I have changed my position on gun ownership. Drastically and recently.

[karlschneider]

And here is why.

In the 1980s and 90s I was a big supporter of "gun control." Even though I've been a gun owner since I was 7 years old (which was 1949.)
So, I suppose I am an old phart. Be that is it may be. My politics as a youngster, up to age 21 or so were what was called in those days "conservative" and a direct result of my father's misguided hatred of "jews and niggers." It gives me no pleasure to use those words but it is a matter of historical record and I cannot apologize for past facts. When I got into college, I observed the fallacy of those beliefs and reverted to the natural human state of "liberalism" which was reinforced by a belated interest (and required courses at Tulsa University) in religion, "Origins and principles of Christianity" (the actual name of the course) and the fact my father had managed to die in a car crash.

It surely seems to me that adaptation of one's principles ought to be contingent on what actually happens in the real world, regardless of dogma. Denying facts and/or reality can't be a viable road to sanity, can it?

So for a couple of decades, I find myself in one of several quandariess...having been a gun owner since childhood, I can't muster any reasonable rationale for denying that "right" (another discussion) while reserving it for myself. But, (I tell myself) I am responsible. I know how to handle a gun. I would never shoot or kill anyone.

Then I get into the military. They tell me it IS okay to kill certain people. Those people are not identified at the time, but I am assured I will be told who and when they are. I accept this with reservations...as in "how can somebody else give me absolution for killing?".........do you see where this leads?

But that still did not make me believe that "ordinary" people should be armed in their own homes. After all, what serious threat existed?
Yes, there was the occasional burglar, but in those days (still in the 60s/70s) it was a real rarity.

Of course there are still burglars and robbers. But the threat in 2003 is more subtle, more hidden and more stealthy. It lies in the very government that is suppossed to "protect" us. It resides within the insidious provisions of the Patriot Act, and the establishment that in years past gave rise to the ironic joke "Hello, we're from the government and we're here to help you."

So now here we are facing what any serious student of history would call incipient fascism. Can we resist it? Think how the Iraqis are resisting the occupation of their own country.

[ComerPerro]

1. My personal stance

Is that I don't mind if people have certain guns. Rifles for hunting, fine. A handgun or shotgun for defending yourself, your home? Sure. But I don't see any reason that someone should own a dozen handguns or assault rifles with a night vision laser scope.
Many conservatives still lable that stance as "too liberal".

But I am off topic now.

I enjoyed reading your post, and I think there are many people who may be coming to the same realization you have experienced.

[Demobrat]

4. I feel pretty much like you do.

If people live in the desert and need a gun to kill rattlesnakes, fine. If they need a gun in their home to feel safe, that's a shame, but OK. But nobody needs a machine gun.

[ComerPerro]

5. Well, I need one

Mounted to the top of my car....

Yeah....

[Redclydesider]

10. car mounted

i want the machine guns that pop outta my grill ala james bond. :)

[LuCifer]

57. Hehehe! Ya stole my idear!

Well, not entirely...I've been wanting a bumper mounted one! Hey, I live in South FloriDUH, crap driving is a way of life!

My $0.02 on the whole gun thing:

My dad was a cop for 3 decades, so as you could probably guess, I've been around "gun culture" (if there even is such a thing!) my whole life. I've only fired BB guns, excepting one time I did skeet shooting off a cruise ship. (Don't even go on a cruise! It is so goddamn boooooring!) However, I had literally no other choice than to purchase a handgun, due to a very psychotic stalker, who thinks she's my ex-g/f (trust me, there is NO way! it would have fell off by now if that was the case!) and she's made death threats to me, had her psycho brother make death threats to me, tried to start fights with me and my g/f in public (real smart, huh?), and the good ol' Palm Beach County Sheriffs seem way to preoccupied with writing people speeding tickets on the turnpike! Even my dad, a former cop, is disgusted to no end with the PBSO, and I can't wait to move out of this unincorporated suck area, back into any city limits, and maybe just maybe the law enforcement of whatever municipality will take this matter a tad bit more serious. It sickens me to no end that I had to actually buy a friggin handgun, but again, I sure as HELL would not have had I had a choice.

Lu Cifer

[Demobrat]

100. A real gun? With real bullets?

Would you really shoot her? What about mace or pepper spray? I had an ex stalk me once, and believe me I wanted to shoot him, but I took a class and got some mace instead. Why a gun?

[7th_Sephiroth]

45. what about war antiques

i own a WW2 japaneese machine gun

[Demobrat]

101. I don't see anything wrong with that, unless of course

you decide to climb a tower and spray a crowd. Can you even get ammo for it? I was thinking about assault weapons. I was on a jury once where a guy walked up to car where two people were sitting and murdered them both with one of those things.

[7th_Sephiroth]

115. the fireing pin is gone

just an antique

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. 1 or a dozen -- what's the difference?

I've got a .357 mag I carry sometimes when I'm hiking in case I meet a grizzly and then I got a .22 cuz the bullets are cheap enough that you can afford to take target practice. Plus it was easier for my (ex)wife to learn how to use the smaller gun. So I've got two handguns-- what if I wanted to collect and I got a dozen more? Why not? I've got four mandolins and I can only play one at a time...

[RummyTheDummy]

28. You'd never stop a Grizzly with a pistol....

I saw a pic from Denali National Park in Alaska of a man who emptied a pistol into a Grizzly who rushed him. Needless to say he's deader than a door nail now. It was amzing how the bear had gnawed on his femur down to the bone. Totally cleaned it off like BBQ ribs.

The bear was later killed by a Ranger who put 3 or 4 shots in him from a rifle. The bear dropped literally at his feet.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. .38 no - .357mag yes

Or so they tell me -- hope I never get to find out :o

I meet brown bears all the time but grizzlies aren't common in my 'hood.

[RummyTheDummy]

36. Yeah, you could definately stop a Brown with a pistol.

I think the problem more so than the caliber of said weapon in that situation is aiming when you have a Grizzly bear rushing you from 30 yards. Personally, I'd shit my pants and I'm not sure aiming would enter the equation.

I got this info from a friend who is an avid hiker (i am not) he went to Denali and spent a lot of time talking to Rangers (for a free lance piece he was doing for an outdoor mag).

Yeah, you could stop a Grizzly with a .357 but it would have to be a good shot. I agree though, I'd rather not find out.

[7th_Sephiroth]

43. there are grizzlies here

and i carry a .50 cal pistol for protection when i go hiking

[Feanorcurufinwe]

109. Hand-cannon!

[Bandit]

77. If I were you I wouldn't bet my life on that belief

One thing a pistol does do is make lots of noise and it usually is enough to scare the bear away especially if the bullet lands fairly close to it. You would be amazed at how thick a brown bear skull actually is. Maybe if you were up a tree and shooting directly down on the bear? I once saw a water buffalo shot in the ass with an M-79 grenade launcher and it knocked it down but it got right back up and ran off. These big beasts are pretty impressive. Don't make assumptions that risk your life.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. Well normally when we run into a bear

my dogs bark and I call them back and we turn around and go away and the bear turns around and goes away. She clearly has no interest in having anything to do with us. A couple of times he spent long portions of the night trying (unsuccessfully) to get into my garbage. She'd kinda sit there and pout when she couldnt get it open, then fly into a rage and fling the containers around, then pout again. He must've moved into the hood this year because I run into him a lot and in previous years it was fairly rare. When I first started running into him everyday I carried the gun for awhile on my hikes but actually I stopped doing it on a regular basis. Most bear attacks happen when people come upon them suddenly, and that is not that likely with my dogs. I have no desire to end up like this guy, that's for sure!

[7th_Sephiroth]

42. i got attached by a bear once

it wasent an adult, but it was still rather large, i snapped its neck, it died instantly

[Withergyld]

87. The grizzly story is an uban legend

See here:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/bearhunt.asp
Warning, some of the pictures are graphic!

[Bandit]

90. .338 Remington Winnie with 250 grain hand loads

That is an elephant gun. It ain't no pistol. I hunt with a 30.06 180 grain core lock and it will kill a brown bear but I wouldn't want to hunt one with it. I have shot and killed more than one brown bear and they don't go down easy.

[penny foolish]

54. the difference is simple

Why do you need that many guns? What if someone steals them? What if children get hold of them? Your collection of guns makes my stomach turn.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

110. Well

first of all I said why I have two pistols so why are you asking me why I need so many? Or did you just read the title of my post and not the post. What if somebody steals them? What if? I shouldn't be allowed to own something because somebody might steal it? Children get ahold of them? I live alone in the middle of the woods. I also own a chain saw. It could be just as dangerous as a gun in the hands of a child. But ther e is no danger of either my gun or my chain saw ending up in a child's hands.

[0rganism]

19. Except that if we take the 2nd ammendment seriously....

...that an armed citizenry is necessary for the preservation of a free state, and consider current armament circumstances, then an assault rifle with night vision laser scope is EXACTLY along the lines of what you should own.

That, and maybe something with some armor piercing punch, pushing 40mm depleted uranium tipped shells.

If it became necessary to resist a fascist takeover by force, what would we do? Die like sheep? Or go down fighting?

The notion that the 2nd ammendment is encouraging sport hunting and burglar protection is kind of silly. That's not really the kind of idea that the founders were conveying. The constitution is about big ideas, big things, like equal rights, separation of church and state, and banning or allowing alcohol ownership. If we are going to take it seriously, we should be WELL ARMED. Mortars. Grenades. AP ammo. Maybe even the occasional bunker buster nuke, to dig the shadow government out of its underground complex beneath Dick Cheney's house.

Face it, we're not prepared.

[slaveplanet]

35. I agree

were not prepared....The most important thing is to shout from the rooftops that we know what they're up to, BEFORE anything happens. This Scares the Sh** out of them. We have to present the ant colony defense.
Sure we have pea shooters but we can disrupt the apparatus considerably. Most major atrocities happened when the populus was disarmed first.....This is why the Diebold mess worries me so.
There going to pull the "you voted for us to do this" nonsense.

[7th_Sephiroth]

44. the republican goverment

has whittled down peoples rights to bear arms so should the day come of dictatorship (next week in dubya's schedual between teletubbies and power rangers)and a police state is created, we cant fight back against the soldiers who invade our homes,well, should that case ever arise, they will be unpleaseantly suprised when they knock down my door.

[penny foolish]

56. Isn't Ashcroft in the NRA back pocket?

This government has been fighting sensible gun legislation since day one. We need safer guns, less killing, and fewer organizations like the NRA. What we don't need in this country is more devices for killing and more objects of hate and destruction.

[MrBenchley]

73. He CERTAINLY is

And Cheney was on the losing end of a bunch of votes in the House of Representatives as he gallantly fought for cop-killer bullets and plastic guns...big time.

"Cheney defended two of his most controversial votes on the gun issue -- opposition to provisions banning armor-piercing "cop-killer" bullets and easy-to-smuggle plastic weapons -- mainly on legislative procedural grounds. "

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/30/talk.wrap/

[leanings]

114. ROTFLMAO

Cop killer bullets and plastic guns, eh? Don't you people ever quit? Those are two of the greatest examples of the blatant fear spreading lies the gun control nuts perpetrate in order to add some substance to their ridiculous positions; the former was never legal for public sale and the latter NEVER EXISTED.

Ah well, so long as we can still buy phasers and magic pixie dust, I guess we'll be OK.

[Java]

106. "Cop Killer" Bullets...

Most Rifle bullets will peirce a vest.

[Java]

105. The Demise of the 2nd Amendment and who is responsible

Let's face the truth shall we?

1934 National Firearms Act - introduced by FDR and backed by our Party
(This law: declared that machine guns, "silencers" and short barreled Rifles and shotguns were illegal unless one had a special permit.)

1968 Gun Control Act: Introduced by Senator Dodd (Dem) and backed by LBJ (Dem)

1994 Assault Weapon's Ban (sponsored by Senator Feinstein (Dem)) signed into law by Clinton

Brady Bill..signed into law by Clinton

Lautenberg Amendment (authored by Sen. Lautenberg (Dem))..outlawing gun ownership for certain misdemeanors - signed into law by Clinton


Is Bush a Facist? Definately, but let's face the hard truth, his administration wouldn't have been as bad if we hadn't put the Laws in place.

You can't create Facism overnight...

[penny foolish]

55. This thread is chilling

Some of you people here sound like the right wing gun nuts. The bill of rights in the constitution is a living breathing document. We don't need guns anymore since we have the police and the national guard.

[BikeDeck]

62. The most chilling thing on this thread

is your moronic comment.

How living and breathing exactly is the Bill of Rights?

You rely on the police. I will defend myself when the need arises.

[slackmaster]

66. PF, have you ever actually called the police?

If so, what was the reason you called, and how long did it take them to show up?

The last time I called them (San Diego PD) it was almost 40 minutes before they were on the scene. I had called to report a possible gunshot two doors up from my home. Fortunately it turned out to have been a seal bomb set off by a naive neighbor.

[slaveplanet]

97. OMG

I can't believe you foolishly think like that- What does right or left have to do with protecting your family & property in times of crisis....How many Korean shop keepers staved of the looters by waiving the bill of rights in their faces during the South central riots......Imagine the police response time during civil unrest say 1000 times larger than SC. What bubble of protection are you living in. Who are you working for? Or do you have your own private spaceship?

[Java]

107. Police...

Nazi Germany had lots of police...as did Stalinist Russia..

I don't think that simpley because we have police agencies we are "safe"..to the point where we do not need gun ownership by individuals.

[xJlM]

81. Speak for yourself :)

I'm not talking about nukes or grenades, but I'd almost feel sorry for the poor bastard who tried to get into my home. Almost. I think it might be a lot different though, taking those weapons into the street against our fellow countrymen.

[0rganism]

95. I wouldn't want to do otherwise

Why aren't we talking about nukes and grenades? There's every reason to suppose that the founders intended the populace to be as well-armed as the military, insofar as citizen militia were often mandatory, using the same types of weapons as the military. Now private citizens are restricted to weapons with shortcomings the military would have considered obsolete 60 or 70 years ago.

The federal government has nukes galore. Where is the people's deterrant?

[leanings]

23. Why do people insist

on trying to restrict gun ownership to what they think other people "need"? Laws restricting liberties shouldn't be modeled on what the government thinks people "need" but upon evidence that the exercise of the liberties in question cause substantial harm to the public good. There's no evidence out there that ownership of semi-autos, machine guns or multiple firearms does this. What difference does it make if I own a dozen handguns or one? Will it really matter very much if, should I decide to go postal, I only have a lever action action high powered rifle rather than a semi-auto? Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Charles Whitman, Sirhan Sirhan, Hinkley, Sam Berkowitz; none of these famous misusers of firearms felt the need to carry exotic or multiple weapons. The biggest mass murders in this country's history have been committed with fuel oil, fertillizer and box cutters. Assault weapon bans and the like are just ill conceived and ineffective forms of VIOLENCE control, and that's what we should be getting at here, right?

[anti-elitist]

103. another reactionary position

I think gun control is an issue too many of us "liberals" take a position on as reactionary response to THEM. (e.g.
THEY, the haters, racists, bible-thumping republicans, are against GUN CONTROL, so therefore I must be for it.)
That is how I started out thinking. Then, I realized that they hijacked this issue for their own, and that there was no reason to oppose the outright BAN on all guns for a decent citizen. After all, if THEY have guns, why should I not own one?
Having moved from the "safe" suburbs to an urban environment, my postion is this: LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS should be able to own guns for self-defense. But, I don't want wackos, kids, and criminals with guns anymore than the next. But, I am a responsible person, I should be able to own one for my own protection. If someone breaks into my home with the intent to do me harm, how long will it take for the police to arrive if I dial 911? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? Considering most violent crimes are committed in less than 5 minutes, I will take the chance of owning a gun for self-defense.

[mitchum]

2. I hope that many more on the left will come around to...

your present position. I did a long time ago.

[Mairead]

52. Actually, most real (so-called) lefties have been staunch supporters of

the whole Bill Of Rights all along.

It's the ochsian 'love-me-I'm-a-liberal' types that you have to worry about.

[Goldmund]

3. Yes.

They're defending themselves with RPGs and landmines.

I hate guns.

[karlschneider]

6. Hi, slavkomae (that's hard to type)

Do you also hate RPGs and landmines? I don't think I mentioned those in my post. Nevertheless, whoever is "defending" themselves (you brought that into the discusssion) are using what they have.

Would you deny them the right or ability to defend themselves against what they obviously perceive to be invaders and occupiers?

[pandatimothy]

7. You should own any gun that is free and legal

While I don't support owning anything over .60 Caliber, anything under that is fair game.

Guns are real power tools. Those that don't have them get killed by those that do unfortunately. See Cambodia and Germany.

[MisterP]

9. and Iraq and Afghanistan--oh, wait...

[Redneck Socialist]

8. Personal and practical aspects aside

politically speaking gun control kills us as dems. If, as a party, we could shed the image that we are going to take everyones guns away it would help us immeasurably at the polls. Nice post btw.

[pandatimothy]

12. It definitely would

The problem is some Dems (and some Repukes) really do want to disarm the public. They don't trust us for some reason.

[qwaszx]

14. We've been armed since 1996

When a home invasion occured at my parent's home. The security alarm went off but the cops couldn't get there fast enough even though the station is less then a half a mile away. So since then both their home and ours is armed to the teeth. Now if someone gets in there's only one way they're getting out (and it's not on their feet). We've all taken gun safety classes and field trips to gun ranges. We all practice shooting on a regular schedule. NRA member.

[pandatimothy]

15. Originally being from West Virginia

where 90% of state is Democrat and armed, I just laugh as Democrats elsewhere pooh-pooh guns.

Uhh all the 'Rush Is Right" crowd is armed so shouldn't we be?

[Woodstock]

25. Good point

Ashcroft in power made me rethink guns.

[Redclydesider]

16. armed

My wife also now has a handgun in the house and we have a 12 gauge, just in case the pitbull and our 160lb great dane need some backup.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. I was thinking of starting a group

Gun-toting Liberals for Kerry

[karlschneider]

18. Thanks. I've wished for many years for a way to "un-invent" some things.

But obviously Pandora's box is a one-way street. I've never believed in either predestination OR free will...

now I pretty much doubt everything. I guess that makes me a complete cynic. It still feels better than if I were a sheep. :eyes:

How do people who "go along to get along" live with themselves? I can't figure it out.

There's a person (?) living in the White House who's there by virtue of a totally bogus "decision" from the USSC. Who got fewer votes than his opponent. There is no disputing that fact. He is a minimally-competent facade for a clearly obvious plan to subvert the Constitution of the USA with no intellect, no integrity and no interest in the American public.

I'll stop ranting now. But I will dream about this and it will be yet another nightmare.

[markses]

17. My wife as well

She had been against firearms in a Million Mom March kinda way. I grew up in NYC and I've seen and fired my share of handguns, so I just kinda went along with her conviction.

However, I showed her a few Freeper threads, and the more the radical right radicalizes, the more we believe that we will one day have to defend ourselves against them. So, we went through the procedures.

From my recent practice at the range, I can tell you this. I'm glad I had "training' in my teens. I'm actually not bad. Any fucker who comes for me or my commie family is gonna be scooping a portion of him or herself off the mutherfucking sidewalk.

[jame]

20. Believe it or not, I agree with you!

First time post here, mostly just to check the place out.

I'll make no bones about it. I probably lean a little more right than most of you folks. I did read the forum rules before registering, so I hope my stance doesn't make me unwelcome. Civil discussion is normally welcome over at many gun forums, so I hope it's welcome here. I came to see open discussion. If it's not to be, I guess so be it.

I'm happy to see a lot of folks taking control of their own defenses. I have been for years, realizing that cops usually show up to take pictures and ask questions.

I have my concealed carry license as well, and I believe that individual responsibility should be recognized as a benefit, rather than a scourge to society. As many of my deputy friends have told me, "You're one less guy I have to worry about."

That says a something, don't you think?

[Snow]

21. Welcome, Jame....

and diversity of opinion should be welcome. It's, in my opinion, at least, lack of courtesy that we really should not permit. The gun thing is a steady hashing bubbling thing on this board - check out the justice etc section.

For the rest of you, concerned about incipient takeovers. First, the military takes oaths to defend against "enemies foreign and domestic" and I've seen some on this board expressing their willingness to adhere to that oath if next year looks like a total coup coming in.
Second, for heaven's sake educate yourselves in non-violence. Don't be like the media whores, who think pacifism is letting yourself be smacked around and walked on. It's a very complex, deep idea that offers a lot of alternatives. Someone shooting at someone else has not taken time enough to think through alternatives, generally....

[markses]

22. Nothing to do with "individual responsibility"

Everything to do with class warfare. It's a class war waged by the desperate rich, pure and simple. We shouldn't let the success of certain versions of class war obscure that fact. Firearm is for self-defence in the context of class warfare.

[0rganism]

38. Welcome, jame, and a few tips

There are a lot of people here who "lean a bit to the right", especially on the gun issue. However, this isn't a "gun forum", per se. It's a dominant topic in the Justice and Public Safety sub-forum, but please keep in mind that this is above all a forum for Democrats and Dem-sympathizers.

Debates that fall outside the parameters usually associated with "infighting" tend to get shut down really quick. There are forums for full-on conservative vs. liberal debates, but this isn't one of 'em.

If you wait until you hit a few hundred posts to talk smack, you might not get banned right away.

Anyway, welcome to DU, I for one hope you find it interesting at least, maybe even refreshing. Good luck!

[rppper]

113. untill 4 years ago, i only owned one rifle.....

...a wonderful enfield .303 that i have used to hunt with since i was a teen. i bought my 12 gauge and .45 after the impeachment...there was an underlying tone that was being set that truely disturbed me. i have shot guns and pistols during my teens and throughout my enlistment in the navy.

i choose the two weapons i knew how to break down and care for...a mossberg 500 12 gauge and a colt .45 semi...which were the weapons i was trained for in the navy and the ones which i earned expert marksman ribbons for.

my pistol is locked up in a case along with the rifle, but the shotgun is under my bed, within reach, and a box of shells are in my nightstand...i have been trained in combat loading, but i would like to think the sound of the pump action on the gun would stop the average intruder.

i am an old school country boy at the core...liberal or not...and i have training from the finest instructors the navy had to offer. i would not hesitate one second to shoot and kill a home invader...be it a thief or rambunctous neo-con....

[Selwynn]

24. I disagree with your position entirely...

..but believe it is a subject on which two reasonable and basically equally informed persons can disagree.

I'm not here to make a case for my position. I'd rather just acknoweldge that we can reasonably disagree and still be untied overall.

As far as I'm concerned, there is a vastly huge difference between rigorous gun control and gun regulation and a repeal of the second amendment. I jokingly say that I'd be fine with the loss of amendment 2, but its only a joke I've decided after really thinking about it. What I think is that owning a gun shouldn't be easier than buying a six pack of beer. It should be difficult, it should require effort and training, and there should be clear and tough limits and restrictions to ownership -- specifically on types and quatities. To me the evidence that I've seen has always seemed to indicate that countries with good gun laws also have less gun violence - I don't know how hard the science is on this, or if there are other factors involved as well.

I do remember watching bowling for columbine and the part that really, really fascinated me was the section about Canada - not that I'm saying I take a documentary where I can't personally verify any of the claims being made as gospel truth. But it was interesting. The differences seemed so striking. Basically what I personally believe, is that if our "forefathers" could be alive today and see what is justified in the name of the second amendment, they'd die again. :) But I could be wrong about that.

Ok so while I didn't really make a "case" for my position, I did share what it was. Happy to disagree with you on this. I'm sure there's many things we agree on.

[BikeDeck]

65. Gun laws and violence

Your right. But unintentionally. Switzerland, where every home is required to have a rifle has virtually no gun crime. And countries who continually increase the difficulty of citizens to get firearms have an ever increasing problem with gun crimes. See England.

[MrBenchley]

74. Gee, but Switzerland

also registered EVERY gun and gun owner...and every round of ammo has to be accounted for in writing.

"And countries who continually increase the difficulty of citizens to get firearms have an ever increasing problem with gun crimes. See England."
Gee, the entire UK (with 60 million people) has fewer gun deaths and gun crimes than Ft.. Worth, Texas (600,000 population). Gun crime in the UK would have to increase several THOUSAND percent to approach the level found in, say, Alabama.

[Selwynn]

85. Ahhh.... now it becomes a little more clear :)

I.e. Switzerland has tough gun control laws.

[BullDozer]

104. You keep making that misleading claim.

You and Nancy Hwa both try to peddle it.

I find nothing in the Swiss gun laws that back up your claim that;

and every round of ammo has to be accounted for in writing.

perhaps you are privy to a better translation than I am.

The only ammunition accountability applies to the military issue ammunition that is kept in the home along with their issued rifle, currently a SIG 550.

The issued tin of ammunition must be still be in it's as issued sealed condition when they report for duty.

Other than that the Swiss are free to buy and use as much ammunition as they want to.

It is absurd to claim Swiss gun control is responsible for that country's low crime rates or do you want to go with the more Swiss guns = less crime (400,000 full-auto weapons / 2.8 million households = 14 per cent of Swiss households have a full-auto weapon in them)?

Have gun crimes gone up or down in England since they last tightened their restrictions up?

Not are they at the same level as a city in the US but have they gone up or down?

[Selwynn]

84. Not supported by satistics....

We are going to have to present some hard satistics I think. Becuase the last statistics I looked at don't support what you are saying in most cases. Perhaps Switzerland is the exception.

But I say a research report two years ago that basically took thirteen industrialized nations, which when you add their populations together roughly equal the size of the united States - their rate of gun violence was over 80% less than in the United States. These thirteen nations had strict gun control laws - please don't misunderstand my argument. I cannot prove that gun laws are the cause of this 80% difference. But I think the difference (if the report is still accurate) is so significant, that we should be looking to them for ideas about what they do differently to achieve such better results. One thing they all did was have very tough gun laws.

Otherwise the alternative is that Americans are just pathologically commited to gun violence where the rest of the world is not, which I think is a lot less likely. Though I haven't actively argued this issue with research in hand for a long time now, there certainly used to be an overwhelming ammount of evidence that seemed to link direclty, a society with gun control and a lower level of gun violence. If Switzerland doesn't fit that bill, then yay for Switzerland. Unless its a majority pattern, to me it is just an anomoly.

[MrBenchley]

72. Not a single gun control law EVER

has been ruled to violate the Second Amendment. Nor has the NRA ever tried to overturn any gun control law by suing on Second Amendment grounds although their claim is that they are ALL unconstitutional. That's never as in not ever. Wonder why someone wouldn't put their money where their mouth was?

The NRA hasn't been shy about suing on OTHER grounds. Hilariously, although they are the chief source of the lie about "The Bill of Rights covers only individual rights," they are currently suing (with Ken Starr's help) to overturn campaign finance reform on the grounds that their COLLECTIVE First Amendment rights are being violated if they can't give blood money to the GOP.

"What I think is that owning a gun shouldn't be easier than buying a six pack of beer. It should be difficult, it should require effort and training, and there should be clear and tough limits and restrictions to ownership -- specifically on types and quatities."
Hear! Hear!

[moondust]

26. Not me.

All it takes is one look at world gun and violent crime statistics to be reminded that the U.S. is the big loser when it comes to guns and violence.

[Clete]

27. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership.

I do believe gun owners should be licensed to own guns like being licensed to drive a car. This means you pass certain tests for knowing how to keep your guns and knowledge of the laws in your area. I also believe in background checks for any felon who has done time for a violent crime. After this kind of licensing I wouldn't have any problem with someone owning high powered rifles and machine guns. Some people are collectors and handle these weapons responsibly.

But, enter the NRA. They don't want any scrutiny for the gun owner. The excuse is that they will get guns anyway and there are thousands of laws on the books already. Yes, they probably will get guns, but they will also be much easier to prosecute if there are licensing laws they are in violation of. Also, wouldn't it be more prudent to replace all those unenforceable laws on the books with a few sensible ones?

Okay, flame away. I never win this one, but no one has ever convinced me I am wrong either.

[slackmaster]

69. We already have licensing on maching guns

Since 1934. That system the National Firearms Act Registry, is working so well that only a couple of crimes are known to have been committed with legally owned machine guns since then. I'd say the system is overkill; equally beneficial results could be obtained from a somewhat less restrictive system.

[Clete]

91. Here we go again.

I am tired of this argument so you won't get one from me. But it's the same old platitude from who doesn't want any scrutiny from gun licensing, yet they have no problem giving the government information for driver's licenses and many other types of licensing or taking tests for them. One license for gun owners and a registration for the gun to be matched up with the owner.

If a registered gun falls in the hands of the wrong person, they won't be able to register it legally if they are not licensed owners. Simple isn't it?

[slackmaster]

94. It sounds simple but the problem is SELLING THE IDEA

Without consent of a large number of people in the "red states" gun licensing and registration doesn't stand a chance. It's not realistic to even discuss it.

If a registered gun falls in the hands of the wrong person, they won't be able to register it legally if they are not licensed owners. Simple isn't it?

Sure, but they can still use it to commit violent crime.

[Clete]

96. Your point doesn't work for me.

We all know people will kill no matter what if they are inclined to. Sweden has stringent gun laws, yet a deranged killer stabbed one of their legislators, a woman, recently. Licensing car drivers does'nt mean drivers won't drive without a license, but it throws a lot of roadblocks up to weed these drivers out. Ever try to buy a car recently? I just bought a car last year. I had to produce my driver's license and insurance before they would even deal with me.

My view is that the people in the red states who are so vociferous about the licensing of gun owners are so because they know they wouldn't pass a background check. Many have a rap sheet because of drugs, domestic abuse, armed robbery and so on but can still legally possess firearms. Tell me that teenage gang bangers should have legally registered firearms easily available to them. You know they shouldn't. Sure it doesn't mean they won't acquire them, but it will make it much easier for the police to do their job in arresting them.
When I lived in LA most LA cops I knew where in favor of such a law.

Finally, I know it will be a hard sell in the red states so I am in favor of each locality or state setting up their gun laws as they see fit. I do believe gun licensing will gain favor though in urban areas if there is no interference from the gun lobby.

[slackmaster]

99. Sounds like you have a strong bias against a lot of people

My view is that the people in the red states who are so vociferous about the licensing of gun owners are so because they know they wouldn't pass a background check.

I think it's unfortunate that someone on a liberal/progressive board would show such prejudice.

[Clete]

102. This conversation is over.

Typical of you gun owners, when you no longer have an argument you have to lob an ad hominem attack.

[mvd]

29. My view

I don't see a need to arm just yet. America is a country where you can still say anything, but the far right-wing Repukes and the corporate media will do everything to suppress your view. I can't see Ashcroft sending people to storm into my house, though. If I were a well-known Democrat, I'd give it some thought. Ashcroft IS dangerous.

[Mairead]

61. The problem is that you're wrong -- one CANNOT 'still say anything'

Or at least not without penalty. If you 'say' the wrong thing by joining or contributing to certain organisations you can be prevented from ever flying again, you can be subjected to police harrassment, and you can even be dragged away in the middle of the night and imprisoned without charge or trial forever.

Even if you only try to say, with a sign, that you don't like Smirk you can be assaulted by the police and even imprisoned --all without charge, trial, or recompense.

If you happen to be a Black man, you can even be shot dead by police who will later walk free. Just as in South Africa under Apartheid (where a member of the world-famous men's chorus Ladysmith Black Mambazo was shot dead by a white security guard--not even a cop--who apparently just didn't approve of a 'kaffir' driving a nice car)


Let's not kid ourselves about the current state of our Constitutional Rights: some have already been lost, others are in the most serious possible jeopardy. And until we stop screwing around and start electing people who are fiercely in favor of their restoration, it's going to go on getting worse for us.

[mvd]

78. Yes, there are problems, but I still think I'm right

I should have phrased it like you still have free speech. No one can ever say anything. You still can't be arrested for saying Bush is bad.

[Mairead]

82. urg...what's being locked up overnight for a 'Bush is bad' sign, then?

That doesn't seem especially 'free speech' to me!

[mvd]

86. There have been many protests

It's just that they shouldn't be forced into those zones. And your neighbor can't get you arrested for speaking out.

I'm not saying that Bush isn't a wanna-be dictator, though.

[Mairead]

98. Your neighbor very definitely can get you a visit from the

Secret Service, the FBI, and Goddess knows who else. And, depending on exactly what you say (e.g., the guy who talked about a 'burning Bush') you could indeed be sent to prison.

After all, people in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Communist China could also say many things with impunity. They'd only get a 'visit' if they said certain kinds of things. Which looks like the situation here, to me.

[jafap]

30. being the descendent of a riflemaker

and a distant relative of Samuel Colt. I probably should agree with you, but I do not. I do not like guns or most people. At least there are alot of people that I would not trust with a gun. Like most people I subscribe to the rule of logic which says: "I can, but you musn't" but I am not sure I would trust myself with a gun either.
Anyway, so far in my 41 years I have not needed one for either personal or home defense. I do, however, carry pepper spray when I am walking in the city and a good stout stick when I am walking in the woods. Mostly I think the best defense is sobriety and alertness.
I think the notion of defending democracy with guns is flawed. It is an appeal to the rule of force or violence. Democracy is properly defended by appeal to the rule of law or justice. True we have a police force and a military both of which are armed and rely on force, but the force of the military is supposed to be used only for defense, and the force of the police only to bring people to trial. The battle for democracy should not be with bullets or swords, but with pens and reason. Right now reason seems to be losing to vitriole and lies, but if it degenerates into a gun battle, the game is already over.

[Clete]

32. I have to agree with you about the self-defense

motive. Most people really don't need a gun where caution and common sense is a better choice. I recently gave all our guns to my son-in-law. Neither my husband nor I hunt and we can't go into the forest and live there for months at a time like we used to so even though I enjoyed target shooting, I realized really that they were nothing more than toys for us. We never really did need them in the woods either.

[neebob]

33. OK, but

the government helpers will have bigger guns, or there will be more of them.

[Dr Fate]

34. I support the 2nd, 4th and 9th Amendment right to own guns n/t

n/t

[not systems]

37. I am in favor of gun ownership.

I think it would also be good to have firearms education
available like drivers ed is to all high school students.

One of the main problems with guns is people who don't
grow up with them don't have a good way to learn to
handle them safely and respect them for what they are.

I agree that an armed country is better able to resist
if occupied by usurpers foreign or domestic.

That is why we have the second amendment and I support it.

I think scary ugly guns should also be widely owned by the
american people not just nice smooth wood ones.

When I say widely I mean by dems, liberal, minorities
and other groups outside the NRA types.

[Lexingtonian]

39. That doesn't really make sense

My politics as a youngster, up to age 21 or so were what was called in those days "conservative" and a direct result of my father's misguided hatred of "jews and niggers."

Teenagers are 'natural' fascists. They conform to power they like and rebel against the kind they don't like, they are ideological and rarely genuinely principled in their behavior or thinking. (Largely because they are ignorant of and incompetent at the choices involved in being otherwise.) Those who stupidly conform to their parents' ways become the radical Right sorts, those who stupidly rebel become the disgusting sort of Left wing radicals. Most fascists, in turn, turn out to be mental teenagers in adult bodies. The wise tend to see things in the 'liberal' way, though with moderation to the means and care about ends, but few children and few adults are wise.

having been a gun owner since childhood, I can't muster any reasonable rationale for denying that "right" (another discussion) while reserving it for myself.

Gun control doesn't exist because of average people abusing guns on rare occasions. The serious gun control laws are presently in place because of criminal (e.g. drug dealing) gangs engaging in de facto warfare with each other and the sociopathic (mostly 'militia') cult groups who represent(ed) a direct threat to civil society. Gun control is argued on the basis of crime but the serious political rationale is the prevention of small scale warfare. Ergo, machine gun bans.

But the threat in 2003 is more subtle, more hidden and more stealthy. It lies in the very government that is supposed to "protect" us. It resides within the insidious provisions of the Patriot Act <....> So now here we are facing what any serious student of history would call incipient fascism.

You are trying to identify a perceived problem via intuition. You identify it as 'the government' and think a paranoid response is in order.

Let me suggest that if/when you have a problem of the sort with 'the government', a bunch of guns is not going to help you. 'The government' can and will always outgun you, and if you insist on arguing politics via bullets you will invariably get killed. The proper way to deal with the abuses of power of this government is organized nonviolent resistance. It helped a definite minority of Americans recover their rights in the the 1950s and 1960s. It was the real reason Apartheid ended internally, and it freed India. Fascists don't respect it, but they do understand its power (it makes them into hypocrites and immoralists in the public eye once the public eye sees it) and try to prevent its use.

The real problem we face in matters political violence is far more likely to be the one familiar during the Civil Rights times- run of the mill reactionaries running amok singly or in small groups when their hysteria is particularly great or defeats have driven them into their psychotic breaks. Politically-driven hate crime involving people without any government license of any kind. Prevention- a limited and secure demonstration of force and inner certainty- is worth a lot there, but the danger is that any use of violent force under such charged circumstances results in a cycle of retaliations.

As for the rest...I'm strongly in favor of rigor of gun control according to situation- strict and preemptive forms minimizing the total number of guns in urban areas, substantially less in the way of individual restrictions in rural areas and places where the police is generally more than 20 minutes away but stricter enforcement of warfare weaponry bans. The NRA is an organization that uses affable hunters to defend psychopaths' fetishism and abuses, unfortunately. And I'm not sure I have that much sympathy for people who go deep into the woods and instigate arguments about territorial rights with hungry bears and wolves- the traditional method of dealing with that used to involve rocks and trees and the idea that Darwinian selection works on the level of intelligence for humans. True, wild things must often be killed, but killing them is not the solution to every serious problem they pose. In short, there is a ridiculous surplus of guns in this country compared to the real need for them. I have no problem with owning a gun or two out of a kind of pride and real usefulness. Having significantly more is in my experience usually a sign of the loser in real life or an artifact of a way of life that mostly ended in the 1880s (though in places it remained until WW2, and in a small way it continues to today), a sign of people who feel the past promises them more than the future.

[jafap]

41. nice post, but not a strong ending

Okay, I also did not like the part about drug dealers being criminals. It is the criminalisation of drugs that creates alot of the violence. I consider it a crime to hurt people, but it is not a crime to sell people the means (e.g. cigarettes) to hurt themselves.

But I really dislike the arrogant "winners in real life" who look down their nose at the "losers". Take that finger and thumb off of your forehead. I used to make the V sign to mock Nixon, but I switched to the L sign - making an L with my arms and also with my fingers. The L on the forehead means "you are a loser", but my sign measn "I am a loser. All power to the losers. Losers of the world unite." If we do, since we totally outnumber the winners, we can kick their asses. And the losers shall inherit the earth.

[Lexingtonian]

48. Gee, thanks.

Well, most of the preventable killings in my city (Boston) are due to gang/posse turf wars, with control of drug dealing the economic reason to fight for the turf involved. Second is the violent raiding of one drug dealer by another's group where the intent is to kill or scare off the main competitor, to get his money and stocks of drugs, and to ruin his gang/posse by intimidation or defection. These usually involve illegal guns, poorly used. I don't find drug dealing felonious, though there are situations in which it is trivial and others where it is excrable, but in the poor parts of the city it tends to be the nexus of corrupting money and power for those have no other way to money and power and are desperate.

I think you misread my statement about 'losers in life' as some kind of a class pronouncement. It's not. There simply are some people who are failures of their own accord in every stratum of society, and they have a way of deciding to take what they like and destroying what they don't like without regard of the usual rules and conventions. Try Lee Harvey Oswald as an example- he had education, the wife, the interesting life, the real possibility of getting the job and the car and the house in the burbs with the pool and two and a half kids and a dog, and yet everything he touched gave him intimations that he'd failed. So he decided it was all ultimately a conspiracy against all that was good and right in the world, and JFK had to be a key part of the conspiracy for it to succeed as it had.

And since I don't think my notion that gun control should be dependent on situation can be encoded in a small set of abstractified rules, I didn't get into a whole lot of details or a complete defense of the scheme.

[calm_blue_ocean]

40. Your new position is exactly why . . .

the right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights in the first place. State militias needed to be armed in case a state wanted to protect its right to secede from an oppressive US government.

Of course, after the historical accident called the Civil War, states apparently somehow gave up their right to secede. So, in modern times it is individuals who may want to guard against an oppressive Union all by themselves on an individual basis. But, the basic idea is the same.

The Randy Weaver case and the Waco case showed us how this kind of armed resistance plays out in modern times. Those people might have seemed crazy when Clinton was in charge. Now it is easier to sympathize somewhat with their plight.

[7th_Sephiroth]

46. actually

the whole ruby ridge thing was under bush's eye

[calm_blue_ocean]

47. I stand corrected nt

[BikeDeck]

68. Beat me

Ya beat me too it.

Something I can not figure out. How has it become "common knowledge" that Ruby Ridge happened on Clinton's watch? Virtually anyone who ever mentions it, mentions it as such.

[calm_blue_ocean]

92. I can explain my mistake . . .

I originally wanted to make the point that there were actually individuals that had tried to carry out insurrections against the federal government on an individual (rather than a statewide) basis.

After I summoned Ruby Ridge and Waco to mind I realized that I was on DU and that because Waco was so notorious, wanted to make the additional point that we filter our perceptions of these armed insurrections through the prism of our political preferences. On DU, this probably means that we would tend to empathize more with the original poster (above) than we would with Koresh. One related issue is: should the right to bear arms be contingent on the bearers politics?

Getting all caught up in these deep thoughts, I temporarily forgot that Ruby Ridge occurred during Bush I. I don't know what year Ruby Ridge occurred, but I did know that Waco occurred right near the beginning of the Clinton admin (back in the Vince Foster, Web Hubbell days, I gather) and that Ruby Ridge therefore occurred prior to Clinton's admin.

I hope my mistake doesn't distract from the questions I am raising: should states have the right to secede? should counties? should individuals? should this right be secured by a right to bear arms or through a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to peacable seccession? should the motives of the seccessionists (eg, pro-slavery, pro-privacy) matter?

Extra Credit: I personally believe Waco is a much more disturbing incident than is Ruby Ridge (for reasons that have nothing to do with whether the Ds or the Rs were in charge of the executive). Is this belief correct?


On edit:

Just found out that my spouse had mistakenly believed Ruby Ridge occurred during the Clinton admin.

This seccession stuff suddenly seems to be kind of a hot topic on DU since this thread began:

1. See Thread: "Let's build our own city (seriously)"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=511165&mesg_id=511165

2. See thread: "I am leaving the country as soon as I sell my house"


3. See thread: "Do you think another civil war is imminent?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=511429

[Lexingtonian]

49. Oh, don't invoke those old canards

State militias needed to be armed in case a state wanted to protect its right to secede from an oppressive US government.

No, that's not a fair assessment of the Founders' intent. At the time it simply took weeks to assemble state militias- the federal army of the time was designed to be largely an assemblage of state militias- and more weeks to march or ship them to the states where insurrections, Indian warfare, or British or Spanish or French invasion forces were. The locals simply had to mount the first major defense if there was to be any hope of prevailing against a determined enemy, and that's why each state need its arsenals in good order.

There is no coherent doctrine of secession. The Confederacy tried to prevent the breakaway of West Virginia from Virginia in 1861 with military force, it suppressed attempts to break away in eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina and northern Georgia and northern Alabama, though. And it denied the Missouri state government-in-exile (in Marshall, Texas) the right to try to form a Northwest Confederacy (with, it was planned/hoped, Iowa, Minnesota, and Kansas) in 1863. The procedurally consistent way out of the the Federal Constitution is by Amendment, all the others are hypocrisy and unprincipled.

Your whole post betrays that you have been indoctrinated by interpreters/misreaders of the Constitution of the Confederate variety. The C.S.A. had to rewrite parts in order to make their interpretation fit, though the neo-Confederates of today don't admit this. You do have individual freedom and freedom of association and freedom to enter into the contracts you want; you do not, however, have right as an individual or small group to break major social contracts without appropriate procedure and consensus of the whole. The C.S.A. ultimately explained its secession by claiming that the 1787 Constitution had omissions that comprised a loophole, though no one seems to know how their own version of it closed that and allowed them the assertion that no state could secede from the CSA.

The Randy Weaver and Waco cases show what a society does when confronted with a sociopathic cult within itself intent on destroying civil society by engaging in war upon it. I will freely admit that the Nixon appointee quasi-fascist management tiers of the ATF and FBI bungled both standoffs, but you of course neglect to mention that the third such standoff- of the Montana Freemen- ended in surrender of the Freemen and their standing trial for all the subcrimes of insurrection (nonpayment of taxes, forgery of licenses and certificates, etc). Or the Republic of Texas, which got ignored and blockaded, so that when the ATF team walked in one morning the citizenship rolls of the glorious Republic proved to be down to two people, one out with a bucket to get steal water from a nearby ranch's watering trough and the other asleep in the main trailer.

So no, there isn't a real parallel between those people and us. We have no intention of living in a parallel state or universe, we intend to transform the state/society that we have for the better.

[calm_blue_ocean]

93. Don't misunderstand me . . .

I am not expressing any personal approval of Randy Weaver and/or his beliefs.

However, his case shows the depth of the anger that the government expresses when someone decides to secede. In these cases, the government seems to prosecute vigorously and without the burden of jury trials. At one point this was the exception rather than the rule.


The following is response to some of the other posts below (not the one above):

Also, Weaver was no Hitler. Weaver hadn't even killed Jewish person one. Hitler killed 4-6 million of them. To equate these two individuals is grossly unfair to Weaver, as well as disrespectful to the victims of the Holocaust.

[penny foolish]

58. Randy Weaver was a right winger

He was a baby-killing, gun-toating, NRA card-carrying, back-woods, hillbilly repuke. How does anyone sympathize with a Jew hating Nazi like Randy Weaver?

[Mairead]

63. He was also a human being whose spouse and son were killed

deliberately by the FBI -- killings that never should have happened, and that should have been punished as murders.

[penny foolish]

83. Hitler was also a human

Hitler was a human being whose family was killed. Randy Weaver is no better than Hitler by putting guns in children's hands and fostering hate towards blacks and Jews. The difference is that Randy Weaver didn't have the opportunity to do it on as grand a scale. This thread is making me sick.

[not systems]

89. The feeling is mutual I'm sure.

Did Hitler have a family?

Putting Weaver and Hitler in the same moral sphere is
truly silly and not really that great of a tactic to
make your point.

Your point appears to be "no guns for me thanks" and
"I love it when to goverment executes men, women and
children who hold veiws I disagree without trials".

Am I missing something about what you are saying?

[not systems]

64. His wife and child were killed ...

for no reason. He was halfway up a mountain
minding his own buisness. That is why I can "sympathize"
with him I don't think innocents people should be
killed even if they have repugnant view if they are
doing nothing. He was a poor hillybilly living
in shack and his family was killed because he sold
a $50 sawed off shotgun to an agent who asked him
to saw it off.

Did he really have a NRA card?

[sventvkg]

50. Former Army Ranger..Liberal, and Armed...........

I will say this about the military..There is NO way that our uniform people would ever come and snatch people out of their homes or turn against the American people of whom they are themselves members, just because some far-right wing minority faction told them to. No matter what oath they take, there is only a VERY SMALL minority who would ever follow that order...Most of the rest would resist and if necessary disarm that minority in defense of Democracy. The Chances of a Military coup from the Far right or Left is very very minimal in my opinion. That said I will say that Gun registration could very easily be used against the people if the govt ever DID try something. They would know exactly who the potential dissenter would be and be able to target them preemptively. I do believe classes and training are a must for responsible gun ownership. I do not carry a weapon anymore but I believe in owning them for home defense or deterance of tyranny. I pitty the fool who tries to come into my home when i'm there....:)

[Mairead]

67. Nice sentiments, but don't bet your life on them

Read Milgram's 'Obedience to Authority'. People will carry out the most horrible orders if they perceive the authority behind them as lawful. We have totally failed to raise our children correctly.

[Selwynn]

88. With all due respect (and I mean that)

Uniform people have frequently carried out horrible atrocities in the name of following orders. Now, I don't direct my criticism at the men and woman who end up carrying out the orders. I'm not sure when you served, perhaps that is the difference, but my father who was in vietnam (25th infantry) said there was one thing you learned in the Amry and that was you do not question orders - ever, period.

I've heard that same statement made numerous times by military folks, but active and retired. So, where does this faith that in the face of an immoral order our uniformed men and woman would refuse - they have been trained and conditioned not to, so I'm skeptical on that.

The human brain has an amazing capacity to justify almost anything to itself, especially when it can fall back in someone in a position of authroity telling them to do something. That is why in a corrupt company you have one whistle blower and 3,457 other employees who do nothing. The people who follow their conscience instead of orders are rare, and I think based on what my military friends tell me that seems even more true of the military.

Again, said respectfully. Please don't mistake this as a bashing of the military. I just believe it is an unfortunate but necessary bi-product of the military structure, and we need to at least keep it in mind.

[Festivito]

51. Thank you, democracy requires power in hands of the people.

It is potentially violent, and has sad sad stories. But, unless the people are strong, their power SHALL be taken away.

Another poster does not believe our armies would take guns from citizens. They wouldn't, yet. Wait until unemployment makes them better than those "other" people. Then they will.

[penny foolish]

60. Bush has ruined this country.

Just look at this thread if you don't believe me. Advocating gun ownership? Calling for violent revolution? Democrats sympathizing with Randy Weaver and David Koresh? Rosie O, Babs, et al of the gun safety crowd are on the other side of the wall. This is chilling.

[not systems]

71. sympathizing

I oppose the goverment killing civillians in
America and in Iraq. Face it the rightwingers were
right to be upset about Weaver and Waco. These cases
were huge violations of the rights of people killed.

If Bush incinerated a compound full of children in
Iraq or the US would you be shocked and angry.

I would and am.

I supported Clinton before and after Waco but it was
a debacle and I hope nothing like it ever happens again.

Having no sympathy for the deaths of people who disagree
with you is not a liberal value, I suggest you check your
self for double standards.

[MrBenchley]

79. Never mind

that voters overwhelmingly want MORE gun control, not less...

Anything to pander to folks like Ted Nnugent and Larry Pratt.

[Festivito]

112. They want MORE until it come to themselves.

I'd rather guns in hands of criminals THAN my right to have a gun being lost.

[slaveplanet]

111. I believe

another poster adressed the randy weaver issue, The WACO warrant was for David Koresh ,who went about his business in town freely,He could have been apprehended at any time on his own. The FBI Created the waco situation. There was no need to surround the compound and send in TANKS. These 2 examples are the FBI flexing thier muscle plain and simple. Rosie is a hypocrite, she can afford bodyguards that can and do hold CCW's...same for Babs...they both live in fairly cloistered compounds. They (privleged) want us(serfs) to pose no threat to their gilded lives. Thus they serve they're own purpose to brainwash the likes of you (and whomever else falls for the BS).In your case they have been effective.

With all the Gun control in the world , the criminals will still have weapons

[penny foolish]

53. The Iraqi defense

The Iraqi's are defending themselves by blowing themselves up. I don't think they would be as successful by using bullets.

[Skittles]

59. the NRA made sure every criminal in America was armed

now we have to be armed too. We lost the war, but no one won.

[MrBenchley]

75. Well, that makes no sense...

Doesn't it make MORE sense in EVERY way to try and get guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them and keep track of the guns already out there than have MORE guns and constant firefights in the street?

[MrBenchley]

70. And your popgun is going to help how, exactly?

"It lies in the very government that is suppossed to "protect" us."
But this appointstration sold out to the corrupt gun industry. There's never been a White House occupant more loudly supportive of the whole phony "gun rights" movement than this unelected drunk.

[pandatimothy]

76. He is trying to play both sides of the fence

Someone like Howard Dean isn't.

Dean is truly pro-gun. Bush just wants votes.

[MrBenchley]

80. So are you trying to tell us

Howard Dean would prevent the FBI from monitoring gun shows and gun purchase records for terrorrists, as AshKKKroft is doing?

Or that Howard Dean would have voted along with Dick Cheney FOR cop killer bullets?