.

I never argued that guns aren't stolen and then used in crimes. I said that gun sales from private citizens to criminals accounted for a small fraction of guns used in crimes. My point was that regulating these sales will do little to affect gun crime.

I will have to consider your safe/secure storage law proposal. How would you go about verifying that people were in compliance? If someone needed a gun for protection and could afford the gun but not a safe could they still buy a gun? How would the law affect the working poor, who statistically are more likely to need a gun for protection and less likely to be able to afford a safe?

You wrote, "The ease with which firearms can be stolen and then illegally trafficked does nothing to refute Helmke's statement, "it’s harder to buy Sudafed than it is to buy a gun".

It's disingenuous for you to assert that Helmke is comparing legally bought Sudafed to buying stolen or illegally trafficked guns. If you want to go that direction then it's easier to buy cocaine than a gun, a car, Sudafed, or a cell phone.

I appreciate your condescension once again but I have been here for a long time. As for the jabs at my intellect I have never claimed to be anything other than a dumb, old fireman. I have yet to see anyone write a substantive response to the many times that pro-gun people here have proposed opening the National Database to private citizens selling guns.

By the way how's the weather up there? My allergies are horrible down here. I am looking forward to your countryman George St. Pierre beating the hell out of Matt Sera in a couple of weeks. I really am pulling for your guy in this one. Have a nice day.

David

[selador]

63. oh hell ya GSP vs. Serra

as much as i would like to reflexively vote for the american :)

i frigging cannot stand matt serra and i really like GSP. GSP is a great athlete, and his personality and sportsmanship are 100X better than serra's

i particularly learned to dislike serra during the ultimate fighter. it's one thing to be cocky, but geeez. i feel the same way about BJ Penn fwiw.

at least if you are going to be cocky, do it somewhat tongue and cheek and have a sense of humour e.g. trigg

i was dissapointed when Penn (handily) beat pulver.

pulver had his first WEC fight the other day and won very quickly with a great choke and is fighting at 145 (a weight division not available in UFC)

[Tejas]

44. Helmke getting a real job (and a life) would be a start n/t

[Turbo Teg]

59. He should really move to another country.

He'd probably like Britain or Austraila.

[virginia mountainman]

64. It is amazing, that some of the people in this thread..

Are parroting that REPUBLICAN Helmke's and REPUBLICAN Sara Brady's words "Word for Word"

I come to this place to get away from that shit, not to hear democrats REPEATING it word for word.. We are the party that protects rights, NOT take them away..

For a group of people, that has practically sworn an oath, to get repukes, kicked out of office, a damn lot of you seem to regurgitate what many of them say WORD FOR WORD, with nara a original thought.

:rant:

[iverglas]

65. too, too funny

Really. I'd fall down laughing if I hadn't already fallen down once today, on a salt-covered sidewalk, so I'm being extra special careful.

You mean you don't come here to read slur after smear directed at past and present elected Democrats??

You sure must be constantly surprised then!

[Turbo Teg]

66. Now try to link something form a pro-gun rebublican

website. Watch them throw a fit. It's funny.