Palin Electrifies Some Second Amendment Believers

[TPaine7]

ST. PAUL, Minn. — The selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has electrified conservative activists, providing a boost of energy to the GOP nominee-in-waiting from a key constituency that previously had been lukewarm — at best — about him.

...

Most importantly for McCain, the two constituencies who are most energized by Palin just happen to be the twin grassroots pillars of the GOP: anti-abortion activists and pro-Second Amendment enthusiasts and sportsmen. Without these two camps making phone calls, stuffing envelopes and knocking on doors, Republican presidential candidates would severely lack for volunteers. They are critical to the health of the conservative coalition that has dominated Republican politics for a generation.

Republicans say the primary source for the passion can be found in Palin’s example and authenticity.

...

And not only is she a supporter of the right to bear arms — but she’s a lifetime member of the NRA and an avid hunter and fisherman whose gubernatorial office couch is adorned with a massive grizzly bear pelt.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080831/pl_politico/13016

It's impossible to say how all of this will play out. What is not impossible to say is that Obama could have taken this card out of McCain's hand with a coherent, principled, constitutional position on the Second Amendment.

I still support Obama, or course, I'm just committed to contacting my elected officials and ensuring that the first time he steps out of line he gets a stinging and memorable political defeat. I do worry, however, about his sacrificing votes for an unconstitutional cause (for example, proposing banning concealed carry nationwide when he doesn't support open carry). If he's not elected, who will stand up for the rest of the Constitution?

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Since when does the president control the ammendment process?

You have a court that is loaded with pro-gun judges who will likely be in office longer than Obama, what the hell more do you want?

[TPaine7]

3. Obama elected!

He's shooting himself in the foot in the starting blocks. It hurts his chances in the race, IMNSHO.

Furthermore, a lot of damage can be done in the 30 years it takes for corrupt and unconstitutional gun laws to be overturned. The judiciary is slow and clumsy. And Obama can replace Justices.

So I want a President and Vice President who respect the entire Constitution. Not only is it right, not only is it in accordance with their oaths of office, it is in their immediate, tactical political best interest!

Is that really too much to ask?!

[krispos42]

11. Indirectly

Remember, the president leads the nation's federal law enforcement, including the ATF and FBI. The reichwing fears that Obama tell the ATF to treat gun owners and gun dealers like Bush had the National Labor Relations Board treat unions and union members.

:shrug:

Bush proved you can accomplish an awful lot by executive order.

[jeepnstein]

71. He sure has...

The ATF under Bush has been quite active. It always fascinates me how gun people get all bent at the ATF and the swine who make the policy decisions. Don't they realize the ATF is part of the Executive Branch?

Talk to some serious gun enthusiasts about the ATF and you'll feel a lot better about the NLRB.

[TPaine7]

2. I really really really hope Obama hasn't thrown away the election

for a stupid fight with the Supreme Court that he can't even win!

More from the article:

The adoration goes beyond Christian conservatives.

Sportsmen are also overjoyed at the addition of one of their own, and can’t get enough of video and pictures showing Palin firing a weapon.

“She's one of us,” wrote Michael Bane, a prominent Colorado-based gun enthusiast who has a show on the Outdoor Channel, on his blog. “FINALLY, we can get 100 percent behind the Republican ticket ... change we can believe in!”

“You know I've had my problems with McCain, but he has reached out a hand to us both at the NRA Annual Meeting and with the amazing selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate,” Bane added.

And then there is the contrast: “While <Barack Obama> wants to ban AR-15s, Palin shoots AR-15s, and apparently pretty well.”

“Every shooter, every hunter, every gun owner, every competitor needs to understand that it is time to, in the words of Bruce Willis, ‘cowboy the 'f...' up.’ ”

Chris Cox, the top political aide at the NRA, suggested that his job just got a whole lot easier, not just with a pro-gun Republican vice presidential nominee but a Democratic number two — Delaware Sen. Joe Biden — who is anathema to the Second Amendment community

“We’ll be able to have some fun contrasting not just McCain and Obama, but Biden and Palin,” said Cox, whose organization is giving "I'm a Bitter Gun Owner and I Vote!" signs and T-shirts to its members. “She’s great on our issues and been terrible for 35 years.”

Her image as a pistol-packin’ mama could prove especially key in the hunter-filled Rust Belt, said Paul Erhardt, a longtime political strategist who specializes on gun issues.

It may be too late to recover, but I wish Obama would at least try. What he needs is a frank, coherent, believable statement on the Second Amendment, with an honest admission and repudiation of his past unconstitutional positions.

[iverglas]

12. yeeaaahhh

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Michael+Bane%22+republican&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

That Michael Bane, he was such an undecided.

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/

Scalia saving Obama?

By Marshal Halloway on Monday, June 30, 2008

At least, that is what Town Hall columnist Robert Novak thinks:

Obama’s strategists can only thank swing Justice Anthony Kennedy for enabling Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion to take the Democratic presidential candidate off the hook.

And I do believe he is right. Senator Obama is not even flip flopping on the second amendment. He just tries so hard to avoid the subject in fear of experiencing the same faith<sic> as Al Gore, losing the election because of his stand on gun control.

I sure hope we can “gore” Obama out of the White House as well.

And I just keep wondering why I need to read Republican shit here.


edit: oops, pardon me; I followed a link and ended up at a site of one of his pals, not his.

Here:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2008/01/podcast-interview-with-michael-bane.html

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/
(emphases mine)

Saturday, August 30, 2008
Oh No! GUNS an Issue in November?!?!?!

Newsweek is fretting that Sarah Palin's place on the Republican ticket might...oh my goodness!...put guns and gun control in the forefront of the campaign, something the socialist weasels in the Democratic Party profoundly do not want:

"The lines are being more clearly drawn on the gun issue," says Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Center, a gun-reform lobby group. "One day after Senator Obama made it clear that he thinks assault weapons should be banned in a remarkable portion of his speech, here Senator McCain selects someone who is not only proud to be endorsed by <the NRA>, an opponent of that ban, but apparently is pretty enthusiastic about the guns themselves."

I say let's put guns right up there where they belong, right in people's faces before the campaign. Guns are the canaries in the coal mine, a bellwether on how people really feel about freedom and individual responsibility. You can tell me all you want about how you cherish the principles this country was founded on, how much of a rugged individualist you are. but if you support gun control in any form, you are a liar.

Let's check the record...b-HO has an F-rating from the NRA, has supported every gun control initiative he's ever even bumped into, wants to ban concealed carry nationally and wants to confiscate our AR-15s, the most popular rifle in the world. He said so in Denver...weren't you listening? Greasy Joe Biden, a senator known for his racist gaffes, largely undistinguished record and big mouth, is now proudly crowing that he is the "original architect" of the '94 Assault Weapons Ban and he can't wait to architect-up another one. Like b-HO, Greasy Joe has an F-rating from the NRA and has never once seen a gun control measure he didn't love love love.

A new AWB will be a priority item for an Obama/Biden White House...and you better believe the new AWB will have teeth. Door-to-door confiscations? IMHO, not out of the question...who in Congress is going to stop it? The Blue Dog Dems bent their knees in Denver, kissed the ring and drank the Kool-Aide; the Republicans are running scared.

The year of our greatest triumph, D.C. v. Heller, can also be the year of our greatest defeat, Obama/Biden.

Hmm.

I guess my question stands. I'll just add: And I just keep wondering why I need to read LYING REPUBLICAN SCUM shit here.


html fixed

[virginia mountainman]

13. Yea Iverglas...

I have been saying the same thing...

I just keep wondering why I need to read LYING REPUBLICAN SCUM shit here.

People keep posting Sara Brady's, Paul Hemkie's, and Micheal Bloomberg's, bullshit over and over again..

[iverglas]

14. you talking to me?

Maybe you could say something vaguely relevant to something I've said, if so.

Maybe you could even find something written by Sara Brady, Paul Helmke or Michael Bloomberg along the lines of "the socialist weasels in the Democratic Party" or "Greasy Joe Biden".

Given the amount of money Sara Brady, at least, has donated to the Democratic Party and Joe Biden specifically, I kinda doubt you'll be having much luck with that ...

Sad. Truly sad.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=99520&mesg_id=99621

Delaware:

Brady, Sarah K
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Violence
CASTLE, MICHAEL N (R)
House (DE 01)
CASTLE CAMPAIGN FUND $250
primary 06/26/04

Brady, Sarah K.
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Violence
CASTLE, MICHAEL N (R)
House (DE 01)
CASTLE CAMPAIGN FUND $250
primary 08/30/03

BRADY, SARAH K
DEWEY BEACH, DE 19971
ADVOCATE
BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR (D)
Senate - DC
CITIZENS FOR BIDEN $400
primary 04/29/02


Virginia:

Brady, Sarah
Vienna, VA 22182
Self/Research Analyst
FAIRFAX COUNTY DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE - FEDERAL (D)
$300
primary 07/17/02

BRADY, SARAH JANE
VIENNA, VA 22182
RESEARCH ANALYST
CORRIGAN, MICHAEL L "MIKE" (D)
House (VA 11)
MIKE CORRIGAN FOR CONGRESS
$250
general 09/21/00

BRADY, SARAH K
ARLINGTON, VA 22202
HANDGUN CONTROL INC
KENNEDY, EDWARD MOORE SENATOR (D)
Senate - DC
KENNEDY FOR SENATE (1994)
$250
general 11/16/95

[TPaine7]

15. Imagine

Imagine a soldier who isn't interested in his enemy's strategy, troop positions, tactics, and strength. Imagine one who is weary of reports on landmine and ambush locations.

He refuses to obey orders from the highest military authority--orders that would keep him out of trouble--and is contemptuous of his fellow soldiers' efforts to warn him. He is weary of hearing about his enemy's efforts to capitalize on the weaknesses caused by his his disobedience.

Imagine a person in an analogous situation in business or sports.

Imagine a blithering idiot.

Those of us who actually care about America and her fidelity to her principles, and who want President Obama to uphold the entire Constitution, can't understand why he stubbornly refuses to do the right thing.

So called "assault weapons" are not especially dangerous, they are in common use, they function like other semiautomatic weapons, and thus they clearly meet the Supreme Court's definition of a protected weapon. The Democratic platform plank about 'assault weapons" is wrong. Even worse, Obama is on record against concealed carry and his being in support of open carry is incomprehensible. Bearing arms, or as the Supreme Court said the first time it addressed the issue, the citizens' right "to keep and carry arms wherever they went" is clearly secured by the Constitution.

PS: For those too stupid to realize it, anyone can refuse to read my posts, my OPs, or any sources I cite. No one "needs" to read anything here. (I believe Canada has similar freedom.)

It also seems passing strange for someone to complain about "having" to read offensive material, and then document her search for it and proudly present her results. The whole thing reminds me of a story about an old woman who complained that her perverted neighbor kept flashing her. The responding officer asked her to show where the offense took place. "See" the old woman said, "he walks around in his bathroom in the nude. It's disgusting." "But you can't see his window from here," he responded. "You can if you stand on this stool" she sniffed.

[Major Hogwash]

16. "assault weapons are in common use" -- no, they aren't.

Only the police use assault weapons on a daily basis here in the US.
And those in the military.

There are only 2 million assault weapons owned by American civilians.
That means that less than 2% of all gun owners even own an assault weapon.

Common use?
Not hardly.
Not even close.
Not even in the same league as handguns.

[virginia mountainman]

17. LOL, I bet you can't even DEFINE an "assault weapon" NT

[TPaine7]

18. Yes, "assault weapons" are in common use. Read the context.

I said that "assault weapons" are in common use, not assault weapons. The quotes are there for a reason.

Real assault weapons are select fire. But I made my meaning clear when I said that the "assault weapons" I was talking about were addressed by a plank in the Democratic Platform:

11 Firearms
12 We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,
13 and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use
14 firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but
15 we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together
16 to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show
17 loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons
18 ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly
19 and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional
20 right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Source: http://www.workinglife.org/storage/users/4/4/images/111/2008%20democratic%20platform%20080808.pdf

These "assault weapons" are in common use. And they do operate like other semiautomatic weapons (another indication of my meaning).

[TPaine7]

20. Rereading my post, I see the selectivity of the quoted portion,

and how it avoids the clear context so as to give a false impression. I was all too clear:

So called "assault weapons" are not especially dangerous, they are in common use, they function like other semiautomatic weapons, and thus they clearly meet the Supreme Court's definition of a protected weapon.

Is it possible that cutting off the words "So called" was an innocent mistake by a person sincerely seeking truth? Or has the "gun control integrity distortion field" struck again?

[carguy67]

21. More

There are more than 2 million AK's in the US let alone AR's, M1a's, Mini 14/30's, XCR's, P90's, etc. Yes there are more handguns in the US. They in most instances are better for self defense. Last I heard you can not carry an AR around with you in public, that is what handguns are good for. They suck in comparison to a rifle for eliminating a threat.

[tburnsten]

22. Depends on your state

In mine open carry is legal. Doesn't matter what you choose to OC, though a nice handgun in a nice holster would probably go totally unnoticed or make people think you are a cop.

[carguy67]

23. true

but with today's MSM incluanced public open carry can get you hassled some. Open carry a rifle and sooner or later someone will call the cops and say some psyco is gonna shoot up the mall. ad but true.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. The drive by posting, common tactic.

[benEzra]

26. Using H.R.1022 as the operative definition, more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt.

Depending on how you define the term, and whether or not you include all guns affected by "assault weapon" capacity restrictions or just guns defined as "assault weapons" by fiat, you are looking at between 16 million and 40 million "assault weapons" in civilian hands.

Your 2 million estimate is ludicrously low. Several years ago, it was estimated that there were then seven million SKS's alone in U.S. civilian hands. Based on sales figures, AR-15's alone would account for more than two million, and Ruger mini-14's are somewhere between the 1 and 2 million mark. Add to that all the SAR's, WASR's, Saigas, M1 Carbines, M1 Garands, FAL's, CETME's, Kel-Tecs, autoloading shotguns, detachable-magazine shotguns, Ruger 10/22's with thumbhole stocks, Hammerli target pistols, Kel-Tec carbines, Hi Points, etc. etc. etc.

[Major Hogwash]

29. Ha ha ha ha!

No, my estimate of assault weapons comes from the defintion that the ATF used with the old AWB.

And it didn't include SKS rifles.

You lose.

[Dimensio0]

31. The problem with your reasoning...

...is that the definition of "assault weapons" changes from proposed law to proposed law, both on a state and Federal level. This is because authors of such legislation are demonstrably ignorant of firearms in general, and they are merely seeking a means to ban a subset of all firearms as part of an incremental plan to eventually ban all firearms ownership. There has never been any rational basis for any "Assault Weapons" ban.

[Major Hogwash]

38. Oh, I disagree. There are already 7 states that have laws that ban assault weapons.

And those laws were passed for valid reasons.
The problem with your position on this issue is that you think everyone should agree with whatever you say about it, and obviously, not everyone does.

Especially the part about your paranoid incremental plan to ban all firearms.

[tburnsten]

39. What "valid reasons" were those major?

Can you name even a single one? And the plan IS to incrementally ban firearms, numerous top dogs of the anti-gun movement have stated as much, despite your attempt to make the other poster look mentally ill.

[Major Hogwash]

55. I did no such thing!

He made himself look mentally ill.

LoL

[Dimensio0]

41. Please elaborate on your position.

What is a "valid reason" for the gun bans in the states that you have referenced?

[Major Hogwash]

58. What part of the law don't you understand?

It depends on what state you live in.
Because the law in those particular states are more stringent than the laws in other states.

It couldn't be more simple than that.

Why is it a valid reason?

Because it is the law!!!!!

[Dimensio0]

61. You have not provided any rational justification.

Because the law in those particular states are more stringent than the laws in other states.

This does not demonstrate that such stringent laws are reasonable.

Why is it a valid reason?

Because it is the law!!!!!

Your reasoning has no rational basis. That a law exists is not evidence that the law is based upon a valid premise.

Please demonstrate that laws banning "assault weapons" are reasonable. Simply noting that it is a law is not a demonstration of reasonableness.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Blaubart]

89. You're making my point for me...

But I'll elaborate anyway.

You say that you define assault weapons as those that were banned during the federal assault weapons ban and those that are currently banned by several states. And that there aren't that many of these assault weapons in regular use by ordinary law abiding citizens.

It was unconstitutionally illegal to sell or possess newly manufactured "assualt weapons" for a decade, and still is in some states. Do you think that might have an impact on how many of these "assault weapons" are owned by law abiding citizens today? If they weren't illegal, they would be in common use by law abiding citizens, which means they should be protected by the second amendment as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court. I mean, how backwards is it to judge the usefulness or legality of an item by how common it is found in possession of law abiding citizens, when it is currently illegal to possess?

I believe that American citizens should be permitted to possess the same firearms as those that are commonly issued to our soldiers and police officers. However, the penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime should be astronomical. For example, rob a bank with a knife, get 10 years in prison. Rob a bank with a gun, automatic death penalty to be carried out within one year of conviction.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and preemtively defend my stance. Firearms aren't just for hunting or sporting use. They aren't just for protecting ourselves from an intruder in our house at 2AM. They are also for protecting our families, communities and our country in the event we're attacked by an army, be it a foreign army or our own in the event of a coup. What good is a .22 caliber revolver going to be against a squad of Chinese infantry?

You don't believe armed citizens can be an effective deterrent to a foreign occupation? You don't have to look any further than Iraq for evidence that they can. We rolled over their army in a few weeks. But since then, their armed citizens have killed almost 30 times as many US soldiers than their army did. And those same citizens have many Americans convinced that we have lost this war. That we need to give up and leave Iraq.

[Blaubart]

91. Don't confuse "valid reason"...

...with the law. Are you serious? Do you really think that just because something is written into law that that status lends legitimacy and reason to it?

What part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights don't you understand? It is not for states to decide what rights they preserve and what rights they take. If they are part of this country, they need to respect the rights that the citizens of this country have been given.

I am a citizen of the United States. As such, I should be able to travel throughout my country and not have to sacrifice any of my rights when I do. States don't have the right to take away the rights granted to the citizens of this country just because a majority of it's legislators or residents agree. Isn't the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect the minority in cases like this?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

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

[krispos42]

66. And Washington DC defines a semi-auto pistol as a "machine gun"

So the defintion of "assault weapon" is whatever you want it to be.


During the 10-year period the AWB was in place, no new "assault weapons" were sold in this country. Gun makers and gun importers deleted enough combinations of cosmetic features so that the semi-automatic rifles they were selling did not meet the legal definition of "assault weapon". And millions of these semi-automatic rifles that were not legally assault weapons were sold.

And now under a bright, shiny, new definition of "assault weapon", those semi-automatic rifles that were formally not "assault weapons" will now be "assault weapons".



"Valid reasons"... :rofl: Keep telling yourself that.



And what's truly eyebrow-raising is that you apparantly are completely unaware of the hypocracy of calling "paranoid" people that say there is a plan to incrementally ban all firearms while simulanously advocating for and supporting bans on "assault weapons" and the states and politicians that do so.

:wow:

[Major Hogwash]

72. And since you live in Minnesota, that doesn't affect you one bit at all.

What's truly eyebrow-raising is that you responded to me.
Couldn't resist, could ya?

LoL

[tburnsten]

74. Not in your mind it doesn't

But in the planning books of anti-gun groups, banning guns is an incremental process, and the area with the absolute strictest bans on use and ownership of firearms are the ones that will be idolized as the goal. D.C. firearms law was previously the Mecca of anti-gun law, and now it is being steadily reduced to gibberish. So no matter where Krispos42 lives, D.C. gun laws absolutely impact him, even if only in a possibility for the future.

[krispos42]

76. Says the guy living in Idaho...

Oy vey...

[Major Hogwash]

84. Yabut, krispos, you're the one that brought up Washington, D.C., I didn't.

See, the real problem you have when you complain about federal gun laws and say it should be up to the states to decide, as soon as one of the states does decide, albeit in a way you don't like, you complain about the laws in that state, or as in this case, in Washington D.C.

You can't have it both ways, krispos.

[krispos42]

85. I brought up Washington DC to illustrate that definitions vary widely

In another instance, when New York State was compiling statistics on violent crimes committed with "assault weapons", they included in that definition handguns that are designed to hold a magazine of more than 10 rounds. In other words, pretty much all double-stack handguns like Glocks and Berettas all of a sudden became "assault weapons", and this greatly inflated number of "assault-weapon"-related crime was spread throughout the media and used by politicians to pontificate.

There is an effort to make "assault weapon" as broad and arbitrary as possible.




Everything the states and the feds decide, all the laws that they pass, must be Constitutional and not unreasonably infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. And they must operate within that limitation. Since an "assault weapon" ban does unreasonably infringe on RKBA, IMO, no state should have one regardless of how much the citizens wail and gnash their teeth over it.

However, this issue has yet to be decided specifically in the courts, those states that have them will continue to have them. IMO, now that keeping and bearing arms is without question a constitutionally-protected right, the burden of proof on the state and federal governments to limit that right is now much higher and subject to the standard of "strict scrutiny", not "rational basis" which I believe was what they were considered under before.

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.

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

[Major Hogwash]

87. Not according to the law of the state the resident lives in. The law is very specific,

But you can always move to a state that has less restrictions on guns, this is a big country.
Yet that doesn't change the definitions that the state you just moved from uses to control guns in their state just because you don't live there anymore.

Federal laws apply to everyone, regardless of what state they live in.
Yet states may pass laws that are more restrictive than federal laws.
That's just the way it is.

"There is an effort to make 'assault weapon' as broad and arbitrary as possible."

That is pure propaganda.
And that is all there is to it.

For your information, I volunteered and worked with the Kerry campaign for a little over a year in the last presidential cycle.
Gun rights groups, such as the NRA, spent $25 million dollars supporting Bush, even though Bush said he supported the AWB when he ran for re-election.
That's right! - Bush supported the AWB and said so, as late as July of 2004.

I read what the NRA said about Kerry in 2004, and I know what they said about Obama this year.

You can complain about the laws in California, or New York, or New Jersey, but those are the 3 most populated states in America, and the people that live in those states have passed laws concerning guns that they wanted to be passed.
Or else those laws would have been overturned by now.
And that's all there is to it.

[krispos42]

88. When a politician says "I want to ban assault weapons", what does that mean?

You have to look at that particular politician's bill to figure out whats going on. New York's AWB is identical to the now-expired federal one, but it's different from California's stricter definition, which is different from the very strict proposed HR1022 definition.


And states can of course pass more restrictive laws, providing they don't run afoul of the Constitution.

Gun rights groups, such as the NRA, spent $25 million dollars supporting Bush, even though Bush said he supported the AWB when he ran for re-election.
That's right! - Bush supported the AWB and said so, as late as July of 2004.

If I recall, he said he would sign an extension (or permenant passage, I forget which) of the AWB if it came to his desk. However the AWB expired on my son's day of birth, Sept. 14 2004, which was six or seven weeks prior to the election and any possible change of Congress. Bush knew that the GOP-controlled Congress would never let that bill get to his desk in the first place.

I remember reading the NRA magazine of that time (my former in-laws got them from somebody that was a member) and I was amused by their twisted logic of supporting Bush. :rofl: They were extolling about how clever Bush was, or some shit. My eyes almost rolled out of my skull at that one!

But you can always move to a state that has less restrictions on guns, this is a big country.

True. However, I shouldn't have to move across the country in order for my Constitutional rights to be recognized and protected. Such reasoning fails for same-sex marriage or abortions, for example.

I read what the NRA said about Kerry in 2004, and I know what they said about Obama this year.

Gross, isn't it? And what the NRA was screaming about in 2006, spreading fear about Democrats if we got control of Congress...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/krispos42/23

Damn, I wish we had done something to really strike fear in the Republicans. You know, like IMPEACHMENT!!! God, they were absolutely terrified in 2006 when we won, and we squadered it on day one with "impeachement's off the table". Fuck.

You can complain about the laws in California, or New York, or New Jersey, but those are the 3 most populated states in America, and the people that live in those states have passed laws concerning guns that they wanted to be passed.
Or else those laws would have been overturned by now.
And that's all there is to it.

I have trouble buying that. For example the Patiot Act is still on the books, marijuania is still illegal, the FISA bill with telecom immunity was still passed, etc. And we're still occupying Iraq.

The basic fact is that a large percentage of voters do not know enough about guns to intelligently have an opinion on the issue, yet they are often times the most vehenement on the subject. This is especially true with so-called "assault weapons", which many people that are against them can't intellegently define them. And when "gun control" is equated to "crime control", what they are saying and voting for is really crime control

Nowadays, all laws are subject to the same kind of advertising campaign and media management that gets people to buy such bullshit concepts as Compassionate Conservatism, the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, Drilling in ANWR Will Lower Your Gas Prices, John Kerry Isn't a War Hero but George W. Bush is, Valerie Plame Was Just a Secretary, and Warrantless Wiretapping Is Only Used to Spy On Terrorists.

Reading "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" gives a lot of insight into modern message-control methods.

[Major Hogwash]

92. Go ask John McCain - he was the co-sponsor of the 1994 AWB!!!!!!

You're really confused about this issue.

This isn't about the Patriot Act or about marijuana!!
In fact, when people start talking about drugs and guns in the same sentence, quite frankly, I wonder if they even know how stupid they sound to someone like me.

[krispos42]

94. Ummmm....

Sure?



I've found that if situations occur where my posts are getting longer and the person that I'm talking with's posts get shorter, that's generally a sign the subthread is dead.

[Major Hogwash]

95. So, you're done?

Because it has been my experience that when people make really long posts, most of the time, they're only trying to convince themselves they know what they are talking about.

Sort of like trying to build up their ego.

[krispos42]

100. Well, you aren't addressing any of the points I'm making

So... yeah, I think we're reached that stage where we're talking past each other.

[Blaubart]

90. Nobody should have to move to a different state...

...to keep any of their constitutional rights.

How about we ban the freedom of speech, in your state. You can't say anything against the political machine or even attend church. If you don't like it, you can always move to another state. So you decide to move to Nebraska. Two years later Nebraska sees how effective that was in getting the riff raff to leave your home state and they decide to do the same. Now you get to sell your house and move your family again. You feel like a bunch of refugees on the run. What's to stop all 50 states from doing the same?

No, constitutional rights are not optional. If you don't like it, instead of me moving to another state, how about you move to another country?

[Major Hogwash]

93. I didn't say they should either, did I?

You do know, that we can see what you're saying, don't you?

[tburnsten]

98. "But you can always move to a state that has less restrictions on guns, this is a big country."

You didn't say this?



"But you can always move to a state that has less restrictions on guns, this is a big country."




Just a few posts ago?

[Major Hogwash]

99. If his biggest concern is gun laws in his state, that's a viable option.

But, Minnesota has fairly lax gun laws, so his complaints about gun laws are fairly moot.
I lived in Minnesota for over 2 years from 1990-1992, so I speak from experience.

During my time in the service, I have lived in at least 7 different states for at least a year or longer, and I have lived in 3 other states before and after I got out of the Marine Corps. So, I know quite a bit about gun laws in a lot of different states from having lived there.

Minnesota is one of the more laid back states concerning guns, so I don't think krispos has anything to worry about in the state he lives.

I guess I'm just not as "electrified" about Palin as the rest of you guys.

LoL

[benEzra]

35. That definition no longer exists...

and is not relevant to the issue in 2008. The definition that matters is the one the VPC/Bradyites are trying to foist on the nation via Federal law, e.g. California style, a la S.1431, H.R.1022, ad nauseaum. After all, they invented the definition in the first place, not Feinstein.

FWIW, you would argue that this gun is NOT an "assault weapon", then?



But this is?

[Major Hogwash]

37. What's the topic of this thread?

So, you're excited by Palin now, huh?

Ha ha ha.

63 days left until election day.

Good luck.

[iverglas]

40. oh, now, who wouldn't be??

-- excited by Palin.

I know if I were a Democratic Party voter in the US, I'd be pretty excited by her inclusion on the Republican ticket. ;)

About as excited as I am about the election financing fraud committed by the Conservative Party where I'm at and currently under investigation. That's damnably exciting.

Of course, it is to be hoped that your adversaries are not as well coated in teflon as mine are ...

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

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

[iverglas]

75. I give up

I'm not allowed to trawl for dates in the dungeon anymore??

Or nobody's allowed to report sightings of Sarah Palin in full gungirl gear ...?

Did somebody really think that *I* was offended at Dave's twee little joke???

[benEzra]

42. No, I'm dismayed that people like you are still propping up the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch

trying to keep alive the same failed message on guns that bombed 1994-2004.

The vast majority of gun owners ARE NOT HUNTERS. The guns that most proposed "assault weapons bans" would ban are the most popular centerfire rifles in America, whether you want to call them "assault weapons" or not. Nor are they a crime problem, as you well know.

Playing semantic games with the definition does not change the political ramifications of banning AR-15's, Ruger mini-14's and 10/22's, M1 carbines, and SKS's, or restricting the lawful ownership of guns with post-1860's magazine capacities. The "play to the hunting minority, carpet-bomb the nonhunting majority" approach is a guaranteed failure.

Among other things, McCain is trying to court the gun vote (and cover his historical weakness on the issue) by putting up an anti-AWB VP to contrast with Biden. And you'd better believe that his campaign, and repub operatives, WILL be trying to bait the Dem ticket into bashing nonhunting gun owners a la the Youtube debate. Which makes it all the MORE important that the AWB come out of the platform, and that the Dem ticket take a no-new-bans position. Otherwise this will resurrect the Dems'll-take-yer-guns meme a la 1994, with people like you cheering it on.

[Major Hogwash]

54. You're dismayed?! Oh, man, that is really kind of you to be so concerned about me.

Really, I'm touched.
Ya got me right here - *thumps chest near heart*

LoL

[SteveM]

45. Buddy, "you lose." All over the floor. (nt)

[Major Hogwash]

57. Do you think Palin will "bring in" the fundamentalist votes for McCain in Texas?

I don't.

[Major Hogwash]

60. Let's narrow it down to the ones who want to take their guns to church.

Just considering those nutjobs.
Do you think Palin will "electrify" them to go to the polls and vote for McCain?

I don't.

[tburnsten]

65. Like Jean Assam

Oh wait...

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[SteveM]

82. See answer below (nt)

[SteveM]

80. Most of it (nt)

[old mark]

30. I own only 2 SKS's and FAL....

Better save up to buy more - I feel underrepresented.

mark

[Boomer 50]

53. Depends on which definition you use...

Factually, the term assault weapon is vague and misleading and utter BS. But I'll play along. Let's use Sarah Brady's example. If we include every firearm her band of idiots claim are assault weapons, you know, the ones that have the evil flash hider, barrel shroud, bayonet lug, pistol grip, and the infamous detachable magazine... well, you are referring to about 20% or so of all firearms types in the US.

Now, in your post, you refer to the military and police using assault weapons. No, they use assault rifles. It is a term created by Adolf Hitlers small arms design staff to impress a weapon concept to Hitler. The weapon in question is known as the STG-44 or the MP-43. The term is VERY specific and well defined.

You can't apply the common use argument to real assault rifles or any machine guns for that matter. The only reason that they are not in common use is solely due to the 1934 NFA and the 1986 MG ban. Prior legislation to a court case cannot be used to justify the standard of common use of a firearm. This will be addressed in a near future case that is already making it's way up to SCOTUS. Once the NFA and 86 ban are shot down, you'll see a shift in manufacturing and availability of select fire and full auto firearms rendering the "common use" BS totally void.

[iverglas]

25. so much anger at old women

You really do need to work on that Oedipus thing.

[TPaine7]

36. Someone. . .

1) Doesn't understand the story of Oedipus. (He didn't have a problem with old women.)
2) Is a poor judge of character. (I celebrate the courage and righteous actions of good and decent old women.)
3) Confuses humor with anger.
4) Confuses herself with all old women.

Bad things happen when http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170607#171276">people who need help with their own questions take up very amateur psychoanalysis.

[iverglas]

46. uh huh

1) Doesn't understand the story of Oedipus. (He didn't have a problem with old women.)

And you think Oedipus had warm fuzzy feelings about mummy when he learned he had married and fathered children with her.

Of course, it was Electra that I performed in, in high school. So obviously I know nothing about Oedipus.


2) Is a poor judge of character.

Ooooh, I don't think so.

I can spot a snot-nosed self-important self-obsessed brat at 20 paces. Just as a hypothetical fer instance.


3) Confuses humor with anger.

Oh well done! That was humour!! Of the self-deprecating kind!!! I can spot it!!!!


4) Confuses herself with all old women.

Er ... scusi ... but you seemed to be talking about an identifed old woman:

The whole thing reminds me of a story about an old woman who complained that her perverted neighbor kept flashing her. The responding officer asked her to show where the offense took place. "See" the old woman said, "he walks around in his bathroom in the nude. It's disgusting." "But you can't see his window from here," he responded. "You can if you stand on this stool" she sniffed.

whom you obviously hold in contempt. Of course, if you can't identify the old woman in question, you were just using "old woman" as a personification of various nasty traits. Wanna say which option it is?

Whichever, I'm not sure what it has to do with me. Are you saying that I am the old woman in the story? I would certainly hope not. I'd have to be demanding a retraction and reporting your post for being a vicious lie about a DU member, if that were the case. So, assuming it is not the case, why would you think I was confusing myself with anyone?

Your post oozed contempt for old women, and obviously for women in general. Nothing to do with me at all, right?

I mean, other than it being a general source of more hilarity at the pubescent boy-ness of you imagining that I am an old woman, let alone that I self-identify as such. Wanna see a picture of one of the roller coasters I spent last weekend on? Not with a snot-nosed self-obsessed brat of a boy, either, I assure you.




That's the first downward drop you're seeing.

Then there was the olde fashioned one; damned rough ride that was.



And this one went upside down a couple o' times ...



... not my most favourite thing to do.

But my heart still belongs to



Pirate Ship!

I wanna go back ...



Your link was just slightly off; your mouse obviously slipped while clicking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=171344

[WWFZD]

52. That looks like fun

even though it looks pretty tame by my standards. Don't know for sure yet but a friend is supposed to be getting a whole passel of free tickets for a private event at Cedar Point this weekend.

It's been about 5 years since I've been to CP, never ridden the Top Fuel dragster. The last time I had free passes for the Halloween festivities in late October. It was temps in the low 50's and overcast and no crowd. The line at the Millenium was 10, at the most, 20 minutes long. We would ride the Millennium, drink a watered down draft beer in the Frontier town (at least I did), repeat same 8 or 9 times. Good times.

[iverglas]

64. but the real millennium

That one I'm hoping to make it to sometime in the not too distant future ...

(I'm more of a fan of scary heights and swinging/spinning things than just fast up-and-down things myself. And yes, I confess. I closed my eyes halfway down that first drop and only opened them once, briefly, before we arrived back at the platform. And I'd hoped to enjoy that stunning view of the St. Lawrence ...)

[iverglas]

70. btw

Was that an invite?

I can be over that border in a heartbeat ...

[TPaine7]

62. Diversionary grooming

I said:

Doesn't understand the story of Oedipus. (He didn't have a problem with old women.)

Those of us who understand English know that women is a plural noun--it signifies more than one woman. In context I was talking about old women in general.


Iverglas said:

And you think Oedipus had warm fuzzy feelings about mummy when he learned he had married and fathered children with her.

Of course, it was Electra that I performed in, in high school. So obviously I know nothing about Oedipus.

Let me see if I can make this simple enough. Having problems with a particular woman is different from having problems with all old women. Just as if I were to dislike an obnoxious, dishonest, vicious (yet self-pitying) bully of a woman online it would say nothing about my feelings about women in general. Hypothetically.


iverglas:

Er ... scusi ... but you seemed to be talking about an identifed old woman:

The whole thing reminds me of a story about an old woman who complained that her perverted neighbor kept flashing her. The responding officer asked her to show where the offense took place. "See" the old woman said, "he walks around in his bathroom in the nude. It's disgusting." "But you can't see his window from here," he responded. "You can if you stand on this stool" she sniffed.


whom you obviously hold in contempt. Of course, if you can't identify the old woman in question, you were just using "old woman" as a personification of various nasty traits. Wanna say which option it is?

I see there is a female victimization reality distortion field too. I've said much harsher things about men, many men. I suppose I used them as "personification of various nasty traits" showing that I (and not iverglas, of course, LOL) hate men. It's a joke. I told the joke like I heard it. It fit. I've told jokes about men, too.

Whichever, I'm not sure what it has to do with me. Are you saying that I am the old woman in the story? I would certainly hope not. I'd have to be demanding a retraction and reporting your post for being a vicious lie about a DU member, if that were the case. So, assuming it is not the case, why would you think I was confusing myself with anyone?

Now iverglas knows very well she is not the old woman in the story. I know nothing, and care less, about her relationships with male neighbors. With all of her "education" she should be ashamed to pretend to miss the parallel. Let's see if I can make this simple enough. First iverglas read my OP, read my posts and followed my links. None of these--to sane people at least--have anything to do with her personally. After seeking out this material, she went further and found more material on her own initiative. She then presented it, along with a complaint about having to read it.

Heartbreaking, isn't it? And honest. :sarcasm:

It reminded me of a joke. I told the joke. If I had thought about it, I could just as well have told the story of the right wing anti-homosexual crusader (from Colorado Springs if memory serves). He raged against homosexuality in the pulpit and kept a gay lover (or was it a prostitute?) in his private life.

Had I used him as an example, only fool would have taken it as hatred of gays or of men.

Your post oozed contempt for old women, and obviously for women in general. Nothing to do with me at all, right?

Yawn. Is anyone still fooled?

Oh there's a woman I despise, alright. Exactly one. It has nothing to do with any other women.

The contempt the story was intended to indicate, however, was contempt for whining hypocrisy. I tend to look askance at people who whine about being subjected to offensive materials, even as they are eagerly seeking them out. Not old women (in general), not gays (in general), not men (in general). Just whining hypocrites. In general.

It's interesting that iverglas linked to a post of hers on diversionary tactics. This entire discussion is a diversion from the points in the post she's supposedly answering. And virtually everything she said in the linked thread was to divert attention from that OP. You see, iverglas is professor emeritus of diversionary grooming in the school of bovine scatology.

Oh, and for the really slow, the ability to post pictures of roller coasters proves that iverglas is a vibrant young thing like my ability to post pictures of the moon proves that I am an astronaut. Not that it really matters.

[iverglas]

63. you know

you really are a crashing bore.


Cedar Point may indeed be next on the agenda. I approach it with trepidation, since that is where my dad gained his entrée into medical history as the first reported case of roller coaster-induced subdural haematoma (New England Journal of Medicine, 1995ish). Personal knowledge of the very real dangers of roller coasters (many more such reports, and also of other brain injuries from G-force sheer rather than shaken-baby syndrome like his) adds just that extra bit of fear factor.

But you're not invited!

[SteveM]

43. "why you need to read LYING REPUBLICAN SCUM shit"? Know thine enemy (nt)

[iverglas]

51. snork

You're a card.

[SteveM]

81. Then wallow in your own ignorance (nt)

[radioburning]

4. It's true, Obama's really screwing himself on this point.

He says he can support the 2nd amendment while banning AK-47's. Ak-47's actually account for a very small percent of gun crime, and banning them will do nothing except turn Obama into a "gun grabber". The Democrats just make the same mistakes over and over. I guarantee you, if Obama chose a V.P. who was a gun enthusiast, a lot of the Republican base(at least one of the "twin grassroots pillars") would support him.

[slackmaster]

5. Actually, Obama said we should keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals

I agree with him.

[YouCanCallMeJack]

7. Why stop there?

Any sane person would agree with Obama on that point. We should keep all guns out of the hands of criminals. Ain't gonna happen, no way, no how. Criminals do not care about laws, let alone what ANY politician says. Most gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. With that said, I see no need for any legal high-powered assault weapons on the street.

I'm new here, please be kind! :)

[slackmaster]

8. I'll be first in line to criticize Obama for promoting any kind of gun ban the moment he does so

I'm taking his words at face value until I have a good reason to do otherwise.

[tburnsten]

9. Well, power is based on the cartridge used

and the AK uses a very low powered .30 caliber bullet, it uses light for caliber bullets at slow for caliber speeds. Very slow. The .308 winchester, a very typical deer round (and also an incredibly common marksmanship and battle rifle round) in a normal loading could take a bullet twenty percent heavier and push it twenty or thirty percent faster with ease. No taxing for it at all.

So the AK is actually a very weak rifle, it is only "high-powered" when comparing apples to watermelons and putting it up against service caliber handguns like the 9x19mm and .40 Smith and Wesson. Caliber is all-important when it comes to a firearms power, and civilian legal mechanical copies of AKs are not full automatic and are almost never used in any crime other than being owned by people who aren't allowed to have firearms at all for whatever reason.

And plus, low powered carbines are incredibly fun to shoot at the range for recreation and in competitions. Plus the ammunition is still close to reasonable cost, so ordinary people can afford to shoot them still.

[benEzra]

27. "Assault weapons" is Brady-speak for the most popular centerfire target rifles

and defensive carbines in the United States. "Assault weapons" dominate centerfire rifle target shooting in this country. Taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, more people own them than hunt.

"Assault weapons" aren't "on the street." They are in the gun safes and gun cabinets of tens of millions of law-abiding American citizens, including my wife and I.

Hunting rifles with traditional straight wooden stocks aren't "on the street" either. Criminals very rarely use rifles (less than 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle).

FWIW, this is an "assault weapon" according to H.R.1022 and the Brady Campaign:


Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, small-caliber (.223) farm/utility carbine

[Redneck Socialist]

10. Well, he can check that off of his 'to do' list then...

...as it was taken care of some seventy years ago, but then you knew that already.

I wasn't expecting to hear a peep about guns during his acceptance speech and wasn't happy when I did hear that line. Got some odd looks at the convention viewing party I was at when I began cursing and muttering to myself. :D

[radioburning]

77. "Out of the hands of criminals" is a sugar-coated way of saying "total ban on assault weapons". Also

"Assault weapon" is a really scary way of saying "extremely popular rifles used in a tiny tiny fraction of gun crime but ignorant people are shocked by them because of cosmetic features". Assault weapon bans are "feel good" laws that cost tax payers millions to enforce, and do very little to deter crime. It really makes me question Obama's judgment when he says what works in the country doesn't work in the city and his solution is to ban the thing that is not the problem(the vast majority of gun crime is committed with cheap, small caliber handguns).

[DeadEyeDyck]

97. If the democratic party were to reverse the Heller opinion

I think I would have to switch parties.

I have been a dem all my life, as are my parents but we are in the south and don't agree with all the liberal views. We are strong on unions but strong on defense, including self-defense.

Let the flames begin!

[spin]

6. Obama 's comment in a Pittsburgh newspaper...

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html

That comment is very easy to find on pro-gun sites and forums. My guess is that gun control will come up in the debates and he may be asked to explain this comment. McCain's vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, is very pro-gun and every newspaper and TV report points this out. Joe Biden bragged that he was the original author of the Assault Weapons Ban. That's like boasting that you were the original designer of the Edsel.

I can understand why a politician from Illinois might dislike laws that enable responsible citizens to carry firearms. Guns in the hands of honest citizens are not popular in cities like Chicago. Of course, the criminals carry them all the time.

Yes, it is true that innocent people with concealed carry permits might get shot in a fight. It's also true that the good guy's gun might deter a criminal attack and save his life, often without a shot being fired.

One thing for sure, more criminals will get shot in altercations with citizens who legally carry weapons.

*************

Obama does seem to be trying to convince the pro-gun element to vote for him.

Here was Obama's discussion of gun ownership and his wife's thoughts during a campaign stop at a middle school:

"We should be able to combine respect for those traditions with our concern for kids who are being shot down. This is a classic example of us just applying some common sense, just being reasonable, right? And reasonable would say that lawful gun owners – I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.

"And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said 'Boy, it's really pretty up here,' but she said, 'But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I'd want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it's like five miles between every house.'

"So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets."
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/obama_my_wife_sees_need_for_ru.html

I agree that we definitely need to take illegal firearms off the street and out of the hands of criminals and drug gangs. Opposing concealed weapons permits will not accomplish this. Honest people with firearms are not the problem. Criminals are.

And yes, it can take a long time for the police to respond to a rural problem. But if you live in a big city and some bad guy breaks into your home calling 911 may not save you. As good as the police are, you still may be dead by the time they respond.

My daughter stopped an intruder who was forcing the sliding glass door of our home open. He said, "I'm going to rape you." She pointed a large revolver at him and he fled. She called the police and since we lived in a big city they did respond quickly. If she wouldn't have had the revolver, he would have been able to rush and overpower her before she could dial 911.

Cities are not safer than rural areas, just the opposite. If it's OK for a person to own a gun for self defense in a rural area, it should also follow that it's OK for a city dweller to own a firearm for the same reason. All citizens should have equal rights. And I firmly believe that the people who pass all the requirements and training to carry a concealed weapon should be allow to continue doing so. Statistics show that CCW permit holders are extremely law abiding and rarely misuse the privilege the permit grants.

"I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy."
John Steinbeck

[old mark]

19. Loading up a van with guns ans selling them on the street is

already illegal.

I live just a few feet outside the city line, but it still takes police 15-20 minutes to respond to an emergency 911 call. I keep loaded guns handy to get my disabled wife and myself through those 15-20 minutes.

There are over 25 thousand carry licenses (License to Carry a Firearm) in my county of Pennsylvania alone, andless than 1 % of people holding those licenses are involved in gun-related crime. Carreer criminals do not get licenses, nor do drug dealers.

mark

[spin]

28. And sometimes events cause reduced police presence...

If an emergency happens, it many require the police to tie up a lot of available units.

A weather disaster sometimes leads to looting and other criminal activity. Fortunately this wasn't the case in New Orleans, but the city did have National Guard units in place.

I feel your decision to have access to firearms is a very wise one. I have access to a fire extinguisher in the room I'm in as well as several others in different rooms. If a fire starts I plan to call the fire department and attempt to put it out. If I just run outside, the house might burn down before the Fire Department arrives.

Police and fire units are reactive not proactive.

[iverglas]

32. isn't it just the funniest thing

how those "Second Amendment believers" manage so often and so consistently to hitch their little wagons to such cretins?

Vastly amusing, I find.

[tburnsten]

33. Sucks that *our* party leadership doesn't understand

why they keep bleeding out otherwise fine voters to people like her. Maybe if they got off the high chair with firearms they would regain some voters. Not everyone will vote democrat regardless of our stance on firearms.

[iverglas]

34. and then again

Sucks that *our* party leadership doesn't understand
why they keep bleeding out otherwise fine voters to people like her.

Maybe they aren't anywise fine voters.

Such a conundrum, eh?

[SteveM]

47. They aren't "fine" because they disagree with you? (nt)

[iverglas]

50. you're still beating that poor dog of yours?

n.t.

[SteveM]

79. Clink-clank, rattle, rattle....poof! Replace your arguments or park 'em (nt)

[Tejas]

48. It's not too late

"What is not impossible to say is that Obama could have taken this card out of McCain's hand with a coherent, principled, constitutional position on the Second Amendment."


I think Obama's handlers need to sit down and have a talk with him about the 2nd, then he needs to sit down and have a firm discussion with Biden.

[iverglas]

49. I did not put this post here ...n/t

[Teflon]

59. Wow...

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only gun-owning progressive here, after all!

The Democratic party continually shoots itself in the foot over the 2nd Amendment. If they would just leave it alone they'd get a heck of a lot less opposition, if not more votes to boot.

Nothing...NOTHING organizes Republicans like the 2nd Amendment. Plenty of folks who would have otherwise stayed at home on election day will come out of the woodwork if Biden and/or Obama keeps it up...

[spin]

67. Welcome to DU

lots of gun owners post here. The debate can get a little heated from time to time. Most of the pro-gun posters agree with you that the anti-gun image has cost the Democrats elections in the past and may cause future problems.

[iverglas]

69. noooo ... you're wrong there

Nothing...NOTHING organizes Republicans like the 2nd Amendment.

For starters, what you want to be saying is: nothing organizes morons like the NRA and a lot of money.

But my actual point is: woman-hating organizes 'em a whole lot more effectively, and cheaply. What's REALLY behind the Palin nomination? Not her gun-luvvin. Her woman-hating. Her opposition to women exercising their reproductive rights as they choose.

Taking a firm stand against permitting women to exercise reproductive rights would earn the Democratic Party a whooooole lot more moron votes.

You should consider devoting your efforts to that cause, where success would very certainly be far more effective in furthering the goal you are so devoted to. I speak of electoral success for the Democratic Party, of course.

[krispos42]

86. Good point n/t

[SteveM]

83. Some of the gun-control regulars refuse to recognize your argument...

..."I wish it would go away" (place that one under the pillow and wait for the tooth fairy); "It's not an issue" (repeat ad nauseam); "The Democrats didn't lose because of guns" (These Demos can't even face the fact Bill Clinton says they did!).

There are many Democrats who believe strongly in the Second Amendment; most, in fact. But the bureaus and consultants in the DNC are as committed to gun-control as an addict is to heroin. They can't give it up, even when faced with the damage it does them.
And they certainly can't admit that feet-on-the-ground volunteers are what the GOP needs to leverage itself more votes from a reluctant "base."

[DeadEyeDyck]

96. I agree. I think the democrate party would be so much

better if they just dropped the entire 2nd Amendment issue and gun control. There is no equivalent to the NRA on the anti side so they should just leave it alone. Or as Dick Nixon said, "benign neglect".

Focus on the issues that matter and leave self-defense alone.