On anniversary of weapons ban, Kerry takes aim at Dean

[Feanorcurufinwe]

An anniversary of the federal assault weapons ban gave Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry more ammunition against rival Howard Dean on Monday.

On Nov. 17, 1993, the Senate voted to ban the manufacture of 19 semiautomatic assault weapons while protecting 670 hunting and other recreational rifles. The measure became law the following year.

Ten years later, Kerry marked the anniversary by repeating his accusation that while he strongly supported the ban, Dean was pandering to the gun lobby by opposing it.

The difference emphasizes the importance of having a president who will stand up to special interests seeing to "prevent us from doing things that are common sense, like banning assault weapons on the streets of America," Kerry said.

"It's a fundamental difference in our approach to politics," he said in a phone interview from Iowa.

<snip>

Kerry said Dean's past matters more than his current position.

"Do we want a president who consistently stands up to things not just during election time or someone who has been fighting this on an ongoing basis?" he said. "People can tell the difference between a sustained commitment and a campaign commitment."
http://www.projo.com/ap/ma/1069101295.htm

[LuminousX]

1. Interesting Quote

"People can tell the difference between a sustained commitment and a campaign commitment."

They sure can. I trust them to. And people are supporting Dean. Interesting.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. That line jumped right out at me too.

Kerry is really taking the hot irons out of the fire now, and Dean really deserves the grilling he is about to get.

[blm]

125. dupe

.

[blm]

126. If the media was doing its job, less people would support Dean.

Hold him up to scrutiny and it's obvious that he's campaigning differently than he governed.

You may be satisfied in trusting an 11 month old populist. Others are not.

[molly]

131. I want to know why he sealed his records?

does he have something to hide?

[mzmolly]

137. Same reason many Governors have...

It's nothing out of the ordinary ;)

[sandnsea]

3. 51% support stricter gun laws

78% support the ban. Two polls show 53% and 73% support ballistic fingerprints. 65% of Democrats support stricter gun laws.

Kerry is right on this and it appears Democrats and most Americans agree.

http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[madddog]

74. What do you figure the results would be if they asked this instead:

10 years ago, the Congress passed a really ineffectual bill to try and ban 19 guns that are only used in about 2% of gun crime...this bill has had NO effect on reducing violent crime; and it created an entire morass of differing ATF rulings covering these weapons, so that even the ATF can't really enforece it. In short, the law doesn't work...do you think it should be renewed?

Bet you'd get almost the same results.

[paulk]

4. I think Kerry's wrong

People can't tell the difference between a sustained commitment and a campaign commitment. Especially when the media refuses to focus on issues.

People believe whatever makes them feel good. Dean makes them feel good. And the real genius of Dean's campaign is that he understands this.

He is using people's emotions - that great pool of anger out there over what has happened these last three years - and he is transforming that anger into one of the most effective outsider campaigns we've seen since..... George McGoverns'.

Kerry is making an intellectual appeal - and I fear that it will fail him. Kerry is arguably the most qualified candidate we have running - but intellectual appeals don't work with the American voter. They've been trained, in our consumerist society, to go for the packaging over the product - this year's model over last years.

Howard Dean is this year's model - with a shiny coat of paint and a lot of chrome. And there's a lot of voters out there who aren't going to bother looking under the hood.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. I agree

because emotion usually trumps reason.

[madddog]

7. can anyone here define an "assault weapon"?

do you know what's actaully "banned" under the AWB? Do you know the preban and post ban percentage of crime that "assault weapons" are actually used in, according to the FBI?

[madddog]

10. and the AWB is a PERFECT Example of That!

[cindyw]

9. I would rather Kerry speak highly of people's potential,

than to call them a bunch of lemmings in public. Don't you think? People have the ability to tell the difference if they choose to use their minds.

I make no judgment as to who is real (I obviously have an opinion), but I want a candidate who sees the potential in American intellect.

[helleborient]

20. No, they'll be called lemmings in private...

Here on DU...by anyone who doesn't agree with the more popular candidate.

[paulk]

123. I, too, want a candidate who sees the potential in American intellect

What I really would like is an electorate who sees it also. Can you imagine the Lincoln/Douglas debates in this day and age? I wonder what those Nielsens would be up against WWF Smackdown? The scary part of the 2000 election was not was not that Bush stole it, but how many people actually voted for the dumbass.

Kerry doesn't seem to have the common touch. He comes across like Gore - too much of a policy wonk. Granted, that might not cost him the general election, but it sure seems to be hurting him against Dean.

I, personally, like policy wonks. I can relate. And there's still time for people to let emotions cool and take a second look at this race.

[Larkspur]

6. Kerry misfires again

Dean supports the federal ban on assault weapons. He opposed the Vermont state version of it because shotguns were labeled as assault weapons and he didn't think that was right.

[LuminousX]

8. Didn't also cover semiautomatic rifles?

Comparing a semiautomatic rifle to an ak-47 is silly.

[madddog]

11. Don't tell the sheeple that!

They're under the impression that the AWB covers fully automatic weapons, among other things. You woulnd't believe the piece CNN did a while back on the AWB...they screwed it up so bad, and so many peopole wrote/called, they had to do a retraction and another piece a couple of days later. It was comical, to tell you the truth, and such bad journalism that I asked them in a letter if they thought they needed to register as lobbyists. The whole thing was a farce, just like the AWB.

Basically, the AWB bans what gun owners call "evil" features...pistol grips, bayonet lugs, and flash supressors, and regulates the number of American made parts that have to be replaced to conform to the ban. It attempted to outlaw guns that are "scary" looking, but not different from other guns that are functionally the same. The AR15 is "evil" because it LOOKS like an M16, but functions no differently than the Marlin Model 60 .22 that just about every kid in the midwest has owned at some time or another.

In real terms, the only thing it did was jack up the price of "pre-ban" rifles, that now cost about double what they did before the ban. It didn't change the price of "post-ban" rifles, you just can't have a folding stock, bayo lug, or flash suppressor. And it means the Romanian AK clone you can buy all over the country for less than $300 has to have 4 american made parts...hammer, trigger, sear, and pistol grip. Does that make ANY sense to anyone?

[sandnsea]

13. Those are guns of choice

to gangs and kids. That's been the basis for banning guns since we first began doing this back in the 1930's. 19 guns? You're getting in a tailspin over 19 guns?

[madddog]

25. guns of choice?

"Assault rifles" are not the choice of criminals. The FBI has maintained that these types of weapons have been used in around 2% of gun related crime; this figure appears pretty consistent both before and after the ban. Handguns, which are easily concealed, are the overwhelming choice of criminals.

Believe it or not, there are legitimate sporting purposes for those weapons covered under the AWB, whether you think so or not...and if these guns are used in a statistically minimal amount of crime, why ban them? You CAN hunt with an AK-47 type rifle; the 7.62x39 round is about equivalent to a .30-30, and people have been taking deer for decades with that. The .223 is an ideal varmint round, and AR15 type rifles have become popular in that field, as well as in rifle competition.

Newer versions of the AWB, like the bill proposed by Conyers, seeks to ban virtually every semi auto rifle and shotgun, including junior's plinker and grand dad's duck gun. THIS is the stuff that concerns gun owners...just like the ban on partial birth abortions scares those of us that are pro choice...the slippery slope argument applies here as well.

[sandnsea]

42. Support the right laws

There is no such thing as partial birth abortion and anybody who truly cares about abortion knows that. It's a D&X and the problem is women will die with that legislation. It has no bearing on gun laws and I'm tired of it being used to distort the issue.

We've had gun laws since the 1930's. The gun issue is as made up as the welfare queen issue. Nobody is ever going to interfere with a hunter's ability to hunt or an individual's ability to protect themselves. 19 guns. Over 600 left to choose from. It's a silly debate and sad that Democrats are buying into it and perpetuating the bullshit giving more strength to the right.

[madddog]

65. not so

the reference to the "partial birth abortion" is to show the emotional nature of the argument about gun control...and I heard a woman the other day making pretty much the same "slippery slope" argument as it applies to Roe v. Wade, so it's not an invalid comparison.

You've made no case as to WHY these 19 guns need to be banned...so I might ask you why you're in such a tailspin about them. And, when you ban these 19, which 19 come next? YOU may not want 19 more, but know lots of folks that do...Conyers, for example. I'll keep asking the question...WHO gets to decide? Who made YOU the arbiter of what I need to defend myself with? What I like to hunt with? (I don't hunt...I'm speaking rhetorically...so don't start!!) What I like to shoot in competition?

I agree wholeheartedly in your assessment of this being a silly debate in terms of the Party...but just look at the anti-gun sentiment of a large number of the folks here, based on some utopian dream that if we JUST get rid of icky guns, we'll all live in peace, love and understanding. And the fact that the only people here who actually KNOW what the AWB does and doesn't do are gun owners precisely proves my point. The "sheeple" blindly follow the dictate that we have to renew the damn thing, and the DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT DOES!

[sandnsea]

86. YOU get to decide

Form a group and get the right guns off the street if you disagree with the 19 guns that are banned. It's more than guns anyway, it's also monitoring who has the guns, the safe storage of guns, and tracking guns. People commit crimes with guns. Without the guns, most people wouldn't dream of commiting the crimes they do with the guns. We didn't have near the crime problem before this gun mania hit the country. I want a leader who will tackle the problem and make the streets safe again. If Howard doesn't see the scope of the problem, I don't want him as President.

[helleborient]

21. Personally, I don't know any sheeple...

But I do know a lot of people.

[madddog]

26. look around you

there are sheeple EVERYWHERE lol.

[helleborient]

33. If people are that dumb, why can't John Kerry win them over?

No smarter than them?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. When is the election again?

It's over right?

[helleborient]

38. After injecting personal money in the millions, changing campaign

managers...maybe just maybe John Kerry has a chance to win over those "sheeple."

Maybe disrespecting people isn't a good way to win elections.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. When is the election again? It's actually over, right?

[helleborient]

54. Nope, not since John Kerry is working on buying it... (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. In other words your sweeping statements

about what 'the people' believe, and how they'll vote, are so much crap.
You are just dutifully swallowing the pablum offered up to you by the media.

You can trust the media! They would never manipulate the facts in order to fool you! Believe!

[helleborient]

70. Yep, I'm going to Iowa because I think it's in the bag...

No, I'll be working hard on the campaign as I've been doing for some time now. Talking to people as human beings...writing letters...and not demeaning their intelligence.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. Bye! So long! Have a good trip! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

:hi:

[helleborient]

80. Perfect "civility" example to prove my point (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

84. Maybe you should investigate the meaning of the term 'civility'

lol

[madddog]

39. there's

different degrees of dumbness lol. Sorry, just yankin' your chain.

I cant' explain it...

[sandnsea]

12. NRA endorsement

And Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country. Despite the fact that most Americans and a vast majority of Democrats want stricter gun laws, Dean doesn't have the courage to stand up to the NRA. Just like he doesn't have enough courage to stand up for affirmative action and says to vote economics instead. And if you put him in front of a cross-section of America, all the people, he'd find a chilly reception to some of his 'anti-war' statements and won't have the courage to stand up for that either.

[LuminousX]

14. Did Vermonters want stricter gun laws?

What do you call a leader who forces people to do something they don't want to do?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. Force?

lol

A leader who forces people to do something they don't want to do?

That would be a dictator.

A leader who persuades people to do something they don't want to do?

That would be a 'leader'.

A leader who gives the people what the polls tell him they want?

That would be a 'follower'.

[helleborient]

19. This is a very simple description that doesn't fit a complicated world...

I thought John Kerry looked at the world with all of its complication and nuance...

[LuminousX]

30. So much for Democracy, for allowing people to govern themselves

So we can expect Kerry to do whatever the hell he wants in office without listening to the people who put him there? Of course not. Every politician listens to the people who elected him/her. To do otherwise is to not get re-elected.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. Yeah, let's just scrap our system of government,

and decide everything on a popular vote.

Or better yet, instead of electing leaders who will actually lead, we can elect politicians who will do whatever the polls tell them will help get them elected.

[LuminousX]

92. Wow, so this isn't a Democratic Republic

We are to be led by the few who know better than me.

Okay. I shall assume my role as serf. Thank you for setting me straight.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. The depth of your understanding of our system is truly impressive.

[LuminousX]

114. I don't have to understand it, my opinion doesn't matter

The will of the people doesn't matter.

[ModerateMiddle]

133. Dean statement

"I don't care if 70% of the people disagree with me."

[helleborient]

16. That cuts both ways...

The federal government, in support of Civil Rights legislation, forced a number of Southerners to do things they did not want to do.

But...the federal government also forced people to fight the War in Vietnam.

[LuminousX]

24. Slight difference

The south was in violation of the Constitution. Vermont was not.

The people of Vermont did not want stricter gun laws. If the country as a whole did, then the Federal government could force Vermont to accept them.

[sandnsea]

17. A fucking leader

for chrissake.

[LuminousX]

27. Exactly, a F*cking leader, not a good leader.

Someone worthy of being cursed.

[sandnsea]

34. Oh, just do what your constituents want?

In that case, war was right, that's what America wanted.

[LuminousX]

46. Fascinating

Aren't you the one who posted this:

"78% support the ban. Two polls show 53% and 73% support ballistic fingerprints. 65% of Democrats support stricter gun laws.

Kerry is right on this and it appears Democrats and most Americans agree."


Kerry, doing what the people want.

[sandnsea]

55. Which way do you want it?

Is a leader supposed to do what the people want or not? Because if they are, you're supporting Kerry again.

I didn't say Kerry should take this stand BECAUSE it's what the people want, only pointing out Americans actually agree with him. Howard's the one who thinks people don't want gun control and is cowering in the presence of the NRA funded campaign that gives that impression. I thought he was going to be different and take on all those special interests that control Washington? He won't even take on the NRA.

[LuminousX]

57. ROFL

I want it only one way. Democracy.

Vermont didn't want stricter gun control. So why should Vermont initiate legislation to have it. If the country as a whole wants it, then the Federal government could create the legislation and the states would have to follow it.

Simple.

Democracy.

[LuminousX]

50. I can't let this go... 51% want gun control

on a national level. Dean was operating at a state level where more than half didn't want gun control.

Should Dean represent the will of the nation when he was only elected to represent the will of the Vermont?

I'm totally confused about this double-standard. Either we support something because a majority want it or we don't.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

59. A have a book suggestion for you.From a man who knew what leadership meant

Profiles in Courage, by John F. Kennedy

Required reading.

[LuminousX]

61. Kennedy still represented the majority will

all the while he was a Senator.

Yes, a leader has to help the people see the world differently, educate them when necessary to facilitate that process. But at the end of the day, we don't live in an Ayn Randian society where a few UberGodlike people know the TRUTH and have to drag the rest of us along with them.

Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, et. al. are not Titans.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. Have you read Profiles in Courage?

You certainly seem to have missed the message.

[helleborient]

72. And I'm still looking for Kerry's courage as a legislator and leader in

Congress to come anywhere close to that exhibited by Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. I'll take that as a 'No'.

You should educate yourself first if you wish educate others.

[helleborient]

87. I think you were responding to Luminous...

I have read "Profiles In Courage" and quoted the foreword here.

[LuminousX]

95. Interestingly enough, knowledge of this one book is KEY to this debate

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. I'm glad you can speak with such authority about a book you haven't read

[LuminousX]

102. I'm not the one who said a person who hasn't read it wasn't educated

Or that it was a requirement to read it before attempting to educate others.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

107. Except I didn't say that, did I? lol

I said: " You should educate yourself first if you wish educate others."

I guess if you can't see the difference between that and 'calling someone uneducated', I won't be able to explain it to you.

and I said, "Well, you could read it and find out what it has to say, or stay uninformed. It's your choice."


And let me just say this: I can't believe I'm being criticized on DU for suggesting that JFK's 'Profiles in Courage' should be required reading for a Democrat, or for any American. What a radical suggestion, that people should read this landmark work by one of the great Democratic Presidents of the 20th Century! What was I thinking?

[LuminousX]

117. You aren't being criticized for saying it is a good book

you are being criticized for trying to short circuit a debate by indicating that this book is vital to the debate.

That is an interesting discussion topic though: what is required reading for a Democrat?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

121. Well I guess if you ever read it

you'll know whether or not it would be helpful in understanding this debate.

However, you are putting words in my mouth. As you will see if you read the thread.

As for required reading, sounds like a good topic for a GD thread.

[LuminousX]

122. Within the context of this discussion

How should I interpret this statement:

"I'll take that as a 'No'. You should educate yourself first if you wish educate others."


Interpret it for me, in context of this debate, so I don't put words in your mouth. I do not wish to infer something you did not mean. As I understood it, you were saying that I lacked the information this booked provided and thus I should not attempt to educate others until I attained that information.

If that is wrong, I am sorry for an incorrect inference and humbly ask for your clarification of this obviously puzzling statement, at least puzzling to someone like myself.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

129. I meant what I said

If you don't like it, sorry. If you want to reprhase it -- that's your prerogative. However, I only meant it the way I said it.

I do indeed believe that reading 'Profiles in Courage' should be part of everyone's education. If you don't want to read it, that is your choice, but I think you are making a mistake. I'm sorry that my having that opinion offends you.

[LuminousX]

135. That doesn't offend me

And I appreciate the advice. I'm still confused as to how it relates to whether or not I can 'educate' others.

I'm only asking for further enlightenment.

[blm]

138. You've GOT to be kidding. BCCI, IranContra ring a bell?

Kerry uncovered those through his OWN investigations and also exposed CIA drugrunning. He had VERY little cooperation from his fellow Dems. He was hounded daily by the CIA loyalists to Bush, the FBI and the Dem and GOP powerstructures and their whore press.

Kerry was the first Senator to draft legislation for equal rights for gays in 1985, and noone would sign onto it. He advocated for gays to serve openly in the military.

Are you so young that you are unaware of what Kerry has done? He is the lawmaker with the GREATEST record of exposing government corruption than any in modern history.

[LuminousX]

89. I have not

Is it THE handbook on leadership?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. Well,

you could read it and find out what it has to say, or stay uninformed. It's your choice.

[LuminousX]

93. I'll choose the latter, you just told me that I am to be ruled by

people who don't have to consider my opinion on anything.

[helleborient]

62. Yep, it is...

For the stories of individuals who were willing to take on the government powers-that-be

Those who were willing to battle the insiders...like...ahem...Howard Dean.

Kerry is having a good time these days, it seems, wallowing in being the ultimate insider. No outsiders needed...inside the Beltway knows best!

[helleborient]

68. From the foreword...

"As John Bright once said, men are not great statesmen merely because they happen to have held great offices. They must present better title deeds to eminence, of which courage is one. Senator Kennedy treats of a special kind of courage : the moral courage of a parliamentary leader who in behalf of principle confronts the passion of colleagues, constituents and a majority of the general public."

Hmmmm...I seem to remember Howard Dean confronting the passion of colleagues (excluding Dennis Kucinich and other key liberal leaders), constituents and a majority of the general public about Iraq.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. Dean followed the polls.

I guess you can believe any version of history if you drink enough Kool-Aid.

[helleborient]

88. The polls that showed public support for Bush? (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

101. "in December--the tactical benefits of Dean's shift were clear"

Was Dean unaware of Bush's steps toward war, and Clinton's criticism? Or did he become the most vocal foe of the Administration's Iraq initiative for tactical reasons--out of an accurate calculation that it would bond him to the party's grass roots and set him apart from the field? This cynical intepretation, too, is suggested by Kagan, who notes:

Dean may not be offering a stark alternative to Bush's foreign policy, therefore, so much as he is simply offering Democrats a compelling and combative alternative to Bush himself. The Iraq war provided the occasion to prove his mettle.

Five months after Broder dressed him down for his pro-war comments--by the time Gore announced his decision not to run, in December--the tactical benefits of Dean's shift were clear.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091291

[sandnsea]

63. It's about leadership

Geez, it's about not just thinking about your own backyard. It's about at least having the guts to take up the issue with the people. It's about explaining how changing the laws in Vermont will keep kids from dying in Baltimore. And it isn't just that he didn't want better gun regulations in Vermont, it's about not wanting to do more at the federal level either. And more needs to be done. It's about leadership and saving lives instead of cowering down to the gun voters and the NRA.

[LuminousX]

66. Again, I'm laughing hard

You are stuck in a very limited paradigm.

[helleborient]

77. Come back to me with Kerry's guts on Iraq

On gay marriage.

On relations with Israel.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

90. Come back to me with Dean's integrity.

That's one way to guarantee I'd never hear from you again.


BTW:

“It makes me uncomfortable, the same as anybody else,” Dean said of gay marriage. “The 4,000-year-old tradition of heterosexual marriage being an institution is something I think you have to respect. I think there are a lot of people in this state who are uncomfortable about the concept of gay marriage.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/jan2000/news_scyes.htm

[sandnsea]

97. Total guts, on all of it

Voting for a war when he knew his liberal Democratic base opposed it? Voting because he knew it was more important to start getting a handle on weapons proliferation than appeasing that base? Yes, he had guts.

Gay marriage? Oh my god, there would be NO civil unions laws or lawsuits if it weren't for Kerry fighting this fight since he authored the first Civil Rights Protection Act to end gay and lesbian discrimination back in 1985. He said today that the Massachusetts decision was long over due and that he has long believed that gay men and lesbians should be assured equal protection and the same benefits – from health to survivor benefits to hospital visitation - that all families deserve. A damn site better than 'I'm as uncomfortable with gay marriage as anyone'.

Israel? Supporting a new peace process where both sides take parallel steps towards a two state solution? Israel addressing settlements and Palestine stopping terrorism? Criticizing the wall as a barrier to peace?

If Howard were half the leader or had half the guts of Kerry, I might consider him a viable candidate.

[Pez]

128. dean has dean's best interests in mind, that is all, thank you.

even though he was representing vermont, couldn't he have explained to his constituents that it was important for vermont to enforce legislation that would benefit their fellow citizens in other areas of the country, who had problems with violent crimes committed by guns? and that a large part of their problem was that in places like vermont you can purchase these weapons? no; he bent over for the NRA, and continues to lick their boots shiny by saying gun laws should be a state matter. pfft.

part of what makes great leaders "great" is their ability to enlighten and inform public opinion away from motives that are selfish to those that benefit society as a whole.

[LuminousX]

51. And.. The war was wrong because it was based on lies.

Just like the South was wrong because it was in violation of the Constitution.

If Congress passed stricter gun laws and Vermont refused to enforce them, Vermont would be wrong. But since a majority of the people in Vermont didn't want stricter gun laws and it was left up to them to decide, they aren't in the wrong.

[helleborient]

56. They don't want to see these flaws in arguments... (n/t)

[madddog]

31. this is probably hard to follow

but do you think if the people of Vermont WANTED more restrictive gun laws, they'd have them? Nothing personal, but you should spend some time in VT...people there are VERY happy they DON'T have more gun control.

You give the NRA way more control than they have...the simple fact is that most states have the kind of laws that a MAJORITY of the citizens want. Do you think the NRA has forced 35 or so states to liberalize their concealed carry laws over the last 10 years or so, against the will of their citizens?

[sandnsea]

76. Conceal and carry laws

I've read some of those laws and I never saw them as liberalizing who can carry a concealed weapon. I've seen them as setting down definitive regulations that weren't there before. I don't know how they get spun as liberalizing. I guess it's the same as the forest bill. It's called a thinning program in environmentalist states and a logging bill in logging states. All depends on what the paper prints I guess.

As to Vermont and gun laws, again, it's about leadership. Howard Dean chose not to lead on the issue and still isn't. At least he's consistent on one thing. But it's not enough when guns can be bought easily in one state and transported to another state where the guns end up killing kids. It's just not a responsible position for a Presidential candidate, in my opinion. Democrats sure wouldn't accept it from a Republican candidate, but we accept it from Dean. Weird.

[madddog]

94. it's not "spun"

in many states, it used to be you had to demonstrate a "special" need to get a CCW...you know, rich and famous. Sorta like Sean Penn being able to get one in CA.

Same here in VA...but now, thanks to a change in the law, VA is what they call "SHALL ISSUE"...which means, if you fulfill the the VERY modest training requirement, pay the $50 fee, and pass the fed background check, the state SHALL issue you the permit...no more special need. I took a basic pistol course from an NRA certified instructor to fulfill the requirement, although you can opt for much more intensive classes if you want. The NRA course is 8 hours over 2 nights, and they cover a lot of the legal stuff re conceal carry. A buddy took it, and said it was great. I was too poor at the time, it was also $150. I paid $10 for the course I took.

That's why peoole say the CCW laws have been "liberalized"...it's much easier for the average joe to get one...he no longer has to be part of the priviliged class.

[sandnsea]

106. What were the laws before?

Because to me, saying "I have a special need" being changed to background check and training is MORE requirements, not less. Here's the Virginia law, by the way. It's a little more complex than what you state. Apparently you're not a criminal, stalker, mentally deranged, etc.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

[ModerateMiddle]

132. no, he had an opportunity to specify

which weapons he felt should and should not have fallen under the AWB and instead he said that none should, he supported NO legislation that would limit any guns. He pandered to the NRA for their support in Vt, and got their endorsement more often than he got the NEA's endorsement.

And this is the man so many here, who a year ago were calling themselves liberals, progressives and socialists - want to be President.

I'm in awe of Dean's ability to blind people to who he really is.

[helleborient]

18. What an incredibly violent title to this thread!

So do Kerry's supporters like using gun violence imagery to make a point?

Seems like it goes along with the pheasant hunting and the aircraft carrier...war, violence, war, violence

[sandnsea]

22. It's the title of the article

Possibly supporting the idea that Dean supporter's don't really read.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[sandnsea]

28. Dish it out, can't take it

Do you think you can just make comments like this and nobody's going to say anything about it?

"So do Kerry's supporters like using gun violence imagery to make a point?"

[helleborient]

29. I thought it was a viable question...

With the pheasant hunting pictures plastered all over this forum....and the constant reminders of war experience.

Kerry is the only candidate touting his skill with a gun.

[sandnsea]

44. If you clicked and read

you wouldn't have needed to ask the question. I thought my question was just as viable, maybe Deanie's don't read.

[helleborient]

47. This "Deanie" spends his day reading...

As a public library director.

I made a mistake, and I was met with slams against Dean supporters in general.

Again, great way to win support and elections.

[sandnsea]

58. Thank you

You made a mistake. All done.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Your comment was 'off-target' and that's all she pointed out.

Please excuse the 'gun violence imagery' lol.

[helleborient]

35. Yep, and the personal attacks and profanity...

Are typical..just look above in this thread.

Calling names...people are "sheeple"...disrespect for others is rampant.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Thank you, thread nanny.

Maybe you should become a moderator, since you are so concerned with civility and treating others with respect...

[helleborient]

40. It's fine with me if you wallow in name-calling, disrespecting people,

profanity, and the rest here.

I've got a campaign to help my candidate win.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

109. How long are you going to keep telling us you are leaving?

Getting our hopes up like that just isn't fair unless you really mean it.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[madddog]

43. jeesh...

the title's fine...you're a little sensitive about this I guess. The phrase "Taking Aim" has been used in jouralism for decades...

[helleborient]

45. No, I was more upset with terms like "sheeple" and slams against

Ordinary people...and "Taking aim" was purposefully combined with guns in the article title...

Then my mistake met the usual profanity and name-calling that seems to come from saying something a Kerry supporter doesn't like.

[sandnsea]

48. 40 minutes

To go from accusing someone of making up a violent thread title to pretending you were talking about something else entirely and had referred to the title in the article. No wonder Howard gets away with saying anything he wants.

[helleborient]

49. I admitted to making a mistake twice in this thread...

You don't read?

[helleborient]

52. Mistakes seem to be met with overarching insults...

It wasn't enough to call attention to the mistake.

It was necessary to make a sweeping insult in addition.

[sandnsea]

60. What goes around...

If people want to make sweeping insults without taking 2 seconds to click a link and verify their words, then they shouldn't cry when they get an insult in return.

[helleborient]

75. Yep, nothing will be done here by anyone...

To make this a more civil place. I see that.

George W. Bush's Washington of civility sets the mode...and you would willingly follow...not make any attempt to change anything. That is my point.

[killbotfactory]

41. Dean has no choice about federal laws

He was a governer FFsakes.

And he opposed banning all semi-auto weapons. The assault weapons ban does not ban all semi-auto weapons.

Kerry knows this, and he's being an ass.

[LuminousX]

71. Any evidence of guns going from Vermont to other places to commit crimes?

I'm just curious. The lax gun laws in places like Montana, Vermont, etc. - any evidence of guns flowing from those places to urban centers and being used in crimes?

I know there was an issue with Virginia or West Virginia, but that was stemmed by a law limiting the number people could buy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

78. "Vt dealers have sold many guns ... traced to crimes elsewhere"

Vermont dealers have sold many guns which were later traced to crimes elsewhere. In the most recently released federal data, for example, Century Arms of Georgia, Vermont had sold 66 guns traced to crimes -- including two homicides -- over a seven-year period. (Trace data, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 1988-1996). Many states have far more serious records of supplying guns to the criminal marketplace, but Vermont has done its share. If Governor Dean wants to be President, he needs policies on federal laws to protect police and children. Vermont has low homicide rates. But America has a high homicide rate, and it leads the world by miles in firearm fatalities.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-10312003

[LuminousX]

85. Over 7 years, 2 homicides traced back to Vermont guns

And no evidence if the assault weapon ban would have prevented those guns from being sold.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

104. You asked for evidence, and you got it.

You can belittle the deaths of those people if you want, but I imagine to their families they are more than a statistic.

[killbotfactory]

112. Oh please "belittle the deaths" of people?

He's asking for evidence that the assault weapons ban would have prevented their deaths. So far none has surfaced.

One of the most frustrating things about debating gun control are the lack of facts, distorted statistics, and the arrogance of both sides.

[LuminousX]

120. Now, now, I'm not belittling

I'm keeping it in perspective. We have some information to work with. Now we must analyze it and see if any proposed gun laws would have prevented the sale and transportation of those guns to commit those crimes.

And I will accept the 66 crimes, even though some may have been vandalism, and not focus on the 2 murders.

[madddog]

111. it wouldn't

since it doesn't stop anything from being sold....the point I keep trying to make. (Well, maybe it DOES actually ban the Striker 12...that goofy rotary drum shotgun you only see in the movies).

[madddog]

116. does it say

how many guns the same store sold to law abiding citizens who never committed a crime with them? My guess is it's in the 100s of thousands.

[LuminousX]

81. Vermont Gun Laws

I thought this was interesting:

http://www.atg.state.vt.us/display.php?smod=21

Section 4015. Purchase of firearms by nonresidents

Residents of a state contiguous to the state of Vermont may purchase rifles and shotquns in the state of Vermont, provided that such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and regulations thereunder, as administered by the United States Secretary of the Treasury, and provided further that such residents conform to the provisions of law applicable to such purchase in the state of Vermont and in the state in which such persons reside.

[madddog]

98. that's

the federal law, I believe...that's how I could buy a rifle on a trip to PA...although how PA is contiguous to VA, I don't know.

[LuminousX]

103. It is part of Gun Control Act of 1968 I believe

but Vermont has reiterated it in its laws.

[madddog]

83. Well

I haven't seen anything about it...now, there are FEDERAL laws relating to the purchase of firearms regardless of the state laws, so anyone who buys a gun in VT would have to pass the same background check and fill out the same forms as they would anywhere else. AND you can't buy a handgun in any state but your own, now, I believe...long guns are okay in "contiguous" states, but I'm pretty sure handguns are out. I'm not an FFL, so I don't have any particular expertise in the intracacies of federal firearms law.

[LuminousX]

96. Which state has the strictest gun laws?

And how many guns from that state can be traced to murders?

[LuminousX]

100. Massachusetts... as I just found out, has the strictest gun laws

That helps narrow it down. Now how many murders can be traced to Massachusett guns?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

110. Is it zero?

If you think that number is going to make your point, you better actually provide that number.

Interesting too, how you started out asking about 'crimes' and changed it to 'murders' when you didn't like the first answer.

OK.

Is there any evidence of guns going from Massachusetts to other places to commit murders?

Is there?

[LuminousX]

113. I'll accept the first answer, I just realized it was too broad

But we'll stick with the original. Over 7 years, 66 crimes, 2 of which were homicides.

I'm still searching for the crime statistics on Massachusetts and around. No one conveniently wrote an article on it like they did for Vermont. As soon as I find something that doesn't come from suspect sources like gunlawssuck.com I'll post it.

[LuminousX]

124. Doesn't support my case, but is still interesting

http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/10/guns/

"The top five states in terms of crimes committed per capita with out-of-state guns are New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, according to the report."

The strict gun laws of Massachusetts are being circumvented by guns from the top gun exporting states.

"Calculated on a per capita basis, the top five "exporters" are Mississippi, South Carolina, West Virginia, Nevada and Kansas, the report said. The measurement was based on how many guns bought in one state are traced to out-of-state crimes per 100,000 population in the originating state."

Vermont isn't even close to being a supplier of criminal hardware. It should also be noted that it is already a crime to buy handguns and transport them in this fashion. I have to agree with the NRA on this one: why isn't that law being enforced?

[madddog]

105. Well,

DC probably has the strictest gun laws in the country...and they've got one of the highest murder rates around. According to DC, all the guns come from somewhere else...but a VA state trooper told me last year that a LOT of guns used in DC crime come from right out of the DC police evidence locker...in other words, crooked cops steal them and sell them. Living right next to DC, I have no trouble believing this.

[sandnsea]

115. You have to have laws first

If you don't have laws to track guns, it's kind of hard to figure out where the guns came from.

[LuminousX]

118. Vermont keeps records for up to six years

Any gun retailer or second hand seller needs to keep a record of every handgun sold for up to six years.

Section 4006. Record of firearm sales

All pawnbrokers and retail merchants dealing in firearms shall keep a record book in which they shall record the sale by them of all revolvers and pistols, and the purchase by them of all second-hand revolvers and pistols. Such record shall include the date of the transaction, the marks of identification of the firearm, including the manufacturer's name, the caliber, model and manufacturer's number of the firearm, the name, address, birthplace, occupation, age, height, weight and color of eyes and hair of the purchaser or seller. Such purchaser or seller shall sign his name to the record and the pawnbroker or merchant shall-preserve such record book forsix years after the date of last entry and shall permit all enforcement officers to inspect the same at all reasonable times. A person, partnership or corporation-who violates a provision of this section shall be fined not more than $100.00.

[sandnsea]

127. No prosecutions

So what good is this law if Vermont never prosecutes corrupt gun dealers? And it certainly isn't any good for tracking guns because there's no way to track a gun if there's no ballistic record or if the serial number is destroyed. This has been the method of recording guns for decades, it doesn't work. There's no record of what happens to the gun after the first buyer sells it.

Vermont has one of the worst records of prosecuting gun laws. Pretty easy to have low statistics on anything when you don't prosecute anything. That's part of that leadership I was talking about.

http://w3.agsfoundation.com/Vermontenfpr.html

[LuminousX]

134. So where do all the gun statistics come from?

How do they know what the top 5 gun exporting states are and which states have the most crimes committed by out-of-state guns?

[sandnsea]

139. Reported crime

And crime that does get prosecuted. They use what they have.

You might recall, a few years ago there were complaints about a couple of big cities that didn't encourage people to file crime reports and the crime rate went down. Likewise, the 2% statistic always thrown at me as proof gun laws don't work is because the gun laws aren't prosecuted. If a person only uses prosecution statistics to support no gun problem in Vermont, then they're going to come up very well because Vermont doesn't prosecute. The murder rate, on the other hand, is accurate because you can't hide that. Yes Vermont has a low murder rate and crime rate, but that has nothing to do with whether or not they should be responsible for what happens to the guns they sell in their state. And not prosecuting crimes in order to pretend there's no problem isn't an acceptable solution to me.

[madddog]

119. I think there is a Federal form that is filed with ATF

when someone buys a gun...legally, that is.


The simple fact of the matter is that strict gun laws don't make for reduced crime...just look at DC, for example. New Jersey has strict gun laws, and their robbery rate is 20 times that of Vermont's.

[jody]

136. Kerry would make an excellent president but he will lose because he

embraces the gun-grabber groups. He should have studied the report done for the Democrats, "Winning he Gun Vote". He should also have listened to Clinton and Gore but he's already opened his mouth and now he's hopelessly tarred as a gun-grabber. His photo op while pheasant hunting looks almost as stupid as Michael Dukakis driving the tank.

He would get my vote but not those of some pro-RKBA Democrats and very few of the pro-RKBA independent voters.

Why do promising presidential candidates ignore the diverse expectations across the states? A presidential candidate can't have much impact on the future of this great experiment in democracy if they can't get elected.

[polpilot]

140. Kerry hits pheasants...misses Dean!!

Dean '04...Always a target.

[mitchum]

141. kick