You have no idea who I am or what I am about, except that I oppose draconian restrictions on a civil right, and call your bullshit for what it is. I have been around here a lot longer than you, friend, and my views are quite well known by anyone that knows me, or knows what I am about. So you can take your thinly veiled accusations that I don't belong here and stick them up which ever orifice you find most uncomfortable.
You don't counter this point:
"the NRA was once not an enemy of Democrats, but people with acidic hatred of guns managed quite successfully to push them and one hell of alot of gun owners into the waiting arms of the republican party."
And you can't because its true.
Then you come up with this:
Irresponsible gun owners aren't responsible for crimes committed with their guns, but Democrats are responsible for gun nuts joining the Republican party because Democrats support *reasonable* limits on the "rights" of gun owners. (Reasonable, as in, it would still be easier to legally get a gun than to drive a car.) And darn it if we stupid Dems aren't responsible for driving the segregationists out of our party, too. Though, I suppose, a lot of the segregationists probably supported the NRA, so they would'a been two'fers. (For the record, I'm *not* saying the correlation would got the other way around.)
No, not "Democrats are responsible for gun nuts joining the Republican party because Democrats support *reasonable* limits on the "rights" of gun owners." Thats YOUR little creation. ANTI-GUN democrats are responsible for gun owners joining the Republican party because they pushed UNREASONABLE things like the assault weapons ban and quite a few other rediculous attempts at over-regulation. I tripple dog dare you to even TRY to show that banning a class of firearms used in less than 3% of ALL homicides nationwide is in any way shape size or form reasonable. Go ahead. The rest the paragraph is just garbage.
"You'll be waiting a long time, then, I guess."
Now theres a huge surprise. Not.
I *don't* want the NRA on the Democrats' side because their views are inconsistent with the values of the Democratic party, at least according to me and most other Democrats. If you want to lobby within the party to change the party's positions on gun control, great. Otherwise, leave us alone. As far as I'm concerned, the NRA isn't on MY side.
I was in the hospital visiting a relative only yesterday, and happened upon a 2 year old copy of the official NRA mag. (It's got hunting or sporting in the title, despite the fact, as you point out, "only 1 in 5 gun owners hunt." A tad misleading, then, wouldn't you agree?)
What really stood out to me as offensive, was an editorial about how important it would be to prevent the Dems in Congress (before they were in the majority) from trying to block Bush's Supreme Court nominees. It practically drooled organsmically over the possibility of a court with a majority that was aligned with Thomas and Scalia, who would allow absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever. This was before Roberts and Alito, so I'd imagine they, unlike most sane Democrats I know, are quite happy about the current SCOTUS.
Well, gee. The NRA's views are inconsistant with the values of the Democratic party, at least according to you and most other Democrats. So where were you and most other Democrats when the party was working with the nra recently? Where were your protesting voices? I have been working within the party on and off in my own way, for the better part of 5 years. And I have been only one of many. And, change IS happening, albeit possibly too slow to keep this party from shooting itself in the foot again this cycle. And as far as 1 in 5 gun owners being hunters being misleading, well, its fact. I suggest you see this poll regarding Democrats views:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1543559Well, I can only assume they were trying to block ANTI-GUN Democrats efforts. You know...the ones that keep trying to push another assault weapons ban where one is neither wanted or needed. If not for the pushing of that ban, and the continual attempts to ban things like high caliber rifles that are essentially NEVER used in crime, they might not have gotten involved at all. But hey, you can choose to characterize any reaction you like as an action. Just remember it doesn't make it so.
As far as the rest, you can thank your prohibitionist buddies for the situation were all in. If not for their efforts, gun owners might have stayed home on election night. And when I say election night, I mean pick one any time between 1994 and the present. Ask Tom Daschle why he isn't in office anymore. Ask former speaker Tom Foley why he became the first house speaker to be unseated in over 130 years. Ask Bill Clinton what happened after they passed the original assault weapons ban, and WHY it happened. At some point the the truth has to sink in, even to you.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! They want to take away your guns! And poison your bodily fluids!!
I was talking about places like Chicago and DC, where some guns HAVE been outlawed, yet criminals continue to possess them...places that incidentally have the highest murder rates.
So, then, by your own numbers, the 290,000,000 guns in America are ALL owned by CRIMINALS???!!! I guess that proves the old slogan, "If you make gun ownership criminal, then only criminals will own guns!" I used to work with someone who was into guns. As in, had a *lot* of them, and liked to shoot for fun. Even had a full-auto MEC something-or-other. He was a *fanatic* about how he had complied with every law, paid every fee, dotted every "i" and that every license, registration and permit was up to date. Go tell him he doesn't have any guns unless he's breaking one of those "stupid" laws. I'd think you'll find out that you are, er, mistaken?
Can you read and comprehend at the same time? I was talking about places whre guns ARE banned. As far as this friend of yours, he was right to obey the law, and right to be *fanatical* about those things. An NFA violation would disable him for life from possessing a firearm. He appears to value that right.
The only reason gun owners would oppose mainstream Democratic positions on gun control is if they are drinking the NRA/GOP misinformation Kool-Aid. Of course, many are, but for those that aren't, and can't figure out what all the ruckus is about, here's a quick cheat-sheet:
Reasonable gun regulation = Taking away your guns
Assault weapons ban = Taking away (all) your guns
Brady bill = Taking away your guns
Making ammunition traceable = Taking away (the bullets for) your guns
Requiring reporting of stolen guns = Taking away your guns (TWICE! The thief already took 'em once!)
Requiring guns be registered every 2 years = Taking away your guns (Just like they took away your cars! Oh, er, never mind.)
Appointing Roberts and Alito to the SCOTUS = (Keeping those commie Democrats from) Taking away your guns
Such a list. First of all I support brady background checks as does the nra so you can nix that from your list.
Ill see your list and raise you one:
Reasonable gun regulation = codespeak for unjustified prohibition of some guns and marginalization of those that oppose it. Hr1022 is touted as reasonable. Banning large caliber rifles essentially never used in crime is touted as reasonable.
Assault weapons ban = Unjustified attempt at banning a class of firearms used in less than 3 percent of homicides. Used less overall in crime than handguns or shotguns.
Making ammunition traceable = Unworkable. No crime has ever been solved using it.
Requiring reporting of stolen guns = I have no problem with this.
Requiring guns be registered every 2 years = Not going to happen. Its noone business what kind, how many or if I own any at all, so long as I am a law abiding person.
Appointing Roberts and Alito to the SCOTUS = Enabled by many things, reaction to prohibitionist agenda among them.
Giving tax breaks to the richest 1% = Helping working families
Starting an unjustified war with Iraq = Protecting American families
Again, enabled by many things, reaction to prohibitionist agenda among them.
I *do* get that, in this supposedly democratic country, people like you and me are free to disagree, and to support and vote for the candidates whom we think will best represent our views and interests in governments of every level. I also get that you and the NRA have and will continue to misinform and mislead a huge number of people in ways that, I think, make our society and myself personally, less safe and secure. We can and should have a fact-based argument over whether or not the regulations I support would make our country more or less safe. But instead we have you trying to make it sound like Democrats who oppose the NRA want to "take away your guns!"
For what its worth, I have not been a member of the NRA since the 1 year membership I got when I took gun safety in my teens ran out. That was many decades ago. I am not misinforming about anything. I'd like to see the gun issue stop being the albatros that it has been, and will likely still be this cycle. Thats a tough row when you get people clamoring for an assault weapons ban, or banning large caliber rifles. That wont do anything but piss off a large bloc of voters. Not only that, but theres just no justification for either. I'd love to have a fact based argument with you. You start by telling me how hr1022 isn't trying to take away any guns.
I'd love to know when class "b" was last "called up" for duty. I'd also love to see the reaction if the government informed all of us "ignorant" males between 17 and 45 that we were, unbeknownst to us, "members" of the militia, and that we were to report for duty, so that we could be trained, equipped and sent off to Iraq.
Anyone who protests, we'll just chastise them for how "astonishing" their "ignorance" is.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Besides, none of that contradicts the notion that the militia should be "well-regulated." So, I assume it would be OK with you if the Federal Government announced that "Every able-bodied male between 17 and 45 years of age shall be issued a government-issued M-16 rifle, for use in official militia duties. Use for ANY other purpose, private possession of ammunition or ANY OTHER FIREARMS is a felony crime." That'd be "well-regulated," don't you think?
:sarcasm:
(Just in case anyone's hot and bothered enough to think that I'm actually suggesting this as good policy, constitutional though it may be.)
Actually, the militia has been activated semi-recently if memory serves. It was during a hurricane, or flood or some such thing. Ill get details and get back to you on that. Beyond that, well regulated doesn't mean what those words commonly mean in this day and age. I suggest you research the history of the second amendment and the people that authored it, to gleen the correct definition of the term as it was intended to mean at the time it was written.
Actually, you, Faux News, Hannity, et. al. and the NRA are doing that by characterizing any and all attempts at reasonable gun regulation as "Anyone except NRA-approved fanatics want to take yer guns away! Vote GOP or else a dark-skinned drugged-out criminal-type is gonna break into your house, rape your wife and daughter and kill you in your sleep, proving that your nothing but a Girlie-Man!!!" hysteria.
I have no doubt that the republicans, the nra, faux hannity et all WILL make much hay with things like hr1022 and the 50 cal ban, bidens comments, Obamas comments about banning all semi-automatics, Kucinich's authoring of a ban on all handguns...The problem is they don't have to make those things up. They don't have to engage in hyperbolie. They don't have to lie or mischaracterize any of them. Those things are true and real. No amount of burying ones head in the sand, no amount of characterizing them as reasonable, no amount of labeling those that oppose those things...will make them go away, or make those things reasonable, or keep those that oppose those things from voting against them.
Actually, it seems like we are all suffering because you and the NRA are effectively preventing a rational, fact-based debate on this issue. Much like the GOP's "War on Terra" smokescreen prevented any reasonable debate on the war in Iraq, or how GOP "they want to raise your taxes!" BS is designed to prevent a real debate on public spending for public priorities, or the massive transfer of wealth from workers to the rich.
We are all suffering because you and your GOP cronies believe that you have to MISLEAD people in order to have any chance of winning the debate on these and a host of other issues.
And on that point, you would, in fact, be quite correct.
I am not preventing any debate. Fact based or otherwise. And you can check your snide remarks at the door too. The gop are not 'my' cronies. They are not benefiting from my efforts, they benefit from the efforts of prohibitionists - those that I oppose.
If you want to have one, then fine, lets do it. You start, next post.